3 ms·

Can't really comment, I have no understanding of USA's class system, but as I said, coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for

Can't really comment, I have no understanding of USA's class system, but as I said, coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes. Passive aggressive reverse snobbery is pointless.

jiggy2011 14y ago
"coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes" Isn't that basically the definition of upper class in any practical terms?
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Indeed it is the definition. The parent of your comment is exactly the other prong of the faux meritocracy argument. One side is this story about the 15 year old kid who "made it". That's the carrot. The other side is, "yeah, if you don't make it, its your own fault. Just work harder, smarter, etc." That's the stick. So, the implication is that we are living in a meritocracy. If you happen to be astute enough to point out how ridiculous that is on its face, then the response is that you're whining and you should be able to overcome anyway. Nothing needs to be addressed in the system and nevermind that the game is rigged. You just need to be less of a loser.
- lotsofcows 14y ago
  No. The upper classes have lived on the same estate for 5 generations, can trace their family back to the Doomsday Book, don't work in the "have a job" sense, had a massively disproportionate wealth up to the first world war and possibly still do (or, conversely, are massively in debt against their crumbling mansion which they won't give up a. out of principle and b. because no-one wants it) and inherit usable practical clothes that their grandparents wore.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    That's a very narrow definition which would even exclude people like Alan Sugar who has an actual lordship and knighthood as well piles of cash. It's not an especially useful definition anyway, if your family has a lot of money it doesn't make much practical difference whether they got that via inheritance or via starting facebook you will get similar advantages either way.
    - lotsofcows 14y ago
      What? There is no way that anyone could consider Alan Sugar to be upper class? Was that an attempt at a joke? There's some sort of deep cultural disconnect going on here. Are you English? "Practical difference" What are you talking about? Rich is rich. Upper class is upper class. Traditionally / historically being upper class has implied money. Having money has never implied upper class.
    - rdouble 14y ago
      That's a very narrow definition It's a very English definition.

jiggy2011 14y ago

"coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes" Isn't that basically the definition of upper class in any practical terms?

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Indeed it is the definition. The parent of your comment is exactly the other prong of the faux meritocracy argument. One side is this story about the 15 year old kid who "made it". That's the carrot. The other side is, "yeah, if you don't make it, its your own fault. Just work harder, smarter, etc." That's the stick. So, the implication is that we are living in a meritocracy. If you happen to be astute enough to point out how ridiculous that is on its face, then the response is that you're whining and you should be able to overcome anyway. Nothing needs to be addressed in the system and nevermind that the game is rigged. You just need to be less of a loser.
lotsofcows 14y ago
No. The upper classes have lived on the same estate for 5 generations, can trace their family back to the Doomsday Book, don't work in the "have a job" sense, had a massively disproportionate wealth up to the first world war and possibly still do (or, conversely, are massively in debt against their crumbling mansion which they won't give up a. out of principle and b. because no-one wants it) and inherit usable practical clothes that their grandparents wore.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That's a very narrow definition which would even exclude people like Alan Sugar who has an actual lordship and knighthood as well piles of cash. It's not an especially useful definition anyway, if your family has a lot of money it doesn't make much practical difference whether they got that via inheritance or via starting facebook you will get similar advantages either way.
  - lotsofcows 14y ago
    What? There is no way that anyone could consider Alan Sugar to be upper class? Was that an attempt at a joke? There's some sort of deep cultural disconnect going on here. Are you English? "Practical difference" What are you talking about? Rich is rich. Upper class is upper class. Traditionally / historically being upper class has implied money. Having money has never implied upper class.
  - rdouble 14y ago
    That's a very narrow definition It's a very English definition.