2 ms·

What a moronic idea, that a thousandth of a population can actually have a statistically significant effect on the entire population. Equally moronic is the as

What a moronic idea, that a thousandth of a population can actually have a statistically significant effect on the entire population. Equally moronic is the assumption that wealth is finite at any given moment, and that it can be evenly distributed, this seems very close to entirely false. Junk journalism is driving unnecessary divisions in the U.S. culture, where it seems people used to have respect for achievers rather than resentment, and they would actually aspire to do better so they could spend that wealth the way they saw fit. Not a day goes by without another story of resentful abuse toward people by mere association with "the 1%"(which we've already discussed to be an absurd idea). For example, there was a story on HN not too long ago about police brutality in the bay area toward people who seemed to local cops like the same kid billionaires they see on TV, as though living where some tech giants came from makes you somebody so terrible they deserve to be locked in solitary for a day after asking basic questions to their captors. How is the U.S. ever going to move forward if they carry nothing but hatred for people who happen to be capable of investing? Whether by personal growth, or by accident of birth, these are the kinds of people they should be seeking sincere help from, rather than trampling on their rights over petty coin. We can all go on the internet and well up all the irrational hatred we want, pick your poison. You can go be a radical feminist on the internet and you'll spend hours building irrational hatred for men. You can go join radical transgender group and spend hours building irrational hatred for the majority of the human population. You can go on the internet and be a radical religious person(not going to bother being specific here) and justify all sorts of horrible atrocities in your mind. But if you personally hate the fairly normal people that occupy these lots in life, regardless of their personal merits, be they "the 1%", or men, or people with heterosexual relationships, or people who don't agree with your religious views, then you're a monster. You're not even self-serving, you're destructive to everyone including yourself.

saraid216 13y ago
> What a moronic idea, that a thousandth of a population can actually have a statistically significant effect on the entire population. So, monarchy never happened?
JamisonM 13y ago
I read the first sentence above and was pretty sure this was a sarcastic comment but by the time I got to the end I was saddened to realize it was serious. The perception that a major problem with current American society is "resentful abuse" towards the wealthy is strange because from a historical perspective to me it seems like this is the time the wealthy have been treated with the most reverence.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Americans generally venerate the wealthy and aspire to be wealthy themselves. The bitterness you're describing is primarily attributable to the very real sense that the game is rigged. Just as "urban" and "welfare" have become stand-in buzzwords for poor African-Americans, so has the term "1%" become a phrase for, not just the wealthy, but for those among the wealthy who have gained at the expense of others through financial engineering and other schemes. For instance, these same people grew fabulously wealthy by wrecking the economy and not a single one received punishment. In fact, everyone else bailed them out and they went right back to the same schemes and obscene paydays. Then, there's the general truth that, while people are working harder, wages are effectively stagnant for many and an increasingly larger share of the rewards are accruing to a shrinkingly tiny percentage of the population. So, I think it's a naive false argument to blame people for "hating the rich". What they really hate is being pimped.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >You view welfare as having an ethnic connotation but 'greedy parasitic financiers' doesn't? Examine the very hateful history of your line of reasoning. Defensive much? I never commented on the ethnicity of the financiers or any connotations thereof. In fact, ethnicity has nothing to do with my comment at all. It was a simple analogy intended to illustrate that, like the phrases I mentioned, the phrase "1%" is loaded and does not simply mean "the wealthy". But, while you're pouncing and introducing an actual hateful "ethnic" implication, you should probably consider that bitterness towards the 1% supersedes race. >Who exactly wrecked the economy and how? What schemes have been run? If your obtuseness is genuine, then you might start with Google, one of the many books that have been written, or a documentary. If your obtuseness is deliberate, then have fun with it. Either way, I won't engage in a debate about facts.
mrxd 13y ago
I didn't see anything in the article that was negative or hateful about the 1%, but it sounds like you're reading it that way. Do you think the 99% have a reason to hate the 1%?

saraid216 13y ago

> What a moronic idea, that a thousandth of a population can actually have a statistically significant effect on the entire population. So, monarchy never happened?

JamisonM 13y ago

I read the first sentence above and was pretty sure this was a sarcastic comment but by the time I got to the end I was saddened to realize it was serious. The perception that a major problem with current American society is "resentful abuse" towards the wealthy is strange because from a historical perspective to me it seems like this is the time the wealthy have been treated with the most reverence.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Americans generally venerate the wealthy and aspire to be wealthy themselves. The bitterness you're describing is primarily attributable to the very real sense that the game is rigged. Just as "urban" and "welfare" have become stand-in buzzwords for poor African-Americans, so has the term "1%" become a phrase for, not just the wealthy, but for those among the wealthy who have gained at the expense of others through financial engineering and other schemes. For instance, these same people grew fabulously wealthy by wrecking the economy and not a single one received punishment. In fact, everyone else bailed them out and they went right back to the same schemes and obscene paydays. Then, there's the general truth that, while people are working harder, wages are effectively stagnant for many and an increasingly larger share of the rewards are accruing to a shrinkingly tiny percentage of the population. So, I think it's a naive false argument to blame people for "hating the rich". What they really hate is being pimped.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >You view welfare as having an ethnic connotation but 'greedy parasitic financiers' doesn't? Examine the very hateful history of your line of reasoning. Defensive much? I never commented on the ethnicity of the financiers or any connotations thereof. In fact, ethnicity has nothing to do with my comment at all. It was a simple analogy intended to illustrate that, like the phrases I mentioned, the phrase "1%" is loaded and does not simply mean "the wealthy". But, while you're pouncing and introducing an actual hateful "ethnic" implication, you should probably consider that bitterness towards the 1% supersedes race. >Who exactly wrecked the economy and how? What schemes have been run? If your obtuseness is genuine, then you might start with Google, one of the many books that have been written, or a documentary. If your obtuseness is deliberate, then have fun with it. Either way, I won't engage in a debate about facts.

mrxd 13y ago

I didn't see anything in the article that was negative or hateful about the 1%, but it sounds like you're reading it that way. Do you think the 99% have a reason to hate the 1%?