You're viewing a single thread.
In case you're wondering how someone can have such an unhinged opinion about labor: Conservatism is the belief in natural hierarchies, that some people are just better than others. This lady makes a living wage, and she deems service staff to be beneath her, therefore they are not allowed to enjoy the same America as she does.
They're not necessarily that unhinged from a moral perspective. They're just incredibly privileged and ignorant.
They truly believe that because they didn't get stuck with a low-wage job that it must be an active choice that people make, and that people should strive to be better to improve society.
And when you point out that they're privileged they see it as an insuly - like you're saying they didn't earn their way. And that's the real rub. Many wealthy people absolutely do work their asses off, and from their perspective all that work has paid off. What they don't understand is that their success is a mixture of their hard work AND luck.
Saying they've been lucky shouldn't diminish their work. I think everyone who works hard to be a success should have that opportunity. We're not asking that their hard work be ignored. We're asking that everyone else's be recognized with a living wage.
They actually are that unhinged, and have been for awhile...
There was a time EVERYONE was like this, back in the 50's or so they did a bunch of experiments and found people who were poorer were dumber, more violent, prone to crime, and more likely to have mental issues...
So they concluded that people fell into poverty because of personal failings.
Funny thing about Science, you can have all the right data and still get the wrong answer. Most commonly you get cause and effect backwards.
These people weren't poor because they were violent and stupid, they had merely been reduced to a state of being violent and stupid because of the horrible things their poverty exposed them to.
Conservatives never got the memo, and those that did, ignored it.
My current total comp puts me in the top 1--2% for my country (based on reported incomes). The difference between the billionaire class and me is massive; I still have to budget for my bills, expenses etc.
That said, I am fully aware that I'm in a privileged position.
I grew up in government housing and suffered malnutrition as a child because my single working mother couldn't afford enough food. I worked my arse off in school and was lucky enough to be eligible and accepted into a scholarship programme for University; I would not have been able to attend otherwise.
Since then I've had relatively good career opportunities and have taken advantage of them. I tried hard and continue to do so because I know what it's like to not have enough.
I think that I worked hard to get where I am. I do not consider myself rich (where some people might understandably do so), but I know what it is like to be wanting.
Despite my hard work, I do not in the slightest think that I got to where I am based purely on bullshit like grit and determination. I have absolutely taken advantage of opportunities in front of me, but I was lucky to have those in the first place. I think I deserve to be where I am, but I also think plenty of others also deserve it and are deprived of the chances that I got by pure happenstance.
Yes, you have to work hard to change your lot in life, but to say that hard work will solve everything is ludicrous.
I'm entirely on board with a living wage, UBI, and anything else to make things more equitable. No one should have to worry about feeding their family. And I'm happy to pay more tax to make that a reality.
What they don't understand is that their success is a mixture of their hard work AND luck.
How does having certain morals/principles fit in? I know plenty of health care workers and educators who do so because it's how they want to contribute to society. Not only that, but rejecting offers with 2-300% increase pay from the private sector, only because it goes against their principles? They'd work less as a result too!
It takes some effort to imagine the level of human shitstain to suggest the low pay is "deserved" or due to a lack of not being lazy.
I think a lot of people attribute to malice that which is coming from ignorance.
We all live in bubbles of one kind or another. I like to think that I work very hard to identify my biases and privileges, but I know I fail.
Some people never try to challenge their biases, so they remain in ignorance. It's not that they're evil - just that what's so weird to the rest of us is their normal.
I work for (but do not live in) a tiny city (around 10 employees for the entire city) that's an enclave for the super-rich. We're talking 8-9 million dollar houses being the norm.
The residents here aren't evil people in their hearts. They just live in a completely separate world from the rest of us. They went to private schools, fly on private planes, and the poorest people they interact with on a regular basis have 8-figure valuations.
They think they're middle-class because most of them aren't billionaires even though their houses cost more than I make in a century.
They're immorally rich, but they don't know it.
To be a conservative you need to enlarge the fear center of your brain, believe strongly in hierarchy, and want at least one level of the hierarchy to be miserable and suffering.
And if you can't move up in the hierarchy it's because the lower castes are dragging you down.
I bet she goes to Dairy Queen though
And demands to see the manager.
Look, I'm reasonably left wing, but it is fallacious and unhelpful to do this American thing of trying to lump everything into "us" and "them". Polarisation and oversimplifiying is how this mess happened in the first place.
Conservativism is principally concerned with the preservation of the good. The failings of Conservativism are simple: it's also quite good at preserving the bad. Why? Because there isn't a robust enough system to determine one from the other. One person's moral outrage is another person's right to exist, and the other way around.
What low-IQ, highly manipulated and brainwashed people do is they call something a name, but it actually has nothing to do with the name. Christianity is the perfect example, historically speaking, whatever is observed by the American Right has almost nothing in common with the core principles of Christianity. It's the fucking opposite.
Hierarchies obey the same logic. Human beings are different to each other. Sometimes these differences are the same in various demographics. This is not a contraversial statement.
Does this stop the right to opportunity and life? Of course not. Choosing to celebrate it, along with all the nuances makes it a wonderful quirk of the world we live in. Human beings are hierarchical creatures, because some of us are fundamentally more competitive than others, some more cooperative. This isn't news to anyone, and no amount of political posturing is going to change this. This isn't anything to do with Conservativism, because it's just an observation of reality. Politics that does not observe reality is doomed to fail from the outset.
It is not "conservative" nor is it honest to say that everyone is as good at a specific job as anyone else. Some people are just well arranged to do some things well.
Conservatives conserve capitalism, which needs social hierarchies to function. Conservatives conserve the class war. Oppressors / Oppressed. If you’re not an oppressor, you’re being oppressed. Historical Materialism:
They conserve a lot of things. Choosing one that you think is bad as an example is reasonable, but it doesn't really make a point.
It's arguable (but not something I agree with) that you simply don't understand that capitalism is, because no one person is able to fully comprehend all of the unintended consequences of a system. It may be that in fact the only human compatible system that doesn't immediately decay. (Again - Obviously, I don't believe this)
A theoretical argument for this (that I don't necessarily agree with) could be that because we are hierarchical creatures, it's the only way to reasonably integrate this, via a system of social classes. But the system would have to be sufficiently performant for the lowest class, otherwise it would collapse. So perhaps the only evil in capitalism, is the manipulation and dishonesty towards the lower classes, to accept something that is not performant for them. Perhaps if the system was policed with honesty, then it might allow an interation of the system to be discovered that does not fundamentally abuse its constituents. Perhaps even, if the classes simply represented different subcultures but were fundamentally equal in the eyes of the social system?
Enough with the theoretical, the point is nuance is essential. The more we dispense with it, the more embedded, violent and dysfunctional everything becomes.
Undoing mistreatment by mistreating the mistreaters doesn't exactly set a precedent for a mistreatment free future, does it?
What good things do conservatives "conserve"?
They said language. This is what they want to conserve.
What is "good" is subjective to the individual. A conservative doesn't necessarily conserve good ideas, often simply preferring the status quo due to its stability. On the other hand, a liberal doesn't always want good reforms
I'm not sure you are asking an actual question but an example might be language, or attempting to preserve the existing culture. This is a noble effort, but often falls short in reality because it becomes too inhibiting or unreflective of the state of play for everyone.
What part of egalitarianism advocates for mistreating people?
Conserving the wealth inequality. Conserving the status quo. Conserving the social stratification. What is the superstructure that defines these structures?
—- Capitalism.
Rosa Luxemburg answered this question 125 years ago.
she argues from a historical materialist perspective that capitalism is economically unsustainable and will eventually collapse and that a revolution is necessary to transform capitalism into socialism.
Thank you for linking the Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing. Treating everyone right of you as "them" and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said. Yes, conservativism maintains a lot of bad things! We have already discussed this.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
Just a whole lot of nothing.
I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Because older people don’t need equal rights?
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing.
You veered from the original post. Not me.
Treating everyone right of you as "them" and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
Is Nazi apologia, and dangerous.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said.
Just because someone doesn’t cowtow to your circular logic doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
One. Give me one example of how capitalism has been reformed— and lasted.
Because younger people will be the audience for a high school wikipedia article link. While I'm sure it's reflexive for some to check the basics on Wikipedia, others thankfully may not be in that particular educational stage, as this discussion wouldn't be valid otherwise.
My comment on it's relevance stands, I don't think I veered at all.
I'm depressed to see that you invoked Godwins law with such enthusiasm. Please don't ever reference nazi apologia to me in the same breath as justification for dehumanising others. It's in acutely poor taste and education.
There is nothing circular about my logic that I can see, and youve not highlighted any. I've accused you of speaking the same rhetoric despite it being addressed which might qualify?
Luxemburg is proven wrong by there never being a revolution, the reformation and lasting are a separate discussion.
I waited 2 days for that ? Disappointed. You don’t impress me with your veiled social dominance.
Then my goal has been achieved. Thanks for the discussion.
This is a really good explanation. I really hate this kid of mentality online where people lump things they don't like, like conservatism, with completely unrelated things like this comment and say that this is what conservatism is. Through this us vs them mentality people seem to forget to at things critically and immediately take the us vs them approach to everything they see
This is literally the epitome of what conservatism is.
I want to chime in here and say that conservatism, at it's definition, is NONE of these things. Conservatism is the belief that the status quo should remain the status quo (often because it is stable, has worked so long, etc). It has nothing to do with hierarchies or castes or what have you
This person is just an asshole who thinks she is better than those around them, not a conservative
And when it comes to US of Dairy Queens, where exactly is status quo conservatism seen in modern times?
So no true Scotsman fallacy?