I've seen multiple posts elsewhere of "Now there's an earthquake. How can people still deny climate change?"
Well, it fits for "Divine Wrath", not so much for the climate, no.I've seen multiple posts elsewhere of "Now there's an earthquake. How can people still deny climate change?"
My guess is they were joking.I've seen multiple posts elsewhere of "Now there's an earthquake. How can people still deny climate change?"
I wish you were right, but it was Tumblr.My guess is they were joking.
Nonetheless, their ambivalence about recognizing privilege suggests a deep tension at the heart of the idea of American dream. While pursuing wealth is unequivocally desirable, having wealth is not simple and straightforward. Our ideas about egalitarianism make even the beneficiaries of inequality uncomfortable with it. And it is hard to know what they, as individuals, can do to change things.
In response to these tensions, silence allows for a kind of “see no evil, hear no evil” stance. By not mentioning money, my interviewees follow a seemingly neutral social norm that frowns on such talk. But this norm is one of the ways in which privileged people can obscure both their advantages and their conflicts about these advantages.
And, as they try to be “normal,” these wealthy and affluent people deflect the stigma of wealth. If they can see themselves as hard workers and reasonable consumers, they can belong symbolically to the broad and legitimate American “middle,” while remaining materially at the top.
But in the case of the wealthy, it's only the ones who have empathy and feel guilty or the ones who fear reprisal. Regardless, they never actually DO anything about it.So to feel better about their situation, people who are wealthy pretend they aren't, and people who aren't pretend they are.
--Patrick
Most. Saying "they never do anything about it" is judging peopel as a group etc etc. There's a whoel movement on the left here that's pretty actively anti-rich and anti-wealthy, trying to trick everyone into thinking everything going wrong in the world is all due to the damned rich folks who aren't willing to share. There are plenty of rich entitled assholes, sure, but that doesn't mean they're all evil, and certainly not that it's OK to group them together. And I do mean I've non-sarcastically heard it suggested that everyone whop's "rich" should be subjected to a 100% tax rate and have all of their assets over X (where X is "slightly more than I have", of course) confiscated and redistributed. But don't call them communists!But in the case of the wealthy, it's only the ones who have empathy and feel guilty or the ones who fear reprisal. Regardless, they never actually DO anything about it.
Bubble, for once I agree 100% with the statements you said. That may fill you with shame, or not, but I'm glad to see us agree on something, as we often do not.Most. Saying "they never do anything about it" is judging peopel as a group etc etc. There's a whoel movement on the left here that's pretty actively anti-rich and anti-wealthy, trying to trick everyone into thinking everything going wrong in the world is all due to the damned rich folks who aren't willing to share. There are plenty of rich entitled assholes, sure, but that doesn't mean they're all evil, and certainly not that it's OK to group them together. And I do mean I've non-sarcastically heard it suggested that everyone whop's "rich" should be subjected to a 100% tax rate and have all of their assets over X (where X is "slightly more than I have", of course) confiscated and redistributed. But don't call them communists!
While it IS improper to judge the ENTIRE population of the 1% for the actions of a few, the study makes it clear that the sample population in the study was more interested in avoiding the issue or hiding it entirely than actually addressing the issue of wealth inequality in any kind of constructive manner, instead choosing to compare their lives to even richer people in an attempt to avoid the stigma they themselves feel already. It's self-denial; they know there is a problem and that they are part of the problem (except the ones passing the buck or the ones who avoid engaging it at all) but the solutions to the problem seem "unfair" or worse so they are content to perpetuate the system instead of repairing it. So instead of just paying their servants more or looking for some other healthy way to deal with their issues, they pretend that sharpie-ing over barcodes or removing price tags is a healthy response to their own guilt, when it very clearly is not. It's just a weak attempt to hide from the unhidable; your servants don't need to know how much your furniture cost to know it's probably more than you are paying them and they probably resent you more for trying to hide it instead of just accepting it.Most. Saying "they never do anything about it" is judging peopel as a group etc etc. There's a whoel movement on the left here that's pretty actively anti-rich and anti-wealthy, trying to trick everyone into thinking everything going wrong in the world is all due to the damned rich folks who aren't willing to share. There are plenty of rich entitled assholes, sure, but that doesn't mean they're all evil, and certainly not that it's OK to group them together. And I do mean I've non-sarcastically heard it suggested that everyone whop's "rich" should be subjected to a 100% tax rate and have all of their assets over X (where X is "slightly more than I have", of course) confiscated and redistributed. But don't call them communists!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Which of us is the broken clock I'll leave up to youBubble, for once I agree 100% with the statements you said. That may fill you with shame, or not, but I'm glad to see us agree on something, as we often do not.
I also think Ash's link is fascinating.
There are plenty of rich entitled assholes, sure, but that doesn't mean they're all evil, and certainly not that it's OK to group them together.
Oh I agree. Hence my mentioning of what was in the article about the "only" time he'd ever looked at porn. I'm more saying that this is only on the edge of news either way, and actually constitutes a "lull" more than anything else IMO.It's not that someone tweeted out porn that makes this news, it's WHO did. Ted Cruz. The man who wanted to make masturbation illegal and was a legitimate presidential contender.
That's a new twist on the whole asset forfeiture thing.May many good lawyers come knocking on his door.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/ba...-tries-to-deposit-large-check-from-home-sale/
Too flat. Want something with more curves.Fuck Kansas.
I approve 100%Fuck kansas.
I think @DarkAudit is referring to that being the location where the family was arrested. I just hate kansas.I missed something. Why are we carrying on, my wayward sons?
That, Sam Brownback, WBC, etc., etc..I think @DarkAudit is referring to that being the location where the family was arrested. I just hate kansas.
Ok. The Ted Cruz break in between made me think Kansas had additionally done something stupid. Carry on.I think @DarkAudit is referring to that being the location where the family was arrested. I just hate kansas.
Hmmmmmm
Good. Scumbag.Martin Shkreli puts a bounty on Hillary's hair, judge revokes his bond.
Judge rejected the "I was only kidding" defense.