John Oliver's new show is doing well.
First hand experience: Some poor people truly suck. Some poor people, especially through the lens of our underdog-nurture evolution, are heroic. In the same way poor are numerous, they are diverse... much more so than the 1%. My kids in the Cameroon classroom were all equally negated by John Oilver's assessment, but they were not equal. Some were smarter and better and harder working students, and measuring them all next to Donald Trump unfairly negates their merit.
My concern with rich people attacking rich people (BAN vs. OECD, John Oliver vs. USA's 1%) is that they attribute more attention to themselves than they do to the relative merits (efforts, study, ingenuity) which the working class all enjoy or suffer. Oops.
"We will not pretend that all Baldwins are equally talented". And so John Oliver acknowledges the differences of talent between poor and poor. But comparing the differences between the best blue collar staff and the worst blue collar staff to "which Baldwin" is tone-deaf, Senor Oliver.
What rich people like John Oliver don't seem to understand is that poor people who work hard are pitted daily against poor people who skate. By not acknowledging the relative value and effort, the differentials, and attributing the whole story to relativity between obscene rich and grouped regular folks, John Oliver is inadvertently stating that it doesn't matter that you, poor B, strived. You are a fool. It's all to benefit the rich. That's the temptation of communism... Marx didn't appear to recognize the difference between the hardest working, most honest laborers, and the addicts and lazy.
That is the answer to your bewilderment that more poor people (A and B) don't rally behind Rich D attacking Rich C.
I posted John Oliver's video because I like it, and there's certainly merit to looking into a system where the richest get contracts through bribes or fawning regulators. But I also see why this pitch, this argument, is failing in the red states. And I'm sick of hearing "red staters are less intelligent" when the argument is clearly tone-deaf to working class effort differentials.
Robin Ingenthron I agree. But I also observe that many of the poorest are descending down - with no one else to blame - just as hard as the 1% is striving up. I know this by the number of poor who excel (moderately gaining, or treading water). Grouping poor A to poor B without acknowledging effort (blaming the rich) is an obvious fallacy. If richest 1% C in a decade balloons in weath, leaving Poor A and Poor B in relative dust, that should not negate the essential difference in effort between poor A and B. What distinguishes Poor B from Poor A (effort, desire, ingenuity) also distinguishes Rich Persons C and D (the rich eroding and falling, vs. gaining).1 min · Like
First hand experience: Some poor people truly suck. Some poor people, especially through the lens of our underdog-nurture evolution, are heroic. In the same way poor are numerous, they are diverse... much more so than the 1%. My kids in the Cameroon classroom were all equally negated by John Oilver's assessment, but they were not equal. Some were smarter and better and harder working students, and measuring them all next to Donald Trump unfairly negates their merit.
My concern with rich people attacking rich people (BAN vs. OECD, John Oliver vs. USA's 1%) is that they attribute more attention to themselves than they do to the relative merits (efforts, study, ingenuity) which the working class all enjoy or suffer. Oops.
"We will not pretend that all Baldwins are equally talented". And so John Oliver acknowledges the differences of talent between poor and poor. But comparing the differences between the best blue collar staff and the worst blue collar staff to "which Baldwin" is tone-deaf, Senor Oliver.
What rich people like John Oliver don't seem to understand is that poor people who work hard are pitted daily against poor people who skate. By not acknowledging the relative value and effort, the differentials, and attributing the whole story to relativity between obscene rich and grouped regular folks, John Oliver is inadvertently stating that it doesn't matter that you, poor B, strived. You are a fool. It's all to benefit the rich. That's the temptation of communism... Marx didn't appear to recognize the difference between the hardest working, most honest laborers, and the addicts and lazy.
That is the answer to your bewilderment that more poor people (A and B) don't rally behind Rich D attacking Rich C.
I posted John Oliver's video because I like it, and there's certainly merit to looking into a system where the richest get contracts through bribes or fawning regulators. But I also see why this pitch, this argument, is failing in the red states. And I'm sick of hearing "red staters are less intelligent" when the argument is clearly tone-deaf to working class effort differentials.
1 comment:
I do miss the anonymous comments, but the spammy backlink comments were getting the whole blog de-SEO and with at least a few of them, I think that was the point.
Post a Comment