Live data from Hacker News

Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

robkhenderson.com

351–360 of 396 posts

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article might be the single most vapid thing I've read all day, and I just read a Bari Weiss article for context. Author leans in quite heavily to his own bonafides... somehow able to rise from foster homes to the military to graduate from Yale. Neato. And then he gets REALLY basic shit wrong. "Working class" does not mean "lower middle class white folks." Go ask 10 "working class" black folks whether this count…

There is not a state that will jail women for a failed pregnancy. Thank you for contributing to the ever-fucked up and misinformed conversation about abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarria...

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-ba....

Come again? The only way you could fail to know about these things or read about them is if you willfully choose to ignore them.

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you deflected by immediately discounting the author as being predictably, in your estimation, anti- feminist / anti- anti-racist. Is this so different? It's saying the thing without saying it.

> Is this so different? It's saying the thing without saying it. This is reductive and only true in a binary world. If I question some anti-terrorism approaches, does that make me pro-terrorism? Of course not, but one could dishonestly accuse another of that to silence them or derail the conversation (see The Dixie Chicks). The world is hardly ever black and white.

My point was that their original comment about the article made was basically "I knew this person would be critical of blue coded luxury beliefs without being critical of red coded luxury beliefs!" without really arguing about the concept of luxury beliefs, or the examples being criticized.

It was shoot the messenger type stuff.

I recall when the Dixie Chicks criticized Dubya's invasion of Iraq.

The analogy here, to me, would be instead of arguing about whether Iraq invasion was a good idea, you said "aha! I knew the Dixie Chicks wouldn't have anything to say about Whitewater!" (or some similarly team blue scandal of similar vintage).

I hate tribalism, and I actually hate to see it even more on the side I vote with because it puts me in the position of being asked to defend things that I don't think make sense.

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#353
post #132

> When I was growing up in foster homes, or making minimum wage as a > dishwasher, or serving in the military, I never heard words like “cultural > appropriation” or “gendered” or “heteronormative.” > > Working class people could not tell you what these terms mean. But if you > visit an elite university, you’ll find plenty of affluent people who will > eagerly explain them to you. I figured out as soon as I saw the l…

cultural appropriation As a european, I just can't wrap my head around this. How is it racist if I like a food of an other culture so much I cook it? Or I like a hairstyle of different culture so I also want to wear it. Or clothes. Or making music. Or.... I mean, I admire all that stuff so much that I want it to be part of my life. How is this racist?

[deleted]

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article might be the single most vapid thing I've read all day, and I just read a Bari Weiss article for context. Author leans in quite heavily to his own bonafides... somehow able to rise from foster homes to the military to graduate from Yale. Neato. And then he gets REALLY basic shit wrong. "Working class" does not mean "lower middle class white folks." Go ask 10 "working class" black folks whether this count…

Painting your ideological opponents as "elite" and "out of touch" is a political trick as old as time, it encourages the listener not to engage the subject purportedly supported by the elite, but instead dismiss it out of hand as something no regular man should even bother themselves with. Bonus points for making them elites in academia who apparently do not know how the "real word" works.

[deleted]

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not a state that will jail women for a failed pregnancy. Thank you for contributing to the ever-fucked up and misinformed conversation about abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarria... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-ba... . Come again? The only way you could fail to know about these things or read about them is if you willfully choose to ignore them.

none of your links give any cases where a woman was prosecuted or jailed for a failed pregnancy.

The links did cite cases where medical practitioners did not do their job because they were worried about the government.

Texas law specifically states that abortions in the case of risk to the mother are ok and the medical practitioners felt the language wasnt clear enough.

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#356

This is an interesting social phenomenon. Given HN's user base, if the author is correct, his hypothesis would predict that the users of HackerNews are disproportionately likely to hold these luxury beliefs.

The responses here range from denial to outright hostility at the author, which to me proves his point. This is Ground Zero for the people he's describing!

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article might be the single most vapid thing I've read all day, and I just read a Bari Weiss article for context. Author leans in quite heavily to his own bonafides... somehow able to rise from foster homes to the military to graduate from Yale. Neato. And then he gets REALLY basic shit wrong. "Working class" does not mean "lower middle class white folks." Go ask 10 "working class" black folks whether this count…

Painting your ideological opponents as "elite" and "out of touch" is a political trick as old as time, it encourages the listener not to engage the subject purportedly supported by the elite, but instead dismiss it out of hand as something no regular man should even bother themselves with. Bonus points for making them elites in academia who apparently do not know how the "real word" works.

> a rhetorical trick as old as time

It is actually a means of pivoting to a different subject, and the next step is to make the subject the person doing the pivoting, and from there to change the entire scope of the discussion to the interpersonal dynamics of the parties involved in the discussion.

On the left (whom I would count myself among, even if I would hardly pass a purity test) there are many ways to do this, the key to all of them being that there's not a serious attempt to engage with the substance of the matter but simply to use an intersecting contextual facet as a means to collect the focus away from the topic and toward the discussant. Racism is probably the most straightforward path, or at least the most well-traveled (of the two mentioned in this thread, it would outrank abortion by being more generally applicable across age groups sexes religions etc) it goes "this isn't about x, x is really about racism. Your position on x implies you might be a racist. That position is personally offensive to me, who is directly or indirectly affected by racism." Done. conversation is now about people, and specifically two individual people, and specifically about the unfalsifiable statements about the feelings of one or both, and this is where it ends.

The right wing version of this trick, at least in the US, is much clumsier and ham-fisted but follows from the same motivation to replace the confrontation with an idea with a personal confrontation, though unlike the progressives they have only managed to devise one or two lasting variations of this same discussion-jamming measure: the pedophilia track and the socialist / communist sympathizer track.

I'm at a loss as to how to even attempt to have conversations in public about anything that matters due to the ever-present danger of one of these tactics surfacing and rendering the entire effort pointless. Perhaps we need to revive IRL coffee shop culture of small close circle debate from the 1800s, or import something like it from wherever a form of it still exists, maybe morocco or turkey.

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you deflected by immediately discounting the author as being predictably, in your estimation, anti- feminist / anti- anti-racist. Is this so different? It's saying the thing without saying it.

> Is this so different? It's saying the thing without saying it. This is reductive and only true in a binary world. If I question some anti-terrorism approaches, does that make me pro-terrorism? Of course not, but one could dishonestly accuse another of that to silence them or derail the conversation (see The Dixie Chicks). The world is hardly ever black and white.

The latest topic of political discussion - Israel vs Palestine - is proving this. Not to derail the conversion about that topic itself, as it's highly contentious, but to point out that is a topic that is far from black and white, and both sides in our oversimplified two party system are finding out that there is nuance to be had on that topic, as they can't agree what the "right" stance is, though they can collectively agree that some ideas are stupid. To look at the other big topics of the past few, someone could be anti-mask and pro-vaccine, or anti-looting and vandalism but anti-police violence, neither of which wholly aligns with either party, but exists in the broader spectrum of what an individual believes in.

Re: Luxury beliefs are status symbols (2022)

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this so different? It's saying the thing without saying it. This is reductive and only true in a binary world. If I question some anti-terrorism approaches, does that make me pro-terrorism? Of course not, but one could dishonestly accuse another of that to silence them or derail the conversation (see The Dixie Chicks). The world is hardly ever black and white.

The latest topic of political discussion - Israel vs Palestine - is proving this. Not to derail the conversion about that topic itself, as it's highly contentious, but to point out that is a topic that is far from black and white, and both sides in our oversimplified two party system are finding out that there is nuance to be had on that topic, as they can't agree what the "right" stance is, though they can collectiv…

Yeah I think maybe we are making the same point in a way?

I felt the poster was discounting the article because the author had the opposite political preference on 2 topics. They lead with - "I figured out as soon as I saw the link title that the author's examples for "luxury beliefs" would just so happen to be associated with a feminist and anti-racist outlook."

To me reading the criticism of "my side" by reasonable writers from "the other side" is only additive. Also, logically that's exactly where I would expect the criticism to come from. You may even gain some perspective and re-evaluate your position or adjust your argument. This is how we grow.

As you point out, one can have a complex set of preferences/beliefs/things they support that do not fit directly into blue|red binary as a whole.

Post reply on HN