111–120 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sad to say, you have assholes for parents. Sure, I can see them reasonably thinking that making you support yourself in college was a fine idea. But providing no support that would benefit their own infant grandchild? No.
Rich people can be really stingy
I think the author is ascribing too much intent to a simple economy of shame that’s omnipresent in all classes; if people find out you have more than they do, they hate you. The author herself appears to be biased by this. She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessaril…
I went to college in the Bay Area and to a small private college with significant portion of very wealthy. Some in the private college concealed their wealth, some didn't. The thing is, most middle or above folks with an once of sophistication can sense the trust fund kid a mile away - most working class can sense something too, just maybe don't know the middle-class from the trust funders. I'm shocked the author was…
My experience has been the same as the author's. My college classmates (at Swarthmore) and I were repeatedly surprised when we learned that our friends were trust fund kids. I remember junior year we found out that one kid was super wealthy because he bought a last-minute cross-country plane ticket, first class. Even his roommates, who had lived with him for years, had no clue he was wealthy.
Another time, I learned that a girl was wealthy because she bought an iPod ($400 in 2004!) on a whim. I'd previously thought she was upper-middle class because she drove a Honda CR-V and didn't have any other trappings of wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one raises and kills cows for the leather; the leather is a byproduct.
The leather is a product, not a byproduct, just not the sole product. I fail to see the logic that killing a mink for its fur is wrong, but killing a cow is okay because we get meat along with the leather. You can also make arguments about how it’s okay because cows are raised specifically to be killed, but the fact remains that we kill orders of magnitude more cows than we ever have minks. My previous argument stand…
The main focus of animal rights protesters consequently are industrial meat production and animal cruelty, not the fucking Hell’s Angels. That’s absurdity to the highest degree.
Economic inequality is at its highest level since 1928 and is about to increase even more due to automation, this climate of victimization/identity politics is being increasingly forced at a higher level by corporations, a simple way to build goodwill in the public opinion and feel that they are in the right.
This comment kinda baffles me, mostly cause of the implication that "identity politics" progressives don't talk about economic inequality enough. Not sure where exactly that is the case, except maybe in pop feminism that wants more black women of color to be billionaires. But that kind of thinking is widely criticized by the left too.
I think the author is ascribing too much intent to a simple economy of shame that’s omnipresent in all classes; if people find out you have more than they do, they hate you. The author herself appears to be biased by this. She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessaril…
> She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessarily took it from those who have less (her bulky villager metaphor). A single person can only be so productive on a consistent basis. There's a threshold of wealth where you can say that on average 90% of the money is coming…
This is one of those “facts” that simply isn’t true.
US taxes have become more progressive over time.
Look at the first chart: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/02/the-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article does seem to get there eventually: > The result is an institution increasingly unable to carry out its own mission, as tuition rises to pay for more administrators, and ideological drama makes it harder and harder to actually teach. And now we are back at the original question. What was the point of Yale? What was the point of going to Yale? What is the point of elite institutions? I don't think it's just…
The article didn’t really consider what I think is the most likely explanation- like you said, these kind of “elites” don’t really have the kind of power or influence they once did. They aren’t just faking humility rather they are somehow accurately perceiving that in the current order power is held by some mix of corporations, special interests, big tech companies, and (left or right) populist movements, but probabl…
I find this piece fascinating. To honor it I offer a tl; dr 1. Author recounts experiences of people lying about their class/wealth at Yale, often feigning less wealth. 2. Explains behavior 1 as style, safety, loss-of-perspective, and avoiding social responsibility 3. Retells several incidents where a vocal minority of students at Yale picked and won battles over verbiage (e.g. emails, Calhoun, "Master of college").…
Over time, I’ve come to appreciate all of the little things that get left out of summaries like this to the point that I wonder if they might be harmful. In the time it takes to read a summary, it is also possible to read the first few paragraphs of the article, which should be enough for someone to tell if the writing connects with them.
Fundamentally, this is a persuasive piece and its power comes from providing a vicarious experience to the reader of the author’s experiences at Yale. Whether you agree with her conclusions or not, reading this will help you understand the fundamentals of her position much more than a summary. I worry that, by spoiling the ending, this kind of summarization encourages people to only read the piece if they already agree with the conclusion it ultimately reaches. Thus, the people that would gain the most insight avoid exposing themselves to arguments counter to their beliefs and the echo-chamber is perpetuated a little bit more.
(Side note to ‘alexandercrohde: I don’t really intend to single you out; I applaud the effort you put into writing this summary, and you achieved what you set out to do. I’ve just had this particular rant growing inside me for a while, and this was the first place it made sense to put it.)
I find this piece fascinating. To honor it I offer a tl; dr 1. Author recounts experiences of people lying about their class/wealth at Yale, often feigning less wealth. 2. Explains behavior 1 as style, safety, loss-of-perspective, and avoiding social responsibility 3. Retells several incidents where a vocal minority of students at Yale picked and won battles over verbiage (e.g. emails, Calhoun, "Master of college").…
Note however that there is nothing in the article describing economic disparity as a problem. There are laments about social position and altering or eliminating traditions but no hint of criticism of economic inequality.
So the claims aren't about inequality, they're about the "wrong" people (in the author's opinion) being rich. In particular, the rich students behavior regarding the culture war.
And the author is annoyed that some of the rich students live austere and ascetic lives. But the implication is they should act rich instead to become more worthy of respect.
Also the article talks about the energy students devote to racial issues as done merely to avoid social responsibility. But this does not make sense for a couple of reasons:
1) The students described believe there are issues around race and are acting in a way they think will help. So what are the other unstated higher responsibilities are they shirking during their time at University?
2) Walking in protests or wearing cheap cloths only works on people who are literally in physical view. Hiding wealth is done through a Cayman island bank account, that is how one would shirk responsibility.
3) The opinions and behaviors of the minority of students described are extremely rare among the super rich so it's obviously not a very good avoidance technique. Or, by implication, the author signals that the behavior of the Koch brothers or Walton family is more appropriate to the responsibilities of the rich.
So honestly, although there is a brief point raised about two wrongful terminations, the article is really just lamenting the culture war and claiming that the students participation in it is wrong minded and fad driven. There is no call that they should be protesting war or helping the poor or anything. Just that they stop taking these stances on culture war issues.