Folks, the original subreddit that discussed the inner-workings of Reddit's participants
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
You just repeated the same thing over without any relevance to what I said about how individuals can work for their own interests, and still change the placement of the group. The top 1% person can do something entirely for themselves and it ripple across everything. Karen Horney had a personal hissy fit against Freud and created her entire progressive rot in the Psychology field, and in turn the abuse of said field across all walks of life. King Henry changed the entire course of the English people's history on a desire for a divorce.
Again, irrelevant. They still got great amounts of power. Just because someone else benefited and that power didn't bring them happiness like they believed doesn't change that. Which seems to be your issue in general, focusing on the shadow cabal of elites profitting and then working backwards to where all other things fall into place for your definition.
They didn't plead the elites straight up into getting it. They plead everyman who could be made to listen into fighting their battle for them, just as they've always done and have continued to do since. That attrition is exactly what I meant, you just want to say you are right and reword it to fit your "can never" original point.
Look, I don't think you're arguing in bad faith or anything like that, but please reread my initial comment. I don't recall if my edit quoting the snippet came after your first response or not, but I assure you the context was in regards to those clutching onto whatever hierarchical power they have. My initial point was, and still is, that you can't beg to those in power to relinquish that power, which is almost self-evident. My supporting reasoning the later comment was that speaking of a shared characteristic as a cohesive group is a waste of time, excepting deliberate hyperbole.
Any strides women achieved in the past century are equaled out by the utter dis-empowerment of the working lower and middle classes. The married woman has more overt power over her husband than before 1960 or 1890, but the American family or individual has far less power than before 1930 until you reach $600k/yr household income. No disagreement that there are more women in explicit higher positions of power. The relevance is that women in the workplace and owning property isn't entirely a bad thing. The introverted woman doing concept-art for 20-40 hrs/week before heading home to walk her dog isn't causing the issues that the meeting obsessed finance/marketing folk are. Note that I am not stating that the doubling of the workforce was the transfer of wealth, as someone like Peterson would.
Yes, but that's not a conscious decision to improve the health of their social class, and often enough not to those professing the same cause.
Edit: My preference for the cautious use of collectives in language is similar to the case some Youtuber made about 'color-blindness'. By proclaiming color-blindness, one is falling into the trap of using rhetoric that is conceptually polluted by the zealots. Similarly, I can't stand the conformist/normie majority's emotional susceptibility towards tribal identity and blind obedience over community responsibility; to be clear I don't consider you part of that reprehensible category.
I don't recall it, so I'll assume not as it does change what I took from it a bit. For I simply find it inconceivable a notion that you cannot power beg from those above you. You won't be raised to their level, that's foolhardy to think, but you can gain considerable power in the in between by appealing to many facets.
Which means little as during the same timeframe being a family is not longer a requirement for a woman to gain basic standards of living. One woman can gain a pretty solid living in general just on government income alone, if you are willing to lack in shame to maximize it.
I agree, this same concept is why I am zealous about things like "never" being used in these philosophical contexts. Because it precludes possibilities, which given time will become a blindspot that can horribly hurt your awareness.