The main reason I'm posting this is because I actually learned that there is a name for the phenomenon of people getting used to something, and having to do more and more extreme variants of the same thing in order to get the same reaction they used to get out of the less extreme variant: hedonic adaptation.
It comes to mind because it just seems that a lot of people in Hollywood fall victim to this, and a lot of the rich as a whole as well, or that the wealthy simply see the common person as lesser, hence the 'own nothing and be happy' group, but to bring this back to Diddy, all the crazy sex parties, all the drugs, the power tripping, abuse, etc just makes it clear that something in Hollywood just makes the majority of people who live in it do insane shit, and the exceptions are for whatever reason I don't know.
I don't hate the rich, I hate rich people who are active detriments to society, ala the 'own nothing and be happy' group, or people like John Fisher, owner of the Oakland Athletics, who has failed in every endeavor he has taken in his entire life and the only reason he can exist the way he does is because his parents founded GAP and Old Navy, as examples.
Are leftists right about rich people as a whole? Not at all. I do however understand them from the perspective of 'the vast majority of wealthy individuals are completely out of touch with the common person and have no idea how they behave'. It seems like as an overall group, only athletes have any idea how the average person lives because without sports, they'd be the average person and many athletes are self-aware about that.
Being rich isn't inherently wrong. But being extremely rich is far more often about socio-economic leverage than individual work output, just because individual output can realistically only vary so far above the norm, but social leverage can just keep scaling up and up. The more broken and amoral behavior a society permits without punishment, then the better suited broken, amoral people are to applying that kind social leverage successfully. And because being a cunt is a highly heritable trait, the kids of the ones who make it tend to be better suited to applying both social and economic leverage.
Looking at the society we have, it's no surprise when the majority of the top 1% are turning out to be unchecked evil cunts.
Until people who cross the line to, say, ship in thousands of illegal Haitians and destroy a small town's community just to depress wages at the factory they own. Until they start mysteriously disappearing in the night and the whole town knowingly shrugs, like with Ken Rex McElroy, you can expect a disproportionate amount of rich people to be deeply deserving of scorn.
I think that’s what a lot of people here understand but also aren’t willing to say out loud because it feels leftist kinda even though it isn’t.
Being wealthy is a lot more about who you networked with and the connections you can make, as even though you make those connections because of the success of your business as an example, growing said business into for example, a chain of restaurants is way easier when you know people in the industry who can help.
Again, this doesn’t apply to small business owners, but for people like Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers and founder of Quicken Loans, Hal Steinbrenner, son of George Steinbrenner and more, they’re definitely riding their coattails on the people that came before them, albeit Dan Gilbert less so.
Yeah, as happily as I will shit on the average lefty lib shit for being retarded, I'm generally done with the established left/right false dichotomy. My only dichotomy is people who need to get fucked and people who don't.
So I'm not rooting for the second coming of Regan or some shit, I'm rooting for the return of the goddamn founding fathers and the society of honorable brotherhood, personal judgement and frontier justice that fostered them.
Just because the established lefties are accidentally mostly right about the current rich being scum, doesn't mean we have to pretend to not notice for fear of validating their other stupid ideas like all poor foreigners being noble saints or their stupid solutions like the poors should eat the rich. It's not rich Vs poors, it's honorable Vs dishonorable.
And it's far smarter for the honorable people to first start openly recognising each other and stonewalling out the dishonorable ones with equal or lesser power than it is for them to immediately throw themselves pointlessly at far more powerful people and let another generation of their dishonorable peers climb over them as they waste their efforts. The one advantage honorable group have over the dishonorable is the more powerful honorable will protect the less powerful, but the more powerful dishonorable people don't give a fuck about the less powerful ones, so they're easy pickings. Keep doing that long enough and entropy will do it's work and honorable behaviour will slowly start seeping up the hierarchy.
How does one find honorable people in the soviet union? haha
They are unsuccessful though because the rich maintain their wealth dishonorably and successfully identify and neutralize men of honor as a property of the economic system. It's a feature of an economic system with both private property and laws for the public. It's why civilizations kill themselves.
The honorable rich will either serve up their own ghouls and cut their victims in on the plunder, or they are dishonorable and should be eaten.