all 19 comments

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Very good question...

It's funny how little implicit biases built in to our language changes how we view things

[–]Robin[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For more on how language frames our thought in this context listen to the start of

[–]x0x7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But it's not an implicit bias. We as a society are pretty consistent with reserving the term extremist for people with unorthodox behavior and efforts. The wealthy pursue the same efforts as most people so they aren't extremist.

It's funny how people will take a non sequitur argument of tying two things together and then claim the whole reason we don't automatically join the two is language bias.

Both people in this dialectic achieve sounding deep like they get something others don't, but they are really just making undeserved jumps. This is why dialectic is often shit. Through it any two idiots can come to any conclusion.

Then the desired end result of a discussion can always be concluded, resulting in the metric of "does this help support marxism" as the only argument really needed to conclude that it's true.

[–]O_G_P 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The wealthy pursue the same efforts as most people

That's totally unfair. eg normal people don't seek to start big pharma corporations that buy the rights to life saving drugs then increase the price 5000%.

  • " serving as CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Shkreli hiked the price of toxoplasmosis treatment Daraprim from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill."

Almost all of the most "extremely wealthy" people seek to control the public's access to natural resources (eg land stolen during a genocide of Native Americans) unless the public hands over money to the extremely wealthy.

In other words, these "extremely wealthy" could more fairly be called "the extremely controlling & parasitic."

The "improvements" to the resources are irrelevant because:

  • the public did not consent to the very wealthy owning almost all the land (which was gained via genocide of native americans)
  • what's an "improvement" is a subjective opinion
  • and since the public did not consent to the so-called "improvements."

[–]Snow 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the powerful set the terms of the debate.

[–]Dr-Cheeser 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the word "extremist" refers to people who hold extreme views/opinions. I don't see how calling the wealthy "extremists" would make any sense.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's a good attack weapon. But not spicy enough. Needs to be paired with another word to make a two-word phrase, or a single word neologism. Or an acronym that gets made into a word, like yuppie meant Young Urban Professional.

So workshop out some names and see if you can get the ball rolling.

[–]DrStrangelove 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aha, I always wondered what the origins of yuppie were. I figured it just meant bourgeois.

[–]VantaFount 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's sort of like how when a poor person is crazy, but a rich person with the exact same mental issues is merely "eccentric".

[–]Snow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can, I can use any words of my second language.

[–]asg101 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think they should be referred to as "hoarders". Hoarders used to be shot in wartime, and if we are not in a war for our survival now, it won't be long.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"war for our survival"? Seriously? Things are better today for the human race than they ever have been in any time in history. This is scientific fact.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are in for a rude awakening.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

What I said was scientifically proven and verifiable fact. Things are literally better for the human race than they have ever been in history. Prove otherwise.

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I may disagree with you about a lot of things, but I think we can both agree that Horrux is an idiot

[–]lil_peter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anyone that want to shoot up a school, consider politicians instead.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wait, did somebody shoot up a school? Where? When?

[–]useless_aether 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i think of them as 'anomalies'