Haven’t read his book but have read enough of his tweets to understand what he’s getting at.
IMU, a belief is a “luxury” one if
Adhering to it is considered “harmful” to the individual/society (whether rightly or wrongly; Rob would say rightly, presumably)
Expressing support for the belief is “trendy,” manifesting in particular as the “high-class” people popularizing the belief
The proponent’s “class” allows them to avoid the consequences of the said belief held at scale, whereas the “regular” folk suffer
So, as an example, a “high-class” person comes out with a “hot take” like police abolition, which over time picks up steam and gains more support among the broader populace. When the consequences of higher crime rates hit, the broader populace suffers. But the “high-class” person, by virtue of living a life removed from crime’s consequences, avoids them. The high-class (unlike the “regular”) person could afford the belief; hence, it’s a luxury.
For an own-behavior-relating belief (so, think things like polyamory/drug use, not open borders/police abolition), the steps are similar except the “high class protecting the luxury believer” part takes the form of the “high class” person’s safety net, ability to delay gratification, “knowing when to stop,” etc. saving them from the negative consequences. Whereas someone poor and divorced from the tacit knowledge behind these behaviors (as elaborated on in more detail by Viliam) is more likely to suffer.
With this in mind, “classmate … a Republican oil tycoon who extolled the virtues of going to church but didn’t go himself” seems unrelated:
Attending the church isn’t (widely) considered harmful to the society in the US, I’d think, more like meh.
The tycoon’s avoidance of church themselves isn’t because they say it’s good but secretly know “when to stop” or something. It’s just because they’re lazy, or something?
Finally, in terms of long-term effects, going to church is probably not actually going to hurt you? At least not to the degree police abolition etc. might.
Haven’t read his book but have read enough of his tweets to understand what he’s getting at.
IMU, a belief is a “luxury” one if
Adhering to it is considered “harmful” to the individual/society (whether rightly or wrongly; Rob would say rightly, presumably)
Expressing support for the belief is “trendy,” manifesting in particular as the “high-class” people popularizing the belief
The proponent’s “class” allows them to avoid the consequences of the said belief held at scale, whereas the “regular” folk suffer
So, as an example, a “high-class” person comes out with a “hot take” like police abolition, which over time picks up steam and gains more support among the broader populace. When the consequences of higher crime rates hit, the broader populace suffers. But the “high-class” person, by virtue of living a life removed from crime’s consequences, avoids them. The high-class (unlike the “regular”) person could afford the belief; hence, it’s a luxury.
For an own-behavior-relating belief (so, think things like polyamory/drug use, not open borders/police abolition), the steps are similar except the “high class protecting the luxury believer” part takes the form of the “high class” person’s safety net, ability to delay gratification, “knowing when to stop,” etc. saving them from the negative consequences. Whereas someone poor and divorced from the tacit knowledge behind these behaviors (as elaborated on in more detail by Viliam) is more likely to suffer.
With this in mind, “classmate … a Republican oil tycoon who extolled the virtues of going to church but didn’t go himself” seems unrelated:
Attending the church isn’t (widely) considered harmful to the society in the US, I’d think, more like meh.
The tycoon’s avoidance of church themselves isn’t because they say it’s good but secretly know “when to stop” or something. It’s just because they’re lazy, or something?
Finally, in terms of long-term effects, going to church is probably not actually going to hurt you? At least not to the degree police abolition etc. might.