I don’t ask but it comes up. Certain occupations have corresponding values, that align with “cooperate” or “defect” strategies. For example, scientists “cooperate”, while criminals and finance guys “defect” whenever they think it’ll be profitable.
I notice you are using shaming language. I realize my beliefs are unusual but I am not clear what your question means.
For example, scientists “cooperate”, while criminals and finance guys “defect” whenever they think it’ll be profitable.
I think that’s a picture of the world that’s crude enough to be unusable.
I notice you are using shaming language.
Not quite, I don’t shame people, but I do find your attutude unusual. What it maps to for me is the concept of a class enemy. A nice proletarian girl isn’t supposed to sleep with a bourgeious man, that makes her worse than a slut—that makes her a traitor. And the thing about class enemies, you don’t care about who they personally are, you just label them by class (e.g. “an actual Owner”). I’m somewhat surprised to find this attitude on the ’net in 2016.
A nice proletarian girl isn’t supposed to sleep with a bourgeoise man, that makes her worse than a slut—that makes her a traitor.
If she can get a bourgeoise man to marry her, good for her. But chances are she won’t, and she will never tell the proletarian man she ends up marrying about her past with the bourgeoisie man. This causes the proletarian man to suffer increased health risks.
I’m somewhat surprised to find this attitude on the ’net in 2016.
If she can get a bourgeoise man to marry her, good for her.
Heh. “My sister got lucky, married a yuppie...” :-) But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she’s a proletarian and the about that man is that he’s bourgeoisie.
This is liberal shaming language.
I do not intend to shame. How do you think I can express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?
But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she’s a proletarian and the about that man is that he’s bourgeoisie.
Yes. Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.
express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?
Your surprise implies criticism. I assume you believe “it’s dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it’s especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people”. I appreciate the criticism, though I imagine you find my beliefs repugnant.
Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.
Sometimes. And sometimes it will lead you astray. Especially if your classification scheme is… suspect.
Your surprise implies criticism.
Why? I am surprised at a lot of things, finding something unexpected and finding something worthy of criticism are orthogonal things.
I assume you believe “it’s dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it’s especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people”.
I am sorry to disappoint you, I believe no such thing. Nothing even close to that.
As I mentioned, I associate your approach with the idea of a “class enemy”. This comes straight out of Marxism and was a popular approach around the turn of the century—the XX century, so more than a hundred years ago.
Marxism (and in particular the whole idea that social interactions are defined by the class struggle) has been pretty much discredited by now. Outside of some diehard pockets (in academia and hard-left organizations) no one really tries to claim that the class struggle is what drives social relationships. LW isn’t particularly Marxist, either.
So that’s why I was surprised to see what to me is an old and unpopular idea here—and moreover, see it applied to a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, not even to employment or something like that.
I was explaining my surprise, not arguing the content, but do you want me to argue against the the claim that the class struggle is the main driver behind social organization and social relationships? I think it’s a well-trodden ground.
On the basic level, the Marxist approach lacks explanatory power and makes wrong predictions.
“Being surprised” is privileging your own beliefs over others.
Denying the realities of class doesn’t make them go away. Your beliefs are the map, but the terrterritory includes rich people who own the brands that own your mind.
“Being surprised” is privileging your own beliefs over others.
What?? Sense makes not.
Surprise is the sensation you get when you prior beliefs (even if weak) were overturned or at least contradicted by empirical evidence. How is that “privileging your own beliefs”?
Besides, I certainly privilege my own beliefs over beliefs of other people. I don’t know how one can function otherwise.
rich people who own the brands that own your mind
No they don’t. I’m quite sure that my mind isn’t owned by any brands (among other things I actively dislike advertising).
You ask your girlfriends about the sociopolitical values of their exes? 8-0
I don’t ask but it comes up. Certain occupations have corresponding values, that align with “cooperate” or “defect” strategies. For example, scientists “cooperate”, while criminals and finance guys “defect” whenever they think it’ll be profitable.
I notice you are using shaming language. I realize my beliefs are unusual but I am not clear what your question means.
I think that’s a picture of the world that’s crude enough to be unusable.
Not quite, I don’t shame people, but I do find your attutude unusual. What it maps to for me is the concept of a class enemy. A nice proletarian girl isn’t supposed to sleep with a bourgeious man, that makes her worse than a slut—that makes her a traitor. And the thing about class enemies, you don’t care about who they personally are, you just label them by class (e.g. “an actual Owner”). I’m somewhat surprised to find this attitude on the ’net in 2016.
If she can get a bourgeoise man to marry her, good for her. But chances are she won’t, and she will never tell the proletarian man she ends up marrying about her past with the bourgeoisie man. This causes the proletarian man to suffer increased health risks.
This is liberal shaming language.
Heh. “My sister got lucky, married a yuppie...” :-) But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she’s a proletarian and the about that man is that he’s bourgeoisie.
I do not intend to shame. How do you think I can express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?
Yes. Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.
Your surprise implies criticism. I assume you believe “it’s dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it’s especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people”. I appreciate the criticism, though I imagine you find my beliefs repugnant.
Sometimes. And sometimes it will lead you astray. Especially if your classification scheme is… suspect.
Why? I am surprised at a lot of things, finding something unexpected and finding something worthy of criticism are orthogonal things.
I am sorry to disappoint you, I believe no such thing. Nothing even close to that.
I don’t follow what about my beliefs is surprising to you, then.
As I mentioned, I associate your approach with the idea of a “class enemy”. This comes straight out of Marxism and was a popular approach around the turn of the century—the XX century, so more than a hundred years ago.
Marxism (and in particular the whole idea that social interactions are defined by the class struggle) has been pretty much discredited by now. Outside of some diehard pockets (in academia and hard-left organizations) no one really tries to claim that the class struggle is what drives social relationships. LW isn’t particularly Marxist, either.
So that’s why I was surprised to see what to me is an old and unpopular idea here—and moreover, see it applied to a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, not even to employment or something like that.
Can you argue the content? “Old” and “unpopular” are weak refutations.
Classism is part of current politics, as well as my personal experience.
I was explaining my surprise, not arguing the content, but do you want me to argue against the the claim that the class struggle is the main driver behind social organization and social relationships? I think it’s a well-trodden ground.
On the basic level, the Marxist approach lacks explanatory power and makes wrong predictions.
“Being surprised” is privileging your own beliefs over others.
Denying the realities of class doesn’t make them go away. Your beliefs are the map, but the terrterritory includes rich people who own the brands that own your mind.
What?? Sense makes not.
Surprise is the sensation you get when you prior beliefs (even if weak) were overturned or at least contradicted by empirical evidence. How is that “privileging your own beliefs”?
Besides, I certainly privilege my own beliefs over beliefs of other people. I don’t know how one can function otherwise.
No they don’t. I’m quite sure that my mind isn’t owned by any brands (among other things I actively dislike advertising).
You’re still doing it. Surprise + shaming instead of argument.
Nope. But it seems we’ve gone full circle.