Quick Note: Double Standards
February 28th, 2009
Why is it “class warfare” only when you’re asking wealthy people to burden the load, and not when you’re asking poor people to?
Why is it “class warfare” only when you’re asking wealthy people to burden the load, and not when you’re asking poor people to?
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
« Jan | ||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 | 31 |
All original content on this site is owned by and copyrighted by the author. If you wish to reproduce beyond Fair Use provisions, you must leave a comment and ask for permission.
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
I’m not sure if you mean that as a rhetorical question, and I can’t speak for the folks who think that way, but my guess would be that they feel that the poor bearing the burden of their poverty (note the framing and assumptions) is the natural order of things, whereas seeking to change that is a form of warfare. Admittedly, that may be meeting them more than halfway, but I think it has a lot to do with seeing wealth as a moral rather than practical issue. If people are rich or poor because they’ve been good or bad, then making any changes to that situation would be unjust.
Because the wealthy people own the means of mass communication.
morgannels: Sorry for the late response, doing some catch-up here. You bring up an important point that recurs often: what is to be considered the “natural” order? In the smoking/no smoking debate, non-smokers see clean air as the natural order, which smokers see freedom to act as the natural order. In the religion-in-public-affairs debate, same thing–different sides see different “natural” starting points. And that may reflect on how disagreements and divergent opinions often begin.