Instinctive anger at the wealthy and/or wealth contrasts

Mame wrote:

Why not have instinctive anger about other issues that are unfair, say, addiction? Are we going to get upset when we see a compulsive gambler gambling his life away sitting beside someone with piles of chips? What is the difference?

No big difference. All these things provoke a strong instinctive reaction in the observer, followed by the rational realization that people have a right to ruin their own lives with gambling and drugs.

Mame wrote:

And one more thing - everybody gets the same spin at the roulette wheel in life.

I doubt that. If somebody had given me a choice between being born in Germany and being born in Ethiopia, I wouldn't have taken a nanosecond to choose. Neither would you, I suspect. To stay with your metaphor, when you play the roulette game of life, your chances are vastly better if you're playing at the German, Canadian, and US American tables than if you're playing at the Ethiopian table. Everyone in this thread got a vastly better spin than the average person on this planet.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I don't get judging anyone by what they wear, their age, what they look like, their apparent display of emotion, or any other outward manifestation of their 'station' in life.

Would you concede that judging someone is a rational action? Would you concede that nobody in this thread is judging anyone? Some people simply have gut reactions that they quickly overcome -- as soon as their rationality kicks in, and long before they consciously judge someone.

JPB wrote:

Wanting to slap someone because they are young, well dressed, and seemingly happy is no different than wanting to slap them because they are in rags, down-trodden, and old. Would those of you who 'get' the anger also 'get' it if he was angry at the homeless man?

I would. I have had similar reactions myself, especially when there were unpleasant smells involved. Similarly to my reaction to rich neighborhoods, the displeasure was more aesthetic than ethic. And similarly to the reactions of Dianne, Eva, nimh, snood, and Sozobe, I overcome this gut reaction within a fraction of a second, as soon as the rational parts of my brain have booted up.

JPB wrote:

I simply don't 'get' being angered by a person's appearance.

That's fine. As Mame says, you don't have to get their reaction, to say nothing of having it. Nobody has demanded that you do.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Everyone in this thread got a vastly better spin than the average person on this planet.

Well, I don't see why the others would be anger at me for that...

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Everyone in this thread got a vastly better spin than the average person on this planet.

Well, I don't see why the others would be anger at me for that...

No problem -- you don't have to see it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
I don't get judging anyone by what they wear, their age, what they look like, their apparent display of emotion, or any other outward manifestation of their 'station' in life.

Would you concede that judging someone is a rational action? Would you concede that nobody in this thread is judging anyone? Some people simply have gut reactions that they quickly overcome -- as soon as their rationality kicks in, and long before they consciously judge someone.

No, No, and Yes, but some people simply have gut reactions that result in the judged needing to prove themselves as having been unjustly judged - including some examples in this thread.

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
Wanting to slap someone because they are young, well dressed, and seemingly happy is no different than wanting to slap them because they are in rags, down-trodden, and old. Would those of you who 'get' the anger also 'get' it if he was angry at the homeless man?

I would. I have had similar reactions myself, especially when there were unpleasant smells involved. Similarly to my reaction to rich neighborhoods, the displeasure was more aesthetic than ethic. And similarly to the reactions of Dianne, Eva, nimh, snood, and Sozobe, I overcome this gut reaction within a fraction of a second, as soon as the rational parts of my brain have booted up.

Thank you for your honesty in speaking for yourself. I'll let others do the same.

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
I simply don't 'get' being angered by a person's appearance.
That's fine. As Mame says, you don't have to get their reaction, to say nothing of having it. Nobody has demanded that you do.

Where is this coming from, Thomas? Who said anything about being demanded to understand the position? My response was to snood's statement of not 'getting' people who don't 'get' it.

I don't get "white trash" and I don't get "rich bitch/bastard" and I don't get "whitey" and I don't get "nigger" and I don't get lots of irrational thoughts that run through people's heads. I particularly don't get judging someone as somehow inferior to whatever reference standard one holds others up to and then giving them an opportunity to prove themselves worthy of association.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Wanting to slap someone because they are young, well dressed, and seemingly happy is no different than wanting to slap them because they are in rags, down-trodden, and old. Would those of you who 'get' the anger also 'get' it if he was angry at the homeless man?

I'd say the difference is in the trigger of the anger.

I think I must have repeated about a dozen times that of course, the young, wealthy couple hasnt done anything wrong. They were just lucky. I must also have repeated a dozen times that I dont actually know anything about them. They might have just gone through some horrible ordeal themselves, or have gotten where they are by unimaginable effort. Who knows. Not statistically likely, but still very possible.

So the anger is not about them - its about what they represent. And what they represent is an inequality that is beyond any degree that would be justified by a difference in effort or virtue or merit. No man is so much less worthy than another that he should live in such abject poverty compared to such resplendent prosperity. The externt of difference is simply, to me, unjust.

And that, of course, is what the anger is about. But since there is no three-headed creature called Capitalism walking the streets, the anger at the unfairness gets projected at those who represent it - those who, through luck and contexts of birth as much as any hard work and sincere effort, have ended up its beneficiaries.

(Because I do believe that, as even Thomas the libertarian pointed out ;-), the world we live in is one in which contexts of birth and luck always make up at least half of anything we can achieve. We do not all have the same spin at the roulette wheel in life. That's a fairy tale.)

But again, Ive said this already at length. The couple becomes, unreasonably, the object of the anger at the system that creates such inequality, because they seem, in that flash second, to embody it. That instinctual, visceral process of projection in turn may (or may not) itself be unfair to the couple in question - we dont know - but the anger at the inequality itself has a clear ratio, a reasonable enough motivation.

Now, in contrast, the alternative scenario you sketch, wherein one would want to slap those who are in rags, down-trodden, and old. What would that be about? Why would one want to do that? What ratio would be behind it? And thus - what would be comparable about it?

Katya8, in the beginning of this thread, suggested that my anger was displaced, because it was really about "the Romanie couple ... making [me] miserable with their miserable lives".

Well, if that is the comparison - wanting to slap the richer couple for appearing, in that passing moment, the embodiment of an equality that just seems wrong, or wanting to slap the poorer couple for, well, daring to infringe on my tranquility with their misery, than I wouldnt, definitely, see whats the same about the two things, or morally equivalent.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Where is this coming from, Thomas? Who said anything about being demanded to understand the position? My response was to snood's statement of not 'getting' people who don't 'get' it.

It is coming from my persistent perception throughout this thread that people are talking past each other. One set of posters is talking about gut reactions they observe in themselves. None of these posters claims that these reactions are in any way praiseworthy, just, or even understandable. Nimh summed it up well in his first post: "So to any standard of rationality, my instinctive agression [...] was completely unreasonable. But it was very real, and certainly not for the first time."

In response to these self-observations, a second set of posters took exception to the gut reactions reported by the first set. I won't repeat their posts verbatim. But the gist of their opposition seemed to be that instinctive anger at rich people is unjust, unreasonable, and hard to understand. This is true -- and it's what the first set of posters has beeb saying all along! The irrationality of the gut reaction, and the weird fact that some of us are having it anyway, is what caused nimh to start this thread in the first place.

And this, to answer your question, is where this is coming from. When poster A says "I have this reflex I don't understand -- can you help me make sense of it?", and poster B answers "This is mind-boggling! I can't understand why you would have such a reflex!", then poster B has missed poster A's point. Nobody ever expected poster B to understand the reflex, as poster A doesn't understand his own reflex either. Indeed, poster A started a thread to explore his hard-to-understand reflex.

This persistent pattern of talking past one another frustrates me. If my frustration has caused me to overreact to your post -- which it may well have -- I'm sorry.

0 Replies

Re: Instinctive anger at the wealthy and/or wealth contrasts

nimh wrote:

...For one, instinctive, transient moment, I felt so angry, I wanted to slap them. Seriously - my instinct, that passing half-second, was to slap both of their faces.

Why? To slap the smile off their happy faces? To bring them down a peg or two and give them a feeling of misery? This is the part I don't get most of all, nimh. Why would someone want to slap someone else simply because they give an appearance of representing something you disapprove of?

0 Replies

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...and thanks again to nimh for a thread that has ended up being instructive in a few ways. Your launch thread was a self-revelation that plainly stated a gut human reaction in a way that IMO anyone being honest should recognize. To me, it's sort of similar to what a person who struggles with weight must feel when regarding for the umpteenth time another teensy model type with another snotty attitude.

snood - please read the description from nimh's first post of the young couple and then point out to me where anything in this description infers an unacceptable attitude.

nimh wrote:

I got on my bicycle turning the corner, and around it, down the pavement, came approaching a handsome, young couple. Boy, girl. Late twenties. He in a sharply-cut but sportive white shirt, tailored to his fitnessed body. She in a fashionable dress, or perhaps it was shirt and skirt, a hip haircut. Both looking healthy, resplendently self-confident, clearly prosperous. Designer shades on the both of 'em.

There are a number of posts in this thread that indicate one's appearance automatically infers an arrogance or other undesirable attitude. If the feeling was based on an outward display of arrogance or superiority, then I would have an easier time of understanding the premise here. It shocks me that someone walking down the street, minding their own business, is judged as representing what's wrong with the world simply because of a smile, their clothes or accessories, or their age.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

So the anger is not about them - its about what they represent.

I do get that part nimh.

Problem is, it's them who gets the brunt of someone anger (if they choose to express it), not what they represent.

I think for some people, there is a stereotype to being poor or being rich (all comparative of course)

If you were a different person nimh, and felt that anger, you would have expressed it toward the actual people standing there, not the concept of unfairness.
Sure, someone could seethe and express anger at unfairness of it all....but more than likely, they will express their anger at the person.

This feels like a stereotype, prejudice toward a group of people, just like any other.

What has been expressed as far as a gut reaction to the young couple, the woman with big hair and diamonds, the person with the yacht, etc is initially directed Right Toward The Individual. It is only after some thought that it is redirected to its more proper point, the system, or whatever, that creates this.

Yes, yes, and yet again yes, I "get" the anger at the unfairness and the disparity. But that doesn't help the big hair woman who is considered a snob even if you've never talked to her. It doesn't help the couple that unwittingly had your anger directed at them for a time. True, you didn't say anything to them, but you, or someone could have.

JPB has already said what I feel. It's like you can feel badly for a poor person, but if something happened to the big hair woman, or the couple, nothing horrible, but just something publicly embarrassing or just somewhat unfortunate, you might feel, "yeah, good, that'll show them, rich snob, probably doesn't know what it feels like to have something like that happen to them. You nimh, would realize that's not true, but how many will believe that, and worse? Not everyone is as thoughtful as you.

In my younger years, there have been times I felt like I had to apologize for being born into a family that had money. "I'm sorry my parents are rich, but really, I'm not like them" The people I felt that way around were those who expected me to be a certain way, just as other here have expressed they've felt that way to people they precieve to be rich.

What it boils down to is that it's no different from anger toward any group of people, because of their color, religion, politics, etc.

I know that sounds funny, "the poor downtrodden rich", of course that's not what I'm saying, but those who expressed their anger toward individuals are doing the same thing as looking at a black person, and feeling anger toward every black.

0 Replies

Re: Instinctive anger at the wealthy and/or wealth contrasts

JPB wrote:

nimh wrote:
...For one, instinctive, transient moment, I felt so angry, I wanted to slap them. Seriously - my instinct, that passing half-second, was to slap both of their faces.

Why? To slap the smile off their happy faces? To bring them down a peg or two and give them a feeling of misery? This is the part I don't get most of all, nimh.

I just wrote:

Quote:

the anger is not about them - its about what they represent. And what they represent is an inequality that is beyond any degree that would be justified by a difference in effort or virtue or merit. No man is so much less worthy than another that he should live in such abject poverty compared to such resplendent prosperity. The externt of difference is simply, to me, unjust.

And that, of course, is what the anger is about. But since there is no three-headed creature called Capitalism walking the streets, the anger at the unfairness gets projected at those who represent it - those who, through luck and contexts of birth as much as any hard work and sincere effort, have ended up its beneficiaries.

I dont really know how to rephrase this anymore.. said it in a lot of different ways already. I wouldnt ever actually slap or even say anything unpleasant to these two young people in actuality of course - wouldnt even want to, for longer than an unreasoned split second. Because reason does obviously kick in after about half a second, reminding me that these young people have themselves done nothing wrong whatsoever, and there is no reason to be angry at them, personally, at all. (Thats why I'd be a bad revolutionary ;-))

(Once you talk with them and if and when they turn out to be like Soz described some wealthy people to be - unaware, kinda - its a different matter, to some extent - that causes an annoyance of its own, but thats a different subject. These two, as of that moment, did not of course deserve to be slapped or even slighted in any way.)

Yet, yes, the source of the anger itself I think is justified enough. So there is a displacement - or projection, rather - going on, just not the one that Katya8 suggested. The anger is at the injustice of a system that allows people to face such contrasting fates - and it is projected upon those who are its beneficiaries.

Like - I dunno - lets pick an example drastic enough to be immediately clear - if you would have walked onto a slave farm in the South as a white person, there would have been some displaced anger directed at you, as a white person, even if you were in fact an equal rights liberal. Once they'd find out, they might have embraced you, but at first sight, your reception would have been hostile. I think that would be understandable to all of us.

Meanwhile, you didnt answer my question:

Quote:

Now, in contrast, the alternative scenario you sketch, wherein one would want to slap those who are in rags, down-trodden, and old. What would that be about? Why would one want to do that? What ratio would be behind it? And thus - what would be comparable about it?

0 Replies

I think Habibi is getting hammered here for having displayed a commendable honesty. He hasn't said or even implied that his angry reaction was justified, or that it had a rational basis. He just had the honesty to acknowledge that he had the reaction, and wanted to discuss that.

This is an interesting thread, but the attempts to get him to justify his reactino are getting tedious.

0 Replies

It amazes me that more people here have suggested bringing the yuppie couple down to a level closer to the poor drunk arguing couple than bringing the poor drunk arguing couple up to the level of the yuppies. Fairness by the lowest common denominator.

I understand that is not nihm's initial reaction or point of this thread but I thought I'd say it anyway.

As far as nihm's comments... I guess I can understand where that anger came from. I don't know if I have ever gone so far as wanting to slap somebody just for looking well off, but I have certainly gotten upset at people who have acted well off and looked down at others less fortunate. I also get mad whenever I hear of athletes holding out complaining that $7 mil a year isn't enough and they won't play unless it is $7.5 a year. I got extremely upset when Circuit City fired it's higher paid workers to save money but pay their CEO $2,437,500 in salary and bonus.

I guess what I am saying is that I understand where the anger came from and there are certainly instances where the anger is justified, but the overall tone of this thread (and maybe a little class envy) is a little shocking to me.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I think Habibi is getting hammered here for having displayed a commendable honesty. He hasn't said or even implied that his angry reaction was justified, or that it had a rational basis. He just had the honesty to acknowledge that he had the reaction, and wanted to discuss that.

This is an interesting thread, but the attempts to get him to justify his reactino are getting tedious.

Thank you for speaking my mind, Setanta.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

It shocks me that someone walking down the street, minding their own business, is judged as representing what's wrong with the world simply because of a smile, their clothes or accessories

Well, but at some basic level our position in life - nothing we do, just the circumstances we've gotten the chance to live in - do represent how the world works, what the system's like, including its ills.

To again reach for an example that is a little more drastic and so perhaps easier to understand, there's what Thomas said a while ago. As Dutchman, German, American, we have been simply lucky - lucky to be born into the winning side of the system. Someone born as an Ethiopian, no matter how smart, talented, virtuous and hard-working, has about 0,1% as much chance to reach the prosperity we get to enjoy simply by doing our day-to-day tasks.

What that implies is that we do, at some level, represent "the ills of the world" simply by walking down our street in our well-cut clothes or driving our car or going on holidays. Its nothing we individually are responsible for - nothing we did - but the fact that we can enjoy all of those things as pretty much a given as long as you do your job right, while someone born in another part of the world could not hope for any of it but for a enormous chance of luck - that fact is an injustice, and so we do represent that injustice just by ... evidencing it, yeah.

We do represent (not "cause", or "exacerbate", but represent) that particular ill in the world by just walking down the street with our clothes and accessories. And if I were a Somalian refugee, looking at all of us enjoying our wealth like its the most logical, normal thing of the world, I'd be angry - just angry at the unfairness of it. Well, I'm not a Somali refugee and I obviously am sometimes.

OK, now I'm going in circles I think.

0 Replies

...and at this point those who don't understand your reaction or appreciate your effort in expressing it probably won't ever, so don't beat your head...

0 Replies

Eva wrote:

I find it very interesting that this has led to a discussion of where we place ourselves on the economic spectrum, and where we have been previously. I've been rich enough that I've worn diamonds and metallic gold eyeshadow, and I've been so poor I had to steal crackers and ketchup packets from salad bars in order to eat. I've seen both sides, like several of you. I wonder if coming to grips with our own change in status has anything to do with our reactions.

ditto, and having been judged as an inferior representative to humanity on both ends of the spectrum simply based on the appearance of status (or lack thereof) I need to step back from this thread.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

He just had the honesty to acknowledge that he had the reaction, and wanted to discuss that.

This is an interesting thread, but the attempts to get him to justify his reactino are getting tedious.

Ok, he's acknowledged it, so noted, we've discussed, alot.

I can speak to others, but I'm not trying to get him or anyone to justify any reactions, but....we have discussed, so.....what next?

It's not money we are really talking about. It's power.

Rich over poor
Abusive over abused
Educated over uneducated
And a million other examples.

Where are we going to go next?

Instinctive anger at the wealthy and/or wealth contrasts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know