#wealth discourse

[gothamspring]

if the people who debate over the whole batman vs red hood ideological differences knew even the first thing about anarchist philosophy my life would be so much easier. we could be skipping so many steps.

[philosophybits]

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying “this is mine”, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality

[cometrose]

Queen of Tears is so interesting cause i've never dealt with two really complex leads like this in romcom (i mean it is funny)

i've said it before but Haein and Hyunwoo know each other very well but don't know each other at all (i don't know if i've ever seen communication issues this bad).

Losing the baby clearly drove them apart. She blamed herself and put up high walls. He wears his heart on his sleeve and cried over it. We can argue that he should've comforted her in that moment but at the same time she clearly knew he was upset so why didn't she go to him? Haein thought she had no right to grieve and consequently Hyunwoo thought she didn't grieve at all. The moment where they needed each other more than ever- the moment they should've been together they both fucked up.

The core of the issue is that they can't read each other's mind, this is literally said at the beginning of 6- they love each other dearly but also tripping over each in the process.

Outside of Hyunwoo jumping up and down at her diagnosis and faking his way into her will (which was painfully cruel and soooo funny) It's very clear that this is a two person game. Although I always interpreted Hyunwoo's joy as the same as the mistress of a wealthy man who is just waiting for him to die so she can get the money, (it's mean but most times the master either sucks or he's naive as hell and she has no reason to mourn) and at that point Hyunwoo's in the same situation.

Why didn't Haein defend him in front of her relatives? Why scold him publicly in front of the employees? She does a lot of things behind the scenes but good intentions can only go so far if object of those affections is ignorant of the full story. The same thing happens in episode 6, she is trying to protect Hyunwoo from her family but without telling him so he is ignorant of the big picture. Why wasn't Hyunwoo honest with his feelings? Why is he always assuming the worst when she never explicitly says something? We see he tries to talk to her (it fails) but his fear of upsetting her leads him to do otherwise cruel things to keep her happy.

Which is also why the divorce paper is so interesting. That paper was one of the best things he’s done. He was completely justified in writing that. It breaks Haein's heart but severing ties like that was way healthier than him forcing himself to stay in this marriage and pamper her with fake love.

One thing I will admire this piece for is the role reversal, like i'm seeing so many typical fl tropes on Hyunwoo and ml tropes on Haein. You ever read one those isekai or time reverse manwha's were the fl goes back in time to get a divorce but falls in love with her partner again? yeah this is the same exact thing.

[divinekangaroo]

falling - pettiot - Peaky Blinders (TV) [Archive of Our Own]

PART ONE - DAY ONE

Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9

PART TWO - MONTH ONE (Or Maybe Month Two, Or Three)

Ch 10 | Ch 11 | Ch 12 | Ch 13 | Ch 14 | Ch 15 | Ch 16 | Ch 17 | Ch 18

PART THREE - A YEAR (Or So)

Ch 19 | Ch 20 | Ch 21 | Ch 22 | Ch 23 | Ch 24 | ??

A Modern AU take on Tommy's immediate return from military service, and the period between his demobilisation and the start of S1.

(Tags shall be progressively updated)

.

Tommy Shelby/Lizzie Stark, Tommy Shelby/Freddie Thorne, Arthur Shelby, Polly Grey, Ada Shelby, John Shelby, Johnny Dogs, Various Lees, John Shelby's Children, Zhang, S1E1 Red Dust Girl, Sergeant Moss | Alternative Universe, Modern AU (ish), No iPhones (yet), Awkwardness, Age Difference, Disassociation, Miscommunication, Banter, Fast Food Vendor of your Choice, Pre-Season, Past Trauma, Flirting, Have I Met You Before, Heckling, Cars, Drug Use, Past Childhood Trauma, Mrs Shelby Lives, Gender Role Dynamics, Small Neighbourhoods, Past Greta Jurossi, Brotherly Dynamics, Sibling Dynamics, Class Issues, Attraction, Casual Sex, Car Sex, Military Transition Program, Wilful Medical Noncompliance, Melodrama, Illegal Bookmaking, 90s Fashion, 2000s Fashion, Slow Reveal, Slow Burn, Coming Home, Dysfunctional Family, Lasting Legacy of Catholicism, Bad SMS Etiquette, Gang Activity, Domesticity, Booty Call, Guilt, Shame, So Much Marijuana, Arms Dealing, Crimes & Criminals, Ill Informed Economic Theorising, Wanking, Ethnicity, Stereotyping

.

[prolibytherium]

The assumption that modern (read: abstract) artists are all or mostly rich people whose wealth, free time, and social mobility is solely responsible for allowing them to paint Line On Canvas or etc and therefore the "I could do that" sentiment is like rooted in class struggle or whatever is funny to me

I don't disagree that part of the "I could do that" impulse is sometimes about seeing the (TINY minority) of that art that actually sells for more money than you make in a year, having the impression that it's low effort low skill garbage, and feeling frustration in that, but it's just not accurate to think modern (abstract, which is what people mean) art is Like That in any capacity that any other art form is not

[lacewise]

Any understanding of class that derives from mid-20th century Britain, United States, or Canada is probably wrong. And that’s a problem because that’s where most people get their ideas about class.

If you look further back, middle housing (townhomes, condos, apartments, triplexes, quadplexes, etc) are where the middle class historically found themselves living (usually, there are exceptions). Suburbs are mostly new and they are extremely wasteful. The idea that people lived in single family homes or even semi-detached housing with large green outdoor spaces (as opposed to shared courtyards) just strikes me as very, very silly and very, very American.

A better, more honest, more accurate description of the decline of the middle class is not just the disappearance of middle housing—it’s how much middle housing has deteriorated qualitatively. We no longer consider that apartments can be big enough to raise families in. Nor do we consider that they should be well-made enough to hold up to decades of uninterrupted housing.

“Luxury” condos have nothing on early-20th brownstones of the working class. And that’s the problem.

I am having trouble reconciling the same people who rightly said that density over space are now claiming that the birthright of the middle class is the ownership of implied single family homes, presumably with spacious yards. No.

There is no class worth establishing that pines for the trappings of the rich. And there’s no need to establish it anyway, it already exists. That’s the upper middle class.

I cannot believe people are saying that waste is the only sign of being middle class that matters again. But, what’s worse, I can believe people are buying it.

Anyone who says that is no better than the TikTokers who insist that $500 Shein hauls are a necessity and excess clothing (to the point of never wearing the same outfit twice) is a human right.

[artist-issues]

I got blocked. People tend to do that after a while of engaging someone they don't agree with. But I think this topic is too important to let pass by. Here's the response I was typing before the blocking got the post deleted out from under me:

Please read this: I am not denying the facts that some people are racist. I am also not denying the fact that you, or racist people, or people in general, all feel things about one another (sometimes, things specifically about our worth and value) thanks to "people with certain character traits represented on a screen."

Again: I am not denying the above statements.

What I am doing is calling out the fact that "people with certain character traits represented on a screen" should not affect how humans view one another's value. At all.

I am saying, the fact that we, as a culture, ever got to the place where "being up on screen", or "being portrayed a certain way up on screen," or "HAVING A CERTAIN COLOR OF SKIN" = "you have value or exist," WAS ALWAYS. WRONG.

That was always the problem.

You certainly can't make it right with the same type of thinking. You can't heal a cannonball wound by shooting a different style of cannonball into it.

[arriving-at-new-equilibrium]

Say a rich person and their poor friend go out to dinner together. They order about the same cost in food.

Many people seem to intuit that, when the check comes around, the rich person should cover more than half because dollars matter less to the rich person. People want both participants to take about the same “hit” to their well-being from going out to dinner together.

If this is your reasoning, then if the rich and poor person go into business together you should favor giving the rich person more than half the profits.

It takes more dollars per unit of life improvement for the rich person than the poor person, so if your notion of fairness is “all participants get the same life improvement”, you’ll need to spend most of the profits on the rich person.

[mulaplateada]

you know, just from an argumentative and logical stand point the "but, poor people in the US don't have any choice but joining the military to get healthcare/college education/other benefits" kind of contradicts the "but, US citizens don't benefit from imperialism"

[wileycap]

I have an unrealistic dream and it is that every single worker would just stop serving rich people. I mean anything. Literally anything. A bus ticket? Nah. A yacht? Nah. Nothing. Nada.

I don't mean "has 1 million in an index fund after 40 years of working" rich, or anything like that.

I mean the billionaires.

What, you want champagne, Bezos? Better learn to grow grapes! And also better get some grape seeds from out in the wild, foraging for them like a goblin, 'cause nobody's selling to you!

Want some steaks, Musk? Whoo, look who's going to go domesticate some wild cows!

Want your McDonalds, Buffett? Better fire up the grill and buy some hamburgers from Mr Musk, if he's managed to get any cows! And don't forget that nobody's going to sell you gas for your grill!

The impact on global economy would be negligible. It's like a couple of thousand of people. But the impact for these people, to become completely cut off in a flash, would be ginormous. It would perfectly illustrate what we all know: we do not need them, but they sure need us.

Anyways. It's late and I've just got the midnight munchies... for the flesh of the rich.

[irnhero]

.

[lonniemachin]

who remembers Kropotkin Wept

[here-there-were-dragons]

snappers use gastroliths i think

[florallychaotic]

Gotta love how as soon as tumblr figured out class consciousness 101, suddenly you can't call someone who makes more than double the average income for your area "rich" without someone being like "um actually we need to focus on the multi millionaires and billionares" like yeah no shit, I'm not including someone who makes 150k USD in my area as part of "eat the rich" but they ARE making three times to average income for my area, therefore they are rich!

Im willing to suspect it's because a lot of people don't want to acknowledge some small privilege they had growing up, because they are fundamentally incapable of believing you can support a cause (ie, the improving of conditions for the lower class) without necessarily being a part of it.

I dont care that "middle class should mean being able to do xyz", it doesn't anymore, it hasn't for a while, and these people need to not take it so personally when someone calls them (or more likely their family/parents) rich, because unless they're a millionaire who made their money through capital investments, they're fucking fine

[r0semultiverse]

Genuinely I'd have so many hot takes & things I wanna talk about if we weren't in an age of AI site moderation & invisible account strikes. We live in an age where if you don't have clout & someone buys social bots off some guy to mass report your accounts with, they can just get away with that and not enough care will be given to say someone with 300 followers all because you pissed off one right-winger or centrist liberal. That person just gets silenced with no account reinstatement. Also who decided that account strikes aren't viewable to begin with? Shit site design if you ask me, on all fronts! This has been an issue since YouTube changed it's shit early on. I swear you used to be able to see how many reports your account had back in the old days. These days it's just showing if you got copyright strikes or are eligible for monetization.

[rodaportal]

Capitalism to Techno-Feudalism: The Evolution of Economic Systems

🌟 Dive into the intriguing world of economic evolution with our latest video "Capitalism to Techno-Feudalism: The Evolution of Economic Systems"! 🚀 Join us as we explore the rise of tech giants, wealth inequality, and strategies for navigating this digital landscape. Featuring insights from renowned economist Yanis Varoufakis.

Watch now: