Elitism, clarse and all that...

[Borg Refinery]

When you give replies in this way it is very difficult to reply as there is no coherent thread through your post. I have never been accused of whataboutery before that seems like a bit of a get out on your part. Perhaps you couldn't find an argument. Is it a word?

No sorry, but it sounds like you have run out of one.  :-P



I am simply replying to your points on their individual bases. What's so bad about that? You are clearly taking it very personally, not sure why as I actually agree with what is, arguably, your main point about paths in life and ways to happiness? 🤔 You were indeed engaging in whataboutery; you said "what about the sociakists who are xxxxx".

The socialist argument falls so short.

Ok Toots, but I'm not really a socialist, you saw me explain my political ideology to Deppity earlier; within such a world, my own type of society would ideally resemble something like an Orthodox monastery.



Now I don't expect anyone else to live like that if they don't want it, but I want a society like that for myself and others who desire it -- but I'm not ascetic enough to be a monk, but a society that aspires to that? Yes.



And equally, I want you to live under a different, seperate type of society that you like. If you want Etonian privilege and Tebbit/Thatcher values then I'm not putting it down, you should be free to live as you wish. I only say these things within the context of current society which as you said, is pretty awful with politicians failing left, right and centr -- while practically no-one is satisfied or getting what they want.

[papasmurf]

There's one issue which gets to the heart of it. One of the earliest reinforcements of class, as I remember anyway, was the concept of owning your own home - where I grew up, most people simply didn't. In the early 80s, Thatch came up with the "right to buy" scheme for council house tenants - we lived in one (or least, my family still did because I left in 1979)

It does get to the heart of it. Back in the 1950s only two of my around 160 relatives owned their own home. Currently only one of my relatives lives in a rented home.

However nationally home ownership from its peak of 73% a decade or so ago has dropped to around 68% and still falling.

Currently few young people stand a chance of owning their own home unless someone in their family carks it and leaves them one.

[T00ts]

Given some of the products of Eton are well spoken but stupid and also in government, your argument seem to be a bit flawed.

That's ridiculous. Eton has one of the best educations available in this country. It is so well thought of people come from abroad for it. My grandson will be at Eton this year virus permitting. My SIL is an old Etonian as are 5 generations before him. Every boy there has the same two choices as your average Comprehensive pupil. Get on and work hard or don't. The tendency is to put some effort in because you are only too aware of the £££££££ your parents are forking out and going without to do it. By the same token every Comprehensive pupil has the same choice about being in Parliament. If he has the ability and the guts there is no reason why he shouldn't be in Westminster as is proved by most of those on the green benches. If you were in Parliament and called to be PM and you had oppos from your school or university days around and you knew their capabilities you would have them where you could see/use them.



It is choice Pappy. I guess that you chose who you are, I certainly did. I was born into a staunch Labour voting family. It was assumed I would follow suit. I had these same arguments for years as I saw the light and changed my allegiance. If you want ticky tacky people in ticky tacky boxes then shove them all down the same route. Don't give anyone choices then you'll get rows and rows of little people with little minds in little houses with little aims and hope and little self respect. Nothing is perfect but nothing is as imperfect as Socialism.

[DeppityDawg]

There's one issue which gets to the heart of it. One of the earliest reinforcements of class, as I remember anyway, was the concept of owning your own home - where I grew up, most people simply didn't. In the early 80s, Thatch came up with the "right to buy" scheme for council house tenants - we lived in one (or least, my family still did because I left in 1979)



I remember being home on leave one time, and my older sister trying to convince my mum she should buy the home - I was sceptical myself I remember. I don't know why but I had it in my head, like her, that people like us didn't own houses. Apart from anything else, the property wasn't great and the area was, well, Southmeads, a shitehole. She wasn't having it anyway - it simply didn't occur to her either that she could own a home, she was scared of having the responsibility and she didn't understand mortgages. My sisters were keen for her to buy it, especially my oldest one. But my mum never did end up buying it, even with the discount she would have got.



That aside, I know its a divided issue. Was Thatch a genius who realised that by selling off the state housing stock she'd get rid of a financial burden from local authorities, and at the same time satisfy a deep desire among many working class people to own their own home? Or was she a vandal who cashed in on an asset for ruthless reasons and ended up creating a house inflation bubble we still have and a housing shortage? I don't think it can be denied that people, working class people, "aspiring" ones anyway, generally want to own their own homes now. Funny that even though I would later get to associating getting out of that shite with owning my own home, but that I can even remember thinking people like "us" didn't own homes - maybe that was negative reinforcement. I don't know.

[papasmurf]

 Comprehensive education is an example. In the end everyone achieves a level of mediocrity, but of course they are not allowed to really experience that until they finally arrive in the real world and find they are not as good as they thought. Often then they spend the rest of their lives trying to tear down the competition.

Given some of the products of Eton are well spoken but stupid and also in government, your argument seem to be a bit flawed.

[cromwell]

Aren't we forgetting something? Surely we can't dismiss choice. Our upbringing doesn't have to determine who we are. Class is irrelevant. It is our choice which side of the tracks we end up on. It is our choice if we become layabouts, husband or wife beaters, alcoholics etc. We determine who we are and  how we behave and what life choices we make. There are enough examples of people who have been given every advantage in life and they still go off the rails in one way or another. The decision to be an upright citizen who contributes to society at whatever level is more personal choice than anything else. Handouts are not going to change that. People are not all the same and too much is made of academic success when perhaps character is more important. I can't help but feel that there is a social laziness that continues trying to make one size fit all.

got it in one  :hattip

[T00ts]

You said "class is irrelevant" and made out that it determines nothing, which simply isn't true.



 



You can have an opinion, and equally, I can criticize it. I do view his rhetoric as harsh and rather unfair given the sort of society he and his cohorts created.



 



Good point, we agree then.







That's actually verbatim a Republican quote from the 1920's. As you say, it is very harsh and certainly akin to the values of societies from the 1920's and 30's. Do you view them as preferable? I don't. I don't think most people would enjoy living through it, nor do they understand how rough it would be.



We are headed fir the worst recession since 1707 so everyone may yet find out...



 



Yet, you conceded there are winding pathes to success earlier.







That is a common deflective argument, but it doesn't really address the earlier questions or points, it is a form of inapplicable whataboutery.

When you give replies in this way it is very difficult to reply as there is no coherent thread through your post. I have never been accused of whataboutery before that seems like a bit of a get out on your part. Perhaps you couldn't find an argument. Is it a word?



The socialist argument falls so short. It tends to pander to the middle ground and leaves the talented to fend for themselves and dispenses with the less able by just dropping them out on a social cushion which of course is never sufficient and removes self respect. Society as a whole is diminished because the jealousy of the middle rank performers  is often too large to allow superior achievement. Hence the mantra of 'for the many not the few'. Comprehensive education is an example. In the end everyone achieves a level of mediocrity, but of course they are not allowed to really experience that until they finally arrive in the real world and find they are not as good as they thought. Often then they spend the rest of their lives trying to tear down the competition.

[papasmurf]

No reason to resent them though, IF they're nice and non-judgemental and not into looking down on others, and I have met some who are pretty nice.



There are others who are not so nice...

There is when their families have never paid any tax.

[Borg Refinery]

Actually most most of the few people who are in the "generations of people who have never worked," are in the aristocracy and "old money" families.

Now there really are some bone idle people there.

No reason to resent them though, IF they're nice and non-judgemental and not into looking down on others, and I have met some who are pretty nice.



There are others who are not so nice...

[Borg Refinery]

I don't understand why the old boy's club is even part of the discussion. Why would you bring Norman Tebbit into it?

You said "class is irrelevant" and made out that it determines nothing, which simply isn't true.

Is that supposed to be a criticism? Am I not able to have an opinion unattached to someone you dislike?

You can have an opinion, and equally, I can criticize it. I do view his rhetoric as harsh and rather unfair given the sort of society he and his cohorts created.


 

I speak from my own experience which is pretty extensive in many ways. I don't disagree with the luck element in life and if society wasn't so fixed on only one route to success - at whatever level makes the individual happy rather than the level that the 'caring' element of society deems necessary - then perhaps there would be more routes to reach the individual's perceived top in life.

Good point, we agree then.

Your genius that cannot cope in society and your shunted millenial  perhaps also need to learn some life lessons. That life is never going to be handed out on a plate. That there is no easy way to comfort and security. Hardship is the growing process that many of us have lived through to get that lasting comfort. Respect has to be earned and a good day's work deserves a good day's pay.

That's actually close to an American quote from the 1920's. As you say, it is very harsh and certainly akin to the values of societies from the 1920's and 30's. Do you view them as preferable? I don't. I don't think most people would enjoy living through it, nor do they understand how rough it would be. The fairness thing doesn't exist in our society.



We are headed for the worst recession since 1707 so everyone may yet find out...

It's harsh but a necessary path to maturity.

 



Yet, you conceded there are winding pathes to success earlier.

To sit on one's butt looking on with envy at those who inherited their position in life is simply a waste of emotional energy. Their life isn't as easy at might seem from the outside, but then that doesn't feature in the socialist argument.

That is a common deflective argument, but it doesn't really address the earlier questions or points, it is a form of inapplicable whataboutery.

[papasmurf]

 That life is never going to be handed out on a plate.

Actually most most of the few people who are in the "generations of people who have never worked," are in the aristocracy and "old money" families.

Now there really are some bone idle people there.

[DeppityDawg]

Like a fairer meritocratic society?



...like the Soviet Union under Gorby maybe?..(no I'm joking, I expect boycey to proclaim the tooting people's republic any moment now.)



What kind of society in history do you find most admirable?



I can agree that there are those who are better versed in certain disciplines and should instruct others in those areas, but I'm not sure overall control of society should be down to a small group of individuals.

We need Comrade Sampanski here to update us on the current 5 year plan  ::



I actually joked with him once that I'd probably like to live in modern day Russia under a strong autocratic leader like Putin. I think the population largely view him as a paternalistic kind of leader. He's very much "one of them", but either way strong leadership has always been a fundamental part of Russian life I've seen it said - I don't really know if that's true, but I think Russians seem much more patriotic than modern day westerners



But yes, meritocratic sounds good - the only problem would be who decides on what is meant by "merit-able" I suppose.



A society where target practice on small, blue garden gnome type ornaments was practiced sounds good also.

[T00ts]

Are you saying that everyone has the choice of joining the old boys club if they want?



That is pretty much impossible. And it's absolutely the case that those with an upper-class upbringing have to do far less and can get away with far more.



I don't resent them for it, it's a good thing if you are lucky enough to be born made - but it simply isn't true that it's 'irrelevant'. Of course it's relevant.



And there are quite a sizeable amount of people out there, as I have demonstrated, that believe that those on things like disability are just feckless layabouts, just like wiggles, and that others are liars too. And yet, that's refuted by the govt's own stats wrt those things.



And in my opinion, there are also those who simply don't gel with this type of society, some of them are geniuses with an IQ we were mortals can't contemplate; but they are considered feckless scroungers too, when they are not - they don't function well in the system, same for many millenials shunted from crap job to the next in insecure housing.



It is a myth that only hard work alone gets you out of any hole, it's a bit Norman Tebbit.. it's hard work and luck, plus availability of opportunities that do this.

I don't understand why the old boy's club is even part of the discussion. Why would you bring Norman Tebbit into it? Is that supposed to be a criticism? Am I not able to have an opinion unattached to someone you dislike? I speak from my own experience which is pretty extensive in many ways. I don't disagree with the luck element in life and if society wasn't so fixed on only one route to success - at whatever level makes the individual happy rather than the level that the 'caring' element of society deems necessary - then perhaps there would be more routes to reach the individual's perceived top in life.



Your genius that cannot cope in society and your shunted millenial  perhaps also need to learn some life lessons. That life is never going to be handed out on a plate. That there is no easy way to comfort and security. Hardship is the growing process that many of us have lived through to get that lasting comfort. Respect has to be earned and a good day's work deserves a good day's pay. It's harsh but a necessary path to maturity.  To sit on one's butt looking on with envy at those who inherited their position in life is simply a waste of emotional energy. Their life isn't as easy at might seem from the outside, but then that doesn't feature in the socialist argument.

[Borg Refinery]

I get it. I really do. But to me, I suppose its a lot about getting older and becoming a miserable auld **** who just wants to argue with everyone  ::



You have now achieved a DD "level 2" poster status, someone who can argue his point while still being able to have a laugh with  



System? Hmm. I'm not sure one exists that would eradicate distinctions completely - I'm not even sure I'd want one - as I said, I can't imagine anything more awful than bland equality. Is it fair to say that "elitism" has to exist in human behaviour in order for an society to work? I think it does.

Like a fairer meritocratic society?



...like the Soviet Union under Gorby maybe?..(no I'm joking, I expect boycey to proclaim the tooting people's republic any moment now.)



What kind of society in history do you find most admirable?



I can agree that there are those who are better versed in certain disciplines and should instruct others in those areas, but I'm not sure overall control of society should be down to a small group of individuals.

[papasmurf]

It is a myth that only hard work alone gets you out of any hole,  do this.

Quite, unless it pays enough it gets you into a deeper hole, as many who have claimed Universal Credit have found out.