Your opinion of this person?

[Gustaf]

Democracy is incompatible with capitalism.

I think you got that one backwards. It's only compatible with capitalism.

I agree with Dead0man that it's funny how people hate others for providing for themselves. Oh noes!

It's not my impression that the Occupy people = the people most screwed over by the system through no fault of their own.

Furthermore, regardless of the system and its workings the main explanatory variable for personal success and happiness has always been and will always be one's own attitude and decisions. Complaining about injustice or unfairness, even if justified, is never a very good idea.

That's a thing that many on the left don't seem to get. It might be true that coming from a certain background makes it harder for you to succeed in life, for example. But sitting down complaining about how your background doomed you to failure is going to make things much worse for you.

[Gustaf]

So let me remind all serious people out there, the problem with the OP is not he is a hard-worker but that he boasts of being in the 1% and implies that those that aren't are lazy. He is a moral wazzle. And pretty typical of the self-proclaimed wealth creator class.

I don't think the kid was trying to say he/she was part of the 1%.  The way I read it was that he/she was not part of the "99%".

Maybe so, but is that something worth boasting about? Something worth developing a sense of superiority on?

I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of the sign. I would interpret it as saying "I'm not part of the OWS movement and do not share their ideals" which here is short-handed as saying "I'm not the 99%"

You're assuming that the person is using 99% the way the OWS movement does (i.e. the bottom 99% of the wealth distribution). Given the context I doubt that.

[Gustaf]

This thread was going so well with facile argumentation and needless tit-for-tat over slogans and then Gustaf had to come along and ruin it with his "serious person" shtick. So can we all get back to original point of this thread - noticing how much of a giant douche the guy in the OP is.

So let me remind all serious people out there, the problem with the OP is not he is a hard-worker but that he boasts of being in the 1% and implies that those that aren't are lazy. He is a moral wazzle. And pretty typical of the self-proclaimed wealth creator class.

You will thank me when you grow up.

[Gustaf]

So let me remind all serious people out there, the problem with the OP is not he is a hard-worker but that he boasts of being in the 1% and implies that those that aren't are lazy. He is a moral wazzle. And pretty typical of the self-proclaimed wealth creator class.

I don't think the kid was trying to say he/she was part of the 1%.  The way I read it was that he/she was not part of the "99%".

Maybe so, but is that something worth boasting about? Something worth developing a sense of superiority on?

I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of the sign. I would interpret it as saying "I'm not part of the OWS movement and do not share their ideals" which here is short-handed as saying "I'm not the 99%"

You're assuming that the person is using 99% the way the OWS movement does (i.e. the bottom 99% of the wealth distribution). Given the context I doubt that.

The "...and whether or not you are is YOUR decision" suggests otherwise. Of course it's your decision whether or not you take part to OWS, but it is so obvious that it wouldn't be worth saying. Rather, it seems to imply that the poor are poor because of their own laziness.

Well, ok it probably means something like "the angry college students with debt who make up a large part of the OWS movement" then.

[Gustaf]

So let me remind all serious people out there, the problem with the OP is not he is a hard-worker but that he boasts of being in the 1% and implies that those that aren't are lazy. He is a moral wazzle. And pretty typical of the self-proclaimed wealth creator class.

I don't think the kid was trying to say he/she was part of the 1%.  The way I read it was that he/she was not part of the "99%".

Maybe so, but is that something worth boasting about? Something worth developing a sense of superiority on?

I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of the sign. I would interpret it as saying "I'm not part of the OWS movement and do not share their ideals" which here is short-handed as saying "I'm not the 99%"

You're assuming that the person is using 99% the way the OWS movement does (i.e. the bottom 99% of the wealth distribution). Given the context I doubt that.

I'm not assuming anything except from the tone which his message exudes excludes him from any other personal social rating of mine other than "clearly a douche". After all, why go to all this effort to make such a laboured and uninteresting point?

As for growing up, I tried that once and I thought it was overrated.

As is pointed out in this thread, the style of the note mimicks a style employed by the OWS people. Which is why it ends the way it does as well. So I think you're reading too much into it.

Maybe you need to try, just a little bit harder.

[Gustaf]

true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a totally subjective concept that can not be totally measured objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those bare minimum levels.

I don't believe in "true equality" either... I don't think many people do. But everyone is equal in some terms, as even Hobbes pointed out, because everyone has the potential to kill another person (personally, through machinations/conspiracy with others etc.). What I'm saying is, the lesser the gap between the top and bottom of society the better, because a highly hierachial order inevitably breeds conflict.

You don't think that constantly forcing people to conform to a societal structure you decided was ideal is something that would breed conflict? More specifically, you don't think that defining all resources as potentially belonging to anyone, i.e. everyone having a claim to everything is something that breeds conflict?

[Gustaf]

true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a totally subjective concept that can not be totally measured objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those bare minimum levels.

I don't believe in "true equality" either... I don't think many people do. But everyone is equal in some terms, as even Hobbes pointed out, because everyone has the potential to kill another person (personally, through machinations/conspiracy with others etc.). What I'm saying is, the lesser the gap between the top and bottom of society the better, because a highly hierachial order inevitably breeds conflict.

You don't think that constantly forcing people to conform to a societal structure you decided was ideal is something that would breed conflict? More specifically, you don't think that defining all resources as potentially belonging to anyone, i.e. everyone having a claim to everything is something that breeds conflict?

What do you mean exactly? I'm citing the argument that more equal societies tend to be happier, Sweden being a good case in point.

But that's not true indefinitely. Sweden is still a fundamentally capitalist society. And equality is not exogenous either. If you're forcing it through heavy intervention that in itself is a source for conflict.