Opinion of the hard lefty laborites who are upper middle class or better

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm probably one of them...

So, Jbrase, what's your opinion of antiracist whites, feminist men, and anti-homophobic heterosexuals?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm probably one of them...

So, Jbrase, what's your opinion of antiracist whites, feminist men, and anti-homophobic heterosexuals?

I am not saying they should have a certain ideology because of where they are in life, I just find it annoying sometimes when people talk about the poor and working class and have never lived among them. Someone's talk of socialism is a lot less convincing, to me personally, when the closest they've been to working in factory or on a farm was reading a book about the guilded age.

This idea that you must have lived in a situation to feel real compassion for the people who live in it, while unfortunately true to some degree (see Portman and the other Republicans who are conservative on every issue except the single one that affect them or their relatives), is truly disgusting. I am actually very proud of the fact that my political principles go beyond my own personal situation.

I'm probably one of them...

So, Jbrase, what's your opinion of antiracist whites, feminist men, and anti-homophobic heterosexuals?

You don't need to make life harder for all whites to reduce racism, for men to achieve gender equality, for straights for gays to achieve equality. You certainly don't need to kill anyone connected with them, which is what extreme leftists and unionists (ie Trots) seem to want.

"Make life harder"?

Actually, 95% of the population would benefit from a strong welfare state and comprehensive labor rights, and the remaining 5% wouldn't even lose that much, considering how fast the marginal utility of money decreases when you have more than a certain amount of it.

Plus, actually, a white in a postracial society might not access to the hierarchical level he would have reached if his nonwhite competitors had been discriminated against. So even your premise is wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's not about how they were brought up, it's about what they choose to do with what they have earned/inherited. If they still choose to live like Richie McRich or Posho McToff, they're godawful hypocrites. If they give their huge surplus of money away, to charity, or control their own consumption or openly agree with raising their own tax band. Some avoid tax, and this is again deplorably hypocritical.

Those who avoid taxes are hypocritical pieces of sh*t who absolutely don't belong in the left, obviously. Conspicuous consumption is pretty horrible and somewhat hypocritical as well. However, no one is obliged to give to charities. Private charity has absolutely nothing to do with public solidarity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm admittedly much more of a latte lib than a laborite, so I don't agree with them on everything, but FF all the same.  The reason is very simple:

This idea that you must have lived in a situation to feel real compassion for the people who live in it, while unfortunately true to some degree (see Portman and the other Republicans who are conservative on every issue except the single one that affect them or their relatives), is truly disgusting. I am actually very proud of the fact that my political principles go beyond my own personal situation.

Having concern for everyone, not just people who are not "like you" is, well, a sign of a well-developed morality.

As well as a cornerstone of political philosophy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What Nix said is pretty much how I feel. There's nothing inherently wrong with "hard lefty laborites" who are in a wealthy or comfortable position in life, but there is if their consumption habits tend to overtly conflict with their beliefs, or tend to define them as a person. This:

Especially those who want to abolish things like private schools yet send their children there. That's inexcusable.

Is basically what I mean by that. Wealth and socialist beliefs are not incompatible things, inherently. Consistency is all that matters.

I went to a (government contracted) private high school, and I don't want to abolish them (though I'd probably shut down many of the non-contracted private schools). Is that OK?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Completely illogical. Throw away their money to a cause they don't believe in (charity) and make themselves poor so they can suffer the same conditions they've been actively opposing?

Only one of those, to my mind, is hypocritical - arguing against raising their tax band/avoiding tax. Charity is a sop, whereas systematic re-distribution (the kind that high taxes can afford) is meaningful. Again, they don't have to impoverish themselves to 'prove' they want socialism - that's just disingenuous right-wing rhetoric to discredit them (and if they actually done all those things, they will just becomes as voiceless as the working-class they'll then join).

They don't have to give it all away- 10 to 20% would be fine- they'd still be well off. I'm not saying they should be poor.
I'm astonished those on the left place so little moral worth on  charity (material worth, ok)- believing the welfare state to be inherently more moral seems to be taking collectivism a little too seriously to be reasonable.

I certainly don't take reasonableness lectures from Libertarians.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since when was 'the left' opposed to charities or charity as such? I think this is veering towards 'politics as it ought to be' rather than 'as it actually is'.

Speaking for myself, I have nothing against charity. But I do utterly loathe the idea of it being a substitute for redistribution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even those who have earned their wealth honestly and doing something productive (and those aren't as common as one would think), they still owe their success in large part to the help they received from others - first and foremost from the State they claim to hate so much.

BTW, you should fix your quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I was actually going to post something in reply on "YDBT", but I didn't want to go off topic, though you you've mentioned it.
Obama didn't say nobody builds a business on their own, he said one can't build a business without "foundation" infrastructure society provides.
You both seem to be assuming a dogmatic anacho-capitalism on the part of others. Well, I'm nothing of the sort.  Even Elizabeth Warren says rich people should be able to keep a "Big Hunk" (stupid phrase i take to mean at least 50%) of what they earn.

Indeed. For all the criticism of right wing businessmen, they usually believe the government should provide roads, education etc.

Sure they want. They just don't want to pay their fair share of taxes necessary for their building.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Basic human law?"

ROFLMAO

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Basic human law?"

ROFLMAO

It’s a concept called "justice." Perhaps you have heard of it? Justice is getting what you put in for. But then again, it's not unlike you to just respond with LOL ROFL DERP DE DERP.

Keep it up, it's hilarious.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That being said some hard left upper middle class people, and then I'm mostly talking of cultural elites, irks me with their hypochrasy when they think that those socialist policies should not apply to them since they're blessing the world with their art and acting, and who quickly forget all about sharing the goods, and get very defensive about what's their property whenever copy-right is brought up. 

Well, those are just like the "small government" Republicans who want to abolish every government program except those who benefit them