Should hatred against poor people be considered morally equivalent to racism?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:19:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should hatred against poor people be considered morally equivalent to racism?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Should hatred against poor people be considered morally equivalent to racism?  (Read 3138 times)
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 20, 2013, 02:34:29 PM »
« edited: September 20, 2013, 02:43:40 PM by Scott »

Is labeling poor people "freeloaders" or "moochers" or "bums" any different from calling a black person the n-word?  Personally, I fail to see much of a difference at all.

Yes, you can argue that because race or heritage is not something one can change, unlike class of wealth, the two are not easily comparable.  However, the vast majority of people on government assistance are either disabled, children, or people who are making the effort to find a job (or multiple jobs) because food stamps and welfare checks are not enough to survive on.  If escaping from poverty were as easy as removing one's hat, then obviously no one would be in poverty, yet 99% of America's poor are in their condition due to limited opportunities.

In today's society, racists are condemned for their views.  Why do we not apply the same moral consequences to people who show the same disdain towards poor people?

EDIT: And yes, you could say the same thing about folks who hate rich people, though most of Western society obviously stigmatizes those who are poor.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,076
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2013, 02:43:48 PM »

Should labeling poor people "freeloaders" or "moochers" or "bums" be any different from calling a black person the n-word?  Personally, I fail to see much of a difference at all.

Those words are pejoratives, but it's not racism.  Income status changes, your skin color doesn't.  If you make your way out of poverty I won't hate you anymore? 
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2013, 02:49:52 PM »

Should labeling poor people "freeloaders" or "moochers" or "bums" be any different from calling a black person the n-word?  Personally, I fail to see much of a difference at all.

Those words are pejoratives, but it's not racism.  Income status changes, your skin color doesn't.  If you make your way out of poverty I won't hate you anymore? 

Like I said- yes, income status changes, but it doesn't change easily, especially if you are poor.  Some people assume that poor=lazy and rich=hardworking, which isn't always the case.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,788
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2013, 03:01:31 PM »

It doesn't fit within the definition of racism, but it's morally wrong nonetheless.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2013, 03:05:59 PM »

Capitalism and private property are functionally equivalent to racism.  I don't know about morally.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2013, 04:06:19 PM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2013, 04:17:47 PM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.

While this is true, it can certainly feel like that sometimes for a lot of people.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2013, 04:43:36 PM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.

While this is true, it can certainly feel like that sometimes for a lot of people.

Of course. And given the sad state of secondary schools in downmarket zip codes, that feeling has all too much reality associated with it.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2013, 06:31:11 PM »

It doesn't fit within the definition of racism, but it's morally wrong nonetheless.

Agreed. Though there are parallels between the two.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2013, 10:05:55 PM »

Capitalism and private property are functionally equivalent to racism.  I don't know about morally.

So if I'm a homeowner I'm just as guilty as someone who is racist because I own my own home?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2013, 11:46:46 PM »

Yes, you can argue that because race or heritage is not something one can change, unlike class of wealth, the two are not easily comparable.  However, the vast majority of people on government assistance are either disabled
nobody is "hating" them...or at least only a few assholes
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
nor them
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
or them
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
strawman
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
false/hyperbole
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
because it's not the same thing

Very few people "hate" poor people I would imagine.  Feel sorry for them, sure.  Think they should be embarrassed by their position, of course.  Believe they often make bad decisions that keep them poor, you know it buddy.  But hate? that's an awfully strong word.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2013, 12:51:00 AM »

Poverty and racism are too different things, and should be treated as too different things. I would think people would hate rich more than poor people. I mean, this forum does a great job at representing that. The stereotype that the poor are a bunch of freeloaders and the rich are a bunch of selfish dickheads gets us nowhere. We should be ashamed of stereotypes of both rich and poor people, and move on to our lives, it shouldn't be that big of a deal in my opinion.

Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2013, 12:56:44 AM »

Capitalism and private property are functionally equivalent to racism.  I don't know about morally.

So if I'm a homeowner I'm just as guilty as someone who is racist because I own my own home?

I wouldn't bother, I could go off on a frenzy on why capitalism is the way it is, but that obviously lead to more argument. Opebo is as stubborn as a metal stick.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2013, 01:21:19 AM »

Yes, you can argue that because race or heritage is not something one can change, unlike class of wealth, the two are not easily comparable.  However, the vast majority of people on government assistance are either disabled
nobody is "hating" them...or at least only a few assholes
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
nor them
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
or them
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
strawman
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
false/hyperbole
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
because it's not the same thing

Very few people "hate" poor people I would imagine.  Feel sorry for them, sure.  Think they should be embarrassed by their position, of course.  Believe they often make bad decisions that keep them poor, you know it buddy.  But hate? that's an awfully strong word.

Nope.  No strawmen, no hyperboles.

Look.  I don't care if it's a few assholes or a million assholes.  Really.  I don't.  It doesn't justify discrimination.  Period.  The reality is, there are people who make rash assumptions about poor people and view wealth as an indicator of one's work ethic.  Some are open about it, others believe it but won't come clean about it.  But don't tell me you've never seen poor people insulted before, and don't try to dodge the point entirely by denying it or saying it's just a few people.  Heck, the very reason I started this thread is that I got fed up with a certain user here who makes these assumptions all the time.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2013, 02:25:54 AM »

I think the two concepts are sufficiently different that it makes little sense to compare them. But sure, it's bad to be mean to poor people, of course.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2013, 05:21:57 AM »

Nope.  No strawmen, no hyperboles.
Even the biggest poor hater in the world would admit that you have to work at it to not be poor.  I'm not 100% sure what you meant by "changing hats", but it's certainly more difficult than that and I'm pretty sure nobody is suggesting otherwise.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Agreed in full
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Agreed, and those people are assholes.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I actually generally agree with you here.  One shouldn't make generalizations against an individual of a group....at least until you get to know that individual.  If it's obvious they fit the problems one has with the group I don't see a problem with pointing it out.  For example, someone mentions they're a Christian, you can't assume they hate gays.  If they then show you through their actions and words that they hate gays, you should be able to call him out on it.  If you see a poor person, you shouldn't assume they're lazy and make poor life choices....at least until they show you through their actions (or lack thereof) and words that they fit that stereotype, then you should be able to call them out on it.

So yes, hatred of and stereotyping all poor people as lazy good for nothin's is wrong (not as bad as being a racist or a bigot though), but calling out an individual poor person for being a lazy ass (if they truly are) is fine.  At least in my opinion.


(on the other hand, if the poor person is otherwise a stranger to you, you're an asshole if you give him sh**t for his faults, even if they are legitimate faults  If it's your brother, friend or whatever, yeah, you probably should point out their mistakes...but only if they're always bitching about being poor.)


oh and BS on 99% of our nations poor being poor because of limited opportunities.  I'm sure more than 1% were born into a middle class or better household and through their own stupid choices have ended up poor.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2013, 08:27:58 AM »
« Edited: September 21, 2013, 08:29:49 AM by Tik Only Posts While Inebriated »

It's not necessarily a result of "stupid choices" to be a poor, dead0man. Perfectly intelligent people have chosen that sort of life for many reasons. Not most, but some. It's not easier to be poor. You become a master accountant and an expert in the system. Your social skills may become exceptional to stay afloat through relatives and friends and strangers. It's a different and more dynamic sort of job, being poor. Your comment, there, displays its own biases: all or most poor people have had plenty of opportunity and just chronically made stupid choices. It's surprisingly ignorant of the situations many people have grown up in, the mindset with which they become accustomed, the realities of their area, their limited scope to find said opportunities.

Poverty tends to beget poverty. The exceptions to this rule are all you would ever hear about. After all, that's the American dream. It's very easy for us to say someone growing up somewhere like where I grew up has plenty of opportunities if he or she just does A, B, or C, but it's ignoring that the reality of making those changes because of personal commitments is overwhelming or unthinkable. Say to the little poor brat who is getting a substandard education and whose parents cannot find reliable income that if only he flees the only place he knows and feels secure that he can have material success, and he'll still stay planted. It's human nature. Is this person making a "stupid choice" by choosing "limited opportunities?"

And, to answer the question posited, do I think the kind of bias I just described is morally equivalent to racism - of course not, for what others said. You can't hide your race, typically, throughout your entire life. Can you hide past poverty? Sure. Will people judge you on the fact that you used to be poor? Yeah, sure, but the "used to be" qualifier sets it apart easily.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2013, 09:24:12 AM »

It's not necessarily a result of "stupid choices" to be a poor, dead0man. Perfectly intelligent people have chosen that sort of life for many reasons. Not most, but some. It's not easier to be poor. You become a master accountant and an expert in the system. Your social skills may become exceptional to stay afloat through relatives and friends and strangers. It's a different and more dynamic sort of job, being poor. Your comment, there, displays its own biases: all or most poor people have had plenty of opportunity and just chronically made stupid choices.
Can you show me where I said that?
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2013, 09:53:33 AM »

The last paragraph. That was certainly what I took from it. You called out the idea that many poors haven't had opportunities by being born into relative wealth and then screwing up. What I'm saying is that sure they have chances to escape poverty, but 1) said choice has its own reasonable drawbacks which make it easier to accept poverty and 2) some poors do not see that richer lifestyle as compelling or worth it, and is that so bad?
Logged
Kitteh
drj101
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,436
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2013, 11:28:26 AM »

write-in: we should stop viewing things like racism thorough an American hyper-individualistic lens as an issue of personal prejudice and starting looking at them as systems that exist on the level of societies, not individuals
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2013, 11:42:26 AM »

The last paragraph. That was certainly what I took from it. You called out the idea that many poors haven't had opportunities by being born into relative wealth and then screwing up.
I said "more than 1%".  I don't know how you get from there to "most".
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
...and I'm not disagreeing with any of that.  I'm not sure why you think I am.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2013, 11:48:20 AM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.

Being not-poor is by definition because of a 'government subsidy', Torie.  How else could one class control another?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2013, 01:34:04 PM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.

Being not-poor is by definition because of a 'government subsidy', Torie.  How else could one class control another?

Here is how one class controls another. Lower income voters vote for Democrats who tax higher income voters. In return, these new taxes are given to low income voters as a reward. This is how the lower income class controls the higher income class.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2013, 01:47:21 PM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.

Being not-poor is by definition because of a 'government subsidy', Torie.  How else could one class control another?

Here is how one class controls another. Lower income voters vote for Democrats who tax higher income voters. In return, these new taxes are given to low income voters as a reward. This is how the lower income class controls the higher income class.

The higher income controls the lesser, by definition, barfbag - that is why they have the higher income.  Its rather obvious: the higher income and/or property/assets signify the social control.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2013, 03:23:20 PM »

It's revolting and stupid and unfair, but beyond not being racism, it is not quite a bad a racism, because as noted, it is not an immutable characteristic. Particularly revolting are those who dump on poor folks, who themselves are not poor primarily because of their own government subsidies, including sometimes gaming the system for them.

This is a reasonable assessment. It understands that though it may be very challenging, perhaps more than what it should be, you can at least work hard and eventually have enough. The assessment also understands that some people simply have what they have because of right-wing "fight unions even if management wants them" "negative taxation" crony capitalism.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 11 queries.