I can always depend on the humor columns of the NY Post for a nice belly laugh. "Luxury beliefs". What the heck ? I do know people who do have strange (that is to say, anti scientific beliefs). Those are the people that usually want to have everyone act the way they think other people should act. So, really the question is not a difference between luxury and cheap, but a belief that you have the obligation to crucify and aggress towards other people into agreeing with you (apparently, the author would be fine with this) vs. not doing so. Now, that sounds like a belief that is a true luxury, because you can't hold it unless you have a way of making a living that allows you to be anti social.
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/Lingenfelter&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/cu5nqn/luxury_beliefs_are_latest_status_symbol_for_rich/?context%3D10000%29)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I’ve been saying this for years. The way white petty bourgeois types love to self denigrate just displays their absolute assurance that they are in the dominant position. It’s a signal to each other that they are the superior caste above all others. They also patronize down to others:
“Your neighborhood is crime ridden and destroyed because of my people. I’m so sorry. I will now screech and fight against any solutions that involve law and punishment, to make myself feel better while your children get sucked into gangs.
“Wait... you would like economic development programs? Sorry sweaty, you’ve just internalized racism. You just need welfare, methadone clinics, and pats on the back.”
This idea is older than you think - "virtue signaling" was originally referred to as "status signaling". Basically, rich whites (or, more commonly, strivers) going out of their way to show that they don't feel any kinship for the poor whites that are harmed most by flooding the labor market or mandating increasingly arbitrary changes to the acceptable vocabulary.
It goes further - the 90's breed of PC was so closely intertwined with corporate power because it served as a means of weeding out people who didn't have the economic status required to spend time keeping up with all the new terms, and to provide management with greater control over employees.
Archersdogdeeply, historically leftist6 months ago
Anti-Vax is a rich person privilege, for sure, their ego is pleasured by the ability to overrule the authority of government and the expertise of medicine. The poor aren't anti-vaxxers, they merely can't afford hidden costs, which is why they need Universal Healthcare. The outbreak of measles in New York was probably more related to being a Sanctuary City, just as Trump endorses: exploiting the undocumented working poor as modern slaves.
Again, that’s a rather convenient straw man of the article. Is this sub really incapable of critiquing opinion pieces without “Huuurrduuurr muhrightwingers”. Lmao. No wonder mainstream SocDems & DSA don’t take us seriously.
it provides a series of superficial observations, divorced from any structural critique and pushes a totally trite conservative conclusion combined with some muh bootstraps ideology for good measure.
fucking hell, marx was talking about the erosion of religious belief and the breakdown of the family.
nothing he said was new or rooted in any concrete historical analysis. it’s completely worthless.
The article doesn’t purport to be anything much more than observation of a contemporary problem.
People are complaining about a lack of “historical” and “materialist” analysis here but this sub (and most of the comments) demonstrate that almost nobody here is capable of that. Everyone just whines about “muhrightwingers” and/or calls the writer some schoolyard insult and then collectively we all furiously upvote each other pat each other on the backs.
tl;dr sometimes this sub devolves into minimal effort shit posting and I guess I’d take the criticism better if people could articulate themselves a bit better.
Thanks for the response ✌️
This article is more propping up in favor of 'conservative' belief by browbeating limousine liberals than a critique of the beliefs of all upper class in general. They had said luxury beliefs like noblesse oblige or previous era-idpol even before these liberal views came along
Yeah, NY Post is a notorious right wing tabloidy NYC newspaper. It's like a semi-local and more trashy and casual version of Fox News' website content.
OP is a confused borderline right winger (says they watch Tim Pool below, participates in some right wing subs). This sub needs to either get stricter on chuds or those who want to be critical of idpol in constructive ways from a left perspective need to form a new sub and leave this sub for the right wingers, bigots, and edgelords who seem to be growing in number if the mods aren't going to enforce their own rules visible in the panel.
SenorNoobnerd[Filipino Idpol Detector] Filipino Posadist Anarch6 months ago
I'm not right wing. I'm just open to different perspective. Just because I'm from a third world culture with different sensibilities from you first world folks doesn't mean I'm right wing.
I try my best not get stuck on an echo chamber that's why I shuffle along different perspectives, but I STILL have preferences and standards as a person should. The persons I enjoy at the moment are Chomsky and Zizek, but I certainly lean towards Chomsky!
>I got it from Tim Pool here
There is your problem lmao. The article never really backed up certain statements like "Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children." nor "out-of-wedlock birthrates are more than 10 times higher than they were in 1960, mostly among the poor and working class ".
If anything I can spin this narrative from "Rich liberals need to stop holding these degenerate views for social points.' to 'Rich people need to put up or shut up and act like the rest of the working class.'
No, that is not his problem.
I really hate hkw the sub's mods tacitly participiate in the weird anti tim pool corclejerks by what im assuming is simply deleting all posts with Tim Pool videos, made in an effort to moderate the jerk by showing his actual opinions (happened to both i posted at different times, evasive responses to questionl
lol I was in the DMs with whoever did then.
They ended up adnotting how sybjective it is whether sonething is 'off topic kr uninteresting' etc., and had no response to how I very clearly asked if the titkes were too provocative, despite hkw I very clearly phrased them as urgent interventions etc?
there were 3 posts i made that were deleted, thkse are the last 2, lne is Tim Pool.
I can post this
and this again i assume?
Neither of those is clearly relevant to the sub, and one is about Jordan Peterson and not this Tim Poole guy so I'm not following your argument here at all. I don't think the titles are provocative, but wrt to the one claiming to 'offer a different perspective' you should make it more clear what that is and why we would benefit from hearing it. Hearing a lunar landing denier is being exposed to a 'different perspective', but it doesn't actually benefit anyone. In the future perhaps make a comment on your posts which explains why you thought it was worth sharing.
All of them are completely relevant.
Npw you are just beimg disingenuous/a bad actor. You read the titles, those explain it fuckwit.
It is clear once you watch the vkdeo.
It may or may not. You saying tim pool os a 'lunar landing denker' or equivalent? Gosh , just fucking off yourself, stop pretending nlt to know whats going on here.
They are on topic and interesting, as you performatively prove with your abrasiveness.
Lmao why are you crying foul so soon? I am not even actively saying he is bad, I am just not surprised he is actually sharing such a dumb article.
SenorNoobnerd[Filipino Idpol Detector] Filipino Posadist Anarch6 months ago
I'll help you:
>Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children
>out-of-wedlock birthrates are more than 10 times higher than they were in 1960, mostly among the poor and working class
It's an editorial, so, maybe, take the time to look into them. It only took me less than a minute of my time.
You misunderstand me. The fact that they didn't even bothered to link these papers (The first one doesn't say that marriage with biological parents are the best for kids but that it is a good sign that the conditions are great for the kids) in the article is a red flag that this article is bullshit clickbait. It is as you yourself so eloquently put it, took you less than a minute of your time to do it.
Do these studies at all control for economic situation? Obviously a married couple with children who earns a comfortable living is going to have a better environment on average for children to grow up in than a family that's poor and can't really tend to the care of their children as well because both parents need to work consistently, or a single parent in a poor household.
It's a near universal view that *in general* the more of a support system a child has, the better their life will be. Even among conservatives you'll find disagreements as to whether or not a 2-parent nuclear family is a better model than earlier formations of large families who live together, for instance. And leftists generally stick to the position that a more collective upbringing is better as well.
I've seen radlib takes on how being a single mother is actually the best and bravest thing ever which is just obviously a huge reaction to the notion that single mothers can't be good parents *at all*, which goes well past the point. These people are stupid, but largely irrelevant.
it actually is a conservative view, both by usage and definition. and that's okay. conservative is not a synonym for malignant.
am i the only one old enough to remember the Murphy Brown dust-up in the 90s? libs have been claiming single parent families are just as good for decades.
Murphy Brown was a popular TV sitcom about a single female attorney. The show had a plotline where she gets pregnant and decides to have the baby and raise it herself. This caused a big fake controversy and the vice president at the time (Dan Quayle) made a speech referencing it as a vague sign of cultural decay. Libs made angry media noises about how this was demeaning to women and single mom families are just as good etc. It was generally agreed in the cultural zeitgeist that Quayle and people who felt like him were old idiots.
She wasn't an attorney, she hosted a news program. She was the original Jeff Newsroom.
It's strange that Murphy Brown was as successful as it was in first-run but had virtually no life in syndication: compare with Roseanne, Cheers, Cosby Show, whatever else was big during Bush 41.
> It's litterally not. Two parents are better than one.
What policy prescriptions should we enact to improve this situation? It's just a conservative rhetorical technique to apply blame to choices and hence abdicate from doing anything.
What matters is the direction of causality and you can't tell that from a fucking meme level analysis. Simply saying it isn't very useful... unless you're a conservative.
Again. Its not a liberal or conservative position to promote a two parent household. My sister and her husband are very liberal and they constantly opine about needing the other parent, how its better for the kid. Even then they dont think its enough sometimes and need grandparents to step in. Never heard the phrase "it takes a village?" Maybe read some Piaget? Or books on child development.
Maybe you're confusing the conservative value of traditional family structures with a generalized two parent household. Even same sex couples know two parents is better.
And single-parenthood isnt always a choice. People get divorced. People die. This is no meme. Its established social science and psychological conclusions.
No, I think we have our wires crossed here. I'm refuting the concept of a two parent household being a conservative concept.
I think the 90s "worship single-mothers" is a result of feminist idpol as you referenced by the Murphy Brown sitcom. I think a small faction of idpol neoliberals, who grew up and had kids after dropping their 60s liberation phase, championed it.
Christian conservatives have a very narrow view but they didnt coin or create the concept just as much ad they tried.
I'm referencing the anthropological and psyco-social underpinnings to the benefits of two parents and trying to avoid the binary framework we constantly find ourselves trapped in.
Don't label me as commie but if there's a group I hate most is hypocritical wealthy people that love gaslighting working class through political and ideological manipulation. (and feminism is a tool to achieve this).
They want us to fight each other, so that we don't pose a risk to their real privileges. Divide and conquer. A new class consciousness is necessary.
I'm not against wealthy having plenty of bucks, but wanting to screw up working class.
A former classmate from Yale recently told me “monogamy is kind of outdated” and not good for society. So I asked her what her background is and if she planned to marry.
Monogamy one of the foundations of human civilization.
In other words, upper-class whites gain status by talking about their high status. When laws are enacted to combat white privilege, it won’t be the privileged whites who are harmed. Poor whites will bear the brunt.
today i used my white privilege to follow a young negro woman through the grocery store while crudely yelling fart noises at her. she wouldn't even meet my gaze, knowing the superiority of my aryan jeans and worried that i would see the raw sexual arousal in her eyes. after about 5 minutes of this (yelling BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPP takes a lot out of you) she saw i was getting a bit tired out and called the lowly peasants working there to aid me, perhaps in the hope that i would give her a moolatte baby in return for her generosity. they were kind of enough to help me out of the store and all the way to my car, which i greatly appreciated. as thanks i have ejaculated into an envelope and am sending it to that negro woman so she can elevate her social status by birthing a child of noble aaron descent. and that my friends is white privilege.
This isn't new. I first realized this in college almost 20 years ago when all of the crazy hippie leftists at my school came from very well off families. 'I was driving down the parkway in my Range Rover while tripping on acid' said one dreadlocked, drum circle running white chick.
Interesting. But what about the possibility that the very destructiveness of beliefs such as non-monogamy are the actual reason the upper class push them? By getting lower classes to buy into ideas that wreak havoc on their families, communities, and lives, they make their own elite position more secure.
I actually learned of this article from a Tim Pool vid
In it he mentions ideas like that, and draws a parallel to Bill Maher saying he wants a recession so that it will hurt Trump. Maher would be unharmed by this recession, according to Pool, and gives zero fucks what suffering will be inflicted on 'the lower classes' as long as orange man takes a fall.
The media are just playing catch up with this issue, I and many others have been ranting about this for years. One of the very first things that turned me off about the left was the more I researched who these people were even before feminism the more I despised their utter hypocrisy. These are people who preach about the evils of Capitalism and how bad it is for the working class then they go back to literal mansions and gated communities where they live lives of utter affluence.
Immigration, another heated topic, you know those people who scream racism constantly on television or these activists who act like anybody who is against them is just an uneducated xenophobe? They live in majority white communities and not just that, they're fucking gated even the middle class areas are completely segregated from the areas that do have to deal with the problems of migration. They can defend migrants who are actual criminals and terrorists because they don't have to deal with the consequences.
This is why I think people don't give Trump enough credit, he knows exactly who these people are, partly because he hung out with them back in the day. He knows where they live and what lives they lead and I think the move of taking the migrants into democrat owned cities was pure fucking genius. They did a 180 on the subject of migration so fast you'd think they were Republicans.
They need to be called out on this shit and I find it interesting that so few people use it as a talking point it's almost like they view it as impolite but I think people need to know just the kind of scam artists we're dealing with. Bernie Sanders is a classic example, he preached tons about Socalism and how bad capitalism is but he owns multiple houses, recently he also paid campaign staff $15 as 'promised' but reduced the hours because he knew he couldn't afford it.
> This is why I think people don't give Trump enough credit, he knows exactly who these people are, partly because he hung out with them back in the day. He knows where they live and what lives they lead and I think the move of taking the migrants into democrat owned cities was pure fucking genius. They did a 180 on the subject of migration so fast you'd think they were Republicans.
Yeah, i just wish he didn't have the vocabulary of a 10 yr old and had the capability to redpill Americans on the Ivory Tower Elite Scum.
Not directly, no. I guess you could make the argument that by pretending to deeply believe that reality isn't real, they got gullible people that want to be like them to act as though reality isn't real.
But my whole point in posting this is that all of this shit is a vanity project. It isn't altruistic. It's about signaling status.
For you see, poor people are all sheep that needs to be lead to the correct path in life by Ph.D. candidate Rob Henderson. How else is he going to justify the years he spend at the University of Cambridge?
It's never about what ideas are being presented, it's always about who presents the ideas. When Gavin McInnes pushed the exact opposite idea (that kids fare better with two parents), he was attacked for it.
Wikipedia calls him "far-right" twice and "neo-fascist" once, and then makes a claim with no source that he calls for violence against his opponents. All of this is just in the first paragraph.
I think it's because he's funny. They are terrified that he manages to be funny while holding these views, even introducing humor into his views, so they go after him like rabid dogs.
it's well know that tranny faggots that are living off welfare, have no jobs, and nothing to do, are now the primary editors on wikipedia. If you change any article, they will quickly change it back. Everything on there is heavily biased in favor of a left wing narrative these days.
Great piece by Rob Henderson. Thomas Sowell explored this to a degree when he wrote about the difference between the physical sciences vs. the social sciences: if an engineer has a bad idea, it's immediately obvious, and carries a penalty. If an academic in the humanities has a bad idea, it's not always immediately known to what extent, and it's almost never apologized for.
I think Rob is onto something by affixing the "luxury" label to these beliefs, and I hope he explores this idea further.
This strikes me as a politically biased article. The "luxury beliefs" are all those typically said to be liberal, or at least not conservative beliefs. Some very obvious luxury beliefs that didn't get included: anti-vax, Qanon, the weird anti-higher-education thing, flat-earth, and creationism.
The author probably could have made a more coherent argument if he'd included some of the non-liberal luxury beliefs. There's huge evidence against them.