"Poor people are just Irresponsible!"

How do you counter this argument? A lot of bourgeois apologists like to bring up capitalist alienation (i mean consumerism, people buying things to escape the dreads of their 9-5) as being the fault of the worker and all their own bad choice. They bring up that happiness just comes from within and you need to work on yourself to feel happy.

I fell as if this argument just completely ignores the real psychological effects of ones environment, how else does it fall short.

Other urls found in this thread:


Many poor people are complete idiots that will fuck up anything handed to them, I don't see the controversy here.

Typical rightist

I'm white and poor,so it's doubly my fault

you can't in a way that would be satisfactory to their arguments
breaking out of the cycle of the average western worker is near impossible and designed to be so. Living paycheck to paycheck and having near constant debt, which forces you to take on more debt, resting over your head forces you to keep grinding into the system.

The people who do break that cycle are rare exceptions to the rule. People on average don't really rise out of their "paygrade" or "caste" for lack of a better word

Personal Responsibility is completely fine when evaluating the actions of individuals, but politics is fundamentally about control of a society or a community.
You can go 'but they shouldn't have done!' as much as you want at teen mums or poor druggies but the end result is that there are now druggies and dysfunctional families in the society as the result of the Personal Responsibility mantra. And as much as they like their gated communities, the wealthy as well as the bourgeoisie are part of the society they live in. They'll find that out eventually, with gun barrels pointing at them should the course not change.

Being poor is expensive. Poor people rack up fines, overdraft fees, and late fees because they can't pay their bills. They buy cars for a few hundred bucks and hope they last long enough to be worth buying. Just making it through a day of poverty is an accomplishment

poor people come in two categories, the smart frugal ones and the retarded whales- they also exist across the political spectrum.


This board too complains all the time how almost everyone they interact with outside of Holla Forums is a hopeless idiot.

I actually agree, the Personal Responsibility mantra in this sense only soothes, it does not solve.

You dingus, don't tell me you actually believe that?

The reasons poor folks seem irresponsible with their money are multifold, and all stem from the material conditions of actually living in a ghetto. For one, companies such as Nike actively encouraged a culture of consumption by linking African-American cultural icons to their products; thus consumption became a status symbol in these neighborhoods.

More importantly, poor folks in general don't save up their money because they have nothing to save. I highly doubt you've actually experienced this, but a large number of people are simply living paycheck-to-paycheck. They have no capital to save up, and on the very rare occasions they encounter a surplus (of, say, five hundred dollars), it's never enough to do anything meaningful with.

This is just the briefest glimpse of the reality of being poor; not even going into the broken homes, inability to acquire nutritious food, and reduced opportunities in life. Maybe if you'd spent more than single day outside your upper-middle-class comfort bubble, you'd actually understand that.

There's a difference between an idiot and a "hopeless idiot". We complain about their current beliefs, but we constantly talk about how to convince them otherwise. Kiinda like this thread, just sayin'.

some people just dont care about wealth that much
if I had a million dollars right now, I would maybe buy a better computer and a car and the rest would sit around, maybe I would invest it

If you did, you would know them differently than as a set of economic conditions, as they do.
That difference being potential use, I assume.

People who say that are not worth engaging with.
They are stone age-level barbarians who think an entire portion of the population should just starve in the street because X or Y.
Their opinion have no value and when they frontally oppose a better, higher, humane and rational political system they should not be listened to.

You can't, because it's not an argument. It's just something people say to affirm their self-centered concept of reality. It has to be the poor people's fault, because otherwise you'd have to face the scary possibility that you could end up poor yourself.

If you search for "poverty is expensive" or "being poor is expensive" you will find plenty of articles demonstrating how hard it is to actually break out.

You're failing to appreciate the difference between condescending feelings of superiority and exasperation at the unquestioned dominance of the prevailing ideology

Tolerating poverty is barbarism, pure and simple.
Are we not civilized people?
Did we backslide to a point of techno-barbarism?

It's not an actual argument.

People are idiots but only because they don't listen to me.

No, I don't appreciate the framing of idiocy as ignorance to solve a contradiction induced by the egalitarian a-priori.

Nobody ITT is claiming that everyone is an idiot.

The difference between Right and Left is that the Right by definition sees existing power structures as good and natural since superior people built them, while the Left sees them as a consequence of historical and material conditions rather than the actions of an enlightened few.

This is why the rightist is so quick to denigrate the poor, and why the leftist is frustrated by the fact that the ruling ideology which is literally designed by the elite to solidify their powerbase is accepted unquestioningly by the masses.

Do you see what I mean? We're frustrated that people swallow the propaganda which tells them how stupid, powerless, and unimportant they are.

explain? its OP here

I can get that its just wishful thinking and not an actual solution, but jow do you get people to not think like this.

Its not, the difference between the left and right is bound to time and place, with left and right in their particulars reflecting the position they had in pre-revolutionary France.
That must be why we don't throw deformed children into rivers, the elite wrote it down in their protocols because people with down syndrome are easier to control.
You're frustrated that things don't work according to script; you are right about everything and when you're not, then it must mean that your enemies who are also in the know orchestrated it all to make it look like your script is wrong. It's the classic case of a lack of evidence becoming evidence in itself every tinfoil hat descends into.

youre borderline making shit up here
appeal to extremes
ad hominem, youre attacking him and trying your hand at psychoanalysis without interpreting or trying to understand what he said.

Whatever genetic starting point a human being starts on is insignificant. The wealthy will become more educated, smarter, and skilled than the poor. The poor–not only because of propagada, but in reality– are truly stupid, powerless, and unimportant. Whatever led them to that state is insignificant.

It is both the genealogical and common denominator I found through observation, your version is prescriptive.
And therefor an effective manner to illustrate the absurdity of your claim.
He can state that others swallowed propaganda, while I cannot say the same of him. Why the double standard?

what does that even mean? anyway, thats literally the accepted definition of left wing and right wing politics by most polisci profs and experts. unless you can give a source to your claim.
except when its not m8, theres this thing called nuance. it also only really works when the person who posted the argument makes absolute claims, which he really didnt in his example.
but that not what you said, and if it is then explain your position and phrase it better.

how can a state of finance that MUST EXIST under the current economic system be irresponsible

if you were responsible instead and this somehow makes you not poor, some other person would be poor and irresponsible

this just cheapens the definition of irresponsible

And as you give poor people more material means to get educated, smarter, and skilled, you'll find their Autism Level goes up too. They're only stupid, powerless, and unimportant in the confines of the current political economy, which, yes, we can escape from and find an alternative to.

It means that I compared the different places, time frames and contexts in which the right-left divide is spoken of and came to the conclusion that the aforementioned best reflects its meaning. Your definition carries with it a presupposition, does not reflect its use and is accepted only by a handful of people.
There is no nuance in claiming that ruling ideology is merely an instrument designed by the elite. When you make such a claim, you can't dismiss examples of ruling ideology that don't support your narrative as extremist.
The poster in question dismissed the ideology of others as propaganda induced, as not to be taken as is. When doing so, you can't honestly demand your own ideology to be taken as is.

This is similar to telling a homeless drunk that that they need to stop drinking and it's only making it worse. They're correct, but their advice is completely worthless. The drunk likely already knows this, but believes that they don't have the strength or actual physical means to change and that the alcohol is the only thing that helps them deal with their shit life. Just like a poorer person likely knows that getting into debt to buy material shit isn't helping them be any less poorer, but it's their self-medication pushed by advertising. If they stop buying shit they're still poor just with less shit to make them momentarily happy, just like if a homeless man stops drinking he's still homeless. Both people are engaging in behavior that's keeping them in their shitty situation, but it requires a lot more than just stopping it to leave that situation, while stopping it makes it harder to tolerate their situation.
That's true only to the extent if you're not either dealing with poverty or trying to escape from the experience of it. Usually people who are poor but are happy regardless is because they have a decent livelihood and an otherwise decent environment, which doesn't tend to exist in the ghetto.

Most people chalk that comic up as sjw femmenist propaganda

so, your opinion? but for some reason my opinion is wrong, or that i didnt think just as hard on my definition as you did for my definition?
however the example you used has nothing to do with the ruling ideology, and can be seen as an example in other ideologies.
except this demand was never made, its one that youre saying we're makkng. the poster just wants people to consider the other viewpoint.

give me all your money and renounce your US citizenship. I'll give you a plane ticket to Cameroon and we'll see how long it takes you to become middle class again.

Im happy theyre both white. I think.

Because they really believe that hard working people get rich. It not completely untrue, but generally, if youre poor, you stay that way no matter what. You can have 100 job applicants with phd's and only one gets a job and stops being unemployed. System sucks, not them.

Funny how it turns out that the richer you are the more alchol you consume. theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/27/gallup-poll-rich-educated-drink-more

This is no different from the priest telling the feudal serfs to stay down and quiet, true happiness can only be reached in the afterlife.

What is it?

A 8 hour workday in the USA.


That sounds cool as fuck, if only late stage capitalism was so metal.

The 8 hour work day isn't a thing in the UK yet, a lot of people have it but most people I know and myself included work at least 9 hour shifts (with often an hour or half hour unpaid for lunch break).

We work much than France, Germany, Netherlands and all the Scandinavian countries, yet they have higher living standards, bigger homes, cheaper public transport, free prescriptions and free university education and longer paid vacation/annual leave entitlement.

Slovenia is similar to us in terms of their full time work force.

"[Under socialism] man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler; his body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above these heights, new peaks will rise."

-Trotsky in 'Literature and Revolution' - 1925

b-b-but theyre being taken over by muslims and terrorists because of the leftists! sweden is going to be somalia in 10 years!!1!

Nick Land and Varg Vikernes have a lpve child of misanthropy and anti-social tendencies? Sign me the fuck up!

In my view we already are in a state of techno barbarism. Not the primitive kind where you raid the neighboring tribe's lands to appease spirits, The modern kind where you make people homeless because of what numbers on a computer screen say about their mortgage plan.