this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
121 points (94.8% liked)
Asklemmy
47436 readers
569 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A small but notable percentage of low income, low education people are just fuckwits who make terrible decisions. They had access to opportunities, they could have overcome their circumstances with just a little effort but smoking cones and stealing shit was less effort so they did that and these people are a comparable drain on society as the uber rich.
But that's just inconsistent with the state of of current scientific knowledge.
Being poor makes you less likely to make a long term decision, not the other way around. In societies where income varies from season to season, you literally have less smokers when the money situation is good and more when the situation is bad. Long story short fighting for survival is extremely cognitively tasking. Thinking and planing is, literally, harder if you burned those resources on "what to put on the table... today", problems.
OP is saying that of the people who are poor and uneducated, there is a small percentage that are fuckwits. Your description could be true for 95% of such people and it still wouldn't be inconsistent with OP's comment.
So... OP's "hot" take is "losers exist"?
Not just that they exist but that they are a fucking huge drain on society.
As much as Billionaires are a cancer and the world would be better without them, Jeff Bezos never smashed the window on my car to steal my speakers, he doesnt come out vandalising public transport or parks and he isnt the reason my wife doesnt feel safe walking around at night. Billionaires are the reason we dont get more nice things, these assholes are the reasons we cant keep the ones we have.
They also make any sort of socialistic change harder, because any time you try to help the "underprivileged" anyone who wants to oppose it can hold up one of these wastes of oxygen and use them as the spokesperson.
True.
If we could even comprehend the scale of his unpaid taxes, or their impact on our parks, we might discuss this at length...
Yes, thats what the very next sentence of my post was getting it.
It's "losers", but yes. I'd phrase it as "not every poor and uneducated person deserves sympathy; it's not necessarily victim-blaming to refuse to accommodate such a person."
That's a quality summary.
Thank the both of you for summing up my point better than I did.
I'd love to take credit for the summary, JuxtaposedJaguar did the work.