This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
British usage assumes a pyramidal society, so there are more working class people than middle-class people and more lower middle than upper middle. To be considered upper class you traditionally needed to have a social network that includes hereditary peers, so upper-middle class stretches a long way up the income scale. A big 4/MBB/Magic Circle partner would definitely be considered upper-middle class, not upper (unless they were upper for family reasons).
In America, everyone except the underclass and the super-rich considers themselves middle-class. Americans don't generally use the term upper-middle class, but the term middle-class is used by both the people themselves and politicians appealing them to cover everyone from a plumber to a HENRY, and upper-middle class refers to the top echelon of that huge group. Paul Fussell's Class (published 1982 so somewhat out of date, but I am not aware of any book since which attempted to define upper-middle class in the US context) gives doctors, lawyers, small town real estate developers and middle-to-VP level managers at large companies as paradigmatically upper-middle class. Warren's $12 million accumulated over a successful career would be well within the achievable range for those professions, though probably above average.
The only time I have seen the words upper-middle class used seriously in an American political context was to describe the people on incomes of $250k-400k who might or might not benefit from Obama's partial extension of the Bush tax cuts, which is also close to but not in the top 1% and given the rising stock market since the Obama era seems consistent with a net worth reaching $3-12 million today.
The algorithm I use that works in any rich country:
By non-income class, both Bernie and Warren are senatorial class, which is pretty darned high.
Agreed. That is why I don't think them enjoying the material standard of living of an eques should be scandalous.
The idea that successful politicians should live a lower-middle class lifestyle is pernicious - both because it creates a political economy of junketing, and because it means only people who love political power enough to take a large paycut will go into politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Was not about how much money you made but about your taste and proclivities. We can argue about Warren's taste, if you like, but your original comment was about net worth.
It's quite clear that even the lowliest senator considers doctors to be the help.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link