Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kore wrote

i dont know about in the moment, but there have been articles posted here recently about how hard people are working.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g5xyyw/how-i-get-by-two-weeks-in-the-life-of-a-target-employee

heres an example, this person works 5 nights a week and goes to school. im sure you could find plenty of other examples.

so its kind of just like a proof by counterexample i guess, "look how hard these people are working, why are they not better off?"

also a lot of people in developing countries have a work ethic that puts westerners to shame, yet theyre still poor. if people dont believe that they work hard its just racism, plain and simple.

i also think people have a complex about it. its very hard to admit that e.g. immigrants work harder than you because people really want to believe they worked hard and its not just cause theyre white/rich/western/etc.

obviously in every population there will be people that work harder than others, but thats kinda besides the point

when people have mental blocks like that its hard to change their minds

hope this helps.

5

Majrelende wrote

The very “lucky” speak loudly, those who did nothing will pretend otherwise, and those who did not have some “miraculous” salvation have no voices.

5

ziq wrote

It sounds like a waste of time. If they think they're super special hard workers and deserve all their power and privilege while the poor deserve to starve, they're not going to let go of that notion no matter what you tell them.

3

SomeIconoclast wrote

explain to libs

Your first mistake. Don't associate with libs if you can help it.

debate

Your second. Debating is a waste of time and energy; "logic" is an abstract made by humans to explain how the world works as perceived by humans, so it's easily ignored because people aren't logical. Debates don't sway anyone who believe in things like "willpower" and "work ethic".

To actually answer your question, these people don't actually care about how you rebuttal, they've already decided that they're right and they'll stick to their argument because they'd have to admit that they didn't actually "earn" what they have otherise. These types usually have a "tough on crime" stance when it comes to law enforcement and love strengthening the economy; so just give some flimsy argument (it doesn't have to be well thought out, you're not doing this to "win") on how burglars, thieves, drug dealers, and gangs work harder than them and contribute to the economy far more than they do and how cops are communists and should be arrested (or killed if you want to really bewilder these people) for encouraging laziness among the poor and stifling capitalism. You weren't going to "win" this debate in any meaningful way, these people scoff at the idea of systemic racism and think that sweatshops are a necessary evil at worst; they wouldn't believe any argument that you gave them in good faith. Might as well have just fuck with 'em.

3

rot wrote

how hard do single parents work? how much $ do they make from it? how long do min wage workers, farmers, sweatshop workers work for the little they make? how much work does a ceo , the brit royal family, a pop star do? how much do they make?

Who can actually "pull themselves up" the disabled? those who have young children? Immigrants with vastly different or little education?

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

well, if they like language and linguistics, you could explain how the phrase was initially a leftist/egalitarian parody of self-sufficiency. Because...you can't pull yourself up from the floor by pulling on your bootstraps. You have to grasp onto something below or above you to push or pull yourself upright. It's funny to even think of what someone would look like trying to do it. Once you see it, the saying reveals itself as utterly bizzare.

leads nicely into a "pie in the sky" etymology, because that phrase was used by radicals to criticize religious institutions and demagogues who led their followers to "pie in the sky" in heaven's afterlife rather than meeting our material needs here and now, before we die. And now, it is used to denigrate anybody who demands more than shallow neoliberalism. Total propaganda and inversion of the phrase to mean the exact opposite of what it was originally intended to.

2