You Can’t Afford My Radical Life
Belatedly, and via pst314 in the comments, Rob Henderson on luxury beliefs and conspicuous convictions:
The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. Only academics educated at elite institutions could have conjured up a coherent and reasonable-sounding argument for why parents should not be allowed to raise their kids and should hold baby lotteries instead. When an affluent person advocates for drug legalisation, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term “white privilege,” they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, “I am a member of the upper class.”
Affluent people promote open borders or the decriminalisation of drugs because it advances their social standing, not least because they know that the adoption of those policies will cost them less than others. The logic is akin to conspicuous consumption—if you’re a student who has a large subsidy from your parents and I do not, you can afford to waste $900 and I can’t, so wearing a Canada Goose jacket is a good way of advertising your superior wealth and status. Proposing policies that will cost you as a member of the upper class less than they would cost me serve the same function. Advocating for open borders and drug experimentation are good ways of advertising your membership of the elite because, thanks to your wealth and social connections, they will cost you less than me.
Unfortunately, the luxury beliefs of the upper class often trickle down and are adopted by people lower down the food chain, which means many of these beliefs end up causing social harm.
Take polyamory. I had a revealing conversation recently with a student at an elite university. He said that when he sets his Tinder radius to five miles, about half of the women, mostly other students, said they were “polyamorous” in their bios. Then, when he extended the radius to 15 miles to include the rest of the city and its outskirts, about half of the women were single mothers. The costs created by the luxury beliefs of the former are borne by the latter. Polyamory is the latest expression of sexual freedom championed by the affluent. They are in a better position to manage the complications of novel relationship arrangements. And if these relationships don’t work out, they can recover thanks to their financial capability and social capital. The less fortunate suffer by adopting the beliefs of the upper class.
Needless to say, many of the issues raised by Mr Henderson have, over the years, been given a chewing here. From the unconvincing contrarian Laurie Penny and her suboptimal lifestyle advice, and the naked hypocrisies of Simon Schama and Clive Stafford Smith, to our mulling of the 1970s sitcom The Good Life, supposedly a moral lodestone for the modern anti-capitalist.
He said that when he sets his Tinder radius to five miles, about half of the women, mostly other students, said they were “polyamorous” in their bios. Then, when he extended the radius to 15 miles to include the rest of the city and its outskirts, about half of the women were single mothers.
That.
That.
Well, polyamory and its devotees are Tim Newman’s wheelhouse, not mine, but it’s interesting just how often polyamory is presented, usually by left-leaning publications, as something statusful, with its proponents feigning an air of self-satisfied radicalism and moral sophistication. Which seems a little odd, given the practicalities and likely consequences – not least for people without the means to generate curiously uncritical media coverage.
As noted before, regarding avowed polyamorist Laurie Penny,
For those without her advantages, Ms Penny’s advice – her supposedly radical politics – is a recipe for dependency and resentment.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that dysfunctional people will often put themselves in dysfunctional situations that exacerbate any neurotic or counter-productive tendencies. There’s an aspect of self-inflicted misery to consider. And if you wanted to complicate your life with huge potential for insecurity, neuroticism and bitterness, embracing polyamory – say, in order to seem interesting – would be an obvious way to go about it.
Belatedly, and via pst314 in the comments
It is a pleasure to know that I have been of some benefit, David.
The Good Life
Ahh…Y’all discuss Laurie Penny. Meanwhile, I’ll just leave this here:
OK, I’ll stay on topic now and be (slightly) serious…
This is why I am increasingly in favor of an inheritance tax. Granted, it is likely unworkable as a practicality goes because, like most similar taxes the wealthy can afford the lawyers and tax accountants (lawyers who can do math) to work around the law, not to mention the influence that they have with legislators in crafting the loopholes for these lawyers and accountants in the first place. But it would at least be some form of shame exposing those who, as the saying goes were born on third base and behave as if they hit a triple.
There’s an aspect of self-inflicted misery to consider. And if you wanted to complicate your life with huge potential for insecurity, neuroticism and bitterness…
Speaking of which, as well as recipes for resentment, Hannah has a sad because a movie about straight yte men racing cars has too much straight yte men racing cars.
I, for one, am equally baffled seeing as how parsing the thoughts and feelings of Ken Miles wife is crucial to the story of Henry Ford taking on Enzo Ferrari.
Hannah has a sad because a movie about straight yte men racing cars has too much straight yte men racing cars.
So, Ms Elliott sees a film about a physically demanding, engineering-heavy, rather niche environment from half a century ago and then bases her review on an allegedly “devastating… lack of diversity.” Because the shortage of black and female racing drivers in the 1960s somehow means that the events depicted, and the skills depicted, amount to little more than “a ‘car guy’ generation best left dead and gone.” I haven’t seen the film and can’t speak to its merits, but Ms Elliott’s complaint, which dominates her review, seems both dogmatic and pretentious.
Ford v Ferrari depicts a ‘car guy’ generation best left dead and gone
oh.shut.the.fuck.up. Sorry I’m not as eloquent as David, but I’m on my last nerve with the “lack of diversity” (which is code for “why all the whites?”) She may have well waved her hand and said “Ok, Boomer” in dismissal.
Haven’t we been here before?
I’m planning on see this movie on the weekend because it looks interesting and fun and anyone who has enjoyed Ford Mustangs, we love us some Carroll Shelby.
“lack of diversity”
Since it’s more than unfashionable to read the Bible these days, people aren’t learning its lessons and we’re losing thousands of years of wisdom. According to the story of the Tower of Babel, diversity is not our strength. In fact, it is God’s “go to” tactic to disrupt man’s most successful and cooperative endeavours.
Racists are really falling down on the job leaving it to hoaxers yet again to keep up the narrative.
Racists are really falling down on the job…
They’ll loudly demand that “hate speech” be punished by expulsion (show trial optional), but when they’re caught planting nooses around campus themselves, they’ll insist that it’s inappropriate to punish them because they’re just “raising awareness” or “starting a conversation.”
What’s more, they’ll harass campus officials by camping out at their offices or homes until their demands are met. I’m half-tempted to bankroll a counterprotest group that would hound these “student leaders” from their dorms to their classrooms and back, demanding that they answer for their divisive antics.
To paraphrase our esteemed host: there are an awful lot of parents out there who need to get a phone call saying “Come get your brat. She doesn’t attend this university any more. No refunds; credit note only.”
but when they’re caught planting nooses around campus themselves, they’ll insist that it’s inappropriate to punish them because they’re just “raising awareness” or “starting a conversation.”
Indeed.
…we love us some Carroll Shelby.
That is just because you are an Aunt Thomasina, didn’t you read how Shelby had six divorces and was a (gasp) womanizer ? Clearly you have been gaslighted (gaslit?) by teh patriarchy and are a
racegender traitor for not denouncing this oppressor. You should report for regrooving.Meanwhile, enjoy some reasoned lefty discourse at Chico and some more at, of course, Berkeley.
From the discussion of The Good Life linked above: There were quite a few subsistence hill farmers around our village and the way they lived in the early 70s was no picnic either, our Guardianista commentators’ fantasies notwithstanding.
What has long perplexed me about our tree-huggers and back-to-the-Earth types is how few of them have any experience living the life they fantasize about. I’ve yet to meet one of these Gaia-worshippers who has ever worked up a good set of callouses trying to coax Mother Gaia into providing a decent harvest. Not one has lain awake at night wondering if the new day would bring rain enough to keep the fields growing, much less dug a well and erected a windpump to mitigate such needs.
Of course, in their plans, they’ll simply write manifestos and bad poetry for the workers’ collective, while all the grateful workers provide them with the food and electricity and home furnishings they require to live in the style to which they are entitled. Funny how that works.
You should report for regrooving.
Ok!
What?
but it’s interesting just how often polyamory is presented, usually by left-leaning publications, as something statusful, with its proponents feigning an air of self-satisfied radicalism and moral sophistication. Which seems a little odd, given the practicalities and likely consequences
Ah, sophistication. I have noticed a tendency among highly educated people to defend or excuse (if not praise) all sorts of foolishness including this. There are times when it seems as if the chief function of intelligence today is to come up with justifications for silly things. (“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” –George Orwell)
Then, when he extended the radius to 15 miles to include the rest of the city and its outskirts, about half of the women were single mothers.
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror return.
Speaking of fake US hate crimes, Myles Garrett is now claiming, a full week after the fact, that..uh, oh yeah, Mason Rudolph called him a racial slur. That’s why he hit him on the head with his helmet. Why, it’s the only logical reason, right?
https://fox8.com/2019/11/21/nfl-upholds-myles-garretts-indefinite-suspension/
Myles Garrett is now claiming, a full week after the fact, that..uh, oh yeah, Mason Rudolph called him a racial slur. That’s why he hit him on the head with his helmet.
I now assume that, without corroborating evidence, such accusations are lies.
Also: I wonder if it has occurred to Myles Garrett that telling such lies might increase racial animosity. To borrow from a former writer for National Review, this sort of behavior raises the risks of interacting with random black Americans.
Get out of your bubble, Mr Henderson. It is not only the affluent who advocate for these things and drug law liberalization in particular is not confined to one political side or income bracket. That you conflate “decriminalization” with “experimentation” shows that you are not approaching these issues in good faith and I now discount your entire thesis as a result – despite largely agreeing with it.
It was an excellent film, regardless of one’s taste for racing, with tight pacing and wonderful acting. Though, to be fair, I cannot beat Ms Elliot’s recommendation of a 152 minute movie that doesn’t concern itself with parsing female feelings.
I, for one, am equally baffled seeing as how parsing the thoughts and feelings of Ken Miles wife is crucial to the story of Henry Ford taking on Enzo Ferrari.
I am reminded of the wonderful film Dunkirk, which was similarly lambasted by some feminist magazine (I believe it was Chatelaine) for the lack of female characterization.
The fact that it was based on a historical event that was composed of 99% male characters, mostly (but not exclusively) white French and British males, seems to have been considered irrelevant. The narrative is more important than reality, to some.
(T)he shortage of…. female racing drivers in the 1960s
Steve McQueen did some racing whilst in Britain in the early 60s for the making of “The War Lover”, and was apparently quite smitten with Christabel Carlisle. I’d provide a link, but WordPress and my iPad don’t see eye to eye; however the talented and fragrant Ms. Carlisle are worth a Google and a few minutes of your time.
“…is worth”.
Heh…the women of Dunkirk. It’s as if Mrs. Miniver had never been made. Here’s an interesting take on turning the whole historical accuracy argument inside-out and still getting it wrong…
http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2019/09/24/overlord-historical-accuracy/
I believe it was Chatelaine
Surely no statusful status-signaling there.
BAFTA, and no doubt other such organizations to follow, are painting themselves into a corner. They are now saying that unless a film has the approved proportion of the “disadvantaged” (i.e. not straight white males) then it won’t qualify for awards consideration.
Especially for many period films, this is either going to make for more historical absurdities (even worse than those seen in current BBC “dramas”) or the exclusion of films which should, self-evidently be in the running for awards.
The awards will become even more meaningless than usual when it becomes apparent that some films are winning only because of hitting arbitrary diversity targets.
P.S. anyone else remember when the enlightened position was to abhor bureaucratic regulation of artistic freedom? It seems such a long time ago.
P.S. anyone else remember when the enlightened position was to abhor bureaucratic regulation of artistic freedom?
Choose your enemies well. You will begin to resemble them.
Heh…the women of Dunkirk.
I think Monty Python has covered that angle.
The effects, on the lower reaches of the social hierarchy, of the status-signaling behaviours of the intelligentsia was well noted by Theodore Dalrymple.
The negativities of a certain set of actions often affect those least capable of dealing with them.