I Hate Middle Class "Liberals" and "Socialists" (and here's why)

Conservatives and conservative voters are different animals. The OP is not a political conservative, but rather a conservative voter.

 

lol Nah ain't no confusion. These hipsters (and most of the gentrifiers in my neighbohorhood are hipsters) are just yuppies in disguise. Capitalists in disguise, or what have you. As I've said, if they were straight conservatives, I wouldn't be nearly as angry. I value honesty.

The point of the article is that the gentrifiers are hypocrites. A person can wrap themselves in bohemian, anarchist/socialist garb and ideology...but that doesn't mean shit when it comes to their actions.

Some of the people replying to this thread are severely missing the point of what I wrote. The fact is, as I said, these people are hypocrites. No matter how you look at it, if one supposedly supports the working-class while simultaneously fucking over working-class people, that person is a hypocrite. And we're not talking about some vague, indirect correlation. We're talking direct effects here.

Although this is a months-old article...I think some people are accusing me of being unfair or 'confused' because they haven't read the entire piece. Which is fine. But don't defend hypocrites or argue semantics or justify what these weasels are doing.

I can safely assume that most everyone who posted a reply to my article falls in a leftist spectrum. Well...these folks are demeaning the definition of "socialist" by slapping the label on themselves (or, more accurately, their Prius) then contributing to the displacement of poor/working-class people.


*Edited for spelling

 

If by "OP" you mean 'original poster', and by 'original poster' you mean me, then I must say...no my friend, I am very far from a conservative or a conservative voter lol

Although I can see how you might assume that from the tone of my article.

 

Ok, point taken. But then are you saying you believe all conservatives own up to being careless of others? Cause that's kinda BS...I mean conservatives are JUST as hypocritical, if not more. All conservatives claim they are for small businesses, when, in fact, they then applaud the huge corporations for succeeding in the free market capitalist society in which we have built. Even if it drove grandpa out of business 20 years ago. But they certainly will not admit to their careless nature. You just assume as such...which I would agree with the assumption.

And let's look at this. It's not that us liberals that end up "working the system" are hypocrites, it's that...living in America, we don't have a choice if we want to succeed in life. Money matters. Money is what it takes to survive. To have any kind of power in how our country is run, we need to work the system to gain the money/power to do so. I have a strong disdain for chains and corporations, yet I currently work for one. Cause of the same reason any American takes a job...for the money.

But the point to your article IS the idea that all gentrification is due to upper middle class liberals, and they are to blame for tearing down neighborhoods and building "hipster" stores. And therefore are hypocrites for preaching liberalism or socialism and yet work the capitalist system for their own gain. This is what you've said 100 times over in 100 different ways. And I disagree on the grounds that on the latter point, they are forced to work the system, or they wouldn't get two feet off the ground in their lives. And that conservatives are indeed the ones ruining neighborhoods.

 

Ok, point taken. But then are you saying you believe all conservatives own up to being careless of others? I mean conservatives are JUST as hypocritical, if not more. All conservatives claim they are for small businesses, when, in fact, they then applaud the huge corporations for succeeding in the free market capitalist society in which we have built. Even if it drove grandpa out of business 20 years ago. But they certainly will not admit to their careless nature. You just assume as such...which I would agree with the assumption.

And let's look at this. It's not that us liberals that end up "working the system" are hypocrites, it's that...living in America, we don't have a choice if we want to succeed in life. Money matters. Money is what it takes to survive. To have any kind of power in how our country is run, we need to work the system to gain the money/power to do so. I have a strong disdain for chains and corporations, yet I currently work for one. Cause of the same reason any American takes a job...for the money.

But the point to your article IS the idea that all gentrification is due to upper middle class liberals, and they are to blame for tearing down neighborhoods and building "hipster" stores. And therefore are hypocrites for preaching liberalism or socialism and yet work the capitalist system for their own gain. This is what you've said 100 times over in 100 different ways. And I disagree on the grounds that on the latter point, they are forced to work the system, or they wouldn't get two feet off the ground in their lives. And that conservatives are indeed the ones ruining neighborhoods.

 

I have just re-read the thread (well most of it)...
I'd forgotten I'd been so involved in the thread.
I'd forgotten so much, I was asking where the OP lived ffs.
But I get it now.
I understand where people are coming from and what I think about it.

 

Nah when I say I'd rather have a bunch of upper crust Republicans gentrify the neighborhood, I'm saying that by and large, they're more honest about their views toward the lower classes. I KNOW a country club businessman doesn't give a shit about poor and working people (hell everybody knows that). At least that man isn't jerking himself off by putting on this 'bohemian' act like the liberal yuppies do.

And yes money does matter. But let's say you spend your whole life protesting big oil and natural gas companies. Then a company comes to you, says there's a big natural gas deposit right underneath your land.

Now, you take their money and let them do their thing, they're going to go ahead and continue on with the same fucked up energy policies we have. And, for good measure, they're probably going to ruin a local water supply in the process.

Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? (Just drawing parallels here...)

 

True, this would make one a hypocrite. BUT...with that example, I guess it would all depend on how loyal the person is to their belief. Money matters, sure, but say you actually DO own land...say a farmer etc. What if you're a 4th Gen owner of that land, and because of Ethanol Plants, you're makin alright money with your corn you grow...are you really going to consider selling the property to someone who found natural gas under your land by some computer grid??? Let alone, you have been protesting Big oil and Natural Gas for years. I don't care how much $ they'd offer, land has sentimental value, so does your home, unless it's a property within a city, the normal size of a standard Lot in a suburb...letting go of land without the intention of selling to begin with is hard. Now say, you're struggling to survive and are looking to sell the land. Cause it's the only clear way to survive financially. Obviously the Natural Gas Co. might be able to offer a bigger amount than another buyer...but this would still fall on how loyal you'd wanna be to your beliefs. And if it's the ONLY option...is it really selling out or being a hypocrite if it's for survival? "I've never supported Big Oil or natural gas...but in order to actually feed my family, it was our only option; to sell to the gas company."

Or say they are willing to pay you to pipe-out the gas under your land. You don't have to move or do anything...except receive a big fat check. Come on...if I spent my whole life protesting against it, why would I accept the offer? Regardless of how much money they'd offer. If I decided to give up McDonald's and haven't eaten there for 10 years, why would I just give that personal loyalty and promise up, just cause someone would pay me a million to eat there once a day for the rest of my life?

I guess you're assuming the working class bohemians would always sell-out when it came to something like this.

 

But take a conservative and throw in a situation where hypocrisy shines bright. A conservative Christian has premarital sex. BOOM...hypocrite. Again, a conservative Christian (usually is the case with Christians) who hears every Sunday "give to the poor" and "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation" and later that Sunday attends a GOP rally, and complain about their taxes going up cause they make 400K a year. And admittedly show no care for the lower working class. Or the black community for going under the assumption they are just "lazy" HYPOCRITE.

 

Rebuke:

It's not hyopocritcal. From a political standpoint it's trying to preach an example after learning from past mistakes. From a religious viewpoint it's a sin and in Christianity humans are sinners.

You seem to have mixed up racist and conservative in that last part. Also there's a pretty large difference between charity and government social programs, mainly the definition of the word charity in regards to voluntarily giving.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity

Someone donating to the Red Cross, for example, does not choose where their money is spent, or who gets their blood, unless specifically stipulated.

.

 

But they chose to give the money in the first place, that's the big difference.

 

You do, however, have a choice whether you live in America or not. If you do live here, you have certain responsibilities to the society; and in turn, the society has certain responsibilities to you. I see social programs much like insurance that I hope I never need. Last year I paid $460 for insurance on my pick up and got nothing in return, but several times in my life it came in very handy, and the other person's policy paid for my damages.

I paid into S.S. every week for as long as I worked. I worked for small businesses that did not have retirement plans, but now, I get a S.S. check each month that I can live on for the rest of my life. I also paid taxes that were in part for the welfare system, and if I needed help I could always get at least some food to eat.

In this way, I can see social programs as fulfilling personal responsibility to care for and provide for oneself, only done collectively.

Any society you live in is going to require some sort of responsibilities on your part; and American society actually requires less than most other cultures. If you go back to old Roman culture, citizens were required to make sacrifices to the gods in order to keep everyone safe and bring good fortune, and it was this requirement that got Christians in trouble.

.

 

I see your point. I can see how your child hood experiences may have influenced your decisions and beliefs now. But I do not see it socially correct of you to downgrade and outcast all liberals or socialist because of these experiences. The liberals and socialists today are not the same ones from back then.

To be even more frank, most of the "hipsters" from then, turned into corporate zombies. Running huge company empires themselves. And they in turn would overture into Conservatives and Republicans. So in a sense, you are out casting people for something that they majority did not have anything to do with. And you are defending the ones that did. This is no different than blaming a white, suburban 12 year old kid for the slavery practices back in the early 1800s.

However, I see your point. And I will respect your views.

 

Every time I see this thread bumped, I'm remember that I started it lol

I guess I should have narrowed my anger on "fashionable" liberals and socialists. I say this because my father is on the local Republican committee for the Philly river wards, basically, he's one of those dudes who puts flyers in your door. (I also vote Republican for any and every seat in Philly come election time. My city is basically a one-party city, and the Democrats are corrupt as fuck, so I make a point of voting Republican on local shit.)

Anyway, my pop learned that half of those "counter culture" types are actually Republicans. He knows because the top Republican in the ward (who's basically another guy who hands out flyers) gave him the complete list of registered Republicans in our neighborhood. Turns out more than half of the super duper liberal, Prius-driving "liberals" are actually Republicans.

So there ya go, if that counts for anything...

 

While we do have a choice of where we live, it becomes unimportant if the choice of how we live can be removed regardless of where we live.
We ALL live on the planet called Earth, within some geographical area which is defined as a Continent, Country, Nation, State, city, town, village, etc. At some point the term society needs to be clearly defined in regards to the responsibilities we are both willing and responsible for accepting. The U.S. government was not created to be a Socialist form of government, and only in the last century have changes come about which have promoted this and led the country down a path of fiscal irresponsibility and bankruptcy. Fifty States have become dependent upon a Federal government to keep them afloat with money it does not have, not to mention the banks and corporations that provide the jobs that produce the tax revenues partially funding the government requiring it to borrow the remainder.
Insurance is a form of risk management in which you and others pay into with the hopes of not needing it but knowing that it will be there if it becomes needed. Read the contract when purchasing it and you will know what it should provide and what it will not.
S.S. is a form of forced government insurance which those of us who have worked cannot opt out of, it was created based on the premise that enough people would not reach retirement age and therefore be capable of funding those who did. When the Social Security Act was created in 1935 the life expectancy was 59.9 years for males and 63.9 years for females, with benefits beginning at age 65. Currently the life expectancy in the U.S. is 75.6 year for males, and 80.8 years for females. Perhaps the smart thing for government to do would be to raise the age at which benefits could be received to 82 years or older? To make matters worse, the money taken in under FICA is spent totally in funding not only Social Security and Medicare, but to pay other bills as necessary, leaving IOU's in place of the cash that would otherwise accumulate. Once the cash flow of FICA is no longer able to take in a surplus, the borrowing will not only have to cover support of S.S. and Medicare, but also the other government programs that the excess had previously been funding. Government lives on credit cards, and when one is maxed out they just get another and use it to pay for additional spending including interest on those previously maxed out. Add to this the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar relative to what it purchased in 1913, prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve System, is now about 4.5 cents, and likely to diminish even further with the actions currently in progress at the Fed.
While Social programs can clearly be seen as a collective means of providing the needs of others, it does so by alleviating personal responsibility for many who are then easily led to have a negative opinion of those who are most responsible personally and view them as greedy.
What should be seen as the primary responsibility of living is personal responsibility. Society should not be held responsible for the success or the survival of any individual(s) who take part in it. Each person in a free society should be free to choose if, when or where they would like to provide help to others, be they within their own community, the opposite coast, or another nation.

 

I'm curious as to your interpretation of what you might see as key words used in the definition you made bold and underlined?

 

Good for you.

 

"Hipsters" are people with the sense to pick out OTHER people with good taste and copy it, but not the good sense to have any good taste of their own. They also feel a great need to belong. This generally makes them somewhat douchy, but they can generally be saved.

Sorry your neighborhood became yuppified... Happens. It's not nice, but it happens. Those are not true middle class, those are pretend middle class, with a way newer car than any real middle class, and way more money for foreign piss beer. I'm middle class, and I'm a liberal. I don't remotely resemble those people, or have ANYWHERE near that much money, and dislike everything about that kind of people. You have a less than accurate sample to look at, who call themselves things they're not. If they where socialists, they would not be doing what they where doing there. (I don't really like true socalism, but I can see that that's not honest socalism, just the same)

Names are just names, but in figuring out a problem, and addressing it, they can be very important. Those are douchy hypocritical yuppies, and that's about all they are.

About increased law enforcement and stricter laws, that's a nationwide push, to imprison as much of the country as possible. But it will soon fail, because we're going broke doing it.... Cali's kickin' em out.....

 

That's a part of this fucked up system, there's two parties that do the same thing, and in different parts of the country they hold the same offices, and each place their's a local hatred of the other party. It's part of what fucks national elections. Don't vote a strait ticket, find out about the people that you're voting for, or you're as much a part of the problem as the people voting a strait democrat ticket. Better yet, fuck em both, vote teaPOT party:2thumbsup:

By ralling behind democrats or republicans you're part of the problem. Unfortionatly there are few independants, but that's because free thinkers have to play ball to have a chance, figure out which ones are the right ones, no matter which party they claim to be in, (as I said, the partys are the same anyway, we're just talking about people who pretend to belong) and support them.