I mostly agree. They’re synonymous today, but I think there’s still an important distinction.
The term “middle class” is distinct from the “lower class.” But those two are more or less the same when compared to the “upper class” (what I would call the “wealth class”). Both lower and middle classes need to work in order to survive, while the wealth class has enough money to live without working (many of them still work, but it’s optional for them).
Any distinction between lower and middle class ends up harming both, and allowing the upper class to hoard more wealth. I generally try to promote the term “working class” because it doesn’t divide us, and more accurately portrays the differences between classes.
I’ve watched people like you shoot themselves in the foot with useless arguments like this since I was in high school.
You can’t just say “Tax the rich.” No, we have to analyze every term and only use proper nomenclature. Heaven will fall if we call a Social Democrat a Socialist and the seas will part if we confuse an anarchist with a Trotskyite.
I’ve watched it for years, and I’ve never once see it help anyone actually win an election.
If you don’t use proper nomenclature or explain what is meant in detail you have no hope of truly being understood. People’s ignorance of what things actually mean is used as a weapon against further understanding, like the good old fashioned “socialism is when the government does stuff and is also evil and any hint of it will introduce satan” or whatever
Being hostile towards proper understanding of a subject is not going to help you actually comprehend it
First, you can cut out a third of the words in a sentence and still comprehend the gist of the message. ‘Proper nomenclature’ might be important in a college essay or a legal writ but in the real world people slur their words and mishear the replies and still manage to get the point across. Words aren’t numbers; any word can have a dozen different meanings.
Look at former NYC Mayor LaGuardia. Back in the day he ran on a Fusion Ticket that included Socialists, Communists, and Republicans? You could spent a lifetime trying to sort out the exact definition of what he was. Do you think Nazi Germany was ‘Socialist’ because of National Socialism.
Second, how much comprehension is actually needed? Do you need to understand the difference between alternating current and direct current to know when to use batteries and when to plug a device into the wall? Do I have to understand aerodynamics to buy an airline ticket? Does someone have to know every single position a candidate holds in order to decide to vote for them?
But that’s the issue, I disagree that “we manage to get the point across”. A lot of the times we simply don’t
Do you think Nazi Germany was ‘Socialist’ because of National Socialism
And you bring up a great point here, about why it matters to have proper understanding of terms. Otherwise you’d be likely to lump in Nazism in with socialist ideologies. And that has happened a lot. People have used this exact line of reasoning to demonize socialism
This website might not be a college essay, but it is a forum, where ideally you go to to see different perspectives and learn something about something. So I think this discussion perfectly fits here, why should you limit gaining knowledge to an essay or legal writ? There’s no rush to get your point across
As for the rest, no you do not need to know the specific differences between AC or DC… but you better know there is a difference, lest you’ll blow a device up if you try to do anything non-standard (like, say, plugging a computer up to a backup power supply. You need to make sure it’s an UPS that outputs a proper sine wave, lest things will go wrong with your PC’s PSU expecting one, but getting a DC input instead). And you might not need to know every single detail of you candidate… but I hope you do actually know what their positions are, yes
My purpose in making the distinction isn’t to be pedantic, it’s to help clarify the nature of the class warfare we’re dealing with. I don’t care if you want to use the term “middle class”. I only bring up the distinction because of the nature of the original post, which was explicitly noting the false narrative of the “lazy poor”.
Tax the rich, restore the middle class, use whatever terminology you want. But understand that the poor are not the enemy of the middle class, and they’re not the villains. The rich people are.
When did I say anything about the poor being the enemy of the middle class, or that we aren’t all at war with the rich?
If you’re going to put words in my mouth please order some chips and salsa to go with it.
It doesn’t matter if you wanted to be pedantic, you were.
Now we’re involved in a useless argument over terms.
I’ve made my point twice, and I’m not going to repeat it a third time.
I understand your point, and I disagree with it.
If you decide to continue, you’re proving my point; that you’d rather engage in an argument with someone on your side than step back and accept a minor disagreement.
I mostly agree. They’re synonymous today, but I think there’s still an important distinction.
The term “middle class” is distinct from the “lower class.” But those two are more or less the same when compared to the “upper class” (what I would call the “wealth class”). Both lower and middle classes need to work in order to survive, while the wealth class has enough money to live without working (many of them still work, but it’s optional for them).
Any distinction between lower and middle class ends up harming both, and allowing the upper class to hoard more wealth. I generally try to promote the term “working class” because it doesn’t divide us, and more accurately portrays the differences between classes.
An illustration in this vein:
I’ve watched people like you shoot themselves in the foot with useless arguments like this since I was in high school.
You can’t just say “Tax the rich.” No, we have to analyze every term and only use proper nomenclature. Heaven will fall if we call a Social Democrat a Socialist and the seas will part if we confuse an anarchist with a Trotskyite.
I’ve watched it for years, and I’ve never once see it help anyone actually win an election.
If you don’t use proper nomenclature or explain what is meant in detail you have no hope of truly being understood. People’s ignorance of what things actually mean is used as a weapon against further understanding, like the good old fashioned “socialism is when the government does stuff and is also evil and any hint of it will introduce satan” or whatever
Being hostile towards proper understanding of a subject is not going to help you actually comprehend it
Two points.
First, you can cut out a third of the words in a sentence and still comprehend the gist of the message. ‘Proper nomenclature’ might be important in a college essay or a legal writ but in the real world people slur their words and mishear the replies and still manage to get the point across. Words aren’t numbers; any word can have a dozen different meanings.
Look at former NYC Mayor LaGuardia. Back in the day he ran on a Fusion Ticket that included Socialists, Communists, and Republicans? You could spent a lifetime trying to sort out the exact definition of what he was. Do you think Nazi Germany was ‘Socialist’ because of National Socialism.
Second, how much comprehension is actually needed? Do you need to understand the difference between alternating current and direct current to know when to use batteries and when to plug a device into the wall? Do I have to understand aerodynamics to buy an airline ticket? Does someone have to know every single position a candidate holds in order to decide to vote for them?
But that’s the issue, I disagree that “we manage to get the point across”. A lot of the times we simply don’t
And you bring up a great point here, about why it matters to have proper understanding of terms. Otherwise you’d be likely to lump in Nazism in with socialist ideologies. And that has happened a lot. People have used this exact line of reasoning to demonize socialism
This website might not be a college essay, but it is a forum, where ideally you go to to see different perspectives and learn something about something. So I think this discussion perfectly fits here, why should you limit gaining knowledge to an essay or legal writ? There’s no rush to get your point across
As for the rest, no you do not need to know the specific differences between AC or DC… but you better know there is a difference, lest you’ll blow a device up if you try to do anything non-standard (like, say, plugging a computer up to a backup power supply. You need to make sure it’s an UPS that outputs a proper sine wave, lest things will go wrong with your PC’s PSU expecting one, but getting a DC input instead). And you might not need to know every single detail of you candidate… but I hope you do actually know what their positions are, yes
Holy generalizations, Batman!
My purpose in making the distinction isn’t to be pedantic, it’s to help clarify the nature of the class warfare we’re dealing with. I don’t care if you want to use the term “middle class”. I only bring up the distinction because of the nature of the original post, which was explicitly noting the false narrative of the “lazy poor”.
Tax the rich, restore the middle class, use whatever terminology you want. But understand that the poor are not the enemy of the middle class, and they’re not the villains. The rich people are.
Holy genralizations yourself.
When did I say anything about the poor being the enemy of the middle class, or that we aren’t all at war with the rich?
If you’re going to put words in my mouth please order some chips and salsa to go with it.
It doesn’t matter if you wanted to be pedantic, you were.
Now we’re involved in a useless argument over terms.
I’ve made my point twice, and I’m not going to repeat it a third time.
I understand your point, and I disagree with it.
If you decide to continue, you’re proving my point; that you’d rather engage in an argument with someone on your side than step back and accept a minor disagreement.