[presscast]

>The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me.

Let me make sure I understand, because I fear we may be talking past each other.

Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus?

(I'm happy to discuss the rest of your post once we clear up this particular point; it seems fundamental.)

[geofft]

I think it counts as logically reasoned animus, certainly much more so than animus towards fans of an opposing sports team. Whether it's justified is a question of one's particular moral worldview, but there are coherent ways to justify it, especially if you change it from merely having more money than the opinion-haver to having money past a certain point, usually correlated in some way to one's practical needs. It gets even stronger if you change it to those who keep money for the sake of keeping money or spend it in vain ways instead of putting it to good use, where there are lots of possible definitions of "good."

(I'm not totally sure where my own worldview lies, for what it's worth. Almost certainly the strongest form, and almost certainly not the one you stated. But I think it is defensible that some worldviews believe all of these and they are not the worldviews of people too irrational to be worth understanding.)

[tobr]

> Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus?

Not if the difference is trivial, but absolutely when it is as enormous and as unmotivated as it often is. Why would it be strange that obviously unfair inequality would be a source of animus?

[Thriptic]

Saying "I hate you for having more than me and I want your stuff" is just straight up jealousy, and it should be easy to understand why wealthy people respond with hostility to this, creating a negative feedback loop.

[tobr]

Your quote is a straw man, but what does it matter if jealousy is involved or not? You can disregard any animosity stemming from social injustices with that logic. Women are just straight up jealous because men are paid more. Blacks are just straight up jealous because whites have longer life expectancy. LGBTs are just straight up jealous because straight cis people don’t have to conceal a central part of who they are.

[Thriptic]

I think my interpretation of the thread was that anger towards people with money just for having money was legitimate. If your thought is that those people are actively retarding the ability of the poor to improve their situation, then I think you have some ground to stand on, but otherwise I don't think it is reasonable. I think it's ok to wish things were different; I think it's ok to be angry at a system; I think it's ok to be angry at people who have personally done you wrong; but I don't think it's ok to be angry at people who haven't personally done you wrong just because they have something you don't. I actually happen to fall into one of those minority groups that you mentioned, and I don't hate the other people that can do things that I can't; I hate the system and the people perpetuating the stupidity. That may predominantly be composed of people in that other group, but it is certainly not anywhere near all of them, and I have the ability to make that distinction and avoid prejudgements. That being said, all of that nuance went unstated in my original post, so my bad.

[rosser]

When (enough of) the people who benefit most from a system that's already biased in their favor unironically tell the folks on the far end of that benefit curve that they just need to work harder, they had the same opportunities as anyone else, it's their own fault, or whatever, I don't think it's terribly unreasonable for the people on the receiving end of that "wisdom" to develop a general sort of resentment for their "betters."

"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed." — Herman Melville

EDIT: Phrasing.

[geofft]

> I don't think it's ok to be angry at people who haven't personally done you wrong just because they have something you don't

The difference with wealth is that you can choose to become unwealthy on a moment's notice. So each day you remain wealthy is, itself, a choice. And the process of becoming unwealthy itself has direct benefits for the poor.

A white person cannot choose to become black and thereby remove oppression. A straight person who does not marry does not thereby yield the ability to marry to a gay couple. Even someone assigned male at birth who decides to present as female does not get to transfer her former male privilege to anyone in the process.

But someone who can afford a $10M condo that is as functional as (being generous) a $1M condo could directly transfer that $9M to people who don't have a place to live at all. So their choice not to do that—their choice to merely have money—is a decision we can justly evaluate morally, in a way we cannot evaluate merely having white skin or male presentation morally.

In my religious tradition, in our ritual confession of our faults, we apologize "for what I have done and for what I have failed to do." There is a story of a rich man who dutifully kept the ancient laws but refused to sell his possessions to the poor, and chose his possessions over the way of the religion. To remain rich (at least beyond one's needs and beyond the needs of one's credible plans to help the world) is an active choice, and can be criticized as any other choice.

[harimau777]

I think the difference is this:

It is right for oppressed groups to want to not be oppressed, it is not right for them to hate other groups because they are not oppressed.

[rosser]

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.

[d0100]

The saying would be closer to:

"I hate you for having ∞x more than me and actively preventing me from having a decent life, just to milk a little bit more from me. I want my stuff"