|
|
|
|
|
|
by brvsft
920 days ago
|
|
|
I find this argument is utterly destroyed by the fact that the message is a complaint about the 'other side' telling her to modify behavior to spend less money. Yet her behaviors include some really egregious spending. How could I separate the two? Admittedly, I didn't have to know she made such an egregiously bad decision with her money to know she's wrong. I judged that immediately upon starting the essay because it's yet another angry rant against trivial financial advice that makes no difference and that no one forces you to take. The defensive and personal tone lets me know. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Happens every few months/years, people get up in arms about the Suze Orman meme advice to stop buying $5 coffee. If you're this angry about advice you're under no obligation to take, I know you're getting drunk and spending hundreds of dollars buy Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs or have some expensive substance addiction (e.g., cigarettes or weed) you could cut but choose not to. The anger is just so personal it's impossible that it's not coming from self-hatred. |
|
|
But therein lies your flaw, it's advice that is inherently based on an evaluation of the problem.
When someone judges you for the problem that they think you have, then offers advice, you can't simply ignore the advice and remain on neutral ground.
There remains the implicit offense of the judgement made by the person who is offering the advice.
"You are poor because you are spending your money frivolously."
"You being poor is a choice you've made based on your decisions and priorities."
It's not as simple as just saying "Cool, i'll ignore this advice, and remain no worse off." You have to continue to exist in the world where this person gets to believe these things about you and others like you, without being challenged.
So, no, I don't think the people getting mad at Suze Orman (or whoever else is making similar judgements) because they are defensive of their poor spending. I think they are defensive of the character judgement being made and believe it must be responded to.
Lastly, and this is directly at you: Everyone is entitled to some amount of joy. Some joys are cheaper than others. Some joys are more addictive than others. There is definitely a further element of elitist judgement in the "stop buying $5" advice - "you are not entitled to joy because you can't afford it."
But you went even further. By the time you are talking about "substance addiction" the solution isn't just "you could cut but choose not to". That's literally the meaning of addiction - that you CAN'T just cut it. Not without significant help and latitude to go through a pretty dark withdrawal period. Those of us with money and support structures and fewer obligations can just take off to rehab. This is not an option for someone on subsistence poverty. You can judge someone's character for having gotten into that position in the first place, but you have to realize it's not a coincidence that poverty and addiction are such close neighbors. It perpetuates through generations. Substances ease the load of existence for those with the heaviest load, and it's easy to say to avoid the short term pleasure for the long term consequences when you're not yourself in that position.