[aaplok]

> We create small, smart cadres of people who watch power and wealth pass them by, and they advocate to overturn the system driving their envy.

"They're just jealous" forms of arguments are an ad-hominem fallacy, where characteristics of the opponent (here their supposed intent) are used to discredit their argument [0]. Not only is there no evidence that these activists aren't sincere (which doesn't mean that they are right) but even if they were driven by envy, that doesn't invalidate their criticism of those in power...

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[why_is_it_good]

Some slopes are slippery and some people have the cause of their deeds in their [material] characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

[aaplok]

Good point, motive and intent do have value in assessing the likelihood that someone committed an crime (or any action). It's not quite the same as using motive to claim that someone is wrong though.

However, I agree that ad hominem is not always fallacious. If I claim that tobacco is not bad for health and it turns out that I have no medical background and that I was paid by the tobacco industry, arguably an ad hominem argument can be used to cast some doubts on my credibility on this particular issue. Probably enough doubts that one doesn't need to pay further attention to what I said.

However it's an approach that should be used with caution. It is much too easy to misuse it to lazily explain away someone's inconvenient argument. It is particularly pernicious when it is using a supposed feeling like jealousy, that are hard to disprove.

[Gibbon1]

I might make an argument that we decided to sidestep fights over class equity for things like sexual and racial equity. That suits the powers that be better. Because now the lower classes are arguing about status instead of their share of the pie.

[thereticent]

I'd respond that there are many academic (and non-academic) intellectual activists that argue exactly that.

[Guvante]

Sexual and racial equality are lenses to show that the supposed meritocracy of Capitalism is bogus.

After all if Capitalism can't ignore things that don't impact profits how can it be the perfect equalizer it supposedly is?

Unfortunately the money spent by think tanks to prop up Capitalism is vast.