• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Do you consider wealthy liberals to be hypocritical or a paradox?

hwarang

hwarang

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,450
Been wondering what ERA thinks about this.

A lot of these wealthy billionaire liberals profit off of investments in assets that could only have derived their performance from an economical infrastructure that contributes to climate change in a negative way. Tom Steyer for instance. Even Sanders. Those printings of his books that made him a millionaire aren't made in a clean tech way.

How are they able to resonate and relate to those that struggle?
 

Deleted member 431

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,675
Liberalism reinforces the economic status quo but with a few leftist social values and some performative wokeness mixed in, that's really it.
 
Angelus Errare

Angelus Errare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,573
Racoon City
Seeing how in the US liberalism pretty much is "maintain the status quo of the current climate" no, no I'm not shocked. Call me when the wealthy are leading the charge on actual progressive change that negatively affects their bottom line in a tangible way.
 
Volimar

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,324
Plenty of capitalist liberals out there. It doesn't make them bad on most social issues though.
 
Neece

Neece

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,198
Liberal doesn't mean leftist or environmentalist. Liberals 100% support and want to uphold capitalism. There really isn't any hypocrisy there.
 
SmackDaddy

SmackDaddy

Member
Nov 25, 2017
3,149
Los Angeles
Define wealthy. Billionaire strict liberals are hypocrites. The rest of the spectrum I wouldn't necessarily dog on them for it. What am I gonna do, throw 50 percent of my taxes to the IRS and nothing gets done about it?

I vote in the hopes that changes will happen someday. Its up to the politicians to make that happen. True wealth equality isnt gonna be a platform of a major Democratic candidate... Like... Ever. Taking steps towards it, so nobody owns 1% of the worlds wealth, that's great and is gaining popularity
 
Arebours

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
Being left, communist or whatever doesn't change the economic system we currently live in. It's not hypocritical to be rich and socialist at the same time.
 

Deleted member 34725

User-requested account closure
Banned
Nov 28, 2017
1,058
A lot of people confuse liberal and leftist. There is a huge difference. It's amazing how status quo liberalism is and yet the right was able to even demonize that term for decades.
 
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
No. Capitalism is the mode of production that occurs in liberal societies.

(Capitalism can also operate in non-liberal societies such as China, but liberalism will always uphold capitalism due to liberalism's support for private property rights)
 
iksenpets

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,484
Dallas, TX
I don't think any millionaires or billionaires are fighting for anything more extreme than "please raise my taxes to do some more government things for poor people". Which is against their self-interest, sure, but not really an unprecedented amount of self-sacrifice for some basic moral concerns. And Bernie Sanders has never really called for an immediate cessation of all economic activity that pollutes like printing his books, and has never really envisioned a world where there isn't some level of capitalism that would let people get as rich as he is.
 
-Peabody-

-Peabody-

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,594
They'll never be able to fully relate to someone who lives paycheck to paycheck but there aren't many other options, unfortunately.
 
ghostemoji

ghostemoji

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,816
It's hard to opt out of the society you live in. I can give away all of my money and die poor, but that doesn't feel like a solution or worthwhile alternative.

I assume OP is talking more millionaire/billionaire types, but I've been thinking about that a lot recently. I can vote for socialist policies and reject capitalist ideas, but I am still putting money into a 401k and trying to keep a good credit score. Idk if I should feel guilty about it.
 

Deleted member 4461

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,010
Nah. Besides, there are ways to get rich without exploiting people... athletes do it, musicians do it, etc.

As technology improves, this will be true for more industries
 
G.O.O.

G.O.O.

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,089
Some people become rich and use their wealth to advance human rights, environmental causes etc. I don't see a problem with that.
 
Funky Dude Sparks

Funky Dude Sparks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,317
For conservatives, billionaire liberals are a hypocrites and paradox that they don't understand and yet get angry at whenever they mention about social justice or climate change. They get indigant because they can't comprehend how these people can make money and still (in their minds?) care about stuff. Whether willful ignorance or just outright stupidity, billionaire liberals continue to be heard more then activists. Sure we have the liberal celebrities pouring the money into social justice organizations or equality right, but really, what else are they going to do with that cash? Bernie spoke a lot more (even though he himself is millionaire himself) of the material conditions of the working class and millienials. While millienial are making and breaking industries, it's because the material conditions a lot of petit and lower bougie class millienials find themselves. and alot of them are finding them going into working class because of debt and other money problems.
 
Cels

Cels

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,772
not really, but i suppose it depends on what you mean by "liberal"

look at the coastal elite and overwhelmingly liberal cities where despite professed friendliness to the poor/downtrodden there is no political will to solve housing issues/homelessness.
 
Funky Dude Sparks

Funky Dude Sparks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,317
ghostemoji said:
It's hard to opt out of the society you live in. I can give away all of my money and die poor, but that doesn't feel like a solution or worthwhile alternative.

I assume OP is talking more millionaire/billionaire types, but I've been thinking about that a lot recently. I can vote for socialist policies and reject capitalist ideas, but I am still putting money into a 401k and trying to keep a good credit score. Idk if I should feel guilty about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I feel the policy of as long as your 401k isn't being contributed by corporations who active harm the working class and the poor and other stuff

VISION said:
Liberals and leftists are not the same thing
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Damn right
 
Mona

Mona

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
26,151
Kthulhu said:
Liberals are capitalists, so no.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
HtO.gif
 
Funky Dude Sparks

Funky Dude Sparks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,317
I would argue that Nancy Pelosi is too old and ingrained in old boomer politics to realize that the American political establishment doesn't really see the working poor and the upper working class as actual human and Trump is just an evolution of that thought
 
Sensei

Sensei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,497
its consistent

for most of them, its "Love wins and lives on the street" basically. they accpet you being gay and they think you shouldnt be harassed for having your rainbow pride tents in the shanty towns
 
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
Vermillion said:
Nah. Besides, there are ways to get rich without exploiting people... athletes do it, musicians do it, etc.

As technology improves, this will be true for more industries
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A lot of athletes and musicians have some kind of side business to make up for potentially inconsistent income. Stuff like starting restaurants or becoming a landlord which absolutely involves a form of exploitation.
 

Deleted member 4461

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,010
Kthulhu said:
A lot of athletes and musicians have some kind of side business to make up for potentially inconsistent income. Stuff like starting restaurants or becoming a landlord which absolutely involves a form of exploitation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not the super wealthy ones. But like, starting a restaurant is wrong now? What's the Era definition of exploitation?

Is owning a business exploitation now?
 
MoonToon

MoonToon

Banned
Nov 9, 2018
2,029
User Banned (5 Days): Trolling, Inflammatory Generalizations
Libs are not socialist so not at all.

They're basically just as greedy but with less up front out in the open racism and "fuck you" with some fake "woke" tossed in but "they can't say what they REAAAAALY feel because the other side will weaponize it and win!" so people just have to believe in their heart of hearts that they care.

When ever the powers that be set things up for you to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" you know they're just a different flavor of shit.
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
No, not really. As others have said, this is perfectly in line with capitalism which is the economic mode most closely associated with liberalism. Even Bernie was pretty lax on this front.
Vermillion said:
Is owning a business exploitation now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends, how much of your own labor do you contribute to the business?

All/Most/A lot: Not exploitation
A little/None: Exploitation

It's a gradient that runs from no exploitation (fully self employed, no other employees) to all exploitation (employing and extracting value from people you never see or interact with, no labor of your own is contributed).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 42641

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 25, 2018
864
Vermillion said:
Oh. That's top 20 dumbest things I've ever heard.

Y'all can have that one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lol Crazyivan is not wrong, exploitation is just any time you have workers working for a wage and dont have any ownership of the establishment while the owner makes more. Probably missing some details on it though but to my understanding thats the simplest way you can put it
 
Tukarrs

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,814
I don't consider them to be hypocrites. Giving up that wealth does not transform the system. It just eventually funnels that money into some other oligarch.
As long as the wealthy liberal is fighting to reduce wealth inequality, then I think that's a net good.
 

Deleted member 4461

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,010
Nami Fan said:
Lol hes not wrong, exploitation is just any time you have workers working for a wage and dont have any ownership of the establishment while the owner makes more. Probably missing some details on it though but to my understanding thats the simplest way you can put it
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...Should the owner not make more? Like not a billion times more, but like... should they not make any more?

How is that exploiting?

Even without money, this is a concept that will always exist. One person will get more attention, notoriety, whatever than another person that will translate to power. Triple that if one person leads another.

And the only way you don't get that is if the government rules all things all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.