Well, first, there's this assumption that it's people below the poverty line who are rioting and fueling the days of rage. How true is this actually?have I got the framing right @suspended :
spending $100 on food a month is ofc miserable but the question that remains is how does that relate to rage? if I understand gus's argument its that rage itself is contingent on the narrativization of that situation while Im saying the rage is innate and its the direction and expression of rage that is contingent.
Who's assumption is this? Let's ignore this. It's a red herring.Well, first, there's this assumption that it's people below the poverty line who are rioting and fueling the days of rage. How true is this actually?
Some of it is. It's a factor. What I am wary of when there's an emphasis on this is it implies the sufferer can just rewrite their script and be happy. It's their problem essentially, and they can solve it, if only they choose to.I think much of rage is characterized by narrative interpretation of one's situation, like 1) whether and who to to blame, 2) whether the situation could have been better than it is, 3) whether other people have it better, 4) whether things are going to get better, and whether other people are trying to help you vs. indifferent, etc
Who is implying this? Let's ignore this. It's a red herring. :shit_eating_Grin:Some of it is. It's a factor. What I am wary of when there's an emphasis on this is it implies the sufferer can just rewrite their script and be happy. It's their problem essentially, and they can solve it, if only they choose to.
Yeah I alluded to this in the other thread. I think people who are just surviving don't take a day off work and travel across the country to stand outside a building and shout. I mean if someone lays a bus on for them perhaps, but there is a logistical element to protesting that means it's not available to everyone.Well, first, there's this assumption that it's people below the poverty line who are rioting and fueling the days of rage. How true is this actually?
What do you think explains the difference, if not the framing or script? Maybe one big difference is immigrants have a minimum amount of human capital to get their butts across borders and start a new life in a new country. So there's a self-selection effect. These people aren't schizophrenics self-medicating with an alcohol addiction. Still, this implies that human capital is as big or a bigger factor than material wealth in rage/life satisfaction.is it
yes but that narrative is built on the fact that even if they are 'objectively poor' they are still materially better off than the situation they were coming fromFor instance, many immigrants in this country, despite being objectively poor, a minority group with minimal representation, and working their butts off on two jobs, feel only grateful. That's all narrative!