Hacker News Reader

I have a somewhat similar background. When I was young (<18) I used to feel guilty from time to time. I mean there is no denying that I got a head start by being in a family that could support me in school, pressure me into getting an eduction, etc.

But after a while I started noticing a pattern. The people that are into shaming me are the ones that never do anything, never get involved into anything, all they do is attack others to feel better about their lack of results. Somebody who wants to change the world for the better sees an asset in me. I am smart, educated, have financial stability, I have resources to help others and it pays to have me working by their side.

So now in my middle age I laugh at these original sin proponents. White guilt, middle class guilt, born into money, cis, heterosexual, etc, just endless emotional bullshit by drama queens who never accomplished anything. I work and produce results. They just wanna tear down everything that makes them feel weak without having anything to replace it with. The freaking internet would stop without people like me and they would have no facebook and salon to bitch on.

The internet's infrastructure is a good example of relatively rich people doing good for everybody. Our digital world is built on tech developed largely for free by people rich enough to be able to afford this unpaid labour. Nobody ever thanks them, yet they go on because work, not complaint, is the only way to make an actual difference.

Keep laughing! It's the only weapon against malevolent idiocy.

> Our digital world is built on tech developed largely for free by people rich enough to be able to afford this unpaid labour.

Citation needed. As far as I know most Internet infrastructure was developed by government funded or commercial entities.

I think OP meant Open Source software? I still don't agree with OP's sweeping statement

Yes, should have clarified, obviously hardware wasn't built for free. Regarding the sweepiness of my statement: I feel like digital freedom would be in a much, much deeper hole if it weren't for the loads of FOSS software running our servers. Sure, there are proprietary solutions, sure some dev time gets paid, but a lot of work is being and has been done only, afaict, to make the world a better place.

> I got a head start

You know we're nearly too far lost when even someone like you thinks you got a "head start" because you were simply parented. You probably didn't even realize how that guilt shined through into your comment!

My parents were/are awesome and I will NEVER apologize for it.

Claiming to have a head start is not apoligizing for something. It's recognizing that you benefited from something you had absolutely no control over.

It's really great that you have awesome parents, and that means you're much better prepared for life than people who were not lucky enough to be born to such awesome people. That's not an apology. That's a description of reality.

>>There's a non-stop cliche that, since you're rich, you're an asshole.

I don't know how rich you are exactly, but in my experience, beyond a certain threshold (noticeable among upper-middle class and above), there is a strong positive correlation between wealth and assholeness - or at least traits we generally associate with assholeness.

The correlation is indirect, though. Wealth is correlated with income, which is correlated with rank (e.g. higher in the org = higher salary), which in turn is correlated with strength of personality. Assholes tend to push others aside (and take credit for everything) to get promoted, and those at the top tend to demonstrate sociopathic tendencies such as yelling at or otherwise abusing underlings, and making rules and policies that fuck over others.

There are of course exceptions, but there is little doubt in my mind that the correlation is real.

> There is a strong positive correlation between wealth and assholeness.

Then what's in it for me, rich person (In the hundreds of thousands of savings at 35, starting from $500 at 22), to give back or be kind?

Nothing, since you'll keep assuming I'm an asshole by default. That's the experience I give above: People who defend poor people are real assholes to richer ones, independently of their generosity or personal values. The only way you like a rich person is when they're not rich (even then you'll keep beating them until they're dead, because of their background).

It's the same mechanics at play that skews incentives when people live under prejudices, as when a racist says "All black people are thieves". Then all blacks are incentivized to steal, because the good person won't be recognized. Even if, in a parallel world, thieve proportions were true in statistics, it would still be wrong, because we can't afford leaving aside the hundreds of thousands of honest black people. We must give everyone a chance and treat them with equality.

Saying "all black people are thieves, there are exceptions but there's a strong correlation" is an unfair generalization, just as saying "There is a strong positive correlation between wealth and assholeness [...] there are of course exceptions, but there is little doubt that the correlation is real". Which are... the exact words you've said.

>>Then what's in it for me, rich person (In the hundreds of thousands of savings at 35, starting from $500 at 22), to give back or be kind?

I've done my fair share of charity and volunteer work, both locally and internationally. Let me give you a piece of advice... True kindness and generosity come from the heart. The positive effect you have on those you help should be the only thing that factors into your sense of fulfillment.

If you are giving back and being kind to people with the mindset of "what is in it for me" then you will always feel dissatisfied and unfulfilled regardless of how others view and treat you, because in your mind it won't be "worth it."

So yeah, if you're doing charity work to boost your social status or to deflect criticisms about your wealth or upbringing, you're missing the point.

"If you are giving back and being kind to people with the mindset of "what is in it for me" then you will always feel dissatisfied and unfulfilled "

Very true, but i think you misread his original comment(great grandparent of yours). Here is a quote:

"I never expected a "thank you". But a little consideration and respect from the leftists would do."

Based on the original comment, I dont think he is doing charity for the praise, I think he just doesnt like the automatic assumption of being an asshole.

Making friends is much harder when people make that presumption. It is frustrating when people you've never met before criticize you, and they are completely wrong. But you can change their mind, because you are a rich person, and they all lie. I agree that you shouldnt do good just for social status, but it would be nice if you werent ostracized by people who have the same ideals as you.

> Then what's in it for me, rich person, to give back or be kind?

Why must kindness be justified? "Kindness is it's own reward", no?

Nothing, since you'll keep assuming I'm an asshole by default.

No, he won't. And you have no evidence that he will.

But it's with this very remark, and the mind games behind it: "You're unfairly biased against rich people! I just know you are. So I'm going to call you on it preemptively, until you prove otherwise" -- that you are, objectively, exhibiting asshole-like behavior.

It makes sense that you feel frustrated by criticism, but you should recognise the fact that if you were poor you'd feel frustrated also. The point of there being an imbalance of opportunity ("privilege" and lack thereof) is that some people benefit from it and others are taken advantage of.

It's only reasonable to expect that the ones who are taken advantage of will feel frustrated, regardless of any acts of redress offered as a compensation from those who benefit form the imbalance.

>> The problem isn't the poor: They do need help.

I don't think that's the problem. I think the real problem is that in a society that values material wealth above all else, everybody wants to have more of it in order to be valued as a human being.

So the poor want to become rich and the rich want to become richer. You can't fix that with donations, unless you and everyone else who is some level of rich share your entire fortunes with everyone else... or unless the entire financial system changes radically and fundamentally (which will happen around the same time as pigs grow wings and fly away).

>> The boss who bullied me in plain sight of everyone

I mean, I don't think you sound that rich even (not 30+ meter sailing yacht rich, say). It is definitely unacceptable for people to treat you badly, for whatever reason, not to mention your income. On the other hand, if you were that rich you wouldn't have to put up with them in the first place, so that's doubly wrong.

> I think the real problem is that in a society that values material wealth above all else

Not sure that's true. There are tremendous movements of people valuing love over money. What we need is love. And since, personally, I'm unhappy and I'm constantly downplayed by a lot of people and I'm given a feeling of guilt (see: feminism, for example), then I'm obliged focus on fighting for my right to belong to society instead of fighting for others' right to belong to society.

I agree with the rest of your comments, and thank you for that kind and mindful last paragraph.

Maybe stop labelling people 'leftists' and thinking of the world in a black and white, tribal, left versus right 'us versus them' way.

That doesn't help anybody.

Yet, aren't you also applying similar stereotypes to "leftists" here? Not everyone with a left-wing political outlook has the attitude you have described.

It might be time to redefine "leftist" at this point. What is so "left" about being intolerant?

To me it seems more like class warfare, and sides are being chosen amongst the elites, the ultra poor, and those of us stuck in the middle.

You, unfortunately seem to them like an elite but behave like a traditional conservative, which gets you nothing but hatred from all angles. I'm sorry about this and hope you keep doing and preaching what you believe in.

> What is so "left" about being intolerant?

Nothing. It's utterly meaningless and just a way to define an 'us' and a 'them'.

There are elements in the far left, very outspoken elements that are very intolerant. It's not something that is inherently left, but it's become the public face of the left to all of those who have different views.

The right has similar issues, you mention you are right and you get pegged with the climate change deniers and everyone assumes you think the poor are poor because they are lazy. This is not what most in the right think but it is what gets the most press.

> I never expected a "thank you". But a little consideration and respect from the leftists would do.

Kudos. Have you ever done something nice that you haven't told anyone about? (and don't interpret that as a personal attack, it's a serious question.)

I almost never talk about all of this. Except the detention centers, it's so interesting and emotional that I often tell the stories. That's where I learnt about Christmas Island.

I also live in France and I couldn't agree more. There's an implicit (and often explicit) hatred (on the left) of those that are more financially successful. There is also a social distrust of entrepreneurship and any activities that are higher risk, higher reward.

"The nail that sticks out gets hammered."

That's true on all left skewed countries, not just France. Southern Europe countries are a good example of such distortions.

Germany is just the same (YMMV)

A possibly noteworthy difference is that there are no 'superior' schools or universities in Germany, at least I never heard of it. Of course, there are differences but they will rarely decide who's going to get the job.

Is it true? From what I heard, people with degrees from Fachhochschule are very much looked down upon. Also, anyone with a degree feels the need to add it as a title to any kind of correspondence.

Fachhochschule is a college, somewhere between postsecondary vocational training and a bachelor degree. You might call the degrees you get there "applied bachelors", and yes, they're "less" than "academic bachelors".

It's like high school diploma < postsecondary vocational training < applied bachelor < academic bachelor < master < phd < postdoc < special professor < normal professor.

Pretty much every level is looked down upon by those above it.

Well, Fachhochschule and University are both free, and admission is based on merit, sometimes with bonus points for civic / volunteer engagement. However, there is a correlation between parents' financial and social standing and childrens' success in school. The German school system is quite complex to explain (partially because we have 16 independent ones, one for each state), and efforts are being undertaken to help students from disadvantaged families succeed, but more work is needed to close the gap.

Most of the people with fancy degrees that I know don't give a damn about the title. It might be more pronunced in older generations. That's just my sample point, though.

>> a private high school and top college (both of which cost <$100/month and have active policies for lower income families)

That's... very unfair.

Education is one of those things that exemplify privilege, because it's just so unequal, and dependent on income.

Offering positions to a top school to a few kids from poor neibhroughoods doesn't begin to address the fact that the vast majority of those positions are offered to kids with rich parents, often without any regard to their academic achievements. Where academic achievement is taken into account, the fact is often that the kids from the richer backgrounds are in a much better position to take advantage of the opportunity, because of their higher income.

For a personal example: I went to a private school, one of the "good" schools in my country of birth (Greece). This was thanks to my father's political connections, rather than his income. Pretty much all of my fellow students could afford extra-school teaching sessions, to help them with their grades. I didn't get any, because my father couldn't afford them, so my grades sucked throughout school.

This was compounded by the fact that many of my teachers also offered private tutoring, which tended to significantly boost the grades of the pupils who chose to take advantage of it. There is an obvious conflict of interest in having a private tutor who also grades your school work, but at least my dad's connections (I think he was owed some favour from the school's owner) ensured that I managed to finish school. I'm finishing a Master's now and preparing for a PhD, so I'm not complaining, I can do well in my life.

Still, I have many friends from similar, or poorer backgrounds who didn't have a dad with good connections and had it much harder than myself.

There's also the fact that kids from poorer backgrounds tend to suffer from problems that never trouble the richer kids. For example, all my friends from out of school did "drugs"- I mean they did stuff like sniff gasoline etc. Needless to say this did not help their job prospects much. Is that income dependent- you betcha my rich fellow students, if they ever did drugs, would get the good stuff, not glue and gasoline.

Again, I dont' think that's something you can fix with donations. The problem is that a very large number of kids from poor families simplly fail to find their way in higher education, or employment, that matches their level of ability and get into situations that the rich kids simply never find themselves in. Some get lucky and benefit from support programmes, but the majority do not. That is a great injustice and it makes sense that people are frustrated about it.

And, again, while donations and philanthropy help, things will not change significantly unless we find some fundamental way to address inequality- which is very unlikely.

You don't get it. At ~1000$/yr, it's almost free, independently of your background, and admission is based on good grades at high school. We do get factory worker's children in the main admission, proof that it's possible. And in addition to that, there are more seats offered to people with low income and average grades at school. Concerning extra-school teaching sessions, nobody takes any, so money won't be a discrimination factor. Concerning housing, if your income is low, the on-campus housing is free, the subscription fee is reduced and they get pocket money. What could we do more?

Society can only ensure:

- Poor people => treated with humanity,

- People who work, independently of their background => be rewarded.

> You betcha my rich fellow students, if they ever did drugs, would get the good stuff, not glue and gasoline.

For those who decided to smoke gasoline, who decided be a high-school shoplifter for fun, or decided to mug other students, then a hospital is the most that Republic can give them, not higher education. Life's what you make it, and society can't offset your own will.

I don't mean this as criticism, only observation. Maybe you haven't been expressing yourself accurately, but based on what you've written in this thread, it appears you have very, very little empathy.

You are trying to give logical explanations of how other people are living their lives wrong. It seems like you think it would be easy to be in their shoes. You've listed some benefits given to them and asked what more could you possibly do.

The fact that you think $1000/yr is almost free is just so wrong for many families. I am glad you didn't have to grow up in a situation where $1000 wan't an incredible amount of money.

Everything you've written still contains an Us Vs. Them vibe. Please try to be aware of this. It can really improve you're life and relationships with others.

>> We do get factory worker's children in the main admission, proof that it's possible.

I don't doubt that it is possible. What I'm saying is that it is not common, nor easy. Overwhelmingly education favours the kids form the more privileged backgrounds, who can afford not only a good education, but also all the expenses of actually studying for a good education (for instance, not having to work part-time to support their studies) and who are better placed to take advantage of a good education once they graduate at whatever level (e.g. because they come from a good family and people will take care of them).

Also, France is a bit special in that higher education is cheap or even free. This is not the case in other industrialised countries, notably the USA and the UK. In the UK in particular, studying for a higher education qualification often means having to repay a student loan debt for a very long time (like in my case.

>> Life's what you make it, and society can't offset your own will.

In principle, perhaps. In practice income affects every aspect of your life. It affects the choices that are available to you, and it affects the outcomes of those choices.

For instance, if you go to a good school where good kids don't do drugs you'll be much less likely to do drugs and harm your prospects than if you go to a school in a poor neighbourhood where that thing is far more common everywhere you look. Same goes for (violent) crime and so on.

Also, it's the case that when you're poor you can't afford to fuck up even a little bit (not to mention, a whole lot). When you're rich it's much easier to get off lightly, or even get rewarded for screwing up. I have personal examples of that also, but others have discussed it. I'm looking for a source, but I think Noam Chomsky has talked about this a bit.

> Life's what you make it, and society can't offset your own will.

That goes against pretty much everything I've seen (and read) of human behavior. Willpower and choice and good decisions are not somehow magically impervious to upbringing and context. In fact, I'd say as 'herd animals' we're more defined by the latter than by the former.

If you are right, and every individual can somehow decide in the same way regardless of context ('willpower'), the logical conclusions are rather uncomfortable.

We'd have to find a way to explain why large homogenous groups of people (grouped by race, gender, or whatnot) all make the same bad decision. If we believe they have the same ability to choose as anyone else, the only alternative explanation I can think of involve things like racism (they have a low IQ) or sexism (they just aren't meant to be in charge), and so on.

Anyone in decent health and with moderate intelligence can achieve most things (s)he wants in life.

People love finding excuses, but in the end, there's literally an opportunity to make money around every corner. Often it's just a matter of being willing to act on that opportunity. I don't really come from a privileged family and I haven't done too bad for myself at a (relatively) young age. I know plenty of others that have as well.

Half of the problem of poverty is the mindset; some people have been let down so many times that they just don't care anymore. And yet, it takes a change of mindset to get out of poverty.

To quote Napoleon Hill: "Whatever Your Mind Can Conceive And Believe, It Can Achieve".

Is this satire?