The Minority Argument killer
ℹ️ ⚔️ Information Warfare ⚔️ ℹ️
Let us propose a hypothetical - some leftie comes at you with a "minority" support argument. Ive been playing with this, and found the dark heart at its core. It all boils down to the idea of the minority. Heres 5 bullets that i think will help kill it in all but the most brainwashed. It certainly will hit them with a dose of cognitive dissonance.
- The deepest, and one of the most diverse minority groups in the world is the super rich. They exist among all races, are usually numbering less than 100 wherever they are, and have the most to lose in life from the majority.
- This "minority" is the one you are most deeply against as a leftie (and we here hate most of them for being cabalites too, but that's a tangent), and yet it always seems to benefit the most from your efforts to help what you think are minorities.
- This specific minority you claim is "the white man", thus ignoring the plight of poor white men and women all over the world, and presuming there are no wealthy black, arab, asian, or other non-white individuals. So racist, isn't it, to presume wealth based on skin tone.
- As this minority has the smallest size of all groups, but the greatest influence in how the world works, surely this negates the idea that "minorities have no influence" ?
- Most of this minority is probably footing the bill for your side's activism, and we can prove it with receipts. They certainly are the biggest beneficiary.
If they try to redirect it, just focus on the minority point, and keep them from claiming its only a PoC issue.
I dont see how ive backtracked. There are ccp elites, and dont really appear at all in forbes' data because they can simply state "this belongs to the country" and poof no asset count against an individual. Doesn't make the ccp less of an elite group, esp. The core hundreds that have real authority. If anything, it shows them as a more endangered minority if the majority en masse acted against them.
Again, presuming a western societal value system can be applied globally not only forces a huge bias to westerners being the majority of the 1% (and thus forcing the data to a more eurocentric ethnicity), it ignores the ways socialism creates elites and how it identifies them. Hint: its not via asset value.
Also im not sure how it is wrong to say there more total elites in the 1% of china than the 1% of america even if the american ones have more total wealth than the chinese.
So my issue here is more with the presumption wealth is a good measure of what makes an elite in any society. It is more an emergent force driven by other forms of influence, similar to fame. Political prowess, innate talent, desirable services, long held traditions (eg institutional credentials or royalty), reputations, and track records are far more powerful drivers for influence, and often it is these which then generate wealth (and various forms of power, and in some cases fame too, all of which can be viewed as influence measures).
key figures get lost in the weeds by using that list as well. People in england would rightly think the royals have a lot more influence there and in the commonwealth than say Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would have via their money. Having a family line that literally owned a third of the globe less than a century ago is the kind of clout tradition can provide. Yet the queen is at half a billion USD for net wealth, while those three would probably look at that as a being flamboyant week's holiday money. Does that make the queen less of an elite than Bezos or Elon?
I wont disagree there are probably more chinese than indians in a wealth measured elite rating system. I just don't think wealth is a so much a driver as a growth kpi for influence outside a regional bubble. As an aside I'm also not sure how the indian culture views status generally now. From what i know, generally it is still very caste driven, and i think that caste would determine who is still an elite there, which makes it trickier to judge generally.
wealth is a relatively weak kpi too, because bad decisions made by someone else can obliterate that wealth overnight. Most big net worth shifts are investment related, and as such ephemeral in nature until exchanged for cash or physical assets. Its also not a great measure of what qualifies as an "elite" outside a pure capitalistic society, which doesn't really exist in reality anywhere today (yet). If it did, I'd be a lot happier to use that list.