Her
I find sociological issues interesting too.
I think that it basically boils down to resentment, and the desire to be to claim superiority in some aspect when compared to the other group. However, their ways of claiming superiority are limited. Because of this, they choose the one they have the strongest argument in - moral superiority.
They can’t claim workplace superiority, because the typical measurement for this is financial success and high level positions within a company. Although there are exceptions, the “losers” are less likely to be middle/upper middle class throughout their life than the “winners,” especially in today’s work environment where working hard at a blue collar job does not guarantee you a middle class life.
They also can’t say that they are socially superior. Yeah, they are celebrated in films, but in reality they do not have as many social opportunities as the “winners (using msmith’s terminology)” do. I’m sure people will point out that they have different social opportunities, but I think that it is important to look at this in relation to what the social opportunities society places value on.
So, they claim that they are morally superior. They are honest, hard workers that are abused by the executive assholes; they have great personalities that those popular people just don’t see; etc. It is hard for the “winners” to argue against this because, in general, the “losers” are never in a position of power to abuse.
Please note that I am only commenting on the arguments “losers” bring up when they complain about the “winners.” In general, I don’t put people into categories like this, and I am certainly happy for my friends that are content with such a lifestyle.
Sweeet!!! I’m going to go take a crap on my gold plated toilet now!!
Excuse me, Moderators, but how much longer am I expected to endure these attacks?
And I did not say all poor people were losers. What I said was that it’s apparently ok for people who are not viewed as successful to make sweeping and offensive generalizations about people who are. A hard working poor person has a good work ethic but a hard working successful person is a greedy workaholic.
fine…“bitch” then… :rolleyes:
To try and drag this back into GD, I still disagree that successful people are generalized offensively. I mentioned in a post about 10 back that there are times when the highly successful don’t seem able to balance their lives in a healthy fashion. You could say the same for highly unsuccessful folks who sponge on their parents for years on end—no balance. It’s just that the successful are obviously going to get more attention in the press & by the public at large because we actually know who they are.
Again, I don’t think sweeping generalizations are really made against “winners.” I think there’s a certain type of “winners” that most people find hateful—namely the one-track-mind, cheat-if-I-have-to variety. There are extreme “losers” on the other end of the spectrum—namely the do-nothing-types who COULD get a job but would rather take a free ride for as long as possible. One’s hard-working to a detrimental extreme, the other lazy in the same way.
Seems to me that the trend of boosting the moral superiority of “losers” and cutting down “winners” goes far, far, far back beyond modern-day movies and comments on a message board.
Look at Jane Eyre—written in 1847—which emphasizes the moral superiority of the plain, poor, unfriended, physically small and weak (but heroic and loving) Jane over the beautiful, well-to-do, popular, robust (but selfish and bitchy) Blanche Ingram.
Heck, look at traditional folktales much older than that, where it’s always the simple, despised, “loser” third son who succeeds in the quest, because he had the kindness and respect to help the disguised witch or whatever, instead of flipping her off like his stronger, more admired older brothers. The moral superiority of the “losers” conquers again!
So however you want to psychoanalyze the ultimate causes of this tendency, I don’t think you can ascribe it to the particular resentments of particular individuals. The notion that the “losers” are morally better than the “winners” and will eventually come out on top is a theme that’s probably as old as storytelling.
I would even go one step further and say that the Magic Sperm Club variety of “winners” are most hateful. Basically people by virtue of their birth have had everything handed to them yet behave in such a way that you would think they achieved their “success” through their own efforts.
Didn’t some guy once tell a story about a rich man and an eye of a needle?
Tell me about it. Read the entire New Testament for a start.
Sorry, I wasn’t being mean about it.
I’ve learned over the months to just not pay attention to that 5% of people on this board who are always looking for a fight or someone to insult. Its made the board alot better for me.
But back onto your original question:
I’m really not sure. Bill Gates is the richest man alive and he donates most of his money to charity. However there is a major negative to the loser category. Some of the goths and other ‘indie types’ who come across as cooler are also very rude and defensive in my experience. I would say that people are somewhat more likely to fit those stereotypes than to be the opposite (ie, professors and grad students are more likely to be uptight than laid back, people who are really attractive and talk on their cell phones all day are more likely to be unreliable when trouble comes than reliable), but its definately not a guaranteed thing or anything.
Sour grapes I guess
What caught my attention was your strongly implied accusation of immaturity.
My strongly implied response was to leave personal attacks on other posters out of this discussion. If the topic does not suit you, ignore it. If something about the poster offends you, Pit the poster. Do not interrupt this discussion with ad hominem attacks on the poster.
[ /Moderating ]
You do not have to “endure” them, at all. However, since you seem quite willing to launch your own personal attacks even after a Moderator has intervened in this thread (so you have to know we’re watching it, but you should also recognize that we cannot sit on each thread 24/7), I will point out that you are completely out of line for your last comment and I am officially Warning you not to do it again.
[ /Moderating ]
You love it, admit it. [slaps buttocks] Go fetch me a beer. 
B G, you are not helping.
Were you slapping my buttocks or yours? 
Ah, Indie-snobbery. What you mention is further proof that the categories laid out in the OP are simply not real-world distinctions. The whole “cooler-than-thou” attitude is identical to “holier-than-thou,” or “richer-than-thou” or a hand full of other "than-thou"s usually associated with the elite, the “winners”, as they’ve been defined. Indie-snobbery, well, that’s just people lording their tastes above the general population, which is just like someone looking down their nose at you because you can’t afford to be in their country club.
Maybe, but come on. That was funny at least. I snorted after reading it, which is bad when you’re supposed to be doing some busy work on Excel, which, as we all know, is the least funny computer program ever made.