I see words. But strung together in that order, I just can’t make any sense out of them.
Why would liberal elites want to keep poor people dependent on government for their well being? Are you under the impression that liberals enjoy paying high taxes and wish to continue paying more of them? Do you honestly believe that I want to pay for some red-neck racist hooked on illegal opioids to get treatment because he has access to a UHC system supported by my taxes? I really don’t. But I can’t in good conscience deny him a standard of quality of life that every person in society should have at a minimum. Because he probably has dependents. And I want those dependents to have a better chance at life than maybe he had. And if everyone in the society that I live is living a better quality of life, then it is better for society as a whole and thus better for me. So yeah, it is in my interest to pay higher taxes so that those who need assistance can benefit as well, and hopefully help themselves and others in turn.
How do you see society working if we just let the poor unwashed masses fend for themselves without a social safety net? Do you really believe that the thing that stands between capitalists/corporations/businesses from helping those in need is the rate of tax they pay? If we could just get taxes to zero, we’d all be fucking saved! It’s okay to admit if you believe in that lie. It’s so often repeated by republicans that I don’t blame some people for being worn down by it.
It isn’t necessarily that it would be hard, but why get bogged down with specifics when we can’t even agree that it is even a term with a meaning. A meaning, mind you, that some here say it isn’t even a thing.
So are we in agreement that it is a thing and the term means what I’ve clarified to mean?
I believe in a safety net. Many times have I posited that the safety net would be much better served on a sliding scale instead of some bright red line that denies partial benefits. Minimum wage as well, if you are going to have one, have it slide with inflation.
But this conversation is STILL going afoul of what the OP was about.
What is a liberal elite? Are you guys agreeing that it is a thing and now we are talking policies?
And their children, spouse, other family and friends, and their coworkers, and the other people who may be involved in what is now a fatal accident, and society if they don’t have health insurance etc…
Certainly wearing a helmet seems prudent to me, but I’m not willing to say I know better than the rider themself. Do you think you know better for the rider than they do for themself? Do you think that’s a choice they should not be able to make?
I’m not a staunch advocate for helmet laws, but I think there are other considerations needed aside from personal preference of the rider that often get forgotten about or handwaved away. Like potentially disability that we’ll all be paying for if they don’t just die in the accident. Or to support the surviving family with welfare etc. We are all part of society. Pretending we aren’t can just put the costs of our bad decisions on everyone else.
The Dutch, who know a thing or two about bicycles as a mode of transportation, and who are notoriously liberal by American standard, would agree with you. So you’re in good company.
I think this is actually a pretty succinct, but comprehensive description of the term, while still capturing the nuance IMHO.
Of note, and using your post only as a jumping off point, to the extent that the unabashedly hypocritical aspects of certain “liberal elite” conduct may be descriptive of actual behaviors done by actual people in certain cases, I don’t think anyone argues those are positives. That a group advocating for proposition A is also guilty of misconduct B, does not mean that all advocates of A are guilty of or would endorse such misconduct, or that proposition A is necessarily bad.
“Hypocritical elitists” would perhaps be a less politically loaded way to describe what is supposed to be bad about “liberal elites,” but then conservative elites might truly risk being accused of the same as they push for their own questionable policies which they themselves would be insulated from.
Riders know full well that some surprise event could result in them getting thrown off, getting a skull fracture, racking up medical bills they can’t pay, with they and/or their families becoming a public charge. They know exactly what they’re doing, and they do it anyway because they want to be tough and they don’t care how it affects others.
This isn’t about anybody “knowing better”. It’s about me not wanting to my tax dollars to go toward behaviors that are likely to cost others without benefiting others at all, especially when it’s an easily avoidable problem.
I’m being scientifically elitist about this, but do you really think that these people have an accurate sense of the accident rate? Especially the ones who think they’re immortal.
When seat belts became standard, there were lots of people who resisted wearing them because they were afraid they couldn’t get out of the car. They didn’t comprehend that they were more likely to be ejected than trapped.
If everyone had an accurate sense of the risks, then we could have a good discussion about whether helmets should be mandatory. But we’re far from that.
No. I do think some people will have an accurate understanding of risk and accident rate, and others won’t. Some people will misjudge the risk and get injured or killed. Some will accurately judge it and still get injured or killed. So be it. It’s their life, they can screw it up if they want to.
Same question to you - do you think people should be able to make this choice?