Who is it that comes up these labels? Why? What for? And to what end?
When I see the words used it is nearly always in the third person.
Seems those who favour their use do not think to refer to themselves.
Tearing apart the fabric of societies by reinforcing, reiterating and perpetuating the scourge is very odd way to lament the polarisation that is caused.
Politicians, civil servants, media hacks are all masters of that particular act.
While pondering why no one reads their reports, holds them in high regard, bothers to trust what they say anymore.
Exactly which bit is not glaringly obvious? Oblique references to unspecified individuals does not actually add any value.
It is just plain flat out offensive.
Despite the common consensus, ordinary people are not actually stupid. They just prefer to live lives with actual meaning.
A safe self-satisfied bubble that gets you a bank account blip irrespective of your actual performance – These are a skill of pointless people. The rest of us actually have to deliver.
Nassin Nicholas Taleb makes a very good point. Instead of elite versus the rest what about trying putting your skin on.
My life, and yours, only have value when we’re being excessively leveraged or completely ignored.
If this is ‘just how politics is’ why exactly does it exist?
I have never seen anyone adequately explain it. Identify one tot of it that is actually relevant. The contribution it makes to advancing the dreams of this, the next generation. Making sure we still have a planet to live on.
Delivering the services essential to making that happen.
And why does the media insist on writing about little else? Is it really a demand driven response? I don’t really feel I’m actually given a choice.
Thirty five years of merger and acquisition. Why is this so often confused with competitive market equilibrium?
…a rhetorical question.
Elites lead a life defined by rent seeking activities. Actively confuse this with actually working. Followed by years of superannuated lifestyles. Propagated by tax rates deemed by the same set as entirely inappropriate for ordinary people.
Yah! It would destroy the economy…
If you have a curious mind. Care about more than the latest trending whatever. Elites will have a conversation ordinary folks don’t. But with the world’s economic rent all flowing their way. It’s totally ‘unco’ to actually implement change.
Object to purchasing more stuff in the great flock of the ‘kardashian sheeple’. The ordinary person will find you quite boring.
Some will twirl loops in their hair while they gaze through you like glass. The more boisterous divert the conversation to the scoreboard of any number of sports.
Offer to nuance their search engine settings, to limit oligarchs depraved interest in your privacy preferences. The ordinary person’s eyes will glaze over.
The elite will assume your are in some way an ignorant, anti-everything retard. Letting go of your personal data only matters if you are actually stupid. Not holding ratcheted IPO stocks in your investment portfolio.
Code for being ordinary people looks pretty similar irrespective of the industry .0 whatever number.
If you haven’t already picked up on my punk, I dislike all that either label is actually about.
Each offers a humanity of either you are in or you are out. Out in both instances a consequence of will. Your absence of it versus the abundance in them.
Ordinary and elite is an all to casual parlance. A convenient short-hand to distinguish haves from have not.
It says and does nothing about closing the gap. It requires neither side to actually account.
There is no common humanity in the use of the words. They are destructive and lazy status-quo terms.
Seeing ones life in third person doesn’t make any sense. So why do so many of us choose to behave like it does?