What if you suddenly got poorer though? Say if you became homeless and it was somewhat visible you were poor? I bet you wouldn’t steal then, because you’d know you’d get caught - people hate the poor and homeless and associate them with morality and would assume you’d steal.
That you steal food is understandable but not a given. Some people go to food banks instead. Some grow food. Some beg with signs instead of steal. Some qualify for food stamps. Theft is usually a rich to middle class thing because they can weather the consequences better. Most poor people do not steal material goods like that from stores because they already know how to be poor and live on nothing without resorting to thievery (or else they are already incarcerated).
No, I’m very poor. I’ve been homeless, I’ve used food banks and I literally used to run a vegetable farm, so it’s very funny you would suggest I grow food.
So why resort to stealing now? Because you’re angry at the stores now for inflation, so you want to punish them? That’s different than being poor. Being poor doesn’t make a person automatically antisocial, immoral, or more likely to harm another and to say otherwise is propaganda or an excuse to be antisocial. If you want to harm corporations in revenge, say that and stop hiding behind tired classist propaganda.
Okay, that can be what you attribute it to, but you’re in the minority and the vast majority of poor people, both in rich countries and globally, are pro-social and don’t steal.
Just like you might set fires because you’re stressed, but plenty of stressed people don’t set fires. Or you might serial kill because you had a bad upbringing, yet majority of people don’t serial kill even if they had a bad childhood. In fact, most people who suffer abuse, tend to UNDO and prevent that same abuse happening to others. So if you’re poor, you tend to not want to hurt others financially either. The poor understand the actual value of a meal and a dollar.
So whatever reason you give yourself to abuse or be antisocial, is simply an excuse and not a cause.
And this is at the true schism of leftist rhetoric and true non-violence: when is violence acceptable? When is being antisocial acceptable? I don’t have the answers. I can understand why someone responds to violence with violence, yet I think it only makes things worse.
What if you suddenly got poorer though? Say if you became homeless and it was somewhat visible you were poor? I bet you wouldn’t steal then, because you’d know you’d get caught - people hate the poor and homeless and associate them with morality and would assume you’d steal.
That you steal food is understandable but not a given. Some people go to food banks instead. Some grow food. Some beg with signs instead of steal. Some qualify for food stamps. Theft is usually a rich to middle class thing because they can weather the consequences better. Most poor people do not steal material goods like that from stores because they already know how to be poor and live on nothing without resorting to thievery (or else they are already incarcerated).
No, I’m very poor. I’ve been homeless, I’ve used food banks and I literally used to run a vegetable farm, so it’s very funny you would suggest I grow food.
So why resort to stealing now? Because you’re angry at the stores now for inflation, so you want to punish them? That’s different than being poor. Being poor doesn’t make a person automatically antisocial, immoral, or more likely to harm another and to say otherwise is propaganda or an excuse to be antisocial. If you want to harm corporations in revenge, say that and stop hiding behind tired classist propaganda.
It’s literally because I’m poor.
Okay, that can be what you attribute it to, but you’re in the minority and the vast majority of poor people, both in rich countries and globally, are pro-social and don’t steal.
Just like you might set fires because you’re stressed, but plenty of stressed people don’t set fires. Or you might serial kill because you had a bad upbringing, yet majority of people don’t serial kill even if they had a bad childhood. In fact, most people who suffer abuse, tend to UNDO and prevent that same abuse happening to others. So if you’re poor, you tend to not want to hurt others financially either. The poor understand the actual value of a meal and a dollar.
So whatever reason you give yourself to abuse or be antisocial, is simply an excuse and not a cause.
And this is at the true schism of leftist rhetoric and true non-violence: when is violence acceptable? When is being antisocial acceptable? I don’t have the answers. I can understand why someone responds to violence with violence, yet I think it only makes things worse.
I disagree. Cheers!