• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand just fine. What I’m saying is that using that word implies that they have earned all their wealth and are more deserving than others who didn’t have the same help and luck. More deserving than others with the same background who have worked just as hard with less help and/or luck along the way.

    Whether or not that’s the intention, that’s the implication and thus why using the word at all skews the conversation.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re purposefully skewing the meaning of the word to fit a narrative to justify hating capitalism.

      It’s a stupid thing to do because there are far better reasons to hate capitalism, you alienate other working and middle class individuals who actually are self-made, and you completely twist around what it means to be helped by others.

      Like you would look at someone who used to be homeless talking about how they’re self-made because they escaped poverty all on their own, a feat that you would argue is not mathematically possible, and you would shoot them down by claiming they had help because they got sandwiches at a homeless shelter and people gave them like ten dollars when they panhandled.

      What you’re doing is stupid.