Why does society hate lower class persons?

[New haven america]

Because you can rip the piss out of anyone for anything
The rich got their own slew of insults and jokes, same as the middle and the poor. It’s funny.

But unlike the poor the rich don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck and choosing between eating or paying the electric bill.

[Comerciante]

Capitalism also benefits the lower class, at least where I come from, I of course don’t know how things are where you come from.

Capitalism benefits the lower class only so far as to raise them high enough to keep lining peoples pockets, but never escape poverty as has been my personal experience.

Also if your so certain that where you live got it right, why not spout out some statistics and sources?

[SD_Film Artists]

The same reason why stereotypes of upper-class people and other groups exist; prejudice and a mind which favours catagorisation over fine details.

Because they want the world to be just. They want to pretend that people are only poor and are only criminals because they're stupid because then they can say the system is fine as is and not horrific and cruel.

Not that the two are related, as that would be classist

[New haven america]

The same reason why stereotypes of upper-class people and other groups exist; prejudice and a mind which favours catagorisation over fine details.

Because they want the world to be just. They want to pretend that people are only poor and are only criminals because they're stupid because then they can say the system is fine as is and not horrific and cruel.

Not that the two are related, as that would be classist

I feel this applies here too:

Because you can rip the piss out of anyone for anything
The rich got their own slew of insults and jokes, same as the middle and the poor. It’s funny.

But unlike the poor the rich don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck and choosing between eating or paying the electric bill.

[SD_Film Artists]

The same reason why stereotypes of upper-class people and other groups exist; prejudice and a mind which favours catagorisation over fine details.



Not that the two are related, as that would be classist

I feel this applies here too:

But unlike the poor the rich don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck and choosing between eating or paying the electric bill.

That doesn't make the prejudice any more justified, only the effects of said prejudice less serious- assuming that the effects are something like being rejected in a job interview rather than being bullied or assaulted for 'being posh'.

[Danubile]

In the land I live in, America, capitalism benefits all. Communism, to put it in simple terms, makes one person do all the work, and others do none. Take the Soviet Union for example. The controlled proletariat was being used as a political pawn to accomplish what the leader of the party wanted, while the leader, in this case Stalin, could sit back and watch them suffer to do the thing they once fought against. Maybe you think that this alone is not enough? Refer to how communism works. Everyone is given equal money, no matter what they do. To start, let me give one simple example. A school janitor is payed __ amount of currency, and a doctor is payed the same. In life it does not work that way. First off, someone is payed a certain number of currency because of how society values them. A kid could be the school janitor, but not many kids could be a doctor who completed University. Socialism, as said by Lenin "is the gateway to communism". Capitalism allows a free market, since if you're a hardworking doctor who spent 10 years of his life becoming a doctor, you should have your own rights, and be allowed to spend the money you gained because you're valuable to society. I hope this gave a reasonable explanation proving capitalism right!

Sincerely, the Commonwealth of Danubile

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Because you can rip the piss out of anyone for anything
The rich got their own slew of insults and jokes, same as the middle and the poor. It’s funny.

The rich don't get incarcerated at higher rates than the poor and aren't left to fend for themselves half the time.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

To woke "liberals", working-class people are lazy, racist, violent, low-information, uneducated, conspiracy-mongering, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, buck-toothed, trailer-trash hillbillies, far-right neo-Nazi domestic terrorists, treasonous insurrectionists, and an existential threat to democracy.

To conservatives, working-class people are lazy, irresponsible, hedonistic, nihilistic, violent, godless, mindless, savage, animalistic, atheist criminals, looters, rioters, unpatriotic, radical "socialists", domestic terrorists, and a parasitic burden on society who ought to either "pull up their bootstraps" or starve.

To communists, working-class people are a means to seize total power and eliminate their rivals at all costs. The end result is increased poverty and mass starvation in some cases, and extreme inequality and discrimination against working-class people by a tiny minority of extremely rich, extremely connected communist party princelings in others.

To fascists, a particular subset of working-class people are a means to seize total power and eliminate their rivals at all costs. The end result is a superficial and highly stagnant "social safety net" for poor people of the "right" background and scapegoating, slavery, and/or extermination of those of the "wrong" background. Prostitutes and homosexuals need not apply.

To corporate neoliberal executives in high places, poor people are expendable and disposable. There isn't much of an ideology here besides pure greed, self-interest, and a general deficit in empathy for those less fortunate.

To non-woke, social liberals like myself, poor people deserve better than to suffer any of the above. Needs-based or geography-based affirmative action that prioritizes marginalized communities irrespective of race or religion on paper, but often benefits certain races or ethnic groups who typically have it much worse than others in practice without explicitly excluding poor members of traditionally "privileged" racial categories from those same communities is something I can get behind, for instance. Increased public spending on education, healthcare, community outreach (especially between police and locals), retraining and reorganization of police forces, abortion services, etc. is absolutely necessary to make this happen. All of this minus the critical race theory and oftentimes spiteful, divisive, identity politics and oppression Olympics that has plagued the present-day Left in recent years.

I would assume that "socialists" in the benign European sense of traditionally non-woke, anti-SJW, social democrats (an endangered breed) are very much empathetic toward the plight of working-class people just as much as non-woke social liberals (another endangered breed) are, although hypocritical, out-of-touch, college-educated, upper-middle-class, ultra-woke champagne socialists do exist and the distinction between woke, out-of-touch liberals and woke, out-of-touch socialists is becoming increasingly blurred and meaningless over time.

Many economically liberal, but socially conservative Christian democrats in Europe can also count themselves as non-woke "socialists" or social "liberals" in their own way.

All of these latter groups (social liberals, social democrats, Christian democrats, British One Nation conservatives, HK pan-democrats, Taiwanese DPP, etc.) seem reasonably moderate and centrist to me and can be regarded as credible and legitimate champions of the have-nots.

Toilet cleaners, street sweepers, waiters, nurses, war veterans, coal miners, construction workers, and the like deserve far more respect than the kinds of condescending abuse and mistreatment they currently receive at the hands of greedy bosses and entitled patrons alike. The lack of public empathy for working-class people is further compounded by the fact that many of these occupations are dominated by men, while the human brain is naturally hardwired to respond more empathetically to the plight of women and children. Humans are inherently ageist against older people and sexist against men by nature. We are far more willing to send our boys to fight and die in foreign wars. We are far more reluctant to do likewise for girls. Note how radical feminists seldom complain about female under-representation in the armed forces, or hard, manual labor, for instance, thereby belying their true agenda.

To answer the OP's question more directly, it's human nature for rich people to cling on to what they have and live in complete denial, and it's human nature for poor people to envy what they don't have and seethe in jealousy and resentment. It's human nature for middle-class people to exhibit a mixture of these undesirable traits and serve as a buffer and a stabilizing force politically between the two extremes.

Also, I can't help but notice that the left-wing OP uses the term "lower class" instead of the more PC term "working class" as I have done, in complete contravention of woke norms. I know George Galloway would certainly object. He literally told off a caller on one of his talk shows for this unforgivable gaffe. The OP should be canceled for this. This is a joke.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

In the land I live in, America, capitalism benefits all. Communism, to put it in simple terms, makes one person do all the work, and others do none. Take the Soviet Union for example. The controlled proletariat was being used as a political pawn to accomplish what the leader of the party wanted, while the leader, in this case Stalin, could sit back and watch them suffer to do the thing they once fought against. Maybe you think that this alone is not enough? Refer to how communism works. Everyone is given equal money, no matter what they do. To start, let me give one simple example. A school janitor is payed __ amount of currency, and a doctor is payed the same. In life it does not work that way. First off, someone is payed a certain number of currency because of how society values them. A kid could be the school janitor, but not many kids could be a doctor who completed University. Socialism, as said by Lenin "is the gateway to communism". Capitalism allows a free market, since if you're a hardworking doctor who spent 10 years of his life becoming a doctor, you should have your own rights, and be allowed to spend the money you gained because you're valuable to society. I hope this gave a reasonable explanation proving capitalism right!

Sincerely, the Commonwealth of Danubile

"If you just work hard and save money you can get rich" which is what the GME reddit investors tried to do. The door got slammed in their face and now the SEC is after them. The current system does not work or we wouldn't have quite so many poor people, but this is where the "poor people are lazy" stereotype comes in to explain why a system that allegedly works leaves people barely surviving.

Btw capitalism is so much better than communism that it's about to kill way more people than communism ever could. We all know how corporations covered up climate change for decades because climate action would hurt their profits. That is cold hard capitalism at work. Now the world is going straight to hell and everytime we try and minimize the blow, corporate America says "haha factory smoke goes whoosh" and keeps the temperature rising. So it isn't just that capitalism makes a few rich while making most people poor. It's also the fact that capitalism encourages endless, unsustainable behavior that inevitably will deplete our natural resources and turn our planet into a sauna that our modern civilization won't survive. You don't have to be a Marxist-Leninist to know that capitalism in its current form is an enemy of most of mankind.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

To woke "liberals", working-class people are lazy, racist, violent, low-information, uneducated, conspiracy-mongering, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, buck-toothed, trailer-trash hillbillies, far-right neo-Nazi domestic terrorists, treasonous insurrectionists, and an existential threat to democracy.

To conservatives, working-class people are lazy, irresponsible, hedonistic, nihilistic, violent, godless, mindless, savage, animalistic, atheist criminals, looters, rioters, unpatriotic, radical "socialists", domestic terrorists, and a parasitic burden on society who ought to either "pull up their bootstraps" or starve.

To communists, working-class people are a means to seize total power and eliminate their rivals at all costs. The end result is increased poverty and mass starvation in some cases, and extreme inequality and discrimination against working-class people by a tiny minority of extremely rich, extremely connected communist party princelings in others.

To fascists, a particular subset of working-class people are a means to seize total power and eliminate their rivals at all costs. The end result is a superficial and highly stagnant "social safety net" for poor people of the "right" background and scapegoating, slavery, and/or extermination of those of the "wrong" background. Prostitutes and homosexuals need not apply.

To corporate neoliberal executives in high places, poor people are expendable and disposable. There isn't much of an ideology here besides pure greed, self-interest, and a general deficit in empathy for those less fortunate.

To non-woke, social liberals like myself, poor people deserve better than to suffer any of the above. Needs-based or geography-based affirmative action that prioritizes marginalized communities irrespective of race or religion on paper, but often benefits certain races or ethnic groups who typically have it much worse than others in practice without explicitly excluding poor members of traditionally "privileged" racial categories from those same communities is something I can get behind, for instance. Increased public spending on education, healthcare, community outreach (especially between police and locals), retraining and reorganization of police forces, abortion services, etc. is absolutely necessary to make this happen. All of this minus the critical race theory and oftentimes spiteful, divisive, identity politics and oppression Olympics that has plagued the present-day Left in recent years.

I would assume that "socialists" in the benign European sense of traditionally non-woke, anti-SJW, social democrats (an endangered breed) are very much empathetic toward the plight of working-class people just as much as non-woke social liberals (another endangered breed) are, although hypocritical, out-of-touch, college-educated, upper-middle-class, ultra-woke champagne socialists do exist and the distinction between woke, out-of-touch liberals and woke, out-of-touch socialists is becoming increasingly blurred and meaningless over time.

Many economically liberal, but socially conservative Christian democrats in Europe can also count themselves as non-woke "socialists" or social "liberals" in their own way.

All of these latter groups (social liberals, social democrats, Christian democrats, British One Nation conservatives, HK pan-democrats, Taiwanese DPP, etc.) seem reasonably moderate and centrist to me and can be regarded as credible and legitimate champions of the have-nots.

Toilet cleaners, street sweepers, waiters, nurses, war veterans, coal miners, construction workers, and the like deserve far more respect than the kinds of condescending abuse and mistreatment they currently receive at the hands of greedy bosses and entitled patrons alike. The lack of public empathy for working-class people is further compounded by the fact that many of these occupations are dominated by men, while the human brain is naturally hardwired to respond more empathetically to the plight of women and children. Humans are inherently ageist against older people and sexist against men by nature. We are far more willing to send our boys to fight and die in foreign wars. We are far more reluctant to do likewise for girls. Note how radical feminists seldom complain about female under-representation in the armed forces, or hard, manual labor, for instance, thereby belying their true agenda.

To answer the OP's question more directly, it's human nature for rich people to cling on to what they have and live in complete denial, and it's human nature for poor people to envy what they don't have and seethe in jealousy and resentment. It's human nature for middle-class people to exhibit a mixture of these undesirable traits and serve as a buffer and a stabilizing force politically between the two extremes.

Also, I can't help but notice that the left-wing OP uses the term "lower class" instead of the more PC term "working class" as I have done, in complete contravention of woke norms. I know George Galloway would certainly object. He literally told off a caller on one of his talk shows for this unforgivable gaffe. The OP should be canceled for this. This is a joke.

I'm pretty sure neoliberals and liberals are basically the same people. Also working class is kind of a weird term ngl because most people work for their income. True, these folks make their money solely from work alone but still it's somewhat strange. I prefer the term working poor to describe said folks.

[The New California Republic]

Communism, to put it in simple terms, makes one person do all the work, and others do none.

That definition is utterly nonsensical.

Take the Soviet Union for example. The controlled proletariat was being used as a political pawn to accomplish what the leader of the party wanted, while the leader, in this case Stalin, could sit back and watch them suffer to do the thing they once fought against. Maybe you think that this alone is not enough? Refer to how communism works. Everyone is given equal money, no matter what they do. To start, let me give one simple example. A school janitor is payed __ amount of currency, and a doctor is payed the same. In life it does not work that way. First off, someone is payed a certain number of currency because of how society values them. A kid could be the school janitor, but not many kids could be a doctor who completed University. Socialism, as said by Lenin "is the gateway to communism". Capitalism allows a free market, since if you're a hardworking doctor who spent 10 years of his life becoming a doctor, you should have your own rights, and be allowed to spend the money you gained because you're valuable to society. I hope this gave a reasonable explanation proving capitalism right!

Not really. It's a meandering and rambling spiel that uses a lot of words to say precisely nothing.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Communism, to put it in simple terms, makes one person do all the work, and others do none.

That definition is utterly nonsensical.

Take the Soviet Union for example. The controlled proletariat was being used as a political pawn to accomplish what the leader of the party wanted, while the leader, in this case Stalin, could sit back and watch them suffer to do the thing they once fought against. Maybe you think that this alone is not enough? Refer to how communism works. Everyone is given equal money, no matter what they do. To start, let me give one simple example. A school janitor is payed __ amount of currency, and a doctor is payed the same. In life it does not work that way. First off, someone is payed a certain number of currency because of how society values them. A kid could be the school janitor, but not many kids could be a doctor who completed University. Socialism, as said by Lenin "is the gateway to communism". Capitalism allows a free market, since if you're a hardworking doctor who spent 10 years of his life becoming a doctor, you should have your own rights, and be allowed to spend the money you gained because you're valuable to society. I hope this gave a reasonable explanation proving capitalism right!

Not really. It's a meandering and rambling spiel that uses a lot of words to say precisely nothing.

Communism is when people don't work and the less people work the communister it is.

God I can hear the whip cracking from all the way over here.

[The Reformed American Republic]

On a related note, when the United States was increasing its dependence on slavery many of the lower classes sympathized with them. The wealthy slaveowners regognized that and begain telling white sharecroppers that they were above their black comrades and furthered institutionalized racism by worsening the conditions of the slaves.

Sharecropping came after slavery, so the U.S. was nit increasing it's dependence on slavery during that time.

[New Vedan]

Society dosent outright HATE the poor, it just dosent give a crap weather they live or die.

[Sundiata]

The lower class in the United States is not being sufficiently governed. There are avenues for solid living standards but people are unfortunately not being built for them.

[Ifreann]

"Unintelligent", "lazy", "dirty". There are no lack of negative adjectives with which people around us often describe the poor and working class in our society. Studies have shown that we consistently have negative views of the less fortunate, often attributing their failure to having poor work ethic or addictions despite evidence to the contrary, and even claiming they don't deserve to be paid a minimum wage. Classism, defined by Oxford dictionary as "prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class," seems prevalent in our society, particularly against the poor. So, NSG, what is the cause of such discrimination and what can be done?

---

I think much of the hatred towards lower class persons has been intentionally spread by capitalists to turn "middle class" people against their lower class fellows, breaking class solidarity and benefitting the top of society's pyramid by causing infighting.

(Image)

It also serves as a threat. If you ever stop running in the rat race then you will become one of them, and you've seen how they're treated. This is also why society is so abusive towards the unhoused. The threat of that misery and deprivation keeps people going to any lengths necessary to pay rent.

---

Some poor people really do a lot of dumb things. This does not mean they are genetically programmed to be dumb. People can do dumb things for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes they just were never taught the skills they need to do better.

For example, back in the 1990s before everyone traded stocks online, my parents had a stock broker they would talk to on the phone or meet with at an office. A few times, my dad brought me to the broker's office with him. I don't remember exactly why. Maybe it didn't fit in his schedule to go while I was in school. But I do remember my dad explaining where we were going, telling me about what the broker did, what stocks are, what dividends are, and so forth.

If someone comes from a family where nobody has ever owned stocks, that stuff would be less familiar. That might mean they don't invest because they don't know how. It might mean they make bad investments and lose money. It might mean they are more vulnerable to scams from predatory "financial advisors."

But when you see someone doing something dumb like wasting all their money on lotto tickets, it's very easy to just go, "Oh, I guess they're dumb," without digging into WHY they are acting that way.

I think much of the hatred towards lower class persons has been intentionally spread by capitalists to turn "middle class" people against their lower class fellows, breaking class solidarity and benefitting the top of society's pyramid by causing infighting.

For that to be coordinated in a purposeful way, the capitalist types would have to be very smart and sophisticated. I don't think they're that organized. Human beings in general are not very organized, and that doesn't magically change just because they have money.

It's not necessarily coordinated, it's just a shared interest among those in a position to easily have their interests realised. Car companies don't need to enter into a secret conspiracy to convince people that they should want a new car every year, it just naturally suits them all for people to buy more cars, so they'll all promote that idea, and because they're rich, the ideas they promote get everywhere.

[UniversalCommons]

Many of the solutions to poverty are cheaper than social workers and massive systems designed to suppress people and take advantage of poverty. \
https://theconversation.com/supportive- ... ness-67539 There is a need for people to degrade poorer people. The solutions ultimately of providing baseline housing, work progress administration style infrastructure and food recovery programs are much cheaper than many of the solutions in the standard welfare state. There also needs to be a focus on regulating some industries which create food deserts and generate tremendous debt like payday lenders and other industries focused on scamming the poor.

There should be a solid living for everybody. Also, if you need to go to war, you need healthy, fit people, lots of them.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

"Unintelligent", "lazy", "dirty". There are no lack of negative adjectives with which people around us often describe the poor and working class in our society. Studies have shown that we consistently have negative views of the less fortunate, often attributing their failure to having poor work ethic or addictions despite evidence to the contrary, and even claiming they don't deserve to be paid a minimum wage. Classism, defined by Oxford dictionary as "prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class," seems prevalent in our society, particularly against the poor. So, NSG, what is the cause of such discrimination and what can be done?

---

I think much of the hatred towards lower class persons has been intentionally spread by capitalists to turn "middle class" people against their lower class fellows, breaking class solidarity and benefitting the top of society's pyramid by causing infighting.

(Image)

It also serves as a threat. If you ever stop running in the rat race then you will become one of them, and you've seen how they're treated. This is also why society is so abusive towards the unhoused. The threat of that misery and deprivation keeps people going to any lengths necessary to pay rent.

I guess other people are noticing it too. It's a rat race. A never ending fight to get as much money as possible no matter the cost. And people end up wasting their entire lives and losing sleep just trying to get a little more money so they aren't "the poors," even if they die trying. It isnt just in the job market. Society admires big money. Society loves when someone has so much money that they can burn it and still have enough to not give a fuck. And we admire people with a lot of money even if they don't deserve the admiration while looking down on anyone without money even if they're good people. I've seen it happen in my own life. Someone stumbles upon money, even if it isnt enough to make them officially rich, and everyone changes tune toward them. I knew a guy who became an actor and a model and got lucky and found a struggling business to buy out. He went from being almost universally hated to suddenly being popular despite being a total scumbag as a person. He didn't change. His status changed. They hated him for being dead broke and now they love him for being wealthy at least compared to most of the people here in the municipality of meth heads.

Isnt that fucked? You won't be loved in this society, your money will be, and without the money you often won't see the love.

[Page]

The same reason why stereotypes of upper-class people and other groups exist; prejudice and a mind which favours catagorisation over fine details.

Because they want the world to be just. They want to pretend that people are only poor and are only criminals because they're stupid because then they can say the system is fine as is and not horrific and cruel.

Not that the two are related, as that would be classist

Prejudice against the upper class while the majority is deprived is entirely rational and justified.

[Sanghyeok]

"Unintelligent", "lazy", "dirty". There are no lack of negative adjectives with which people around us often describe the poor and working class in our society. Studies have shown that we

"We" who, exactly?
I guess you just implied you're not working-class.
For one, I am working-class.

Here my use of "we" refers to society in general, without differentiating by each class's opinions.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because societies that don't eventually don't have lower class persons, so there's a selection bias going on here.
On some level the people who do this may be aware of that and view it as a scary future.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

"We" who, exactly?
I guess you just implied you're not working-class.
For one, I am working-class.

Here my use of "we" refers to society in general, without differentiating by each class's opinions.

Yeah, I dont think the working class is lazy or else it would mean I'm lazy and I know I'm not.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Because you can rip the piss out of anyone for anything
The rich got their own slew of insults and jokes, same as the middle and the poor. It’s funny.

But unlike the poor the rich don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck and choosing between eating or paying the electric bill.

I know what that can be like, I’m not oblivious how shit things can get. When it gets like that, you can either sob about it or make it an anecdote. You don’t have to mollycoddle them, if you’re living paycheck to paycheck you’ve got bigger issues than one off jokes that some use that may or may not have negative class connotations. If you really care about them, go volunteer at a charity shop or homeless shelter or donate or do your foodbank shit. Larping about protecting the underprivileged from mean words on a cybernations forum won’t achieve a lick of difference. If all you tiktok anime socialists care so much you’d at least try.

[Luziyca]

Because if people are made to think that the demands of the lowest classes are unreasonable and that they are just "leeches," for lack of a better term, then it makes the bourgeoisie's job of splitting the proletariat up infinitely easier.

[My Political Fantasy]

I too love my fellow poor people as I say 19th century French terms to make myself sound smart.