MysticalWheel wrote:my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.
Wonderful. What, then, is your argument? You have conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that the lower classes can rise into the upper echelons of society and reform the system. What remains of your argument?
MysticalWheel wrote:Those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges.
And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time.
I'll go ahead and point out the obvious conclusion of MW's argument:
Mystical Wheel wrote:The verdict? SHUT UP.
He was never arguing about whether or not a hierarchy exists. He was never arguing about social mobility.
He was arguing this: since the expression of resentment by people who perceive others as displaying superior intelligence is counterproductive (which is to say, it causes only continued and heightened misery for the complainers), they should just quit expressing this resentment.
If you are going to attempt to argue against his reasoning, here are some options:
Show that he relies on an improper assumption that "if an action is likely to cause only a negative result for the person doing the action, then it should be stopped."
Show that this expression of resentment has another unconsidered effect besides the one likely negative outcome of continued/heightened misery.
Show that this expression of resentment is not likely to result in the aforementioned continued/heightened misery.
Or... you could sit back and realize that, even though it is entirely possible to show flaws in MW's argument, it was a really funny way to tell people to Shut Up.