Back
to top
There is very little difference between the 'top' and the 'bottom' of society
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
It's the people in the middle (who either assume themselves to be higher or lower
than they really are) who are the problem.
The top and the bottom tend to be more generous than the middle.
It's not a north-south gap. In fact many of the friendliest places in the
north have been colonised by 'above middle' southerners. Like York, Tynemouth, Harrogate (OK, the last one's not massively friendly but it's not bad). And they tend to be 'nicer' than people who are 'middle'. For a start, they had the ambition to actually move, which takes some likeability to survive.
If I meet a random privately educated person, who is above the 'middle' (although
not necessarily the very 'top' of course) chances are they're going to be a little bit
nicer than someone who is in the 'middle' who statistically is still likely to have gone to a comprehensive (as did I), and for that to place a ceiling (not necessarily
unfairly if they have a chip on their shoulder) on their likely social mingling, no
matter what their wealth.
However- if I meet a random working class person, who is below the 'middle',
chances are they going to be a little bit nicer than someone who is in the 'middle'.
So I won't tolerate 'chav bashing' or hating on the upper middle or upper class.
Being benevolent towards the working class is a tradition of the UK
(noblesse oblige- privilege entails responsibility). Anyone who 'chav bashes' is
more common than those who they bash.
than they really are) who are the problem.
The top and the bottom tend to be more generous than the middle.
It's not a north-south gap. In fact many of the friendliest places in the
north have been colonised by 'above middle' southerners. Like York, Tynemouth, Harrogate (OK, the last one's not massively friendly but it's not bad). And they tend to be 'nicer' than people who are 'middle'. For a start, they had the ambition to actually move, which takes some likeability to survive.
If I meet a random privately educated person, who is above the 'middle' (although
not necessarily the very 'top' of course) chances are they're going to be a little bit
nicer than someone who is in the 'middle' who statistically is still likely to have gone to a comprehensive (as did I), and for that to place a ceiling (not necessarily
unfairly if they have a chip on their shoulder) on their likely social mingling, no
matter what their wealth.
However- if I meet a random working class person, who is below the 'middle',
chances are they going to be a little bit nicer than someone who is in the 'middle'.
So I won't tolerate 'chav bashing' or hating on the upper middle or upper class.
Being benevolent towards the working class is a tradition of the UK
(noblesse oblige- privilege entails responsibility). Anyone who 'chav bashes' is
more common than those who they bash.
0
reply
Report
#3
I agree. At the end of the day no one really has any contact with the rich or atleast the working class and poor don't. Its the middle class who keep us oppressed.
0
reply
Report
#4
What a wonderfully ironic post. Or are you part of the "middle" so therefore we should expect you to do some bashing?
The super-rich can be wonderfully generous. Those on around a couple of mil often aren't any nicer than anyone else though. And the "lower classes" aren't necessarily any more spiteful, they're just often less educated to it can come across that way due to blunter turns of phrase etc.
The super-rich can be wonderfully generous. Those on around a couple of mil often aren't any nicer than anyone else though. And the "lower classes" aren't necessarily any more spiteful, they're just often less educated to it can come across that way due to blunter turns of phrase etc.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by TwinAtlantic09)
I agree. At the end of the day no one really has any contact with the rich or atleast the working class and poor don't. Its the middle class who keep us oppressed.
I agree. At the end of the day no one really has any contact with the rich or atleast the working class and poor don't. Its the middle class who keep us oppressed.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Picnic1)
It's the people in the middle (who either assume themselves to be higher or lower
than they really are) who are the problem.
The top and the bottom tend to be more generous than the middle.
It's not a north-south gap. In fact many of the friendliest places in the
north have been colonised by 'above middle' southerners. Like York, Tynemouth, Harrogate (OK, the last one's not massively friendly but it's not bad). And they tend to be 'nicer' than people who are 'middle'. For a start, they had the ambition to actually move, which takes some likeability to survive.
If I meet a random privately educated person, who is above the 'middle' (although
not necessarily the very 'top' of course) chances are they're going to be a little bit
nicer than someone who is in the 'middle' who statistically is still likely to have gone to a comprehensive (as did I), and for that to place a ceiling (not necessarily
unfairly if they have a chip on their shoulder) on their likely social mingling, no
matter what their wealth.
However- if I meet a random working class person, who is below the 'middle',
chances are they going to be a little bit nicer than someone who is in the 'middle'.
So I won't tolerate 'chav bashing' or hating on the upper middle or upper class.
Being benevolent towards the working class is a tradition of the UK
(noblesse oblige- privilege entails responsibility). Anyone who 'chav bashes' is
more common than those who they bash.
It's the people in the middle (who either assume themselves to be higher or lower
than they really are) who are the problem.
The top and the bottom tend to be more generous than the middle.
It's not a north-south gap. In fact many of the friendliest places in the
north have been colonised by 'above middle' southerners. Like York, Tynemouth, Harrogate (OK, the last one's not massively friendly but it's not bad). And they tend to be 'nicer' than people who are 'middle'. For a start, they had the ambition to actually move, which takes some likeability to survive.
If I meet a random privately educated person, who is above the 'middle' (although
not necessarily the very 'top' of course) chances are they're going to be a little bit
nicer than someone who is in the 'middle' who statistically is still likely to have gone to a comprehensive (as did I), and for that to place a ceiling (not necessarily
unfairly if they have a chip on their shoulder) on their likely social mingling, no
matter what their wealth.
However- if I meet a random working class person, who is below the 'middle',
chances are they going to be a little bit nicer than someone who is in the 'middle'.
So I won't tolerate 'chav bashing' or hating on the upper middle or upper class.
Being benevolent towards the working class is a tradition of the UK
(noblesse oblige- privilege entails responsibility). Anyone who 'chav bashes' is
more common than those who they bash.
generosity
friendliness
niceness
ambition
educational genre
benevolence
or class-bound antagonism.
Too many issues conflated.
0
reply
Report
#9
,
It's more sophisticated than bashing the chavs.
Some super-rich can also be extremely greedy.
A billionaire who donates a million is not more generous than a millionaire who donates a hundred, in my opinion.
(Original post by Nalk1573)
but you are bashing the people in the middle
but you are bashing the people in the middle
(Original post by Dheorl)
What a wonderfully ironic post. Or are you part of the "middle" so therefore we should expect you to do some bashing?
The super-rich can be wonderfully generous. Those on around a couple of mil often aren't any nicer than anyone else though. And the "lower classes" aren't necessarily any more spiteful, they're just often less educated to it can come across that way due to blunter turns of phrase etc.
What a wonderfully ironic post. Or are you part of the "middle" so therefore we should expect you to do some bashing?
The super-rich can be wonderfully generous. Those on around a couple of mil often aren't any nicer than anyone else though. And the "lower classes" aren't necessarily any more spiteful, they're just often less educated to it can come across that way due to blunter turns of phrase etc.
A billionaire who donates a million is not more generous than a millionaire who donates a hundred, in my opinion.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by usualsuspects)
,
Some super-rich can also be extremely greedy.
A billionaire who donates a million is not more generous than a millionaire who donates a hundred, in my opinion.
,
Some super-rich can also be extremely greedy.
A billionaire who donates a million is not more generous than a millionaire who donates a hundred, in my opinion.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
