• AlexLost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well, until you solve affluenza, they are already getting better care at their leisure while those who have less resources and support are already languishing. This is always going to be the case. If you can convince people to actually fund and support the necessary care measures and support networks, I’m all for it.

    I try to avoid isms, they are not good for you.

    • silverneedle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I realize that we might be talking entirely different languages here. For one, I do not at all hold the belief that social constructions have eternal qualities to them. Secondly, affluenza is a second order phenomenon to private wealth. Maybe third order phenomenon, as economic behaviour precedes it, standing in the middle between affluenza and private wealth. To me that’s putting the horse before the cart a bit which doesn’t compute.