“Like Henderson, Murray is annoyed at elites who fail to preach the bourgeois lifestyle they practice. But instead of building on the shaky foundation of luxury beliefs, Murray straightforwardly blames elites for lack of noblesse oblige.”
I usually agree with Bryan, but I’m 90% on Henderson’s side on this.
“Like Henderson, Murray is annoyed at elites who fail to preach the bourgeois lifestyle they practice. But instead of building on the shaky foundation of luxury beliefs, Murray straightforwardly blames elites for lack of noblesse oblige.”
I usually agree with Bryan, but I’m 90% on Henderson’s side on this.
Henderson ain’t talking about votes and voters so much as he is criticizing liberal elites with mass influence. In other words, politicians, media members, Substack writers, etc. I.e. his primary criticism is double that of what you cite for Murray above: that said elites not only lack noblesse oblige, but they actively preach what is in the exact opposite interest of those they are supposedly speaking for.
So criticize his marquee label if you like, Bryan, but not only should you *not* be bashing his critique of what leftist elites (which about 90% equals simply “elites”) preach to the masses, you should be joining and echoing his critique.
Bryan had an essay about he hates “addicts” because they give recreational drug users a bad name. This is a pretty good example of the problem Murray is talking about.
If your a high iq person with good impulse control that could manage to do drugs in moderation…don’t. Just don’t. Don’t for yourself, even if you can manage it without ending up in the gutter it’s probably not good for you. Don’t do it because it sets a bad example and fuels a market that you know harms others. And don’t advocate for it culturally just because it’s an indulgence you would like or even worse that you don’t like but you simply want to avoid the unpleasantness of “judging” others.
Agreed. Also, I know plenty of high IQ people who are alcoholics. I have seen no studies correlating IQ with the ability to be addicted (or not) to substances, but rather IQ is correlated with lots of other positive attributes that give people more chances to get out of bad situations.
I like the example, but Bryan’s there is not a “luxury belief”, it is, I acknowledge, a decent if imperfect case where you are suggesting Bryan lacks “noblesse oblige”.
But even if you disagree with Bryan’s position on alcohol, it’s not correct to call that a Henderson “luxury belief” because a) the he is not telling the masses to do something he doesn’t, and b) it’s not something that harms the lower classes en masses. The best you can say is that rich people can handle the problem if they become an alcoholic on average better that poor people can.
So I agree that Bryan lacks noblesse oblige by (presumably) indulging in recreational drugs, but he would only be guilty of a luxury belief if he proclaimed his (clearly libertarian) defense of the legality of recreational drugs on the one hand, while forbidding his children from using them on the other.
“Like Henderson, Murray is annoyed at elites who fail to preach the bourgeois lifestyle they practice. But instead of building on the shaky foundation of luxury beliefs, Murray straightforwardly blames elites for lack of noblesse oblige.”
I usually agree with Bryan, but I’m 90% on Henderson’s side on this.
Henderson ain’t talking about votes and voters so much as he is criticizing liberal elites with mass influence. In other words, politicians, media members, Substack writers, etc. I.e. his primary criticism is double that of what you cite for Murray above: that said elites not only lack noblesse oblige, but they actively preach what is in the exact opposite interest of those they are supposedly speaking for.
So criticize his marquee label if you like, Bryan, but not only should you *not* be bashing his critique of what leftist elites (which about 90% equals simply “elites”) preach to the masses, you should be joining and echoing his critique.
Bryan had an essay about he hates “addicts” because they give recreational drug users a bad name. This is a pretty good example of the problem Murray is talking about.
If your a high iq person with good impulse control that could manage to do drugs in moderation…don’t. Just don’t. Don’t for yourself, even if you can manage it without ending up in the gutter it’s probably not good for you. Don’t do it because it sets a bad example and fuels a market that you know harms others. And don’t advocate for it culturally just because it’s an indulgence you would like or even worse that you don’t like but you simply want to avoid the unpleasantness of “judging” others.
Agreed. Also, I know plenty of high IQ people who are alcoholics. I have seen no studies correlating IQ with the ability to be addicted (or not) to substances, but rather IQ is correlated with lots of other positive attributes that give people more chances to get out of bad situations.
I like the example, but Bryan’s there is not a “luxury belief”, it is, I acknowledge, a decent if imperfect case where you are suggesting Bryan lacks “noblesse oblige”.
But even if you disagree with Bryan’s position on alcohol, it’s not correct to call that a Henderson “luxury belief” because a) the he is not telling the masses to do something he doesn’t, and b) it’s not something that harms the lower classes en masses. The best you can say is that rich people can handle the problem if they become an alcoholic on average better that poor people can.
So I agree that Bryan lacks noblesse oblige by (presumably) indulging in recreational drugs, but he would only be guilty of a luxury belief if he proclaimed his (clearly libertarian) defense of the legality of recreational drugs on the one hand, while forbidding his children from using them on the other.