Yes, indeed. But also a status signal, which tells others (mostly women) what standing one has. To be unconcerned with TIM incursions into women's shelters is to assert that one will never need to make use of such services. One's attorney would win the house and a large settlement, if one's husband became a problem--which he wouldn't do because he's not of the battering classes.
To be unconcerned with what fewer cops in poor brown and black neighborhoods actually means for those people is to demonstrate that one has never thought experimented to walk in their shoes. Certainly never had a heart to heart discussion in which one felt their problems as close to one's own life. Even releasing criminals is no problem, because one never goes to those places anyway. In fact one has never needed the police one's entire life, except to obtain directions in a tourist town.
It's similar to volunteering: conspicuous expenditure only possible because one has so much excess. It's also a giving away of others' safety of course, and so one demonstrates one's distance from those people.
Yes as you said it's throwing one's own oppressed group under the bus, but it's also a proclamation of how distant that group is. Doesn't matter if one's blocked from SVP by a TIM, my husband is CFO and we'd be fine if I didn't even work. And I have no idea what you mesn by AGP, I've never thought of such a thing I don't know what that is.
One time I was being hassled by a homeless guy at the ATM and I spoke to him normally with expectations of him shoving off. My companion was appalled, because we don't talk to them. It's like that. The problems caused by idpol are invisible when one's at a certain level, so it's déclassé to admit they exist.
I feel seen, even by those in the comments. Yes exactly with an added dash of "I've heard there are other people, how quaint. Girls we should get up a collection".
"That is why, I suspect, the political standpoint is so prevalent among highly educated women."
Luxury beliefs of the upper class.
Yes, indeed. But also a status signal, which tells others (mostly women) what standing one has. To be unconcerned with TIM incursions into women's shelters is to assert that one will never need to make use of such services. One's attorney would win the house and a large settlement, if one's husband became a problem--which he wouldn't do because he's not of the battering classes.
To be unconcerned with what fewer cops in poor brown and black neighborhoods actually means for those people is to demonstrate that one has never thought experimented to walk in their shoes. Certainly never had a heart to heart discussion in which one felt their problems as close to one's own life. Even releasing criminals is no problem, because one never goes to those places anyway. In fact one has never needed the police one's entire life, except to obtain directions in a tourist town.
It's similar to volunteering: conspicuous expenditure only possible because one has so much excess. It's also a giving away of others' safety of course, and so one demonstrates one's distance from those people.
Yes as you said it's throwing one's own oppressed group under the bus, but it's also a proclamation of how distant that group is. Doesn't matter if one's blocked from SVP by a TIM, my husband is CFO and we'd be fine if I didn't even work. And I have no idea what you mesn by AGP, I've never thought of such a thing I don't know what that is.
One time I was being hassled by a homeless guy at the ATM and I spoke to him normally with expectations of him shoving off. My companion was appalled, because we don't talk to them. It's like that. The problems caused by idpol are invisible when one's at a certain level, so it's déclassé to admit they exist.
The People Unlike Me problem.
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/people-unlike-me
I feel seen, even by those in the comments. Yes exactly with an added dash of "I've heard there are other people, how quaint. Girls we should get up a collection".