Rez wrote: No Cracka I think you'll find you're only working class or can understand them if you like certain cultural markers, are white, not uni educated and have right wing politics…
I jest, but I know so many people like the above, who, despite their material circumstances placing them in the top earners, still think of themselves as more working class than most.
Most of them own businesses and are landlords.
You talk as if you are an arbiter of these discussions sometimes. I respect some of your opinions and you bring insight, but the first thing you tend to do is shoot down anyone with a difference in opinion to yourself rather than debate your point - you try to make a fool out of them.
It’s not about winning all the time, or being right or wrong.
Class is not always defined by wealth - you can be working class and a landlord. Material things don’t define your class ultimately. There are many layers to class.
It’s usually folk like you who seem to place people in a box and throw insults based on their different political, social, economic views. This forum has a history of doing that to people who don’t go with the status quo because they fear being insulted.
And you and a lot of others on here tend to always throw the white, right wing dig in - another left wing Hugo tact / and I’m not implying you are this btw.
Alan Sugar comes from a working class background - I don’t see the issue and why people like you get riled by this. Yes his wealth gravitates him to a higher socioeconomic level - but are you implying he can not identify as/or with working class.
Is class identification more rigid than gender identification out of interest?
Some topics need to be called out for questioning - like Fudge and Yourself have been. However most of the tactics of discussion here are ad-hominen attacks. (Classic Swede tactic)
Isn’t it better to deconstruct arguments?
