You seem to be inferring a lot about what “the public” thinks, primarily from what looks to me like stories published by the priestly caste. People getting death threats from weirdos on the internet is par for the course for anyone in the news.
What would it look like if most adults already saw that the only difference is that these were illegal bribes? What would it look like if much of the general public saw no real difference between these two forms of bribery, and actively disliked the whole system of elite colleges?
I think the news coverage treats these things differently because the priestly caste derives it’s authority from an unreasonable belief that elite institutions provide better education and are selected for primarily on the basis on talent.
Perhaps only a small subset of the credulous public that takes the news industry seriously reacted the way you are describing, and most of the public sees “Harvard” as being nothing more than a wealthy corporation.
You’re claiming money influences all this, and agree, but I also think you can claim to hate rich people with basically zero social consequences. The same can’t be said for any other small group. I don’t think things are as simple as saying “people will make excuses for you if you have money”, - the rules seems to be a bit more like, they’ll make excuses as long as you claim to be on the side of good. People who say there is too much money in politics will cheer a cabal of billionaires and politicians meeting to discuss how the globe should be governed, as long as those meetings produce claims that line up with with that priestly caste says about various dogmas.
> No doubt there will be some who insist their minds are entirely unswayed by the presence of money, to which I say you are one of four things: an absolutist, a liar, a fool, or already wealthy.
I'm on the autism spectrum and feel a little misrepresented here. To me, Tim's case isn't about him acting (ir)responsibly, but about a glaring display of double standard that I find morally outrageous. Maybe you want to add "neurodivergent" to that list?
Otherwise, I enjoyed reading this. The mechanism is no longer a total mystery to me as it has been the case when I was younger, but this is a good and (imo) accurate summary of what's going on. Thank you :)
You seem to be inferring a lot about what “the public” thinks, primarily from what looks to me like stories published by the priestly caste. People getting death threats from weirdos on the internet is par for the course for anyone in the news.
What would it look like if most adults already saw that the only difference is that these were illegal bribes? What would it look like if much of the general public saw no real difference between these two forms of bribery, and actively disliked the whole system of elite colleges?
I think the news coverage treats these things differently because the priestly caste derives it’s authority from an unreasonable belief that elite institutions provide better education and are selected for primarily on the basis on talent.
Perhaps only a small subset of the credulous public that takes the news industry seriously reacted the way you are describing, and most of the public sees “Harvard” as being nothing more than a wealthy corporation.
You’re claiming money influences all this, and agree, but I also think you can claim to hate rich people with basically zero social consequences. The same can’t be said for any other small group. I don’t think things are as simple as saying “people will make excuses for you if you have money”, - the rules seems to be a bit more like, they’ll make excuses as long as you claim to be on the side of good. People who say there is too much money in politics will cheer a cabal of billionaires and politicians meeting to discuss how the globe should be governed, as long as those meetings produce claims that line up with with that priestly caste says about various dogmas.
> No doubt there will be some who insist their minds are entirely unswayed by the presence of money, to which I say you are one of four things: an absolutist, a liar, a fool, or already wealthy.
I'm on the autism spectrum and feel a little misrepresented here. To me, Tim's case isn't about him acting (ir)responsibly, but about a glaring display of double standard that I find morally outrageous. Maybe you want to add "neurodivergent" to that list?
Otherwise, I enjoyed reading this. The mechanism is no longer a total mystery to me as it has been the case when I was younger, but this is a good and (imo) accurate summary of what's going on. Thank you :)