I know *a lot* of culturally and intellectually secular people who are adopting religion just to have some semblance of a safety net built on being seen, understood and cared for as an individual rather than just being a diligent taxpayer or someone who constantly upskillshttps://twitter.com/HelloShreyas/status/1287522332890865665 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @webdevMason
Do you think it also works in the other direction, too? It seems to me one thing functioning communities have is legible opportunities for successful people to be seen as being pillars w/o having to spend brainsweat on moral entrepreneurship. Car dealer buys church a roof, etc.
2 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
Replying to @patio11 @webdevMason
(I’d note that there are all sorts of these things, including non-monetary ways to climb the status or warm fuzzy ladders, such as “The person everyone knows will always make themselves available to sing for a funeral no matter how little notice is available.”)
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @patio11
AFAICT, in highly functional communities it's generally not possible for wealthy people to purchase moral standing with cash alone. The social obligation can be in the form of offering good work terms, freeing up a prosocial spouse to be heavily community-involved, etc
2 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
I think there’s some face time practically speaking required, but I do think social status is basically purchasable at some margins. Not everyone in a church knows which doctor bought the roof or who the hat usually lands on when passed, but those who know definitely know.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @patio11
Generally speaking, places where awe of money is significant enough to cause purchasing power to funge with community involvement are not what I am personally describing when I talk about highly functional communities
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
Again, the community may know, acknowledge & appreciate the people effectively bankrolling it, but they're not viewed as moral leaders or central figures just for spending money, and a lot of donor "perks" that'd be considered normal in other contexts would be seen as perverse
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.