Ironically, I don't think it's usually the frustrated minimum wage earners using this holier than thou language. It's generally journalists and academics, and indeed the author is a former journalism professor. When someone struggling to get by does say something that I think is ridiculous like "eat the rich", I keep my judgement at a minimum.
> Ironically enough, that you cannot see past the emotional language and describe the quote as "alienating me" also demonstrate an lack of empathy for me
I wouldn't be surprised if I actually have below-average empathy, but unfortunately for you, people like us still get to vote, and shame isn't a great way to get support on controversial issues. Anyways, your choice in language has real utility, so it's not really a matter of whether or not I'm empathetic. I support welfare as a social safety net, but not welfare solely for the sake of redistribution of wealth. If the political camp that is advocating for welfare is using language that suggests the second purpose of welfare, then I'm less inclined to support them.
> Ironically enough, that you cannot see past the emotional language and describe the quote as "alienating me" also demonstrate an lack of empathy for me
I wouldn't be surprised if I actually have below-average empathy, but unfortunately for you, people like us still get to vote, and shame isn't a great way to get support on controversial issues. Anyways, your choice in language has real utility, so it's not really a matter of whether or not I'm empathetic. I support welfare as a social safety net, but not welfare solely for the sake of redistribution of wealth. If the political camp that is advocating for welfare is using language that suggests the second purpose of welfare, then I'm less inclined to support them.