The Age of Entitlement

[LizzieMaine]

There might be those who think that kind of stuff is funny because they've never bothered to think about it in any depth. But once they do, what do they do then? Do they keep on clicking on the site anyway, ratcheting up the revenues for the site operators with every click? Do they buy their books or otherwise support what they're doing? If they're saying "huh, I get what that mouthy old bag on the Lounge is saying, it *is* classist and all that crap, but screw it, this stuff is funny HA HA HA IMAGINE HAVING THAT PIG FOR A MOTHER," well, yes, I do see them as being as contemptible as the people who are putting the stuff online in the first place, because they're *enabling* it. Were the people who yelled HEY SHOESHINE BOY and other such remarks at Jackie Robinson just because they rooted for the Phillies and not the Dodgers not really guilty of racism?

 

[AmateisGal]

It's also online, I will read it now, thanks for suggesting it!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ideas...d-Jaron-Lanier-Against-the-Web-183832741.html

This is a really good article - especially about the last 1/4 of it. I concur that everyone should read it.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

There might be those who think that kind of stuff is funny because they've never bothered to think about it in any depth. But once they do, what do they do then? Do they keep on clicking on the site anyway, ratcheting up the revenues for the site operators with every click? Do they buy their books or otherwise support what they're doing? If they're saying "huh, I get what that mouthy old bag on the Lounge is saying, it *is* classist and all that crap, but screw it, this stuff is funny HA HA HA IMAGINE HAVING THAT PIG FOR A MOTHER," well, yes, I do see them as being as contemptible as the people who are putting the stuff online in the first place, because they're *enabling* it. Were the people who yelled HEY SHOESHINE BOY and other such remarks at Jackie Robinson just because they rooted for the Phillies and not the Dodgers not really guilty of racism?

Of course that's racist.

Is it classist if the people who are looking at People of Walmart are of the same class/income level? That's the thing- we don't really know who is looking at that site, and why, and how often. That's my only point.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's classist in that it's assuming that the values and fashion choices of suburban white middle-class Americans are the benchmark by which all such things are properly judged. That is the underlying assumption thruout POWM -- it's evident in the not-so-veiled racism ("She's so GHET-TO!"), it's evident in the assumption that if you're fat there's something wrong with you because you fall short of the fit-and-trim-at-the-gym standard of modern fashion, it's evident in the frequent mockery of items in peoples' grocery carts (OMG! HE'S BUYING CHEEZ WHIZ AND BEEF JERKY AT WAL MART!), because of course intelligent respectible people can afford to shop at Trader Joes, and it's evident in the overt attacks on "rednecks", "white trash", "hicks," and whatever other terms they use. It doesn't matter who the individuals posting are, or what their own particular circumstances are. They're playing a classist game, and by doing so they're implicitly accepting classist values. Simple as that. It's the same thing as laughing at a picture of a black man eating a watermelon -- you're buying into the assumptions on which the entire point of the thing is constructed.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

It's classist in that it's assuming that the values and fashion choices of suburban white middle-class Americans are the benchmark by which all such things are properly judged. That is the underlying assumption thruout POWM -- it's evident in the not-so-veiled racism ("She's so GHET-TO!"), it's evident in the assumption that if you're fat there's something wrong with you because you fall short of the fit-and-trim-at-the-gym standard of modern fashion, and it's evident in the overt attacks on "rednecks", "white trash", "hicks," and whatever other terms they use. It doesn't matter who the individuals posting are, or what their own particular circumstances are. They're playing a classist game, and by doing so they're implicitly accepting classist values. Simple as that. It's the same thing as laughing at a picture of a black man eating a watermelon -- you're buying into the assumptions on which the entire point of the thing is constructed.

I feel that I am being cornered and forced to defend something I'm not promoting. I want to be clear that I am not a fan of that site, I don't like it, I don't like the concept. I am not defending any despicable comments on that site in any way. In fact I've never read them. I've spent a total of about two minutes on that site long ago. I do not condone calling people names. I do not condone bullying people. I hate racism.

One can value dressing a certain way, not because it's a construct that they are buying into because they don't know any better, but because it's what they really like. One can privately have their opinions about a way of dressing without being classist. How far they take that and being cruel about it is another issue.

Edit: rereading this I can see that I am taking your comments too personally when you were responding to my general question. Sorry about that!

 

[sheeplady]

Just feel the need to state that we can't assume that people in PJ's in public are "poor" or that all poor people wear pajamas in public. I don't like stereotypes. I know plenty of "poor" people who are far more well-dressed/spoken/considerate than old money.

I was referring more to illness when I made my comment about not wanting to be in a situation where I wore PJs to the store. For instance, I've had days over the past few weeks were I could do nothing but dress myself in PJs. If I was really ill (think sick from chemo, massive fibromyalgia, etc.) and had to go to the store, but all I could manage was PJs, you can bet I am going in PJs. And anyone who thinks it is that easy to "just pull on a pair of jeans" or "just comb their hair" without help in those situations has never been really truly ill to the point were you can barely lift your hand to your head, yet alone style your hair or apply makeup. Those types of illnesses are also very very isolating, and if a person can manage a short trip out once a week so their life can have some semblance of normalcy, I'm much rather have them go to the store in PJs with their hair half brushed than to be isolated and lonely at home just because they can't manage to dress themselves more appropriately.

Some of the most serious and painful illnesses are not visible. You don't know how ill a person is by looking at them. They are not necessarily being wheeled about. They might not have a pained look on their face. I'm very careful about who I judge because karma has a way of coming back to you.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I was referring more to illness when I made my comment about not wanting to be in a situation where I wore PJs to the store. For instance, I've had days over the past few weeks were I could do nothing but dress myself in PJs. If I was really ill (think sick from chemo, massive fibromyalgia, etc.) and had to go to the store, but all I could manage was PJs, you can bet I am going in PJs. And anyone who thinks it is that easy to "just pull on a pair of jeans" or "just comb their hair" without help in those situations has never been really truly ill to the point were you can barely lift your hand to your head, yet alone style your hair or apply makeup. Those types of illnesses are also very very isolating, and if a person can manage a short trip out once a week so their life can have some semblance of normalcy, I'm much rather have them go to the store in PJs with their hair half brushed than to be isolated and lonely at home just because they can't manage to dress themselves more appropriately.

Some of the most serious and painful illnesses are not visible. You don't know how ill a person is by looking at them. They are not necessarily being wheeled about. They might not have a pained look on their face. I'm very careful about who I judge because karma has a way of coming back to you.

Yes, that's true. Good points. However I don't believe in karma. I do believe in kindness for its own sake.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One can value dressing a certain way, not because it's a construct that they are buying into because they don't know any better, but because it's what they really like. One can privately have their opinions about a way of dressing without being classist. How far they take that and being cruel about it is another issue.

That's all I have to say.

And that's a perfectly reasonable way of thinking -- I was simply trying to explain how institutional classism is the underlying basis of what goes on at that site. For what it's worth, I didn't see your comments so much as defending POWM as raising points that might be raised in any discussion of such a topic.

I look at it this way: Suppose I don't believe in serving wine with meals, which I don't. We never had wine in the house when I was a kid, nobody we knew did, and because of my class background it simply isn't normal to my way of thinking to have wine on the table, and whenever I'm at a place where wine is served my reaction is 'huh, weird, they're having wine.'" I'm going to think that regardless, and no matter how many other people serve wine, I'm not going to feel any obligation to do so in my own home. I might even say "I don't believe in serving wine" if somebody asks, and explain why. Nor are people eating at my house entitled to expect they'll be served wine just because that's the norm in their household.

But if other people want to serve wine, it's their business, not mine, and I have no right to tell them they can't. And I certainly wouldn't take approve of taking pictures of people walking out of liquor stores for the "Look At That F'ing Wino" website.

Make sense?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

And that's a perfectly reasonable way of thinking -- I was simply trying to explain how institutional classism is the underlying basis of what goes on at that site. For what it's worth, I didn't see your comments so much as defending POWM as raising points that might be raised in any discussion of such a topic.

I look at it this way: Suppose I don't believe in serving wine with meals, which I don't. We never had wine in the house when I was a kid, nobody we knew did, and because of my class background it simply isn't normal to my way of thinking to have wine on the table, and whenever I'm at a place where wine is served my reaction is 'huh, weird, they're having wine.'" I'm going to think that regardless, and no matter how many other people serve wine, I'm not going to feel any obligation to do so in my own home. I might even say "I don't believe in serving wine" if somebody asks, and explain why. Nor are people eating at my house entitled to expect they'll be served wine just because that's the norm in their household.

But if other people want to serve wine, it's their business, not mine, and I have no right to tell them they can't. And I certainly wouldn't take approve of taking pictures of people walking out of liquor stores for the "Look At That F'ing Wino" website.

Make sense?

Yes it does make sense. And I agree 100% about taking pics of people without their permission and posting online. Sorry I took what you were saying personally!

 

[John in Covina]

What was once assistance and in effect charity became a right and as such the giving for these things that would be charity moved it forced giving.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

What was once assistance and in effect charity became a right and as such the giving for these things that would be charity moved it forced giving.

Gives new meaning to "Give Till It Hurts." :eusa_doh:

 

[PrettySquareGal]

More on pajamas in public:

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?61833-Pajamas-in-public...&highlight=pajamas+public

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

It's the strangest thing, when I see a guy with a Hell's Angels leather jacket, I assume he must be a biker in the Hell's Angels. I assume that a person in the Hells Angels is up to nefarious deeds. Boy, was I way off. I should assume that his clothing says absolutely nothing about him. Sorta like, like when I see someone wearing a Green Day t-shirt. I assume he likes the band. Boy, was I wrong. Thank God for this thread. How people dress and act says absolutely nothing about that person.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I know, right? Whenever you see a distinguished looking, well-groomed fellow in an expensive suit and shiny shoes, you *know* he couldn't possibly be, oh, running a prostitution ring. Because we all know from what the media tells us that all pimps wear purple velour overcoats, big hats with a long feather, and have a whole row of gold teeth. No, such a handsome, successful chap as we see in this article -- big wheel in the Rotary Club, politically-active, pillar of his church, respected by all -- couldn't possibly be a filthy, degenerate criminal because he's just so well dressed.

(I had dealings with this guy, by the way, when I was a reporter. His suit was the only clean thing about him.)

 

[Gregg Axley]

Usually have nice cars too, and expensive jewelry.
I mean, you can't put all that money in a bank.
You've got to diversify.

 

[scotrace]

That is going to be interesting to follow. Nailed possible cohort has names of Prominent Citizens who frequented The Ladies of the Town, and will start squawking if case proceeds. And Madame is nailed for failing to include illegally-gained income from hooking when reporting for food stamp aid. Good grief. The public's money will be thrown down several rat holes before everyone walks free.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The "johns list" released so far has already included high-level municipal officials in several surrounding towns, the pastor of an Evangelical church, a high school coach, and several other highly-respectable local citizens. All of whom were quite well dressed.

This is what I mean by the difference between appropriate public shaming and inappropriate public shaming. People who wear their jammies in public might very well sin against one's personal sense of aesthetics, and the times I've had to do so (answering burglar alarms in the middle of the night) would, I am sure, offend even the least fastidious of Lounger, given the holes, rips, and patches on my nightwear. But they commit no crime. These people -- perpetrators and customers alike, especially those in positions of community authority or trust, deserve all the shaming they get.

Mr. Solid Citizen was this week rejected in his attempt to cop a plea -- he was all set to turn state's evidence on Mme. Zumba, proving himself a man of chivalry as well as a man well acquainted with the invisible hand of the market. But they weren't buying it. It's a pretty good chance his next job will be in the fast-growing field of license plate manufacturing, and I'm sure his striped suit will at all times be perfectly pressed.

 

[scotrace]

Perhaps the most obvious poster child for all this classism, thinly-veiled racism, etc., is the current "Sweet Brown" "Ain't nobody got time for that." Meme.

I wonder if she realizes her newfound international fame, and how she feels about it. Especially if she is still stuck in a cycle of having to live in firetraps.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Regardless of how she personally feels about it, the real issue is what it says about a culture where the first reaction to some random stranger's misfortune is to turn it into some cheap Internet joke.

Empathy? AIN'T GOT TIME FOR THAT.

As far as overt racism in Internet memes goes, take a good long look at that whole Epic Beard Man thing from a couple years ago, and your blood will run cold. "We've Come So Far."

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

What about the "Age of fingerpointing" and the "Age of looking down to others"? And then think about this thread and a few more others ...