What's something modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?

[LizzieMaine]

Observers of our nation back to the days of De Toqueville have commented on our national reluctance to admit of differences in social class. That we ignore them does not mean that they do not exist.

The simple fact that the phrase "trailer trash" is a favorite bit of current middle-class slang sort of puts to lie to such claims, don't you think? How often have we heard that phrase used to describe reality-TV folk *right here on the Lounge,* generally by people who, one can reasonably assume, are of a middle-class background?

I know a lot of people who live in trailers. Some members of my own family live in trailers. Some of them are the sort of people that some people here on the Lounge would glibly call "trailer trash." But just what is it about their own position of class privilege that they think gives them the right to use such a term? If it isn't one of class privilege, of a superior looking down on a perceived inferior, than what, exactly *is* it?

 

[HudsonHawk]

So it's ok to exploit them?

Wow. How'd you make *that* leap in logic?

 

[sheeplady]

OMG, I wish you liberals would make up your minds just who it is you hate - first it's the rich, then it's capitalism, now it's the middle class? Give me a break with this Marxist class warfare nonsense, already.

The goal of stirring the pot of class (as you put it) is done mostly so we pit ourselves against one another. And it is certainly not stirred by common people of either political persuasion.

Don't worry, the *powers that be* are very happy that we're duking it out between the middle, working class, and the poor. Nothing makes them more happy when we all get in a little **** fight because the longer we fight with each other over the crumbs, the less we pay attention to what the powers are doing with the cake.

 

[sheeplady]

Wow. How'd you make *that* leap in logic?

You said that they couldn't get jobs elsewhere in television. In reply to my comment that they were being exploited.

I'll recap:
"They're getting exploited."
"But they couldn't get any other jobs in entertainment." (The typical whine of people who agree with exploitation. If that wasn't your intention, then I apologize.)
"So then it's ok to exploit them?"

 

[gtdean48]

The simple fact that the phrase "trailer trash" is a favorite bit of current middle-class slang sort of puts to lie to such claims, don't you think? How often have we heard that phrase used to describe reality-TV folk *right here on the Lounge,* generally by people who, one can reasonably assume, are of a middle-class background?

I know a lot of people who live in trailers. Some members of my own family live in trailers. Some of them are the sort of people that some people here on the Lounge would glibly call "trailer trash." But just what is it about their own position of class privilege that they think gives them the right to use such a term? If it isn't one of class privilege, of a superior looking down on a perceived inferior, than what, exactly *is* it?

I grew up with "PWT" = Poor White Trash. Trailer Trash wasn't used because too many friends & relatives lived in trailers or double-wides & one of the main local employers was a "mobile & modular home" factory...

 

[LizzieMaine]

See, I think the whole concept of "the middle class" is the real lie -- a way of getting people to think "well, at least I'm more like the people up there than those disgusting people down below." An awful lot of people who think they're middle class are really just poor fish who've bitten down on the bait, and let themselves just be reeled in. They're the ones who smile and watch their stock options go up when The Company outsources another factory or finds some new bunch of desperate overseas people to exploit. They're the ones who sit back and say "well, too bad for Those People but what's it got to do with *me*?" They're the ones who "laugh all the way to the bank" at the desperate things Those People will do to try and get by.

There are classes who oppress by direct action, and there are classes who oppress by collaboration. Think about it.

And no, this isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing, or, as the paid hacks of talk radio like to say, a "moonbat vs. wingnut" type of thing. That's just another con game, just as Sheeplady says, something to keep the poor fish biting at the bait. I don't care about any of that stuff. I want people to question the basic assumptions and power structure on which modern society is constructed. Just why does someone who, say, works for wages and struggles to pay the bills consider himself "middle class" as opposed to "working class?" Why is that "middle class" identity, with all of its material symbols, so desperately important? What makes him cling to it even as he moves further and further down the economic pyramid? "Middle" implies advancement toward a goal -- but it also implies a position above someone else, a Someone Else who must *remain* below in order for the illusion of "middleness" to remain. And as advancement up that pyramid becomes less and less likely, the importance of maintianing that illusion of middleness becomes that much more important to the "middle class" sense of identity, doesn't it?

Those are the questions I'm asking. That's the critique I'm throwing out. And until the "middle class" is willing to get up off its adipose backside and put down the remote control and question the whole assumption of "middleness," well, yes, I believe they're doing the work of the real enemy. There *is* a Class War going on. And the so-called "middle class" is Vichy France.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You said that they couldn't get jobs elsewhere in television. In reply to my comment that they were being exploited.

I said no such thing. I said these shows would not exist in a "non-reality" format in comment that such a format cost less to produce than a tradition television show. You then accused me of supporting exploitation of people with disabilities and Chinese factory workers.

Furthermore, I object to your assertion that "these people" are somehow incapable of making rational financial decisions, as if they are mentally impaired by virtue of their geography.

 

[jamespowers]

Hollywood Hillbillies is a "reality" show in which some redneck family is shown living in the big city of Los Angeles. It's a classic "fish out of water" theme. It's the latest in what has become the rage to show caricatures of naive rural folks...Duck Dynasty, Moonshiners, Honey Boo Boo, Appalachain Outlaws, Swamp People, etc.

Leave Swamp People out of that as I find them to be decent people just making a living and family values are well displayed there. Troy is great star o that show and fame has not gone to his head either. He still goes to Walmart to buy a ton of that same pattern of shirt you see him wear every episode on the show. lol lol He buys them eight at a time. His wife gets on him for being so miserly even. His hard work never killed anybody attitude is admirable. Heck, I want him for a neighbor! I'll trade any of the dumbasses around me for him.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I grew up with "PWT" = Poor White Trash. Trailer Trash wasn't used because too many friends & relatives lived in trailers or double-wides & one of the main local employers was a "mobile & modular home" factory...

I grew up in a cinder block house with a concrete floor. A double wide "modular" home would have been the Taj Mahal. "Trailer trash" would have been a step up.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Leave Swamp People out of that as I find them to be decent people just making a living and family values are well displayed there. Troy is great star o that show and fame has not gone to his head either. He still goes to Walmart to buy a ton of that same pattern of shirt you see him wear every episode on the show. lol lol He buys them eight at a time. His wife gets on him for being so miserly even. His hard work never killed anybody attitude is admirable. Heck, I want him for a neighbor! I'll trade any of the dumbasses around me for him.

I'm sure all of those hillbilly reality people are good folk. And not nearly as dumb as some are suggesting.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm sure all of those hillbilly reality people are good folk. And not nearly as dumb as some are suggesting.

They aren't hillbillies. Nor are they dumb. I don't get that in reference to Swamp People or Duck Dynasty for that matter.

 

[hatguy1]

See, I think the whole concept of "the middle class" is the real lie -- a way of getting people to think "well, at least I'm more like the people up there than those disgusting people down below." An awful lot of people who think they're middle class are really just poor fish who've bitten down on the bait, and let themselves just be reeled in. They're the ones who smile and watch their stock options go up when The Company outsources another factory or finds some new bunch of desperate overseas people to exploit. They're the ones who sit back and say "well, too bad for Those People but what's it got to do with *me*?" They're the ones who "laugh all the way to the bank" at the desperate things Those People will do to try and get by.

There are classes who oppress by direct action, and there are classes who oppress by collaboration. Think about it.

And no, this isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing, or, as the paid hacks of talk radio like to say, a "moonbat vs. wingnut" type of thing. That's just another con game, just as Sheeplady says, something to keep the poor fish biting at the bait. I don't care about any of that stuff. I want people to question the basic assumptions and power structure on which modern society is constructed. Just why does someone who, say, works for wages and struggles to pay the bills consider himself "middle class" as opposed to "working class?" Why is that "middle class" identity, with all of its material symbols, so desperately important? What makes him cling to it even as he moves further and further down the economic pyramid? "Middle" implies advancement toward a goal -- but it also implies a position above someone else, a Someone Else who must *remain* below in order for the illusion of "middleness" to remain. And as advancement up that pyramid becomes less and less likely, the importance of maintianing that illusion of middleness becomes that much more important to the "middle class" sense of identity, doesn't it?

Those are the questions I'm asking. That's the critique I'm throwing out. And until the "middle class" is willing to get up off its adipose backside and put down the remote control and question the whole assumption of "middleness," well, yes, I believe they're doing the work of the real enemy. There *is* a Class War going on. And the so-called "middle class" is Vichy France.

You're sure a fan of making unfounded, sweeping generalizations about those you disagree with to support your (unfounded) theories and allegations. I think it's very convenient as well that you're an admin/moderator and therefore 1) should know better than to engage in incendiary political commentary as you've been doing here your past several posts when the rest of us risk getting in trouble with the bartenders for doing the same and 2) as such, you can't be put on ignore lists. That's quite a cute arrangement, I must say. And, yeah; it is a political thing and yeah it is a liberal v. conservative thing. You just don't want to admit it.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

They aren't hillbillies. Nor are they dumb. I don't get that in reference to Swamp People or Duck Dynasty for that matter.

I agree.

 

[HudsonHawk]

They aren't hillbillies. Nor are they dumb. I don't get that in reference to Swamp People or Duck Dynasty for that matter.

I mean "hillbillies" as a generic term for the characters depicted in these reality shows. That's the image they try to project, whether they are "hillbillies" in the academic sense or not.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You're sure a fan of making unfounded, sweeping generalizations about those you disagree with to support your (unfounded) theories and allegations. I think it's very convenient as well that you're an admin/moderator and therefore 1) should know better than to engage in incendiary political commentary as you've been doing here your past several posts when the rest of us risk getting in trouble with the bartenders for doing the same and 2) as such, you can't be put on ignore lists. That's quite a cute arrangement, I must say. And, yeah; it is a political thing and yeah it is a liberal v. conservative thing. You just don't want to admit it.

I'm not a moderator in this part of the Lounge, I'm just one of the mob. And I'm not speaking for the Lounge here, either. Nothing I've said in this series of posts I haven't been saying for the past seven years in one form or another -- it sort of counterbalances some of the other stuff we hear in social-issue threads. People get into these threads and beat around the bush -- I'm just trying to get down there into where the rabbit really is.

In any event, if you want ignore what I have to say, I'll gladly consider myself ignored by you. And no, it *really isn't* a liberal/conservative thing. If you'd actually read my posts over the years you'd see that on quite a few social topics -- drugs, the hypersexualization of culture, things like that -- I'm one of the most "conservative" members on the Lounge, even though I firmly reject that term, just as I reject the "liberal" label.

By insisting on pigeonholing me that way, I think you're just proving my point -- the whole structure of thought nowadays is set up to obscure the reality of how the system works. Either you are A or B, and if you're B you cannot be A. I don't consider myself A *or* B. I consider myself "X." I have no interest at all in contemporary politics -- and every interest in what makes contemporary society the way it is. That is, after all, the root of what we're discussing in this thread.

 

[hatguy1]

Yeah.... Right.... If you say so....

fftopic:

 

[sheeplady]

I said no such thing. I said these shows would not exist in a "non-reality" format in comment that such a format cost less to produce than a tradition television show. You then accused me of supporting exploitation of people with disabilities and Chinese factory workers.

Furthermore, I object to your assertion that "these people" are somehow incapable of making rational financial decisions, as if they are mentally impaired by virtue of their geography.

No, I didn't accuse you of supporting exploitation of Chinese factory workers. I said it is a similar sentiment, I didn't accuse you personally of doing that. I think all reality stars are being exploited, not merely the specific family we're talking about.

Furthermore, the smartest, most rich, most affluent, most educated person in the world can be exploited. Exploitation is about power and the powerless. It has so little to do with anything BUT power.

So what group are you referring to? I was referring to reality TV stars.

ETA: Reality TV stars don't just come from one geographic area, as you suggest. Nor do I think portraying people as ignorant in reality TV is limited to people from one geographic area. Jersey Shore is a perfect example. So are the Housewives. And yes, I believe those people are being exploited too- no matter how rich they are, no matter how smart they are.

 

[LizzieMaine]

fftopic:

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's very *much* on topic. This thread is full of people complaining about stupid reality TV shows -- and I agree they're quite stupid. I think trying to explore the reasons for *why* society seems to *want* these particular types of shows is entirely on topic. There must be a specific reason why a middle-class audience keeps lapping up this kind of cheap, manipulative voyeurism, and there must be a reason why a disproportionate number of these programs focus on people of an essentially working-class background who are manipulated to appear as crude and as base as possible. Nothing happens in show business without a committee of executives and the Boys From Marketing sitting down and figuring out every possible angle -- so if they aren't aiming these programs at a so-called middle class desperate to hold on to the illusion of its "middleness" by allowing themselves to place themselves in contrast to The Other, then exactly what *is* the angle?

Or should we just go back to complaining about saggy pants? Obviously no social overtones in that.

 

[vitanola]

You're sure a fan of making unfounded, sweeping generalizations about those you disagree with to support your (unfounded) theories and allegations. I think it's very convenient as well that you're an admin/moderator and therefore 1) should know better than to engage in incendiary political commentary as you've been doing here your past several posts when the rest of us risk getting in trouble with the bartenders for doing the same and 2) as such, you can't be put on ignore lists. That's quite a cute arrangement, I must say. And, yeah; it is a political thing and yeah it is a liberal v. conservative thing. You just don't want to admit it.

Well, perhaps we should define our terms, don't you think? Do you object to Classical Liberalism? Many do, you know, both with and without reason. Would you insider Ricardo to be a liberal? Either of the Smiths (Adam or Al)? If you calim conaervatism, are you a classical or traditional conservative? Do you place yourself in with Ransom or Cardinal Newman?

The "liberal v. conservative thing" of which you speak is a distinctly modern thing, at least with the definitions that you appear to be using, and as such probably doesn't belong here, as interesting as a nuanced discussion of the matter might be. Now if you care to repeat the points of , say Father Coughlin or Gerald L. K. Smith, well, then you will be making a period argument which relates to the Era.

 

[hatguy1]

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's very *much* on topic. This thread is full of people complaining about stupid reality TV shows -- and I agree they're quite stupid. I think trying to explore the reasons for *why* society seems to *want* these particular types of shows is entirely on topic. There must be a specific reason why a middle-class audience keeps lapping up this kind of cheap, manipulative voyeurism, and there must be a reason why a disproportionate number of these programs focus on people of an essentially working-class background who are manipulated to appear as crude and as base as possible. Nothing happens in show business without a committee of executives and the Boys From Marketing sitting down and figuring out every possible angle -- so if they aren't aiming these programs at a so-called middle class desperate to hold on to the illusion of its "middleness" by allowing themselves to place themselves in contrast to The Other, then exactly what *is* the angle?

Oh, please; where do you get your data that the audience for this drivel is made up of mostly middle class Americans? Do you really think there's nobody but your dreaded "middle class" in the audience? If you believe that, you're beyond hope. Anybody I know considers these kinds of "reality" shows worthless and not worth the time to watch. My bet is, there's an audience demographic made up from the low-income to zero-income bracket and young "adults" and kids more than anybody with a real job - certainly for such worthless shows as "Hollywood Hillbillies", etc.

But like I emoticonned; this has gotten completely off topic and I'd suggest we agree to disagree and just move on. It's obvious you're married to your hatred doctrine of class warfare and other such ideologies. So this "conversation" has gotten way off topic of posting what we're not going to miss when it disappears from our societies and to continue would continue to serve no useful purpose.