Alright, step back for a moment and look at this statement. In your first question you ask if I am claiming a thing - what, for now is irrelevant. This thing that you ask if I am claiming I am very clearly not claiming - anywhere.
Which is a standard rhetorical tactic. You dispute what I say as true, and yet doing so in such a way that allows you to claim, "I never claimed that!" when I point out that you've disputed the truth of my statement. Yet what other alternative could there be if you dispute that what I say is true? And if you're not disputing that what I say is true, then what other reason is there for stating, "the latter statement is totally unsubstantiated"? Because you like fighting!
But then you proceed to make a causal link between that claim (that you are not the same race as the Chinese) and the fact that I should therefore regard nothing you say as true.
If you're just going to dispute thing as "oh, that's a lie" when they are inconvenient to the point you've assumed (I'm a big, fat RACIST!), then why should you care what I write? Because you like fighting!
You stated an opinion, which I have every right to challenge.
And you will continue to challenge everything I write because you like fighting!
Let us consult the American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:
Let me break something to you: the American Heritage Dictionary is not the arbiter of Truth. It merely reports on the way that language is used by people. And yes, some people use RACIST conveniently and opportunistically.
"They" is always a good indicator of a generalization.
That's the best you can do? Pathetic! A generalization takes the form of "Chinese are generally" or even "All Chinese are". Seeing none, you've decided to impugn the previously humble third person pronoun with the stunning power of RACISM!
It becomes 'gross' when you start confusing the topic of 'government' versus 'private interest'.
I'm glad I have you here to define these things for me! Otherwise, I would have come up with nothing looking under the entry for "gross" in the usually-reliable American Heritage Dictionary.
You cited no evidence that this was done by the Chinese government, much less in any premeditated sense - yet you claimed both.
It could be either, right? I seem to remember you bravely dodging the relevant question. Still unanswered by you...
The poisoned food, for instance, was not the result of government involvement - if anything, it was the lack of government oversight that allowed it to happen. It was the actions of a private company that caused the problem.
Prove it, mister you-cited-no-evidence! Have you even been to China?
I like, though, how you are saying, "I have presented no evidence, so even if I present an infinite amount of evidence you will not be convinced." This far better rhetoric than logic.
I personally think "You're RACIST!" is the best rhetoric. And my god, how you like to fight!
For the love of all things sacred; I never made that argument! Near as I can tell you did, or maybe some other slashdotter in this crazy thread. But it's entirely straw man tactics to apply it to me! You lose!
I lose? Wow, you're in this for teh w1n, aren't you? You really, really have to WIN this fight, don't you? Will that make you feel better about yourself?
In any event, this is what I'm referring to:
"Outrage is not the answer. The Buddha recommends the Middle Path, and here I agree with him. To eschew humor in favor of outrage is to eschew your humanity in favor of brimstone. People should be loathe to give up their humor."
Leaving aside the fact that the latter statement is totally unsubstantiated
Are you claiming that I am NOT the same race as they? If not, then why would you regard anything I say as true? If that's the case, then you have no reason to discuss anything with me unless you simply like fighting.
if you do not understand that any gross generalization based on such factors is racist, you have no business making those remarks.
If you can't define racism correctly, then you have no business making such accusations. Racism is the belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another. I am the same race as they. Am I claiming a genetic superiority of my own race over my own race?
And what "gross generalizations" about a race did I make?
Additionally, are you claiming that "Chinese" is a "race"?
Point of fact; in this whole discussion you've offered not one whit of evidence to support your claims.
I thought that the poisoned pet food and poisoned children's toys spoke for themselves, so perhaps the case is that no amount of evidence will convince you.
I think you're a troll
The feeling is mutual, especially given your "the best way to move people from A to B is to have them stay on A and NOT move to B" argument. I think you argue against me simply because you like fighting.
That said, does China sell poisoned goods to the USA due to incompetence or due to malice? There's no doubting that the Chinese sell poisoned items to the United States. If I were as "un-racist" as you wanted me to be, would the poisoned items suddenly cease to exist, or is this really an issue of you employing ad hominem? I would certainly favor the latter, especially since by now you're probably chomping at the bit to shift some moral defects into my camp. (How about RACISM? Yeah, that one's *really* nasty!) Was it really wise for you to so staunchly defend the status quo of trivializing prison rape? Seems to me like you're having second thoughts about taking that position.
Your labeling of the Chinese people with such malicious intent is both racist and paranoid.
My criticism was of the Chinese government, not the "Chinese people". And how can it be racist? I am the same race as they are.
I don't suppose you have any facts that the Chinese government is engaged in a premeditated campaign to kill us?
It's really hard to say. It could be a premeditated campaign, or it could be continued sloppiness and incompetence. You choose whichever explanation seems less "racist" to you.
So now that you've made your point loud and clear that you think rape is bad, that institutionalized rape is bad, and that any humor mentioning rape is bad, do you have any sort of suggestion or other useful item to add?
Will you please stop treating prison rape as a joke?
No, the powerless in this situation is the everyman. The person who, if they ran afoul of the law, would be put into such a prison.
While you agitate to defend a concept from a possibility, I am agitating to defend real victims of institutionalized rape. I'll let the readers decide which of our victims is at greater risk of being raped.
What sort of reaction should we have? The high-and-mighty 'outrage' you recommend does not produce a result.
Because I am but one individual making an appeal to higher values among a sea of individuals who regard this issue as something funny and trivial. If there was a sea of outrage instead of snickering, then perhaps we would see some change. As is, you seem to be agitating for the status quo which is also NOT producing a result -- unless your desired result is the continuation of institutionalized rape.
You may claim it does, but people have been outraged about the state of prisons forever and a day. There is outrage.
The people who think prison rape is funny outweigh the people who think it's outrageous in huge margins. This is about changing people's minds. If there were more people taking a strong stand against people treating prison rape as something trivial and funny instead of more people, like you, forcefully arguing for the status quo, then perhaps some good could come about.
Jokes that let the real fear of the situation - fear born of the outrageous truth - be dealt with, recognized, and publicly talked about.
Jokes indeed "deal with" the situation -- by trivializing it. By making it seem like a joke instead of as a disgusting violation of human rights. You seem okay with this.
I think you are putting words in people's mouths when they say that prison rape is itself a joke or that it represents justice.
I completely disagree. The fact that people joke about this subject in movies and it produces no outrage means that people find prison rape to be funny. Could it be more succinctly defined as "a joke"? I don't think so. And I've heard several people (conservative-types, mostly) claim in response to the threat of prison rape, "If you don't want to be raped, the don't do crimes." If that doesn't represent somebody's warped idea of justice, then nothing does.
But there are inequalities in the world, and the joke we're referencing points out one such inequality; a class inequality between privileged 'white collar' offenders and the underclass. You are agitating that the dark humor pointing out this inequality should go, and that it supports a sort of attitude you disagree with.
No, mister strawman. I'm saying that:
1. Everyone has a human right NOT to be raped
2. Allowing or encouraging rape as a punishment for crime is cruel and thus immoral as well as un-American
Do you disagree with either of those two statements? If so, why?
This is a societal injury. We have a right to laugh about it.
And I have a right to criticize you for laughing about it. Doing so demeans and trivializes a crime that in which our society is not only a victim, but also a willing accomplice.
Under the exact circumstances we live in. You tell me why we don't see traditional advertising for this. It definitely isn't because some people make jokes about it.
The exact circumstances that we live in are that prison rape is seen as something funny and non-serious. It's seen as a non-problem, or maybe even as "proper justice". ("Who are you to complain about being raped? You shouldn't have broken the law!") And, in that case, I think the jokes about it are are major contributing factor to why we don't see television advertising about it. Very few people take this issue seriously because it's seen as funny.
That is a pretty hypocritical statement. "read: rape"?!?!?! No, read "violence". You are a perfect example of why the joke phase is not over. Given the amount of violence committed against men in our society, your dismissal of all other violence shows that the jokes succeeded in bringing your attention to this particular form of violence.
You're totally mis-reading me. What I wrote was correct: Rape against men is not taken seriously. I also believe that violence against men, particularly domestic violence, is also not taken seriously. But I'm scratching my own itch and trying not to get sidetracked into different issues.
I would say that all of the prison rape jokes are what made it possible for the reports to make it to the main stream media instead of being swept under the rug. Public outrage doesn't happen if the public doesn't hear about it due to it being too sensitive of a subject.
The media is controlled by jokes? People joked about Abu Graib and that why it wasn't swept under the rug? Your argument here is nonsensical.
You say that, but take rapist priests as an example. It was common knowledge that the Catholic Church was an international child molestation ring. It has been happening for hundreds of years, but it still took a generation of people cracking crude jokes about it before the general public became comfortable enough with it for the lawsuits to actually start, and anything to be done about it.
That is a very different situation. The reason it took so long for people to come forward against the Catholic Church in its abuse scandal is because of the enormous faith that Catholics put into their priests and the church hierarchy. Many Catholics did not want to believe that the people they trust most to NOT do such a thing, and the church hierarchy responded by hiding the problem. To admit that the priests and the cardinals were aiding and abetting in child abuse would be to lose faith in what was seen as True and right, and that took a long time to accept.
A more similar situation to the Catholic Church child abuse scandal would not be prison rape, but rather the Boy Scouts child abuse scandal. In that, parents did not want to believe that the people they trusted most NOT to do such things (scoutmasters), and the BSA hierarchy responded by refusing to admit there was a problem.
Another similar situation to the Catholic Church child abuse scandal would be child abuse scandals in the Protestant churches, such as the Southern Baptists. Why are there no jokes about them? I think it is because the media plays a very large role in what people talk about and that sets the stage for what our culture regards as funny.
What does the media have to say about prison rape? Nothing. Movies treat it like it's something funny. We don't get a "Schindler's List" or a "Mississippi Burning" for the issue of prison rape.
The same holds true here. It will take time for people to move from uncomfortable joke to outrage.
And you seem to be arguing that the way for people to move from joke to outrage is to continue joking about it and not be outraged about it. My argument is that people should stop joking about it and be outraged about it, as that seems to be the direct route to moving people from joking about it to being outraged about it.
In fact, I'm beginning to think that you're arguing with me just because you want a fight, not because you care about this issue one way or the other. Otherwise, you wouldn't make the idiotic argument that people move from joke to outrage by NOT moving from joke to outrage.
I often thought of this back when my weekly soap opera of sorts was HBO's Oz. Were I ever to goto prison I'd surely be someone's bitch, although I could think of no crime I would ever possibly commit that would warrant such punishment.
Any crime, basically. The punishment for crime is rape if you're weak.
Just think about that for a few minutes! In the USA, we regularly sentence the weak to institutional rape. Abu Ghraib was an aberration, yet it got front-page outrage for weeks and weeks. And yet worse happens, every day, in the prisons all over the USA largely because this issue is treated with flippant humor instead of the outrage that it deserves.
That's why I take daily calcium supplements in the hope I may one day develope a set of fierce anus dentata just in case I ever had to do "hard time".
*sigh*
It's going to be an uphill battle to get people to take this seriously. In the meantime, institutional rape continues apace. Equal justice, my gay ass!
Chinsa has nothing on us in that respect. We've had a much higher prison population than even them for a long ass time.
Thankfully we have the Chinese government to rely on for their prison numbers, which they relay to us with pristine accuracy when they're not busy trying to poison our citizens, children, and household pets.
I recommend this quote; "Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful."
The powerless, in this instance, is the numerous victims of prison rape. How is the "satire" helping them?
No one is treating rape itself like a joke, like something to be ignored or belittled
No, they are specifically treating male-on-male prison rape as something funny. That's why they joke about it. Constantly.
There is a reason that the "Free Speech" rights we are extended by the U.S. Constitution are broadly interpreted
I did not agitate for the government to ban people from joking about prison rape. What I rail against is the attitude toward prison rape (that it's a joke, or even that it represents justice), and I am asking people to stop joking about it and to stop tolerating jokes about it. Once more people react to this subject with outrage instead of with flippant humor then the problem will start getting better, and I see no reason at all to apologize for that.
I'm not sure the fear is that it will happen to them personally, but the fear that it really does happen unjustifiably.
They don't think it's "unjustified". They think it's funny! I think that sucks, and I see no reason at all to apologize for that.
I admit that it's hard for people to change their minds, especially when everyone you know thinks of something in a particular way. That's called "social proof". It sometimes takes a single dissenter to stand up and say, "Look at what you're approving of!" and lay out a clear, level-headed appeal to higher ideals (sin, human rights, cruel and unusual punishment -- I tried to hit all the bases) in order to spark a change in something that desperately needs to be changed. I'm not trying to put myself on the cross here -- look back on this thread and tell me: is there anyone else here besides me taking a stand and saying, "Institutionalized rape is wrong, and making jokes about it is wrong, too."? Do you personally agree with that statement -- is it wrong to make light of the subject of institutionalized rape?
The unjustifiably is thrown in since American culture still draws pretty heavily from the Puritan ethos and, I suspect more than a few Americans would tactly accept a policy that didn't remind them personally for the guilty.
So many people keep trying to explain the motivations behind people's making light of this despicable subject. Their motivations don't matter because the end result is always the same: institutionalized rape continues apace. I don't care about people's motivations because they are nothing but justification for evil. Prison rape must end, people need to stop joking about it, and that's that!
Who was it who made that statement, "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"? Probably not Mike Judge, who has helped turn prison rape into a joke, pox on his house.
The division isn't 12% it's almost 100%
I want to believe that, as it means that prison rape is marginally less fucking horrific than previously thought. Do you have some means of supporting that statement?
I'm all for prison reform, aiming at rehibilitation (likely with restution rather than incarceration) for all non-violent offenders, and incarceration that preserves humanity for violent offenders. I'm pro legalization and regulation for most drugs which I believe would reduce the population by a substantial amount.
I'm totally with you. The problem is, how can some people actually be rehabilitated? We humans, in all cultures, have earned an "F", universally, in our ability to actually rehabilitate predators. Not all lives are worth saving.
Rape is a serious crime, whether it's against a man or a woman
Rape is NOT a serious crime when it's against a man. Otherwise, there would be less rapes in prison. I would seriously like to see this change. Getting people to stop joking about this and start taking it seriously would be a great way to start enacting change in this regard.
But oops! Look, there he's gone and done a crime, and now, foolishly, he finds himself in with the other 'riff raff'.
Hahaha! Rape sure is funny!
The funny/not-funny thing about this is that there is an expectation that 'white collar' criminals should get it easy, but that that expectation is being changed up.
Hehehe! Little white, I mean, "white-collar" guy was just tuttering along, but uh-oh! Everything's upside-down, now! Now he's being raped! Hilarious!
And the really unfunny thing about it is that the truth of the matter is really painful (and according to Strangers in a Strange Land, therefore the only reason to laugh): that rape does occur in prison, to both men and women.
Thankfully we have you to inform us that prison rape does actually happen. I'm sure everyone here will be shocked by the realization and the jokes will come to an end.
Please forgive me for being so sarcastic with you, but what I want is for the jokes to stop, not for people to defend the jokes. Getting people to take this issue necessitates that we stop treating it like a joke and stop defending those who joke about it.
If that was the only way to get public awareness about it. Definitly.
And under what circumstances would that be the "only" way to "get public awareness" about it? Would traditional advertising necessarily fail? Why?
No, they wouldn't. In fact, our society would be up in arms about the problem, and demand it be stopped. Unfortunately, violence against men is just not taken seriously in our society
Finally you've said something reasonable. Yes, it's true that "violence" (read: rape) against men is not taken seriously in our culture.
you may want to pretend that there is a middle that is excluded, you are doing just that... pretending. You have to make the choice. Crude, offensive 'humor', or public denial of the problem.
I'm pretending nothing, and you are still excluding the middle. The middle that you are excluding is this: I demand that joking about prison rape be stopped and that this be treated as a serious social problem that must end. The idea that this is "funny" is widespread across giant swaths of our culture and that attitude must end. Neither joking about it or denying it is a viable option since both have the same end result: prison rape continues.
Let me give you another example. Abner Louima was raped by police officers. If giant swaths of our culture thought this was funny instead of outrageous, do you think that justice would have been better served? Instead, "awareness" was raised by mass outrage, not by making churlish jokes about it! The fact that we treat prison rape as a joke instead of an outrage is what helps prison rape to continue. Yes, everyone is "aware" of it, and they treat it like a joke. Until people take it seriously, it's going to continue.
Of course, I do commend your outrage at what is happening, but you should direct it at those that are just complacent.
People like you, in other words. I don't see you as very outraged. I see you as stridently defending the practice of making a joke of this situation instead of stridently demanding that prison rape end.
The people that crack the jokes are simply drilling the fact that this happens into the public consciousnesses. They are more your ally in your disgust, not your opposition.
That is such ripe bullshit. If that were true, the comedy movies would make similar jokes about male-on-female rape. The culture at large views prison rape as just, and I think that's disgusting, and I don't see how making jokes about it does anything but trivialize the situation. "It raises awareness!" you pitifully say. Great. Everyone is aware. It's common knowledge, for pete's sake! How does making continued jokes make this situation any better?
Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?
You've excluded the middle, but let's not belabor the point.
Let me pose a different hypothetical situation.
What if women who were sent to prison were regularly raped by men. Would you joke about this? Would you say something like, "She didn't want to go to prison where she'd end up getting pounded up the cunt?" with a snicker? Would our society view this institutionalized rape as flippantly as it does when men are regularly raped in prison?
It's not funny, but most people when confronted with their deepest fears use humor in an attempt to separate themselves from them. Gallows humor is named that for a reason.
A nice try, but I don't think anyone here is living in fear of being raped in prison and thinking of making a joke to soothe themselves. People generally think of it as acceptable and just for people (say, non-violent marijuana offenders, for example) to be punished with rape. (People here are actually more likely to live in fear of the global warming monster to come destroy the earth. Run for your lives! It causes hurricanes!)
There was a pot movie that came out in the late 90s that had this theme (marijuana smokers being sentenced to rape) as a major plot element. One character was busted for accidentally killing a police officer's horse, and he was terrified about going to prison where he would, of course, be raped. Ha ha ha! Rape is so funny when it happens to a man! What was the name of that movie?
Ironically, it's state prison that has far more rape.
Boy, I hope I get to go to a federal prison if I get busted! I hear they have 12% less rape! Oh, the bitter irony.
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
"Progressives" have finally found a traitor they want to persecute.
Adam Gadahn? No. (How Islamophobic of me to suggest that!)
Jose Padilla? No. (How racist of me to suggest that!)
Why, it's that America-hating turncoat Scooter Libby, of course!
Give me a break. You only care about Scooter Libby because of the possibility of going all the way up to your least-favorite bete noire: Dick Cheney.
I thought that Time magazine was really honest about this desire. To wit (I love that, it sounds so snotty):
George Bush's sense of humor has always run more to frat-house gag than art-house irony, so he may not have appreciated the poetic justice any more than the legal justice on display in the Libby verdict.
So stop harping about this "treason" bullshit. You hate Cheney more than you hate anything and your hatred is completely transparent. Fine, Cheney's a bastard! But there are plenty of people out there giving "Aid and Comfort" to jihadist pieces of shit who merit the T-word before that insignificant choad Libby does.
No, he was going to a federal 'pound me in the ass' prison.
I simply don't understand why this is a humouous meme in our culture.
To the right, one would think that gay male rape would be regarded as a sin and a gross violation of manhood.
To the left, one would think that prison abuse happening on a widespread scale should be something that a civil society should abhor.
To the notion of American individual rights, one would think that being sentenced to rape is a cruel and unusual punishment.
As is, it is treated flippantly.
Shame on any of you who think this is funny. Prison rape is NOT a fucking joke! It is a disgusting violation of human rights and the persistant and wicked idea that it's either funny or representative of justice that someone be sentenced to RAPE is the primary reason why it continues.
If you think my condemnation of you rape advocates is unfair, then I would like either a "liberal" or a "conservative" to make a strong, compelling case why any crime which merits prison time be "rape by default". Please tell me how exactly that represents "justice" to you.
I think being the Devil's Advocate is to argue for a position that you oppose with the hopes that a counter-argument will be made which destroys it. It is, essentially, a means of testing the strength of your own position by imagining how the opposition to it will be countered.
That's not quite what the essay itself was doing since the writer fully believes that a "class" argument can be made despite the fact that Marxist rhetoric doesn't fit so nicely at all in American culture (and she admits as much).
So being educated is valuable, but being college educated? In this case, it is not.
There's no such thing as "learning for learning's sake" (despite what some humanities professors may angrily screech). All education is a means to some end. So, in your case, the questions are: what did you learn? And possibly: where did you learn it? (The latter question is for snobs who think that "Where did you go to school?" is vital to your importance as a human being.) I'm guessing that you spent a significant amount of time learning some things which are now incongruent with your life goals.
I'm college educated, for what that is worth (nothing)
Don't be so pessimistic. Not that I'm one to say such a thing... I didn't finish my degree and I've got a better job and make more money than some Ph.D. candidates will. Likewise, my partner who never went to college at all will likely triple my salary this year. But it's not all about money. There are some professions where the slip of paper is truly important; namely, the slip of paper grants entry into the profession in question. I suppose the lesson to be learned is that your life is good and you should keep your chin up and start making good choices so that you can fulfill your life's dreams. Was your college education a waste? It doesn't matter! The true waste would be for you to let poisonous ideas like "college was a waste" keep you from flourishing as an individual.
it was a damn good essay if only because she stated her assumptions up front
Indeed she did make some assumptions in the very title of her work. To wit: "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace". Her primal assumption is that there is a qualifyable entity known as a "class" in the United states.
pointed out what she couldn't honestly quantify
Actually, she pointed out what she couldn't qualify. What is it? It's "class"! Again, to wit (doesn't that sound snotty?): "In sociology, Nalini Kotamraju has argued that constructing arguments around 'class' is extremely difficult in the United States. Terms like 'working class' and 'middle class' and 'upper class' get all muddled quickly. She argues that class divisions in the United States have more to do with lifestyle and social stratification than with income."
If Begging the Question is the name of the logical flaw in which you make an argument which assumes the point in dispute, what is the name of the logical flaw in which you make an argument which destroys the point which is assumed?
Correct. I don't need a 3 bedroom house to be stable. I could be perfectly stable in a 1 room apartment, albeit uncomfortable, I would be stable.
What if someone else disagrees? Is your stability the baseline for all humanity?
Uh, yeah I did. My definition of stable is that you are making a positive contribution to society. And that doesn't take much. You can hold down your job, and you can provide your family with food and shelter with out assistance.
My bad, and thank you for elaborating though it's still pretty nebulous. When you mention "without assistance" are you only talking about coerced "assistance" ("welfare"), or does "assistance" from friends and family members also disqualify you from "making a positive contribution to society"?
Also, what quality of food and shelter are assumed? 1-bedroom apartments for everybody? Is the toilet in the same room as your bed?
With a very crappy one. If being poor and down trodden was comfortable, why would anyone work to improve their position in life?
FINALLY! I wondered when you'd start talking about lifestyle. Unfortunately, you got into uncomfortable territory and decided to rebound with a non-sequitur question. Your original statement was this: "All a living wage is, is the amount of money a person would have to earn to make ends meet in your local society." When I asked, "What kind of lifestyle?" You answered, "a very crappy one". Are you saying that a "living wage" is the amount of money you need to make to have a "very crappy" lifestyle and that everyone should have that? And how crappy can a "very crappy" lifestyle get in order for the minimum requirements for a "living wage" to continue to be met? For example, only half of the population of Cambodia died in forced labor camps during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. This means that the others survived and had a "very crappy" lifestyle. Did they thus have a "living wage"? They had enough to have food, shelter, and medicine, albeit with a "very crappy" lifestyle which, according to you, is acceptable. Then again, they did have some "assistance" from the government, so perhaps it's not acceptable according to you. Pinning you down on what you think is like nailing Jell-O to a wall.
Wooooh nellie. Don't go sticking your foot in the fox hole, you don't know who you are talking about. I assure you, I have seen destitution first hand, I have spent time out of this country, I have gone hungry, and I have worried about getting food for my new born child. Don't lecture me on being 'privileged'. I went through my own rough times and I worked my ass off to get where I am today.
Not only will I put my foot in that fox hole, but I will also do some riverdancing while it's there. Good for you to be privileged enough to shop at Trader Joe's. Thousands of other children starve to death while you shop there. Now you're wealthy enough to spend time fighting with some asshole on slashdot while millions of other people worry about where their next meal is coming from, or worry if their government will come kill them. And you're not privileged? Spare me, rich boy. You're richer than 99% of the world's population, so don't tell me that you "know destitution". You know abundance because you presently wallow in it, and your posting here is evidence of that fact. Otherwise, you'd be busy worrying about your child, right? Be honest!
I think I'm understanding why you're so big on "living wage": you feel guilty because you got out of a "very crappy" lifestyle and other people don't. For you, this "living wage" thing is an emotional issue, not an intellectual one. It makes sense that you'd mock me for being too into books and "existentialist". If I've pegged you wrong in this regard then please tell me how. There's nothing wrong with making emotional decisions. I make emotional decisions all the time. Everyone does. Tell me your true feelings if guilt is the incorrect one.
Living wage doesn't care if you have a 1 room studio, or a 4 bedroom town house. Living wage doesn't care if you wash your close in a GE front loading washer in your hou--
Are you saying that those things don't contribute to "stability"? Being "stable" was part of having a "living wage", right? I notice you didn't define "stable". I notice you don't want to define anything. You just argue and assume that I'm along for the ride.
All a living wage is, is the amount of money a person would have to earn to make ends meet in your local society.
Make ends meet with what kind of lifestyle?
Sure, you can survive on $3/day in parts of China
Survive for how long? With what kind of lifestyle?
I'm guessing you've never been to China, even the "rich" parts. I haven't been, either. That's why I rely on the witness of those who have. Read this. Then you can look at this.
You're so privileged that you don't realize how good you have it. That's why you can casually throw around terms like "making ends meet" and "stable" which only have meaning when you make grand assumptions.
Did you read the story about gathering cash in Buenos Aires? Something tells me you would rather fight than read. Maybe it was a waste of my time to ask you to read about a cultured and nuanced "progressive" journalist's experiences in China and how you can "make ends meet" there. But here is the money quote, for what it's worth, from the first article I linked in this post:
"You don't see many weak or infirm people on the streets, in Beijing, Shanghai, or Nanjing. You get the feeling that the unfit do not survive long past birth, and that the Greek system is in effect here - an early burial, or a hillside crib, for newly born weaklings. I don't know precisely, but I have seen only a few beggars, and they look like the ethnic minorities."
Survival, indeed!
That's why living wage is regional.
That's why "living wage" is an expression of wealth envy. I suppose it's actually an expression of lifestyle envy, but I don't think you're willing to think that abstractly. It's just too Emerson-y and existentialish. You're still stuck in the land where you think in terms of "getting by" and "making ends meet" and you can't understand why we don't have enough stuff to ensure that Everyone Gets What They Need To Have A Good Life(TM).
Enjoy your trips to Trader Joe's, rich boy! I like their coffee.
The "value" of food isn't measured in pounds (if it were, dirt wins).
You're right, but that's beside the point. The angry young man with something to prove was bitching about "expensive", not "valuable".
Besides that, rice isn't usually considered a health food. It's not a bad food, but it's health benefits are average at best.
Again, you're right, but rice is still better for you than twinkies are.
And there we have it: the AYMwStP claimed that "eating healthy is more expensive than eating cheap" and rice v. twinkies is the obvious exception to that "rule" since rice is healthier and cheaper than twinkies by-the-pound.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, step back for a moment and look at this statement. In your first question you ask if I am claiming a thing - what, for now is irrelevant. This thing that you ask if I am claiming I am very clearly not claiming - anywhere.
Which is a standard rhetorical tactic. You dispute what I say as true, and yet doing so in such a way that allows you to claim, "I never claimed that!" when I point out that you've disputed the truth of my statement. Yet what other alternative could there be if you dispute that what I say is true? And if you're not disputing that what I say is true, then what other reason is there for stating, "the latter statement is totally unsubstantiated"? Because you like fighting!
But then you proceed to make a causal link between that claim (that you are not the same race as the Chinese) and the fact that I should therefore regard nothing you say as true.
If you're just going to dispute thing as "oh, that's a lie" when they are inconvenient to the point you've assumed (I'm a big, fat RACIST!), then why should you care what I write? Because you like fighting!
You stated an opinion, which I have every right to challenge.
And you will continue to challenge everything I write because you like fighting!
Let us consult the American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:
Let me break something to you: the American Heritage Dictionary is not the arbiter of Truth. It merely reports on the way that language is used by people. And yes, some people use RACIST conveniently and opportunistically.
"They" is always a good indicator of a generalization.
That's the best you can do? Pathetic! A generalization takes the form of "Chinese are generally" or even "All Chinese are". Seeing none, you've decided to impugn the previously humble third person pronoun with the stunning power of RACISM!
It becomes 'gross' when you start confusing the topic of 'government' versus 'private interest'.
I'm glad I have you here to define these things for me! Otherwise, I would have come up with nothing looking under the entry for "gross" in the usually-reliable American Heritage Dictionary.
You cited no evidence that this was done by the Chinese government, much less in any premeditated sense - yet you claimed both.
It could be either, right? I seem to remember you bravely dodging the relevant question. Still unanswered by you...
The poisoned food, for instance, was not the result of government involvement - if anything, it was the lack of government oversight that allowed it to happen. It was the actions of a private company that caused the problem.
Prove it, mister you-cited-no-evidence! Have you even been to China?
I like, though, how you are saying, "I have presented no evidence, so even if I present an infinite amount of evidence you will not be convinced." This far better rhetoric than logic.
I personally think "You're RACIST!" is the best rhetoric. And my god, how you like to fight!
For the love of all things sacred; I never made that argument! Near as I can tell you did, or maybe some other slashdotter in this crazy thread. But it's entirely straw man tactics to apply it to me! You lose!
I lose? Wow, you're in this for teh w1n, aren't you? You really, really have to WIN this fight, don't you? Will that make you feel better about yourself?
In any event, this is what I'm referring to:
"Outrage is not the answer. The Buddha recommends the Middle Path, and here I agree with him. To eschew humor in favor of outrage is to eschew your humanity in favor of brimstone. People should be loathe to give up their humor."
Posted here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24456 7&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=197332
Leaving aside the fact that the latter statement is totally unsubstantiated
Are you claiming that I am NOT the same race as they? If not, then why would you regard anything I say as true? If that's the case, then you have no reason to discuss anything with me unless you simply like fighting.
if you do not understand that any gross generalization based on such factors is racist, you have no business making those remarks.
If you can't define racism correctly, then you have no business making such accusations. Racism is the belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another. I am the same race as they. Am I claiming a genetic superiority of my own race over my own race?
And what "gross generalizations" about a race did I make?
Additionally, are you claiming that "Chinese" is a "race"?
Point of fact; in this whole discussion you've offered not one whit of evidence to support your claims.
I thought that the poisoned pet food and poisoned children's toys spoke for themselves, so perhaps the case is that no amount of evidence will convince you.
I think you're a troll
The feeling is mutual, especially given your "the best way to move people from A to B is to have them stay on A and NOT move to B" argument. I think you argue against me simply because you like fighting.
That said, does China sell poisoned goods to the USA due to incompetence or due to malice? There's no doubting that the Chinese sell poisoned items to the United States. If I were as "un-racist" as you wanted me to be, would the poisoned items suddenly cease to exist, or is this really an issue of you employing ad hominem? I would certainly favor the latter, especially since by now you're probably chomping at the bit to shift some moral defects into my camp. (How about RACISM? Yeah, that one's *really* nasty!) Was it really wise for you to so staunchly defend the status quo of trivializing prison rape? Seems to me like you're having second thoughts about taking that position.
Your labeling of the Chinese people with such malicious intent is both racist and paranoid.
My criticism was of the Chinese government, not the "Chinese people". And how can it be racist? I am the same race as they are.
I don't suppose you have any facts that the Chinese government is engaged in a premeditated campaign to kill us?
It's really hard to say. It could be a premeditated campaign, or it could be continued sloppiness and incompetence. You choose whichever explanation seems less "racist" to you.
So now that you've made your point loud and clear that you think rape is bad, that institutionalized rape is bad, and that any humor mentioning rape is bad, do you have any sort of suggestion or other useful item to add?
Will you please stop treating prison rape as a joke?
No, the powerless in this situation is the everyman. The person who, if they ran afoul of the law, would be put into such a prison.
While you agitate to defend a concept from a possibility, I am agitating to defend real victims of institutionalized rape. I'll let the readers decide which of our victims is at greater risk of being raped.
What sort of reaction should we have? The high-and-mighty 'outrage' you recommend does not produce a result.
Because I am but one individual making an appeal to higher values among a sea of individuals who regard this issue as something funny and trivial. If there was a sea of outrage instead of snickering, then perhaps we would see some change. As is, you seem to be agitating for the status quo which is also NOT producing a result -- unless your desired result is the continuation of institutionalized rape.
You may claim it does, but people have been outraged about the state of prisons forever and a day. There is outrage.
The people who think prison rape is funny outweigh the people who think it's outrageous in huge margins. This is about changing people's minds. If there were more people taking a strong stand against people treating prison rape as something trivial and funny instead of more people, like you, forcefully arguing for the status quo, then perhaps some good could come about.
Jokes that let the real fear of the situation - fear born of the outrageous truth - be dealt with, recognized, and publicly talked about.
Jokes indeed "deal with" the situation -- by trivializing it. By making it seem like a joke instead of as a disgusting violation of human rights. You seem okay with this.
I think you are putting words in people's mouths when they say that prison rape is itself a joke or that it represents justice.
I completely disagree. The fact that people joke about this subject in movies and it produces no outrage means that people find prison rape to be funny. Could it be more succinctly defined as "a joke"? I don't think so. And I've heard several people (conservative-types, mostly) claim in response to the threat of prison rape, "If you don't want to be raped, the don't do crimes." If that doesn't represent somebody's warped idea of justice, then nothing does.
But there are inequalities in the world, and the joke we're referencing points out one such inequality; a class inequality between privileged 'white collar' offenders and the underclass. You are agitating that the dark humor pointing out this inequality should go, and that it supports a sort of attitude you disagree with.
No, mister strawman. I'm saying that:
1. Everyone has a human right NOT to be raped
2. Allowing or encouraging rape as a punishment for crime is cruel and thus immoral as well as un-American
Do you disagree with either of those two statements? If so, why?
This is a societal injury. We have a right to laugh about it.
And I have a right to criticize you for laughing about it. Doing so demeans and trivializes a crime that in which our society is not only a victim, but also a willing accomplice.
Under the exact circumstances we live in. You tell me why we don't see traditional advertising for this. It definitely isn't because some people make jokes about it.
The exact circumstances that we live in are that prison rape is seen as something funny and non-serious. It's seen as a non-problem, or maybe even as "proper justice". ("Who are you to complain about being raped? You shouldn't have broken the law!") And, in that case, I think the jokes about it are are major contributing factor to why we don't see television advertising about it. Very few people take this issue seriously because it's seen as funny.
That is a pretty hypocritical statement. "read: rape"?!?!?! No, read "violence". You are a perfect example of why the joke phase is not over. Given the amount of violence committed against men in our society, your dismissal of all other violence shows that the jokes succeeded in bringing your attention to this particular form of violence.
You're totally mis-reading me. What I wrote was correct: Rape against men is not taken seriously. I also believe that violence against men, particularly domestic violence, is also not taken seriously. But I'm scratching my own itch and trying not to get sidetracked into different issues.
I would say that all of the prison rape jokes are what made it possible for the reports to make it to the main stream media instead of being swept under the rug. Public outrage doesn't happen if the public doesn't hear about it due to it being too sensitive of a subject.
The media is controlled by jokes? People joked about Abu Graib and that why it wasn't swept under the rug? Your argument here is nonsensical.
You say that, but take rapist priests as an example. It was common knowledge that the Catholic Church was an international child molestation ring. It has been happening for hundreds of years, but it still took a generation of people cracking crude jokes about it before the general public became comfortable enough with it for the lawsuits to actually start, and anything to be done about it.
That is a very different situation. The reason it took so long for people to come forward against the Catholic Church in its abuse scandal is because of the enormous faith that Catholics put into their priests and the church hierarchy. Many Catholics did not want to believe that the people they trust most to NOT do such a thing, and the church hierarchy responded by hiding the problem. To admit that the priests and the cardinals were aiding and abetting in child abuse would be to lose faith in what was seen as True and right, and that took a long time to accept.
A more similar situation to the Catholic Church child abuse scandal would not be prison rape, but rather the Boy Scouts child abuse scandal. In that, parents did not want to believe that the people they trusted most NOT to do such things (scoutmasters), and the BSA hierarchy responded by refusing to admit there was a problem.
Another similar situation to the Catholic Church child abuse scandal would be child abuse scandals in the Protestant churches, such as the Southern Baptists. Why are there no jokes about them? I think it is because the media plays a very large role in what people talk about and that sets the stage for what our culture regards as funny.
What does the media have to say about prison rape? Nothing. Movies treat it like it's something funny. We don't get a "Schindler's List" or a "Mississippi Burning" for the issue of prison rape.
The same holds true here. It will take time for people to move from uncomfortable joke to outrage.
And you seem to be arguing that the way for people to move from joke to outrage is to continue joking about it and not be outraged about it. My argument is that people should stop joking about it and be outraged about it, as that seems to be the direct route to moving people from joking about it to being outraged about it.
In fact, I'm beginning to think that you're arguing with me just because you want a fight, not because you care about this issue one way or the other. Otherwise, you wouldn't make the idiotic argument that people move from joke to outrage by NOT moving from joke to outrage.
I often thought of this back when my weekly soap opera of sorts was HBO's Oz. Were I ever to goto prison I'd surely be someone's bitch, although I could think of no crime I would ever possibly commit that would warrant such punishment.
Any crime, basically. The punishment for crime is rape if you're weak.
Just think about that for a few minutes! In the USA, we regularly sentence the weak to institutional rape. Abu Ghraib was an aberration, yet it got front-page outrage for weeks and weeks. And yet worse happens, every day, in the prisons all over the USA largely because this issue is treated with flippant humor instead of the outrage that it deserves.
That's why I take daily calcium supplements in the hope I may one day develope a set of fierce anus dentata just in case I ever had to do "hard time".
*sigh*
It's going to be an uphill battle to get people to take this seriously. In the meantime, institutional rape continues apace. Equal justice, my gay ass!
Chinsa has nothing on us in that respect. We've had a much higher prison population than even them for a long ass time.
Thankfully we have the Chinese government to rely on for their prison numbers, which they relay to us with pristine accuracy when they're not busy trying to poison our citizens, children, and household pets.
I recommend this quote; "Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful."
The powerless, in this instance, is the numerous victims of prison rape. How is the "satire" helping them?
No one is treating rape itself like a joke, like something to be ignored or belittled
No, they are specifically treating male-on-male prison rape as something funny. That's why they joke about it. Constantly.
There is a reason that the "Free Speech" rights we are extended by the U.S. Constitution are broadly interpreted
I did not agitate for the government to ban people from joking about prison rape. What I rail against is the attitude toward prison rape (that it's a joke, or even that it represents justice), and I am asking people to stop joking about it and to stop tolerating jokes about it. Once more people react to this subject with outrage instead of with flippant humor then the problem will start getting better, and I see no reason at all to apologize for that.
I'm not sure the fear is that it will happen to them personally, but the fear that it really does happen unjustifiably.
They don't think it's "unjustified". They think it's funny! I think that sucks, and I see no reason at all to apologize for that.
I admit that it's hard for people to change their minds, especially when everyone you know thinks of something in a particular way. That's called "social proof". It sometimes takes a single dissenter to stand up and say, "Look at what you're approving of!" and lay out a clear, level-headed appeal to higher ideals (sin, human rights, cruel and unusual punishment -- I tried to hit all the bases) in order to spark a change in something that desperately needs to be changed. I'm not trying to put myself on the cross here -- look back on this thread and tell me: is there anyone else here besides me taking a stand and saying, "Institutionalized rape is wrong, and making jokes about it is wrong, too."? Do you personally agree with that statement -- is it wrong to make light of the subject of institutionalized rape?
The unjustifiably is thrown in since American culture still draws pretty heavily from the Puritan ethos and, I suspect more than a few Americans would tactly accept a policy that didn't remind them personally for the guilty.
So many people keep trying to explain the motivations behind people's making light of this despicable subject. Their motivations don't matter because the end result is always the same: institutionalized rape continues apace. I don't care about people's motivations because they are nothing but justification for evil. Prison rape must end, people need to stop joking about it, and that's that!
Who was it who made that statement, "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"? Probably not Mike Judge, who has helped turn prison rape into a joke, pox on his house.
The division isn't 12% it's almost 100%
I want to believe that, as it means that prison rape is marginally less fucking horrific than previously thought. Do you have some means of supporting that statement?
I'm all for prison reform, aiming at rehibilitation (likely with restution rather than incarceration) for all non-violent offenders, and incarceration that preserves humanity for violent offenders. I'm pro legalization and regulation for most drugs which I believe would reduce the population by a substantial amount.
I'm totally with you. The problem is, how can some people actually be rehabilitated? We humans, in all cultures, have earned an "F", universally, in our ability to actually rehabilitate predators. Not all lives are worth saving.
Rape is a serious crime, whether it's against a man or a woman
Rape is NOT a serious crime when it's against a man. Otherwise, there would be less rapes in prison. I would seriously like to see this change. Getting people to stop joking about this and start taking it seriously would be a great way to start enacting change in this regard.
But oops! Look, there he's gone and done a crime, and now, foolishly, he finds himself in with the other 'riff raff'.
Hahaha! Rape sure is funny!
The funny/not-funny thing about this is that there is an expectation that 'white collar' criminals should get it easy, but that that expectation is being changed up.
Hehehe! Little white, I mean, "white-collar" guy was just tuttering along, but uh-oh! Everything's upside-down, now! Now he's being raped! Hilarious!
And the really unfunny thing about it is that the truth of the matter is really painful (and according to Strangers in a Strange Land, therefore the only reason to laugh): that rape does occur in prison, to both men and women.
Thankfully we have you to inform us that prison rape does actually happen. I'm sure everyone here will be shocked by the realization and the jokes will come to an end.
Please forgive me for being so sarcastic with you, but what I want is for the jokes to stop, not for people to defend the jokes. Getting people to take this issue necessitates that we stop treating it like a joke and stop defending those who joke about it.
I actually laughed at that one. That's just to show all you prison-rape-is-justice primates that I'm not a humorless prig.
If that was the only way to get public awareness about it. Definitly.
And under what circumstances would that be the "only" way to "get public awareness" about it? Would traditional advertising necessarily fail? Why?
No, they wouldn't. In fact, our society would be up in arms about the problem, and demand it be stopped. Unfortunately, violence against men is just not taken seriously in our society
Finally you've said something reasonable. Yes, it's true that "violence" (read: rape) against men is not taken seriously in our culture.
you may want to pretend that there is a middle that is excluded, you are doing just that... pretending. You have to make the choice. Crude, offensive 'humor', or public denial of the problem.
I'm pretending nothing, and you are still excluding the middle. The middle that you are excluding is this: I demand that joking about prison rape be stopped and that this be treated as a serious social problem that must end. The idea that this is "funny" is widespread across giant swaths of our culture and that attitude must end. Neither joking about it or denying it is a viable option since both have the same end result: prison rape continues.
Let me give you another example. Abner Louima was raped by police officers. If giant swaths of our culture thought this was funny instead of outrageous, do you think that justice would have been better served? Instead, "awareness" was raised by mass outrage, not by making churlish jokes about it! The fact that we treat prison rape as a joke instead of an outrage is what helps prison rape to continue. Yes, everyone is "aware" of it, and they treat it like a joke. Until people take it seriously, it's going to continue.
Of course, I do commend your outrage at what is happening, but you should direct it at those that are just complacent.
People like you, in other words. I don't see you as very outraged. I see you as stridently defending the practice of making a joke of this situation instead of stridently demanding that prison rape end.
The people that crack the jokes are simply drilling the fact that this happens into the public consciousnesses. They are more your ally in your disgust, not your opposition.
That is such ripe bullshit. If that were true, the comedy movies would make similar jokes about male-on-female rape. The culture at large views prison rape as just, and I think that's disgusting, and I don't see how making jokes about it does anything but trivialize the situation. "It raises awareness!" you pitifully say. Great. Everyone is aware. It's common knowledge, for pete's sake! How does making continued jokes make this situation any better?
Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?
You've excluded the middle, but let's not belabor the point.
Let me pose a different hypothetical situation.
What if women who were sent to prison were regularly raped by men. Would you joke about this? Would you say something like, "She didn't want to go to prison where she'd end up getting pounded up the cunt?" with a snicker? Would our society view this institutionalized rape as flippantly as it does when men are regularly raped in prison?
Why not?
It's not funny, but most people when confronted with their deepest fears use humor in an attempt to separate themselves from them. Gallows humor is named that for a reason.
A nice try, but I don't think anyone here is living in fear of being raped in prison and thinking of making a joke to soothe themselves. People generally think of it as acceptable and just for people (say, non-violent marijuana offenders, for example) to be punished with rape. (People here are actually more likely to live in fear of the global warming monster to come destroy the earth. Run for your lives! It causes hurricanes!)
There was a pot movie that came out in the late 90s that had this theme (marijuana smokers being sentenced to rape) as a major plot element. One character was busted for accidentally killing a police officer's horse, and he was terrified about going to prison where he would, of course, be raped. Ha ha ha! Rape is so funny when it happens to a man! What was the name of that movie?
Ironically, it's state prison that has far more rape.
Boy, I hope I get to go to a federal prison if I get busted! I hear they have 12% less rape! Oh, the bitter irony.
"Progressives" have finally found a traitor they want to persecute.
Adam Gadahn? No. (How Islamophobic of me to suggest that!)
Jose Padilla? No. (How racist of me to suggest that!)
Why, it's that America-hating turncoat Scooter Libby, of course!
Give me a break. You only care about Scooter Libby because of the possibility of going all the way up to your least-favorite bete noire: Dick Cheney.
I thought that Time magazine was really honest about this desire. To wit (I love that, it sounds so snotty):
Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,15
So stop harping about this "treason" bullshit. You hate Cheney more than you hate anything and your hatred is completely transparent. Fine, Cheney's a bastard! But there are plenty of people out there giving "Aid and Comfort" to jihadist pieces of shit who merit the T-word before that insignificant choad Libby does.
No, he was going to a federal 'pound me in the ass' prison.
I simply don't understand why this is a humouous meme in our culture.
To the right, one would think that gay male rape would be regarded as a sin and a gross violation of manhood.
To the left, one would think that prison abuse happening on a widespread scale should be something that a civil society should abhor.
To the notion of American individual rights, one would think that being sentenced to rape is a cruel and unusual punishment.
As is, it is treated flippantly.
Shame on any of you who think this is funny. Prison rape is NOT a fucking joke! It is a disgusting violation of human rights and the persistant and wicked idea that it's either funny or representative of justice that someone be sentenced to RAPE is the primary reason why it continues.
If you think my condemnation of you rape advocates is unfair, then I would like either a "liberal" or a "conservative" to make a strong, compelling case why any crime which merits prison time be "rape by default". Please tell me how exactly that represents "justice" to you.
I think being the Devil's Advocate is to argue for a position that you oppose with the hopes that a counter-argument will be made which destroys it. It is, essentially, a means of testing the strength of your own position by imagining how the opposition to it will be countered.
That's not quite what the essay itself was doing since the writer fully believes that a "class" argument can be made despite the fact that Marxist rhetoric doesn't fit so nicely at all in American culture (and she admits as much).
So being educated is valuable, but being college educated? In this case, it is not.
There's no such thing as "learning for learning's sake" (despite what some humanities professors may angrily screech). All education is a means to some end. So, in your case, the questions are: what did you learn? And possibly: where did you learn it? (The latter question is for snobs who think that "Where did you go to school?" is vital to your importance as a human being.) I'm guessing that you spent a significant amount of time learning some things which are now incongruent with your life goals.
I'm college educated, for what that is worth (nothing)
... I didn't finish my degree and I've got a better job and make more money than some Ph.D. candidates will. Likewise, my partner who never went to college at all will likely triple my salary this year. But it's not all about money. There are some professions where the slip of paper is truly important; namely, the slip of paper grants entry into the profession in question. I suppose the lesson to be learned is that your life is good and you should keep your chin up and start making good choices so that you can fulfill your life's dreams. Was your college education a waste? It doesn't matter! The true waste would be for you to let poisonous ideas like "college was a waste" keep you from flourishing as an individual.
Don't be so pessimistic. Not that I'm one to say such a thing
...then I'd hate to see what you regard as "bad".
it was a damn good essay if only because she stated her assumptions up front
Indeed she did make some assumptions in the very title of her work. To wit: "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace". Her primal assumption is that there is a qualifyable entity known as a "class" in the United states.
pointed out what she couldn't honestly quantify
Actually, she pointed out what she couldn't qualify. What is it? It's "class"! Again, to wit (doesn't that sound snotty?): "In sociology, Nalini Kotamraju has argued that constructing arguments around 'class' is extremely difficult in the United States. Terms like 'working class' and 'middle class' and 'upper class' get all muddled quickly. She argues that class divisions in the United States have more to do with lifestyle and social stratification than with income."
If Begging the Question is the name of the logical flaw in which you make an argument which assumes the point in dispute, what is the name of the logical flaw in which you make an argument which destroys the point which is assumed?
You suck dick. ...not that there's anything wrong with that!
Correct. I don't need a 3 bedroom house to be stable. I could be perfectly stable in a 1 room apartment, albeit uncomfortable, I would be stable.
What if someone else disagrees? Is your stability the baseline for all humanity?
Uh, yeah I did. My definition of stable is that you are making a positive contribution to society. And that doesn't take much. You can hold down your job, and you can provide your family with food and shelter with out assistance.
My bad, and thank you for elaborating though it's still pretty nebulous. When you mention "without assistance" are you only talking about coerced "assistance" ("welfare"), or does "assistance" from friends and family members also disqualify you from "making a positive contribution to society"?
Also, what quality of food and shelter are assumed? 1-bedroom apartments for everybody? Is the toilet in the same room as your bed?
With a very crappy one. If being poor and down trodden was comfortable, why would anyone work to improve their position in life?
FINALLY! I wondered when you'd start talking about lifestyle. Unfortunately, you got into uncomfortable territory and decided to rebound with a non-sequitur question. Your original statement was this: "All a living wage is, is the amount of money a person would have to earn to make ends meet in your local society." When I asked, "What kind of lifestyle?" You answered, "a very crappy one". Are you saying that a "living wage" is the amount of money you need to make to have a "very crappy" lifestyle and that everyone should have that? And how crappy can a "very crappy" lifestyle get in order for the minimum requirements for a "living wage" to continue to be met? For example, only half of the population of Cambodia died in forced labor camps during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. This means that the others survived and had a "very crappy" lifestyle. Did they thus have a "living wage"? They had enough to have food, shelter, and medicine, albeit with a "very crappy" lifestyle which, according to you, is acceptable. Then again, they did have some "assistance" from the government, so perhaps it's not acceptable according to you. Pinning you down on what you think is like nailing Jell-O to a wall.
Wooooh nellie. Don't go sticking your foot in the fox hole, you don't know who you are talking about. I assure you, I have seen destitution first hand, I have spent time out of this country, I have gone hungry, and I have worried about getting food for my new born child. Don't lecture me on being 'privileged'. I went through my own rough times and I worked my ass off to get where I am today.
Not only will I put my foot in that fox hole, but I will also do some riverdancing while it's there. Good for you to be privileged enough to shop at Trader Joe's. Thousands of other children starve to death while you shop there. Now you're wealthy enough to spend time fighting with some asshole on slashdot while millions of other people worry about where their next meal is coming from, or worry if their government will come kill them. And you're not privileged? Spare me, rich boy. You're richer than 99% of the world's population, so don't tell me that you "know destitution". You know abundance because you presently wallow in it, and your posting here is evidence of that fact. Otherwise, you'd be busy worrying about your child, right? Be honest!
I think I'm understanding why you're so big on "living wage": you feel guilty because you got out of a "very crappy" lifestyle and other people don't. For you, this "living wage" thing is an emotional issue, not an intellectual one. It makes sense that you'd mock me for being too into books and "existentialist". If I've pegged you wrong in this regard then please tell me how. There's nothing wrong with making emotional decisions. I make emotional decisions all the time. Everyone does. Tell me your true feelings if guilt is the incorrect one.
Yes
Living wage doesn't care if you have a 1 room studio, or a 4 bedroom town house. Living wage doesn't care if you wash your close in a GE front loading washer in your hou--
Are you saying that those things don't contribute to "stability"? Being "stable" was part of having a "living wage", right? I notice you didn't define "stable". I notice you don't want to define anything. You just argue and assume that I'm along for the ride.
All a living wage is, is the amount of money a person would have to earn to make ends meet in your local society.
Make ends meet with what kind of lifestyle?
Sure, you can survive on $3/day in parts of China
Survive for how long? With what kind of lifestyle?
I'm guessing you've never been to China, even the "rich" parts. I haven't been, either. That's why I rely on the witness of those who have. Read this. Then you can look at this.
You're so privileged that you don't realize how good you have it. That's why you can casually throw around terms like "making ends meet" and "stable" which only have meaning when you make grand assumptions.
Did you read the story about gathering cash in Buenos Aires? Something tells me you would rather fight than read. Maybe it was a waste of my time to ask you to read about a cultured and nuanced "progressive" journalist's experiences in China and how you can "make ends meet" there. But here is the money quote, for what it's worth, from the first article I linked in this post:
"You don't see many weak or infirm people on the streets, in Beijing, Shanghai, or Nanjing. You get the feeling that the unfit do not survive long past birth, and that the Greek system is in effect here - an early burial, or a hillside crib, for newly born weaklings. I don't know precisely, but I have seen only a few beggars, and they look like the ethnic minorities."
Survival, indeed!
That's why living wage is regional.
That's why "living wage" is an expression of wealth envy. I suppose it's actually an expression of lifestyle envy, but I don't think you're willing to think that abstractly. It's just too Emerson-y and existentialish. You're still stuck in the land where you think in terms of "getting by" and "making ends meet" and you can't understand why we don't have enough stuff to ensure that Everyone Gets What They Need To Have A Good Life(TM).
Enjoy your trips to Trader Joe's, rich boy! I like their coffee.
The "value" of food isn't measured in pounds (if it were, dirt wins).
You're right, but that's beside the point. The angry young man with something to prove was bitching about "expensive", not "valuable".
Besides that, rice isn't usually considered a health food. It's not a bad food, but it's health benefits are average at best.
Again, you're right, but rice is still better for you than twinkies are.
And there we have it: the AYMwStP claimed that "eating healthy is more expensive than eating cheap" and rice v. twinkies is the obvious exception to that "rule" since rice is healthier and cheaper than twinkies by-the-pound.