Brilliant satire or offensive?

[A_Wanderer]

Well there's my excuse for watching Uwe Boll movies and porn.

[A_Wanderer]

Actually I'm sorry, that was a tasteless comment, I would never watch a Uwe Boll movie.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

You're referring to Springer Nation which would turn Will Rogers into an elitist.

no, no -- Judge Judy.

Springer is a freak show. Judge Judy at least seems like it has real people.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

On the other hand, I think to a degree both you and Irvine may be taking what are primarily class-linked trends and trying to spin them as products of regional culture.

to what extent does regional culture affect class? are there not regional values that actually perpetuate poverty (or near poverty)?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Yes

One thing I really can't stand is a snob in any shape or form. I read trashy magazines and I'm not ashamed to admit it-and I enjoy lots of low brow non-intellectual activities. So much alleged "highbrow" stuff is actually quite trashy, just dressed up in better packaging. It doesn't define who I am and I wouldn't really want anything to do with someone who thinks it does. It's quite stereotypical thinking that's not compatible with supposed intelligence, is it?

to make myself more clear -- what i am talking about is the view of some "elitists" is every bit as patronizing as the assumed view that said "elitists" supposedly have about "real Americans."

it cuts both ways. the rural red stater can think that his values and lifestyle are entirely superior to those of the urban blue stater, and he can treat him with every bit as much disdain. i hear this all the time. there are those in the punditocracy -- Mary Matalin, Carly Fiona last sunday -- who keep talking with disdain about "those inside the Beltway" and the "latte liberals" and contrast them with "normal Americans" who don't turn into MTP every sunday morning. what they're doing is creating a narrative of "real" -- i.e., red state, christian, rural-ish, anti-intellectual -- Americans as being authentic.

it's Spiro Agnew and his "effete, intellectual" (i.e, gay, jewish) snob slurs.

i agree that many people do move seamlessly through high and low culture. i think most of us would agree that, if we were to take music, that there's really only two kinds: good music and bad music. i see no reason why a pop opera masterpiece like, say, "Like A Prayer" is any less appreciable and transcendent than any 18th century classical so-called "masterpiece."

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

It's only a cartoon! But Obama adds that New Yorker cover insults Muslims


In his first substantive talk about the magazine's inflammatory cartoon depicting him and his wife as fist-bumping terrorists, Obama told CNN's Larry King the image fueled misconceptions and insulted Muslim Americans.

Wait a second how does the above match up with this:

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

"I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it," Obama said. "But you know what? It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment."

And this:

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

The presumptive Democratic nominee said he wasn't personally stung by the cartoon.


"But, you know, that was their editorial judgment," Obama added. "Ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about."

That last bit sounds exactly like what Indy was saying!

Now I think I know where the furor is coming from. It's the media! Compare the headlines to what Obama actually said and you've got too different impressions. Same goes for Maureen Dowd's column.

At the end of the day, it's all about the dollar bills, and "Obama slams cartoon" sells a lot better than "Obama wasn't personally stung by cartoon."

[yolland]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

to what extent does regional culture affect class? are there not regional values that actually perpetuate poverty (or near poverty)?

Perhaps you could flesh out what some of those regional values might be, so I have a better sense of what I'm addressing. I used "to a degree," "may" and "primarily" for a reason--I don't think you can ever fully extricate culture from material circumstance, but on the other hand, particularly if you aren't very familiar with the full social spectrum found in some particular region, its economic history, how various 'social ills' statistically associated with it are distributed within its various subdemographics etc., then it can perhaps be a bit too easy to pounce on one or two cultural traits that seem prominently characteristic of it from a distance and say (perhaps a bit smugly), 'See, that's what's holding them back.'

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

to what extent does regional culture affect class? are there not regional values that actually perpetuate poverty (or near poverty)?

Surprisingly, the culture of generational poverty is similar in many different regions.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

Perhaps you could flesh out what some of those regional values might be, so I have a better sense of what I'm addressing. I used "to a degree," "may" and "primarily" for a reason--I don't think you can ever fully extricate culture from material circumstance, but on the other hand, particularly if you aren't very familiar with the full social spectrum found in some particular region, its economic history, how various 'social ills' statistically associated with it are distributed within its various subdemographics etc., then it can perhaps be a bit too easy to pounce on one or two cultural traits that seem prominently characteristic of it from a distance and say (perhaps a bit smugly), 'See, that's what's holding them back.'

the resistance to birth control and then abortion that leads to many pregnancies between 17-21, that lead to quick marriages, that lead to a divorce not long after.

it's also not my thesis, it's the thesis of the book i was referencing, Grand New Party. basically, they're blaming elites for having lots of sex in the 60s and 70s and setting a bad example for those without the resources to cope with pre-marital sex, contracepted intercourse, re-marriage, child care, etc. and today, the children of all those elitists live fairly conservative lives, they get married later, they have protected sex, and they don't have a surfeit of difficult-to-care-for children in the way that the poorer Red Staters do.

i haven't read the book, but have read about the book, and brought this up more as an idea than as a thesis.

or, and to boil it down to one single thing, could it be that Red State opposition to abortion -- and the abstinence-only sex education that usually walks hand-in-hand with such values -- perpetuates poverty?

[No spoken words]

Originally Posted by anitram

But I do think that there is a certain contempt for intellectualism that goes beyond attitude. Just thinking of most of my brothers' friends who came from lower middle class families or lower class families - you might be shocked at how many of their parents told them that going to get a university degree (or worse yet, a graduate degree) was a waste of time, that was for boring academics who weren't capable of actual work. They actually preferred for their sons to go do drywall or other backbreaking work, both because they thought it was a much better way to make money (I don't think they thought long term) and because they were inherently suspicious of any kind of intellectualism. So while at times people could be resentful of the attitude that you mention, a lot of the time, I think that certain people really do hold intellectualism in contempt as Irvine has stated.

I grew up Middle Class, in The Bronx. My entire neighborhood was Irish and blue collar (Firemen, cops and construction mostly), with my Dad a rare white collar exception (He never got higher than middle management and did that with no degree...and we were one of the only Jewish families in the area.). I feel like I have a decent handle on how such people view "intellectuals", as I experienced it first hand in myriad and impactful ways. What Martina talks about above was true in my experience. Many friends of mine were told flat out by their parents that college was a total waste of their time. Most heeded that advice and live there still, and they perpetuate the same cycle, for better or worse. That surprised me then, the attitude towards furthering your education, but surprises me less now.

What I did not know then, but certainly have learned as my career has progressed, is how that disdain works both ways, and how people of a "higher class" simply cannot relate to someone pursuing a passion or simply pursuing manual labor as opposed to chasing upward mobility/upward savings. I mean, sure, that guy who breaks his back, who did not think long-term about his financial portfolio, he's to be looked down upon....that is, until you need him to come to your house because you cannot even screw in a fucking light bulb on your own. If people from my old neighborhood ever had to deal with some of my old neighbors back in Los Angeles, they would probably want to kick their asses within 5 minutes of meeting them.

Both attitudes rub me the wrong way, because I've walked in both worlds, and consider myself lucky that I can, in many ways, still relate to both without falling victim to the negative stereotypes that might plague both outlooks. I'm sure I'm guilty of all sorts of other horrible things, but I do ok here. I, too, refuse to apologize for consuming what posters here might deem to be lowbrow, nor will I apologize for consuming what the parents of my old friends might regard as "snooty".

Also, I know plenty of University educated people, succesful people if one measures success by wealth, that are still complete dolts and as far from being an intellectual as it gets....and I know people like my Dad who did not go to college but are self-taught adults and know a great deal more than one might initially assume.

So, while I do think that using "intellectual" as a pejorative term is disturbing and insulting, I think it cuts both ways and is no better or worse than looking down on those that don't qualify as intellectuals, whatever an intellectual is in the first place.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Vanity Fair Covers The New Yorker
by Vanity Fair
July 22, 2008, 12:10 PM
We here at Vanity Fair maintain a kind of affectionate rivalry with our downstairs neighbors at The New Yorker. We play softball every year, compete for some of the same stories, and share an elevator bank. (You can tell the ones who are headed to the 20th floor by their Brooklyn pallor and dog-eared paperbacks.)

And heaven knows we’ve published our share of scandalous images, on the cover and otherwise. So we’ve been watching the kerfuffle over last week’s New Yorker cover with a mixture of empathy and better-you-than-us relief.

We had our own presidential campaign cover in the works, which explored a different facet of the Politics of Fear, but we shelved it when The New Yorker’s became the “It Girl” of the blogosphere. Now, however, in a selfless act of solidarity with our downstairs neighbors here at the Condé Nast building, we’d like to share it with you. Confidentially, of course.

[A stor]

I think it is very offensive to Muslims.

[LemonMelon]

Vanity Fair wins this round. I like that McCain has the same expression as the Dramatic Chipmunk.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the resistance to birth control and then abortion that leads to many pregnancies between 17-21, that lead to quick marriages, that lead to a divorce not long after.

or, and to boil it down to one single thing, could it be that Red State opposition to abortion -- and the abstinence-only sex education that usually walks hand-in-hand with such values -- perpetuates poverty?

I understand the desire to whittle down causation to those specific issues with which you have a problem, but the reality is far more complex than that. Reducing Red Staters to a bunch of hicks who don't know how to put on a condom (or don't want to) minimizes the rather serious -- and far more damaging -- socio-economic factors that have been at play in what we traditionally refer to as "the South", going back to the famines of the 1870s.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I understand the desire to whittle down causation to those specific issues with which you have a problem, but the reality is far more complex than that. Reducing Red Staters to a bunch of hicks who don't know how to put on a condom (or don't want to) minimizes the rather serious -- and far more damaging -- socio-economic factors that have been at play in what we traditionally refer to as "the South", going back to the famines of the 1870s.

i agree, there are many socio-economic factors at play that go into the resistance to putting the condom on, but at the end of the day, someone didn't put the condom on. but could you dispute my central premise: the resistance to comprehensive sex education combined with an anti-abortion cultural ethos leads to poverty. wash, rinse, repeat. ultimately, these kids aren't equipped with either the education or the resources to deal with some of the consequences of extra- and pre-marital sex.

as i said, this is just the gist of the problem. being in effect married to a southerner with several dozen cousins, i think i have a far better understanding of some of this than a quick reading of my post might suggest.

could you, then, delineate for me the various socio-economic factors in "the South" that lead to this particular generation (born post-1970) -- note, not the parents, they might have had babies at 19, but at least they were married -- being notably more prone to unwanted, early pregnancies. this is a cycle that urban black women are beginning to break (and have been improving on since 1990) but one that rural white women seem to be falling into more and more.

could you dispute -- not complicate, for it certainly can be complicated, but actually dispute or refute -- my central premise: resistance to comprehensive sex education combined with an anti-abortion cultural ethos leads to poverty.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

could you dispute -- not complicate, for it certainly can be complicated, but actually dispute or refute -- my central premise: resistance to comprehensive sex education combined with an anti-abortion cultural ethos leads to poverty.

I think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable.

In Africa, poverty is a direct result of governmental corruption and exploitation. A lack of proper sex education is the result. People cannot afford condoms -- or are ignorant about them, but either way, this ignorance is a result of structural systems of corruption, exploitation, racism and violence which have created the system of poverty Africans face. A lack of sex education is a symptom, not the cause.

In the South, you're dealing with a culture whose economy has always been primarily agricultural. The end of the Civil War brought a dramatic reorganization of the economic systems of the South (cheap labor, mass-produced goods), as well as economic penalties that benefited the northern states, who increasingly moved towards industrialization in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This had a direct impact on Southern economies, as did the rise of globalization, the cost of growing and planting, etc. Additionally, the rise of crises of climate and supply and demand, as well as globalization throughout the late 1900s, created a system where Southern state economies were squeezed far more than their northern counterparts, creating a system where Southern flight was inevitable. Those who could afford to leave did, leaving those who could not afford to behind.

So in looking at the South, you're dealing with a history of a turbulent economy, the ravaging affects of industrialism which has led to substantial economic inequity, racism, and shifting market needs (as well as the inability to adjust to those needs), all of which -- I would argue -- has a far stronger impact on poverty than whether someone knows how to put on a condom or not.

One might also consider the great state of MA, which has one of the highest concentrations -- if not the highest concentration -- of Catholics in the country. As we all know, contraceptions and abortions are illegal in the Catholic church. Based on your logic, MA should be one of the poorest states in the country. Clearly, it is not.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

I agree with the first one, and it's actually the trademark of very successful people. I remember very well at the end of my undergrad, when the Harry Potter books started coming out, a really distinguished English professor saying that she felt they were not great books or great literature by any means, but she'd really strongly encourage people to read them. When a student asked why, she said, you have to understand that even if you have a PhD in English Literature, there is great social value in being able to transition between that and the latest Danielle Steel. I thought she made an excellent point. I can't tell you how many times in a corporate lunch, the topic of conversation turned from whatever complicated transaction was going on at the moment to the latest episode of The Bachelor or something like that.

But I do think that there is a certain contempt for intellectualism that goes beyond attitude. Just thinking of most of my brothers' friends who came from lower middle class families or lower class families - you might be shocked at how many of their parents told them that going to get a university degree (or worse yet, a graduate degree) was a waste of time, that was for boring academics who weren't capable of actual work. They actually preferred for their sons to go do drywall or other backbreaking work, both because they thought it was a much better way to make money (I don't think they thought long term) and because they were inherently suspicious of any kind of intellectualism. So while at times people could be resentful of the attitude that you mention, a lot of the time, I think that certain people really do hold intellectualism in contempt as Irvine has stated.

I posted the following on another forum a while back:

When I scan the business sections of various newspapers, I come across interviews with various prominent business figures and sometimes there's a section where they're asked about recreational activities (to allow them to demonstrate what rounded personalities they have, presumably) - their favourite films, books, and the like.

Their answers here are very often - not always, but depressingly often - the most banal, the most obvious, the most dumbed down you can possibly think of, e.g. 'Titanic' for favourite film, 'The Da Vinci code' for favourite book, that kind of thing.

Now I used to think this was simply because they have sacrificed their intellectual life or their 'inner life' to their careers to such a great extent that they do honestly think 'The Da Vinci Code' is the height of literature, but it occurs to me that, in some cases at least, they're not actually that stupid.

It occurs to me that some of them don't want to 'scare' their public by appearing in any way 'intellectual' or 'elitist'. Because, to be honest, of the self made people I've met, one or two seriously wealthy, they are not stupid individuals. Quite the contrary.

I am reminded of the part in 'Brave New World' where Mustapha Monda admits to Helmholtz Watson that he has actually read quite a few of the banned classics himself, but insists that the masses, even the Alpha class, must not be allowed the same opportunity, as that will only make them think too much.

C.P. Snow wrote in the 1950's about the division between science and the arts:-

The Two Cu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well now we have a whole cadre of so-called educated people who know nothing of EITHER the sciences, OR the arts, but whose SOLE interest is in asset accumulation.

"Art, science, you seem to have played a fairly high price for your happiness. Anything else?" as the Savage asked the World Controller.

[anitram]

^

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that!

[A_Wanderer]

I'm having a go at being bi through the philosophy department

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

^

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that!

Something seems to be wrong with the link to the article on the 'Two Cultures' above, here is a working link:-

The Two Cultures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia