Coastal wrote:I have to agree regarding the trailer trash comment - I knew some people who lived in trailers and they were fine people. Our best friends' parents lived in a trailer by choice.

There's a perception that living in a trailer means extreme poverty. That it's basically having one foot in homelessness. While it is true in some cases the same can be said of a lot of traditional homeowners as well. But there certainly are people who live in minimal housing by choice. I guess the idea is to spend as little as possible on housing to maximize the amount of income available to spend on other things. A perfect example is when you see a trailer home with an $80,000 truck parked out front. That's not all too uncommon around where I live. It's somewhat amusing because these people will then want a really nice garage to keep their expensive vehicles in so they end up with these huge garages which look completely out of place by this trailer that they live in. But to each their own I guess.

So...is there some kind of law of physics that states anyone living in a home that you can move is automatically a piece of shit? Seems like the kind of 'council estate kids' bullcrap which would not go down well with me, for fairly easily discernible reasons.

purplerat wrote:

Coastal wrote:I have to agree regarding the trailer trash comment - I knew some people who lived in trailers and they were fine people. Our best friends' parents lived in a trailer by choice.

There's a perception that living in a trailer means extreme poverty. That it's basically having one foot in homelessness. While it is true in some cases the same can be said of a lot of traditional homeowners as well. But there certainly are people who live in minimal housing by choice. I guess the idea is to spend as little as possible on housing to maximize the amount of income available to spend on other things. A perfect example is when you see a trailer home with an $80,000 truck parked out front. That's not all too uncommon around where I live. It's somewhat amusing because these people will then want a really nice garage to keep their expensive vehicles in so they end up with these huge garages which look completely out of place by this trailer that they live in. But to each their own I guess.

Plus, that thing was damn nice inside. If I blindfolded you, you would probably never guess you were in a trailer if you didn't know what to look for. It wasn't cramped either.

Coastal wrote:I have to agree regarding the trailer trash comment - I knew some people who lived in trailers and they were fine people. Our best friends' parents lived in a trailer by choice.

It probably won't matter to the outrage brigade above, but I'm a poor person who associates with plenty of other people from the poor classes. Reading about poor people at university isn't the same as living it. I'll take my experiences over their idealistic view of the world.

It's been a few days now since Trump excused his admission of sexual assaults as "locker room talk" and I was initially outraged at his attitude toward women. But it struck me that he has insulted men as well. I've been in locker rooms, mostly hockey and yes we can get pretty rude at times but I've never heard a guy brag about sexually assaulting women and I'm pretty certain that if it happened that it wouldn't have been well received by the guys I played with. There was always that guy who went a bit too far (but not as far as Trump) and perhaps no one confronted him directly but everyone knew he was an asshole, but he wasn't running for president. For Trump to dismiss this as "locker room talk" is insulting to men as well.

I mean....I am also a poor person who associates with plenty of other people from the poor class. I also live really close to rural country where trailer parks exist.

Your comment is no different than a person making a racist statement and saying, "But I have black friends"

No it's not. Poorer people are more boorish and less concerned with perceived social niceties than people in higher social classes in society. Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not. So I don't see why this is any different. We are all products of our environment. If you live in a harsh uncompromising environment where your role models are more violent and more aggressive, including sexually aggressive, then it's no surprise that such an environment perpetuates such socially destructive behaviours.

I can't think of anyone more boorish than Donald Trump. He's not exactly on his uppers.

Bernoulli wrote:

Coastal wrote:I have to agree regarding the trailer trash comment - I knew some people who lived in trailers and they were fine people. Our best friends' parents lived in a trailer by choice.

It probably won't matter to the outrage brigade above, but I'm a poor person who associates with plenty of other people from the poor classes. Reading about poor people at university isn't the same as living it. I'll take my experiences over their idealistic view of the world.

This isn't about poor people acting like "trailer trash". This is about the dangerous misconception that rape and sexual assault are the domain of a certain type of person. It's not just complete bullshit but it's dangerous as it leads to the incredibly fucked up idea that when rich white guys do it, it's not that big of a deal. Simply listen to Trump's words. He believes he's allowed to sexually assault, and probably rape, because he's rich and famous. Listen to his surrogates and supporters trying to justify grabbing a woman's genitals without consent as not being sexual assault. And let's make no mistake if this were some black "thug" running around "grabbing them by the pussy" there'd be a fucking lynch mob out to get him. A literal fucking lynch mob.

Fuck your "outrage brigade" excuse. This isn't outrage about saying mean things. This is outrage over enabling people based on their place in society.

purplerat wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Coastal wrote:I have to agree regarding the trailer trash comment - I knew some people who lived in trailers and they were fine people. Our best friends' parents lived in a trailer by choice.

It probably won't matter to the outrage brigade above, but I'm a poor person who associates with plenty of other people from the poor classes. Reading about poor people at university isn't the same as living it. I'll take my experiences over their idealistic view of the world.

This isn't about poor people acting like "trailer trash". This is about the dangerous misconception that rape and sexual assault are the domain of a certain type of person.

No, it's about your misrepresentation. I didn't say that rape and sexual assualt are the domain of a certain type of person. For two reasons: One, I didn't say that at all; and two, I was talking about comments, not actions, and the only domain I was talking about not adopting this rhetoric in this case is people who purport to be of presidential quality.

It's not just complete bullshit but it's dangerous as it leads to the incredibly fucked up idea that when rich white guys do it, it's not that big of a deal.

How the fuck do you wind up at that conclusion from what I said? You went from A to Z and skipped about 25 additional steps in between.

Fuck your "outrage brigade" excuse. This isn't outrage about saying mean things. This is outrage over enabling people based on their place in society.

I didn't "enable" anyone. Shove your strawman where it fits.

Bernoulli wrote:No it's not. Poorer people are more boorish and less concerned with perceived social niceties than people in higher social classes in society.

Stereotype.

Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not.

Of course it is. Where is your evidence?

So I don't see why this is any different. We are all products of our environment. If you live in a harsh uncompromising environment where your role models are more violent and more aggressive, including sexually aggressive, then it's no surprise that such an environment perpetuates such socially destructive behaviours.

You most certainly have a very askew view of trailer parks and poverty. Maybe you should place your personal anecdote of "I live among the poor" and realize that those you live with are not a representation of all or a majority of the poor.

willhud9 wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:No it's not. Poorer people are more boorish and less concerned with perceived social niceties than people in higher social classes in society.

Stereotype.

Of course it is. That doesn't mean it isn't true, though.

Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not.

Of course it is. Where is your evidence?

The world around us. If you don't accept this utterly non-controversial point, then there's not much point continuing.

So I don't see why this is any different. We are all products of our environment. If you live in a harsh uncompromising environment where your role models are more violent and more aggressive, including sexually aggressive, then it's no surprise that such an environment perpetuates such socially destructive behaviours.

You most certainly have a very askew view of trailer parks and poverty. Maybe you should place your personal anecdote of "I live among the poor" and realize that those you live with are not a representation of all or a majority of the poor.

I put it to you don't know very many poor and working class people. It's unbelievable that anyone who has spent significant time with the lower classes could not understand that the stereotype is largely accurate.

How many fucking accountants do you think wolf-whistle and/or make lewd comments at women when they walk by?

Bernoulli wrote:No it's not. Poorer people are more boorish and less concerned with perceived social niceties than people in higher social classes in society.

Do you actually know any poor people? Or for that matter any people from the alleged 'higher social classes'? If you did, you'd be aware of the large numbers which contradict your evidence-free assertion here.

Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not.

Yes, it is. Have you seen my language? It's peppered with expletives. I'm here, in my detached property, with my husband and 15 year old, us two with our university educations and professions, with our caffetierre and three toilets, and we all eff and geoff like there's no tomorrow. Rewind to the environment I grew up in - two parents without a single qualification between them in grunt-level jobs, a succession of council properties on estates and no money for school trips or new shoes until they were more hole than shoe - and you will find everything from 'bum' upwards explicitly banned from the house. I was once disciplined for saying 'cobblers'.

All this aside, what exactly has someone's choice of language got to do with their fitness for public office? What do you think it says about their character, to the extent that it would make them unworthy of such a position?

So I don't see why this is any different. We are all products of our environment. If you live in a harsh uncompromising environment where your role models are more violent and more aggressive, including sexually aggressive, then it's no surprise that such an environment perpetuates such socially destructive behaviours.

Wow. Are you aware of how those who are perceived as more 'refined' spend and have spent their leisure time in the past? It is precisely the level of privilege that they enjoy due to their social status which means that they have been able to get away with goosing the nanny, and worse, without fear of punishment.

And what the fuck is this 'lower classes' shit? How's the weather in 1842?

Bernoulli wrote:Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not.

I've worked in the foreign exchange dealing room at Macquarie Bank amongst the Matsters of the Universe types during the 80's boomtimes, where the average salary was about three time the average for investment bankers. One year, the prize pool in our departmental NRL (football) tipping competition was around $30,000 (it cost $500 up front to enter and everyone did), to give you an idea of the level of not-poor we're talking here. I can honestly attest that I've never experienced anywhere, in work or outside it, where swearing was as common. Not that it bothers me, as I'm one of the sweariest people I know, and I more or less retired from paid work at 35. One of the few people I know who swears more than I do is my wife, who's a medical specialist. We both have to turn it way down in front of our parents, one of whom fled Europe penniless during the depression, two of whom came to Australia with nothing after WW2, and one of whom is a fifth generation Welsh-Australian whose ancestors worked down pit in Australia's early coal mines for a pittance, who grew up in a home where every spare dollar was pissed away at the pub by her deadbeat dad. Similarly to Fall's experience, both my wife and I grew up knowing that even 'bloody" was across the line of acceptability.

Frankly, I think one of the great enablers of swearing is being financially secure enough that there are few consequences of doing so that are not easily borne. My wife's recently had her annual performance review, where input was sought from her underlings on how she could improve, and the main thing that those working for her for a quarter of her wages, if that, had to contribute was that her excessive swearing made many of them uncomfortable, and now she's wondering how well she'll be able to tone it down. I suspect most of it would be fine if she could just stop calling stupid cunts "stupid cunts".

OlivierK wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not.

I've worked in the foreign exchange dealing room at Macquarie Bank amongst the Matsters of the Universe types during the 80's boomtimes, where the average salary was about three time the average for investment bankers. One year, the prize pool in our departmental NRL (football) tipping competition was around $30,000 (it cost $500 up front to enter and everyone did), to give you an idea of the level of not-poor we're talking here. I can honestly attest that I've never experienced anywhere, in work or outside it, where swearing was as common. Not that it bothers me, as I'm one of the sweariest people I know, and I more or less retired from paid work at 35. One of the few people I know who swears more than I do is my wife, who's a medical specialist. We both have to turn it way down in front of our parents, one of whom fled Europe penniless during the depression, two of whom came to Australia with nothing after WW2, and one of whom is a fifth generation Welsh-Australian whose ancestors worked down pit in Australias early coal mines for a pittance.

Frankly, I think one of the great enablers of swearing is being financially secure enough that there are few consequences of doing so that are not easily borne. My wife's recently had her annual performance review, where input was sought from her underlings on how she could improve, and the main thing that those working for her for a quarter of her wages, if that, had to contribute was that her excessive swearing made many of them uncomfortable, and now she's wondering how well she'll be able to tone it down. I suspect most of it would be fine if she could just stop calling stupid cunts "stupid cunts".

Surely, getting rid of those stupid cunts would solve the problem ?

That's her plan.

To be fair, she manages a team of sexual assault counsellors. Many of the stupid cunts are not staff or clients, but perpetrators, lawyers or police officers

Here is an example of the boorish poor.

The Bullingdon Club is an exclusive but unofficial all-male students' dining club based in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is noted for its wealthy members, grand banquets and boisterous rituals, such as the vandalising ("trashing") of restaurants and college rooms.

[...]The University of Oxford extends no official recognition to the club, and many local restaurants refuse to host its events.

[...]The Wisden Cricketer reports that the Bullingdon is "ostensibly one of the two original Oxford University cricket teams but it actually used cricket merely as a respectable front for the mischievous, destructive or self-indulgent tendencies of its members".

[...]The club often books private dining rooms under an assumed name, as most restaurateurs are wary of the Club's reputation for causing considerable drunken damage during the course of dinner.

[...]A number of episodes over many decades have provided anecdotal evidence of the Club's behaviour. Infamously on 12 May 1894, after dinner, Bullingdon members smashed almost all the glass of the lights and 468 windows in Peckwater Quad of Christ Church, along with the blinds and doors of the building, and again on 20 February 1927.[13][14][15] As a result, the Club was banned from meeting within 15 miles of Oxford.[12]

Andrew Gimson, biographer of Boris Johnson, reported about the club in the 1980s: "I don't think an evening would have ended without a restaurant being trashed and being paid for in full, very often in cash. [...] A night in the cells would be regarded as being par for a Buller man and so would debagging anyone who really attracted the irritation of the Buller men."[9]

[...]In December 2005 Bullingdon Club members smashed 17 bottles of wine, "every piece of crockery" and a window at the 15th century White Hart pub in Fyfield, Oxfordshire.[17] The dinner was organised by The Honourable Alexander Fellowes, son of Baron Fellowes and nephew to Diana, Princess of Wales; four members of the party were arrested.[18][19] A further dinner was reported in 2010 after damage to a country house.[20]

In the last few years, the Bullingdon has been mentioned in the debates of the House of Commons in order to draw attention to excessive behaviour across the British class spectrum,[21] and to embarrass prominent Conservative Party politicians who are former members of the Bullingdon.[22][23] Johnson has since tried to distance himself from the club, calling it "a truly shameful vignette of almost superhuman undergraduate arrogance, toffishness and twittishness."[24]

As we can see, growing up in a harsh, uncompromising environment perpetuates such socially destructive behaviours.

Fallible wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:No it's not. Poorer people are more boorish and less concerned with perceived social niceties than people in higher social classes in society.

Do you actually know any poor people? Or for that matter any people from the alleged 'higher social classes'? If you did, you'd be aware of the large numbers which contradict your evidence-free assertion here.

I just explained that I am poor, and I live amongst poor people. I know them (i.e. including me) very well. I was raised middle class and am highly educated, so I have plenty of experience with people of the higher social classes.

Your evidence free assertion of the "large numbers", is poor logic. "Large numbers" doesn't refute my point if there are larger numbers of poorer people who meet the stereotype.

Is it controversial to say that poorer people swear more than those whose existence is more comfortable? Of course not.

Yes, it is. Have you seen my language? It's peppered with expletives.

That doesn't refute my point. I also swore a lot when I was middle class (although, I swear a hell of a lot more now that I'm poor; due to being pissed off at insensitive and/or greedy people).

I'm here, in my detached property, with my husband and 15 year old, us two with our university educations and professions, with our caffetierre and three toilets, and we all eff and geoff like there's no tomorrow. Rewind to the environment I grew up in - two parents without a single qualification between them in grunt-level jobs, a succession of council properties on estates and no money for school trips or new shoes until they were more hole than shoe - and you will find everything from 'bum' upwards explicitly banned from the house. I was once disciplined for saying 'cobblers'.

Nothing I said means that there can't be counter examples. I wasn't referring to all poor people vs all non-poor people. I'm talking about in general.

All this aside, what exactly has someone's choice of language got to do with their fitness for public office? What do you think it says about their character, to the extent that it would make them unworthy of such a position?

I don't care about language all that much, although I'd expect a presidential candidate to be a little less expletive driven than your average builder's labourer. I'm talking more about his comments advocating sexual assault. I'm assuming you agree with me that no one wants that in a president.

So I don't see why this is any different. We are all products of our environment. If you live in a harsh uncompromising environment where your role models are more violent and more aggressive, including sexually aggressive, then it's no surprise that such an environment perpetuates such socially destructive behaviours.

Wow. Are you aware of how those who are perceived as more 'refined' spend and have spent their leisure time in the past? It is precisely the level of privilege that they enjoy due to their social status which means that they have been able to get away with goosing the nanny, and worse, without fear of punishment.

As I said, that doesn't refute what I am saying. I'm not saying the better off don't get up to un-presidential behaviour.