pirana 0 #101 October 3, 2007 Quote Quote Quote why not go back to income levels, which are based on objective data rather than snotty evaluations of where people eat or take vacations? because the thread will come to a crashing halt - half the posters WANT to classify themselves and others based 'snotty evaluations' - where they eat, take vacations, and who they can claim they hang with..... the self image is so important to them - [I know, because the other day, I was invited to a big dinner party and while talking to 3 admirals and 2 CEOs, the topic came up and THEY said......] Admirals don't get paid much, so why are you and the CEOs hanging with them if money is the answer to class? Everybody in the room was probably wondering who the palookas hanging with rehmwa were." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #102 October 3, 2007 >so why are you and the CEOs hanging with them if money is the answer to class? I hang out with CEO's, packers, jobless skydiving bums and construction workers. I don't think "class" means "people you hang out with exclusively." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #103 October 3, 2007 Quote >so why are you and the CEOs hanging with them if money is the answer to class? I hang out with CEO's, packers, jobless skydiving bums and construction workers. I don't think "class" means "people you hang out with exclusively." Must be the money, then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #104 October 3, 2007 Quote I dislike the use of prole, along with serf, peasant, redneck, white trash as all have disdain built into the use. You can't group all of these people together - you have low income thugs and you have low income saints (literally and figuratively). Since the nicest definition of it is the underclass, why not go back to income levels, which are based on objective data rather than snotty evaluations of where people eat or take vacations? (Sam Walton almost certainly would fall into your categorization based on his spending habits) If you want to use Marx's definition, the proletarians are the wage workers, at war with those who own the means of production. But in America, the barrier to cross over is not so great as many insist. (I, otoh, am happy to collect a salary so I can do other things on weekends) Hard work is key. I'll give you redneck and white trash as derogatory. The others are perfectly acceptable descriptive terms, with prole simply being shorthand for proletarian. I do not group together low-income thugs and low income saints. Aren't you reading this stuff? Income is just money; class is far more determined by behaviors. Granted, the resources a person has, or doesn't have, certainly create limitations related to some of the factors trhat determine social class; but it is SOCIAL CLASS I'm talking about, not INCOME RANGE. Yeah, if I were just talking income range, then the sinners and saints could go in the same bucket regardless of behavior. All the stuff I've mentioned has been objectively and extensively studied. (Primarily because it is a gold mine of information for marketeers). The proportion of people who come home to dinner on the table (whether it be Archie Bunker or Ward Cleaver style) immediately after work versus those that eat later in the evening is objectively collected and analyzed. When enough of these seemingly trivial bits of information about behaviors are clooected and analyzed, consistent patterns emerge. I do not think from your posts that you deny any of that; so I'm just guessing you don't like the category headings. What would you use? BTW, Marx and his teachings are barely applicable to the modern world, and have been shown not to be in touch with modern financial realities at all. One of his basic tenets was that capitalism was only a step on the way to communism. The implosion of communist economies indicates he missed by just a tad on that one. His whole idea of class war is archaic and irrelevant. If the idea that we all fit into little boxes bothers you, forget about it. Every human has their behavioral anomalies, and the variation within the boxes is tremendous. The categories are no more limiting than any other form of grouping. Of course Sam Walton fits into a category - but you didn't say which one. Which do you think? Better yet, what class do you think Bill Gates fits in? If you think he is Upper, go back several spaces to Sociology 101. What else you got?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #105 October 3, 2007 >Must be the money, then? Nope! As usual, people are getting hung up on definitions. "Class" as applied to society has a very distinct definition, one that involves intentional divisions of society based upon social status, earning power, residence location, political power and net worth. That's how the original poster used the word. "Class" as several other people have used the word (you included) means a level of elegance, grace, dignity, respect etc that many people see as a good quality. That's what you meant when you sought to draw a distinction between an admiral and a prostitute. (waiting for someone to define "class" as "that place I sat in school" just to jerk someone else's chain) "People you hang out with" is not really applicable to either of the above definitions. It's more the people you hang out with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #106 October 3, 2007 Quote BTW, Marx and his teachings are barely applicable to the modern world... ...go back several spaces to Sociology 101. Hahaha. Quote One of his basic tenets was that capitalism was only a step on the way to communism. The implosion of communist economies indicates he missed by just a tad on that one. Totalitarian state capitalist societies were/are not communism Quote His whole idea of class war is archaic and irrelevant. Hahaha, please continue with the irrelevance of class war in advanced industrial capitalism and I will come back to enjoy the lols Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #107 October 3, 2007 Quote Admirals don't get paid much, so why are you and the CEOs hanging with them if money is the answer to class? Most CEOs don't either. (Most companies are very small) I hang with them, at least until they see me, then they hide until I pocket some sandwiches and go away. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #108 October 3, 2007 Quote >Must be the money, then? Nope! As usual, people are getting hung up on definitions. "Class" as applied to society has a very distinct definition, one that involves intentional divisions of society based upon social status, earning power, residence location, political power and net worth. That's how the original poster used the word. "Class" as several other people have used the word (you included) means a level of elegance, grace, dignity, respect etc that many people see as a good quality. That's what you meant when you sought to draw a distinction between an admiral and a prostitute. (waiting for someone to define "class" as "that place I sat in school" just to jerk someone else's chain) "People you hang out with" is not really applicable to either of the above definitions. It's more the people you hang out with. I consider admirals and hookers to have very different social status. How do you define "status"? Another topic for disagreement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #109 October 3, 2007 I consider admirals and hookers to have very different social status. How do you define "status"? Another topic for disagreement. Quote I am glad you do think that. It would stop you from embarrasing yourself by asking a hooker to project power in a theater of conflict. It will also keep you from asking an admiral for a BJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #110 October 3, 2007 Quote I consider admirals and hookers to have very different social status. How do you define "status"? Another topic for disagreement. Quote I am glad you do think that. It would stop you from embarrasing yourself by asking a hooker to project power in a theater of conflict. It will also keep you from asking an admiral for a BJ Since the time of Rahab, hookers have exercised considerable power in theaters of conflict. I choose not to think about your other suggestion.PS there ARE female admirals in the USN.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 October 3, 2007 Quote I consider admirals and hookers to have very different social status. I suspect Moveon.org doesn't, though ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #112 October 4, 2007 An admiral a hooker, and a skydiver walk into a bar; . . ." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 October 4, 2007 Quote An admiral a hooker, and a skydiver walk into a bar; . . . No, no, no...they walk into a CLASSY bar. Which one gets served first? And which one gets bounced? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #114 October 4, 2007 Quote Quote An admiral a hooker, and a skydiver walk into a bar; . . . No, no, no...they walk into a CLASSY bar. Which one gets served first? And which one gets bounced? It's a trick question - The hooker is WITH the admiral and he brought CA$H, so they get served first. Of course the skydiver gets bounced, a bar has to have SOME standards. Besides the other patrons would complain about the smell anyway. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #115 October 5, 2007 I love the smell of cash in the morning. It smells like . . . . . Victory." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #116 October 5, 2007 Quote >Must be the money, then? Nope! As usual, people are getting hung up on definitions. "Class" as applied to society has a very distinct definition, one that involves intentional divisions of society based upon social status, earning power, residence location, political power and net worth. That's how the original poster used the word. "Class" as several other people have used the word (you included) means a level of elegance, grace, dignity, respect etc that many people see as a good quality. That's what you meant when you sought to draw a distinction between an admiral and a prostitute. (waiting for someone to define "class" as "that place I sat in school" just to jerk someone else's chain) "People you hang out with" is not really applicable to either of the above definitions. It's more the people you hang out with. Very good point. Your first definition was the one I was working on; and the fact that by watching for a pattern of little details like what time you eat dinner, which way your garage faces, preferences for certain words, etc; I could pretty accurately deduce your social class. Your second definition, more related to social graces, knows no class boundaries." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #117 October 5, 2007 Quote which way your garage faces, If your garage door faces up, you might be upper class Or live in a volcano ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #118 October 5, 2007 Quote Quote I like chocolate, it's good with caramel. Clearly you are middle class, then. Lowers: I like chocolate. It's good with caramel. Uppers: I like chocolate; it's good with caramel. I can't believe everyone missed the surest sign of all that we are all rubes: Inappropriate grammar." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
