crack conspiracy?

[opebo]

Yes - Tacoma.  The Wikipedia article covers it pretty well.

Oh yes, a poor place.  I would assume that most working-class whites there would be 'white trash', Alcon, would they not?

Not poor.  Blue collar, sure, but not poor.  I'm not really accustomed to calling people white trash just because they live in smaller houses and have lower-paying jobs.  Maybe you are, but that seems a little classist to me.

You're right Alcon.  People should not be classified as 'trash' based on their economic status.  Only undesirable behavior should result in people being classified as 'trash,' and that has nothing to do with economic status, though 'trashy' behavior over a period of time tends to lead to a degredation of economic status.

No, dazzleman, behaviour has little to do with economic status, and one's status (trash, non-trash, etc.) is determined by ones economic status.  For example most 'bad' behaviour is excused in an aristocrat, while condemned in a worker.

And after all why shouldn't it?  The ruler need not answer to bourgeious morality of the ruled.

[dazzleman]

No, dazzleman, behaviour has little to do with economic status, and one's status (trash, non-trash, etc.) is determined by ones economic status.  For example most 'bad' behaviour is excused in an aristocrat, while condemned in a worker.

And after all why shouldn't it?  The ruler need not answer to bourgeious morality of the ruled.

I think it would be fairer to say that a person with money has an easier time buying his way out of the consequences of bad behavior.  That doesn't mean such behavior is excused in a moral sense though, and over time, it does catch up with people and/or families.

In any case, by your definition, upwards of 95% of the country is 'trash,' so the term is really meaningless the way you use it.

[opebo]

No, dazzleman, behaviour has little to do with economic status, and one's status (trash, non-trash, etc.) is determined by ones economic status.  For example most 'bad' behaviour is excused in an aristocrat, while condemned in a worker.

And after all why shouldn't it?  The ruler need not answer to bourgeious morality of the ruled.

I think it would be fairer to say that a person with money has an easier time buying his way out of the consequences of bad behavior.  That doesn't mean such behavior is excused in a moral sense though, and over time, it does catch up with people and/or families.

In any case, by your definition, upwards of 95% of the country is 'trash,' so the term is really meaningless the way you use it.

No, I would include the upper middle classes as 'non-trash', so say only the lower 80-90%.  But keep in mind, at least 80-90% of people are the slaves of the top 1% are so anyway, if you view economics realistically.  So calling them 'trash' merely recognizes the status and power realities at work.

[dazzleman]

No, dazzleman, behaviour has little to do with economic status, and one's status (trash, non-trash, etc.) is determined by ones economic status.  For example most 'bad' behaviour is excused in an aristocrat, while condemned in a worker.

And after all why shouldn't it?  The ruler need not answer to bourgeious morality of the ruled.

I think it would be fairer to say that a person with money has an easier time buying his way out of the consequences of bad behavior.  That doesn't mean such behavior is excused in a moral sense though, and over time, it does catch up with people and/or families.

In any case, by your definition, upwards of 95% of the country is 'trash,' so the term is really meaningless the way you use it.

No, I would include the upper middle classes as 'non-trash', so say only the lower 80-90%.  But keep in mind, at least 80-90% of people are the slaves of the top 1% are so anyway, if you view economics realistically.  So calling them 'trash' merely recognizes the status and power realities at work.

Got it.  Now it all makes sense.

[dazzleman]

No, I would include the upper middle classes as 'non-trash', so say only the lower 80-90%.  But keep in mind, at least 80-90% of people are the slaves of the top 1% are so anyway, if you view economics realistically.  So calling them 'trash' merely recognizes the status and power realities at work.

Who exactly is it that considers them "trash"?  It isn't them, nor is it the middle class.  In my daily life, I don't much see anyone who considers them as such, regardless of their income level.  So, where are these all-being overlords?

He defines 80-90% of the population as 'trash?'  That's pretty wharped.  He actually has his percentages reversed.

[WalterMitty]

No, dazzleman, behaviour has little to do with economic status, and one's status (trash, non-trash, etc.) is determined by ones economic status.  For example most 'bad' behaviour is excused in an aristocrat, while condemned in a worker.

And after all why shouldn't it?  The ruler need not answer to bourgeious morality of the ruled.

I think it would be fairer to say that a person with money has an easier time buying his way out of the consequences of bad behavior.  That doesn't mean such behavior is excused in a moral sense though, and over time, it does catch up with people and/or families.

In any case, by your definition, upwards of 95% of the country is 'trash,' so the term is really meaningless the way you use it.

No, I would include the upper middle classes as 'non-trash', so say only the lower 80-90%.  But keep in mind, at least 80-90% of people are the slaves of the top 1% are so anyway, if you view economics realistically.  So calling them 'trash' merely recognizes the status and power realities at work.

give me and everyone else a fing break, opebo.  all of your 'you are slaves to the elite, workers blah blah blah' just gets old after awhile.

you are the biggest slave on this board.  most of us (even poors) dont have to depend on someone else (ie mommy and daddy) to get by.

do you really consider yourself to be int he top 1%?  id imagine those folks could aford to live n thailand longer than 3 or 4 months without running home to sponge off mommy.

these kids here may buy your 'mr rich guy' persona.  i dont.  your parents made money as landlords, which probably makes your family 'wealthy' comapred to your neighbors in podunk.  come back down to reality.

[opebo]

No, I would include the upper middle classes as 'non-trash', so say only the lower 80-90%.  But keep in mind, at least 80-90% of people are the slaves of the top 1% are so anyway, if you view economics realistically.  So calling them 'trash' merely recognizes the status and power realities at work.

Who exactly is it that considers them "trash"?  It isn't them, nor is it the middle class.  In my daily life, I don't much see anyone who considers them as such, regardless of their income level.  So, where are these all-being overlords?

The upper middle class (a primarily 'professional' class) would consider everyong beneath themselves to be 'trash'.  The upper middle is really only about 10% or so of the population.

Presumably the upper class considers even the upper middle class to be trash - for example one would not want one's offspring to marry one.

these kids here may buy your 'mr rich guy' persona.  i dont.  your parents made money as landlords, which probably makes your family 'wealthy' comapred to your neighbors in podunk.  come back down to reality.

My comments are all about social classes, WalterMitty.  My own situation is irrelevant to the discussion, worker.