The Age of Entitlement

sheeplady said:

Well, I think that the segment of reality TV that focuses on characters like Honey Boo Boo and the like is essentially focused less on admiration and more on criticism. It's like the bunch of people who watch Springer or Dr. Phil who can say "at least I'm not that messed up." My knowledge of Honey Boo Boo is all second hand, but from what I have read/heard her family isn't that regular or representative; after all, she got her fame from beauty pageants and her family certainly is not poor now, despite how they may live. I doubt the fascination with her family comes from their commonality with people and more with the fact that they are so uncommon and so easily looked down on. Most common people would make poor entertainment. We either want something to admire or that makes us feel admirable.

I do think there is a sad segment of society that seeks out television that exploits people and makes fun of them (for poverty, for weight issues, for sexual escapades, for anything really) just to make themselves feel better about their lifestyle. It's the "at least I'm not that bad" phenomenon. And I do think that has a lot to do with things like "thank god I live in this nice house and not a dirty trailer" and "thank god I', not forced to shop at Walmart" a lot more than "thank god I can put food on the table and have normal relationships."

Kim Kardashian is rich, so I'm not sure what the point is by mentioning her.

Click to expand...

I mentioned Kim Kardashian as the "new" Paris Hilton to simply add on to your point.

I don't think anyone admired Paris Hilton. She was "famous for being famous."

LizzieMaine said:

racism having been driven underground by the thin layer of enlightenment that has been glued down like cheap contact paper on the surface of today's civilization.

Click to expand...

Beautifully put!

LizzieMaine said:

There are several "hipster" threads where we thrashed that subject to death -- suffice it to say that I think that kind of HA HA HA HA LOOK AT THE UGLY POOR PEOPLE so common among the hipster set is as vile, as despicable, as dehumanizing, and as destructive to our society as racism is. Perhaps even more so nowadays, with racism having been driven underground by the thin layer of enlightenment that has been glued down like cheap contact paper on the surface of today's civilization. Racism has to be expressed secretly, in the anonymity of Internet comment sections and such, but you can be as classist as you want in today's world and get a book deal out of it.

I don't know anything about this Honey Booboo thing other than what I've seen in the paper here and there, but from what I understand it's exactly the same kind of thing: HA HA HA HA LOOK AT THE UGLY POOR PEOPLE. Smug, entitled middle-class white people reinforcing their sense of entitlement by mocking poor, "culturally-deprived" white people. Disgusting.

Click to expand...

There is classism in all this, but it is a different sort of classism than the old pointing and laughing at the girl at the prom with lank hair and big sister's five-year-old gown. That was cruel and complacent, but perhaps not quite so complacent as today. Today it's middle-class Whites sneering at working-class Whites as if they, too, weren't caught up in the same web of consumerism, just expressing itself differently. Try and imagine "People of Pottery Barn." "People of Nordstrom." See?

PrettySquareGal said:

I mentioned Kim Kardashian as the "new" Paris Hilton to simply add on to your point.

I don't think anyone admired Paris Hilton. She was "famous for being famous."

Click to expand...

Ok. I disagree with the admiration point. I don't think they admired her as a person, but admired her because she led a rich lifestyle that was so easy to mock. Some of the people I know who were the most "vocal" about "hating" Paris Hilton the most would have picked over her dead body for her things and would have traded almost anything to live her rich lifestyle. I do think there's the fact that you can admire not the individual, but the lifestyle. In the sense of, "why is all that money and TV time wasted on her, instead of someone like me?" It's the combination of despising and being able to look down on someone while still being jealous of her trappings.

I think that's why she was so popular- it's a combination of being able to be "morally superior" while still being "jealous" and wanting a coach bag or whatever sparkly thing she has. So you criticize the person but idealize the lifestyle.

Of course, not everyone feels this way. But I'd bet a good portion of people do.

Fletch said:

There is classism in all this, but it is a different sort of classism than the old pointing and laughing at the girl at the prom with lank hair and big sister's five-year-old gown. That was cruel and complacent, but perhaps not quite so complacent as today. Today it's middle-class Whites sneering at working-class Whites as if they, too, weren't caught up in the same web of consumerism, just expressing itself differently. Try and imagine "People of Pottery Barn." "People of Nordstrom." See?

Click to expand...

In the Era, the sympathy of mass culture was *always* with the poor-but-decent people: the Joads, Tugboat Annie, Amos and Andy, Lum and Abner, the Goldbergs, Little Orphan Annie, etc. etc. etc. Even into the Sixties, you had the Clampetts -- who despite the hillbilly stereotypes were always shown to be people of integrity when the chips were down, and the villians were those who represented acquisitiveness and shallow materialism. There was a respect for the "lower" classes in Golden Era mass culture that you don't get today, perhaps because most of the people creating that culture came out of such a background themselves.

I'd love to see "People of Ikea," except who'd want to look at a blank screen for half an hour?

Somewhat ironically, IKEA's greatest contribution to modern day culture is this vision of how much nicer life will be when the cats finally take charge.
[video=youtube;Z7vXP3tHzhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7vXP3tHzhA[/video]
Personally, I can't wait.

Pffft. No self-respecting cat would stand for Ikea. Cheap composite wood and no mohair upholstery = boring time for cat.

You're forgetting the sisal rugs. And the Swedish meatballs, not that they'd last long.

I actually had the Swedish meatballs at Ikea not too long ago.

V.C. Brunswick said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLoge6QzcGY

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA!! You and I think alike, Victor! I was about to post that exact video!

Carlin might have been controversial, unpopular with some, and well...dead...but even into his 70s, he constantly kept his finger on the pulse of life. His routines and monologues constantly remained fresh, up-to-date and topical.

And extremely funny. I've been a fan of his for years.

But back to the Age of Entitlement.

I believe I mentioned this story in another thread of a similar nature. But whenever someone talks about the "Age of Entitlement", I'm reminded of a New York taxi-driver.

Some years ago now, a violinist got into a taxi in new york city. In a rush, he left the cab, paid his fare and headed off on his way.

He left a Stradivarius violin, worth millions of dollars, in the back seat.

It wasn't even his. He'd received it on-loan from the owner for his performances that he was giving.

The poor man didn't know what to do, until the cab-driver tracked him down and returned the violin. So grateful for the return of "his" property, or rather, the property that was loaned to him, the musician gave the cab-driver free tickets to his concert as a thank-you gesture.

Now this story was something that I posted on another message board several years back. It was in a link on some newspaper website.

The posts which came after mine were almost exclusively:

"OMG he gives him a TICKET!? That thing's worth like two million bucks! He should've given him some MONEY, ****ing TIGHTWAD!"

And words along those lines, which I shan't repeat here.

The fact that THOSE were the FIRST REACTIONS of almost EVERYONE who read that posting, just sickened me.

Until about a half-dozen posts down, someone with a grain of sense, typed in:

"...I'd love to see all your reactions, if he gave the cab-driver NOTHING".

Now this isn't a case of what the cab-driver got, or didn't get as a reward for returning the violin. It's not about the violinist's thoughts about what was a suitable reward, or whether or not the driver expected one.

It's about the fact that these days, people seem to expect something...preferrably something BIG...for ANYTHING THAT THEY DO.

And the fact is...NO YOU CANNOT have something for everything you do.

Can you imagine what a pain in the ass it would be, if you lost your watch, some guy picks it up, advertises its discovery, but you have to pay him the value of the watch to get your own property back, because he expects some sort of reward for the "trouble" he went through, to find the watch, to bend down, pick it up, carry it ALL THE WAY HOME on his wrist, have a moral showdown with his brain about what to do, and then exert the energy to type up a LOST & FOUND poster and stick it up around town??

What an age we live in.

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one but I've seen "People of Walmart" and what I see on that site, among other things, are grannies in micro miniskirts and grown men wearing pink bunny suits. Somehow, I don't quite see it as a class thing unless being inappropriately or outlandishly dressed or simply dressing like a slob* is solely characteristic of poor people, which I seriously doubt. Because how is it possible that I can be decently and even well-dressed entirely with what's available at thrift stores where much of the same demographic shops?

*And God knows, I've seen enough slovenly-dressed middle-class people!

i've worked for the richest of the rich and i can tell you from personal experience money can't buy you class, these people may have limitless income but they still dress as sloppy and in clothes as unflattering as anything you'd see at walmart. sure they can spend more on it, but its still ugly clothing.

As they say. Money can't buy class.

The thing about Walmart is that a wide range of economic classes shop there. If you look in the parking lot you'll see a mix of upscale cars and hoopties. To me, "People of Walmart" is more about trashiness which is an equal opportunity occupation.

The funny thing is that there are three Walmarts within a few miles' radius of where I live and I have yet to encounter a real live "Walcreature."

I work as a volunteer in a charity thrift-shop. And in those places, you really see the cross-section of society.

I've worked in two different shops for a total now, of nearly five years. And you see everything from the wonderfully polite, to the people who want $2 off on a $5 purchase when discounts of ANY kind are not store policy, and where they want their money back when that too, is against store policy. And then you just get the walking tubs of nitroglycerin.

I'll give you a few examples...

The Good...

A lady came in looking for a long, knee-length dress and a long, beady necklace. I helped her find what she wanted and she was very thankful for the assistance.

Turned out, she and her hubby had been invited to a 1920s-theme costume-party, and she was looking for a flapper outfit

Another time, a man came in and wanted help finding a jacket. He had his girlfriend with him, and they asked my opinion on what would fit him. I gave them honest advice and opinion and they ended up buying a really nice black trenchcoat for him.

The Bad...

Some people just don't understand the meaning of "no".

One customer, named Eric...He's never gonna read this so what does it matter?...He's a regular at the shop where I work. He's notorious for asking for bargains. Say he buys four items and the grand-total is $20 (yes, we price things REALLY cheap here); he'll ask for $5.00 off.

And everyone from me, to my friend Sarah, to my friend Edward, have all told him: NO.

As a charity, we can't give discounts. The money isn't ours. It goes to homeless shelters, to feed the hungry in the streets, to buy clothes for them, to give them medical care, and to give them basic services which they don't have.

But he still wants a lower price than everyone else. Despite the fact that we explain this to him every time.

*sigh*

The Ugly...

Fortunately there aren't many of these, but you do get them. I recall an incident a few years back where a lady picked a cat-fight with the manageress of the store where I used to work. The crux of the issue was that the lady bought something, didn't like it, and brought it back to the shop for a refund.

Now this is also a charity-shop, and as mentioned, we don't give refunds.

Wow.

BOOM!

At the other end of the shop, I could hear her screaming stuff like: "I AM A PAYING CUSTOMER AND I WANT MY MONEY BACK! DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH **** I DONATE YOUR ****ING CHARITY EVERY YEAR!?" etc etc etc.

In the end, the manageress herself just blew her top. She hit the "No Sale" button on the register, pulled out twenty bucks, threw it on the floor, slammed the register shut so hard it nearly fell off the counter, and stormed out the back.

Another one involved my friend Sarah. Now to be fair, Sarah's a lovely lady and she's very mild-mannered and sweet. I'd NEVER seen her blow her top. Until this one day about a year ago.

This lady decided she wasn't going to pay for certain items and didn't want them. That's fine and it's her prerogative. But then she left them all in a mess on the front counter. And my friend Sarah asked her very calmly if she would please put them back on the rack from whence they came. Or words to that effect (I don't recall exactly).

What happened next is really one for the books. Suffice to say, it involved swearing, screaming, threats, insults...in the end we had to call the manager to get the lady out of the shop.

Some people just think they should get what they get because they should get what they get.

Shangas said:

One customer, named Eric...He's never gonna read this so what does it matter?...He's a regular at the shop where I work. He's notorious for asking for bargains. Say he buys four items and the grand-total is $20 (yes, we price things REALLY cheap here); he'll ask for $5.00 off.

And everyone from me, to my friend Sarah, to my friend Edward, have all told him: NO.

As a charity, we can't give discounts. The money isn't ours. It goes to homeless shelters, to feed the hungry in the streets, to buy clothes for them, to give them medical care, and to give them basic services which they don't have.

But he still wants a lower price than everyone else. Despite the fact that we explain this to him every time.

*sigh*

Click to expand...

I hear you. Years ago I used to sell at the local flea market and, I swear, you could have the Crown Jewels of England and no one is willing to pay more than a buck for it.

V.C. Brunswick said:

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one but I've seen "People of Walmart" and what I see on that site, among other things, are grannies in micro miniskirts and grown men wearing pink bunny suits. Somehow, I don't quite see it as a class thing unless being inappropriately or outlandishly dressed or simply dressing like a slob* is solely characteristic of poor people, which I seriously doubt. Because how is it possible that I can be decently and even well-dressed entirely with what's available at thrift stores where much of the same demographic shops?

*And God knows, I've seen enough slovenly-dressed middle-class people!

Click to expand...

POWM isn't about fashion, and it isn't about clothing. It's about's who's laughing at whom. Read the comments, and you'll see derisive, condescending mockery from an obviously white, privileged middle-class perspective directed at people who are not adhering to the norms of contemporary white, privileged middle-class culture -- people who have in no way consented to having their pictures taken or exhibited in such a way. The pictures and commentary revolve as much around the physical traits and presumed economic status of the people shown as they do the clothing they wear -- people who are overweight, or short, or hairy, or otherwise divergent from the accepted norm. You'll find endless commentary about "400 lb redneck mothers of six in hooker heels and yoga pants trying to buy a case of Stella Artois with an EBT card, imagine that poor kid having a pig like that for a mother," and similar such things -- HA HA HA HA ISN'T THAT HILARIOUS.

Sites like this -- and attitudes like those it expresses are contemptible. You want to laugh at someone who posts a ridiculous picture of themselves on a fashion forum, go for it -- they've submitted themselves for the public gaze. But for one to snap anonymous, covert photos of people they clearly feel superior to and then turn those pictures into a great big public yuck is the mark of someone far more degraded, and far more cowardly, than any wearer of yoga pants or a bad mullet could possibly be. Think that 350 lb hairy, tattooed guy in the greasy "wife beater" and the athletic shorts is a big joke? Walk up to him and *tell him so to his face* if you're so confident of your own superiority. But that'll never happen, because the people who create and post on such sites as POWM are as gutless as they come.

Hi Lizzie

I don't agree there. Some of these people, heck most of them have to know what they look like. Back at Thanksgiving I met a decent looking 60 year old / worn out 35 year old lady leaving Walmart with her husband. She was wearing Daisy Dukes and heels. Her hair was all over the place, but her shirt really set her apart. She was wearing a very large Gray shirt with the words "Drink til you Want Me" on the front.

I wasted all of my couth for November 2012 by NOT TAKING HER PICTURE.

Why didn't you walk right up to her and tell her what you thought? Is mocking her behind her back, from the safety of a keyboard, somehow more acceptable?

It's one thing to criticize fashion in a theoretical way, to say that wearing a long t-shirt and shorts makes one's body look shorter and stumpier than it really is -- the Charlie Brown look -- and that isn't a particularly flattering look for most people. But to single out individuals for specific behind-their-back mockery -- especially when it's informed by deep classism -- is, I repeat, contemptible.

Would the Era, if it had the Internet, have produced a website called "People of the Breadline?" or "Look At That F***ing Okie?" Somehow I doubt it. We talk often here about the loss of empathy in the modern world, and the rise of such vicious, entitled "humor" is a major symptom of it.