Well, here's me not sticking the flounce.
AndrewV69 wrote:Let us not forget that effectively Churchill was as poor as a church mouse, and as I recall his mother was a spendthrift slut.
Wait, wut? I don't even...
AndrewV69 wrote:Here is a tip:
Ruh-oh
AndrewV69 wrote:The idle upper and lower classes have a lot more in common that you might think at first.
OK, you are confused. Deeply confused.
Firstly: people are people are people are people. I spend time with a large cross section of people, from a wide range of different classes, backgrounds, cultures.
And you know what? People are people. Some are bright. Some are dumb as fuck. Some are not so bright, but incredibly practical. Most like spending time with their friends and family, and doing stuff they like to do. Whether they are young, old, lower class, idle rich, etc. etc. They are all much the same.
Of course there are influences and differences from their social upbringing. And one of the key elements is fashion. How they dress, the jewellery they were, how they speak, and yes - tattoos that they have.
And you know what? Those fashions change. One decade, social class "X" are using long a's and getting tattoos. Another decade, social class "X" are using short a's and not getting tattoos. But all of the time, they are still people, and they spend most of their time doing people things.
And you know who the fucking idiots are? The ones that are slaves to fashion. The ones that are slaves to the class structure. The ones who sneer because person from social class "Y" is doing something that was de rigeur in social class "Y" three decades ago but not today. And you know what? Every social class will have pretty much the same ratio of these idiots that can't see past whatever the fashion today is, to smarter people without those prejudices.
And that cuts both ways, whether it is the Setard sneering at wealthy people or you sneering at people with tattoos or spendthrift sluts. I see no difference. You both lack the ability to see beyond the veneer society paints people with.
Once those scales are lifted from your eyes, you no longer see people as "lower class", or "idle rich", or "betters" (wtf?), or "pretty bourgeoisie" (or even "petty bourgeoisie"), you just see people. There are no "betters" by class. There are people, some of whom are idiots, and some of whom are not idiots. And the ratio of "idiots" to "not idiots" is, in my experience, not greatly different across social standing (because social standing is rarely a function of intelligence or reason).
So when I compare your model of the human race, which seems to revolve around class and fashions, or being poor or slutty in the case of the Churchills, and my model of the human race, which revolves around who is an idiot and who isn't, I conclude that your model sucks, and your "tip" is about as useful as herpes. And I'm not talking about the cancer-curing variety there, before Abbie takes me to task.