It's the Day's Day of Days! Because They Can Only Hang You Once.
Jesus fucking Christ.
...
Remember, folks, if you're poor, Black, and speak with a dialect, it's a sign of how inferior you are.
As opposed to White folk with dialects, who are of course, good and virtuous.
Also, the poor are inferior and deserve to starve. Doing this won't have any negative repercussions at all. It can't! How can society need people who aren't well-to-do? How?
TikTok, as everyone knows, became the most popular video sharing site in the world through thousands of videos of overweight black women yelling about EBT.
ReplyDeleteI do think he's referencing an actual video, but yeah, that's cause you can find everything on Tiktok.
DeleteIncluding AI slop about the Walmart of 2005.
Oldarmourer:
ReplyDelete•••
“Help thy neighbour” doesn’t mean watch them drive cadillacs and eat lobster while you have aused car and store brand bologna because you can”t afford anything else after paying for theirs.“
***
Yeah…..that isn’t a thing.
*****
eon:
•••
“And if you, the customer, cannot understand her high-speed babble or don’t want to say ‘yes’ to his demands that you buy a cell contract instead of getting whatever’s wrong with your phone or internet connection fixed, of course your a ‘rayciss’ and therefore It’s All Your Fault.”
****
That isn’t a thing, either.
Reading through the rest of both their posts is instructive and telling. People like them really do have a deep-rooted desire to PUNISH people for being poor. Poor people should, definitionally, not be able to enjoy life — no Netflix, no tattoos, no junk food, etc. etc.— in any of the ways they arbitrarily believe they shouldn’t. Because how dare they, or something.
The interesting thing about this response to the poor is, it's a marriage of the worst parts of two old tendencies in American Christianity's elite. The Boston Brahmin Puritan-Congregationalist Elite were all about the 'deserving poor'--charity was an obligation, but the objects of charity had to show they deserved it. Now, this really was something of a two-way street--the Brahmins were allowed to enjoy life, yes, but within the guidelines of sobriety and propriety. Everyone must live according to the standard.
DeleteNow, your Southern High Church Anglicans were a bit more complicated. The social order was ordained by God, and while the elite were expected to support those beneath them, it was at their discretion. You give out that charity as it pleases you. Indeed, you live as it pleases you, for were you not among those blessed by the Creator? Now, the corresponding bit is that they didn't mind too much if the objects of their charity got drunk and rowdy off it--they rather expected them to, because after all, the feeble-minded wretches just couldn't help themselves. They are as the Lord has made them, in need of guidance.
And that has, over the course of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, merged into the present awful. They, the self-percieved well-to-do, have absolute liscence. They are not getting hand-outs, and when they are, it doesn't count. The poor, meanwhile, are expected to live lives of grim sobriety in return for charity, but also expected to fail this, because they are innately immoral wretches. In essence, a religion of no charity, no humanity, and no real religion, when you get down to it.
Last thing — it’s always interesting whenever Muir goes full mask-off racist like this. The Peanut Gallery becomes split between those who clearly spend all their time lying in wait for a relished opportunity to pile on, and those who attempt to say “Well, I mean, ALL races do that…”
ReplyDeleteIt's a varied bunch, these days. Some are in the 'I'm not a racist, but" cap and others are classists first.
Delete