#underclass

[aidentitycrysis]

It's only gotten worse. Bob Hoskins is a hero to the working class of London for a reason, he really tried to raise his voice on our behalf <3 Gentrification is a not strictly a modern problem! They've been screwing us like this for over 100 years! That's how it's gotten so bad. Learn your history, learn how they fucked over your grandparents and your great grandparents, you can learn how they're coming for you too!

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

It's also a good sign that you're the ruling overclass, not the underdogs.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

I'm old enough to remember when:

Senator Hillary Clinton campaigned against Senator Barack Obama for the DNC nomination & Hillary demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate (Obama refused). When DJT requested he produce the birth certificate, Michelle labeled him a dangerous "birther."

Michelle Obama introduced the newly elected Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, as "...my baby's daddy." When a talking head repeated Michelle's own words, she was labeled "racist."

Michelle Obama was disbarred from practicing law in the state of Illinois and yet was offered a 6 figure HR job at The University of Chicago Hospitals in a field (health care) for which she had previously ZERO experience. #escalators

Elites, thy real name is Hypocrisy!

8/24 MO accidentally said the quiet part outloud: The only way for her "elitist class" to thrive is when the other classes are drowning.

MO: We couldn't thrive "... if everyone around us WASN'T drowning" 🧐🤔

So true Michelle, without a permanent underclass, you elites cannot RULE the world.

Despite Biden & Kamala currently running the executive branch, Michelle and Barack Obama want HOPE to make a comeback. What does that even mean when your own party is robbing our country and its citizens of hope!?

The Obama's no longer reside in Chicago. They blew into the Windy City, nicely tanned from vacations on their private, prestine beaches at one of their many US oceanside mansions: Martha's Vineyard, California or Hawaii.

After all these years, their anger and bitterness towards any and everyone who chooses to ignore and oppose their wishes & commands remains palpable.

They cannot understand why Americans insist on thinking for ourselves. When Hillary was defeated, Michelle scolded female non-Hillary voters with this elitist message: "...you're the kind of woman that doesn't like the sound of your own voice."

They have amassed multiple millions of dollars, much of it laundered through book deals and Netflix, but they are not about to share that wealth. Instead, they prefer to purchase land and other big ticket luxury items, while citizens in Democrat run cities (Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Lansing, D.C., Baltimore, Minnesota, NYC, etc) are robbed and burned out of their neighborhoods.

Several news outlets preferred to advertise a salt and pepper looking Barack as opposed to the 2024 fully gray haired former POTUS. Why?

In 1988 Oprah told Donald Trump that his opinions sounded "Presidential" and asked if he’d ever run. He said, "Probably not" but that he’d likely win if he did because "Americans [were] tired of getting ripped off."

The Obama's lying bff NOprah had to join the party for the sake of "decency." Oprah who pimped out girls to Harvey Weinstein and covered up the Hollyweird casting coach culture is now advocating for a return to DNC level of "decency."

"Donald - I received the book excerpt. I have to tell you, your comments made me a little weepy. It's one thing to try and live a life of integrity - Still another to have people like yourself notice... Too bad we're not running for office; WHAT A TEAM!" -Oprah Winfrey Jan 11th 2000

[theauthorpaula]

(via Writing Diversity: Creating Working Class and Underclass Characters)

[realityhop]

Lights - “Drive My Soul” (2008)

"“What’s wrong—what’s the matter with you?”  Nothing, nothing’s the matter, I’ve merely taken a leap outside my fate, and now I don’t know where to turn, what to run for. . . ."

— Emil Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born (1973)

"Nothing is defined as an infinite, unbounded, homogeneous state.  Which means that “something” is defined as a finite, bounded state.  To turn nothing into something, you need a boundary."

— Amanda Gefter, Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn: A Father, a Daughter, the Meaning of Nothing, and the Beginning of Everything (2014)

"Accordingly, when borders and boundaries are felt as evanescent and vague, a sense of existence may rather come from visibility.  I am seen, ergo I exist, one may say: visibility becomes the cypher of existence, and the most craved status, by the inhabitants of the liquid modernity.  Moreover, this deep need happens to fit perfectly the possibly infinite offer of visibility supplied by the technological devices of our cyber world.  In this regard, the World Wide Web may be perceived as a sort of immense, democratic stage where each of us can be seen, heard, and read, in social networks, websites, video channels, and so on, thus having at least a glimpse of existence.  Everyone may easily satisfy their own pangs of visibility, although always subjected to the relentless law of the like/dislike function, a sort of universal Judgement of the current times."

— Giorgio Tricarico, Lost Goddesses (2018)

"Ironically, both 4chan and Tumblr users used their respective anonymity and self-definition as ways to find context in a group."

— Dale Beran, It Came From Something Awful

"The ecstasy of the Dionysian state, with its annihilation of the usual limits and borders of existence, contains for its duration a lethargic element in which all past personal experience is submerged.  And so this chasm of oblivion separates the world of everyday reality from that of Dionysian reality.  However, as soon as that everyday reality returns to consciousness, it is experienced for what it is with disgust: an ascetic mood which negates the will is the fruit of those conditions.  In this sense the Dionysian man is similar to Hamlet: both have at one time cast a true glance into the essence of things, they have acquired knowledge, and action is repugnant to them; for their action can change nothing in the eternal essence of things, they feel that it is laughable or shameful that they are expected to repair a world which is out of joint."

— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy (1872)

"That one animal eats another scarcely alters a fundamental situation: every animal is in the world like water in water." — "Immanence of the Eater and the Eaten" "The tool changes nature and man at the same time: it subjugates nature to man, who makes and uses it, but it ties man to subjugated nature.  Nature becomes man's property but it ceases to be immanent to him.  It is his on condition that it is closed to him.  If he places the world in his power, this is to the extent that he forgets that he is himself the world: he denies the world but it is himself that he denies." — "The Worker and the Tool"

— Georges Bataille, Theory of Religion (1948)

"The result of a thoroughgoing atheism was what Mauthner called ‘godless mysticism’ – the silent contemplation of a world beyond words.  A radical nominalist who regarded our concepts as no more than useful tools, he believed language became deceptive when it dictated our view of the world." — “The Atheism of Silence” "According to Locke, humans were free because they had been created by God with the capacity to direct their course in life.  Human rights were not free-standing moral facts but grounded in human duties to God.  In practice, not all human beings were protected by rights.  Locke believed that the indigenous peoples of America had no right to the lands they inhabited because they had left them in a state of wilderness." — "Evangelical Liberalism"

— John N. Gray, Seven Types of Atheism (2018)

"In primitive people the first—and yet, most important—object to be regulated is not sexuality, but food. [...] The evolution from the clan system to the patriarchal family introduced also a shift in the object of pleasure: from food to sexuality, although the two still cross over into one another, even today."

— P. Verhaeghe, Love in a Time of Loneliness (1999)

"Having an obsessive desire to be admired by women, but no intrinsic worth, the male constructs a highly artificial society enabling him to appropriate the appearance of worth through money, prestige, “high” social class, degrees, professional position and knowledge and, by pushing as many other men as possible down professionally, socially, economically, and educationally.”

— Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto (1967)

"Solanas punctuates her transmissions with laughter, breaking up totalities, bursting established social systems with the disruptive laugh that she calls SCUM Manifesto. [...] If death excites him sexually, and she calls for it, she is temping for man’s desire, responding to the libidinal demand of the other, proposing herself – as she in fact does – as a sister of mercy."

— Avital Ronell, "Deviant Payback: The Aims of Valerie Solanas" (2004)

"But in our rush today to condemn patriarchy and virility as such we are in danger of throwing the baby boy out with the bathwater, neglecting the fact that men will continue to exist in the world.  Men are not going anywhere.  Nor are women, for that matter."

— Nina Power, What Do Men Want? (2022)

[lgbtlunaverse]

The world exists in such a baffling state of simultaneous sex-aversion and sex-hegemony. Every social platform on the internet is trying to banish sex workers to the shadow realm but I can't post a tweet without at least two bots replying P U S S Y I N B I O. People are self-censoring sex to seggs and $3× but every other ad you see is still filled with half-naked women. Rightwingers want queer people arrested for so much as existing in the same postal code as a child and are also drumming up a moral panic about how teenage boys aren't getting laid enough. I feel like I'm losing my mind.

[somerandomg33k]

I have a soreness pain in my feet. I feel it more so on work days that I walk a lot. I have PTO I could use. But if I do, I clock in less overtime that week. Less overtime means less take home pay. Means less money for me to give to my disabled friends in need. Meeting everyone basic needs of food, healthcare, shelter, transportation, education, entertainment, internet, electricity, heating, & water will improve everyone's health and mental health. But the leadership of our society don't want to do that. Capitalism requires there to be an underclass. Capitalism requires poverty to exist to be a threat to those who don't want work the terrible underpaid jobs. "Sure you can choose not to work. You can choose to live on the streets." Making a choice between living or dying is not much of a choice. It is coercion.

Capitalism is a coercive unjustifiable hierarchy.

I didn't choose the job I have. I have to have a job to pay rent. And life is terrible for those who can't work. My disabled friends can tell you.

[pauldouglaslovell]

The premise of my memoirs, is mostly about the effects abandonment has on children. How growing up without a mother, in a loveless environment, impacts both emotionally and financially. How the desire to be included, to be like all the rest was continuously scuppered, due to lack of funds. Though the protagonist would vehemently deny he cares. Exclusion steers his every thought. It hints at Paul’s secret shame and shares his hopes, dreams and tentative plans for the future.

[questionphings]

I base my value on my salary

I am worthless

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Wokal Distance

Published: Sep 24, 2024

One of the worst developments in our society is the rise of victim-hood culture. The issue is that victim-hood status has, for a number of reasons, accrued an unjustified level of currency in modern political and social discussions. You can see this easily in social and political discussions where some person will get up and say things which establish their victim-hood before they attempt to speak on an issue. Some examples might be:

“as a victim of wrongful prosecution,” “As a survivor of abuse” “as Jewish, trans, black women” “as someone who was victimized by crime”

Further, we are often told that we need to allow “victims” to be the ones leading the discussion on such things as crime, sexual abuse, racism, sexism, healthcare, gun violence, and a number of other topics that are too numerous to name. A clear example of this comes from Allison Randall, the Principle Deputy Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, who said “Empowering survivors to lead in addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking means creating spaces where their voices are central to shaping the solutions.”1

In our culture a person who is a victim is thought to have something approaching moral authority and pristine knowledge on the matters relating to the situation which caused their victim-hood. This leads to a situation in which a person is thought to have some sort of special insight with regard to how the problems occurs, and to have the moral wisdom to determine which solutions are acceptable, what sorts of intervention are sufficient, and what if any restitution is needed. The intuition guiding this seems to be that victims have a front row seat from which to see their own situation, and therefore have the best vantage point from which to determine what it is they need to recover from their awful circumstances. So we end up with a “victims know best” mentality which says victims know best why things happened to them, victims know best regarding what supports they need, and victims know best about what justice will look like. This gives the victim a place of prominence within the conversation that allows them to determine which sorts of solutions are taken up for consideration, and which solutions are taken to be “not enough.”

And this is where the trouble starts.

That “victims know best” is something that is asserted and never proven. We are never told exactly [why] we ought to think the victims know best about the cause of their victim-hood and how to prevent it from happening again. Many of the situations which lead to a person being a victim have causal antecedents that are extraordinarily complex and understanding the causes that lead to someone’s being victimized is extraordinarily difficult. It is simply not the case that being victimized means that one knows or understands all the causes that have lead to their victimization.

Here is a simple example that illustrates the point:

Through the 80’s and 90’s there were a number of people who were abused, robbed, beaten, murdered and defrauded by organized crime in New York City. These people surely deserve our sympathy, but it would be an enormous mistake to think those people are in a position to understand the factors that lead to the rise in violent organized crime in NYC. Questions like “why do young men join gangs,” “what is the internal incentive structure that allows the mafia to function,” and “how do very complicated money laundering schemes get carried out,” are not easily answered and that a person was the victim of organized crime does not put them in a position to properly answer those questions. If one wants to understand organized crime there is a whole host of social, cultural, economic, and legal factors that one needs to grasp before they can properly explain why organized crime has emerged in a particular way and taken a particular form in a given community. It is a mistake to think that on the basis of being a victim of mafia activity one has a full grasp on all the issues in play and therefore knows best how to respond to increasing mafia activity.

The second issue is closely related to the first. When a person is victimized often we think part of the injury they endure is a loss of agency and that part of the process of remediation is to return to that victim a sense of agency as a way to combat the feelings of helplessness that can accompany victim-hood. Giving the victim a say in the process of justice and in the process of determining the social and political response to the pathology that was the source of ones victimization is often thought to be a matter of justice insofar as it returns to the victim a sense of agency that was taken. We want victims to feel like they are no longer helpless and having to stand by and watch as things happen to them, so we give them a chance to actively participate in the response to the social ill in question. However, because victim-hood has such strong social currency people are very often much more deferential to the wishes of the victim than is justified. This may lead to attempts at remediation that adopt a course of action that the victim likes or suggests even when that course of action is counter-productive and unhelpful.

The third problem occurs when the first two problems are pointed out.

There tends to be a moral stigma around questioning the epistemic and moral authority of a victim with respect to the causes of their victim-hood, and there tends to be an equal strong stigma associated with refusing to follow the course of action that a victim would prefer. This leads to a situation where a victims’ knowledge and authority go unquestioned even when they step outside the scope of what they actually know and understand. For this reason victims are given far more influence when it comes to selecting solutions to social problems then they should actually receive. Put bluntly, there is a strong social incentive to not question a victims knowledge claims or their moral authority, and thus people with victim-hood status who may not actually understand all the social, cultural and economic issues in play around a given social problem are still able to get an outsized voice in determining how society responds to that social problem.

This can lead to a political strategy where cynical operators use the stigma surrounding the criticism of victims as a tactic to silence of discredit ones opponents. A bad-faith activists can use a victim-hood narrative to pre-empt any objections to the chosen course of action by getting a victim to endorse that course of action. Once a given solution has been endorsed by a victim, any objection to that course of action can be used as evidence that the objector is heartless, cruel, and is “blaming the victim.”

Needless to say, this doesn’t help anyone.

There are a large number of difficult social problems that need solving, and they are not going to be solved by simply outsourcing the solution to the victims of those social problems. That one is that victim of a social pathology does not mean that one has insight into the cause or solutions to that social pathology. Lots of social problems are intractable, and more often than not the best response to those social problems involves trade-offs rather than solutions. As much as it might appeal to our sense of justice to “let victims lead” there is often no justification for doing so. While it is important to give voice to the effects of injustice and to allow a victim to explain how they have been impacted by various social pathologies, it does not follow from this principle that victims have the moral authority and knowledge required to determine the best course of action in response to those questions.

I have no problem with victims being given an opportunity to tell their stories and to advocate for social change; it is important to hear from people who have been harmed by various social pathologies. The problem occurs when the victim-hood status of a person is elevated to the point that it has the effect of stopping or shutting down debate, or results in cynical actors using their victim-hood status as a way of putting on trial the empathy of people who disagree with a victims proposed solutions. Using victim-hood as a shield for bad ideas, as a method of shutting down debates, or as a tool for creating a social stigma around objecting to the particular solutions preferred by victims is a great way to make sure problems go unsolved.

Sincerely,

Wokal_distance.

==

It's reliably the case that those who live in western countries while claiming to be oppressed victims are in reality the privileged members of the ruling class.

This is easily demonstrated. Is a false accusation of "bigotry" levelled by someone of the purported "oppressed" class at someone of the purported "oppressor" class more damaging to the accused or the accuser? Can the "oppressed" trivially destroy the "oppressor" with a false accusation of "bigotry"? Or simply expect that they can do so (and outraged if it doesn't work)? Can the "oppressor" do the same to destroy the "oppressed"? Would an accusation by the "oppressor" even be taken seriously, or are the "oppressed" given the authority to simply declare such a phenomenon to be completely non-existent?

You can't claim to be "oppressed" while holding societal and cultural - we might even call it systemic - power to destroy those you claim to "oppress" you, demonize them with impunity or tell them to sit down and shut up. That makes you part of the power-wielding overclass, not a beleaguered underclass. If you were actually "oppressed," your "oppressors" would be silencing you, not the other way around.

Remind me; how does that "prejudice + power" arithmetic go again?

We're supposed to pretend this obviously isn't the case, yet we all know it is.

[talkingpictures2020]

Glenn Sloggett Damaged Goods

Glenn Sloggett has built a unique and insightful body of work documenting the parts of the city no-one wants to think about: the streets of the suburban underclass. As an artist, he is drawn to the dysfunctional and the dispossessed, and, in particular, to the last glimmers of dogged hope that linger amid the ashes of the most dismal situation. He frames and celebrates the things we would rather turn away from. There is no nostalgia here, just the forward plod of life without expectations. Here, beauty lies not in the roses (which are diseased) or the wedding dress (which is cast off) or the Pavlova (which is NQR: not quite right), but in the tenacity of an underclass who keep going while their world is crumbling around them. And at the end, there is a pink hearse that promises ‘BUDGET BURIALS – Cheaper & Deeper!!’

Glenn Sloggett discusses his approach to life and photography at Talking Pictures.

[rjptalk]

LOSING OURSELVES

We had lofty pretensions when we created the United States. Despite that, we had lunch with the devil and included slavery to soothe the south and more than a little to also soothe the north. The importation and sale of human beings was a big money-maker. “All men are created equal” was the most ironic comment ever written into a declaration and constitution. Battle of Lexington & Concord –…

[bakaity-poetry]

The Invention of the ‘Underclass’: A Study in the Politics of Knowledge"

[thepoemeater-blog]

“Let him stay out there a hundred nights,                                                with his thin blanket and his cold armor and his                                                              useless sword, until he understands exactly how  the glory of the protagonist is always paid for                                         by a lot of minor characters.

In the morning he will wake and gallop back to safety; he will hear his name embroidered into                                                    toasts and songs.

But now he knows                there is a country he had not accounted for,                                        and that country has its citizens: 

the one-armed baker sweeping out his shop at 4am;

the prisoner sweating in his narrow cell;

and that woman in the nursing home,                                        who has worked there for a thousand years, 

taking away the bedpans, lifting up and wiping off the soft heroic buttocks of Odysseus.”

–– Tony Hoagland, from “The Hero’s Journey,” Application for Release from the Dream 

[oliviawebsite]

i agree w you about pre employment drug testing but job interviews? the thing where they meet you? and see what your like and if you’ve got the skills required? i dont get why theyre bad

ive elaborated multiple times on this. they are not skill checks by any means. they are only in place to filter "undesirables" from employment positions. they are ALWAYS subject to cultural biases. this is why so many people struggle to find work. now they can see youre a tranny before drafting up any paperwork and they can reject you with enough plausible deniability to claim it wasnt discrimination. this is the purpose of interviews. they ask generic blanket questions that test how Normal the subject is. its a way of doing things with a ton of negative side effects and whether it was intentional or not (its very much intentional btw) we need to rethink how we do job placement in the western capitalist world. people shouldnt have to grovel and socially compete with each other for an opportunity to barely cover their living expenses. job interviews need to be abolished. as i elaborared to a previous anon, there can be placement programs, employers can be required to offer paid training trial periods to job seekers. we dont have to do it the way we do it now.