Differences between Trad and BCBG

Fogey

Elite Member
quote:Originally posted by Innovan

>Talking about class is taboo. Only bad people talk about class.

Nonsense!

Ever since Thorstein Veblen's one-joke-that-goes-on-too-long parody, we've had the idea that the lower classes can freely attack the upper at any time and place, however they want, and the upper classes are just supposed to lump it out in silence, taking it lying down. That the upper class is to play the doormat, and let everyone else loudly clod upon them, while they in return are allowed to say... nothing. And saying anything at all means that they instantly are no longer... upper class.

What rubbish!

Here here, Sir!


78c88cd3.jpg
 

Fogey

Elite Member
quote:Originally posted by globetrotter

Frank P,

I am not sure what you are trying to exmplain with your out of context quotes of philosophy. care to explain?

I have no doubt he will attempt to do so, once his jacket is again removed by the friendly people in white.

(For more of his wisdom, have a glance at the thread on Civility on the Interchange forum)


78c88cd3.jpg
 

globetrotter

Super Member
quote:Originally posted by JLPWCXIII

quote:Originally posted by globetrotter

Frank P,

I am not sure what you are trying to exmplain with your out of context quotes of philosophy. care to explain?

I have no doubt he will attempt to do so, once his jacket is again removed by the friendly people in white.

(For more of his wisdom, have a glance at the thread on Civility on the Interchange forum)


78c88cd3.jpg

yes, I saw that, I was hoping for a few more chuckles.
 

VS

Super Member
quote:Originally posted by Innovan

Ever since Thorstein Veblen's one-joke-that-goes-on-too-long parody, we've had the idea that the lower classes can freely attack the upper at any time and place, however they want, and the upper classes are just supposed to lump it out in silence, taking it lying down. That the upper class is to play the doormat, and let everyone else loudly clod upon them, while they in return are allowed to say... nothing. And saying anything at all means that they instantly are no longer... upper class.

What rubbish!

How do the lower classes attack the upper class? Would you post some examples?

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone attacking "old money" except in the course of a political race (fair game because attacks go both ways) or a white-collar criminal trial. Picking on patrician values/tastes isn't that widespread, really, whereas the "wife-beater" wearing, NASCAR-watching, rap-music-buying members of the Joe Sixpack nation have certainly been ridiculed quite a bit.
 

xcubbies

Super Member
My momma meant class as in 'you ain't got no class,' not 'though we are of the lower classes, in America, if we study and work hard, and dress well, we can rise to be president.'
 

Innovan

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
>How do the lower classes attack the upper class?

It started with "Theory of the Lesiure Class", which takes language used to describe ape courtship behaviour and applies it to the upperclass. Not the middle class. Not Joe Sixpack. Not the poor. Nope, only the upper class. Ha ha.

Of course there's wastepits of fear and loathing like https://www.democraticunderground.com

But if I were to restrict myself just to popular culture cinema, it's always the upperclass guy who's square, who doesn't have a clue. And that rascally self-made man is always showing his betters up and mugging to the audience the entire time at what a pompous and ridgid bunch of stuffed shirts these upper class boobs really are.

Fred Astaire always shows up the upper crust who despite many more years of education and opportunity, all are stiff bores. Even the ones who went to ballet school, they just can't dance as well.
Rosie O'Donnel still sits in reruns on her ugly crochet couch yowling at her better class neighbors that they are soulless, intellectually vacant and without heart.
Michael Dougles in Wallstreet was the usual cliche. Sure he had clothes and power. But no one ever becomes upper class through hard work and talent in the movies. No. It's always because they're a liar and a cheat.

Now in every modern film, the instant you see the well dressed, educated man, you've met the secretly evil antagonist. Just to draw a few out of the pot: (And I'm no movie buff so it's far from exaustive)

The Thomas Crown Affair --he's upper class, well dressed, polished in manners --and criminally insane.
The Silence of the Lambs --he enjoys fine wine, is an expert on the classics, and is a homicidal maniac.
Harry Potter --the upper class are all either homicidal racists or ineffectual buffoons. Only the scrappy self-made child who started out in the cupboard under the stairs can ever do anything right.

Aldrich makes the same point in his book (and more at length) about the now standard media cliches the upper class endures. He also points out and how silence hasn't made them go away but only allowed the attacks to become more institutionalized by the media now.

Even Paul Fussel in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253/ is harsh on the upper class, calling them savages ignorant of their own nation, unable to follow even the most basic news events, overwhelmed and ineffectually feable in all endeavors, eventually reduced to speaking only in grunts and pointing.

One wonders how all these so quickly poised to slide down the social slope upper class folks ever managed to rise in the first place. Or why you would ever aspire to better yourself.

Search for an upper class character who you'd actually like to be in the movies and you'll find a strange timeline. As far as I can tell, only merchant ivory films set safely in the past (pre-WW I ) allow the upper class to be portrayed in a positive light.

People wonder why the Jane Austen stories keep being remade in the movies so many times over and over. But only in her world are the better people also higher class. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was educated, elite, well dressed... and a man of action willing to marshal his wealth and power to protect the weak and right the wronged.

So unlike the modern media cliche of the upper class, where an upper class man is a bad man, an idle man, a lying man, a cheating man. An evil man. A man to be hated, a man to be despised.
 
quote:Originally posted by globetrotter

quote:Originally posted by JLPWCXIII

quote:Originally posted by globetrotter

Frank P,

I am not sure what you are trying to exmplain with your out of context quotes of philosophy. care to explain?

I have no doubt he will attempt to do so, once his jacket is again removed by the friendly people in white.

(For more of his wisdom, have a glance at the thread on Civility on the Interchange forum)


78c88cd3.jpg

yes, I saw that, I was hoping for a few more chuckles.

In physics, a wormhole, also known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge (and less commonly as an Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge or Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen bridge), is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is essentially a "shortcut" through space and time.


Time doesn't exist (it's not a fact) since it is merely a form of an object rather than the object itself etc... Time is a human concept (thing) one uses in science within Kant's phenonemonal realm (states of affairs). In the Noumenal realm space and time (things) are in themselves in states of affairs--a unified all encompassing oneness (existence) where these things (combined "in themselves") are asymptotic to a movement such as up, down , left or right etc..


quote:Originally posted by Harris

They lament the passing of quality habits, people, and manners from bygone days, and they fear a future without them. They are proudly old-fashioned, and, in their conservative (reactionary?) attempt to preserve and protect time-tested way of life, their vulnerability to change is revealed.

Cheers,
Harris

__________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
 
quote:Originally posted by Innovan

>How do the lower classes attack the upper class?

It started with "Theory of the Lesiure Class", which takes language used to describe ape courtship behaviour and applies it to the upperclass. Not the middle class. Not Joe Sixpack. Not the poor. Nope, only the upper class. Ha ha.

Of course there's wastepits of fear and loathing like https://www.democraticunderground.com

But if I were to restrict myself just to popular culture cinema, it's always the upperclass guy who's square, who doesn't have a clue. And that rascally self-made man is always showing his betters up and mugging to the audience the entire time at what a pompous and ridgid bunch of stuffed shirts these upper class boobs really are.

Fred Astaire always shows up the upper crust who despite many more years of education and opportunity, all are stiff bores. Even the ones who went to ballet school, they just can't dance as well.
Rosie O'Donnel still sits in reruns on her ugly crochet couch yowling at her better class neighbors that they are soulless, intellectually vacant and without heart.
Michael Dougles in Wallstreet was the usual cliche. Sure he had clothes and power. But no one ever becomes upper class through hard work and talent in the movies. No. It's always because they're a liar and a cheat.

Now in every modern film, the instant you see the well dressed, educated man, you've met the secretly evil antagonist. Just to draw a few out of the pot: (And I'm no movie buff so it's far from exaustive)

The Thomas Crown Affair --he's upper class, well dressed, polished in manners --and criminally insane.
The Silence of the Lambs --he enjoys fine wine, is an expert on the classics, and is a homicidal maniac.
Harry Potter --the upper class are all either homicidal racists or ineffectual buffoons. Only the scrappy self-made child who started out in the cupboard under the stairs can ever do anything right.

Aldrich makes the same point in his book (and more at length) about the now standard media cliches the upper class endures. He also points out and how silence hasn't made them go away but only allowed the attacks to become more institutionalized by the media now.

Even Paul Fussel in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253/ is harsh on the upper class, calling them savages ignorant of their own nation, unable to follow even the most basic news events, overwhelmed and ineffectually feable in all endeavors, eventually reduced to speaking only in grunts and pointing.

One wonders how all these so quickly poised to slide down the social slope upper class folks ever managed to rise in the first place. Or why you would ever aspire to better yourself.

Search for an upper class character who you'd actually like to be in the movies and you'll find a strange timeline. As far as I can tell, only merchant ivory films set safely in the past (pre-WW I ) allow the upper class to be portrayed in a positive light.

People wonder why the Jane Austen stories keep being remade in the movies so many times over and over. But only in her world are the better people also higher class. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was educated, elite, well dressed... and a man of action willing to marshal his wealth and power to protect the weak and right the wronged.

So unlike the modern media cliche of the upper class, where an upper class man is a bad man, an idle man, a lying man, a cheating man. An evil man. A man to be hated, a man to be despised.






"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
 

globetrotter

Super Member
Frank P

I have no idea what you are trying to say with your almost random philosophic quotes. having gotten my degree in philosophy, I am more than familiar with what you are saying, I do not understand why you believe it is relevant. care to elaborate?
 
quote:Originally posted by globetrotter

Frank P

I have no idea what you are trying to say with your almost random philosophic quotes. having gotten my degree in philosophy, I am more than familiar with what you are saying, I do not understand why you believe it is relevant. care to elaborate?

I'm afraid the sad answer is that most people don't understand science at all.
 

SmartDresser

New Member
quote:Originally posted by Innovan

>How do the lower classes attack the upper class?

It started with "Theory of the Lesiure Class", which takes language used to describe ape courtship behaviour and applies it to the upperclass. Not the middle class. Not Joe Sixpack. Not the poor. Nope, only the upper class. Ha ha.

Of course there's wastepits of fear and loathing like https://www.democraticunderground.com

But if I were to restrict myself just to popular culture cinema, it's always the upperclass guy who's square, who doesn't have a clue. And that rascally self-made man is always showing his betters up and mugging to the audience the entire time at what a pompous and ridgid bunch of stuffed shirts these upper class boobs really are.

Fred Astaire always shows up the upper crust who despite many more years of education and opportunity, all are stiff bores. Even the ones who went to ballet school, they just can't dance as well.
Rosie O'Donnel still sits in reruns on her ugly crochet couch yowling at her better class neighbors that they are soulless, intellectually vacant and without heart.
Michael Dougles in Wallstreet was the usual cliche. Sure he had clothes and power. But no one ever becomes upper class through hard work and talent in the movies. No. It's always because they're a liar and a cheat.

Now in every modern film, the instant you see the well dressed, educated man, you've met the secretly evil antagonist. Just to draw a few out of the pot: (And I'm no movie buff so it's far from exaustive)

The Thomas Crown Affair --he's upper class, well dressed, polished in manners --and criminally insane.
The Silence of the Lambs --he enjoys fine wine, is an expert on the classics, and is a homicidal maniac.
Harry Potter --the upper class are all either homicidal racists or ineffectual buffoons. Only the scrappy self-made child who started out in the cupboard under the stairs can ever do anything right.

Aldrich makes the same point in his book (and more at length) about the now standard media cliches the upper class endures. He also points out and how silence hasn't made them go away but only allowed the attacks to become more institutionalized by the media now.

Even Paul Fussel in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253/ is harsh on the upper class, calling them savages ignorant of their own nation, unable to follow even the most basic news events, overwhelmed and ineffectually feable in all endeavors, eventually reduced to speaking only in grunts and pointing.

One wonders how all these so quickly poised to slide down the social slope upper class folks ever managed to rise in the first place. Or why you would ever aspire to better yourself.

Search for an upper class character who you'd actually like to be in the movies and you'll find a strange timeline. As far as I can tell, only merchant ivory films set safely in the past (pre-WW I ) allow the upper class to be portrayed in a positive light.

People wonder why the Jane Austen stories keep being remade in the movies so many times over and over. But only in her world are the better people also higher class. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was educated, elite, well dressed... and a man of action willing to marshal his wealth and power to protect the weak and right the wronged.

So unlike the modern media cliche of the upper class, where an upper class man is a bad man, an idle man, a lying man, a cheating man. An evil man. A man to be hated, a man to be despised.
Well said!
Check out the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newson. A man of money, that spends lots of time solving the problem of homeless people, not putting them in shelters, but helping them get out of the cycle, getting them into housing, getting medical attention.
He is setting an example for all of us.
 

VS

Super Member
quote:Originally posted by Innovan

>How do the lower classes attack the upper class?

It started with "Theory of the Lesiure Class", which takes language used to describe ape courtship behaviour and applies it to the upperclass. Not the middle class. Not Joe Sixpack. Not the poor. Nope, only the upper class. Ha ha.

Of course there's wastepits of fear and loathing like https://www.democraticunderground.com

But if I were to restrict myself just to popular culture cinema, it's always the upperclass guy who's square, who doesn't have a clue. And that rascally self-made man is always showing his betters up and mugging to the audience the entire time at what a pompous and ridgid bunch of stuffed shirts these upper class boobs really are.

Fred Astaire always shows up the upper crust who despite many more years of education and opportunity, all are stiff bores. Even the ones who went to ballet school, they just can't dance as well.
Rosie O'Donnel still sits in reruns on her ugly crochet couch yowling at her better class neighbors that they are soulless, intellectually vacant and without heart.
Michael Dougles in Wallstreet was the usual cliche. Sure he had clothes and power. But no one ever becomes upper class through hard work and talent in the movies. No. It's always because they're a liar and a cheat.

Now in every modern film, the instant you see the well dressed, educated man, you've met the secretly evil antagonist. Just to draw a few out of the pot: (And I'm no movie buff so it's far from exaustive)

The Thomas Crown Affair --he's upper class, well dressed, polished in manners --and criminally insane.
The Silence of the Lambs --he enjoys fine wine, is an expert on the classics, and is a homicidal maniac.
Harry Potter --the upper class are all either homicidal racists or ineffectual buffoons. Only the scrappy self-made child who started out in the cupboard under the stairs can ever do anything right.

Aldrich makes the same point in his book (and more at length) about the now standard media cliches the upper class endures. He also points out and how silence hasn't made them go away but only allowed the attacks to become more institutionalized by the media now.

Even Paul Fussel in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253/ is harsh on the upper class, calling them savages ignorant of their own nation, unable to follow even the most basic news events, overwhelmed and ineffectually feable in all endeavors, eventually reduced to speaking only in grunts and pointing.

One wonders how all these so quickly poised to slide down the social slope upper class folks ever managed to rise in the first place. Or why you would ever aspire to better yourself.

Search for an upper class character who you'd actually like to be in the movies and you'll find a strange timeline. As far as I can tell, only merchant ivory films set safely in the past (pre-WW I ) allow the upper class to be portrayed in a positive light.

People wonder why the Jane Austen stories keep being remade in the movies so many times over and over. But only in her world are the better people also higher class. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was educated, elite, well dressed... and a man of action willing to marshal his wealth and power to protect the weak and right the wronged.

So unlike the modern media cliche of the upper class, where an upper class man is a bad man, an idle man, a lying man, a cheating man. An evil man. A man to be hated, a man to be despised.

Those are some very good examples, but I believe there are some differences in perception regarding many of these. I think a popular disdain for the upper classes is in force in England but much less so in the US.

Veblen has nothing on the study of the Jukes and the Kallikaks.

Hannibal Lecter is one fictional serial killer. Contrast that with the many, real and non-fiction, who hail from the underclass and are the subject of films; Henry Lee Lucas, Aileen Wuornos, the maniacs in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the other fellow in Silence of the Lambs (Buffalo Bill?) Lecter's character is so interesting because there's such a dichotomy there; why would an educated person of impeccable taste choose to eat people? That's putting aside the inference that most serial killers ARE bright and possess social capital (not that all bright people are necessarily members of a certain class) - which is why they can get away with killing a string of people, ala American Psycho.

In the Harry Potter series, (sorry, I can't speak for the books) Hermione Granger is the most upper-class character, judging purely by accent, and she's not an evil twerp/buffoon.

Nobody listens to Rosie O' Donnell. Can anyone stand her or take her seriously? Yowling is the right term.

It's true that it is easier for most auteurs, middle-class directors or people who perceive themselves as being removed from any kind of social hierarchy, it is easier to pick on the upper classes than the lower, except in the realm of tastes. To make fun of the peasantry when you're not one seems to be cruel, whereas whe upper classes won't suffer any indignities because those below them in the pecking order think they're say, stuffy, or have old-fashioned manners.

To be honest, people still do aspire to better themselves, but the perceived message from a portion of the upper classes, whether it is true or not, is that no matter how much someone does so, he's still not really one of them: Paul Fussell skewered everyone, with a special focus on the social-climbing portion of the middle class. But anyone who reads his book, or who has a set of eyes, has to come away with the perception that no matter what someone might say about the upper class, it's better to be a part of it than to be a proletarian in purple polyester.
 

xcubbies

Super Member
Using films as reference points in real life is very dangerous. Characters in most films are not benchmarks, but images created to suggest personalities to the viewing public. It's manipulation, not real life. You know that!
 

Vettriano Man

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
"...people still do aspire to better themselves" - VS

Absolutely true, and this is the same in all forms of life - look at the ant and bee kingdoms. There has to be aspiration to hierarchy in life, otherwise total equality would mean every living creature would go around like a headless chicken!
 

Fogey

Elite Member
quote:Originally posted by VS

Hannibal Lecter is one fictional serial killer...Lecter's character is so interesting because there's such a dichotomy there; why would an educated person of impeccable taste choose to eat people?


Dr Lecter can justify eating people for the same reasons that people can justify eating animals: 1) he is superior, 2) he wants to, and 3) he can.



78c88cd3.jpg
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.