3 ms·

So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented in the piece, you immediately dig into the author's personal life as a way of disagreeing with it? T

by jmagoon 10y ago

So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented in the piece, you immediately dig into the author's personal life as a way of disagreeing with it? The article is specifically about the middle class having two careers, with an explicit description of this being a "middle class phenomenon". Perhaps that's just the era we live in--where ideas no longer are relevant without the context of the person delivering the idea--where human beings are unable to research or insert themselves into mental constructs due to their lack of 'perspective', that is, their lack of having a specific and acceptable background and history. Interesting that this is the exact frustration so many people express about political correctness, where arguments, ideas, and contributions are invalidated purely based on background, decisions, or other environmental factors.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
>So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented The only real idea presented is that middle class people don't really have hobbies like they used to, and that maybe they should. I engaged that by saying it's unrealistic to make this blanket statement when people are struggling so much just to provide security and comfort for their families. I am saying the principle of her article is poor completely independent of who she is as a person. I also mention that she lacks the perspective to genuinely make this argument because it's frankly pretty ignorant sounding. >where ideas no longer are relevant without the context of the person delivering the idea If dumb ideas are presented, it's worth analyzing why they were presented to begin with. Considering the person behind a piece of writing or speech is tremendously important. It's why we have inane quotes from famous people on posters. People care about context and always have.
atria 10y ago
Do they no longer teach critical analysis in literature classes anymore? I remember rolling my eyes, and being forced to learn about author's lives, as the author's live experiences may impact their view point. I would think this is even more important with authors that are trying to impact public opinion or policy.
maxsilver 10y ago
>So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented in the piece, you immediately dig into the author's personal life as a way of disagreeing with it? Parent commenter did exactly what you requested, before digging into the author. Noting that people don't have the wealth this article presumes, is a valid debate against the piece. --- The article mentions that hobbies arise out of disposable income and free time gained from economic prosperity, and then was lost when the economy faltered. But the article then claims "The American economy has fared better in recent years" -- I'm not convinced that's an accurate picture. Americans (as people) are not necessarily better off if America (the economy) does better. Today, most Americans (people) are still struggling financially, now often more than before, despite the fact that "the economy" has "recovered". But you can't see that from a desk in Manhattan, it's not visible if your only looking at census statistics or property values. Which has created a weird disconnect where people who can sustainable (but only barely) afford housing / food / medical are routinely described as "middle class", even though they have far less disposable income and/or leisure time than their counterparts from the 1970's, or 1990's. The recent explosion in ultra-high costs of housing, medical, and education likely play a role in this, absorbing money that previously would have become "leisure" spending. And the cash necessary to cover those costs seems to come by additional working through what used to be people's leisure time.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Unemployment is arguably the most important economic indicator that most people care about, and "realistic" measures of it show that it's just as bad as, if not worse than, 2009: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart... Official unemployment numbers are so frustrating due to so many exclusions. If GDP is up but all of that growth is going to 0.0001% of Americans, who cares?

by jmagoon 10y ago

whamlastxmas 10y ago

>So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented The only real idea presented is that middle class people don't really have hobbies like they used to, and that maybe they should. I engaged that by saying it's unrealistic to make this blanket statement when people are struggling so much just to provide security and comfort for their families. I am saying the principle of her article is poor completely independent of who she is as a person. I also mention that she lacks the perspective to genuinely make this argument because it's frankly pretty ignorant sounding. >where ideas no longer are relevant without the context of the person delivering the idea If dumb ideas are presented, it's worth analyzing why they were presented to begin with. Considering the person behind a piece of writing or speech is tremendously important. It's why we have inane quotes from famous people on posters. People care about context and always have.

atria 10y ago

Do they no longer teach critical analysis in literature classes anymore? I remember rolling my eyes, and being forced to learn about author's lives, as the author's live experiences may impact their view point. I would think this is even more important with authors that are trying to impact public opinion or policy.

maxsilver 10y ago

>So instead of engaging or debating with the ideas presented in the piece, you immediately dig into the author's personal life as a way of disagreeing with it? Parent commenter did exactly what you requested, before digging into the author. Noting that people don't have the wealth this article presumes, is a valid debate against the piece. --- The article mentions that hobbies arise out of disposable income and free time gained from economic prosperity, and then was lost when the economy faltered. But the article then claims "The American economy has fared better in recent years" -- I'm not convinced that's an accurate picture. Americans (as people) are not necessarily better off if America (the economy) does better. Today, most Americans (people) are still struggling financially, now often more than before, despite the fact that "the economy" has "recovered". But you can't see that from a desk in Manhattan, it's not visible if your only looking at census statistics or property values. Which has created a weird disconnect where people who can sustainable (but only barely) afford housing / food / medical are routinely described as "middle class", even though they have far less disposable income and/or leisure time than their counterparts from the 1970's, or 1990's. The recent explosion in ultra-high costs of housing, medical, and education likely play a role in this, absorbing money that previously would have become "leisure" spending. And the cash necessary to cover those costs seems to come by additional working through what used to be people's leisure time.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Unemployment is arguably the most important economic indicator that most people care about, and "realistic" measures of it show that it's just as bad as, if not worse than, 2009: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart... Official unemployment numbers are so frustrating due to so many exclusions. If GDP is up but all of that growth is going to 0.0001% of Americans, who cares?