13 ms·

I am having a hard time following what you are trying to communicate. Apparently some one performing an activity cause it is leisure / you come from a poor nei

by zebnyc 6y ago

I am having a hard time following what you are trying to communicate. Apparently some one performing an activity cause it is leisure / you come from a poor neighborhood / they can afford nice(r) things, invites your derision. Did I understand you correctly? I am not sure how those factors are related but apparently they are to you. Must be hard to find someone / something which escapes your contempt.

jonnycomputer 6y ago
I expected defensiveness when I said what I did. Its also what I got. After all, no one likes to hear that the groups they belong to are the object of ridicule, contempt or derision, or that some one might think that their hobby is a problem; it might come as a short of shock that other people might think that way about them. Get over it. It is not simply a matter of some people getting to do what they enjoy. It is the system of symbols tied to a specific activity. Everyone likes to ride bikes, poor, middle class, and rich. How do the middle class and rich make sure that no-one mistakes them for the kind of person who cannot afford a car? By the price of the bike, and all the specialized equipment they use along with it. Of course that equipment has practical utility--no one says that it doesn't--but that equipment is playing another, probably more important role as a signal of status (if you don't believe me, go biking with your cyclist buddies wearing jeans and riding $400 bike.) So why is it a problem? Because it creates an environment that is not positive, possibly even dangerous, for other cyclists who cannot afford to, or are not willing to, participate in that cycling economy. It isn't really that complicated. Let me put it another way. Who do the police stop when riding through the neighborhood. The cyclist on his or her expensive bike, wearing their expensive equipment, that practically scream: I'm participating in a lifestyle activity? Or the cyclist on a cheap bike, wearing jeans and a t-shirt? Maybe with the wrong skin color. The answer quite obviously is the second.

by zebnyc 6y ago

jonnycomputer 6y ago

I expected defensiveness when I said what I did. Its also what I got. After all, no one likes to hear that the groups they belong to are the object of ridicule, contempt or derision, or that some one might think that their hobby is a problem; it might come as a short of shock that other people might think that way about them. Get over it. It is not simply a matter of some people getting to do what they enjoy. It is the system of symbols tied to a specific activity. Everyone likes to ride bikes, poor, middle class, and rich. How do the middle class and rich make sure that no-one mistakes them for the kind of person who cannot afford a car? By the price of the bike, and all the specialized equipment they use along with it. Of course that equipment has practical utility--no one says that it doesn't--but that equipment is playing another, probably more important role as a signal of status (if you don't believe me, go biking with your cyclist buddies wearing jeans and riding $400 bike.) So why is it a problem? Because it creates an environment that is not positive, possibly even dangerous, for other cyclists who cannot afford to, or are not willing to, participate in that cycling economy. It isn't really that complicated. Let me put it another way. Who do the police stop when riding through the neighborhood. The cyclist on his or her expensive bike, wearing their expensive equipment, that practically scream: I'm participating in a lifestyle activity? Or the cyclist on a cheap bike, wearing jeans and a t-shirt? Maybe with the wrong skin color. The answer quite obviously is the second.