3 ms·

"The poor are poor because all of their choices in life suck." There are about 3 ways to interpret that statement. How people interpret it at first reading ba

"The poor are poor because all of their choices in life suck." There are about 3 ways to interpret that statement. How people interpret it at first reading basically describes their political philosophies.

stdbrouw 14y ago
The choices you're given, the choices you've taken... but what's #3?
- noonespecial 14y ago
  I used to think there were only two as well but a third kept popping up. It might not be a strict interpretation per se, but it deserves its own category. It goes something like "You shouldn't say stuff like that, its prejudice against the poor, don't be so arrogant, hateful, etc." The quote is a call to action: We should help the poor make better choices; we should help the poor have better choices; and the third "we should make it so people don't talk like this". I find the last one the most troubling. Personally I think both sides should soften their approaches and try to meet in the middle of #1 and #2 for surely its a continuum stretching between the two. The third reaction baffles me.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    I don't understand how that maps to the original statement. Can you go word by word or something? Unless I'm missing something it sounds like a reaction and not at all an interpretation.
    - noonespecial 14y ago
      I guess it would qualify more as a figurative interpretation. Its probably subconsciously choosing #1 or #2 then (no matter the choice) hearing the opposing view in the quote, and then immediately interpreting it as a mean spirited attack on your position. Its an almost reflexive jump to being offended that happens often enough that I've given it its own category.
justin66 14y ago
There are precisely 2 ways to interpret the linguistic meaning of the statement, depending on the whether you insert "decisions" or "options" for "choices". With what you're thinking of, the actual reaction someone has to the statement, after deciding what is linguistically intended... I've got to believe there are a lot more than 3 possible reactions. One that you haven't mentioned is the tendency to immediate demand a differentiation between "good poor" and "bad poor". This was one of the less brilliant innovations of eighties political culture in the US.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Poor can be "financially deficient" or "miserable" or "downtrodden" too, that gives some scope for alternatives. "The poor are poor", can simply be a statement about the financial situation of a particular demographic or it can be a statement about the unhappiness of peoples lot, pity really, for those who're confined by their finances. So: People [without money|downtrodden] are [without money|downtrodden|to be pitied] because all of their [decisions|options] suck. Who you think the term poor applies too is another way the phrase can be interpreted. "Trump is poor, he only values money", etc..
ck2 14y ago
Change the word "choices" to "options" and I think the meaning is far more clear.

stdbrouw 14y ago

The choices you're given, the choices you've taken... but what's #3?

noonespecial 14y ago
I used to think there were only two as well but a third kept popping up. It might not be a strict interpretation per se, but it deserves its own category. It goes something like "You shouldn't say stuff like that, its prejudice against the poor, don't be so arrogant, hateful, etc." The quote is a call to action: We should help the poor make better choices; we should help the poor have better choices; and the third "we should make it so people don't talk like this". I find the last one the most troubling. Personally I think both sides should soften their approaches and try to meet in the middle of #1 and #2 for surely its a continuum stretching between the two. The third reaction baffles me.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  I don't understand how that maps to the original statement. Can you go word by word or something? Unless I'm missing something it sounds like a reaction and not at all an interpretation.
  - noonespecial 14y ago
    I guess it would qualify more as a figurative interpretation. Its probably subconsciously choosing #1 or #2 then (no matter the choice) hearing the opposing view in the quote, and then immediately interpreting it as a mean spirited attack on your position. Its an almost reflexive jump to being offended that happens often enough that I've given it its own category.

justin66 14y ago

There are precisely 2 ways to interpret the linguistic meaning of the statement, depending on the whether you insert "decisions" or "options" for "choices". With what you're thinking of, the actual reaction someone has to the statement, after deciding what is linguistically intended... I've got to believe there are a lot more than 3 possible reactions. One that you haven't mentioned is the tendency to immediate demand a differentiation between "good poor" and "bad poor". This was one of the less brilliant innovations of eighties political culture in the US.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Poor can be "financially deficient" or "miserable" or "downtrodden" too, that gives some scope for alternatives. "The poor are poor", can simply be a statement about the financial situation of a particular demographic or it can be a statement about the unhappiness of peoples lot, pity really, for those who're confined by their finances. So: People [without money|downtrodden] are [without money|downtrodden|to be pitied] because all of their [decisions|options] suck. Who you think the term poor applies too is another way the phrase can be interpreted. "Trump is poor, he only values money", etc..

ck2 14y ago

Change the word "choices" to "options" and I think the meaning is far more clear.