working class raaaage
November 2, 2012 § Leave a comment
(11:21:29 AM) S: oh goddd
(11:21:38 AM) J: ?
(11:21:55 AM) S: so i want to pitch an article for my company’s blog on robo-signing
(11:22:08 AM) S: in order to do that i’m reading up on it a bit, from various perspectives
(11:22:32 AM) S: i’m reading an article from forbes magazine and the class bias is blowing my fucking mind
(11:23:02 AM) S: ok, take a look at this article. without reading it, what’s the first thing you notice. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/20/the-robo-signing-settlement-seeds-of-recovery-or-chaos/
(11:23:48 AM) J: other than the ads around the article?
(11:24:00 AM) J: i’m not sure what you’re going for?
(11:24:11 AM) S: the font size!
(11:24:22 AM) S: it’s gigantic!
(11:24:26 AM) J: ok?
(11:24:35 AM) S: who needs large print?
(11:24:37 AM) S: old people!
(11:24:48 AM) J: uh
(11:24:52 AM) S: no really
(11:25:04 AM) S: we talk about typography demonstrating cultural bias
(11:25:36 AM) J: we do?
(11:25:37 AM) S: the body of every article in forbes is a good 2-4 points bigger than any article anywhere else
(11:25:45 AM) J: hmm
(11:25:46 AM) S: work with me here
(11:31:01 AM) J: meh
(11:31:16 AM) J: do you have a further point?
(11:34:00 AM) S: Just that the article is taking a negative stance on the robo-signing settlement from earlier this year, and this quote: For the rest of us who fortunately are not in foreclosure, however, the potential value of the settlement will be to lay the foundation for recovery of the housing market and, therefore, the economy at large.”
(11:34:53 AM) S: making assumptions that the reader is like the author, is not poor, and that their needs to not lose money are equal to or greater than the needs of those who are in foreclosure
(11:34:58 AM) S: and it’s not like i didn’t expect this
(11:35:04 AM) J: but that’s what forbes is
(11:35:08 AM) S: but it still enfuriates me
(11:35:11 AM) J: it’s not for actual rich people though
(11:35:12 AM) S: and i needed to vent
(11:35:18 AM) S: it’s for people who want to think they are rich
(11:35:22 AM) S: well, sure
(11:35:29 AM) S: they wouldn’t have a large enough circulation otherwise
(11:35:53 AM) S: and.. what use would actual rich people have from a magazine
(11:37:42 AM) J: so you’re angry there is a magazine to help the middle class construct their imaginative aspiration to the upper class?
(11:37:56 AM) S: no
(11:38:00 AM) S: well yes, but
(11:38:01 AM) J: which is really the essence of the bourgeois
(11:38:11 AM) S: i’m angry because i’m reading this and it offends me
(11:38:20 AM) S: and i need to read it and internalize it to do my job
(11:38:30 AM) S: and that contradiction is fucking frustrating, and i need to vent
(11:38:44 AM) J: offends you that to be bourgeois is to construct a class conscious based on aspiration to an imagine upper class?
(11:39:24 AM) S: no. it offends me because of the way it dismisses the needs of working class people
(11:39:35 AM) J: steve. you have no needs.
(11:39:43 AM) J: except maybe booze and debauched sex.
(11:39:48 AM) J: and thumping things.
(11:39:51 AM) S: or elevates the needs of rich people to the same standing as the needs of poor people to, you know, survive
(11:40:05 AM) S: true. shit. i should stop reading forbes and click up maxim.
(11:40:17 AM) S: perhaps sports illustrated.
(11:40:35 AM) J: see?