This is so common among some paper rich people. I make pretty good money. I’m upper middle class. My cousin makes like 5 times what I make. I’d snap bet I have more liquid cash right now than he does. He makes like one million but lives like he makes 3 million.
But look how they sacrificed… A Toyota Highlander ($40K) instead of a Range Rover, Old Navy instead of Gucci!
It’s them, and the little people.
The horror that they’d have to make decisions that make them look like the little people. They deserve this, they worked hard for a good life!
Doesn’t matter that they’re infinitely more rich than the kings of history. The Joneses have some better toys.
1 Like
Occassional babysitter has a pretty good gig.
1 Like
I think it does help explain the obsessive fixation on taxes. They’re always spending themselves broke so they actually think a few extra thousand bucks is worth kids in cages.
1 Like
Can someone explain to me this phrasing I hear so often these days: “I identify as a gay man” or “I identify as trans” and the like. Why not, “I am a gay man” or “I am trans.”
What the actual fuck. How do you spend that much on food per month?
I feel so bad for them only being able to save $38k a year for retirement and $12k for education. It must be really hard.
Gender is fluid. People can and do change their gender identity, sometimes multiple times throughout their lives.
I get that. I don’t understand how it addresses my question though.
“I am” language assumes permanence and denies the fluidity.
Also people take on gender identities for political reasons too.
Definitely not trying to nit up the thread, but I still have the same question as cassette.
I am 39. I won’t be that way permanently.
I am straight. I assume I’ll be that way permanently but who knows.
I am eating lunch. I definitely won’t be doing that permanently.
I am married. I hope that’s permanent but who knows.
Those things aren’t political. When people say they identify with a gender they are making that statement partly as a political one. They are reacting against the commonly assumed norm of cis gender.
I don’t see why. To me it cedes ground to those who deny the fluidity. Bigot: “Oh, you identify as trans woman…well I identify you as a man…” etc. Identification language makes it seem like a person’s gender is up for debate.
“I am a trans woman” stresses that this is an ontological point. I determine who I am; it isn’t a debate where we get to go back and forth about the merits of how to identify who a person is.
A silly example: " I am hungry" says nothing about my hunger tomorrow or the next day. I don’t identify as hungry. I AM hungry.
That makes more sense but still seems oddly conciliatory.
1 Like
It’s so you know it’s a special and unique declarative statement, something to take note of.
clovis (or whomever) is working backwards to logic it.
1 Like
Can you expand on this? Is the idea to allude to a difference in the past? I have certainly never taken it to be that way.
I added “something to take note of.”
I think it empowers the move, makes it stand apart.
Whole thing obviously started as something like a script, not organic. It’s great that there’s something for people to feel comfortable that wouldn’t otherwise, but it seems similar to like the opening of AA or something.
I guess I’m missing the point. What am I supposed to feel after reading it?
This family is making 350k and seem to be doing quite well. Their kids should be set up for success.
Good for them.
Why should I care?
Yeah he’s a piece of shit. Glad he never made it over here.
1 Like
He and chez have both registered accounts here.