:rolleyes:

Feel free to actually point out how I derailed the conversation if you disagree.

Train of conversation goes like this:
"I don't want to judge but... "
"You're judging."
"but it looks bad."
"It shouldn't look like anything. People need to think."
"I did think... that she should sell it if she's really needy."

LOL. I see the train of conversation as this:

OP: "There is irony in this photo and it sucks that the photo was taken in front of her big flat screen TV. I don't know her but that photo kinda sucks."
Drolefille: "You are judging and that TV has nothing to do with anything (that's also an assumption)...oh look the article says she was once employed."
PiKA: "Yeah there is irony in that photo but perhaps the TV was bought during better times."
Drolefille: "Forget what you said about better times and irony in the photo...you are also judging and again that TV has nothing to do with anything (that's also an assumption) and I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and think (that's also an assumption)."
The audience: "Badumpalumpadumpalump...womp womp!"
PiKA: "Well, um...there is irony in that photo and the rest of what I'm going to type goes beyond my initial point of irony and will be interpreted to you as insult to the poor regardless of what I type."
Me: "Yeah I see how there can be irony in that photo and it reminds me of people in housing projects who have DishTV."
Drolefille: "Pointing out irony is different than judging."
Me: "Not really. They were also pointing out irony and I was also stating that it not only looks ironic but, if she hasn't done so already, she needs to try to sell that technology in the background of that photo."
The audience: "Badumpalumpadumpalump...womp womp!"

:D

So, it went from "don't take a picture in front of a big TV" to "stop being judgmental because she could have gotten the TV earlier" to "yea, she probably did get the TV earlier, but she shouldn't have taken a picture in front of it" to "remove your heads from your asses."

With your background, it makes sense that you would be able to provide a different perspective, but that doesn't mean that others aren't allowed to pose questions. We don't know this woman, so this is just discussion.

K_S, i'm very specific about telling people directly if I'm including them in the heads/asses category. If I'd included PIKA in that statement, I would have said so.

And see my previous comment about the difference between asking questions and making judgments. If you don't think that where PIKA ended up in this conversation was judgmental, that's your prerogative. I didn't make anyone say anything they didn't want to say, and like I said, I'm not moved by the argument that my tone was the problem here.

/or you know, I'm just bitchy because I have an ex or something.

ETA: These are personal opinions btw. Informed by my professional experiences, but personal. The things my professional opinions are oriented towards are more like emotions, thinking patterns, and mental illnesses. In my job I wouldn't call someone a judgmental asshole. Unless I thought it would really clinically benefit him to hear it.

That assumes that others in this thread don't share Drolefille's background or that most people with Drolefille's background share her sentiments outside of a professional context (personal opinions are often kept separate from the professional).

Ain't no one posing questions and no one is pretending to know the woman in the photo. It's really just a general discussion of social welfare based on appearances and that's what the irony of the photo is--appearances. LOL.

You included PiKA in the "needing to think" category and that's why he responded as he did. LOL.

Asking questions for what? What is there to ask? LOL.

I wouldn't say you were not totally unmoved by the subject matter. You already said you were defensive based on your experiences.

This discussion is really quite funny to me because such discussions assume that people are so fragile that they can't hear some brutal truths even if the brutal truths don't apply 100% to their personal circumstances. Smart people who can let go of their ego for a minute are able to see whether their life choices have shaped their financial outcomes. That's one of the first lessons when talking to people within the Black community about poverty. If you're going to be all mad and assume that people are judging you (in general) just because they are only going based on the information in front of them (i.e. a flat screen TV when you're asking for financial assistance), you will have a very long financial road ahead of you.

Why is she taking a picture in front of that big ass TV? wasn't explicitly asked, but I gathered that from the responses.

No, I didn't, those were the same sentence.
I don't know, ks is the one saying they're being asked.


Yep, but I don't take responsibility for anyone else's responses, nor do I believe my tone is responsible for some how taking this thread down the road it went, somehow making people say assholish things.

I think there's a pretty big difference between talking to, and talking about. And if this had been a more general conversation rather than a specifically targeted one I would have felt differently about the responses.

I do put my money where my mouth is. I vote Democratic. I donate money to charity. I also save money so that I do have that cushion we have been talking about. It's called being responsible. If I wasn't putting my money where my mouth was, I'd just go out and buy a 3D TV and a new surround sound system and maybe some furniture with the money.

As for "fair", I'll let you in on something. Life isn't fair. The asshats who set up the program made the program that way. It's not the fault of the woman who needs assistance that has more means than her neighbor and gets the assistance because she showed up first if that's the way the program was set up. I haven't had time to read the story posted by Low C sharp since I've been working all day, but I'll get around to it. This country has been all about cutting off aid because people think the poor are just trying to get something for nothing....until of course someone THEY know needs assistance.

Also, I think you are missing the point that you have no way of knowing that people are trying to "maintain their lifestyles." Sorry, if welfare money is a lifestyle, it's a pretty crappy one.

I already know why she's taking the picture in front of the TV: She wasn't thinking about the irony and wasn't paying attention to her background. The photographer and reporter probably were. LOL.

:) So keep the judgmental party going.

Ahhh...there's that party affiliation thing.

I don't think there's any difference between talking to and talking about and that difference that you see is based on your perception (just as the perceived difference between pointing out irony and judging).

No one cares about this woman and her TV. She was used as an illustration of a larger point. She, specifically, was lost in the discussion pages ago. We've moved on to talking about people in the projects who have rims on their cars and how poor people can sell their flat screen TVs.

Feel free to disagree, but I'd rather be talked to about something than talked about behind my back, for example. And working with a community provides a lot more knowledge than the anecdata presented so often by people who have minmal experience or contact with the population. While the discussion has indeed moved on, originally it was directed at the individual (and later a few other individuals).