- Thread starter
- #21
I'd love someone to define working class for me?
I'd love someone to define working class for me?
I'd love someone to define working class for me?
Owns pine furniture.
Working class me Nipple, pays the bills but can't afford anything but second hand furniture, but I'm happy with my lot. You moved yet?
I'd love someone to define working class for me?
I would suggest that anybody on the left feeling the urge to be dragged into the post-election trolling should be aware of two things.
1) Statistically, you are likely to be more intelligent than the person you are arguing with: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html. This does not mean that all right wingers lack intelligence, just that those who do lack intelligence are more likely to be attracted to right wing politics and they skew the statistical probability.
2) You must never admit to this as, in politics, showing intelligence is considered a weakness: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/feb/24/politicians-accusations-snobbery-jail-card
3) In arguments right wingers will try to trick you into showing intelligence, so that they can accuse you of elitism, being out of touch and sneering at the common man. It is strange, but nobody ever considers the inferred assumption inherent in this accusation (that the common man cannot be intelligent) to be elitist.
4) One way they will try to trick you is by saying obviously stupid things. This is either because they are very clever and want to lure you into a self fulfilling prophecy, so that (see 3) or because (see 1).
Try not to get dragged in. As the responses to this tongue in cheek message will prove, the game is fixed and you can never win.
Joseph Heller said it far more elegantly:
“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”
Owns expensive TV to place on pine furniture
The flaws in your arguments are many. It pre-supposes that left-wingers always have the moral high-ground, that left-wing is the default position, that left-wingers will always win the argument when those pesky right-wingers aren't trying to use tricks, that right-wingers consider intelligence a bad trait, that right-wingers can't be elitist
I'd also add that you can't have 'inferred assumptions' as they are two different beasts entirely and lastly, that quote is out of context because it refers to a paradox that you cannot escape from due to contradictory rules whereas if I understand you correctly, if you don't get tricked by right-wingers then you won't get called elitist. That's hardly a Catch-22, is it?
Morrissey said it better than me: "“If you must write prose or poems, the words you use should be your own. Don't plagiarize or take 'on loan'. There's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows, who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall.”
The funny bit is that the people aren't exactly lining the streets!