How do JUBbers generally view you, and how do you view yourself

[JPGhost]

Your a-u-r-a ^^

 

[belamyi]

 

[Ram]

 

[johaninsc]

^ one of the best Jubbers right there


...always glad to see your posts, Ram

 

[IamNoah]

IDK. I'm curious.

 

[JimLahey]

I don't think I have a high enough post count here yet to have some sort of opinion formed of me... I'm beginning to spend more time on this forum than the others I frequent, because the quality here is much higher than the others! A coupe forums I used for years have just become a very toxic place.

I started posting here because I ran into nude pics from the celebrity bear topic! I guess it was nice to see I was fairly normal. I spent a lot of time in the baptist church and really had no where to turn. So from then I often used the site to get some advice from people who've been there done that. I've at least tried to post something helpful when I can! I probably come across as somewhat a good person, though likely a little down in the dumps. I really do try and be cheery, just happens that this place gets a lot of my gay venting as I've very few people near me who'd listen since I moved hours away.

I've been lurking for a long time and to be honest there aren't many people on the site that I would say I can't stand, I do try and give anybody a chance. I won't beat a dead horse though. I've never added someone to an ignore list on any site ever... If I don't like what someone has to say I simply keep scrolling!

<3 JUB

 

[sixthson]

IDK. I'm curious.

I thought you were gay.

Somebody had to say it.

 

[IamNoah]

I thought you were gay.

Somebody had to say it.

I'm actually not gay. I'm bi and married to a man. Though I tend to think of myself as gay I'm physically attracted to both sexes equally.

Also--based on something stated elsewhere--I'm an atheist, but insofar as I have a religion it's Catholicism.

So

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Fuck if I really know. Blunt? Direct? An asshole? Friendly to the friends, a mudhole stomper to those up on a lily white high horse? You tell me.

How I view myself? A dead man with a living complex with enough energy to live for another day or so. Why i'm reading this at 3am, I'll never know.

 

[mikemizanin729]

Why should I really care?. It's no secret what a batch of posters here think of me vile, toxic and an upper class snooty rich boy who worships celebrities.

What do I think of myself? I think enough to continue posting subjects that interest me and may get others involved in a discussion on the subject title.

 

[belamyi]

Why should I really care?. It's no secret what a batch of posters here think of me vile, toxic and an upper class snooty rich boy who worships celebrities.

"Upper class"?

 

[mikemizanin729]

"Upper class"?

Yeah,no one but no one has to be a rich toth to be a fan of Paris Hilton or Princess Michaele of Kents work.

They are decent women.

 

[mikemizanin729]

I thought you were gay.

Somebody had to say it.

What makes you assume this?

 

[rareboy]

"Upper class"?

I seriously doubt if that thought has ever flickered through anyone's mind here......

 

[belamyi]

Yeah,no one but no one has to be a rich toth to be a fan of Paris Hilton or Princess Michaele of Kents work.

They are decent women.

Apart from the fact that being rich and upper class are two different things... particularly today, when the class system has disappeared, at least in the Western world. Another further different fact, is that there is a trend towards re-establishing clean-cut thoroughly vertical class differences for the next century.

 

[IamNoah]

The class system has not disappeared. But yes, unless you are American class and net worth are not the same thing.

 

[Alnitak]

The class system has not disappeared. But yes, unless you are American class and net worth are not the same thing.

I usually associate class with social connections, standard of living, educational achievement, and occupation, and financial security usually follows all four, but not necessarily, e.g. someone who merely marries rich.

 

[IamNoah]

I usually associate class with social connections, standard of living, educational achievement, and occupation, and financial security usually follows all four, but not necessarily, e.g. someone who merely marries rich.

We're smarter than our countrymen though. I think class to the average American is code for income. BUT I agree with you and think most sociologists/anthropologists would as well.

 

[Alnitak]

We're smarter than our countrymen though. I think class to the average American is code for income. BUT I agree with you and think most sociologists/anthropologists would as well.

Okay true there are some obvious correlations. A millionaire from Canton is not going to be spending his weekends with the Dundalk bums in a local wateringhole.

 

[belamyi]

I usually associate class with social connections, standard of living, educational achievement, and occupation, and financial security usually follows all four, but not necessarily, e.g. someone who merely marries rich.

Yes and no: a class is not just a isolated, self-sufficient ecosystem, built on certain relations (those connections you mentioned) and common interests, and habits (the right places to attend, whether for leisure or education... social interaction in general), but also THAT in a global perspective in which every class entertains a definite role with respect to all the rest: otherwise, what you described is merely a particular group, tribe, whatever people with certain habits and interests. A social group is so precisely for the social part, for BEING, for existing in relation to at least another different group.

"Standard of living" and "financial security", even the connections and the rest only make sense to a particular dynamics that you take for granted while being the heart of the matter, and what you mentioned are impressions from the XIXth century bourgeois system, for you merely American system, but which is a system that I describe better in the following paragraph.



This is nothing of a belamian effort: we all learned at school that the class system was a "minimal improvement" on the old feudal estates of the realm, allowing a certain permeability impossible in the old system that was tied to a natural vision of the world in which each being WAS a certain moral and, therefore, social condition transmitted by birth.

Maybe that's confusing for the American people who live in a nation which was built precisely on severing itself from the burden of that past (although the history of America in the past two centuries shows a definite and ruthless effort to remake the European old system, for all the enthusiastic rhetoric of freedom and equality and opportunity through personal achievement), but the facts are there for anyone to see below the prejudices or assumptions.


So, the reason why there are no classes today is that they are not necessary anymore in a system in which wealth do not even need people, even qualified people: the problem with the perception of the state of things is that people expect reality to be unified, simple, while in fact eras show what appear as a duality: some idiots may relate this to Marxist dynamics, but that dynamics was as static as the instinctive unitary one, with a duality of static states, while what I am talking is of a mere state in progress not of two opposing natures, as Marxism proposed, but two (at least two main ones) manifestations of a single principles, evolving one from and through the other.

Tocqueville wrote about an obvious tendency to democratization in the Western world from the Low Middle Ages, but it is not actually so, and the 1%-99% thing is a proof of that: the tendency has been the progressive replacement of one source of wealth by the other, achieved through technical development, all of which needed to do without any sort of class boundaries: that is the "Western specificity" that Western theorists, puzzled, expected to naturally arise from specific conditions that they observed in other civilizations, mainly in whatever was called "China" in different eras.

So, class system is only an instrument to maintain a certain order, in order to achieve certain welfare goals, your "standard of living" and "financial security"... Cod I am getting bored writing this, but I have no time to truly develop and, at the same time, need to shout it ... what must be taken for granted is that only one small fraction of the people will, for whatever reason and in whatever way, actually opt and operate to establish themselves as that fraction, and the American dream is not about everyone being rich, not even everyone being given the same opportunity to be a great achiever: it is not about America, in fact, but about those European hindrances I referred to above, which are also the norm everywhere else, in any other era.

The American dream and the social system derived from it is: be gutsy enough to impose yourself to all the other tamer ones... if everyone were as greedy as Gordon Gekko, there would no possibility of greed at all.


Once social divisions are not indispensable to be "rich", to establish yourself as one of the happy few, once wealth comes through algorithms without the need of there even being anything "actual", a product to which to assign value, you can also dispense with classes of people.
You obviously still need a set of qualified technicians to operate that system, who do not need to belong to that upper class just like they never worked in their own land in the flourishing, ripe old system, and that is where that "duality" of systems, with a "class" with a definite role has a place-

Finally, the fact that second generation upstarts are accepted as one of the group more as a norm than as an exception, shows how slovenly and irrelevant the old system has become: formerly classes were about generations, today, in accordance with all said above, the "bourgeois" morals of achievement, today it is about individuals, individuals being shaped in their minds and whole vital experience according to a definite perspective of your "financial security" and "standard of living", of my "habits" and both your and my "connections" that you can possibly replace through personal effort and achievement... one belongs to a class when one belongs to effortlessly. That's still the old system at work. The other newer system is what we see so often at work in Wall Street: socialism for the few, based on greater relative wealth.


I know this is a big piece of TLDR, but I had to spew it, but I am positive some very few, weasly ones could profit from it.