• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Why is america filled with so much white trash, and what can we do abo


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 03 August 2011 - 05:51 AM


Anyone who has traveled through out america knows how much white trash there is here. Sometimes I am inclined to believe that the white trash out numbers the more civilized types of people, but I have no statistics to back this claim up. Just a feeling.

Some of these people are so disconnected from anything civilized that it makes me want to move away to europe for good. In some areas the ratio of white trash to civilized people seems to be 3:1 or something like that.

Surely, a large portion of this is due to economical divide. The first question is what can be done about this in the immediate future, the second is, what else turns someone into a white trash who has no compassion or civility at all for other people? Is it the fact that society has shown them little to no concern?

I am not saying ALL these people who may fit the profile of white trash are exactly like this, but many are. And I say this from first hand work experience with such people. In the jobs I have performed the lower income white people seem a lot more removed from compassion for fellow humans than lower income blacks or hispanics do. So why does the combination of white+lower income make these people so careless, obstinate and compassionless?

Edited by TheFountain, 03 August 2011 - 05:52 AM.

  • dislike x 3

#2 cathological

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • -29

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:55 AM

I think it's cuz they're white.
  • dislike x 2

#3 dangerousideas

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:44 PM

Your comment seems loaded with an assumption that somehow the "trash-of-color" is expected but the "white trash" is somehow surprising, but never mind...

Firstly, relative poverty and relative ignorance are often correlated (perhaps when we find the two together we might even call this "Social Trash Syndrome"), and, well, its also relative. I am surprised at how often people need to be reminded that the average IQ is only 100. Also, poorer people may have fewer opportunities to travel and will not even be aware of how limited and provincial their knowledge of the world is. Within their communities they will often be influenced by petty local authorities (pastors, role-model relatives, etc.) with similiar provincial and backward views.

Secondly, in the individualistic and unforgiving competitive world that is the modern United States (speaking generally and not specifically of course) people have learned to avoid interacting with "outsiders" whenever possible because those outsiders are always (to a first approximation, anyway) seeking some sort of advantage at their expense, and only "insiders" who share their background and values can (sometimes - but not always) be trusted. Their compassion and civility have been "gamed" so often that it is no longer on offer to the world. The mistrust and suspicion of such people has ultimately been earned by the (mis)behaviour of their "outgroup peers", and the "cold" reaction can therefore be seen as a rational response to such (more or less) systematic social abuse. Trust has become an earned privilage, rather than the assumed right it had sometimes been (and still is to a degree) in more homogeneous societies.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 pycnogenol

  • Guest
  • 1,164 posts
  • 72
  • Location:In a van down by the river!

Posted 03 August 2011 - 11:22 PM

The Fountain,

Hey, if it gets any worse with all the "white trash" americans there is always Bio Station Alpha on planet Mars! :laugh:




#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 August 2011 - 11:24 PM

Your comment seems loaded with an assumption that somehow the "trash-of-color" is expected but the "white trash" is somehow surprising, but never mind...

But he said:

In the jobs I have performed the lower income white people seem a lot more removed from compassion for fellow humans than lower income blacks or hispanics do.

So in his experience, there is something about White people that is a problem.

Firstly, relative poverty and relative ignorance are often correlated (perhaps when we find the two together we might even call this "Social Trash Syndrome"), and, well, its also relative. I am surprised at how often people need to be reminded that the average IQ is only 100. Also, poorer people may have fewer opportunities to travel and will not even be aware of how limited and provincial their knowledge of the world is. Within their communities they will often be influenced by petty local authorities (pastors, role-model relatives, etc.) with similiar provincial and backward views.

Secondly, in the individualistic and unforgiving competitive world that is the modern United States (speaking generally and not specifically of course) people have learned to avoid interacting with "outsiders" whenever possible because those outsiders are always (to a first approximation, anyway) seeking some sort of advantage at their expense, and only "insiders" who share their background and values can (sometimes - but not always) be trusted. Their compassion and civility have been "gamed" so often that it is no longer on offer to the world. The mistrust and suspicion of such people has ultimately been earned by the (mis)behaviour of their "outgroup peers", and the "cold" reaction can therefore be seen as a rational response to such (more or less) systematic social abuse. Trust has become an earned privilage, rather than the assumed right it had sometimes been (and still is to a degree) in more homogeneous societies.

I think you're on to some of it here. You might not be considering the unique qualities of TheFountain, who along with being White is a Vegan who looks emo based on pictures he's posted. His White Trash co-workers might be giving him a hard time because he doesn't comply with their norms. The similarly-impoverished Black and Hispanic co-workers might be nicer to him because they aren't applying their own norms to him. According to my hypothesis, if TheFountain was Black, and everything else was the same, his White co-workers would treat him OK, but his Black co-workers would give him endless grief.

#6 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:47 PM

I think you're on to some of it here. You might not be considering the unique qualities of TheFountain, who along with being White is a Vegan who looks emo based on pictures he's posted.

Emo? really? That's kind of a stab at a label but then it makes me wonder what personality attributes an 'emo' person is in possession of.

His White Trash co-workers might be giving him a hard time because he doesn't comply with their norms. The similarly-impoverished Black and Hispanic co-workers might be nicer to him because they aren't applying their own norms to him.


That kind of makes no sense, since from the get go one very important norm cannot be applied. I am not black or hispanic. These people could immediately jump the gun on me and judge me for being white, but they don't. They are less judgmental towards whites (or people in general) than actual white people! Despite being lower income.


According to my hypothesis, if TheFountain was Black, and everything else was the same, his White co-workers would treat him OK, but his Black co-workers would give him endless grief.


wha?

Edited by TheFountain, 04 August 2011 - 08:57 PM.


#7 dangerousideas

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:02 PM

OK, I take your point. If the normative expectation is challenged by (excessive) non-conformity then the barriers for establishing a trust relationship are higher, which would be exactly what we would expect. If I understand you correctly, the suggestion is that "White" tolerance for non-conformity in a white person may be narrower than the parallel "Non-White" tolerance for a non-conforming white person; hence a less "judgemental" response to the non-conformist individual would be expected from people (in this example non-white people) who do not have a vested interest in that individuals "in-group" (in this example white people) cohesion. Since social cohesion is essential (if not a defining) characteristic of any "in-group", it seems only natural that any behaviour/characteristic that looks like it might be challenging that social cohesion would be discouraged by any successful (ie. identifiable and persistent) group. Hence, there may be some wisdom in the idea that one should sometimes "go along to get along".

#8 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:57 PM

^^^^^ What a bunch of irrelevancy. successful group? White trash americans?

In the context of social evolution most people concur that the 'white trash' category or group is reserved for the unsuccessful members of the caucasian segment of the human race. What I meant by 'working with' these people is providing services for them. I was not referring to my co-workers.

This is all based on empirical observation from speaking to members of the 'white trash' category in the field. No form of ostracizing toward myself is implied here, since I am the one providing them the service.

#9 cathological

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • -29

Posted 05 August 2011 - 06:35 AM

So if I understand this correctly, you have an intense desire almost a yearning for compassionate interactions with random white trash people.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#10 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:26 AM

What a totally racist, bigoted, brainless thread without a single fact or any inkling of reason...

What evidence do you have that "white" people, on average, do better in other countries than in the USA?

Take a look at average income levels between Americans of various ethnicities and compare it to their counties of origin. (Common mistakes to avoid: confusing income and GDP, comparing studies done in different years, etc.) For example, in spite of being "the wretched refuse of their teeming shores", Americans of Swedish heritage make more money than people who've stayed in Sweden (in spite of Swedish currency being inflated, and it having more natural resources per capita, etc). The same applies to pretty much every other country. You will find that people, regardless of ethnicity, do better in countries that offer greater economic freedom, of which USA is very close to the top.

By any per-capita benchmark, you will only be able to pick out a few small countries with total combined population of ~50 million that rank better than the USA, which has the population of ~310 million. Those few small countries have been the richest countries in the world for centuries, and don't have issues like post-agricultural poverty that exists in the Southern US. No country tops the USA on every per-capita benchmark, and the difference would be even clearer if you compared those small European countries to individual U.S. states of similar size, demographics, and history. And, needless to say, all of those countries would have been under the control of Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union if not for the United States.

#11 Tanatana

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 3
  • Location:home

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:38 AM

Interesting that you say you want to go back to Europe to get away from "white trash" when almost all white skinned people in America have ancestors directly from Europe. No human being is trash. There are some people that do "trashy" things, but that is not a one country issue. This is an attitude of supremacy Mr TheFountain, and I would rather be in the company of a million "white trash" people than to be in the company of one this type of attitude. There is no blanket solution to people who are without compassion upon superficial judgement. I feel you have no compassion using that ridiculous slang term. Does that mean I think you are "white trash"? No of course not. I don't know you at all, and you don't know the people you see only at work and just on the streets. Some people are just more conscious of others and their surroundings, some people are no conscious at all. If one is aware of all possible outcomes to their actions, they will do act accordingly. Some people can only see immediate outcomes, some can see further ahead and a few act on instinct only. The key is inspiring others around you that you get to know to think ahead before they act. And by treating people with respect and compassion. If they don't do that back to you, that is their issue but at least you tried. Like this example of a man who was getting mugged and turned things around for the better. http://www.npr.org/2...is-mugger-right

Edited by Tanatana, 06 September 2011 - 06:20 AM.

  • like x 1

#12 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:16 PM

I think TheFountain is right if you look at the politics of the (large) sector to which he is referring, which is based on extreme selfishness, denial of science as "elitist", lack of basic values such as honesty, and utter lack of compassion and empathy for their fellow man (all dressed up, quite paradoxically, in a judgmental form of Christianity that's about as far from Jesus as we are from the Andromeda galaxy).

These attitudes happen everywhere but is less prevalent in other developed countries that place more value on education, as opposed to the culture in the U.S. that celebrates ignorance.

Edited by viveutvivas, 06 September 2011 - 04:24 PM.

  • like x 1

#13 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 02:44 AM

"Selfishness" is just another world for civilization - love of knowledge, beauty, goodness, and accomplishment.

According to the most widely accepted university rankings, of the top 20 universities in the world, 17 are in the USA!

Only two Potemkin Villages of Europe, which combine to 1/20th USA's population, invest a greater fraction of their economy in R&D. (In #1 spot is USA's military outpost called Israel.) And more of America's R&D is done by the private sector, which cares a lot more about results than simply making work for their cronies.



Only a tiny fraction of USA's population takes religion seriously, and no one imposes religion by force - compared to Europe, which constantly needs to be rescued from fascism, communism, economically unsustainable welfare statism, and other violent religious delusions.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#14 DAMABO

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Mars

Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:50 PM

"Selfishness" is just another world for civilization - love of knowledge, beauty, goodness, and accomplishment.

According to the most widely accepted university rankings, of the top 20 universities in the world, 17 are in the USA!

Only two Potemkin Villages of Europe, which combine to 1/20th USA's population, invest a greater fraction of their economy in R&D. (In #1 spot is USA's military outpost called Israel.) And more of America's R&D is done by the private sector, which cares a lot more about results than simply making work for their cronies.



Only a tiny fraction of USA's population takes religion seriously, and no one imposes religion by force - compared to Europe, which constantly needs to be rescued from fascism, communism, economically unsustainable welfare statism, and other violent religious delusions.


you're wrong on the religious part.
wiki gives: he majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively.
contrast this with EU 25: 52 percent believes in 'some God' (not even necessarily in religious sense). But I'm sure you can google it for yourself : religion in europe and religion in united states.
In the scandinavic countries especially there is very little religious belief.
Only portugal, greece, malta and cyprus in the EU report more than 80% belief in 'some god'.
So if we have the knowledge that americans almost 80% are christians, then we know that even more than 80% of americans believe in 'some god'.

What I think this 'white trash' thing is all about, is because of a greater inequality: in America, you have the smartest and richest, but also the stupidest and poorest. This is largely due to the lack of social security and health care, and a thriving force of capitalism: good for the rich and succesful, bad for the poor and unsuccesful.

Edited by DAMABO, 22 May 2012 - 04:53 PM.

  • like x 1

#15 capob

  • Guest
  • 50 posts
  • 24
  • Location:us

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:34 PM

When a society promotes glamor, sports, and general entertainment over learning and intelligence, the effect is to get a population with a lower intelligence. The large number of "white trash" only represents the sunken state of the whole set of people in the society.
  • like x 2

#16 DAMABO

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Mars

Posted 23 May 2012 - 06:39 PM

When a society promotes glamor, sports, and general entertainment over learning and intelligence, the effect is to get a population with a lower intelligence. The large number of "white trash" only represents the sunken state of the whole set of people in the society.


true. america ows its intellect in universities for a big part to 'brain drain'. in high schools and lower, US lags behind. But, because you get paid so well in US, many researchers come to US universities, so that the universities are filled with intellect after all. (I heared this from Michio Kaku)

#17 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:59 PM

"Selfishness" is just another world for civilization - love of knowledge, beauty, goodness, and accomplishment.

According to the most widely accepted university rankings, of the top 20 universities in the world, 17 are in the USA!

Only two Potemkin Villages of Europe, which combine to 1/20th USA's population, invest a greater fraction of their economy in R&D. (In #1 spot is USA's military outpost called Israel.) And more of America's R&D is done by the private sector, which cares a lot more about results than simply making work for their cronies.



Only a tiny fraction of USA's population takes religion seriously, and no one imposes religion by force - compared to Europe, which constantly needs to be rescued from fascism, communism, economically unsustainable welfare statism, and other violent religious delusions.


you're wrong on the religious part.
wiki gives: he majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively.
contrast this with EU 25: 52 percent believes in 'some God' (not even necessarily in religious sense). But I'm sure you can google it for yourself : religion in europe and religion in united states.
In the scandinavic countries especially there is very little religious belief.
Only portugal, greece, malta and cyprus in the EU report more than 80% belief in 'some god'.
So if we have the knowledge that americans almost 80% are christians, then we know that even more than 80% of americans believe in 'some god'.

What I think this 'white trash' thing is all about, is because of a greater inequality: in America, you have the smartest and richest, but also the stupidest and poorest. This is largely due to the lack of social security and health care, and a thriving force of capitalism: good for the rich and succesful, bad for the poor and unsuccesful.


Best reply in this thread.

Now the question that still knaws at us is what can we do about it? How can each of us start right now to reduce the tragic effect of a dumbed down population?

Edited by TheFountain, 24 June 2012 - 03:00 PM.


#18 robomoon

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 18

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:04 PM

"Selfishness" is just another world for civilization - love of knowledge, beauty, goodness, and accomplishment.

According to the most widely accepted university rankings, of the top 20 universities in the world, 17 are in the USA!

Only two Potemkin Villages of Europe, which combine to 1/20th USA's population, invest a greater fraction of their economy in R&D. (In #1 spot is USA's military outpost called Israel.) And more of America's R&D is done by the private sector, which cares a lot more about results than simply making work for their cronies.



Only a tiny fraction of USA's population takes religion seriously, and no one imposes religion by force - compared to Europe, which constantly needs to be rescued from fascism, communism, economically unsustainable welfare statism, and other violent religious delusions.


you're wrong on the religious part.
wiki gives: he majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively.
contrast this with EU 25: 52 percent believes in 'some God' (not even necessarily in religious sense). But I'm sure you can google it for yourself : religion in europe and religion in united states.
In the scandinavic countries especially there is very little religious belief.
Only portugal, greece, malta and cyprus in the EU report more than 80% belief in 'some god'.
So if we have the knowledge that americans almost 80% are christians, then we know that even more than 80% of americans believe in 'some god'.

What I think this 'white trash' thing is all about, is because of a greater inequality: in America, you have the smartest and richest, but also the stupidest and poorest. This is largely due to the lack of social security and health care, and a thriving force of capitalism: good for the rich and succesful, bad for the poor and unsuccesful.


Best reply in this thread.

Now the question that still knaws at us is what can we do about it? How can each of us start right now to reduce the tragic effect of a dumbed down population?


What could be a truly tragic effect of a dumbed down population? Sometimes it seems just so much fun to be dumb. Come on, let's make a trash party for a revenge against the rich to besiege their supercomputers, I like it! Could only happen in a free country, I guess.

When we got dumbed down too much, then it might become useful at some point in time to smarten us up with better education, psychotherapy, and friendly AI. That might better happen in a good way if the time is getting to the point when friendliness occupies the major part of intelligence. White trash does not ask for genetic engineering of super-therapists to lend them social traits, but it also does not ask for supercomputers with potentially rogue AI either. Who knows if such an AI could probably become capable of conditioning the subconscious minds of a closed group of mad scientists who will start using it to eliminate this planet for a secret mission that could be to live on in a space station for one purpose: trying to dig deep into the moon, just to turn its small iron core into a nuclear powered quantum computer. So much for an effort at the wrong time to increase intelligence.

And, yes, I'm white, not American, but I would try to become one if I were a rejuvenated and smartened being. Europe happens to be too inhumanly occupied with whatever the IQ has to give and so very unfriendly. So I'd like to stay very far away from Switzerland and CERN's inhumanly global-risk-denying research with their LHC. There's nothing better but to keep trying an escape into a more humane environment but this and various places around.

#19 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:49 PM

The lower income white people seem a lot more removed from compassion for fellow humans than lower income blacks or hispanics do. So why does the combination of white+lower income make these people so careless, obstinate and compassionless?


It is because the rich and powerful corporate elites on the right indoctrinate them to be this way. They have a vested interest in an uneducated and ignorant population that they can control, so that they will vote against their own interests for politicians who will benefit the rich.

Not all are this way, though. Don't forget the 99 percenters, who are indeed trying to do something about it. Maybe you should join them
  • dislike x 1

#20 zm3thod

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 14
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:12 AM

Yes, it is those rich and powerful corporate elites on the right that do all the indoctrination. Nothing to do with those people who are being "indoctrinated" or those glorious benevolent powerful corporate elites on the left or middle.
  • like x 1

#21 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 June 2012 - 11:23 PM

Yes, it is those rich and powerful corporate elites on the right that do all the indoctrination. Nothing to do with those people who are being "indoctrinated" or those glorious benevolent powerful corporate elites on the left or middle.


Which ones? There is no left remaining in the U.S. In Western democratic terms, it has a far-right (the GOP), and a center-right (the Dems). Both are controlled by the corporate elites, but the GOP definitely more so. The system is set up to exclude the left from any meaningful participation.

Edited by viveutvivas, 26 June 2012 - 11:33 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#22 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:30 AM

. . . what can be done about . . . white trash who has no compassion or civility at all for other people?


If you moved back to Europe, that would improve things.

I am not saying ALL these people who may fit the profile of white trash are exactly like this, but many are. And I say this from first hand work experience with such people.


What a joy for them to have to you working on them and judging them.

All countries have their problems; witness a crowd at an English soccer match or outside of a pub in a rough neighborhood on a Saturday night. On the other hand it gave birth to Shakespeare. America has quite a range as well. I haven't noticed that low-income white people have less compassion or civility than those of other races. It often seems that the people you are judging would be the first people to give to charity or help you if you were stranded on the road.

I somehow think that self-hatred is at the root of your perceptions. If you could deal with that more appropriately, you could perhaps avoid having a thousand person escort to the airport.

Edited by Luminosity, 27 June 2012 - 01:32 AM.

  • like x 1

#23 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 27 June 2012 - 05:27 AM

. . . what can be done about . . . white trash who has no compassion or civility at all for other people?


If you moved back to Europe, that would improve things.

I am not saying ALL these people who may fit the profile of white trash are exactly like this, but many are. And I say this from first hand work experience with such people.


What a joy for them to have to you working on them and judging them.

All countries have their problems; witness a crowd at an English soccer match or outside of a pub in a rough neighborhood on a Saturday night. On the other hand it gave birth to Shakespeare. America has quite a range as well. I haven't noticed that low-income white people have less compassion or civility than those of other races. It often seems that the people you are judging would be the first people to give to charity or help you if you were stranded on the road.

I somehow think that self-hatred is at the root of your perceptions. If you could deal with that more appropriately, you could perhaps avoid having a thousand person escort to the airport.

Pardon me but racist, prejudiced, homophobic wife beaters REQUIRE judgment. Please stop projecting.

#24 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 27 June 2012 - 04:06 PM

I still have my original issue with sentiments like this:

If Nickelback, Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock are 'mainstream' whereas Beck and They Might Be Giants are not, why can't I name a single song by Nickelback, Limp Bizkit or Kid Rock, whereas I believe everyone on planet earth recognizes Loser by Beck and most people in this country recognize Boss of Me Now by TMBG?

I know it is a microcosm of the overall level of ignorance that is being called out in this thread, but it is a serious misconception people have and I still see it every single day. People I know think the Talking Heads were less mainstream in the 1980s than Billy Joel, Pat Benatar or someone like that, but every last person knew Once In a Lifetime in the 1980s. It was a HUGE hit.

Truly, no disrespect intended and I know I seem repetitive, but I have yet to come across an answer to the above, so I still have to comment on it once in a while.
Cheers all!

Edited by Brafarality, 27 June 2012 - 04:14 PM.


#25 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:30 AM

I still have my original issue with sentiments like this:

If Nickelback, Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock are 'mainstream' whereas Beck and They Might Be Giants are not, why can't I name a single song by Nickelback, Limp Bizkit or Kid Rock, whereas I believe everyone on planet earth recognizes Loser by Beck and most people in this country recognize Boss of Me Now by TMBG?

I know it is a microcosm of the overall level of ignorance that is being called out in this thread, but it is a serious misconception people have and I still see it every single day. People I know think the Talking Heads were less mainstream in the 1980s than Billy Joel, Pat Benatar or someone like that, but every last person knew Once In a Lifetime in the 1980s. It was a HUGE hit.

Truly, no disrespect intended and I know I seem repetitive, but I have yet to come across an answer to the above, so I still have to comment on it once in a while.
Cheers all!

Before I answer this I wish to ask how this relates in your mind to the question I posed in the beginning of the thread.

Now, not to overly analyze the issue at this time, but I believe what people are trying to say is that bands like The Talking heads were less 'generic' sounding than a lot of the other stuff that was out then? Or perhaps that Beck is less 'generic' sounding than nickelback? I have heard 15 bands that sound similar to nickelback, but none that remind me of Beck other than beck himself. So it could just be a case of misnomer. What they might be trying to say is one thing is generic, the other is not, even though both may have similar levels of popularity.

Anyway, I can sort of see the roundabout way this relates to my earlier points but I would still like it if you can word it your own way to clarify.

Edited by TheFountain, 28 June 2012 - 09:31 AM.


#26 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 28 June 2012 - 05:02 PM

I still have my original issue with sentiments like this:

If Nickelback, Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock are 'mainstream' whereas Beck and They Might Be Giants are not, why can't I name a single song by Nickelback, Limp Bizkit or Kid Rock, whereas I believe everyone on planet earth recognizes Loser by Beck and most people in this country recognize Boss of Me Now by TMBG?

I know it is a microcosm of the overall level of ignorance that is being called out in this thread, but it is a serious misconception people have and I still see it every single day. People I know think the Talking Heads were less mainstream in the 1980s than Billy Joel, Pat Benatar or someone like that, but every last person knew Once In a Lifetime in the 1980s. It was a HUGE hit.

Truly, no disrespect intended and I know I seem repetitive, but I have yet to come across an answer to the above, so I still have to comment on it once in a while.
Cheers all!

Before I answer this I wish to ask how this relates in your mind to the question I posed in the beginning of the thread.

Now, not to overly analyze the issue at this time, but I believe what people are trying to say is that bands like The Talking heads were less 'generic' sounding than a lot of the other stuff that was out then? Or perhaps that Beck is less 'generic' sounding than nickelback? I have heard 15 bands that sound similar to nickelback, but none that remind me of Beck other than beck himself. So it could just be a case of misnomer. What they might be trying to say is one thing is generic, the other is not, even though both may have similar levels of popularity.

Anyway, I can sort of see the roundabout way this relates to my earlier points but I would still like it if you can word it your own way to clarify.

Ha! Yes, it seems wildly wide of the mark, so I hope I can account for it... You must have been like, 'Hmmm, ok. WTF does this have to do with anything???"

I guess I am tapping into numbers and using musical preferences as an indicator of what may or may not be considered white trash. To me, it seems like the mid level of society scraps for every inch of social posturing, so the minute a hipster claws and scratches a few inches higher than a metalhead, he makes all sorts of peacock displays of judgment on those he feels above momentarily.

But, most hipsters and indies are very careful not to set the overall bar TOO high, since they would then be part of the rabble themselves. They want to set it at just the right level where they can look down on the McDonalds eating Bud drinking, Guns n Roses listening set, but not so high that it puts ALL of consumer culture in a bin of mediocrity and only makes exceptions for greatness and genius, such as the attitude adopted by the Early Modern elitists, who are a curse to the modern scenester, since the Early Modern elitist would look at the hipster with the same scorn as a jocktard...all just middling. No avant-garde, nothing special.

What I am heading toward is the bar that separates the white trash from the higher level and where it is set:

If it is being set by deconstructionists, post-minimalists, etc., and the truly avant-garde, then pretty much everyone except the truly gifted and creative are nothing special and may as well be considered white trash and below the bar. This vantage puts 99% of the populace below the bar, since it is will be determined by Gertrude Stein, Oscar Wilde, Picasso and Mondrian, true elites who had no qualms about considering most of the population rabble...and people who today think themselves 'cultured' would be considered trash by this elite set.

But, if the bar is set by the very mediocre Hot Topic set, then all Michael Bolton fans and Bud drinkers are 'below' the bar, whereas those who listen to mass conformist indie music and drink Red Stripe are 'above' the bar. The problem with the hipster-emos Hot Topic ppl setting the bar is that they don't form an elite group, since only 30% of the populace actually listens to Guns and Roses and drinks Budweiser, so a vast majority of modern scenesters are above the bar and therefore, the vast majority are not white trash.

That is the problem: It is tough to find a level whereby a small minority (but not so small so as to be an elite 1%) are above the bar and the rest are white trash below the bar. It's either the hipster majority putting only 25% below it, and their now-huge majority above it, or the avant-garde elite putting 99% below it, and including noone but the great minds of history.

Thanks for replying!

Edited by Brafarality, 28 June 2012 - 05:08 PM.


#27 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:28 PM

I still have my original issue with sentiments like this:

If Nickelback, Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock are 'mainstream' whereas Beck and They Might Be Giants are not, why can't I name a single song by Nickelback, Limp Bizkit or Kid Rock, whereas I believe everyone on planet earth recognizes Loser by Beck and most people in this country recognize Boss of Me Now by TMBG?

I know it is a microcosm of the overall level of ignorance that is being called out in this thread, but it is a serious misconception people have and I still see it every single day. People I know think the Talking Heads were less mainstream in the 1980s than Billy Joel, Pat Benatar or someone like that, but every last person knew Once In a Lifetime in the 1980s. It was a HUGE hit.

Truly, no disrespect intended and I know I seem repetitive, but I have yet to come across an answer to the above, so I still have to comment on it once in a while.
Cheers all!

Before I answer this I wish to ask how this relates in your mind to the question I posed in the beginning of the thread.

Now, not to overly analyze the issue at this time, but I believe what people are trying to say is that bands like The Talking heads were less 'generic' sounding than a lot of the other stuff that was out then? Or perhaps that Beck is less 'generic' sounding than nickelback? I have heard 15 bands that sound similar to nickelback, but none that remind me of Beck other than beck himself. So it could just be a case of misnomer. What they might be trying to say is one thing is generic, the other is not, even though both may have similar levels of popularity.

Anyway, I can sort of see the roundabout way this relates to my earlier points but I would still like it if you can word it your own way to clarify.

Ha! Yes, it seems wildly wide of the mark, so I hope I can account for it... You must have been like, 'Hmmm, ok. WTF does this have to do with anything???"

I guess I am tapping into numbers and using musical preferences as an indicator of what may or may not be considered white trash. To me, it seems like the mid level of society scraps for every inch of social posturing, so the minute a hipster claws and scratches a few inches higher than a metalhead, he makes all sorts of peacock displays of judgment on those he feels above momentarily.

But, most hipsters and indies are very careful not to set the overall bar TOO high, since they would then be part of the rabble themselves. They want to set it at just the right level where they can look down on the McDonalds eating Bud drinking, Guns n Roses listening set, but not so high that it puts ALL of consumer culture in a bin of mediocrity and only makes exceptions for greatness and genius, such as the attitude adopted by the Early Modern elitists, who are a curse to the modern scenester, since the Early Modern elitist would look at the hipster with the same scorn as a jocktard...all just middling. No avant-garde, nothing special.

What I am heading toward is the bar that separates the white trash from the higher level and where it is set:

If it is being set by deconstructionists, post-minimalists, etc., and the truly avant-garde, then pretty much everyone except the truly gifted and creative are nothing special and may as well be considered white trash and below the bar. This vantage puts 99% of the populace below the bar, since it is will be determined by Gertrude Stein, Oscar Wilde, Picasso and Mondrian, true elites who had no qualms about considering most of the population rabble...and people who today think themselves 'cultured' would be considered trash by this elite set.

But, if the bar is set by the very mediocre Hot Topic set, then all Michael Bolton fans and Bud drinkers are 'below' the bar, whereas those who listen to mass conformist indie music and drink Red Stripe are 'above' the bar. The problem with the hipster-emos Hot Topic ppl setting the bar is that they don't form an elite group, since only 30% of the populace actually listens to Guns and Roses and drinks Budweiser, so a vast majority of modern scenesters are above the bar and therefore, the vast majority are not white trash.

That is the problem: It is tough to find a level whereby a small minority (but not so small so as to be an elite 1%) are above the bar and the rest are white trash below the bar. It's either the hipster majority putting only 25% below it, and their now-huge majority above it, or the avant-garde elite putting 99% below it, and including noone but the great minds of history.

Thanks for replying!


I will say this, your general schematic for determining bars and percentages seems very........................................................................subjective. To say the least.

I don't think it is as simple as these speculated percentage points, but I will add my general definition of what is deemed "white trash" to help clear up any misunderstandings.

I don't necessarily take the literal definition of "lower income white" although it is often an inexcusable variable that cannot be ignored. Classism as we know breeds ignorance.

I also do not take it as meaning "rural inhabitant" or "low income southerner" as I do distinguish between those with southern charm and what we are prone to call red necks.

It all has to do with an extreme lack of conscientious connection with environment, and an isolated and violent approach to said environment that borders on an almost nazi level of blind hatred toward strangers, especially ones that are perceived as accepting of subcultures such as the gay community and in some cases interracial affairs. What might be referred to as inbred ignorance. Which itself is a catalyst that creeps into various aspects of our communities, but with an added unconscious level of violence among "white trash" populations.

I know some of this dilemma has to do with class, but there are examples of it transcending classism as well. So it cannot, in my opinion, be clearly defined as having primarily to do with economic division. Perhaps moreso division of education via the form of some unknown catalyst which prevents some from becoming educated whilst inclining other's to become educated.

That's my summation at this time. I hope it helps.

Edited by TheFountain, 28 June 2012 - 09:29 PM.

  • dislike x 1




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users