You can identify "welfare moms"? You should totally post an article describing how you've managed to ID the economic status of people remotely.
Either that, or check your goddamn privilege and stop making assumptions about people.
Either that, or check your goddamn privilege and stop making assumptions about people.
When looking at any problem, social or otherwise, the newly informed that become champions are just as important to the very passionate and an entire movement. We don't need to say "Good job" every time someone turns around, but we don't need to beat them up either.
(edit) My apologies, looks like I commented off thread...this was in response to forgotten pass' comment.
You do not get it boss. He did not say he was wrong about assuming their social status, but he was in mistake for assuming they had better spend their money else where other than on a smartphone. For all we know he still looks at those people as "welfare moms."
Edit: I mean I'm aware of 'welfare queen' as an insult but I've never seen 'welfare mom' have that same meaning, or anything other than 'mom on welfare'. And when you're talking about socioeconomic status 'welfare' doesn't have to be quite literal, just signifying a level of income.
If "welfare mom" was an insult, it would probably refer to that.
This is used in race studies but also class studies for instance 'chav' in the UK and your use works much the same way. It means you are identifying someone in a way that it is most likely they would not identify themselves.
You are matching your perception of someone with your pre-existing notions of them - typifying them in a sense. There are so many things to consider, really.
If you see someone in a Lamborghini, you might assume they are rich. But they may in fact be massively in debt. Therefore the analysis becomes a social one - about there access to funds or cars and not necessarily related to their economic status.
If you see a mother with a phone you think she couldn't / shouldn't be able to afford (I realise they used this example as a past belief but may as well use it). The phone could have been a gift, it could have been won - there are so many factors that you are reducing to one.
The point of identifying a trend is to reduce the factors. If there isn't in fact a trend, that's when you look very closely at the individual person, or that's the point where you embarrassedly drop the subject because you made a false correlation.
Side note: I consider you rich if you can make payments on expensive-enough things, even if your debt is greater than your assets.
You do know that this is hurting, not helping, your case right? Unless your goal is to yell until everyone agrees with you, in which case be my guest.
I agree with the general sentiment of the over the top outraged post you quoted but obviously, as pointed out, it is not the best way of putting it. However, I agree that people shouldn't need to be given a reason to not judge someone else for a variety of reasons, especially the number of judgments going on in his post. 1) that being on welfare and having a child is a negative 2) that a mother with a child on welfare should not own a smart phone 3) that children who are clothed shoddily are in some way affecting the children? The children do not know what is shoddy, us adults and out class biases place that on them 4) that a mother on welfare with a child who is clothed shoddily should not own a smartphone / mother neglects child because she can't dress her child well but has a smartphone.
So with those put out there. I find it personally difficult to read these types of posts because I am aware that even the slightest aggression or looking down on someone in an explanation of why you shouldn't say or think in that way generates massive controversy, as it is here, but in this case they is be overly hostile. And seriously, outrage is generated by people around these parts of the web for what they see as political correctness OTT but in reality it is a network of assumptions and judgements etc that create hostility, and I see attitudes such as the one this guy said he had before his brother pointed the flaws out to him as a problem.
So, my question which I have long windedly led you to is - how would you approach someone on this topic with the intention of persuading them that judgment is really irrelevant to any situation you are in, especially if you are judging people less well off than yourself.
Like any disagreement, I don't know what I'll say in advance, because it's such a situational on-the-fly decision. I know my limited chunk of understanding on the issues and where I stand on them, that's all the preparation I need. Using that I can keep the conversation going instead of reciting prepared talking points. Especially not talking points from the Internet I don't fully comprehend but am are assured are right. Even if I don't change someone's mind in the slightest, I'd rather talk over the issue and understand a perspective I don't agree with instead of showing off just how right I am.
What I'm checking right now is whether I'm on tumblr. Strange, I don't seem to be.
And you assume that generalpf has privilege based on significant but not-certain attributes they show... interesting.
Women using EBT cards at the grocery store with their kids? Not sure what is so difficult to identify.
check your goddamn privilege
These kinds of hackneyed ad-hominem classist catchprases really do not contribute to the conversation.