Living The Dream: What Do You Own – Really?

[The Rev]

I see, so choosing to have a conversation that does not involve being funny is wrong in your opinion.

Yeah, that's totally what I said. Make me laugh or GTFO. 

What if I choose to do neither?

[Worm Rider]

My balls. These balls are mine. I'm gonna recombine my genes, randomly assort the ones I got from my folks, and shoot 'em out my pee hole. So FUCK YOU.

[Disco Pickle]

I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.

I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?

Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.

Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.

There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.

A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?

I would say not putting every effort into a plan to get yourself out of that neighborhood (or out from under that bridge) is part of the reason you'll remain unhappy.  More than any other time in the history of this planet we have resources available to teach yourself something new at the some of the lowest costs possible.  You don't HAVE to learn it from an institution.  Knowledge studied, gained, and applied will never guarantee you anything, but then there are no guarantees in life.  That's as it should be, IMO.  Attempting to socially engineer a win/win for all of mankind is the biggest pipe dream I've ever heard of.

But then, I'm a heartless libertard bastard who adheres to a philosophy of Philosophía Krateítõ Phõtôn, and for any not willing to make time in their lives to do the same, and attempt to better their lot, I have little sympathy.

 I butt heads with a few on this board about that, and I understand that I am the exception, not the rule, to fighting and bringing yourself out of abject poverty with no family help (close friends did help, but that will get me on to tribalism and on a tangent better saved for an O:KM I've been thinking on for months)  but I don't deviate from something I really believe to be true, and neither does anyone else here, and that's cool as hell to me.

[The Rev]

I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.

I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?

Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.

Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.

There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.

A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?

I would say not putting every effort into a plan to get yourself out of that neighborhood (or out from under that bridge) is part of the reason you'll remain unhappy.  More than any other time in the history of this planet we have resources available to teach yourself something new at the some of the lowest costs possible.  You don't HAVE to learn it from an institution.  Knowledge studied, gained, and applied will never guarantee you anything, but then there are no guarantees in life.  That's as it should be, IMO.  Attempting to socially engineer a win/win for all of mankind is the biggest pipe dream I've ever heard of.

But then, I'm a heartless libertard bastard who adheres to a philosophy of Philosophía Krateítõ Phõtôn, and for any not willing to make time in their lives to do the same, and attempt to better their lot, I have little sympathy.

 I butt heads with a few on this board about that, and I understand that I am the exception, not the rule, to fighting and bringing yourself out of abject poverty with no family help (close friends did help, but that will get me on to tribalism and on a tangent better saved for an O:KM I've been thinking on for months)  but I don't deviate from something I really believe to be true, and neither does anyone else here, and that's cool as hell to me.

Let's not conflate an immediate choice with any hopes and plans for the future. Most people in this circumstance have little choice but to live in the here and now, regardless of what they are working for as far as the future is concerned.

[Salty]

But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.

I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.

No. I mean to say that being able to make such choices are a luxury.
For example, saying "I'm not going to eat any animal products." is a luxury.
Many, many people eat what they get when they get it and are happy for that much.
Things White People Like: Needlessly rejecting goods others would kill for due to flights of fancy.

[Phox]

But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.

I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.

No. I mean to say that being able to make such choices are a luxury.
For example, saying "I'm not going to eat any animal products." is a luxury.
Many, many people eat what they get when they get it and are happy for that much.
Things White People Like: Needlessly rejecting goods others would kill for due to flights of fancy.

Precisely. Sometimes you don't have the choice and you are simply without. 

[kingyak]

There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.

A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?

On the first question, I don't think "unhappy" is really the right word. A mother whose child needs something that can't be provided should definitely be upset, but if she dwells on that fact to the point that it robs her of all possibility of joy (of the temporary kind--again, rainbows and unicorns are unattainable for everyone IMO), especially to the exclusion of at least trying to do something about it, then yes, she's to some extent choosing her own unhappiness. At some point you have to either do something or accept that nothing can be done and make the best you can of it (even if the best is "try to make the most of the time we have until the lack of medicine kills the kid," although, as has already been pointed out, that's an extreme and unlikely case). Yes, life sucks sometimes, but letting the suck define your life only guarantees it's never going to get better.

On the second, absolutely. Just because it's an option most people wouldn't take doesn't make it any less of an option. I personally prefer to live in neighborhoods that a lot of my peers consider "bad" (not crack alley or hardcore gang territory, but economically depressed, slightly crumbling blue-collar/minority neighborhoods). The rent's cheaper, people have more respect for your privacy, and crime's usually low. And there are some people who honestly do prefer the uncertainty of homelessness to the demands of being a citizen. Humans can get used to anything if it goes on long enough, which is part of the reason it's so easy for Tea Party types to convince people who really don't have anything that they've got something that the "freeloaders" are trying to take away from them.

[kingyak]

But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.

I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.

No. I mean to say that being able to make such choices are a luxury.
For example, saying "I'm not going to eat any animal products." is a luxury.
Many, many people eat what they get when they get it and are happy for that much.
Things White People Like: Needlessly rejecting goods others would kill for due to flights of fancy.

That I can agree with you on.

[Disco Pickle]

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to imply that it will or even should happen over night.  The search for an instant solution, or instant gratification is a plague on the species, IMO.

Everything worth doing or having does and should take effort, even extraordinary effort.  Otherwise, like Nigel mentioned before, how will you appreciate it when you do get it?  You won't, and you're more likely to piss it away.

I still think you can find happiness regardless of your monthly take home.  I did for years, mostly through books and my friends who are, most of them, still in the same financial situation I was in.

People putting their wants before their needs also has a place here in this conversation, but I've had a little too much scotch to elaborate eloquently with my own thoughts about it.

[The Rev]

There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.

A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?

On the first question, I don't think "unhappy" is really the right word. A mother whose child needs something that can't be provided should definitely be upset, but if she dwells on that fact to the point that it robs her of all possibility of joy (of the temporary kind--again, rainbows and unicorns are unattainable for everyone IMO), especially to the exclusion of at least trying to do something about it, then yes, she's to some extent choosing her own unhappiness. At some point you have to either do something or accept that nothing can be done and make the best you can of it (even if the best is "try to make the most of the time we have until the lack of medicine kills the kid," although, as has already been pointed out, that's an extreme and unlikely case). Yes, life sucks sometimes, but letting the suck define your life only guarantees it's never going to get better.

On the second, absolutely. Just because it's an option most people wouldn't take doesn't make it any less of an option. I personally prefer to live in neighborhoods that a lot of my peers consider "bad" (not crack alley or hardcore gang territory, but economically depressed, slightly crumbling blue-collar/minority neighborhoods). The rent's cheaper, people have more respect for your privacy, and crime's usually low. And there are some people who honestly do prefer the uncertainty of homelessness to the demands of being a citizen. Humans can get used to anything if it goes on long enough, which is part of the reason it's so easy for Tea Party types to convince people who really don't have anything that they've got something that the "freeloaders" are trying to take away from them.

Live in the situation in question for 10 or 15 years, then answer again. people can get worn down, no, ground to dust under this kind of constant and unrelenting pressure.

[kingyak]

Live in the situation in question for 10 or 15 years, then answer again. people can get worn down, no, ground to dust under this kind of constant and unrelenting pressure.

I think we're operating on different definitions of "happiness" and "unhappiness" here. I consider them both to be transitory emotional states, so unless you're clinically depressed, fighting for survival, or in constant pain (I'd say the only time in my life I was truly incapable of experiencing any level happiness was the last day or two before I got a tooth that had been abscessed for two weeks pulled, when it hurt so bad I couldn't even sleep), there you can still feel happiness. You seem to be defining happiness as "feeling good more often than feeling bad" and unhappiness as "feeling bad more often than feeling good." Under that definition, I think I pretty much agree with you. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, this thread really exploded.

I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.

As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.

Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.

Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.

I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.

Pretty sure at least two of us are below the poverty line. But it doesn't matter what the board demographics are when you're making general statements that would seem to include the majority of the population. If you want to refer to the options available to the board population only, then you need to be more specific.

Furthermore, while most people in the US do have access to options that would improve their lives, many people in the US are unaware of those options. Your final paragraph smacks quite a lot of victim-blaming, and while it skirts the edge of a valid point, it's a little too Tea Party style for my tastes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Do you think that people who are depressed from ongoing constant stress related to survival are making a choice to be unhappy?

Depends on what you mean by depressed. If you're referring to clinical depression, no. I didn't feel the need to specify "You can always be happy unless you have a psychological condition that prevents you from being happy" for the same reason I wouldn't specify "If you drop something it will always fall to the ground, unless you're in space."

If you're talking about self-pity, then yes.

I think Wilson's "winner scripts" and "loser scripts" apply here.* If you have a "winner script," you can always find some kind of happiness barring exceptional or extreme circumstances. If you have a "loser script," you'll always be unhappy no matter how fortunate you are.

*And I can't believe I'm saying that, because winner/loser scripts are one of R.A.W.'s ideas that I've never been able to fully buy into, since the concept completely ignores economic reality and in some cases (as the depression example illustrates) physical reality.

I am talking about clinical depression, which under impoverished and other highly stressful situations is a very common occurrence. I agree with you to some extent but I think your statements are far too general and sweeping.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, this thread really exploded.

I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.

As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.

Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.

Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.

I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.

It cuts both ways. You're absolutely right that most people in "first world countries" (and certainly most people who post on internet forums) do have more choices than they acknowledge, but since making those choices would mean rethinking their comfort levels regarding quality of life and security, most people don't consider them real choices.

On the other hand, assuming that there's always an option to improve your life ignores the realities of those who actually do live in poverty. There's a certain point where the need to survive really does physically and mentally prevent you from improving your life. If you're working 2 (or more) jobs to provide food and shelter for your children, you're going to have trouble finding the time to look for a better job, much less train or go to school for a better one, or even use skills you have to supplement your income.

Ha! Suddenly we're on the same side of the issue.

[kingyak]

I think we've been closer to the same side all along that you think we have.