Why is it when I look at that picture all I can think of is "Fire grape shot!"
I feel rally s like this are bullshit, you want to get the governments attention. March 200 clean cut people, in tailered suits carrying briefcases into a meeting. Have all the paper work for budget concerns, social impact, policing, taxing structure, extra, extra. Have all the I`s dotted and the T`s crossed.
200 lawyer looking people are far more scarier, than 20 thousand hippies.
huh? In any case potheads are part of the population too, they have every right to dress and act within the boundaries of the law (note that this may or may not actually include smoking marijuana). You may have your prejudices against stoners and whatnot but the same kind of thinking can be applied to any group of people, just because you don't like some aspect of them doesn't mean you can discount their political presence out of hand. Besides, are you suggesting that every social movement in a democracy has to be done through high-powered lawyers and a privileged minority? Because, you know, professional lobbyists have had a splendid impact on society.
So, if you can't dress and speak like a white-collar member of the upper class then you don't deserve a voice? Lovely.
You probably deserve a voice but good luck convincing anyone else you do. Pragmatism > idealism.
I hear those kids from the ghetto can't even speak English. If they don't even care enough to clean themselves up before an interview then they shouldn't be shocked that I'm not hiring them.
MrMister on
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I'd just like to point out that BC Bud is superior to all.
That being said, it can get pretty fucking obnoxious here on 4/20. It was kind of a shitty day today (it snowed yesterday), so that put a damper on things, but when the sun is shining all sorts of stoners come out of the wood work and smoke up publicly. In Vancouver it can get really bad, with Marc Emery usually holding a giant pot smoking rally at the art gallery - thousands of people routinely show up for it, too.
I think generally that marijuana should be legalized and taxed, and maybe that's because it's just so common here, and no one really views it as a big deal. I just have an issue with it because I don't smoke and as a result I get fucking nausea from the smell. Which can be a pretty big problem on 4/20, obviously.
Yeah I was pretty pissed with the fucking snow for 4/20. In Ontario (Where I am from originally) it was like summer temperatures...
Regarding all the hate towards 4/20: I hate stoner idiots and hippies as much as the next man (Marc Emery is a fucking tool) but i dont let that ruin my enjoyment of 4/20. At my old university (UoGuelph) thousands of people meet on this huge grass field and toke up on this date. Sure, there are some hippies and shit, thats inevitable, but the main point of going to me isnt based on some kind of "stick it to the man" mentality , its more about just having a good time. It does feel kinda awesome being there with a few thousand other people, its a spectacle for sure.
Now, I do have to acknowledge that to some people 4/20 is about "sticking it to the man", and it may have started out like that. But to a lot of people its just about having a good time on that day.
So, if you can't dress and speak like a white-collar member of the upper class then you don't deserve a voice? Lovely.
You probably deserve a voice but good luck convincing anyone else you do. Pragmatism > idealism.
I hear those kids from the ghetto can't even speak English. If they don't even care enough to clean themselves up before an interview then they shouldn't be shocked that I'm not hiring them.
EDIT: Actually this is more accurate to my sentiment - why are you reacting as though I don't actually support the idea these people are supporting. That doesn't mean there aren't obvious difficulties in dealing with a wider population in a manner likely to get it supported by the vast majority of people who are not me.
electricitylikesme on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
The fact that people get disenfranchised due to their culture is shitty and inegalitarian. And there's a fine line between acknowledging the existence of such cultural elitism and endorsing it. I find a little too much of the latter in the "blaming the victim" mentality where we ridicule stoners for not presenting themselves as would a white collar professional.
The fact that people get disenfranchised due to their culture is shitty and inegalitarian. And there's a fine line between acknowledging the existence of such cultural elitism and endorsing it. I find a little too much of the latter in the "blaming the victim" mentality where we ridicule stoners for not presenting themselves as would a white collar professional.
The fact that people get disenfranchised due to their culture is shitty and inegalitarian. And there's a fine line between acknowledging the existence of such cultural elitism and endorsing it. I find a little too much of the latter in the "blaming the victim" mentality where we ridicule stoners for not presenting themselves as would a white collar professional.
To an extent though I have no problem with that. For me the argument to legalize marijuana centers on two ideas: (1) that we reduce the harm done and (2) that people should be free to do as much as they please provided it doesn't harm others and they can remain productive members of society.
Stoners easily prove (1), but make me a little more sketchy on point 2. Of course, I don't actually care about that very much because I already agree with the basic laws they want, but I hardly think its "blaming the victim" to say that a huge part of getting the public on side for such legislation would be showing how people still achieve their potential despite using marijuana in a recreational capacity. Stoners don't present that image - they present an image which plays to almost every parents fears about what's going to happen to their kids if marijuana were legally available, however far fetched they may be from the likely impact of such legislation.
It's a lot easier to get the laws changed in our favor then it is to change how people react to imagery, especially when a lot of it is going to be subconscious anyway. Yes, it's not a great state of affairs but it is the state of affairs and people like you and I are not the party which has be convinced.
The fact that people get disenfranchised due to their culture is shitty and inegalitarian. And there's a fine line between acknowledging the existence of such cultural elitism and endorsing it. I find a little too much of the latter in the "blaming the victim" mentality where we ridicule stoners for not presenting themselves as would a white collar professional.
Thank you.
This thread seems to be people saying "Hippies are dumb, and they dress differently than me."
And how many of those people would actually call themselves hippies? Yeah, like 3. Just because someone smokes pot and doesn't wear a suit doesn't make them a hippy, nor does it invalidate anything they have to say. I really dont understand the hate on people here have for these so called "hippies". In response to that picture that was posted, several people joked about killing them. At least they're out demonstrating, doing something that they believe in, instead of sitting online making fun of how other people dress.
I would think the majority of them are there because, "Haha! were smoking pot in public!"
Most of them probably are for legalizeation of it, but not for reasons other than "zomgosh legalize weed cuz I want to smoke it"
JebusUD on
I write you a story
But it loses its thread
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
Hello? The local 'hippies' on this campus are some of the must unmotivated, yet the most vocal group of people I know. Try to get them to volunteer to do something productive (like helping moving food for a food drive) and they'll look at you like you're strange and give you rude remarks.
Now, ask them to attend some anti-anything drive and they're the first ones in line, with the most vulgar t-shirt around. As long as they dont have to do any actual work, they'll be there making the rest of us look like a bunch of college idiots.
With long armpit hair
Sticking out like a sore thumb, smelling like dinosaur dung
These hippies are holier than thou at poorly attended peace marches holding cold veggie dogs
I'm not your homie or pen pal though I unload ink cartridges as Red State demigods
Cause smearing a salad on a SUV cant
Save the black faces at the refugee camp
There is your sterling Sputnik
To compliment your unfurling drug fix
Youve been hoodwinked the secret brotherhood winks as your heroes push it with a
Branded buttocks
Now he's an action-pose doll
Clad in the latest fashion faux-pas
Just another rapping know-it-all trying to de-politicize those big business ties
Let me guess, youre a macrobiotic cuisine prep-cook
With a text book liberal outlook in an oppressed nook
Couch surfing, but your dads got employment history at Halliburton
While you dress like wild mermen
-BusDriver
This is why I think Political Science degrees are worthless. It's quickly becoming the 'Buisness Degree' of hippies (title used to belong to the Philosophy Degree).
Most of them probably are for legalizeation of it, but not for reasons other than "zomgosh legalize weed cuz I want to smoke it"
And? That's the primary reason I want it legalized. It's got some nifty medical uses too but I would much rather just have a better alternative to alcohol.
So, if you can't dress and speak like a white-collar member of the upper class then you don't deserve a voice? Lovely.
Can't? I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the majority of the people in that picture can't dress like professionals to show up and fight for a cause? That the majority of the people in that picture can't speak the way they did when they were little rather than like stereotypical "useless pot-heads"? No, fuck that. If it really were a matter of "can't" your righteous indignation would be notably less laughable, but that isn't the case. Smoking pot isn't like being gay or black or a woman, it is a conscious choice you make to do something you know to be illegal. Shit it's not even physical-dependency-forming like crack making crack-heads more deserving of your pity. If your argument is that it shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't stop you from being a productive member of society and doesn't cause anyone any real harm and that keeping it illegal is crushing the ability of corrections to do its job you need to present a professional, well-kept image so that people will give your argument some consideration. Downtrodden my ass.
ViolentChemistry on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Stoners don't present that image - they present an image which plays to almost every parents fears about what's going to happen to their kids if marijuana were legally available, however far fetched they may be from the likely impact of such legislation.
You don't actually know much at all about that girl because she has a cheek ring. The only reason that people would react so negatively to that mode of dress is that it represents a different and scorned culture. It doesn't strike me as very different from people who discriminate against urban youth because they think their mode of dress and speech mean that they're criminals. In either case, it's mostly harmful prejudice.
Stoners don't present that image - they present an image which plays to almost every parents fears about what's going to happen to their kids if marijuana were legally available, however far fetched they may be from the likely impact of such legislation.
You don't actually know much at all about that girl because she has a cheek ring. The only reason that people would react so negatively to that mode of dress is that it represents a different and scorned culture. It doesn't strike me as very different from people who discriminate against urban youth because they think their mode of dress and speech mean that they're criminals. In either case, it's mostly harmful prejudice.
I know that she is the type of person who wanted to join that culture.
If she is "expressing herself" with her appearance, how can you pretend that her appearance is free of content?
Stoners don't present that image - they present an image which plays to almost every parents fears about what's going to happen to their kids if marijuana were legally available, however far fetched they may be from the likely impact of such legislation.
You don't actually know much at all about that girl because she has a cheek ring. The only reason that people would react so negatively to that mode of dress is that it represents a different and scorned culture. It doesn't strike me as very different from people who discriminate against urban youth because they think their mode of dress and speech mean that they're criminals. In either case, it's mostly harmful prejudice.
No I don't, and like I said, I don't actually care because their position logically makes sense. Put yourselves in the shoes of every concerned parent in the lower and middle class who wants their children to go upwardly mobile though, and imagine what they're thinking about "legalize marijuana" legislation when presented with the image of what they are going to assume, for all intents and purposes, is representative youth who use marijuana.
electricitylikesme on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
So, if you can't dress and speak like a white-collar member of the upper class then you don't deserve a voice? Lovely.
Last time I checked Good Will sold white-collar shirts, ties and dress pants for $20. How much does weed cost these days?
Or is this the part where we pout at the horrible inequities of the society The Man built?
Speaking like a white-collar professional is probably the more difficult part of the equation, and it's substantially more difficult if that's not your native dialect of English. I was raised using the received pronunciation and diction of academic and business English, which makes it much easier for me to present arguments in a way that seems learned and respectable. However, yes, even the clothes are a barrier of entry. To someone without much money, a suit can be quite expensive, and appearing in shabby or ill-fitting clothes makes the speaker seem less respectable. This is especially true if the person doesn't have a regular occasion to wear a suit, and would have to invest in the outfit specifically for the occasion.
This is, of course, more topical to the situation of the poor than it is to college students who want more weed. However, it is a counterpoint to the idea that we should only respect messages that come to us in the language and attire of the privileged.
In this case, I would ask why a person should be forced to take out their piercings to be heard. It's stupid to dismiss people based entirely on the fact that they have a certain manner of dress, just as it would be stupid to dismiss a person for speaking with a particular accent or for otherwise displaying an obvious marker of their background.
If she is "expressing herself" with her appearance, how can you pretend that her appearance is free of content?
I never said her appearance is free of content. What I said was that her appearance is free of the sort of content that should disqualify her from public discourse.
Most of them probably are for legalizeation of it, but not for reasons other than "zomgosh legalize weed cuz I want to smoke it"
And? That's the primary reason I want it legalized. It's got some nifty medical uses too but I would much rather just have a better alternative to alcohol.
Im just saying its not some high and mighty lets go protest this injustice thing. Its just I "want me some weed".
Yes, I'm quite sure it would be simpler to make your case if the subject was not the appearance of middle class white kids at a pot smoking protest.
However, yes, even the clothes are a barrier of entry. To someone without much money, a suit can be quite expensive, and appearing in shabby or ill-fitting clothes makes the speaker seem less respectable. This is especially true if the person doesn't have a regular occasion to wear a suit, and would have to invest in the outfit specifically for the occasion.
Yes MrMister, explain to me how it is for people without much money. Enlighten my beknighted inexperience.
This is, of course, more topical to the situation of the poor than it is to college students who want more weed. However, it is a counterpoint to the idea that we should only respect messages that come to us in the language and attire of the privileged.
It is an attempt to blur the line between people who have no choice and people who choose to appear a certain way.
In this case, I would ask why a person should be forced to take out their piercings to be heard. It's stupid to dismiss people based entirely on the fact that they have a certain manner of dress, just as it would be stupid to dismiss a person for speaking with a particular accent or for otherwise displaying an obvious marker of their background.
I wasn't aware that cheek piercings were an obvious sign of someone's background. It's probably because I don't buy the blurring of the line you are trying to produce between someone with black skin or an accent and a middle class kid who chooses to appear a certain way.
So, if you can't dress and speak like a white-collar member of the upper class then you don't deserve a voice? Lovely.
While you don't have to dress like a suit, I have a problem with the "can't" part, because if you're picking weed over clean clothing and an education, then not being able to get weed legally isn't really the worst of your problems. Last time I heard, a "dime" bag didn't actually cost a dime.
Most of them probably are for legalizeation of it, but not for reasons other than "zomgosh legalize weed cuz I want to smoke it"
And? That's the primary reason I want it legalized. It's got some nifty medical uses too but I would much rather just have a better alternative to alcohol.
As long as someone's admitting it, that's fine for me. What gets me is the folks who will admit to anything but "I wanna be able to get lit without worrying about the cops hassling me", when everyone knows damn good and well you just wanna smoke it.
If she is "expressing herself" with her appearance, how can you pretend that her appearance is free of content?
I never said her appearance is free of content. What I said was that her appearance is free of the sort of content that should disqualify her from public discourse.
I dunno. Piercings in random places that look painful and to me pretty ugly are generally signs of what someone is going to be like. I assume that she is an idiot because that looks like an idiotic place to get a piercing.
JebusUD on
I write you a story
But it loses its thread
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I wasn't aware that cheek piercings were an obvious sign of someone's background. It's probably because I don't buy the blurring of the line you are trying to produce between someone with black skin or an accent and a middle class kid who chooses to appear a certain way.
The lines are blurry. What about the inner city kid who dresses like all his friends? Should we ignore him as well?
Really, I'm curious to know what about not appearing in a suit, or having a piercing, or having dyed hair, is so offensive that it warrants dismissal from public discourse.
Most of them probably are for legalizeation of it, but not for reasons other than "zomgosh legalize weed cuz I want to smoke it"
And? That's the primary reason I want it legalized. It's got some nifty medical uses too but I would much rather just have a better alternative to alcohol.
Im just saying its not some high and mighty lets go protest this injustice thing. Its just I "want me some weed".
Er, different people care about different things. And it's a ban that puts thousands in prison with convicted murderers for having the audacity to use/sell a safer drug than what the government allows so I'd say it's rather protest worthy.
Quid on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I dunno. Piercings in random places that look painful and to me pretty ugly are generally signs of what someone is going to be like. I assume that she is an idiot because that looks like an idiotic place to get a piercing.
Next up: women in heels no longer to be listened to. Those things hurt, are impossible to be active in, and can do unfortunate things to your tendons. What taardvarks women can be.
I dunno. Piercings in random places that look painful and to me pretty ugly are generally signs of what someone is going to be like. I assume that she is an idiot because that looks like an idiotic place to get a piercing.
Well now you're just being ridiculous and judgemental.
If she is "expressing herself" with her appearance, how can you pretend that her appearance is free of content?
I never said her appearance is free of content. What I said was that her appearance is free of the sort of content that should disqualify her from public discourse.
It would be against the law to disqualify her from public discourse.
In reality, she is being dismissed and her opinion given less weight.
I for one am not prepared to cry buckets over the horrendous moral catastrophe of those who join a culture because they like the asthetic of rejecting mainstream involvement being judged as people who have rejected mainstream involvement. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
I dunno. Piercings in random places that look painful and to me pretty ugly are generally signs of what someone is going to be like. I assume that she is an idiot because that looks like an idiotic place to get a piercing.
Next up: women in heels no longer to be listened to. Those things hurt, are impossible to be active in, and can do unfortunate things to your tendons. What taardvarks women can be.
Yeah, heels are pretty silly and I am more likely to take people in platforms or flats seriously.
If she is "expressing herself" with her appearance, how can you pretend that her appearance is free of content?
I never said her appearance is free of content. What I said was that her appearance is free of the sort of content that should disqualify her from public discourse.
No one said it disqualifies her from discourse. Quite the contrary, it is included as a part of her discourse. And that's what makes it counter-productive. Of course, she already knows this. She didn't show up there with the intent of persuading anyone of anything (except maybe to give her some free bud), and that's a problem. That makes the case harder to argue from the plethora of valid arguments in favor of legalization. No one is saying she's not allowed to dress like she does, what people are saying is that presenting herself as she does is counter-productive to her alleged cause, and I'm saying she's well aware of that. I know and have known plenty of hippies. They aren't helping, and are in fact getting in the way. This irritates the fuck out of me. You already have the right to be a hippie anyway, that's not a right that needs to be fought for and that's not the right they're claiming to fight for. Your righteous indignation is misplaced.
So, if you can't dress and speak like a white-collar member of the upper class then you don't deserve a voice? Lovely.
Last time I checked Good Will sold white-collar shirts, ties and dress pants for $20. How much does weed cost these days?
Or is this the part where we pout at the horrible inequities of the society The Man built?
Speaking like a white-collar professional is probably the more difficult part of the equation, and it's substantially more difficult if that's not your native dialect of English. I was raised using the received pronunciation and diction of academic and business English, which makes it much easier for me to present arguments in a way that seems learned and respectable. However, yes, even the clothes are a barrier of entry. To someone without much money, a suit can be quite expensive, and appearing in shabby or ill-fitting clothes makes the speaker seem less respectable. This is especially true if the person doesn't have a regular occasion to wear a suit, and would have to invest in the outfit specifically for the occasion.
This is, of course, more topical to the situation of the poor than it is to college students who want more weed. However, it is a counterpoint to the idea that we should only respect messages that come to us in the language and attire of the privileged.
In this case, I would ask why a person should be forced to take out their piercings to be heard. It's stupid to dismiss people based entirely on the fact that they have a certain manner of dress, just as it would be stupid to dismiss a person for speaking with a particular accent or for otherwise displaying an obvious marker of their background.
You're right. All those girls who never wanted to go out with me in high school because all I ever talked about were cars and videogames were oppressive assholes. *snort* The way you present yourself directly affects the level of influence you can garner with people. This isn't us making rules, this is a fact of persuasion. Pot-heads aren't oppressed. Deal with it.
Posts
huh? In any case potheads are part of the population too, they have every right to dress and act within the boundaries of the law (note that this may or may not actually include smoking marijuana). You may have your prejudices against stoners and whatnot but the same kind of thinking can be applied to any group of people, just because you don't like some aspect of them doesn't mean you can discount their political presence out of hand. Besides, are you suggesting that every social movement in a democracy has to be done through high-powered lawyers and a privileged minority? Because, you know, professional lobbyists have had a splendid impact on society.
I hear those kids from the ghetto can't even speak English. If they don't even care enough to clean themselves up before an interview then they shouldn't be shocked that I'm not hiring them.
We're here!
We're high!
Get... some pink popcorn, Timbits, uhh, Doritos, we're out of tofu, and Beaster said he wanted some of those yogurt smoothies.
Yeah I was pretty pissed with the fucking snow for 4/20. In Ontario (Where I am from originally) it was like summer temperatures...
Regarding all the hate towards 4/20: I hate stoner idiots and hippies as much as the next man (Marc Emery is a fucking tool) but i dont let that ruin my enjoyment of 4/20. At my old university (UoGuelph) thousands of people meet on this huge grass field and toke up on this date. Sure, there are some hippies and shit, thats inevitable, but the main point of going to me isnt based on some kind of "stick it to the man" mentality , its more about just having a good time. It does feel kinda awesome being there with a few thousand other people, its a spectacle for sure.
Now, I do have to acknowledge that to some people 4/20 is about "sticking it to the man", and it may have started out like that. But to a lot of people its just about having a good time on that day.
EDIT: Actually this is more accurate to my sentiment - why are you reacting as though I don't actually support the idea these people are supporting. That doesn't mean there aren't obvious difficulties in dealing with a wider population in a manner likely to get it supported by the vast majority of people who are not me.
But some cultures suck.
But it loses its thread
To an extent though I have no problem with that. For me the argument to legalize marijuana centers on two ideas: (1) that we reduce the harm done and (2) that people should be free to do as much as they please provided it doesn't harm others and they can remain productive members of society.
Stoners easily prove (1), but make me a little more sketchy on point 2. Of course, I don't actually care about that very much because I already agree with the basic laws they want, but I hardly think its "blaming the victim" to say that a huge part of getting the public on side for such legislation would be showing how people still achieve their potential despite using marijuana in a recreational capacity. Stoners don't present that image - they present an image which plays to almost every parents fears about what's going to happen to their kids if marijuana were legally available, however far fetched they may be from the likely impact of such legislation.
It's a lot easier to get the laws changed in our favor then it is to change how people react to imagery, especially when a lot of it is going to be subconscious anyway. Yes, it's not a great state of affairs but it is the state of affairs and people like you and I are not the party which has be convinced.
*"war" referring to whatever their hot button issue with which you're likely to be more moderate is
Thank you.
This thread seems to be people saying "Hippies are dumb, and they dress differently than me."
And how many of those people would actually call themselves hippies? Yeah, like 3. Just because someone smokes pot and doesn't wear a suit doesn't make them a hippy, nor does it invalidate anything they have to say. I really dont understand the hate on people here have for these so called "hippies". In response to that picture that was posted, several people joked about killing them. At least they're out demonstrating, doing something that they believe in, instead of sitting online making fun of how other people dress.
I would think the majority of them are there because, "Haha! were smoking pot in public!"
Most of them probably are for legalizeation of it, but not for reasons other than "zomgosh legalize weed cuz I want to smoke it"
But it loses its thread
Now, ask them to attend some anti-anything drive and they're the first ones in line, with the most vulgar t-shirt around. As long as they dont have to do any actual work, they'll be there making the rest of us look like a bunch of college idiots.
-BusDriver
This is why I think Political Science degrees are worthless. It's quickly becoming the 'Buisness Degree' of hippies (title used to belong to the Philosophy Degree).
Last time I checked Good Will sold white-collar shirts, ties and dress pants for $20. How much does weed cost these days?
Or is this the part where we pout at the horrible inequities of the society The Man built?
Can't? I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the majority of the people in that picture can't dress like professionals to show up and fight for a cause? That the majority of the people in that picture can't speak the way they did when they were little rather than like stereotypical "useless pot-heads"? No, fuck that. If it really were a matter of "can't" your righteous indignation would be notably less laughable, but that isn't the case. Smoking pot isn't like being gay or black or a woman, it is a conscious choice you make to do something you know to be illegal. Shit it's not even physical-dependency-forming like crack making crack-heads more deserving of your pity. If your argument is that it shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't stop you from being a productive member of society and doesn't cause anyone any real harm and that keeping it illegal is crushing the ability of corrections to do its job you need to present a professional, well-kept image so that people will give your argument some consideration. Downtrodden my ass.
You don't actually know much at all about that girl because she has a cheek ring. The only reason that people would react so negatively to that mode of dress is that it represents a different and scorned culture. It doesn't strike me as very different from people who discriminate against urban youth because they think their mode of dress and speech mean that they're criminals. In either case, it's mostly harmful prejudice.
Good stuff? More than twice that. So that $20 won't even force them to skip a baggy if they're being at all responsible with their spending.
I know that she is the type of person who wanted to join that culture.
If she is "expressing herself" with her appearance, how can you pretend that her appearance is free of content?
You know you want to be him.
Speaking like a white-collar professional is probably the more difficult part of the equation, and it's substantially more difficult if that's not your native dialect of English. I was raised using the received pronunciation and diction of academic and business English, which makes it much easier for me to present arguments in a way that seems learned and respectable. However, yes, even the clothes are a barrier of entry. To someone without much money, a suit can be quite expensive, and appearing in shabby or ill-fitting clothes makes the speaker seem less respectable. This is especially true if the person doesn't have a regular occasion to wear a suit, and would have to invest in the outfit specifically for the occasion.
This is, of course, more topical to the situation of the poor than it is to college students who want more weed. However, it is a counterpoint to the idea that we should only respect messages that come to us in the language and attire of the privileged.
In this case, I would ask why a person should be forced to take out their piercings to be heard. It's stupid to dismiss people based entirely on the fact that they have a certain manner of dress, just as it would be stupid to dismiss a person for speaking with a particular accent or for otherwise displaying an obvious marker of their background.
We don't want to stop the exploitation, we strive to become the exploiters.
I never said her appearance is free of content. What I said was that her appearance is free of the sort of content that should disqualify her from public discourse.
Im just saying its not some high and mighty lets go protest this injustice thing. Its just I "want me some weed".
But it loses its thread
Yes, I'm quite sure it would be simpler to make your case if the subject was not the appearance of middle class white kids at a pot smoking protest.
Yes MrMister, explain to me how it is for people without much money. Enlighten my beknighted inexperience.
It is an attempt to blur the line between people who have no choice and people who choose to appear a certain way.
I wasn't aware that cheek piercings were an obvious sign of someone's background. It's probably because I don't buy the blurring of the line you are trying to produce between someone with black skin or an accent and a middle class kid who chooses to appear a certain way.
As long as someone's admitting it, that's fine for me. What gets me is the folks who will admit to anything but "I wanna be able to get lit without worrying about the cops hassling me", when everyone knows damn good and well you just wanna smoke it.
I dunno. Piercings in random places that look painful and to me pretty ugly are generally signs of what someone is going to be like. I assume that she is an idiot because that looks like an idiotic place to get a piercing.
But it loses its thread
The lines are blurry. What about the inner city kid who dresses like all his friends? Should we ignore him as well?
Really, I'm curious to know what about not appearing in a suit, or having a piercing, or having dyed hair, is so offensive that it warrants dismissal from public discourse.
Next up: women in heels no longer to be listened to. Those things hurt, are impossible to be active in, and can do unfortunate things to your tendons. What taardvarks women can be.
It would be against the law to disqualify her from public discourse.
In reality, she is being dismissed and her opinion given less weight.
I for one am not prepared to cry buckets over the horrendous moral catastrophe of those who join a culture because they like the asthetic of rejecting mainstream involvement being judged as people who have rejected mainstream involvement. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Yeah, heels are pretty silly and I am more likely to take people in platforms or flats seriously.
But it loses its thread
No one said it disqualifies her from discourse. Quite the contrary, it is included as a part of her discourse. And that's what makes it counter-productive. Of course, she already knows this. She didn't show up there with the intent of persuading anyone of anything (except maybe to give her some free bud), and that's a problem. That makes the case harder to argue from the plethora of valid arguments in favor of legalization. No one is saying she's not allowed to dress like she does, what people are saying is that presenting herself as she does is counter-productive to her alleged cause, and I'm saying she's well aware of that. I know and have known plenty of hippies. They aren't helping, and are in fact getting in the way. This irritates the fuck out of me. You already have the right to be a hippie anyway, that's not a right that needs to be fought for and that's not the right they're claiming to fight for. Your righteous indignation is misplaced.
You're right. All those girls who never wanted to go out with me in high school because all I ever talked about were cars and videogames were oppressive assholes. *snort* The way you present yourself directly affects the level of influence you can garner with people. This isn't us making rules, this is a fact of persuasion. Pot-heads aren't oppressed. Deal with it.