It’s a good bet that a waitress that spends 5K on a billboard doesn’t have much disposable cash left to feed the hungry.
Okay, listen up, all Dopers in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, London, Tokyo…heck, any metropolitan area with a population greater than, say, one million.
Due to the use of blistering and pungent sarcasm from Doghouse Reilly, you are now to restrict your Pit complaints to bitching about local mass transit, your IMHO observations to where to obtain the best pizza by the slice, and your Cafe Society threads to the upcoming ballet and opera seasons.
Further commentary and opinion on non-urban(e) matters will be restricted to good, honest Sons and Daughters of the Soil. Keep your liberal, red necktie-wearing, international banker comments to yourself.
[sub]Nice backass elitism there, Dog. How’s things out there in Hoi Polloi?[/sub]
Kind of a funny response, given that the premise of this thread seems to be that members of the waitressing class shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions on public policy. And if that’s not the premise of the thread, why go to such great lengths to emphasize that the person renting the billboard is a waitress?
[sub]BTW, hon, “Hoi Polloi” isn’t a place. Perhaps you mean, “among the”?[/sub]
It’s mentioned frequently that’s she’s a waitress to point out that it’s likely a large portion of her income she’s throwing away, not that she’s of any particular class.
Ooh, assumptions, assumptions! How do we know that this woman isn’t endowed with a multi-million dollar inheritance, but keeps her waitress job because she loves it? Or because she lets that money sit, gaining interest that she uses to underwrite causes that she believes in, while living humbly on money from the waitressing job.
We can make every assumption we want about this woman’s financial state, and they’re all complete conjecture, and furthermore speculation on matters that are none of anybody’s business.
But whether I say “Under God” in the pledge is her business?
I didn’t notice that from the OP, whom you seem to be directly attacking with the “Manhattan editor” crack. If the billboard-putter-upper had been, say, a Manhattan editorial assistant with a salary of $20,000 per, I’ll bet this thread still would have been started.
Figure of speech. Us city slickers with our shiny shoes and fancy-schmancy educations have a decided weakness for metaphor.
Perhaps, but do you really think the thread title would have made such a point of her job, something like, “Can I edit your copy, hon, and shove God down your throat”? Nah, it seems to me that while the OP and a few others would have been offended by the billboards no matter who put them up, they were doubly offended by the fact that it was put up by (heavens!) a waitress, of all people, who really ought to be tucking away her pennies and (if she must) throwing away cash to further the cause of ladling soup for fellow members of the downtrodden. The very thought that she might choose to spend it furthering ideas–which, after all, lie in the intellectual province of her betters–why, why, I feel faint, Prissy, and must lie down! Bring me my lavender-scented handkerchief and tell the scullery maid to quit dawdling and bring me another mint julep, toot sweet, before I have a word with the overseer!
No, you have a decided weakness in the realm of correct grammatical usage.
Point A: No, no, I’d have to disagree with you; Eve likes to make up humorous thread titles, and if the subject had been a plumber or a CPA or a urologist or whatever, she’d have worked that profession in, too. Especially if it had been a urologist.
Point B: Do you need me to explain the term “figure of speech,” or “metaphor,” or both?
Point A: Must confess that the humor escaped me in this case.
Point B: I am curious regarding what’s apparently your personal definition of the word “metaphor”. “Hoi polloi” means “the masses”; what’s metaphorical about that? My point was that it sounds a little nonsensical to say “out there in Th’Masses” as opposed to “among the masses”; the former usage sounds as if you believe “the masses” is equivalent to some physical place. Unless you’re using some arcane sort of metaphor, I suppose. :rolleyes:
Here’s a dictionary. Look up “metaphor.” Save me the time of digging up a few dozen literary references which forward an abstract concept as a physical place, please? Do me the simple favor of accepting that I know what the fuck “hoi polloi” means?
{Moderator hat on} If you want to keep hounding my grammar, start a new Pit thread, please. Everyone hates these hijacks-in-dialogue. {Moderator hat off}
Those grammar nitpicks are really proving your point, Doghouse. Now I realize that Eve was indeed trying to put down the waitress because she wasn’t an espresso-sipping journal-editing urbanite. Your crushing grammar-based logic has taking me me by the hand and shown me the way.
A bit of doggerel comes to mind . . . something about “a man convinced against his will . . .”
You might try looking up “sarcasm” as well as “metaphor”.
Scullery maids wash dishes; they do not fetch drinks. The very idea!
My credentials: I am a fence-sitter, AKA an agnostic.
Here’s what puzzles me: what’s wrong with her using her money as she sees fit? Granted, I would rather she have spent her money on, say, helping fund a food bank; but obviously, she feels strongly about this issue. Maybe she thinks that her money is better spent in a broader sense (ie, advocating her viewpoint) than in a particular sense (ie, practicing her view point).
But a lot of people seem to think that she is cramming her point of view down their throat by putting up a billboard; and I get the feeling that these are the same people who would scream if the “Fundies” were to complain about the content of a television show or a movie. “Geez, if you don’t want to watch it, turn it off!” Well, if you don’t want to read a billboard, look away!!! What’s so hard to understand about the concept of free choice and free will?
I have read the threads in here making fun of church signs. Hell, some of them I find witty, some stupid, most of them are, “Ehh”. In other words I could care less. But I don’t want to make them stop putting up their signs. It’s THEIR religion, THEIR choice, THEIR point of view, after all. They can post signs on their property 'til you can’t even see the church, for all I care…knock themselves out. shrugs
At the same time, BTW, (for all the “Fundies” out there…what’s wrong with understanding that there are people who don’t believe as you do?? Get a life and let other people have theirs. In matters such as this, I tend to adhere to a rule that I think came from an old legal maxim (unsure here, but I like the concept): your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose. You want to espouse Christianity/Hinduism/Druidism? Fine, go ahead; just don’t come knocking on my door (at least, more than once). You want to have freedom FROM religion? Fine, go ahead; but don’t scream at me when I display a US flag next to my creche at Christmas.
In other words (BOTH SIDES NOW)…if you want to have a point of view, you need to let someone else have theirs…WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING SAID VIEWPOINT.
“C’n I freshen your coffee, hon? And shove God down your throat?”
Shove God down your throat?? No way…she’s just practicing her freedom of speech to espouse her point of view. No one driving by is forced to stop and read it, much less then be forced to accept her point of view. Just like here in the SDMB. Just because
someone writes an inflammatory header about, say, nuking Afghanistan, doesn’t mean that everyone who sees it is forced to read the post or adhere to the poster’s point of view.
Ah confess, mah deah, we have been Brought Low since the Recent Unpleasantness.
But still! One must keep up appearances, even if it comes to the point of getting the white trash in.