Well I can assure you I’ve only ever recommended seeing a Dr if I’m *sincerely *concerned for someone’s health.
If others don’t know your circumstances I’m not sure how they can avoid this classism, but now that I am more informed, I will assume less in future.
For many of us foreigners it’s also shorthand for “consult someone with medical knowledge such as a physician, nurse or pharmacist”. Now, I know that in the US the person dispatching pills may not know anything about medicine, but neither do ayudantes de farmacia in Spain: they are supposed to know when to call the person with the actual pharmaceutical degree for a question, though. And, unlike doctors in the US, pharmacists don’t call “saying good morning” a medical act and have a billing code for it; they also cannot order X-rays but for questions about medication or which can be treated with OTC remedies, they’re better than an MD.
Rural here too, although I’ve got a mix of political and social persuasions around me. I’m still trying to figure out the folks down the road with the stars and bars hanging in front of their house. This is Oregon. I see no good way to interpret that at all.
I vacation in Western Pennsylvania, and I’m a little leery about taking my son when he’s old enough to read. Proudly displaying a sign on your lawn that says “Trump That Bitch” is mind boggling. What the fuck ever happened to polite discourse?
Also, the sheer number of f-bombs that your fellow Pennsylvanians can drop at a campsite is impressive. I’m pretty sure the only adjective they used was “fuckin’” and thought nothing of screaming “FUUUUCK!” at the top of their lungs. Dude. There are children everywhere here.
Watching the drunk grandmother get restrained at Red Bridge campground was pretty giggle inducing though. My wife and I still use “I’m not fuckin’ drunk! You want to see drunk?! I’ll fuck that car up and show you drunk!” as a response when we remark about the other’s lack of composure. 
Yeah yeah, there you go flaunting your privilege, you non-american with actual health care you.
Here is a post where I point out a classist viewpoint.
Also, this thread shows quite a bit of classist viewpoints.
The OP of this thread is a great example of classist bias.
Discussing expensive items - kobe beef, for example - isn’t inherently classist. Thinking poor people should only be allowed unpleasant food, as an example, is classist.
There is a bit of history around Oregon. You’d think stuff like that would have long since died, but even shunned ideologies can be tenacious.
Either that or Dukes of Hazzard fans( very nearly as bad 
).
Just to echo the inestimable Tamerlane, yeah. ThisisOregon.
This is one goddamn lily-white state, and our history of government-instituted, -sanctioned, and -condoned racial bigotry is the reason.
.
Thank you for the examples of what you are seeing as such.
Now, can you tell me how those threads could have gone differently that would not have been experienced as classist by you?
Clearly some people believe that prices should be determined by market forces as long as there is competition and alternatives and do not believe that such is gouging. Is that position, no matter how expressed, classist, or is there a way to express that position that would not be?
The 2009 op suggesting replacing food stamps with real food for poor was certainly a political position that presumes poor people, especially urban poor people, oh no dancing, especially minority urban poor people, cannot be trusted to spend food stamps wisely, one common in many conservative circles including among many who are rural and at most lower middle class themselves … but the overwhelming number of responses were against the concept. What would you wish was different? Would you prefer we did not have members who argued what are for this board minority positions such as the one expressed in the op? Or was there a way to phrase the op differently that presented the argument in a more acceptable manner?
Would there have been any way anyone could have defended Trump’s proposing that very idea that would not have rung as classist? Certainly the overwhelming number of responses were arguing that the Trump proposal was shaming, humiliating, and paternalistic. Not all of course. But how can we maintain a membership of diverse political perspectives inclusive of conservative base talking points without having those views be part of the discussion?
In regards to what was in this thread called “male centrism” we have gotten to a point in which the importance of presenting ideas that may be unpopular or even offensive to some as concepts is recognized as important to preserve even if they may need to be resubmitted with more consideration as to wording, and casual snide misogyny and objectification for no reason and of no real point other than hurr-hurring is to hopefully be called out consistently. Does that have a parallel in your experiences of a board “pretty damn hostile” to the lower SES demographic?
Most people I meet here are wonderful. It makes the assholes really stand out.
DSeid, I don’t doubt your sincerity, but man, I wish you’d take that into another thread. It’s distracting from the main topic in this one. It doesn’t have to be in the Pit, either, if you want a serious discussion, it can be in GD or even IMHO. To the extent that classism exists on the Dope, by all means, go after it (assuming that’s your intent).
Not a demand (invalid and inappropriate as that would be), just a request.
The last thread wasn’t just classist – it was bordering on farce. (Seriously, protein mush? What kind of morons come up with this shit?)
Just to be clear - it isn’t always that a topic or thread is classist - usually it’s individual posters who express classist views.
Because this is somewhat off topic I’m going to spoiler it to make it easy to skip over for those not wanting the diversion
[spoiler]
Being able to get around is enormously important here in 2018 America. Making sure the disadvantaged, the elderly, and the disabled can get around is a key factor in whether or not those groups become poor or remain poor. People in the lower part of the ladder need to get around to buy food, work, or go to the doctor - because the jobs and services that allow the upper middle class to do all that from home take money and are generally unavailable to the poor. Home grocery delivery? Yes, most (but not all) people these days have sufficient internet access to use an app for that, but delivery adds onto the cost of groceries and food stamps don’t pay delivery charges. Work from home? Very few lower income jobs allow for that.
So… where there are lots of urban poor things like trains and buses and, yes, taxi services, become important. If a so-called “ride-sharing” app enables the poor to get around at least as cheaply as the alternatives it’s a good thing - but if it drives the cost up while or after eliminating the competition it’s a very bad thing for the poor. I will note that it does not require active malice, it just has to have that effect to be a bad thing. I find that those who worship the most at the altar of the Free Market tend to be those who have been winners in the system, not so much the folks whose lives are disrupted and made more difficult.
Yes. That is a classist attitude: the poor are different, less capable, child-like and/or criminal, need controls imposed on them. It’s hardly new. And it can just as easily be held by the lower classes as the upper, just as there are self-loathing minority individuals.
There is nothing inherently classist in asking “is there a more effective or efficient way to give aid to the needy?” This is what made the OP classist:
The contrary to free market and Republican line that the government shouldn’t do anything because the government sucks at doing things, the OP suggests the government directly feed the poor. Because apparently the poor suck at feeding themselves so much that crappy government service is better than what they do. In other words, the OP wouldn’t want anyone telling him what to eat, but the poor should eat what we deign to provide and STFU and be grateful for that pittance.
The premise that the food for the poor should taste crappy because they’re a category of human being that shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy eating.
The notion that the poor are deliberately giving themselves diabetes and poor health to further sponge off society but sucking down medical care.
Ways in which a non-classist could have discussed from the right wing camp (I’m not going to say Trump because these notions and attitude go back to at least Ronald Reagan in their current forms)
try to argue that historically commodities were distributed to the poor rather than aid money (even aid money restricted in use) and that history might have something going for it, what with highly successful empires like Ancient Rome maintaining the urban poor via that system
try to argue that there would be some sort of savings in purchasing such bulk quantities of food as only a government could manage.
attempted to show examples of successful commodity distribution programs.
In other words, argue from facts rather than the emotional stance that poor people on food stamps are free-loaders, irresponsible, and so forth.
You can argue for unpopular ideas without attacking other people. It is possible to discuss how to tackle poverty without referring to the poor in terms comparable to those used for vermin. It’s hard, though, when one party’s belief is that all poor people are minorities, urban, lazy, stupid, immoral, and the product of multiple generations of that and any examples to the contrary are seen and unusual exceptions - such as saying “this white person is on food stamps, they aren’t all minorities” when the fact is most people on food stamps are caucasian. Yes, a higher proportion of minorities are on food stamps vs. not, but whites are still the majority in this country and in absolute numbers most food stamp recipients are white. Anyone, I don’t want to recap the entire thread here and if you want to discuss this further it would probably be best, as already suggested, to take it to another thread.[/spoiler]
A surprisingly large number. Remember, I have not only been on food stamps in the past (now several years in the past), but I work as a cashier in a grocery store. I have customers unload whoppers on me on a regular basis. It’s rather appalling what some people will say in public. While the degree of farce or sarcasm in text-only messageboards is up for debate, in real life I can tell you some of these people are so serious it’s scary.
Eighteen pages into thread that honestly seems pretty played out digressing to explore some statements made is, I think, not so out there, and I have no interest in creating a whole thread, but sure I’ll follow your lead and spoiler.
[spoiler]It seems to me that the vast majority of this board, me included, would tend to be more likely to agree with your opinions spoilered above than to disagree. It does tend to be more standard Right, if not hard Right, talking points. And as someone Left of center (nowhere near as Left as many to be sure) I think we want those people here expressing those ideas here. We who disagree with those opinions benefit, I think, by not having an echo chamber for our thoughts, by having to argue against those perspectives coherently and having our positions challenged, and sometimes those of the other side can benefit too. To my mind the board’s health is served by having a diversity of posters and a diversity of perspectives expressed.
Having a vocal minority of individual posters articulating the classist positions that are part and parcel of the Conservative oeuvre since at least Reagan, and having them usually fairly well argued against … I’m just confused as to how that makes this place hostile to those of lower SES.
And that probably plays out this digression. [/spoiler]
I look at the title of the thread, reread the OP and see where the thread ended up.
Shit.
Probably my last response in the DSeid class bias digression.
[spoiler]
Respectful discourse discourse is not a problem. But I have been accused of being a pig-nosed obese slob who works at Wal-Mart when such respect broke down. Repeatedly referring to the poor as losers, slobs, fat, obese, lazy, etc. is not respectful discourse. It’s not just subject matter, it’s also tone and wording.[/spoiler]
And here we’ve got most of this thread.
I’m just too exhausted to try to educate anymore, especially when so many just don’t want to hear it. My dial goes from apathy to rage with nothing in the middle. It’s obviously not just SDMB, it is everywhere. I find myself with fewer and fewer internet hangouts where I even want to bother to engage anymore.
What education would be needed in that thread? I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Someone shares a story of an abusive relationship and someone’s response is “well, she’s got bigger problems than that if she stayed in it”. That’s fucked up.
That and the whole “both people are bad” - ugh.