I never hit that point until I was over 40, and then it lasted for less than a year (until my first child was born).
Hey, I understand the thrust of the article – “I’m internet famous, but not internet rich.”
But hardly anybody is internet rich. And it has always been that fame != fortune although some manage to make it work for them.
I’ve heard about your computer work; don’t give up the music gigs!
Perhaps I should go back into plumbing? (No, not that again!!)
Maybe that’s because what people often say about my remarks is to insist that I actually said something other than what I did? When people’s replies don’t relate to what I said, it is awkward. I pick apart people’s replies and ask for clarification instead of presuming what they mean. And usually, they don’t answer any of those questions, nor respond to what I actually wrote. So how am I the one who is not engaging? When people paraphrase me wrong, going out of their way to insist that I say and mean something else, of course I respond with clarifications. Instead of guessing what I mean six times in a row, maybe people should ask about what I wrote, instead of jumping to conclusions.
What I see is that what they acknowledge is typically not what I actually said, which why it is so frustrating. If they wanted to honestly dismiss my input, they could always simply say that they weren’t interested, rather than making an effort to make what I said into something else. I know that what I say is often very basic, which is why it beggars belief that people can continuously miss the actual point of what I said.
Sorry, but that is getting too personal. The disagreements occur not when I am discussing myself, but when trying to have discussions about social issues. My complaint is not that people lack intelligence. It is that constant presumptions about me an erroneous paraphrasing display a lack of basic reading comprehension. No, this in no way means claims of what I write being sophisticated or erudite. Not reading what is actually presented results in non-sequitur replies, regardless of whether or not one agree with what is stated. If what people dismiss is neither what I wrote nor meant, then it seems only natural that I would have something to say about this.
Why do you assume this? What I said is that I strive for accuracy. By which I mean that I make quite a bit of effort to be clear in phrasing what I mean to say, in order to reduce ambiguity. And that when I read people’s posts, I make an effort to parse what they wrote and interpret their meanings as closely as I can. Parsing and interpreting are two distinct but related processes. If something seems ambiguous, I say so. If I think some clarification could make their position more clear, I ask questions. And my posts do contain many questions, which most people smugly never bother to answer.
Again, you twist a discussion about money into being about me. It is not about me. I am not interested in having personal problems, and to the extent that the use of money is made to be a personal problem, I think it is missing the point.
Yes, it is a choice. For a few. Not for most. Most people can’t even afford bus-fare out of town when the hurricaine comes. That’s not a choice.
NB: @popobawa4u - #FTFY
well thats your choice isnt it
Waiting until they have bus fare instead of walking now is also a choice.
Ever had gout? (Derailin’ since the 70’s)
I think the stats are that most businesses tend to fail. Usually one in five lasts 5 years and something like one out of 10 close/or go out of business every year. Restaurants tend to be in a higher risk category, because there are number of factors, location, experience, etc - and of course chains do better because they already know what works and have the deeper pockets.
And you hit it on the head with the comments that we are all in the same boat, barely getting by. Reading the comments I get that we are in a constantly shifting state of creative destruction where industries are eliminated such as journalism, or in my case the printing industry which has massively declined over the last decade. At the same time we have new online opportunities with low-startup costs such as you-tube channels, blogs, or podcasts that never existed before. Even online selling with Etsy or ebay etc. And of course once people make money in these fields and others jump on the bandwagon it becomes harder as everyone jumps on the bandwagon. The interesting thing is that those are forms of income that never existed before. Who would have thought there’d be sweatshops in China building up and selling characters for world of warcraft or something.
That is, by far, the dumbest, classist, racist, tone-deaf comment I have read on this BBS in many a month.
It may be that I don’t read enough of the angry threads, but that there is one dumb, classist, racist, tone-deaf comment.
#Bro, do you even Katrina?
If only you could see Katrina from the stratospheric heights from which Popo Bawa sees Katrina, why, then you’d see that race, class, public transport and collective bad-weather response are all just transcendable social constructs. Why didn’t those hurricane victims just like, float up into the air to safety?
As a multimedia artist, I do have some experience with this sort of thing. What I do is try to participate in society directly instead of “making a living”.
Figure out what work actually needs to be done in society, and do it. With your friends, family, community, etc - or on your own - but don’t petition others to “let” you do it.
Don’t borrow money or accrue bills that you cannot afford. People often use these to rationalize their need for income.
If what you do helps people, then they might well help you in return to survive. If they don’t, and you don’t, then it isn’t your problem anymore.
Relax! Worrying about not having employment or money can actually be more harmful than not having them is. Activating people’s “survival anxiety” is classic psychological warfare, and more than a bit crass.
So, think what you will! I am an artist, and this is how I live. So I think it’s at least as relevant as others speculations on the topic, even if some find it disagreeable.
People with children and spouses require money for all-sorts.
just out of curiousity, any advice, on what works, what doesn’t, how to grow.
Good for you by the way.
I have children. And no, before I married, and before I had children, I made it explicitly clear that I was not going to have a capitalist family. When my ex met me, I lived in a communal squat, and was quite clear about my values and strategies for living. My ex dishonestly agreed and still tried roping me into living with money and property, which was a fucking disaster. I am still cleaning up the fallout from this years later.
So you never had any medical bills?
I have had, but our lives were organized to allow for that sort of thing.
I think people have a right to health care. Yet - the desire for continued survival is both an emotional attachment, as well as demonstrating a sense of entitlement. If the world doesn’t owe us a living, then we simply go on living until we stop, and that’s fine.
So somebody somewhere paid, likely for the trade of their toil for money.
Utter twaddle. This sounds like hippyspeak.
the survival instinct is our prime instinct, from which all other instincts are derived. It’s what drives sexuality, territoriality, parental care and tool-making.
It’s what makes animals animal.
If you don’t make social constructs, then you don’t have any! FFS, it is not “transcendence”, it is responsibility. WTF have YOU actually done? What social constructs have you personally participated in making? How can you even discuss such issues, yet dismiss personal involvement in them as being irrelevant? Who the hell are you fronting for?
Perhaps others have really low burdens of evidence for accepting what strangers say and do, but I find the presumptions that some “others” must be petitioned to fix problems to be irresponsibly hands-off and more than a bit gullible.
The “disconnect” might be that if people are conditioned to work from the assumptions of hierarchical societies, that they assume that others naturally have some incentive to do the same. The assumptions of social activity and structure which comprise my baseline are egalitarian. Does that make sense? My guess is that since this is a very fundamental, low-level difference in perspective, many are eager to dismiss such perspectives out of hand because they complicate dialog. If some are only looking for solutions to social problems in hierarchical structures exclusively, then egalitarian approaches become unwelcome, and dismissal of them without analysis discourages entire areas of discussion. But that such areas model entirely different causes and solutions for agreed-upon problems seems quite useful to me. If people are interested in cultivating a robust ecosystem of social frameworks, rather than tooling their pet perspective for “everybody”.
