I was going to let this one slide, as maybe Alan was just having a bad day, but a "socioeconomic dig" doesn't really have to do with racism. I don't know what his comment meant. A socioeconomic dig has to do with socioeconomics -- how much wealth or income someone has and how that has been shaped by local or regional culture. Socioeconomics isn't referencing race; it's referencing social processes affecting money or material wealth.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
But your great friend Rob is a racist, and a homophobe. How does that work out with your southern California political correctness?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So when Alan talks about an AP being in his 50's and living with mom and playing 25-cent video poker, and the connotation is negative, that is a "socioeconomic dig." Alan's taking a shot at the guy's wealth and/or his priorities/values. When Alan talks about people having different definitions of "making a living," with the inference that his making a living is different from yours, that is a socioeconomic dig. Not only do you not make his living; it's assumed you should want to make his living, so that speaks to values and priorities. It has nothing directly to do with race.
I grew up in Molly Maguire country. Mickey, if you don't know what that is, check it out. My county, and its mineral rights, was owned by two families. It pretty much still is, although now they have partnerships with Bechtel and such. Back 150 years, the coal companies owned the housing and food stores for all of the workers. Now they own the 7/11s. Anyway, that's partly why the hair goes up on the back of my neck when people make socioeconomic digs. There's a famous movie with Sean Connery, The Molly Maguires. Worth watching.
Anyway, the point is, socioeconomics is about wealth/income and social processes, not race per se. Racism can be a part of it, but that's not the gist.
Reply With Quote