politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're making a lot of assumptions. People can go without many things you may think are basic.
Those 30yo people buying PS5s may be living with their parents because they can't begin to afford their own place. Maybe they have 5 roommates who all pooled their savings for 6 months to buy it together. Maybe they simply don't have a car.
There's also the obvious selection bias of being in a Game Stop. You won't see all the people who can't afford a game console shopping there.
To me it's quite staggering that someone who considers themselves "Well Off" can't afford an occasional $500 expense. That's generally considered "Living Paycheck to Paycheck". I can only assume you're overspending in some ways.
Right and additionally I wonder how this person knew that the lady he mentioned had the “latest” iPhone and that her “Gucci” bag wasn’t a knock off. And perhaps she was able to afford these things because she doesn’t have a car note - does that revoke her right to complain about wasted money?
A knockoff, or maybe even a present.
It's posts like that one that reek of ulterior motives and unrecognized privilege.
OK so I have privilege - you seem to think that means I should not post or have any right to talk about what I've observed. I happen to own shares in Gucci and I know a knockoff from an original. You don't have to persuade yourself that I must be delusional to somehow justify your unwillingness to accept that I might be reporting on a true incident.
Don't put words into my mouth and then get pissy because you don't like them. Those are your words, not mine. You're making yourself into a victim.
However I don't for one second believe you got close enough to this stranger to evaluate whether her bag was real or fake ("I own shares in Gucci so I know a knockoff from an original" - best joke I've heard all week!). And you still have no way to know whether that bag was a present, or bought second hand, or anything else.
You could have said something like, "Oh, y'all are right, I let my privilege blind me and I probably shouldn't have judged that stranger so quickly, because everyone has their own unique situation." But instead, you're just defending your initial prejudice, doubling down on it with "I own shares in Gucci!"
It's a bad look. You should reevaluate your stance.
I'm this woman's physician when she comes in, I'm close enough to her to see the hair on her warts. Just because you're immature and unwilling to see another person's point of view doesn't validate your pissy point of view. And you know just where you can shove it as far as I'm concerned.
Someone calls out you for not seeing past your privilege and you respond with childish name calling then tell them to shove it.
You've shown what kind of person you are and how far your discussion capabilities go.
Yes, indeed my capabilities go far beyond the ordinary in every way, and if you don't like it cram it up your crusty asshole - I'm sure it will be the most fun you've had in years.
I know it's the latest iPhone because I've seen the updated newest models online. And it wasn't a gucci knockoff. I know. And if she was able to afford these things, then great - I have no problem, I'm just making a point. There's no need to be hostile about responding.
I’ll give you that you may possibly recognize the new iPhone from the near identical previous model. But I do not believe at all that you (or anyone) can confirm that bag was real unless you took it an examined it closely. And even if you could, why are you even paying attention to other people’s things like that? It implies that you are judging people based on an assuredly flawed narrative you’ve made up about them in your head. If you’re going to make assumptions, why not make it positive assumptions rather than assuming they make bad choices with their money?
From their appearance, I would not be surprised if they were living with their parents - they seem to all be wearing old shabby clothing. So you're right, people can and do go without many basic things, so where are they coming up with the $$$ for these PS5s? I consider myself pretty well off - that is, I have a trust fund and was bequeathed two large estates (private land) by my parents - so, I have more money than maybe any single person really needs. When I say I can't afford a PS5, what I mean is, I can't justify spending $500 for a game system when I have to buy clothes and groceries (especially groceries) and prioritize other expenses. I COULD afford to buy everyone in my neighborhood a PS5 - but seriously there are other things they really need more. But - to each his own, if some kid can get a PS5 and that's majorly important then I guess it's perfectly OK - I'm just amazed people of that age have that kind of discretionary money to spend.
When they don't spend money on nice cloths and their own apartment, it frees up a lot of money that can then be used on things that are more important to them. Things like a PS5.
Being able to afford something, is when you don't need to prioritize necessities over it. You have enough left over after buying your cloths and food.
Looks like that's where you're overspending.
Yes you got it right, I'm not overspending, young people are. But that's their perogative. I'm glad you agree with my viewpoint.
That's called willful ignorance. You're actively ignoring, or trying not to see another view point.
Yes it's fun and I enjoy it.