Agreed that most of these people are sad products of sad families, sad education, and sad circumstances. Sorry if I offended anyone.

When I look at those I mostly think "there but for the grace of God go I", which is why it's rather painful to look at. I'm probably more guilty than many of being embarrassed by my somewhat poor roots and somewhat uncouth upbringing. I can't take all the credit for the changes in my life but I know that it was only because I wanted to step up that I actually did. I have relatives who have never done well and I have to say that I think they could if they actually tried. (Just like LSPE I want to keep my personal life out of it but it ends up being integral to the conversation anyway.)

Overriding sentiment is this - we don't know these people and their circumstances so I should probably just shut up now.

See, for me it isn't just the making fun of them for being different that I find bothersome but rather the assumption that they must either be very unhappy the way they are and unable/unwilling to change or too stupid/inbred to be aware they should be unhappy that I find bothersome.

It doesn't matter at all why these people look the way they do. Yes, with more money they might buy nicer clothes but it very well might be a more expensive baseball cap with a more expensive timber wolf t-shirt to go with their work boots and old jeans. They might actually like scruffy mustaches and mullets. The core is still pointing at someone and laughing at them for not conforming to the way we think they should. I know extremely wealthy people who use their money to buy only the finest in sports jerseys as their daily sartorial selection. I'd never do that (and yes, I'm not a saint, I've made fun of it) but I don't make broad socioeconomic assumptions about people who do.

It grates on me similarly to when people assume saying "axe" instead of "ask" is a sign of ignorance.

And that's pretty rude (especially when they're put on display on the internet while those laughing at them get to be anonymous) regardless of the socioeconomic reasons they look different. Seems little different to me than if I were to start posting pictures of the Indians in my neighborhood and making snide comments about those wacky saris and all the jewelry the men wear.


(All of this said, again, with the caveat that I haven't actually seen any -- but one -- of the pictures posted to the WalMart web site. This is more a response to this thread and the genre of Web site in general.)

Poverty does not always mean the person must dress poorly or have poor hygiene. My father grew up on a farm during the depression in conditions of poverty that would be inconceivable to those Walmart shoppers. His parents had 8 children, half of whom died in childhood. He never lived in a house with electricity or plumbing until he and my mother married. My grandparents continued to live without electricity and plumbing until 1950, when my father built them a new house "in town". Looking at old family pictures you see my father and his siblings in clean mended clothes. My Grandmother was always in nice crisp dresses; and I am quite sure she would be horrified to see any of her family going out in public dressed slovenly.

Likewise, I've seen people with tons of money who dress like some of the people in those pictures.

Poverty and the lack of care in your appearance are two separate things.

This is a fair point, Alex. I didn't mean to imply with my personal anecdote that my uncle's struggle is the case for all people, or that it's not OK to wear a John Deere cap unironically. In general, I agree with you - that genre of website makes my skin crawl.

Apparently I must spread some Mojo around before giving it to JWBear again.

Similarly, my mother grew up in a house without bathrooms, and she didn't have one until she left home. She got two dresses a year growing up, and her mother always kept them neat and clean.

But times are different now than they were in 1950. The mass-manufacturing of clothing and food has left many of us without the skills they had in the depression. Are you able to grow your own food? Are you able to sew your own clothing? Could you go completely off the grid? If you could, that's awesome, and I kind of envy you.

I'm not saying the dude with the completely ripped shirt falls in this category - yeah, obviously that's some sort of statement. There are some obviously ridiculous photos. But I'm not seeing a lot of poor hygiene in those pictures. I'm seeing some slovenly dress, but what's the problem here?

I believe that either everything is okay to make fun of or nothing is. I also believe that it's possible to make fun of and/or tease someone and not do it maliciously. I love my family and I make fun of them every time we get together. We all laugh because they all know I'm not doing it to be mean--I do it because it's funny.

This world is chock full of crazy shït. Relax. Enjoy it. Laugh when you can. It's called making fun of, not making serious of, for a reason.

I love humor, SM. I really do. I'm not trying to be a killjoy.

But I think my problem here is privilege. The comments in this thread seemed laden with socioeconomic privilege. I'm not going to try to apply the terms of racism to classism, but it seems to me that when someone who has lots of options makes fun of someone who doesn't, that's lame.

The very best thing about this board is that you can say this without getting flamed.

Apparently, I (also) must spread some mojo around before I moj. JayDub again. But he made my point with a family story I don't happen to have (or, well, know about).



Alex has a good point, too. But humor is always an exception with me. I make fun of oddly-dressed or appearing people at Disneyland, for instance, but I don't extrapolate to assume anything about their lives. It may be lowbrow humor, but it's humor. I live by the Roger Rabbit philosophy. So sue me.