Do you know who I am ???
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 17, 2025 23:07
VIEWED: 3538
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, I do no such thing as you describe w/ regards to sexism. No idea where you're getting that from.
Second of all, MANY on there make exaggerated examples to make their point, and yet some how you only see it when I allegedly do that ?
Why do I always do that ? Because someone has to.
So your argument boils down to this:
I don't do that! And if I do, so what? I do it because someone has to.
You deny, then you quibble a bit, then you admit while trying to rationalize and justify doing what you just denied you do.
Good show.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And that's what kinda irks me. IF this incident took place as she claimed, she should have just nipped it in the bud, and told the lady, indeed, who she was! She didn't need to make a scene, but just inform the lady, in an oh-by-the-way manner, that she could have bought that store, several times over, and that clerk just talked herself out of a huge sale.
So in other words, she should have trotted out the old "Do you know who I am?" line? Why? So you could judge her for that?
Quote:
Usually, it's b-list celebs who break out that line, when they feel they've been jilted , or deserve better treatment from plebeians who make up the rest of the world.
Isn't using the "Do you know who I am?" line "making a scene"?
If someone in a store wants to treat me like shit because they don't know who I am, and think I'm just an average person (thereby justifying in their mind their idea that they can treat average people like shit with no repercussions), then no, I'm not going to make a scene. If I had a stage the size of Oprah's, I'd do what she did and tell the world about it. The shop worker has a right to be a jerk and an asshole, and Oprah has a right to talk about it in public.
Perhaps the lesson here is that maybe we shouldn't assume the worst of our customers if we work in retail, because maybe, just maybe, that customer has the money and wherewithal to buy our store many times over.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I bring need into it. Maybe people can buy what they want but that doesn't mean I can't think it's completely pointless. Or a huge waste of resources.
When someone can afford it, I suppose it's less objectionable but still sort of an annoying "look at me, I spend $35,000 on a hand bag." But if someone's house is being foreclosed and they buy a hummer to live in instead I am going to judge the fuck out of that.
And everything else? Judging people is kind of what I do, and I don't really abide by the social niceties most do where paying a shit ton of money for a fashion accessory becomes an admirable or envious purchase. Instead I tend to think "this is dumb as hell. Use a hemp bag or something, CHRIST."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To play devil's advocate, creating and paying for useless pretty things is what people do.
Much of art and architectural heritage exists only because some rich person paid some talented person to make it. It's a highly specialized expression of culture, some more durable and practical, some more short-lived and fanciful. But much of it comes down to "look at this shiny, expensive thing I can afford".
Being elaborate and valuable is what allows such items (or buildings) to survive through the ages, be it because they are made of expensive, durable materials or because they are preserved, and it's enduring proof of human creativity and skill and changing taste. It's also an indulgence that documents, even encourages intellectual development. It's what happens when humans have surplus beyond subsistence. We decorate and play.
Being a tremendous geek for art history, I can't find much fault with that on principal, except for where it relates to underlying woeful wealth inequality that makes some people obscenely rich while others suffer.
Overpriced handbags may seem like an offensive frivolity but as a mosaic piece they're part of a fundamental aspect of human culture. They're not the problem, they just become symbolic of one when you're looking at contrasts in wealth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...Hmm, you have a point. Perhaps my problem with this is a disconnect between the concept of "fashion" and the concept of "art", because of all the unfortunate health messages and pointless commercialism that fashion promotes.
On the other hand, I also think it's kind of ridiculous for an art patron to pay an artist or a studio a million bucks for a painting, even IF the painting is really good. If people want a painting that bad, maybe they should learn to paint their OWN.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Being a tremendous geek for art history, I can't find much fault with that on principal, except for where it relates to underlying woeful wealth inequality that makes some people obscenely rich while others suffer."
Art doesn't need rich patrons to exist - all it requires is an artist, time, materials and tools. Unless the tools and materials are extremely expensive - like a nanotechnology that can paint the Mona Lisa in an area less than the diameter of a human hair ( http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/08/06/Nanotechnology-c
reates-worlds-smallest-version-of-the-Mona-Lisa/UPI-21361375826126/) or ruby glass made of glass infused with gold ( http://www.bobbrooke.com/rubyglass.htm) what the artist needs is a way to stay alive in order to have time ... time to create. Keeping someone alive so they can create is not that expensive.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Being a tremendous geek for art history, I can't find much fault with that on principal, except for where it relates to underlying woeful wealth inequality that makes some people obscenely rich while others suffer."
Art doesn't need rich patrons to exist - all it requires is an artist, time, materials and tools. Unless the tools and materials are extremely expensive - like a nanotechnology that can paint the Mona Lisa in an area less than the diameter of a human hair ( http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/08/06/Nanotechnology-c
reates-worlds-smallest-version-of-the-Mona-Lisa/UPI-21361375826126/) or ruby glass made of glass infused with gold ( http://www.bobbrooke.com/rubyglass.htm) what the artist needs is a way to stay alive in order to have time ... time to create. Keeping someone alive so they can create is not that expensive.
I didn't say it required rich people paying artists to create specific things on order. But it is a significant aspect of art production in the past. Much if not most art treasures we now house in museums, that reflect the progress of human expression and culture, are products that were ordered specifically by a certain person or body, for a particular purpose. The artist's style and skill are expressed in their creation, but as such these things were chosen by the customer according to their priorities.
The artist working for himself, for the concept of art, or for his own personal creative output, is a relatively new thing. Even now, you wouldn't expect to "keep alive" an architect so he can design buildings into the blue. They sell their skill and creativity to people or bodies who pay them for a particular purpose.
I'm not saying don't support artists, or that all art should pay for itself, but the concept and purpose of high art as an artisanal product shouldn't be discounted. Historically, it was mostly that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I grok ya, AgentR - myself I think it's silly, but it's their money, their life, far as I am concerned.
I've gotten some attitude myself in regards to buying things, given that I dress like a blue collar hoodlum, and am a firm believer in making a business with such poor customer service pay dearly for it - conversely I do kind of enjoy the way their eyes light up when they choose to "play along" thinking the poor schmuck in front of them can't actually afford their product and choose to be polite regardless, and then that fat wad of cold, hard cash comes out, meh heh.
The sales dude at that car lot where I bagged my little BMW was a good example of that, he started talking finance and I was like "Who said anything about finance ?" and out came the roll - the way his eyes bugged out was hi-larious.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kim Kardashian, Oprah Winfrey, Ivanka Trump in Venice for Jeff Bezos wedding
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/ne
ws/kim-kardashian-oprah-winfrey-ivanka-trump-in-venice-for-jeff-bezos-wedding/articleshow/122115459.cms
Switzerland seeks trade deal with Trump without getting into EU bind
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/switzerland-seeks-trade-deal-trump-1603
29708.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME