Mike Rowe's Pledge---Watcha Think?

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

 

 

I'm...not sure what your point is. Honestly. I mean, it's pretty much what I said...

This was your original post:

 

Just to note, the guy who likes to talk about dirty, blue collar jobs went to college and received his degree in Communication Studies and then went to work as a TV host. He sang professionally in the Baltimore Opera. He has a pretty extensive White Collar job history for the entirety of his life.

 

That isn't to say that he hasn't worked hard at his profession, or put his time in. I don't want to take away from his success, which he has rightfully earned.

 

But it's a little jarring to see this "Life isn't fair Rah Rah" stuff from him, knowing that he's advocating for an approach he didn't have to live. 

 

He may not have had to do dirty jobs but he chose to do them in his work. He did them to pay tribute to his father and grandfather. He started out in community college before graduating from Towson with a degree in communications. No silver spoon for his mouth.

Edited April 9, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And if you've ever read his Congressional testimony on job creation, you'd know that he knows more about the unskilled and semi-skilled labor market than all of us combined.

 

But you keep pushing that Identity Fallacy for all it's worth.

 

Hey, I am willing to cede that he might have that knowledge. He might have the knowhow about it, gained from his experience and reinforced through the journalism that he performed. But I hearing a lot of "this is how, definitively, you should live your lives, people who come from personal backgrounds that are nothing like mine. But come on, your circumstances of your birth have no effect on how you get ahead in life...by the way, let's talk about this Fatherlessness Epidemic, and how much that effects how far you get ahead in life" (Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/mike-rowe-us-facing-epidemic-fatherlessness/)

 

 

 

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

This was your original post:

 

Just to note, the guy who likes to talk about dirty, blue collar jobs went to college and received his degree in Communication Studies and then went to work as a TV host. He sang professionally in the Baltimore Opera. He has a pretty extensive White Collar job history for the entirety of his life.

 

That isn't to say that he hasn't worked hard at his profession, or put his time in. I don't want to take away from his success, which he has rightfully earned.

 

But it's a little jarring to see this "Life isn't fair Rah Rah" stuff from him, knowing that he's advocating for an approach he didn't have to live. 

 

He may not have had to do dirty jobs but he chose to do them in his work. He did them to pay tribute to his father and grandfather. He started out in community college before graduating from Towson with a degree in communications. No silver spoon for his mouth.

 

...

 

So, let me get this straight: he has never had to work a dirty job, but that's ok because the previous generations of his family had to? And besides, he started at *gasp* community college before transferring to a better school for communications degree. He has truly suffered.

 

Dude, I'm not saying that he hasn't worked hard in his field, but that is the very definition of starting off with advantages that a lot of the people that he is purportedly advocating for never had. He has done a lot to maximize what he had, and kudos, but it is ridiculous to say that he wasn't better off than a lot of people who never get that choice. 

[3rdnlng]

27 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Hey, I am willing to cede that he might have that knowledge. He might have the knowhow about it, gained from his experience and reinforced through the journalism that he performed. But I hearing a lot of "this is how, definitively, you should live your lives, people who come from personal backgrounds that are nothing like mine. But come on, your circumstances of your birth have no effect on how you get ahead in life...by the way, let's talk about this Fatherlessness Epidemic, and how much that effects how far you get ahead in life" (Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/mike-rowe-us-facing-epidemic-fatherlessness/)

 

 

 

 

...

 

So, let me get this straight: he has never had to work a dirty job, but that's ok because the previous generations of his family had to? And besides, he started at *gasp* community college before transferring to a better school for communications degree. He has truly suffered.

 

Dude, I'm not saying that he hasn't worked hard in his field, but that is the very definition of starting off with advantages that a lot of the people that he is purportedly advocating for never had. He has done a lot to maximize what he had, and kudos, but it is ridiculous to say that he wasn't better off than a lot of people who never get that choice. 

If only he had struggles like this person had:

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hillary+clinton+southern+accent&view=detail&mid=E40DFE592A089AC1C6BAE40DFE592A089AC1C6BA&FORM=VIRE

[Nanker]

I think I'll just drop this little beauty here.

 

 http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/3/3/369873-the_generation_gap.mp4

 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

If only he had struggles like this person had:

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hillary+clinton+southern+accent&view=detail&mid=E40DFE592A089AC1C6BAE40DFE592A089AC1C6BA&FORM=VIRE

 

Excellent deflection. Let's ignore how your own point was eviscerated and go "Let's poke Hillary lol"

 

 

4 hours ago, Nanker said:

I think I'll just drop this little beauty here.

 

 http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/3/3/369873-the_generation_gap.mp4

 

 

Pardon me, I think you need to start a crying fit because your WiFi was broken. 

 

It's just not fair that those lazy millenials don't want to get paid in exposure. What, you want to get PAID for your work. Waaaaaaah Waaaaaaaah

[DC Tom]

5 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Hey, I am willing to cede that he might have that knowledge. He might have the knowhow about it, gained from his experience and reinforced through the journalism that he performed. But I hearing a lot of "this is how, definitively, you should live your lives, people who come from personal backgrounds that are nothing like mine. But come on, your circumstances of your birth have no effect on how you get ahead in life...by the way, let's talk about this Fatherlessness Epidemic, and how much that effects how far you get ahead in life" (Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/mike-rowe-us-facing-epidemic-fatherlessness/)

 

 

This is what's know as the Identity Fallacy.

[LA Grant]

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

This is what's know as the Identity Fallacy.

 

Definition Confused Tom snipes agaaaain!

 

Actually it's known as "context."

 

Whitewalker In Philly has merely been saying that Rowe's post is fine & dandy as an inspirational speech — but it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that, as it does ignore the contextual elements that shape one's life. As in, yes, we are all self-determining individuals who possess free will... but we are also the products of the society we're born into, as much as we are the products of our families.

 

A few years ago we might've said "Who cares what some TV host thinks?" but who knows -- with social media posts like this, Rowe could be President in 2020.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Excellent deflection. Let's ignore how your own point was eviscerated and go "Let's poke Hillary lol"

 

 

 

 

I guess I missed the point where I got eviscerated. Frankly speaking, I got bored with your broken record posts and my link was a gentle way of telling you to !@#$ off.

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Excellent deflection. Let's ignore how your own point was eviscerated and go "Let's poke Hillary lol"

 

said by no man for at least 25 years

 

on second thought, Pooj.  boyst maybe

Edited April 10, 2018 by /dev/null
on second thought

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

2 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

said by no man for at least 25 years

 

on second thought, Pooj.  boyst maybe

 

You know what...let's frame this. I mean, hell, I personnally don't like her. I think that she is a shill who says what she thinks her consistuents want to hear. And a lot of people think the same way...

 

Now, quick mental exercise: link her to the premise of this thread. I dare you. i !@#$ing dare you.

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I guess I missed the point where I got eviscerated. Frankly speaking, I got bored with your broken record posts and my link was a gentle way of telling you to !@#$ off.

 

You mean, the part where I provided a counterpoint and you stuffed your fingers in your ears and stamped your feet?

49 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Definition Confused Tom snipes agaaaain!

 

Actually it's known as "context."

 

Whitewalker In Philly has merely been saying that Rowe's post is fine & dandy as an inspirational speech — but it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that, as it does ignore the contextual elements that shape one's life. As in, yes, we are all self-determining individuals who possess free will... but we are also the products of the society we're born into, as much as we are the products of our families.

 

A few years ago we might've said "Who cares what some TV host thinks?" but who knows -- with social media posts like this, Rowe could be President in 2020.

 

 

Oh my god...

 

 

Someone understand context. 

 

Greater understanding. Self reflection. I see an evaluation of societal norms, and how they can come into conflict with each other.

 

*grabs LA Grant*

 

WHAT YEAR IS IT??!?

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

You know what...let's frame this. I mean, hell, I personnally don't like her. I think that she is a shill who says what she thinks her consistuents want to hear. And a lot of people think the same way...

 

Now, quick mental exercise: link her to the premise of this thread. I dare you. i !@#$ing dare you.

 

You mean, the part where I provided a counterpoint and you stuffed your fingers in your ears and stamped your feet?

I didn't stamp my feet but I did get sick of you repeating yourself and now you are claiming it was a counterpoint. Hillary has always been a good segue for ending a conversation.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Definition Confused Tom snipes agaaaain!

 

Actually it's known as "context."

 

Whitewalker In Philly has merely been saying that Rowe's post is fine & dandy as an inspirational speech — but it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that, as it does ignore the contextual elements that shape one's life. As in, yes, we are all self-determining individuals who possess free will... but we are also the products of the society we're born into, as much as we are the products of our families.

 

A few years ago we might've said "Who cares what some TV host thinks?" but who knows -- with social media posts like this, Rowe could be President in 2020.

 

No, it's not.  The identity of Mike Rowe is not the context of his statement; the concepts of labor and a "Protestant work ethic" are.  Whitewalker's argument is not a substantive argument against that statement, it is a fallacious argument against the source of that statement based on nothing more than the source's identity.

 

That is not "context."  That is an application of the Identity Fallacy.

 

Your reply, on the other hand, is an example of the Etymological Fallacy...and an extreme one at that.  In its normal form, the Etymological Fallacy involves the misuse of words based on evolving definition.  In your case, it's because you obviously have no !@#$ing idea what words mean.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

If I had given it a seconds worth of thought I would have realized that you would have found a way to disagree with the OP.

 

8 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Hey, I am willing to cede that he might have that knowledge. He might have the knowhow about it, gained from his experience and reinforced through the journalism that he performed. But I hearing a lot of "this is how, definitively, you should live your lives, people who come from personal backgrounds that are nothing like mine. But come on, your circumstances of your birth have no effect on how you get ahead in life...by the way, let's talk about this Fatherlessness Epidemic, and how much that effects how far you get ahead in life" (Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/mike-rowe-us-facing-epidemic-fatherlessness/)

 

 

 

 

...

 

So, let me get this straight: he has never had to work a dirty job, but that's ok because the previous generations of his family had to? And besides, he started at *gasp* community college before transferring to a better school for communications degree. He has truly suffered.

 

Dude, I'm not saying that he hasn't worked hard in his field, but that is the very definition of starting off with advantages that a lot of the people that he is purportedly advocating for never had. He has done a lot to maximize what he had, and kudos, but it is ridiculous to say that he wasn't better off than a lot of people who never get that choice. 

Except, of course, we don't really know what, if anything, he had to rise above to achieve what he achieved.  Perhaps he chooses not to share his struggles, perhaps he had none and he benefited solely through white(walker) privilege.  Hard to say, but yeah, it's fair to think he had it all, or if not all, most, and if not most, more than some. 

 

 

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

No, it's not.  The identity of Mike Rowe is not the context of his statement; the concepts of labor and a "Protestant work ethic" are.  Whitewalker's argument is not a substantive argument against that statement, it is a fallacious argument against the source of that statement based on nothing more than the source's identity.

 

That is not "context."  That is an application of the Identity Fallacy.

 

Your reply, on the other hand, is an example of the Etymological Fallacy...and an extreme one at that.  In its normal form, the Etymological Fallacy involves the misuse of words based on evolving definition.  In your case, it's because you obviously have no !@#$ing idea what words mean.

 

You're still missing the forest for the trees here. No one is arguing against ideas of "work hard, be grateful, make no excuses, do your best." 

 

Why are we discussing the ideas of "Mike Rowe" in the first place? Because he has a TV show, because he is a charismatic media personality with a blue-collar schtick. The same could be said for Larry the Cable Guy. The context of why Rowe has his platform in the first place is absolutely germane to the larger context — leaving out the societal forces (the "context") that helped him along the way is myopic. 

 

Rowe posts 12 pledges, each of them completely self-centered. It's ironic that he chose not to include something like "I believe it is my responsibility to help others when it is within my power to do so." Especially considering Rowe himself received tons of help to earn his platform, and certainly receives help from others in his profession. Which is not to say that Rowe didn't work hard. The whole point is these are not mutually exclusive concepts. To pretend they are is disingenuous.

 

Also.

 

Quote

3. I believe there is no such thing as a “bad job.” I believe that all jobs are opportunities, and it’s up to me to make the best of them.

 

"Bad jobs" exist, whether Rowe "believes" it or not.

 

Maybe he'd think differently if he were born before Fair Labor Standards was codified into law — y'know, that horrible government overreach that provides some protection for workers, like the right to minimum wage & an 8-hour workday? Good thing the progressives that fought for such basic rights were willing to get into a situation that required both "hard work" and "complaining" against "bad jobs."

 

Or would Mike Rowe tell those 10-year-old factory workers, "Stop whining about 'dinner,' ya soot-faced loser! This is your opportunity!!"

 

I imagine he either doesn't "believe" labor exploitation still exists (it went away with racism!), or he chooses to ignore it, so as not to contradict the idealistic fairy tale version of "work" he presents.

[Keukasmallie]

16 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Gotcha. Which state?

 

Why of course the state thst gave the US Senate Hill'ry Clinton; the state thst boasts the highest tax impact on its citizens in these here United States; the state that features the home of the chicken wing; the state....  Oh, OK, New York!

Edited April 10, 2018 by Keukasmallie

[GG]

Let me get this straight.  Liberals are slamming a guy's viewpoint because he got his platform through his TV performances?

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, GG said:

Let me get this straight.  Liberals are slamming a guy's viewpoint because he got his platform through his TV performances?

 

 

 

If only he were a former First Lady, then he'd be the most qualified ever...

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, GG said:

Let me get this straight.  Liberals are slamming a guy's viewpoint because he got his platform through his TV performances?

 

 

 

When you can't attack (or even argue) the message, attack the messenger. That's been the left's motto since the Clinton attack machine gained the national spotlight.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

When you can't attack (or even argue) the message, attack the messenger. That's been the left's motto since the Clinton attack machine gained the national spotlight.

 

A/k/a the Identity Fallacy.

[Nanker]

20 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Hey, I am willing to cede that he might have that knowledge. He might have the knowhow about it, gained from his experience and reinforced through the journalism that he performed. But I hearing a lot of "this is how, definitively, you should live your lives, people who come from personal backgrounds that are nothing like mine. But come on, your circumstances of your birth have no effect on how you get ahead in life...by the way, let's talk about this Fatherlessness Epidemic, and how much that effects how far you get ahead in life" (Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/mike-rowe-us-facing-epidemic-fatherlessness/)

 

 

 

 

...

 

So, let me get this straight: he has never had to work a dirty job, but that's ok because the previous generations of his family had to? And besides, he started at *gasp* community college before transferring to a better school for communications degree. He has truly suffered.

 

Dude, I'm not saying that he hasn't worked hard in his field, but that is the very definition of starting off with advantages that a lot of the people that he is purportedly advocating for never had. He has done a lot to maximize what he had, and kudos, but it is ridiculous to say that he wasn't better off than a lot of people who never get that choice. 

By that logic, no successful person could ever give salient advice to anyone born of lesser means.

That makes no sense at all. Liberal politicians make careers out of telling other people how to live their lives, what the can and cannot do. Conservatives do as well, but I think they're much less invasive of personal rights than the liberals are.