Can people who live in the ivory tower get away with things that would mess up the rest of us?

So, back on the Robin Thicke thread I wondered out loud whether the pop stars, dancers, video directors and etc involved in making the Blurred Lines video, lived in such a way (financial security, freedom, safety) that they could 'get away with' playing around, knowingly, with creepy sexual aesthetics (clothed men, unclothed women, + the content of the lyrics). Did they, in other words, live in a more or less post-sexist 'world'?

I'm still wondering about this and have come up with a little theory as follows:

– The wealth gap exists
– Those on the rich side can take risks and live in a hedonistic slash politically careless way
– But those on the poor side take a big risk if they try to emulate this
– The stuff that the wealthy do in their world is beamed back down to us, down here on planet earth, and by the time it touches down in our climate it's become toxic

I was wondering what people thought about this. An obvious point of contention are that I make 'the wealth gap' sound binary when there might be more levels to it.

I see some of your point, but rape exists in all social classes

re: op, similar thing applies to jamie oliver's recent obnoxious comments

So, back on the Robin Thicke thread I wondered out loud whether the pop stars, dancers, video directors and etc involved in making the Blurred Lines video, lived in such a way (financial security, freedom, safety) that they could 'get away with' playing around, knowingly, with creepy sexual aesthetics (clothed men, unclothed women, + the content of the lyrics). Did they, in other words, live in a more or less post-sexist 'world'?

dude, the students I see every day play around, knowingly and unknowingly, with creepy sexual aesthetics.

"ivory tower" tends to mean academia but I think you meant "upper media echelons", right?

I think corporate-funded think tanks and "institutes" are part of the Ivory Tower.

yea who is in this tower besides robin thicke is an important point

absolute power corrupts absocorruptly.

Robin Thicke will dismiss claims that he's got a huge ivory tower, citing his long monogamous relationship with his wife.

"ivory tower" tends to mean academia but I think you meant "upper media echelons", right?

Argh, I'd forgotten the phrase had that implication. Yes, I meant upper media echelons, and to an extent Viceroy's

corporate-funded think tanks and "institutes"

http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the_illuminati_elite_organization_n_plan.jpg

Also, let me attempt to articulate what I mean by 'lifestyles ... that would mess up the rest of us'. These points are open to correction or whatever.

– Conspicuous consumption: lots of expensive cars and property, but also drugs. Most of us couldn't afford this, would be put in debt by it.
– Promiscuity: there are STDS and accidental pregnancies, really fuck you up if you haven't got a financial safety net.

so what is your question?

point is, i think, that the rich & famous have a safety net that poor/ordinary ppl don't. i mean i don't know what point lady gaga was making by wearing 3 clam shells at the vmas but im guessing that 17 yr old barry from wigan isn't getting it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Chairmen of the Steering Committee
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld (1954–1975)
Walter Scheel (1975–1977)
Alec Douglas-Home (1977–1980)
Eric Roll, Baron Roll of Ipsden (1986–1989)
Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (1990–1998)
Étienne Davignon (1998–2001)
Robin Thicke (since 2001)

xxxp to self

But while it's often quite obvious that you couldn't afford that house or that car or to get into that nightclub, right, what about when most of the, not so much lifestyles but attitudes we come across, and that we model our own attitudes after (if we do? if people do? if we do sometimes?), are suitable only for those with the money to support them

i thought this was going to be about tenure

@Scott Seward yeah yeah I know Robin Thicke is probably a silly example for someone at the top

the blurred lines robin hates are the ones between the upper and lower classes, the potential that he and his desired mate are not above consequence. them are the lines he hates.

I'm not sure that making the blurred lines video would 'mess up' the avg person so much as it would 'jettison them to superstardom'

lol Scott I want to see the full version of that chart, the summarized one doesn't include enough stuff.

Can people who live in the PRISON WARDEN CONSCIOUSNESS (4th Dimension) get away with things that would mess up the rest of us?

Anyway, to answer the question, I think its a combination of yes/no... they can get away with white collar crimes but they also have the opportunity to commit them regular folk don't... they can also get things covered up. But they don't have the freedom to not be "very serious people" and must always keep on the mask of respectability and authority, also have to commit to the soul-sucking apologism of the status quo.

Those on the rich side can take risks and live in a hedonistic slash politically careless way

What are "risks"? Rich people can make moves that are perceived as "risks" by others but aren't really because money serves as a safety net. I think you said this yourself.

Unwealthy people have more opportunities to take risks that are actually "risky."

Plus, the truly rich don't care about what car they drive or what nightclub they can get into. Those are middle-class concerns.

i know a lot of distinctly lower echelon people who lead lives of conspicuous consumption and promiscuity without much regard for consequences. the status symbols are different at the bottom end of the class system.

the guys at the top aren't getting away with transgressions of social acceptability, they're part of an upper boundary with much in common with the lower boundary. also the excess they signify is the same message that capital reifies everywhere: Always Be Consuming.

tbf the lower orders have ilx to bat for them when they commit violent crimes or w/e so there's that

violence is bad, mmmmkay?

upon this new and visionary foundation shall we build our cathedral nv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

have to also recognize the violence in inherent in the system tho

the truly rich don't care about what car they drive or what nightclub they can get into

eh?

this, imo, is not really a question that has been posed in a very serious manner guys. let's not get excited about it eh.

darraghmac last spotted getting excited on the youtube streetfight thread posting a video of a woman being hit in the face by a man

;)

oh cmon that was great stuff and you know it was

the point where we hit peak nu-ilx, definitely

eh?

I was commenting on the "conspicuous consumption" bit. Among the mega-rich, to roll up to a trendy nightclub in a flashy car is not so much a thing - and those who descend to that attract notice. They have their private clubs, and privacy itself is considered more important as a rule. At that super-comfortable level the self-consciousness that drives conspicuous consumption is less intense.

what are your sources, josefa? and what's your definition of mega-rich? wonder if any children of mega-rich have ditched this sensibility and gone straight for the ostentatious tack, cf my super sweet 16

It's possible that we see more rich people doing conspicuous consumption than actually do it, because it's used as the basis for entertainment, tv shows, films, etc. Though this would also feed back into the 'upper echelons of media classes getting away with things that are unfeasible' thing

If there's one solid, but like, fairly predictable example of the phenomenon by the way, it's rich families who can pay for several visits to rehab for their kids; those kids themselves can also survive drug addiction in both health and career terms. Not so for people at the bottom end of the scale

My sources are some observation of it, some reading about it. It's not a boldly original theory of mine - I think it's a fairly widely accepted analysis and probably can be found in many studies of class or status/status anxiety. (I haven't read the book by Alain de Botton called 'Status Anxiety' but maybe it's there). No doubt there are always exceptions to the general rule - children of mega-rich could go in any odd direction. I don't know what figure to put on mega-rich, but the people I have in mind are the multi-generational rich, if that clarifies at all. I admit I'm not really sure how this helps answer the original question.

lol rich people care more about other people thinking their rich than almost anything else

what you're saying rings true, josefa, but there seems to have been a sea change over the past 20-30 years and it's less of a 'thing' now. plenty of people in the public eye who are famous for being rich, esp children of rich ppl like chloe green (daughter of the top shop guy)

Could be, NI. Internet and changes in mass media have clearly disrupted traditional notions of privacy, self-publicity, and even selfhood - for everybody.

And also in that time frame, as has been well-documented, "luxury" goods have been increasingly marketed downward to the less affluent - see Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster by Dana Thomas for that story. It used to be people could enjoy reading about Elizabeth Taylor's jewelry without thinking they could possibly emulate her in any material way, whereas now people think they can afford the designer handbag that so-and-so carries, and thus a flaunting/desiring dynamic has taken hold.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/michael-lacour-made-up-a-teaching-award-too.html

I emailed LaCour for comment, and he asked if I'd hold off on publishing this until he released a planned statement about the whole affair. I told him I couldn't unless the statement contained information pertinent to the nonexistent teaching award. Shortly thereafter, a browser extension I installed to notify me when his website changed pinged me. His website's link to his CV, which he'd taken down down recently, is now back up. This version no longer lists the Emerging Instructor Award, and the entire "Original Grants & Data" section has been cut.

LaCour then emailed me again: "I'm not sure which CV you are referring to, but the CV posted on my website has not had that information or the grants listed for at least a year." As of 6:20 p.m., the CV with the false information can still be viewed on the UCLA website.

lol damn browser extensions

"ivory tower" tends to mean academia but I think you meant "upper media echelons", right?

Argh, I'd forgotten the phrase had that implication.

huh? does it have any other implication?

other than elite academia, i mean. that's pretty much all it's ever meant.