This is all about classism toward the poor. Are classist tropes about the rich not a concern? Or can there be no classism toward the rich in the same way, some claim, there can be no racism toward whites?

I don't think the rich are particularly held back by any classism they might experience.

By logic, if the rich are held back by any wide spread ideology in society, they tend to fall back into poverty. For example, black nouveau-riche in New Orleans falling into utter poverty once Jim Crow laws were passed, or in feudal societies where self-titled merchant princes would always fallback to becoming common nobodies in time because they were not real hereditary aristocrats and thus didn't get first pick at any new trade route, or crown-backed company.

Interesting example, and yes these cases are valid...

I think I should have explicitly rather than implicitly defined class as more broad than just 'has a lot of money' - these examples are kind of 'working class but became successful' rather than 'upper class'?

Edit - and then used that definition rather than just saying The Rich

Think of that not as a claim, but as a competing definition of the word(s).

Based on this article I've determined that I guess I don't really care all that much if the story I'm reading or watching is classist.

ditto

The weird thing is that this article is in itself elitist. Cultural moralizing comes from a place of superiority and trying to morally improve the public. Inequality exists because the elite class holds political power, not because there is stigma and bigotry against the working class.

Hmm, yeah. "You should write this way, and not that way" says that "this way" is morally superior to "that way". That's classism in culture telling you to not be classist in terms of economics.

I wouldn't say that morality is classist per se. The idea of writers influencing the minds of their readers seems paternalistic, because the reading public are treated as impressionable children who need protection and guidance from their betters. And then it's a small step to saying maybe they shouldn't be trusted to vote, either.

I would say that classism often becomes paternalistic on the part of the "upper" class, so I see a fair amount of overlap between classism and paternalism.

And I actually think that some ideas are better than others, and so are some versions of morality. And I think that those who have the better systems should teach them. But they need to do so with a fair amount of sensitivity and humility, not with arrogance.

But then, I'm not the one preaching against classism.

This is a very curious article: it's viewpoint is obviously based on a certain political viewpoint, but the author doesn't even try to prove this viewpoint, instead assuming by default that the reader has exactly the same views.

Not every author wants to actively advocate your political agenda, and not every author agrees with it.

"doesn't even try to prove this viewpoint"

Not every essay can be a scholarly paper with full references to defend its statements.

Consider this quote from the essay: """Other toxic stereotypes used to make lower-class people into jokes include crude language or behavior, having “too many” children, and being unintelligent. The United States has “hick” or “white trash” stereotypes that are often used to depict low-income white people."""

Here's a 50 minute lecture on "White Trash: The 400-Year History of Class in America" which expands on this one topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cPII2l-K4s presented by the author of a book of the same name. I found it quite insightful.

That the author fails to justify every point might be because they appear to me to be well-known - and not based simply on a political agenda, but backed by sociological research.

I don’t think the expectation is extensive footnoting. If a point is well-established, a link to site that links to research or is viewed an an objective authority would be perhaps expected. There might be a need for something like a DSM for sociology, where such accepted facts and associated support could be collected and be used as single point for citation.

The exercise of building a sociology authority itself would be enlightening if made transparent. Given the well-publicized inability of social science research results to be replicated [citation needed], it might be a very short book.

You don't expect an essay to quote Principia Mathematica when it uses F=ma, right?

Google Scholar says there are over 2,000 results in 2020 so far for "classism in america" - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=classism+in... .

Now, some are about Latin America, and some historical, so I refined the search by adding "redneck" - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=classism+in... . Still has 41 results.

The first (and most relevant of the ones linking to the papers) was https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00377317.2020.17... , "Classless: Classism in Social Work Practice and the Example of White Rural Proverty". Some quotes:

> It is not unusual to hear the pejorative phrases, “whitetrash,” “redneck” and “hick” uttered with surprising ease by self-described progressives and academics alike (Wray,2006). ...

> White rural poverty provides an example of classism, uncolored by racism and racial oppression. To expressly highlight white poverty challenges the myth of universal white privilege and demonstrates the potency of class standing as a defining social factor allowing for either belonging or disenfranchisement (Winders,2003). However, the culturally sanctioned disdain toward “white trash” signals both loathsome attitudes toward the poor and reveals implicit racial biases toward the assumed and expected superiority of whiteness (Wray,2006). ...

Your comment about "results to be replicated" must surely add the qualifier "many" or even "most". It's certainly not true that all of social science research is unable to be replicated.

> it's viewpoint is obviously based on a certain political viewpoint, but the author doesn't even try to prove this viewpoint

Similarly, your comment didn't specify anything about what this political viewpoint might be, nor any reasons why you think this article is based on such a viewpoint.

It's pretty clear the viewpoint is "any negative depiction of poor people is bad," and more broadly, "class divide exists and is significant."

Not really no, that's just your interpretation of what this supposed viewpoint may be.

I don't think the author is presenting these ideas based on "any negative depiction of poor people is bad". It's more as a pointer on these common tropes that exist in storytelling, and some of the implied unrealistic assumptions that underly them.

to be fair, the title of the article is "Five Signs Your Story Is Classist". it's probably intended for an audience of people that already agrees and is genuinely worried about representation issues in media.

This article is ridiculous.

1. Many homeless people are insane. Not all, and it is more represented in TV than in real life, but it is still true. I guess it's kind of a shame that media doesn't represent homeless people better, but tropes do come partially from truth. And come on, a "thinking brain dog" is pretty funny.

2. No one wants to tune into a noir PI show and watch struggles to pay the bills and roommate drama. And don't be ridiculous, there are tons of shows that show people living in shitty conditions.

3. This point makes me think the article is satire. Seriously? It's "classist" to kill stormtroopers since they're probably just "low-middle income people making ends meet?"

4. I'm guessing this show is based off the middle ages, where commoners literally did have lice and rotting teeth. Don't forsake realism for 21st century ideals of "anti-classism."

5. This has to be a joke too. The reason collective action is "villainized" in those stories is because it went too far. Protesting is fine and whatever, but if you're causing destruction then obviously your protest movement should be villainized. It's not classist.

The article is pointing out how popular stories exacerbate stereotypes that are based in class, and most stereotypes are rooted in some truth. But the whole point of stories are that they are fiction, and yet we often see them as reflecting the real world. Pop culture influences our behavior. You may not care about these issues but the article is merely pointing out that the issues exist and how to mitigate them - should the storyteller choose to do so. There's nothing ridiculous about that.

Agreed on that. It just looks like the parent commenter is feeling a strong reaction to having their assumptions challenged. Which I think is also a purpose of the article, exposing some of the underlying assumptions of these tropes that many people have fully internalised, and thus would never otherwise question.

> 2. No one wants to tune into a noir PI show and watch struggles to pay the bills and roommate drama. And don't be ridiculous, there are tons of shows that show people living in shitty conditions.

The articles premise is that TV drama, shows people struggling to pay rent while living in palatial apartments. They do so, not because all TV producers and writers are crazy classists, but because it's much easier to fit a film crew and studio lighting into a large apartment than your average real-sized Manhattan studio.

Writers understand this and lampshade it by giving various excuses, for example in Friends the large apartment was an inheritance from one rich-girls' grandparents, or in Jessica Jones, the building is falling apart and in a bad neighborhood so she gets a deal on rent because her presence keeps away undesirables. However, the article rightly claims this is classist. That's true in a 'fridge logic'[1] sense, but you have to suspend your disbelief if you actually want to watch the show.

[1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic

> It's "classist" to kill stormtroopers since they're probably just "low-middle income people making ends meet?"

https://www.theonion.com/death-star-to-open-day-care-center-... gives a very different way to think of the destruction of the Death Star. :)

As evil as the empire seems in the first triology, I like how the expanded universe, and the films that came afterwards went on to show that from their point of view they weren't all that bad. Even if they were headed by the fictional embodiment of cackling evil, the rank and file just wanted order, and freedom from the fear of being captured as slaves for the Outer Rim or murdered by interplanetary cartels, which the previous Republic had ignored for political reasons.

> went on to show that from their point of view they weren't all that bad.

Exactly, just like the Nazi soldiers weren't all that bad either but they were just following the orders of their superiors and believed in a united Germany. But really they were ok.

low-middle income people making ends meet? just like storm troopers in Star Wars

> Plus, homeless people aren’t all older white guys....

> when heroes focus on petty criminals because it encourages the over-policing of impoverished neighborhoods, particularly Black ones....

> United States has “hick” or “white trash” stereotypes ... however, any negative class-based stereotypes also impact them [people of color] a great deal

As a person of colour, I am not a fan of this trope where white writers[1] will make everything even vaguely demeaning about the downtrodden, somehow related to minorities.

All of the examples, given were of white people. Can bad representations of white people not simply remain encapsulated to them?

Saying that everything related to the impoverished must by some means also relate to people of colour is not only clearly wrong, but the classism that the author is ranting against.

Lastly, the author is wrong where she writes

> White supremacists are natural villains but shouldn’t be glorified even a little, which limits their effectiveness as a fictional threat...

The critical success of Lovecraft Country which features villainous racist wizards, puts this to shame, as does the success of Watchmen before it which shed light on the Bombing of Tusla (aka Black Wall Street Massacre) that a whole generation of children likely did not learn about before.

In other examples, comic book villains have historically been associated with America's enemy du'jour. Hydra is no less dramatic or effective in fiction, simply because they are Nazis.

[1] The author, Chris Winkle, is a white woman.

> Stories can be anything only limited to your imagination

That’s completely true. And yet, so many of our stories end up in the same rut of tired, unrealistic tropes. Maybe a look at the reality behind such depictions will encourage authors to exercise some of that vaunted imagination and break out into new directions. After all, an appeal to imagination doesn’t make much sense when you’re just using it to defend doing the same things that everybody else does.

> unrealistic tropes

mmmmm...some tropes are rooted firmly in reality, maybe a little exaggerated sometimes, but there is truth to them nonetheless, just like there is some truth stereotypes.

I think there is nothing inherently wrong with using tropes. Freedom to choose is what is important. If the author wants to use tropes, they should be able to.

> If the author wants to use tropes, they should be able to.

Nobody is questioning that. However, you’re pretending that doing the same thing as everybody else has always done is ‘using your imagination’, which is laughable.

i didn't say nor imply that

Is this meant to be some sort of parody comment?

Deadly serious.

If writers actually follow these guidelines, god help us. Imagination will be curtailed and suffer, and we the readers will suffer as a result.

This misguided attempt to "wokify" storytelling is reminiscent of the attempts by INGSOC in 1984 to eliminate the expression of the shades of meaning inherent in ambiguity and nuance from Oldspeak (Standard English). In order to reduce the language's function of communication, Newspeak uses concepts of simple construction: pleasure vs. pain, happiness vs. sadness. Goodthink vs. crimethink linguistically reinforces the State's totalitarian dominance of the people of Oceania.

I hope nobody follows those guidelines. I pitty the fool who does.

Seems to me it's the opposite, writers will have to be more imaginative if they decide to avoid using some of lazy tropes described in the article.

Sure, if they want, if they choose to. And that's the point for me at least; freedom of choice.

Writers should be able to write how they want, employing whatever literary devices they want, about whatever topic they want. There should be no restriction imposed.

On another note; writers can't ignore reality, if they are writing about reality that is. Homeless people exist. They are smelly and unclean and in many cases can be violent. Ask anyone living in San Francisco, Los Angeles etc. Sure, not every homeless person is white, but the majority are. Trying to pressure writers into adding forced "diversity" due to wokeness is ridiculous. Reality is not woke, it is what it is.

If they want to use tropes, no problem. If they want to find different ways of representing real life situations without the use of tropes, no problem. Whatever. Choice.

What i disagree with is the imposition of language that the OP (Chris Winkle) is trying to impose; that tropes are somehow bad and to be avoided or "cleaned up" because they are somehow demeaning or offensive.

> Sure, not every homeless person is white, but the majority are. Trying to pressure writers into adding forced "diversity" due to wokeness is ridiculous.

I agree.

In order to get writers to include black homeless people, they would have to write stories about black neighborhoods which is already a stretch.

Just including a smattering of black homeless people in a show about predominantly middle-class whites show would look like simple racisms.

It's one thing to point out these stereotypes, but a bit presumptuous to tell writers what they should write. Not all works need to have the subtle, nuanced and realistic depictions the author advocates for. He also basically disavows any humor built around negative stereotypes of certain groups, which would put a big percentage of comedy off-limits.

I dunno, I see two sides to it. like it or not, popular shows/movies/books have a powerful influence over the way people see the world. having a large audience does come with a certain responsibility.

but if you accept this idea, why stop with the examples presented in the article? what about all the biopics that exaggerate or entirely fabricate conflicts in people's lives to suit the structure of a typical plot arc? what about the fighter jets in top gun that fly way too close together so they can actually fit in the camera's FOV?

I think example 2 (Poor Heroes Have Expensive Lifestyles) is going a bit in this direction. is it misleading that jerry seinfeld, a more or less unknown comedian in NYC, has a huge apartment on the show? yeah, probably. would it work to film all the apartment scenes in a 450 sqft studio? probably not.

I agree with this comment. It’s tough with this type of article, because they are almost prescriptive rather than descriptive. It says certain actions are “problematic” but doesn’t go much deeper.

I think the main point of the article is to make sure to make your characters human — even if they aren’t the protagonist, which I agree with. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having a crazy homeless character — just don’t make their defining characteristic their craziness.

I did have a big problem with #5. The masses can be terrifying. Mob mentality brings out the worst in people. It happens on all sides too.

So, I don't know any crazy homeless people, but I do have a relative with schizophrenia.

Although he does have other characteristics, as his condition worsened, all of them became buried underneath a web of paranoia and madness.

I can't honestly believe that someone who didn't know them personally in the good days, would be able to pinpoint any bit of their natural personality anymore.

In film and TV, crazy homeless people often exist as extras only. If they have more screen time, their background story is usually told as well.

Author does not advocate fo subtle, nuanced or even realistic depictions though:

> Depicting poor characters is great, but avoid making them lazy, dirty, crude, ignorant, or unintelligent.

From a lot of very personal experience with poor working class, this norm throws realism completely out of the window.