no, agreed. i just mean the inequality given to middle/upper middle class people from birth and the basic overview of how entrenched it is (breast feeding, preschool, high school, college admissions, geographically etc.). not that any of it's new, but it was generally well put.pacino wrote:JUburton wrote:pacino wrote:this david brooks pieceRecently I took a friend with only a high school degree to lunch. Insensitively, I led her into a gourmet sandwich shop. Suddenly I saw her face freeze up as she was confronted with sandwiches named “Padrino” and “Pomodoro” and ingredients like soppressata, capicollo and a striata baguette. I quickly asked her if she wanted to go somewhere else and she anxiously nodded yes and we ate Mexican.
i'm ROLLING![]()
![]()
![]()
the first half (third?) was actually pretty good and correct. but then, god dammit he david brooksed the hell out of it.
i get his initial point (not everyone eats the same foods/has the same entertainment and that can lead to people seeking out their own packs and that trickles into sorting society out) but damn if he didn't david brooks his way around that piece. 'my dumb-ass friend didn't know what ham was'
i also think this mentality doesn't give enough credit to people; non college-educated people or those on the lower economic scale are not goddamned cavemen
david brooksing