He probably means turning a typical feel-good story into an opportunity for social polemic.
He probably means turning a typical feel-good story into an opportunity for social polemic.
What are you talking about comrade?Real talk, y'all like to be cute with this proletariat shit, but OP bout dumb as hell over this thread title.
Yeah. I'm not a fan of the name at all but the concept is very real.It's usually called poverty porn, but what's your issue with the concept?
Edit: I should probably note that I have a bit of an issue with that use of the word "porn" (which is not unique to this term) because I think it's reinforce bad ideas about pornography, but that's a different discussion I think.
This is a perfect example. It's nice that the people at Home Depot helped out, but the kids situation was heartless and gutting especially when you consider all the other children in his situation that didn't get that help.
Here's another that caught my eye.
What's absolutely incredible (and shameful) is the kid not being covered by insurance.
Kid is covered. They were not sure if the walker was covered.
Here's another that caught my eye.
What's absolutely incredible (and shameful) is the kid not being covered by insurance.
I don't like the term but I think OP framing the thread as a critique of media when they frame these stories as a feel good heart warming tale demonstrates the opposite of what you claim.It means that some of y'all try to come off as if you care about the average, common man, but then show your lack of understanding as well as your privilege when you do shit like this.
There are a million different ways to make a point about the exploitation of the poor. But the OP wanted to be cute and settled on "poor-porn". Fuckouttahere.
I don't like the term, but the OP is demonstrating the shitty practice of playing up these stories as feel good noble humanity instead of the systemic issues that they are.It means that some of y'all try to come off as if you care about the average, common man, but then show your lack of understanding as well as your privilege when you do shit like this.
There are a million different ways to make a point about the exploitation of the poor. But the OP wanted to be cute and settled on "poor-porn" and expected people to vibe with that. Fuckouttahere.
It's not media clickbait, the entire reason it exists as a term is because of the well known phenomena of people enjoying seeing people worse off than themselves see Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer and other such shows. It's the entertainment and interest derived from these situations that people have an issue with not that it's clickbait.since i'm already knowing people are going to come at me saying "well that's just your opinion", i'm well aware.
but my issue with the concept is that calling stuff "*blank* porn" is one of the dumbest trends online right now, one that'll probably get looked back on like how we used to say "pwned" back in the day, however "poor porn" specifically is undoubtably one of the dumbest ways i've heard to catagorize anything i've ever read not just on this site but probably period.
call it what it is? media clickbait? i don't know, but are we really calling someone voluntarily going out of their way to help someone in need "poor porn"? that's fucking ridiculous. people need to get a grip and stop reading deeply into every single little thing.
I don't like the term but I think OP framing the thread as a critique of media when they frame these stories as a feel good heart warming tale demonstrates the opposite of what you claim.
If you want to take it as a feel-good story, that's your decision. Others here are willing to discuss what it says about our system. If you don't want to hear that kind of talk, could just ignore it.See, that's the problem: this IS a feel good heart warming tale. Systemic issues with America's health care system or any other system won't be fixing themselves anytime soon, so sometimes you need some hope. The media gonna get their views & clicks and might not give a fuck about the bum on the street behind their building, but sometimes a life gets saved and people need to hear about it.
But y'all think we wanna hear "Shit's bad fam, we'll give you the 5-day forecast after the break" all the damn time. But even if that were the case, OP could've shown some damn poise within the English language & social awareness by not calling it "poor-porn".
It's not media clickbait, the entire reason it exists as a term is because of the well known phenomena of people enjoying seeing people worse off than themselves see Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer and other such shows. It's the entertainment and interest derived for these situations that people have an issue with not that it's clickbait.
I don't agree. Framing this as anything other than a national travesty and failure of policy is burying the lede. Recognizing that isn't admitting that what the kid's teacher did for him isn't a good and noble act.See, that's the problem: this IS a feel good heart warming tale. Systemic issues with America's health care system or any other system won't be fixing themselves anytime soon, so sometimes you need some hope. The media gonna get their views & clicks and might not give a fuck about the bum on the street behind their building, but sometimes a life gets saved and people need to hear about it.
But y'all think we wanna hear "Shit's bad fam, we'll give you the 5-day forecast after the break" all the damn time. But even if that were the case, OP could've shown some damn poise within the English language & social awareness by not calling it "poor-porn".
America is such a cruel land, with poor healthcare and all... When will they learn...
I don't agree. Framing this as anything other than a national travesty and failure of policy is burying the lede. Recognizing that isn't admitting that what the kid's teacher did for him isn't a good and noble act.
This kid's smile is the greatest, happiest smile I've seen on a kid. Jesus. Fuck insurance companies.
Here's another that caught my eye.
What's absolutely incredible (and shameful) is the kid not being covered by insurance.
Don't know how every country stacks up but Spain is the clear leader in this regard.
Totally. "Poverty Porn" sounds much better. Rolls off your tongue...
I tweaked the thread title a bit since the phrasing seemed to lead to some discussion of the title rather than the story/situation.
I tweaked the thread title a bit since the phrasing seemed to lead to some discussion of the title rather than the story/situation.
government should have an obligation to provide this to a person in such situation.Transplant organs are an extremely limited and important resource. If you can't demonstrate an ability to take care of your transplant and perform the maintenance necessary to make it work, then it goes to somebody who can.
When the news frames it as a feel good story, I say it's a fitting description.
...It's a child.Transplant organs are an extremely limited and important resource. If you can't demonstrate an ability to take care of your transplant and perform the maintenance necessary to make it work, then it goes to somebody who can.
The point of the thread is to highlight how these feel-good stories are darker than how the media presents them.Not really sure that the title tweak helps tbh - it editorialises the story and is still going to lead to people latching onto it. It's also taking away from the story itself.
Why not just remove the first sentence and let the story speak for itself? Discussion regarding the wider context can come from people reading the article - rather than it being framed artificially.
But, all being said, fantastic move by the teacher.
The point of the thread is to highlight how these feel-good stories are darker than how the media presents them.
I'm glad we are deciding that for a 13 year old that has no power over his predicament.Transplant organs are an extremely limited and important resource. If you can't demonstrate an ability to take care of your transplant and perform the maintenance necessary to make it work, then it goes to somebody who can.
It's not taking anything away from the act, just highlighting the systemic issues that necessitate that noble act. The focus of the OP is the media's framing of the act as good instead of something that needs to be addressed.Sure - and OP expressed that valid point in his OP. I just felt that the previous title, and the subsequent title took away from the agency of the act shown in the article itself.
I read this earlier, and I ended up reading it again post change to see if I'd missed some heinous updated detail.
It read to me as if the act itself was an example of exploitation towards the subject.
If anyone read the story, I don't think they'd disagree that it's a crying shame that this child is in this situation and how the status quo clearly needs to change.
YepI'm glad we are deciding that for a 13 year old that has no power over his predicament.
I usually agree with stringent restrictions on organ recipients given their rarity but this is a case where it goes too far I think.
...It's a child.
How exactly do you propose that a thirteen-year old demonstrate that ability?
Doling out donated organs is pretty much a non-stop Trolley Problem, because every person you decide to save by giving them a kidney results in someone that dies because they did not get a kidney. So in instances like this, how or why would you priortize someone with an unreliable homelife over someone that does have one? You could make organ recipients completely random, but that would still not really seem just or fair.I'm glad we are deciding that for a 13 year old that has no power over his predicament.
Random would be more fairthan thisDoling out donated organs is pretty much a non-stop Trolley Problem, because every person you decide to save by giving them a kidney results in someone that dies because they did not get a kidney. So in instances like this, how or why would you priortize someone with an unreliable homelife over someone that does have one? You could make organ recipients completely random, but that would still not really seem just or fair.
Jesus people. Can you discuss the fucking topic? I even let it get changed and you are all still harping on it even when poverty porn is a real term. Get the fuck over it.
Jesus people. Can you discuss the fucking topic? I even let get changed and you are all still harping on it even when poverty porn is a real term. Get the fuck over it.
We've all seen these feel good segments on the local news. The adorable and resourceful seven-year-old in California who's been recycling cans since he was three and now has $10,000 saved up for college. The Oklahoma community that chipped in to buy a car for a beloved Walmart greeter so she wouldn't have to walk to work in the bitter cold anymore. The "inspiring teen" who returned to his fast food job soon after being injured in a car accident.
No doubt, these are all heartwarming tales of perseverance in the face of adversity, a testament to the can-do spirit of average citizens––but they're also something else: ideological agitprop meant to obscure and decontextualize the harsh realities of poverty, the exorbitant cost of higher education and healthcare, and the profound absence of basic social services in the United States.
What are the origins of this ethos? Whom does it benefit and, perhaps most important of all, how does the media consistently work to reinforce this "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mythology?