"On A Plate" Comic REBUTTED

[James Dean]

Oh dear, it's time to dive into the misty mountain caves of contradiction and poor logic called Tumblr and feast on one of their tasty fisheses....juicy sweet! About a week ago, my social media was flooded with this comic about "income inequality" and I don't want to go too much into it at first, because I fear that might poison the well. Oh god I can't resist, it turned my brain to mush and if I don't rip it a new one, I'm not gonna be able to get to sleep tonight. Ok, here we go.

 

Before I even start, I would just like to point out that it's fascinating how so many sophistry-laden feminist/socialist propaganda is now in comic-form. Like this comic on white privilege (http://goo.gl/OhI0ap) I think it's because making an emotional argument with no intellectual content is easier with images than with just text. Im probably still poisoning the well here, on to the comic.

There's not much that we can gather from this first page, except that it's a comic about privilege and perhaps the author is not very careful with their flatware. I'm fairly certain that the author is from Auckland, NZ, but since everyone I saw that shared it was American, they must have thought it applied to American society... and seeing as how that the place I happen to live, I will be comparing the comic (mostly) to America.

This is a story about two babies, one normal looking one, and one freak “Benjamin button” style old-man baby... who apparently just escaped from a jail of some sort. For all of this comic's egregious faults, it did inspire me to imagine what the movie “Shaw-shank Redemption” would have been like entirely cast by babies, and this made me giggle for a bit, so that's one positive thing! Notice what it says about Richard's parents, “[they're] doing ok.” ok. ok. OK. Just keep that in mind as we go forward, Richard's parent's aren't rich or anything, they're just middle class folks. I mean for god sake, they're just doing OK.

 

The next two panels begin a pattern that this comic falls into regularly, and I'm amazed at how easy it is to brush over. I'll explain it more later on, it happens a lot. First we see Richard, the strange baby trapped in an 80-year-old convict's body, sitting in a fairly normal looking room with alphabet blocks that include a “#” symbol and paintings the exact same color as the wall. His parent's are just doing OK, I see.

Now for Paula. First off, I'd bet my house that this guy wrote the comic first with the poor character being a guy, named Paul, but thought the “evil white man” trope to be better served by a poor female character so he changed all the names to Paula and added pig Tails and ear-rings to Paul. Seriously, look at all the depictions of Paula and its mostly a dude with a pony tail and earrings added on. Unforgivable.

Now listen to the description of Paula's home life. “Paula's house is filled with people and not much else.” What did she grow up in a tenement around the turn of the century? Her parent's are seriously so poor that they can't even afford blocks that cost 15 USD? (http://goo.gl/aRUytf) And she keeps getting sick. Also it's damp, whatever that means. So her parent's are so poor that also can't afford any medical care, even though all of those things are heavily subsidized. So if her family can't afford toys, carpets, furniture, alphabet blocks, or medical care, her parents must both be unemployed drug addicts who squat in a crack house with other people. So in the first page we are lead to assume that Richard is a middle class kid and Paula is the bottom 1% living in either a third world nation or 120 years in the past. Let's see if this theme stays consistent.

 

Oh my lord, what just happened? Richard has seemed to wise up and ditch his chain-gang outfit, and say goodbye to alphabet blocks, say hello to alphabet chart. In all honesty, I think Richard might be the least privileged here because in what seems to have been 10 years he is still struggling to master the alphabet. Hang in there, Richie, you'll get is someday!

 

However Paula's family has jumped at least 3 socio-economic classes and/or returned to the 21st century. She has furniture, a lamp, soda-pop, and a flat screen TV. Paula is gonna do just fine now that she's at-least got a place to sit, she's got a TV so she can watch the seizure channel that she seems to like, and maybe they even bought a dehumidified to take care of that... dampness. But the plot thickens, we now learn that both Paula's parents both work two jobs. Now the fun part, let's do some math. Lets even be generous with our numbers, so generous that it almost borders on the absurd, but even with this exaggerated situation it makes no sense. 

 

With 2 people working minimum wage jobs for 60 hours a week, their net income is $50,400 gross annually. The median household salary in America is $50,500. Like I said, this is a pretty ridiculous situation to begin with, people who fall into the low income bracket are either unemployed or under-employed. I'd say seeing as how they're making more gross income than 49.5% of the country, they're doing pretty well, at the very least they're doing OK... OH so they're on the same level as Richard... oh wait, let's go to the next panels.

 

Richard's parent's either won the lottery, or the author's definition of "doing ok" is really skewed. Richards parent's can afford to send him to private school with fancy shirt-and-tie uniforms, to hire private tutors, and they still have enough time to help little Richie with his homework while Paula's parent's have to work. I'd say that makes Richard if not the top 5% than at least the top 10%. I think this theory is vindicated later on. I find it appropriate to stop here and marvel at the cognitive dissonance in the author. While he never comes out and actually says it, I assume that he is using this slimy eel of emotional manipulation to advocate a redistributive society, when in reality, all of the problems faced by Paula are because of the states redistributive policies! OH the irony. moving on. 

 

 

Oh they grow up so fast! Richard's parents must have really hit the jackpot when they won the lottery because they're paying for his university tuition! That means they have tens of thousands of dollars to throw around, but remember, they're only doing "OK." Paula on the other hand, while mastering the art of dish-washing and studying at the same time, and like the other 40 million Americans, she's going into debt. Again, the government is somehow going to magically solve the problem of student debt, and it's all Richard's fault because he's a white man! See look at how the bank gives him a loan just because he has better credit history and more financially stability! How dare they make sound business decisions?! Not to mention that, at least in America, a lot of banks aren't allowed to deny you a loan because of your income. And so she has to go with a different bank that might give her a higher interest rate. oh the humanity! 

 

But how could I skip over the best panel yet, Paula's dying father. I don't know what this is trying to accomplish besides making you sympathetic to Paula and to dislike Richard more (evil white cis scum) but maybe it's a point about health care costs. I mean, so her Dad dies, what does that have to do with her socio-economic status or privilege? Do upper-class people not die? Did she drop out of school to take care of her dad or something? I also notice how in none of these panels is Richard working hard. As if all you need to succeed is to have your dad get you an internship. He actually had to go to that internship and either make pennies doing that or work on the side. Then he had to work 50-60 hrs/ week once he got the job at least! ugh. This whole page was pretty lacking in substance, more so than the rest of the comic, but lets keep pushing I think we're almost done. 

 

While Richard is settling in to his new Job at Bland Corp, LLC, he meets his new boss, the crypt keeper's grandfather. And Paula has taken her polytech degree to the limit and got a job... serving clams? wait, what?? What did she spend all that time dishwashing/studying for? To be a waitress? she could have done that without going into debt. I was expecting at least like an EMT or something, and if she does have that job and waitresses at this fancy county club on the side, then she's doing pretty freaking well. Like by herself at least making 30-40k per year, which is well above the poverty line, combine that with another income or years of savings and she could easily be upper middle class. And jesus, look at Richard! Tuxedos and champaign! Is he fucking Scrooge McDuck? So in essence this comic that thinks it's so forward thinking and full of enlightening intellectual content is saying people born in the highest social class have more opportunities than people just making enough to get by. No shit sherlock, glad you made a stupid patronizing comic to explain that incredibly complicated subject matter! 

 

Also, is "on a plate" actually a phrase? I've heard "on a silver platter" as a turn of phrase, but never "on a plate." If someone hands me a plate of spaghetti am I as privileged as Richard here? Not to mention, the imagery of Paula handing him something on a plate is totally bunk anyway since what he's saying is no one ever gave him anything for free, but he's clearly paid for this party, those snacks, and Paula's service. Paula is not giving him a handout, quite the opposite, she's working for a wage. 

 

This is such a strawman/caricature of a conservative position. Of course he's not saying he did all of this by himself with no one's help, anyone who asserts that is a megalomaniac narcissist. The position is probably closer to, yeah I was born with more opportunities than some and less than others, but I made the most of what I had and no one should be permitted to steal from me. Just because someone has more "privilege" doesn't mean it's ok to rob them. What a shocker.

 

Well all in all I think we learn more about the author and his bias more than anything objective about society, inequality, or privilege. As someone who grew up lower middle class and around a lot of people worse off than me, I can tell his perception of what it's like to be poor is way off. I'm guessing he grew up fairly wealthy, in a wealthy first world nation in a two parent household. Notice how Paula had two parents and no siblings to speak of, which is by far not the norm in low-income families. If Paula had a single mother and 4 brothers and sisters then it might be more accurate. Also it's hysterical that he thinks low-income families work 2 jobs per parent but still cant pay the bills! most fucking poor people are unemployed and living a highly subsidized life. at the very least they're underemployed because of all the skull-fuckery the government has already done (welfare, public school, hyper regulation, price ceilings, rent control, minimum wage laws) so the solution must be... more government intervention!!! YAY!!! 

 

Well, what does the post game look like? This is at best a poorly thought out concept with scant evidence and actual arguments and at worst it's emotionally manipulative propaganda used to further the resentment of the poor and paralyze them into victimhood. Remember, it's someone else's fault that you're poor! 

 

Hope you guys liked, let me know if I left something out. 

[LibertarianSocialist]

What the hell man? I used to think an caps genuinely believed in justice and equality, that they really thought the free market would ensure liberty and equal opportunity to all. This sort of vulgar libertarianism is messed up. The whole works two jobs thing was to demonstrate that poor people aren't just 'lazy', they are genuinely disadvantaged. Maybe he couldn't work? Maybe he had to take a labouring job during his early years which left him a used up cripple? Maybe unemployment plays a very important function under capitalism so someone must be unemployed, no matter how capable?

 

Government intervention is most certainly not the answer, but don't go around defending our messed up society as it stands.

 

Here's a thought experiment for you: Social mobility is not 100%, do you believe in genetic superiority to the point of a master race?

[James Dean]

It's hard to discuss assertions made by the comic, since it in fact only insinuated or hinted at things. I never said poor people were lazy, no one could ever assign an individual attribute like lazy on to a collective like "the poor" it would be as ridiculous as saying all black people are lazy. What I did say was, even assuming the comic represented some small sect of the poor that work really hard yet are still poor, someone who has two parents working two jobs is making a decent living, and they are well above the poverty line. Did you even read my whole piece? This is not an accurate representation of the poor in America who are mostly unemployed or underemployed, and I pointed out in the post why this is the case. Let me quote it for you, seeing as you probably neglected to read it the first time.

 

 

 

(welfare, public school, hyper regulation, price ceilings, rent control, minimum wage laws) so the solution must be... more government intervention!!! YAY!!! 

 

Yes the comic supported the idea that poor people work as hard as they can and the evil capitalist is just keeping them down, but it backed this up with rehtoric and no evidence. You again make the claim that poor people are just "disadvantaged" (whatever that means) and proceed to back it up with exactly 0 facts. The comic postulated a hypothetical situation which is highly atypical where a girl has two parents who both work two jobs. If this actually were the case, even in today's highly oppressive government run market, their family would not be poor by any stretch of the imagination, making more money than half of America... and in a global context, their family would be close to the top 10% of wealth. So their point fails in their own hypothetical universe because if poor people were out working two jobs, they wouldn't be poor. 

 

I in no way "defend the society as it stands" Please provide me with quotes from my post where I defended current society. 

 

What do you mean social mobility is not 100%? Do you mean that not all people can be rich? of course they cant, but this is a result of individual preference, not some genetic superiority. Not all people can be master chess players, that is because most people don't want to spend the time and energy required to master the game of chess. 

 

Oh, and I'm interested in how this is "vulgar" libertarianism, I tried not to use too many swear words. Adding the word "vulgar" to something isn't an argument against it, it just shows that you place more value on emotional arguments than logical ones. "2+2=4??!! that's vulgar mathematics!!" 

[James Dean]

fixed now.

Edited July 6, 2015 by James Dean

[shirgall]

I'm not sure why my original post isn't here anymore... help, anybody?

 

http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/ ?

[James Dean]

fixed now.

Edited July 6, 2015 by James Dean

[LibertarianSocialist]

Vulgar libertarianism is a term used to describe free market advocates who defend the very much unfree current state of capitalism. Your analysis reads a pretty clear: "Fuck poor people, they aren't really that disadvantaged, they just aren't trying hard enough." Even without knowing the families income or needs you automatically assume these would be adequate and thus dismiss their plight. You try to trivialize the very real disadvantage people face everyday in a classic attempt to blame the victim, and in doing so you defend the current system. You want evidence of inequality? Look outside. There is so much information about inequality and its negative effects, only the most blinded apologist would argue otherwise.

 

By 100% social mobility I mean that their ought to be no correlation between where you started and where you ended up in the social scale. Assuming the classes are not based on demonstrable genetic superiority, we would expect to see the class of your parents having no bearing on your eventual class whatsoever. That this is not the case is all the evidence needed to demonstrate real disadvantage.

 

Sorry for sounding harsh, but you have no idea of the ramifications for such a way of thinking, especially when representing a cultural trend. Justifying the oppression and misery of a whole class of people on the grounds that their failures must have been caused by some personal shortcomings can have truly horrific consequences.

[Kevin Beal]

I loved the commentary!

 

Evil white cis scum! Lol.

 

I read the comic first, then your commentary, and something seemed really wrong with the picture, but then it made a lot more sense when I realized that Paula was from soviet Russia.

 

I grew up in a house that sometimes didn't have any food in it, infested with cockroaches for like a year, wore tattered hand-me-downs, would probably be considered to be in Paula's position by most people. Someone once helped me get a job for a couple months in my teens (bourgeois connections FTW!).

 

Still, I feel pretty damn privileged to live in a time, that despite the worst economic depression in almost a 100 years, I was still able to develop the human capital enough to bring myself out of poverty into relative comfort, and my prospects are quite good.

 

Some of the hardest working people that I know grew up with parents who were "doing ok". Those are some of my favorite people.

[NotDarkYet]

I'd rather grow up poor, but with parents who CARED.

 

Instead, we had money, and I got no attention.  Not one report card was opened.  Zero parent teacher meetings.

 

---

 

The difference is parenting.  Not cash.

[Guest Gee]

So Paula got a B with....

 

no parental attention,

no financial investment in education,

no stimulating environment as a child,

no effective schooling

 

vs

 

a B+ with all of the above included?

 

Looks like Paula has a higher IQ than Richard which we all know correlates to lifetime earnings.

She must be working the waitress job out of choice (investigative journalism?).

[James Dean]

So Paula got a B with....

 

no parental attention,

no financial investment in education,

no stimulating environment as a child,

no effective schooling

 

vs

 

a B+ with all of the above included?

 

Looks like Paula has a higher IQ than Richard which we all know correlates to lifetime earnings.

She must be working the waitress job out of choice (investigative journalism?).

 

That's an excellent point! Would you mind if I added that in?

 

Vulgar libertarianism is a term used to describe free market advocates who defend the very much unfree current state of capitalism. Your analysis reads a pretty clear: "Fuck poor people, they aren't really that disadvantaged, they just aren't trying hard enough." Even without knowing the families income or needs you automatically assume these would be adequate and thus dismiss their plight. You try to trivialize the very real disadvantage people face everyday in a classic attempt to blame the victim, and in doing so you defend the current system. You want evidence of inequality? Look outside. There is so much information about inequality and its negative effects, only the most blinded apologist would argue otherwise.

 

The great thing about the IP.Board software is that you can take a post and quote it so the other person knows exactly what you're referring to. So if you could please quote where I say, "Fuck poor people, they aren't really that disadvantaged, they just aren't trying hard enough." instead of creating a strawman, I'd really appreciate that.

 

I, in fact, point out that Paula's parent's must try very hard working two jobs effectively raising them out of the lower class! This is problem that socialists always seem to fall into, everything is always so collectivist. It is impossible for "the poor" to be disadvantaged since things like "the poor" and "the upper class" don't exist; there are only individuals making choices. So when I criticize one hypothetical poor person and you say that it reflects on my attitude towards all poor people is just silly. It's the exact same thing feminists do when you criticize one woman, you are criticizing all women. That's just not how philosophy works.

 

By 100% social mobility I mean that their ought to be no correlation between where you started and where you ended up in the social scale. Assuming the classes are not based on demonstrable genetic superiority, we would expect to see the class of your parents having no bearing on your eventual class whatsoever. That this is not the case is all the evidence needed to demonstrate real disadvantage.

 

Of course the environment you grow up in effects your outcomes in life. Are you really going to come on to this board and lecture me about that? So the standard that the class you are born into has nothing to do with where you end up is a fallacious standard, as it is almost unquestionable that your early childhood experiences are a major factor in your life outcomes. To set that as a standard, then point to the fact that reality does not comply with your standard isn't proof, it's actually evidence against your standard.

 

But it has nothing to do with genetics (except the small IQ part) and it has nothing to do with class fundamentally, it has everything to do with parenting. Remember, correlation does not equal causation, people's parenting styles are often correlated with their economic status, but it is not that which most influences the outcome. It's well known that the single most relevant predictor of a child's future is weather they were from a two parent home or raised by a single parent, often the mother. Children from single mother households are far more likely to commit crimes, to use drugs, to have unwanted pregnancies, you name it! Much more single mothers are from the poorer classes, so there is a correlation, but not in the way you suggest. 

 

People cannot control the circumstances of their birth, but they can choose how to deal with it. Stef was born very very poor. He could have chosen to follow the path laid out for him, but he chose to try to make a better life for himself. This is how the poor are liberated, when they realize the power is in their hands! That it's no one's "fault" that they're poor, they're not the victims of anything besides the randomness of life; which we are all victim to. Of course the government is making life miserable for everybody, especially the poor, so I do not dismiss their suffering, but it is an inherent problem with statism, not capitalism.

 

Sorry for sounding harsh, but you have no idea of the ramifications for such a way of thinking, especially when representing a cultural trend. Justifying the oppression and misery of a whole class of people on the grounds that their failures must have been caused by some personal shortcomings can have truly horrific consequences.

 

for the love of Thor, provide a quote of where I have advocated such a way of thinking or retract your statements. Continuing to degrade my character without providing evidence is not only quite insulting but very corrupt. You assume that I have no idea of the ramifications but you know nothing about me. You make blind assertions and don't back it up with evidence. Support your claims with facts, not appeals to emotional manipulation. 

 

 

 

And just cuz it was bugging me. 

 

Vulgar libertarianism is a term used to describe free market advocates who defend the very much unfree current state of capitalism.

 

This sentence makes no sense. If anyone is defending the current system, they are not defending capitalism. Capitalism is by definition free and un-coerced so it's impossible to have an "unfree" capitalism... the same way you cant have "non-voluntary" sex, it's just called rape since sex is by definition voluntary. I suggest that before you go on posting on a board that is generally very well educated on capitalism, that you learn a little more about it. 

[James Dean]

Kevin, I'm glad you liked it. I was thinking that if the feedback here was positive, I might turn it into a script for a YouTube video. Do you think it was too heavy on the jokes? I was concerned there weren't enough hard facts, it was just so difficult since the comic basically provided anti-facts. 

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, I'm glad you liked it. I was thinking that if the feedback here was positive, I might turn it into a script for a YouTube video. Do you think it was too heavy on the jokes? I was concerned there weren't enough hard facts, it was just so difficult since the comic basically provided anti-facts. 

The jokes were my favorite part. I didn't think there were too many, no. My favorites were the "cis scum" bit, the Benjamin Button/convict bit, how Paula lived 120 years ago in a crack house, and everything that showed that in addition to everything else, the comic is just bad story telling.

 

Although, I did appreciate you mentioning the average household income and the part about unemployment, so I could get some perspective on how poor is poor. And I also thought it was worth mentioning the bit about the poor girl being a girl and how that's probably done to draw sympathy.

 

So maybe some combination of jokes and facts to put things in perspective are good. I don't know. I think whatever your gut tells you is probably best.

[LibertarianSocialist]

 

 "And so she has to go with a different bank that might give her a higher interest rate. oh the humanity!"

 

Just one of many statements you made demonstrating you really don't give a damn about injustice. You go further to acknowledge injustice by stating that upbringing is of huge importance to overall life outcome. So she is discriminated against financially due to a low income, something you admit is influenced heavily by her upbringing. She is therefore being punished for the sins of her parents, as they were likely their parents. How is class not a thing? Social and economic class has a huge influence on parenting, as it does many things. You admit yourself that poorer people are more likely to be single parents and that single parent status is one of the most important factors in life success. So how is this not a class issue? Because it sounds like the poor staying poor through no fault of their own to me. Your point asserting that the fact people are poor is no one's fault, that they are subject to the same trials as everyone completely flies in the face of your parenting example. It is furthermore a stellar example of vulgar libertarianism.

 

Maybe you weren't generalizing. Maybe you are just a fact-nazi who was in no way outraged by the GENERAL message of the work. Of course the piece was an isolated work not intended to demonstrate a broader issue, and likewise your post was not aimed at dismissing this.

 

I actually know all about capitalism. Certainly enough to know that free-market capitalism is one of many variants of capitalism, freedom and non-coercion in no way being necessary for a capitalist society. If you admit the current society is coercive, why do you defend it so?

 

"This is how the poor are liberated, when they realize the power is in their hands! That it's no one's "fault" that they're poor, they're not the victims of anything besides the randomness of life; which we are all victim to. Of course the government is making life miserable for everybody, especially the poor, so I do not dismiss their suffering, but it is an inherent problem with statism, not capitalism."

 

-Because this is not a mouthful of contradictions. It's no one's fault people are poor, it is completely random, except it is all the states fault, who especially punish the poor.

[percentient]

Do you really need four jobs to support one child?

[Guest Gee]

No worries James, anything that helps.

 

I did a quick look at grading in the US......

 

.

 

I think then an expected value of B vs B+ is 84% vs 88% and on a 50 question test this comes out as 42 vs 44 correct answers (assuming equal value for correct answers).

[Mister Mister]

Yes I thought it was very well done.  When I first read the comic in passing on FB, I didn't think that much of it, and I certainly didn't notice the inconsistencies you pointed out - especially about the income levels between the two families.  One is "doing O.K.", but can pay for private school, private tutors, and university, and has connections to get the son a high-paying job ( without ever having to work hard apparently ).  The others are poor but both parents work overtime hours, (when in reality the average poor household works about 10 hrs and collects welfare), and yet they live like Soviets in the 1930s.  Ridiculous.

Vulgar libertarianism is a term used to describe free market advocates who defend the very much unfree current state of capitalism. Your analysis reads a pretty clear: "Fuck poor people, they aren't really that disadvantaged, they just aren't trying hard enough." Even without knowing the families income or needs you automatically assume these would be adequate and thus dismiss their plight. You try to trivialize the very real disadvantage people face everyday in a classic attempt to blame the victim, and in doing so you defend the current system. You want evidence of inequality? Look outside. There is so much information about inequality and its negative effects, only the most blinded apologist would argue otherwise.

"Fuck poor people!" - I don't really see where he said this in his analysis.  Can you point this out?  I think the main criticism was that the comic is supposed to be about a child of a lower class family vs. a child of a middle class family (doing o.k.), but as the story develops, it seems like the girl lives in some 3rd world country, whereas the boy's parents are clearly very rich.  Also as I pointed out, the average poor household does not work very much at all, but the girl's parents in the comic both work two jobs, even at the minimum wage this puts them in the middle class.  But I didn't see any animosity towards the poor in his post.  I think perhaps that you are projecting some attitude you've seen from other people onto this thread.

 

By 100% social mobility I mean that their ought to be no correlation between where you started and where you ended up in the social scale. Assuming the classes are not based on demonstrable genetic superiority, we would expect to see the class of your parents having no bearing on your eventual class whatsoever. That this is not the case is all the evidence needed to demonstrate real disadvantage.

As I understand, there is a pretty clear correlation between IQ and income, and IQ is correlated to genetics.  Not to say that everyone "deserves" what they have in today's society (not sure what that would even mean), but the standard you propose, that the child of a construction worker has just as much chance to be a highly successful businessman as the child of a successful businessman, doesn't quite work, and may be impossible given the reality of intelligence and genetics.  Of course in a free society, I believe the standard of living of the poor would be higher, there would be less poor as we wouldn't be paying stupid people to have kids, and the super-rich, who have always been those who benefit from State power rather than produce value, wouldn't exist.
 

 

Sorry for sounding harsh, but you have no idea of the ramifications for such a way of thinking, especially when representing a cultural trend. Justifying the oppression and misery of a whole class of people on the grounds that their failures must have been caused by some personal shortcomings can have truly horrific consequences.

Again, I think you are projecting some kind of emotional reaction to a humorous and well argued criticism of a pretty stupid and poorly thought out internet comic.  Obviously principled defenders of the free market are by far the minority in the world, so I don't know what you're talking about as far as ramifications and justifying oppression of a whole class of people and horrific consequences and so on, except that this has some emotional effect on you.  Can I ask what is your relation to wealth and poverty?