The Ant and The Grasshopper

[Thelost1]

As I stated. That is why 1069 thought that it was bigotted. Nobody else (I assume) thinks that it is more than a satire on the liberal viewpoint.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

How it happened is exactly the point of the old version. The ignoring of how it happened is the satire in the new version.

And it is the satire that I examined, and the point of this discussion, not the original.

Nothing in the story relates whether the Ant grew up affluent, or whether the grasshopper's family was rich. The bias in the story is not based on their "class" but on their personal wealth. Not stats on a group, but the personal property of two individuals. "Class" is many, the ant is one.

Irrelevant how they grew up. The only relevancy is their current situations. The story doesn't consider past situations in it's satire.

Already "have" or already "earned" ???

With your definition of classism, this is irrelevant. Present situation is what matters.

No one "allowed" him to. He worked to make it so.

Again, irrelevant. The story depicts the current situation to make the point. If there are two people of different socio-economic classes, how they achieved this is irrelevant when discussing classism.

There is no classism in the story, because the story is about two individuals, and contains no groups, and no info on the affluence or lack thereof of either individual's background / parents.

You do understand the concept of metaphors? Most fables use them. The grasshopper and ant in this story represent distinct classes. This story is not about an actual ant and grasshopper. Or two individuals.

This is a matter of your opinion, and not corroborated within the story. Is it your contention that Jesse Jackson would only help blacks ? You might be right, but this is a preconcieved notion that you held before you read the piece, and this notion is not present in the piece, it is again, something you brought with you.

Sure, it's an individual interpretation, but an predictably accurate one, I would guess. When was the last time you heard Jesse Jackson defending a white person?

more of your unspoken assumptions about Jesse, and not corroborated in the piece itself.

Already addressed above.

This is NOT classism, this is a legitimate question in social, economic, and and political philosophy.

Again, look past the literal content, and understand the metaphors. The "Anti-Grasshopper Act" can metaphorically represent "Anti-Poverty Act". Taxing the ant can represent taxing the rich.

Bull. Race quotas are racist, and attacking them, is specifically Non-Racist.

Your opinion. Read my entire statement and notice the word 'can'. I am not defending it. I'm merely stating how it is a metaphorical representation.

Nope. Objective Judgement of sub-par decision making.

Do you think being a single mother on assistance is a laudable goal ? I can tell you, it is not, and speaking that truth does not make me classist.

Read the story's sentance again. Identifying single-parent welfare recipients is the key. It assumes that it is single parents that are welfare recipents. This is where the classism and probably bigotry against single parents comes in. Why single parents? Are they the only ones on welfare. Are there single parents not on welfare? Lots of overgeneralizations...as you would find in a satire.

Incorrect. It is not biased and bigotted, it is based on the track record of the grasshopper as detailed in the story. It takes work to maintain a home, and the story already tells us the grasshopper won't. Thus, the house delapidates through the negligence of its new occupant. It is not bias, when we are basing it off the grasshopper's personal track record.

Nope. Again, you are missing the metaphorical representation and overgeneralization key to satire. This assumes that one who is disadvantaged would neglect their home.

This is again a matter of your opinion, and not corroborated in the piece. It is simply statistically accurate. Drug violence happens vastly more often among the poor. How do you call a statistical fact bigotted ???

A metaphorical overgeneralization. The story assumes that this is what happens to one who is disadvantaged. Sure, stats show that more people in poverty would be involved in drugs. So what? Irrelevant to the story. The story is a metaphorical overgeneralized satire on how liberalism deals with poverty vs. wealth. Individuals in this story are meaningless.

 

[Panache]

Irrelevant how they grew up. The only relevancy is their current situations. The story doesn't consider past situations in it's satire.

Oh yes it does. In fact, the entire story in both the old and the new version focus on the consequences of past situations.

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

This is the premise in both versions. All further consequences in both versions are derived from this premise.

Again, irrelevant. The story depicts the current situation to make the point. If there are two people of different socio-economic classes, how they achieved this is irrelevant when discussing classism.

Why would it be irrelevent?

Your attempts to remove the fact that the grasshopper is foolish from the story are silly, since the whole point of the story is that being foolish has consequences, and the whole point of the satire is that people who are foolish feel entitled to not face the consequences of their foolishness.

The foolishness issue is not a class issue at all.

The ant and the grasshopper both make $30,000/yr. The ant puts away half of his income in a savings account so he can make a down payment on a house. The grasshopper spend all his money on drugs and booze and strippers.

They both are in the same socio-economic catagory. Its just one of them is a fool and one of them is not.

You do understand the concept of metaphors? Most fables use them. The grasshopper and ant in this story represent distinct classes. This story is not about an actual ant and grasshopper. Or two individuals.

The orginal is a metaphor for two individuals. The satire remarks on how a Nanny State tries to deal with these two individuals.

Classes once again are not an issue here. Lets suppose the Grasshopper actually makes more money than the ant. He drives fancy cars that he can't afford, lives in an apartment that he can't afford, eats at restaraunts that he can't afford, and then cries to the government when he finds himself in over his head in debt.

The ant makes minimum wage, but lives within his means like a church mouse, saving up to buy a modest condo.

Come wintertime, the grasshopper has creditors breathing down his neck, while the ant is busy buying another condo and renting out his old one.

Class is not involved here. Just financial responsibility.

Again, look past the literal content, and understand the metaphors. The "Anti-Grasshopper Act" can metaphorically represent "Anti-Poverty Act". Taxing the ant can represent taxing the rich.

Or more likely it represents any one of a dozen stupid entitlement programs. Taxing the ant can represent taxing people who earn money in order to give it away to people who don't.

Read the story's sentance again. Identifying single-parent welfare recipients is the key. It assumes that it is single parents that are welfare recipents.

Clearly it doesn't. If it assumed that all welfare recepients were single parents, there would be no need for the qualifer. Likewise if it assumed that all single parents were welfare recipients.

What it assumes is that single parent welfare recipients are not going to be impartial judges, and will be sympathetic to the plight of the foolish. This makes sense to me, since being foolish is just about the only way to become a single parent welfare recipient.

Nope. Again, you are missing the metaphorical representation and overgeneralization key to satire. This assumes that one who is disadvantaged would neglect their home.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage. Advantage and disadvantage appear nowhere in either story. It assumes that maintaining a home requires work, and we have already established that the lazy and foolish grasshopper is unwilling to do the work required.

A metaphorical overgeneralization. The story assumes that this is what happens to one who is disadvantaged. Sure, stats show that more people in poverty would be involved in drugs. So what? Irrelevant to the story. The story is a metaphorical overgeneralized satire on how liberalism deals with poverty vs. wealth. Individuals in this story are meaningless.

Its not a matter of how liberalism deals with poverty vs wealth. Its how liberalism deals with responsibility vs. irresponsibility.