CTrefugees
@CTrefugees • 4,095 subscribers
You have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering. Post-trad: Fr. Ripperger is right.
Shorts
Videos
I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:
CTrefugees123,660 views • 9 days ago
So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.
CTrefugees134,856 views • 27 days ago
No more content to load