Dilemma of Goodness
 

Pastimes: The Context of Contemporary Leisure Third Edition By Ruth V. Russell

Is watching wrestling inferior to watching fencing? Is classical music superior to rock, jazz or hip hop? Is polo better than football? Are horse derbies more civilized than demolition derbies?

Depends on who you talk to.

I think it's important for us to retain the past and educate about it...particularly with music. I think I got the short end of the stick on classical and jazz as a kid. But at the same time, our society evolves, and we should enjoy whatever pleases us...within reason of course.

Morality and being "civilized" is subjective, so no.

What reason?

Well for example, if you consider bear-baiting to be entertainment you're probably out of step with society.

Depends on which one.

Inherently, no. Though remember that when you're talking about classical music in 2007, you're generally talking about the best of the best, and not all the rotten stuff (q.v. Sturgeon's Law) that wasn't good enough to survive. For a fair comparison, you'd have to look at ALL the music available in, say, 1785, not just Mozart, compared to, say, all the rock music available in 2007.

You shouldn't be doing anything illegal or that causes others severe distress. If you want to listen to loud music, have at it. But if I can hear it loud and clear from five houses down, that's probably a problem.

In my opinion, I don't think leisure time is not biased by outside factors. There are many things I do by myself that other people have influenced me to do. For example, I don't like painting my toenails, but I do it leisurely by myself because I know other people might think it's pretty. Am I taking the word leisure out of context in reference to what the original post was about?

It's about social capital in my opinion. Some things cost more and are more accessable to people with more money whilst other things cost less and are therefor accessable to people with lower incomes. Does it mean one is better or worse than the other? Not in my opinion. It's about finance and what you have the opportunity to be exposed to during your lifetime.

To answer the questions in the original post, there is nothing superior about, I dunno, "WASP" activities and experiences compared to a blue collar layman's enjoyments. Like Ali said, they just have different opportunities with leisure. But one isn't better than the other.

the more expensive something is to do it automatically limits it to the wealthy therefore becoming "refined"

Like drinking Cristal and getting a blingy diamond grill in your mouth?

What's wrong with that?

Question: In considering attending a performance of the Philadelphia Orchestra, and a Philadelphia Eagles game, which would you consider "blue collar" and which would you consider "WASP"?

Would you change your answer if you knew that a ticket to an Eagles game costs about four times the cheapest ticket to a Philadelphia Orchestra concert?

So... poor people are poor because they spend their money on dumb shit?

In some cases, I'm sure that's part of the explanation.

But what does that have to do with my example? I never suggested either activity was "dumb".

ur dum

Steve I'm just saying things that are supposedly exclusively for the higher class, equestrian stuff, polo and horse races aren't better than pick up basketball games, Friday night poker or video game tournaments. I didn't have any intentions on money handling.

I was just pointing out that whether stuff is perceived as "elite" or "not-elite" doesn't always have to do with how much it costs, but a perception of it.

But you've got a point--something like polo requires an infrastructure, but to go to a public event you just have to lay out cash for a ticket.

And cough up millions in tax money for the venue.

Very true, Steve and Bruce. But that's leisure in our American society.

Hate it or love it, like The Game says.

So who are we, as Americans, to judge other countries and cultures that perceive leisure in a whole different light. Rastafarians use cannabis for leisure and religious/spiritual use. Are we condemning their way of life for a legitimate reason? Or does it just "seem" out of place with American values and culture.

The ancient Romans culture of leisure was......mass human slaughter! What do you call coliseums and gladiator games? Were they below our own perception of leisure? Or is it all to be taken as the same human necessity?

Leisure is a proven human necessity.

We're just telling the Rastafarians and Romans, don't bring it here.

No, that's leisure for some of American society. But we all have to pay for it.

Do you think the City of Coatesville's abuse of eminent domain, taking a family's farm, paying for it with taxpayer's money, to build a fucking golf course for the tiny minority of taxpayers, is right?

Or the City of Philadelphia spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer's money, to make a few millionaires richer, is fair to the millions of taxpayers that don't give a rat's ass about sports?

Bruce I respect what you're saying, but I'm confused why you're saying it. To counter me or fresh?

I was discussing how in my opinion leisure in any form cannot be judged based on a culture; therefore should not be judged at all. Because leisure is leisure for its own sake.

Yes the usual, normal, acceptable leisure, varies with different cultures and is important to that culture.
I was taking it a step further. We should accept different cultures doing their own thing, but we have a right to judge when they want to bring their thing here. I'd use bullfighting as an example of that.

Then I addressed Freshchronic's, that's the game like it or not... which is strangely reminiscent to, love it or leave it.

Clear?

Actually it's a song title, Hate it or Love it, by the artist The Game.
Meh.

Not familiar with the song or group so I misunderstood. Still not sure what your point was, then.

Today I did weed but first volunteered at the library. Which leisure is more valuable? To me? To society, and finally... to you?