tamara ecclestone: 'dad wants me to enjoy my money'

[bcbm]

get your barf bag

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/tamara-ecclestone-dad-wants-me-to-enjoy-my-money-6280093.html

[NewLeft]

For a second I thought she got the doggy facials.. like a dog lickered her up??

[piet11111]

And people wonder why these kind of people feel entitled or can not imagine how others struggle to make ends meet.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

For a second I thought she got the doggy facials.. like a dog lickered her up??

I thought it referred to some seriously fucked up zoophilic act, because that actually makes more sense than what it is referring to in the article-spending actual money on giving a dog, a four legged canine, a facial at a spa.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, "doggy facials" is a rather unfortunate term.

I'd like to think that, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn't be a complete hedonist, but, in all honesty, I'd probably be jetting across the world with a mason jar full of coke and a truly massive sense of entitlement only matched by my enormous ego. But hey, politics should be based on your own self-interest IMO, I'm far less concerned with the arrogant rich pricks who are in it only for their own material gain than I am with the wealthy "social engineers" (ie people like Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch etc.)

[Threetune]

re-education for all.

[piet11111]

re-education for all.

How about letting them live on a workers wage.

Would be interesting though to see the suicide statistics because i honestly can not see them coping with it.

[Robespierre Richard]

Yes, "doggy facials" is a rather unfortunate term.

I'd like to think that, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn't be a complete hedonist, but, in all honesty, I'd probably be jetting across the world with a mason jar full of coke and a truly massive sense of entitlement only matched by my enormous ego. But hey, politics should be based on your own self-interest IMO, I'm far less concerned with the arrogant rich pricks who are in it only for their own material gain than I am with the wealthy "social engineers" (ie people like Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch etc.)

I think my exploits would end somewhere around "running a functional narrow-gauge railroad, but at a tropical resort," but that's just me.

[The Douche]

Remember when rich kids used to do shit like this:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hearst/hearstsla.jpg

Man, those were the days.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, there isn't nearly enough kidnapping/brainwashing going on nowadays.

[The Douche]

Yes, there isn't nearly enough kidnapping/brainwashing going on nowadays.

You really believe she was brainwashed?

As somebody who's been in combat, I'm not handing a gun to somebody and telling them to watch my back unless I know I can trust them 100%, and you can't trust a brainwashed person like that.

She fell in love with the romanticism of being an urban guerrilla, she was down for the cause, it was only when faced with the consequences after her arrest that the claims of brainwashing came out, its a fucking trial defense, and an example of her white upper class privilege that she wasn't treated the same way as other SLA members.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah probably. I don't really know anything about the case or what happened.

The SLA was a pretty lame urban guerrilla group, though.

[Agathor]

The 'Super Sweet 16' rich-kid is a bit of a stereotype. Very few of the wealthy people I've known would let their children live off of them, and all of them know about shopping centres.

The bourgeoisie are not aristocrats. We look silly when we act like they live in gated settlements and can't operate household utilities without servants.

[piet11111]

The 'Super Sweet 16' rich-kid is a bit of a stereotype. Very few of the wealthy people I've known would let their children live off of them, and all of them know about shopping centres.

The bourgeoisie are not aristocrats. We look silly when we act like they live in gated settlements and can't operate household utilities without servants.

So what kind of wealthy are we talking about here ?

a household with 10mil+ 25mil+ 50mil+ or more ?

Tamara's father is a billionaire and clearly she has no notion of the value of money and why should she as she effectively has no reason not to buy something she wants.

Obviously with that kind of money you will move into a bigger house and those are not built in workingclass areas so yeah you will live in isolation from the masses.
And since all your neighbors are roughly as rich as you chances are you wont be seeing the proles unless they either work for you or are in the shops and bars you attend.

When you live like that your entire life then yeah you will grow up thinking its normal

[Os Cangaceiros]

I knew one rich girl from Florida who didn't know how to operate a can opener.

[Agathor]

So what kind of wealthy are we talking about here ?

a household with 10mil+ 25mil+ 50mil+ or more ?

Tamara's father is a billionaire and clearly she has no notion of the value of money and why should she as she effectively has no reason not to buy something she wants.

Obviously with that kind of money you will move into a bigger house and those are not built in workingclass areas so yeah you will live in isolation from the masses.
And since all your neighbors are roughly as rich as you chances are you wont be seeing the proles unless they either work for you or are in the shops and bars you attend.

When you live like that your entire life then yeah you will grow up thinking its normal

Most of the bourgeoisie are not billionaires. An extremely successful banker might break the 10m mark, and a successful partner in a City of London law firm, for example, will take home a few million pounds a year, and will not use it to employ servants. They will live in an affluent village or district of a town, but will have to use the high street and supermarkets like everyone else, and they will get to work on public transport. My dad happens to be one of these people, so I have a bit of experience (not that I'm bourgeoisie too, before I get jumped on. He settled the divorce settlement with my mum before he moved up a class). They do move in privileged circles, and without exception this detachment leads to comical misconceptions about working people. (I asked my dad what he thought median wage was. Answer: 50k. Apparently this is typical)

The ultra wealthy bourgeoisies like Ecclestone's daughter might come close to the stereotype, but they are not typical of their class. Most of the ones I've met are perfectly normal people. Most of them work many hours and expect their children to do the same when they're old enough.

[The Douche]

Most of the bourgeoisie are not billionaires. An extremely successful banker might break the 10m mark, and a successful partner in a City of London law firm, for example, will take home a few million pounds a year, and will not use it to employ servants. They will live in an affluent village or district of a town, but will have to use the high street and supermarkets like everyone else, and they will get to work on public transport. My dad happens to be one of these people, so I have a bit of experience (not that I'm bourgeoisie too, before I get jumped on. He settled the divorce settlement with my mum before he moved up a class). They do move in privileged circles, and without exception this detachment leads to comical misconceptions about working people. (I asked my dad what he thought median wage was. Answer: 50k. Apparently this is typical)

The ultra wealthy bourgeoisies like Ecclestone's daughter might come close to the stereotype, but they are not typical of their class. Most of the ones I've met are perfectly normal people. Most of them work many hours and expect their children to do the same when they're old enough.

Except, their children grow up with opportunities the rest of us never have. They go to better schools, have better resources, get better post-secondary education, eat better food, live healthier lives, and are not exposed to crime.

What exactly are you trying to get at here? Most bourgeois people aren't quite as aloof as the super-rich? No shit. Who said that they were? Who said that the people who make $200,000 a year have the same outlook as the people that make $2,000,000,000 a year?

[Misanthrope]

I didn't make it past the part when he was saying there was no need to thank him for "showing the 1 percent the 99 percent".

[Agathor]

Except, their children grow up with opportunities the rest of us never have. They go to better schools, have better resources, get better post-secondary education, eat better food, live healthier lives, and are not exposed to crime.

What exactly are you trying to get at here? Most bourgeois people aren't quite as aloof as the super-rich? No shit. Who said that they were? Who said that the people who make $200,000 a year have the same outlook as the people that make $2,000,000,000 a year?

It just irritates me to see the left using ignorant anachronistic stereotypes. It doesn't look good. It looks childish.

[The Douche]

It just irritates me to see the left using ignorant anachronistic stereotypes. It doesn't look good. It looks childish.

But who used any sort of stereotype? This thread is about an absurd individual.

[ed miliband]

I'm sure nobody has hurt poor Tamara's feelings.

[The Douche]

I'm sure nobody has hurt poor Tamara's feelings.

Obviously she doesn't care about the opinions of us mere peasants.

[ed miliband]

brah be careful you are evoking the language of feudalism which isn't correct in the case of tamara, who is merely very rich. modern rich people mix with us lot, you know.

[Agathor]

But who used any sort of stereotype? This thread is about an absurd individual.

The absurd individual is a popular bourgeois stereotype that I see on the left a lot. I might have jumped the gun a bit, fine. Take it as a warning not to generalize class stereotypes. Socialists do it too much. Eighty years ago there might have been something to it, but today it's silly.

[piet11111]

It just irritates me to see the left using ignorant anachronistic stereotypes. It doesn't look good. It looks childish.


Look we all know that there are people so rich that they are completely divorced from reality and Tamara is not even the worst of the lot.
Paris Hilton is clearly more out of touch with reality then she is.

But your post does make me wonder how you want us to change our perspective of the rich.

What do you think we should say to the people that ask us "what about Paris Hilton ?"

Should we use these people as examples of those we would expropriate of their wealth or as examples of the parasitical bourgeois that gain immense fortunes over the backs of the working masses without doing a days work in their lives ?

I like to mention these people as the only ones who would actually be losing under socialism because this way it makes clear that even the middle class professionals like doctors and university professors have something to gain under socialism.

It makes for easy propaganda to use these people as examples of the excesses of capitalism at the expense of everyone else.

[The Douche]

The absurd individual is a popular bourgeois stereotype that I see on the left a lot. I might have jumped the gun a bit, fine. Take it as a warning not to generalize class stereotypes. Socialists do it too much. Eighty years ago there might have been something to it, but today it's silly.

Well, sorry if I don't shed any tears for the people who "only" bring home a few hundred thousand a year, and the fact that they still have to ride public transport.:laugh:

[piet11111]

The absurd individual is a popular bourgeois stereotype that I see on the left a lot. I might have jumped the gun a bit, fine. Take it as a warning not to generalize class stereotypes. Socialists do it too much. Eighty years ago there might have been something to it, but today it's silly.

You do realize that the divide between the rich and poor has never been this massive ?

If anything emphasizing the gigantic differences between income has never been more relevant then today.

What makes it absurd is the huge fucking difference between the average worker and the multi billionaire not the "ramblings" of leftists.

[the last donut of the night]

i finished this article with a very hollow feeling where my soul used to be...whatever, hermes has a wonderful winter collection that is to die-for. you should all get a bag.

[Agathor]

Look we all know that there are people so rich that they are completely divorced from reality and Tamara is not even the worst of the lot.
Paris Hilton is clearly more out of touch with reality then she is.

But your post does make me wonder how you want us to change our perspective of the rich.

What do you think we should say to the people that ask us "what about Paris Hilton ?"

Should we use these people as examples of those we would expropriate of their wealth or as examples of the parasitical bourgeois that gain immense fortunes over the backs of the working masses without doing a days work in their lives ?

I like to mention these people as the only ones who would actually be losing under socialism because this way it makes clear that even the middle class professionals like doctors and university professors have something to gain under socialism.

It makes for easy propaganda to use these people as examples of the excesses of capitalism at the expense of everyone else.

I think it's fair to use the Tamara Ecclestones and Paris Hiltons of the world as propaganda, to raise the question of whether we should have an economic system that allows people who have never done a day of work to buy Ferraris like most people buy bus tickets. That's fine. But I think most people realize that these people aren't typical of their class, so when leftists say that they are, they make the left look silly. And as a leftist I'm opposed to the left looking silly.

[Agathor]

Well, sorry if I don't shed any tears for the people who "only" bring home a few hundred thousand a year, and the fact that they still have to ride public transport.:laugh:

I don't think you're really as dumb as you're acting.

[Agathor]

You do realize that the divide between the rich and poor has never been this massive ?

If anything emphasizing the gigantic differences between income has never been more relevant then today.

What makes it absurd is the huge fucking difference between the average worker and the multi billionaire not the "ramblings" of leftists.

I'll try to elaborate a little better. There is a large section of the left which still thinks that the typical bourgeoisie is a man in a country house with a top hat and a public school accent whose only contact with the oiks are the various maids and servants who he employs, whereas most of the country know that this hasn't been true since around the 19th century.

I'm not opposed to this attitude because it hurts the bourgeoisies feelings, but because it perpetuates a leftist stereotype: that we are out-of-touch anachronisms raging against a system that went out of existence a long time ago.

[The Douche]

I don't think you're really as dumb as you're acting.

Hey man, you're the one defending the bourgeoisie from an attack they haven't received...

[piet11111]

I'll try to elaborate a little better. There is a large section of the left who still thinks that the typical bourgeoisie is a man in a country house with a top hat and a public school accent whose only contact with the oiks are the various maids and servants who he employs, whereas most of the country know that this hasn't been true since around the 19th century.

I'm not opposed to this attitude because it hurts the bourgeoisies feelings, but because it perpetuates a leftist stereotype: that we are out-of-touch anachronisms raging against a system that went out of existence a long time ago.

The country house and top hat are obviously outdated but the rest isn't.
(are you sure you meant a public school i cant imagine the bourgeois to send their spawn there)

The super rich do live in gated community's where the only contact with proles are as direct employees or as those that serve them in shops or restaurants.

Its no coincidence that in the netherlands they thought a "millionaires fair" was necessary because they simply ran out of places to spend money here so the logical step before going to london paris or rome was to create a fair.

Also thanks for the "moron" rep makes it easier to judge your character ;)

[Agathor]

The country house and top hat are obviously outdated but the rest isn't.
(are you sure you meant a public school i cant imagine the bourgeois to send their spawn there)

The super rich do live in gated community's where the only contact with proles are as direct employees or as those that serve them in shops or restaurants.

Its no coincidence that in the netherlands they thought a "millionaires fair" was necessary because they simply ran out of places to spend money here so the logical step before going to london paris or rome was to create a fair.

'Public school' means the opposite in Britain.

In my experience, very few bourgeoisies live in opulent seclusion and very few have 'help' beyond cleaners. Anyway, this argument isn't half as important as a few morons are making it.

Also, give negative rep and expect to get it back.

[piet11111]

Also, give negative rep and expect to get it back.

Because this


I don't think you're really as dumb as you're acting.

Yeah if your resorting to those then you deserve negative reputation.
If you gave actual argumentation to refute him then i would have let it slide but alas.

[Firebrand]

I'll try to elaborate a little better. There is a large section of the left which still thinks that the typical bourgeoisie is a man in a country house with a top hat and a public school accent whose only contact with the oiks are the various maids and servants who he employs, whereas most of the country know that this hasn't been true since around the 19th century.

Tell that to David F***ing Cameron and his pals. Proof that the aristocracy is alive and well in Britain.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The country house and top hat are obviously outdated but the rest isn't.
(are you sure you meant a public school i cant imagine the bourgeois to send their spawn there)

The super rich do live in gated community's where the only contact with proles are as direct employees or as those that serve them in shops or restaurants.

Its no coincidence that in the netherlands they thought a "millionaires fair" was necessary because they simply ran out of places to spend money here so the logical step before going to london paris or rome was to create a fair.

Also thanks for the "moron" rep makes it easier to judge your character ;)

Except people who earn 100k, to a few million, don't live in fucking gated communities. They send their kids to a great school, and live in a great neighbourhood, and don't worry about money as much. They probaby see themselves as quite normal. Thats about it. They don't employ servants, go to massively differnet shops to normal people etc etc. Naturally a lot of their friends will be in a similar position to them, but acting as if the rich who are so though their job, that they are totally divorced from the fundamental needs and lifestyles and roles just seems silly.

[The Douche]

Except people who earn 100k, to a few million, don't live in fucking gated communities. They send their kids to a great school, and live in a great neighbourhood, and don't worry about money as much. They probaby see themselves as quite normal. Thats about it. They don't employ servants, go to massively differnet shops to normal people etc etc. Naturally a lot of their friends will be in a similar position to them, but acting as if the rich who are so though their job, that they are totally divorced from the fundamental needs and lifestyles and roles just seems silly.

People who make 100K or more a year live a fundamentally different life than I do, and have way different concerns than I do.

[piet11111]

You are not bourgeois through your job as a job means working for a wage.
Bourgeois means you are rich because you extract the surplus value from the people that are working for you.

I am not concerned about the tv star or the professional soccer player or other celebrity's but those that are on the board of directors of international corporations you know the real capitalists.

You wont see Bill Gates living in a home near you or Warren Buffet or Rupert Murdoch or Donald Trump or George Soros.

[Agathor]

Because this



Yeah if your resorting to those then you deserve negative reputation.
If you gave actual argumentation to refute him then i would have let it slide but alas.

I had spent a few posts explaining why I was making these points, that I wasn't defending the bourgeoisie I was trying to ward the left away from silly presumptions. He decided to ignore all of this and accuse me of defending the bourgeoisie.

I have a policy of not responding to Stalinists when they start behaving like this. It stresses me and is always a fruitless exercise.


Tell that to David F***ing Cameron and his pals. Proof that the aristocracy is alive and well in Britain.

Heh, it's true. I agree that we have a bourgeois aristocracy which acts like a bunch of elitist tits, and that David Cameron is a part of it, but it isn't typical of the wider bourgeoisie.

Sun Tzu, "Know your enemy".

[The Douche]

I had spent a few posts explaining why I was making these points, that I wasn't defending the bourgeoisie I was trying to ward the left away from silly presumptions. He decided to ignore all of this and accuse me of defending the bourgeoisie

Haha, what I did, was point out that you're defending the bourgeoise from an attack that hasn't been made in this thread. You approached this thread as if people were saying "look at the bourgeoisie", when what is clearly said is "this girl is nuts".

Furthermore, you have spent time explaining how "not all the bourgeoisie have it this good" (no shit) and "we shouldn't act like they do" (we weren't) and how your bourgie pops isn't this bad because he rides the subway just like us (woopidy fucking doo).


I have a policy of not responding to Stalinists when they start behaving like this. It stresses me and is always a fruitless exercise.

Did this dude just call me a stalinist?:laugh:

[Agathor]

I've decided that you are just dumb. You ignored the point of my post AGAIN, after posting the point explicitly, just for you.

And if you don't want people to think you're a Stalinist, you probably shouldn't have "stalinist goon" in your tag, eh? Also the overuse of smug smilies doesn't make you look any better.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'll try to elaborate a little better. There is a large section of the left which still thinks that the typical bourgeoisie is a man in a country house with a top hat and a public school accent whose only contact with the oiks are the various maids and servants who he employs, whereas most of the country know that this hasn't been true since around the 19th century.

I'm not opposed to this attitude because it hurts the bourgeoisies feelings, but because it perpetuates a leftist stereotype: that we are out-of-touch anachronisms raging against a system that went out of existence a long time ago.

Um... people are richer now than ever before. Yes there aren't monarchies abundant with people wearing gold-plated mink hats. Instead they have 50+ room houses with 20+ cars. And no, they don't walk around downtown at 11:30pm to catch the late night bus home from work because:
a) they don't have to
b) they don't want to
c) they don't know where the bus stop is.

Really, we're not "out of touch." If anything, we're more in touch than most because we understand both the reality of the situation and the structural systems which bring it about.

- August

[The Douche]

I've decided that you are just dumb. You ignored the point of my post AGAIN, after posting the point explicitly, just for you.

And if you don't want people to think you're a Stalinist, you probably shouldn't have "stalinist goon" in your tag, eh? Also the overuse of smug smilies doesn't make you look any better.

Personal insults don't add to your argument. And if you said them to another member I would give you a verbal warning for it.

Maybe you should reconsider the manner in which you're making your point because apparently, its not just me, but a number of other posters in this thread who have "misunderstood" your point.

So what exactly is your point? The left pretends that all of the bourgeoisie are the stereotypical monopoly man? Where in this thread has that stereotype been asserted?


You don't think that "stalinist goon" might be a tad ironic, seeing as my avatar is supporting an individualist-anarchist/nihilist underground organization? Or my tendency is set to "ultra left scum"? So you'll have to pardon me, if I laugh at the assertion that I am a stalinist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The mid-level wealthy do live a very different existence from many of us, actually. I used to live on Long Island, and you go out to eastern LI, you'll find quite a lot of these people, not just a couple. They do have "servants", they have people to clean their house, do up-keep on their property, and take care of their kids..."outsourcing" those tasks is really alien to me and most of the people in the community I come from. One woman I knew out there (who's husband worked hedgefunds) flew an entire reggae band in from Jamaica to play at his birthday party.

Attacking the view that the wealthy live in exclusive castles in the countryside and wear top hats seems like you're attacking a strawman.