Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 150 posts

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#141

Post by sybarita »

remote_phone wrote: post #53
cycrutchfield wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lied and cheated constantly because they were forced to due their poverty. It is absolutely a movie about class inequality and resentment.

They weren’t scumbags because they were poor. They were poor because they were scumbags. That was what I saw. They were an entire family of cheaters and liars but none of the other characters in the same economic class were like that. The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. The workers were very loyal to them until the family lied and cheated their way in…

jesus christ this is really what you took away from that?

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#142

Post by ALittleLight »

claudeganon wrote: post #137
ALittleLight wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She is literally a diligent servant. Her job is to be a servant and she is attentive, hard working, cares about her job and the family and the house. I don't see how accurately describing her as a diligent servant shows any of my biases. I don't think the film is the good poor versus the evil poor. I think the film is something like a rich person's horror story - the poor hold you in contempt, they're lying to you, t…

What do you think the rich family would have done to her if they knew what she was actually doing? What exposes your biases is that you reduce her to the superficial appearance that she puts on for the rich in order to survive. This is not only viewing her through the perspective of the wealthy in the film, but counter to what the movie itself tells you she is forced to do and become, outside this limited perspective…

I think if the rich family knew what the hidden family was doing they would have fired her and called the police. I think that's a totally normal and understandable reaction, but it's not the most moral reaction, which would be to help the hidden family. I think this cuts against your argument because the richest people aren't extremely moral, whereas they would be if point was that morality follows wealth. Consider the party scene where the rich father cares more for his fainted son than the stabbed poor daughter.

I think your attempt to perceive and expose my biases is unsound. I called her a diligent servant because she is, and to contrast her with the poor family. The diligent servant works hard, does her job, and earns even the extra she takes for her husband. The poor family don't really know how to do their jobs, consider the father's inattention while driving or the daughter's made up therapy, and they perform their jobs haphazardly.

The diligent servant is doing what she's doing because otherwise loan sharks will kill her husband. The poor family is doing what they're doing to make more money. The point is that the original housekeeper is behaving morally and picking the best of bad options. The poor family is behaving immorally by lying, getting people fired, poisoning the housekeeper, and stealing. Both are poor and only the main family is immoral, which again rebuts your interpretation.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#143

Post by danans »

madengr wrote: post #4
danans wrote: post #3

As much as it pointed out the serious inequality issues facing South Korea, the movie also highlighted the fact that the poor in South Korea have access to healthcare free at the point of service. It also depicted young people who, despite their poverty, had enough access to schooling that they could serve as English tutors to the wealthy (yes, I'm aware that SK's education system has other issues related to it being…

“ Mr. Kim owns his place in the building, bought for $30,000 after he sold his house in a better neighborhood 20 years ago to help pay for his late wife’s cancer bills.” How does that fit into universal health care?

Every system has its point where it no longer can pay for care, especially when the procedures have a questionable ability to provide an extension to life at high quality, even the US system.

The difference is that on the US vast swathes don't have basic healthcare, which can often reduce the rate of complexities that require extreme treatment measures, like treating cancers early before they advance to a terminal state.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#144

Post by lurquer »

jwilber wrote: post #67
lurquer wrote: post #54

Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising Arizona does about American culture. WTF, HackerNews? All this pretentious pontificating about the deeper meaning of a dark comedy (which could be set in ANY culture or locale with very few changes...) Whats next? A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book.

How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread. The article is a straightforward piece on living situations in Seoul. Maybe next time give it a read before commenting. In any case, please DO continue ending your comments with those authoritative one-liners. (Such an enigma!)

>How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread.

Ha. Touché.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#145

Post by claudeganon »

Aunche wrote: post #36
claudeganon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. It’s pretty blatant. As was the indifference of the rich to the struggles of the poor and their own inhumanity toward them.

When exactly is the family "forced" into conflict? They freely chose to take away from other working class people in order to boost themselves. Obviously, the rich were depicted as part of the problem. However, the family could have improved their lives if they restrained themselves.

Ah yes, they could have continued to be unemployed in their soon to be flooded apartment if they had only restrained themselves.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#146

Post by chii »

harimau777 wrote: post #115
chii wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gym memberships for people below a certain income level why? this is a luxury. You don't need a gym membership - just jog around, it's free. Tax dollars are meant to pay for things that can't be free or have a free substitution.

Jogging around would not provide the same benefits as a proper strength training program. Theoretically bodyweight exercises could but that would require a level of gymnastics training that most people don't have.

> Jogging around would not provide the same benefits as a proper strength training program.

it is not the tax payer's responsibility to provide a proper strength training program for those who cannot afford it themselves. It is the tax payer's social responsibility to provide a service when said service is important (like healthcare) but is difficult for the poor to fund themselves.

Exercising is important, but it's free to do, so should not require a tax burden to provide anything of this nature for the poor. Health care cannot be free (nobody works for free). Therefore, it's important for the tax payer to fund it.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#147

Post by unishark »

Diggsey wrote: post #107
unishark wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logistics don't seem difficult at all to me if there's a will. People tend to be pretty accommodating when it comes to letting you give them money. At the very least, countries can offer a "medical visa" option to visitors. As for national borders being unethical by nature, if that logically follows then why not? I certainly don't consider ethics a source of "gotcha" questions, but of real conundrums.

> People tend to be pretty accommodating when it comes to letting you give them money. Not really. A huge amount of charity money supposedly going to the poor in other countries is actually used to bribe officials in those countries to allow the aid to be delivered. Any attempt to give healthcare to people in those countries would also be seen as foreign interference, and suffer the same problems.

Corruption is simply part of the price of operating cost in developing countries, not an impenetrable barrier.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#148

Post by robjan »

9q9 wrote: post #126
robjan wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP was pointing out that Gates wasn't entirely "self-made", as suggested by GGP. Gates in fact enjoyed opportunities that aren't available to the average American and is therefore not a particularly good example of social mobility. Pointing out that he enjoyed a degree of privilege doesn't diminish his achievements.

Gates probably at least 1000x-ed his parents wealth. By just about any measure that's being self-made, as the GGP correctly pointed out. If 1000x-ing doesn't count as self-made exactly what meaningful measure of self-madeness and social mobility do you propose? degree of privilege doesn't diminish Privilege is a vague term that has become a term of political abuse and has ceased to be analytically useful, I recommend…

It's easier to turn a million into a billion than a thousand into a million or ten into ten thousand. All of these are 1000x the original value.

So yes, he's not entirely self made. Not even close.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#149

Post by golergka »

netsharc wrote: post #129
golergka wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he's not a believer in social mobility in Korea > it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions Did we watch the same movie? The contrast between two families depicted on screen, their woth ethic and simple human morals is so stark that it seems even more right-wing than I am. I don't believe that there's a social justice to be achieved in society as a whole, but as you watch the movie (especial…

The director has mentioned that the rich family were also parasites, although you're right, maybe he didn't make their parasitic behavior explicit enough. Although some examples I noticed: - They got rid of their loyal, long-serving, housekeeper instead of caring that she's sick/supporting her through it. - They "forced" their helpers to show up on Sunday. - When the driver (the poor dad) was reluctant to run around…

> They got rid of their loyal, long-serving, housekeeper instead of caring that she's sick/supporting her through it.

From their point of view, she hid her very contagious and dangerous sickness from them and knowingly endangered them and their children with tuberculosis just to keep her job. What kind of loyalty is that?

> They "forced" their helpers to show up on Sunday.

I watched the movie in September, so I must admit, I don't remember that part really well, but then you're quote the phrase...

> "You're getting paid extra for this!".

...which means, they're paid overtime - so, while outright forcing someone to come out on a weekend is a bad thing to do, it's not even unpaid overtime (which is so common, unfortunately). And it's certainly not even in the same league as literal murder.

> On the topic of work ethic, I didn't really see the rich dad ... working hard

I think it's obvious he's not in the position where he has to work hard - it's working smart that counts.

> the mom doesn't even work!

That's dad's decision - he earned his money, and he decided (for better or for worse) that he wants to provide for his wife. Many (me included) would not take this decision even if we had the resources, but everyone has the freedom to do whatever with the money they earned.

> Just like many of us in this forum, the dad probably got lucky to end up in a high-paying position, luck doesn't mean work ethic!

I can't judge you personally, but I've seen many other talented software engineers and other tech workers come to the same conclusions after they've been in the bubble too long. They got accustomed to level of intelligence and abstract thinking of their social group and naturally assume that all the other people are basically the same. I don't think that they realize what the "outer world" and people who inhabit it are really like. (I grew up pretty poor in not a particuarly elite neighbourhood of Moscow during a decade-long economic and system crysis, and my opinion of the "proletariat" is based on a very intimate first-hand experience).

> You're probably a believer in the meritocracy

No, not quite - I'm not a believer in any kind of system or a systematic truth about this, not the meritoracy, nor the opposite.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#150

Post by BubRoss »

robjan wrote: post #148
9q9 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates probably at least 1000x-ed his parents wealth. By just about any measure that's being self-made, as the GGP correctly pointed out. If 1000x-ing doesn't count as self-made exactly what meaningful measure of self-madeness and social mobility do you propose? degree of privilege doesn't diminish Privilege is a vague term that has become a term of political abuse and has ceased to be analytically useful, I recommend…

It's easier to turn a million into a billion than a thousand into a million or ten into ten thousand. All of these are 1000x the original value. So yes, he's not entirely self made. Not even close.

His parents had a few million dollars but he started microsoft off of a version of a very optimized version of basic he wrote. He amassed 80 billion dollars and became the richest person on earth. Paul Allen and Steve Balmer became multi billionaires as well. I don't even know that he used all his parents money to do that. How many people are able to start a company. It's the equivalent of putting in 1000 dollars and building a 100 million dollar company. Saying that isn't 'self made' is delusional.
Post reply on HN