Author Topic: Antimustachian documentaries  (Read 8726 times)

carolinap

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Antimustachian documentaries
« on: October 11, 2016, 12:24:39 AM »
For the same reason I dig into the "Overheard at Work" to read trainwreck stories, I enjoy documentaries that register this kind of behavior, such as:

- The Queen of Versailles (uber-rich spandypants couple plan on build the largest private residence in the world when suffer the impact of 2008 crisis)
- Broke (NBA athletes who face bankrupcy after 5-year multimillionaire careers, due to their spending habits)

Anyone knows more documentaries like these?

One Noisy Cat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2016, 05:57:09 AM »
The VH1 documentary "Behind the Music"  on rapper M C Hammer who was briefly massively popular
and then went massively unpopular and broke. Some of it was from noble but misguided ventures such as hiring more people from his neighborhood as security (one inside and one outside) to help them out. 200 people ran $500,000 a month.But there was also the $30 million mansion (which he had to sell at much less), Lamborghinis and several helicopters, horse racing (thoroughbreds are expensive) and lawsuits.

Freedomin5

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1771
  • Location: China
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2016, 06:24:50 AM »
My Super Sweet 16.

Parents spend an obscene amount of money to throw a birthday party for their spoiled kids.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2016, 03:19:05 PM »
"The Real Housewives of (insert name of city here)"

A bunch of broke-ass people pretending to be rich on one hand, while fighting off foreclosure with the other.

And I know they aren't officially "documentaries," but they are probably less dishonest than most of the "documentaries" out there.

carolinap

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2016, 06:39:28 PM »
Yes, like "My super sweet 16" there are shows like "Toddlers and Tiaras" where parents spend huge amounts of money, and I have the guilty pleasure of watching them, but on those we can't actually see the long term consequences
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 06:41:26 PM by carolinap »

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2016, 07:42:01 PM »
There was that Michael Jackson documentary where he went into some high end store and spent millions on a ton of vulgar overpriced home decor.  I can't even remember what else was in that one,  his spending was traumatizing even in my pre-MMM days.

syednaeemul

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2016, 08:41:59 PM »
There was that Michael Jackson documentary where he went into some high end store and spent millions on a ton of vulgar overpriced home decor.  I can't even remember what else was in that one,  his spending was traumatizing even in my pre-MMM days.

That sounds like the Martin Bashir one, I remember him going into a shop with Bashir going "I want that one, and this one".

MTV's Cribs doesn't play anymore but is certainly one: celebs walk you through their homes with TVs on the toilet seat, $10,000 sharks in aquariums, etc etc. Of course there are some cases of more down-to-earth celeb homes.

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2016, 08:13:21 AM »
There was that Michael Jackson documentary where he went into some high end store and spent millions on a ton of vulgar overpriced home decor.  I can't even remember what else was in that one,  his spending was traumatizing even in my pre-MMM days.

That sounds like the Martin Bashir one, I remember him going into a shop with Bashir going "I want that one, and this one".


Yep, that's the one.  And I remember it more like "I want 4 of these and 2 of those and 6 of these..."

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3643
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2016, 08:21:05 AM »
There was that Michael Jackson documentary where he went into some high end store and spent millions on a ton of vulgar overpriced home decor.  I can't even remember what else was in that one,  his spending was traumatizing even in my pre-MMM days.

That sounds like the Martin Bashir one, I remember him going into a shop with Bashir going "I want that one, and this one".

MTV's Cribs doesn't play anymore but is certainly one: celebs walk you through their homes with TVs on the toilet seat, $10,000 sharks in aquariums, etc etc. Of course there are some cases of more down-to-earth celeb homes.

I remember watching that many years ago and being somewhat impressed by the houses. That said, even though I wasn't a mustachian or even frugal, I was disgusted by the sheer extravagance of having a $10k shark in an aquarium. I guess I recognized that it was an expensive pet that would cost even more to maintain.

Torran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2016, 03:36:50 AM »
Following this thread as I read it last night and then watched The Queen of Versaille and was FASCINATED.

Next time I find a good one I'll post it here.

Freedomin5

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1771
  • Location: China
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2016, 04:16:43 AM »
Extreme Home Makeover. You know the one where they select some worthy family who is down on their luck, raze their house, and build and GINORMOUS one in its place with all their dream fixtures and doodads? I always look at the final product and wonder, "If the family wasn't able to pay their heating bill on their 1000 square foot house and was about to lose their home, how are they going to afford heating/electricity/water/taxes on this monstrous 3000 square foot open concept house?

That being said, perhaps the show pays off their mortgage and covers expenses for the first few years as well.

MrRealEstate

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Modesto, CA
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2016, 04:42:39 AM »
Extreme Home Makeover. You know the one where they select some worthy family who is down on their luck, raze their house, and build and GINORMOUS one in its place with all their dream fixtures and doodads? I always look at the final product and wonder, "If the family wasn't able to pay their heating bill on their 1000 square foot house and was about to lose their home, how are they going to afford heating/electricity/water/taxes on this monstrous 3000 square foot open concept house?

That being said, perhaps the show pays off their mortgage and covers expenses for the first few years as well.

Apparently this happened a few times. Your post inspired a google search.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304871704575160312975375930

Kalergie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Location: European expat living almost everywhere
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2016, 05:27:29 AM »
ANything related to gambling!

the_gastropod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2016, 06:06:36 AM »
MTV's Cribs doesn't play anymore but is certainly one: celebs walk you through their homes with TVs on the toilet seat, $10,000 sharks in aquariums, etc etc. Of course there are some cases of more down-to-earth celeb homes.

The episode of Cribs where they go to Redman's house is surprisingly mustachian. There's actually a follow-up episode from some years later, and he's in the same house, and bragging about his fancy-ass new screen door. Such a cool guy

Ebrat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2016, 08:03:44 AM »
What was that documentary where rich kids talked about their families and wealth? The one that Buffett disowned his granddaughter for participating in.

Or I could just Google it myself: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/born-rich/

I've never watched it because it sounds awful.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2016, 08:23:52 AM »
Extreme Home Makeover. You know the one where they select some worthy family who is down on their luck, raze their house, and build and GINORMOUS one in its place with all their dream fixtures and doodads? I always look at the final product and wonder, "If the family wasn't able to pay their heating bill on their 1000 square foot house and was about to lose their home, how are they going to afford heating/electricity/water/taxes on this monstrous 3000 square foot open concept house?

That being said, perhaps the show pays off their mortgage and covers expenses for the first few years as well.

Apparently this happened a few times. Your post inspired a google search.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304871704575160312975375930

What a crying shame. I do have to notice the context in which these grotesque, overbuilt houses were created, though: this all happened during the real estate boom.

The entire country had decided there was no such thing as real estate that didn't go up in value. As a result, people pulled "equity" out of existing real estates by (re)financing hyper-inflated homes in trendy locations throughout California, New York, and other big population centers with large numbers of middle-class or affluent people. Mortgage related debt was regarded as "good" debt because no matter how stupidly overbuilt or badly located a property was, there was always someone willing to buy it. People who lucked into money by selling their family home, buying a fixer-upper and "flipping" it for a massive profit suddenly considered themselves sophisticated real estate investors who Knew Everything About The Market. The fact they were simply in the right place at the right time never crossed anyone's mind. So, all across the nation, people decided to speculate in real estate. Sadly, they didn't realize they were speculating. They believed they were making a sound, low-risk "investment". Meanwhile, real estate developers were snapping up every inch of land they could find to build housing, housing, and more housing. Banks were eager to lend money to developers to buy and develop the land, because housing development was regarded as a "safe" and "reliable" way to produce money. City zoning was thrown out the window as Suburbistan took over vast areas of land, but cities didn't have the wherewithal to provide effective transportation, sewer, or garbage collection to the new areas, much less schools or space for businesses that could employ all the people living in the new houses. This was not regarded as a problem because the cities were counting on the juicy property tax they expected to collect from the homeowners, which was based on the "value" of the property. Eventually the bubble burst, and plenty of flippers and real estate developers were left with homes they couldn't sell. The cities weren't getting their property taxes, so maintenance and services went down the drain.

Banks and lenders fed into the real estate hysteria by offering financial incentives to flippers. These included interest-only loans with balloon payments a few years out, "liar's loans" based on insufficient or false information on loan applications, and high-risk subprime loans bundled together and sold as legitimate equities. The banks selling the equities, no longer restrained by the Glass-Steagall Act that restricted their ability to play both sides of the fence by speculating in securities as well as lending money, gleefully participated in bundling and selling the subprime loans. When the bubble burst and subprime borrowers started defaulting in large numbers, the US government naturally moved in to protect the most important people: the banks' stockholders.

Now that the bubble has burst, it's easy to see how asinine the McMansions in blue-collar neighborhoods really are. But in the context of the real estate climate back in the early 2000s, large numbers of people truly believed it was advisable for a blue-collar family with several kids to live in a 4,000 square foot mansion. I suppose it's a nice fantasy: a family watching the show could easily imagine themselves receiving a similar boon. But after enough exposure to the fantasy on "reality TV", people truly believed that luxuries such as granite countertops, cathedral ceilings, and home theaters should be standard, and they looked down their noses at people who lived substantially below the means suggested by all the imaginary real estate money. Shows like this, and other flipper-happy idiot box productions, just helped fuel the fire.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2016, 09:13:18 AM »
What was that documentary where rich kids talked about their families and wealth? The one that Buffett disowned his granddaughter for participating in.

Or I could just Google it myself: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/born-rich/

I've never watched it because it sounds awful.

It's actually brilliant. Some of the kids come off as spoiled brats; others are aware of their privilege and try their very best to develop a mature and compassionate perspective. The Ivanka Trump interviews impressed me a lot. She was surprisingly insightful and levelheaded as a university-aged young adult.

As to the falling-out, it wasn't over "Born Rich", which Nicole Buffett did not appear in, but the sequel "The One Percent". She did indeed open her mouth about family issues, although she didn't say anything really bad. The falling-out wasn't the only thing that triggered Nicole being disowned. It was more the straw that broke the camel's back.

You see, Nicole was adopted. Like most adopted children (including my own) she just wasn't fully accepted by the extended family because she's not "blood". She will therefore never, ever be treated or trusted as well as a "real" relative even if she conforms completely to the mainstream culture within the adoptive family and follows all the rules. Her sister, also adopted, is presently being tolerated and treated as a "real" grandchild for the moment. This will most likely last until she steps out of line. For a "blood" relative, forgiveness is sometimes available if they make a major mistake or behave outside the norms of an adoptive family. For an adopted child, forgiveness frequently isn't on the menu. Bio-kids can do whatever they want, and they'll still be loved and accepted even if they become mass murderers. There's also little to no incentive to raise a finger to welcome or include an adopted child from the extended family. People tie themselves into knots to throw baby showers for the sacred newborns, and it's customary to make or send gifts that cost a decent chunk of change or that are family heirlooms that have been handed down for generations. Not so with adopted children, especially in control freak families.

Every family has its rules: some things that are expected, and some things that are considered unforgivable. In the Buffett family, which happens to be somewhat control-freak-ish, the grandchildren get their school expenses paid by Grandpa but nothing else, and speaking to the media about family concerns is verboten. Those are two ironclad rules. Nicole received the same financial benefit as everyone else, but instead of business she went into art. Like any other grandchild she's expected to live off what she earns instead of becoming a trustafarian. That's actually an intelligent way to raise a person to be a self-sufficient, contributing member of society. When she asked for more she was told "no". This is not abuse, nor was she being treated differently from any other grandchild.

Nicole's decision to talk to the media about her family got her what anyone else connected to a control-freak family will get: cut off. This is very normal behavior among control freaks. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Edited to add: even in control freak families there are some people who are loving and accepting of adopted children. The ones who aren't... well, you see those are the ones most likely to be the control freaks in the first place.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 09:39:58 AM by TheGrimSqueaker »

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3643
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2016, 09:40:27 AM »
MTV's Cribs doesn't play anymore but is certainly one: celebs walk you through their homes with TVs on the toilet seat, $10,000 sharks in aquariums, etc etc. Of course there are some cases of more down-to-earth celeb homes.

The episode of Cribs where they go to Redman's house is surprisingly mustachian. There's actually a follow-up episode from some years later, and he's in the same house, and bragging about his fancy-ass new screen door. Such a cool guy

Everyone knows that Method Mod was the spender of the duo ;-).

Guses

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2016, 09:45:59 AM »
There was that Michael Jackson documentary where he went into some high end store and spent millions on a ton of vulgar overpriced home decor.  I can't even remember what else was in that one,  his spending was traumatizing even in my pre-MMM days.

That sounds like the Martin Bashir one, I remember him going into a shop with Bashir going "I want that one, and this one".

MTV's Cribs doesn't play anymore but is certainly one: celebs walk you through their homes with TVs on the toilet seat, $10,000 sharks in aquariums, etc etc. Of course there are some cases of more down-to-earth celeb homes.

I remember watching that many years ago and being somewhat impressed by the houses. That said, even though I wasn't a mustachian or even frugal, I was disgusted by the sheer extravagance of having a $10k shark in an aquarium. I guess I recognized that it was an expensive pet that would cost even more to maintain.

A 10K$ shark is not even that expensive for a pet. Regular people with regular jobs will pay 2-3K$ for a pet cat or dog purebred. INSANITY!

At least, with the shark, it's not like you can just go outside, walk 50 feet and grab one off the street (or Ocean).

Guses

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2016, 09:53:59 AM »
Quote from: TheGrimSqueaker link=topic=62629.msg1270981#msg1270981

Masterful soliloquy.

[/quote

Will you have my babies? <3

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3643
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2016, 09:58:32 AM »
There was that Michael Jackson documentary where he went into some high end store and spent millions on a ton of vulgar overpriced home decor.  I can't even remember what else was in that one,  his spending was traumatizing even in my pre-MMM days.

That sounds like the Martin Bashir one, I remember him going into a shop with Bashir going "I want that one, and this one".

MTV's Cribs doesn't play anymore but is certainly one: celebs walk you through their homes with TVs on the toilet seat, $10,000 sharks in aquariums, etc etc. Of course there are some cases of more down-to-earth celeb homes.

I remember watching that many years ago and being somewhat impressed by the houses. That said, even though I wasn't a mustachian or even frugal, I was disgusted by the sheer extravagance of having a $10k shark in an aquarium. I guess I recognized that it was an expensive pet that would cost even more to maintain.

A 10K$ shark is not even that expensive for a pet. Regular people with regular jobs will pay 2-3K$ for a pet cat or dog purebred. INSANITY!

At least, with the shark, it's not like you can just go outside, walk 50 feet and grab one off the street (or Ocean).

True, but I imagine the continuing expenses for caring for a shark are higher than for a purebred. I think the point was that the more exotic a thing something is, the more it will cost not only to purchase but to maintain. I remember wanting a good aquarium about 6 years ago and did the research into it and decided against it once I saw how much work they could be because I knew that I wasn't going to be up for it after the initial wave of enjoyment faded, and this was for a freshwater aquarium. I can't imagine what it would be like for a saltwater one, much less one with a shark in it.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9732
  • Age: 61
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2016, 10:01:30 AM »
Following, because how can I not?

Guses

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2016, 10:13:07 AM »

True, but I imagine the continuing expenses for caring for a shark are higher than for a purebred. I think the point was that the more exotic a thing something is, the more it will cost not only to purchase but to maintain. I remember wanting a good aquarium about 6 years ago and did the research into it and decided against it once I saw how much work they could be because I knew that I wasn't going to be up for it after the initial wave of enjoyment faded, and this was for a freshwater aquarium. I can't imagine what it would be like for a saltwater one, much less one with a shark in it.

But once you have the aquarium, might as well get the shark!

Ebrat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2016, 11:29:29 PM »
What was that documentary where rich kids talked about their families and wealth? The one that Buffett disowned his granddaughter for participating in.

Or I could just Google it myself: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/born-rich/

I've never watched it because it sounds awful.

It's actually brilliant. Some of the kids come off as spoiled brats; others are aware of their privilege and try their very best to develop a mature and compassionate perspective. The Ivanka Drumpf interviews impressed me a lot. She was surprisingly insightful and levelheaded as a university-aged young adult.

As to the falling-out, it wasn't over "Born Rich", which Nicole Buffett did not appear in, but the sequel "The One Percent". She did indeed open her mouth about family issues, although she didn't say anything really bad. The falling-out wasn't the only thing that triggered Nicole being disowned. It was more the straw that broke the camel's back.

You see, Nicole was adopted. Like most adopted children (including my own) she just wasn't fully accepted by the extended family because she's not "blood". She will therefore never, ever be treated or trusted as well as a "real" relative even if she conforms completely to the mainstream culture within the adoptive family and follows all the rules. Her sister, also adopted, is presently being tolerated and treated as a "real" grandchild for the moment. This will most likely last until she steps out of line. For a "blood" relative, forgiveness is sometimes available if they make a major mistake or behave outside the norms of an adoptive family. For an adopted child, forgiveness frequently isn't on the menu. Bio-kids can do whatever they want, and they'll still be loved and accepted even if they become mass murderers. There's also little to no incentive to raise a finger to welcome or include an adopted child from the extended family. People tie themselves into knots to throw baby showers for the sacred newborns, and it's customary to make or send gifts that cost a decent chunk of change or that are family heirlooms that have been handed down for generations. Not so with adopted children, especially in control freak families.

Every family has its rules: some things that are expected, and some things that are considered unforgivable. In the Buffett family, which happens to be somewhat control-freak-ish, the grandchildren get their school expenses paid by Grandpa but nothing else, and speaking to the media about family concerns is verboten. Those are two ironclad rules. Nicole received the same financial benefit as everyone else, but instead of business she went into art. Like any other grandchild she's expected to live off what she earns instead of becoming a trustafarian. That's actually an intelligent way to raise a person to be a self-sufficient, contributing member of society. When she asked for more she was told "no". This is not abuse, nor was she being treated differently from any other grandchild.

Nicole's decision to talk to the media about her family got her what anyone else connected to a control-freak family will get: cut off. This is very normal behavior among control freaks. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Edited to add: even in control freak families there are some people who are loving and accepting of adopted children. The ones who aren't... well, you see those are the ones most likely to be the control freaks in the first place.

Thanks for the background. I was pretty sure I was getting stuff mixed up. After I googled it, I watched the first few minutes out of morbid curiosity and was pleasantly surprised by the self-awareness some of the heirs showed.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2016, 07:51:06 AM »
What was that documentary where rich kids talked about their families and wealth? The one that Buffett disowned his granddaughter for participating in.

Or I could just Google it myself: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/born-rich/

I've never watched it because it sounds awful.

It's actually brilliant. Some of the kids come off as spoiled brats; others are aware of their privilege and try their very best to develop a mature and compassionate perspective. The Ivanka Trump Drumpf interviews impressed me a lot. She was surprisingly insightful and levelheaded as a university-aged young adult.

If you're going to quote me, don't change what I said in order to make it look like I'm insulting somebody. Own your immature behavior instead of trying to pin it on me and put words in my mouth.

As to the falling-out, it wasn't over "Born Rich", which Nicole Buffett did not appear in, but the sequel "The One Percent". She did indeed open her mouth about family issues, although she didn't say anything really bad. The falling-out wasn't the only thing that triggered Nicole being disowned. It was more the straw that broke the camel's back.

You see, Nicole was adopted. Like most adopted children (including my own) she just wasn't fully accepted by the extended family because she's not "blood". She will therefore never, ever be treated or trusted as well as a "real" relative even if she conforms completely to the mainstream culture within the adoptive family and follows all the rules. Her sister, also adopted, is presently being tolerated and treated as a "real" grandchild for the moment. This will most likely last until she steps out of line. For a "blood" relative, forgiveness is sometimes available if they make a major mistake or behave outside the norms of an adoptive family. For an adopted child, forgiveness frequently isn't on the menu. Bio-kids can do whatever they want, and they'll still be loved and accepted even if they become mass murderers. There's also little to no incentive to raise a finger to welcome or include an adopted child from the extended family. People tie themselves into knots to throw baby showers for the sacred newborns, and it's customary to make or send gifts that cost a decent chunk of change or that are family heirlooms that have been handed down for generations. Not so with adopted children, especially in control freak families.

Every family has its rules: some things that are expected, and some things that are considered unforgivable. In the Buffett family, which happens to be somewhat control-freak-ish, the grandchildren get their school expenses paid by Grandpa but nothing else, and speaking to the media about family concerns is verboten. Those are two ironclad rules. Nicole received the same financial benefit as everyone else, but instead of business she went into art. Like any other grandchild she's expected to live off what she earns instead of becoming a trustafarian. That's actually an intelligent way to raise a person to be a self-sufficient, contributing member of society. When she asked for more she was told "no". This is not abuse, nor was she being treated differently from any other grandchild.

Nicole's decision to talk to the media about her family got her what anyone else connected to a control-freak family will get: cut off. This is very normal behavior among control freaks. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Edited to add: even in control freak families there are some people who are loving and accepting of adopted children. The ones who aren't... well, you see those are the ones most likely to be the control freaks in the first place.

Thanks for the background. I was pretty sure I was getting stuff mixed up. After I googled it, I watched the first few minutes out of morbid curiosity and was pleasantly surprised by the self-awareness some of the heirs showed.

If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly and don't change what I wrote. Her name is Trump, not "Drumpf". See note above.

JoseS

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2016, 08:11:48 AM »
The episode of Cribs where they go to Redman's house is surprisingly mustachian. There's actually a follow-up episode from some years later, and he's in the same house, and bragging about his fancy-ass new screen door. Such a cool guy

"A double toaster for 4 toasts. Not 2, 4 toasts."

http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/998609/mtv-cribs-retro-rewind-redman-extended-version.jhtml#id=1721274

With This Herring

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Location: New York STATE, not city
  • TANSTAAFL!
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2016, 09:15:46 AM »
The episode of Cribs where they go to Redman's house is surprisingly mustachian. There's actually a follow-up episode from some years later, and he's in the same house, and bragging about his fancy-ass new screen door. Such a cool guy

"A double toaster for 4 toasts. Not 2, 4 toasts."

http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/998609/mtv-cribs-retro-rewind-redman-extended-version.jhtml#id=1721274

I love this guy!  "I'm going to introduce to you my cousin, Mr. Cream, that's off the floor right now."  I'm glad his cousin woke up in the last few years.  :)

Ebrat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2016, 11:54:46 AM »
If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly and don't change what I wrote. Her name is Trump, not "Drumpf". See note above.

Settle down. I have the Last Week Tonight Chrome plugin that changes "Trump" to "Drumpf," and it quoted it that way without me noticing (did it to your last post, too, and I had to change it back manually). I couldn't care less what you call her.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 11:59:03 AM by Ebrat »

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3628
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2016, 02:45:50 PM »
I watched Queen of Versailles, and aside from the ridiculousness of the house itself, I had an intense hatred for the guy as a person. He brags about swaying the outcome of an election through his wealth and connections, is hell-bent on proving his worth through material success, but totally neglects his own family - he likes to show off his trophy bride, but doesn't really connect to her, doesn't intervene at the low point when her compulsive spending is bleeding them dry, and barely talks to his kids. He just sucks at everything in life but making money.

I was disappointed to hear that their fortunes recovered and they were able to resume construction of that obscenity... they're chasing this dream of rabid excess while continuing to ignore the things that matter, and nearly losing everything didn't even make a dent in that vain aspiration.

Last year they were featured on some "reality" TV abomination called "Celebrity Wife Swap", and the other wife even called them out for being so fixated on their material acquisitions that they neglected their beautiful children:
Quote
“You have all these beautiful things, but you also have all these beautiful children,” she told them through tears, “I hope that you can realize that of every thing you have, your family is the best thing.”
A week later, one of the daughters died of an overdose. And who knows if even that will affect their way of living.

Nederstash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2016, 03:48:38 PM »

True, but I imagine the continuing expenses for caring for a shark are higher than for a purebred. I think the point was that the more exotic a thing something is, the more it will cost not only to purchase but to maintain. I remember wanting a good aquarium about 6 years ago and did the research into it and decided against it once I saw how much work they could be because I knew that I wasn't going to be up for it after the initial wave of enjoyment faded, and this was for a freshwater aquarium. I can't imagine what it would be like for a saltwater one, much less one with a shark in it.

But once you have the aquarium, might as well get the shark!

Tiny bit off topic, but I know a company that has a shark in their office building. They named him Budget.

Also lol@the plug-in that changes Trump to Drumpf.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Location: Canada
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2016, 09:13:23 AM »
If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly and don't change what I wrote. Her name is Trump, not "Drumpf". See note above.

Settle down. I have the Last Week Tonight Chrome plugin that changes "Trump" to "Drumpf," and it quoted it that way without me noticing (did it to your last post, too, and I had to change it back manually). I couldn't care less what you call her.

Maybe you shouldn't have it then? It is extremely offensive.

Cyanne

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2016, 01:41:43 PM »
If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly and don't change what I wrote. Her name is Trump, not "Drumpf". See note above.

Settle down. I have the Last Week Tonight Chrome plugin that changes "Trump" to "Drumpf," and it quoted it that way without me noticing (did it to your last post, too, and I had to change it back manually). I couldn't care less what you call her.

Maybe you shouldn't have it then? It is extremely offensive.

Why is it offensive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight)#Name_change_timing_dispute

I know wikipedia is not the best source but it appears that the family changed their name to Trump from Drumpf.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13116
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2016, 02:01:31 PM »
If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly and don't change what I wrote. Her name is Trump, not "Drumpf". See note above.

Settle down. I have the Last Week Tonight Chrome plugin that changes "Trump" to "Drumpf," and it quoted it that way without me noticing (did it to your last post, too, and I had to change it back manually). I couldn't care less what you call her.

Maybe you shouldn't have it then? It is extremely offensive.

Why is it offensive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight)#Name_change_timing_dispute

I know wikipedia is not the best source but it appears that the family changed their name to Trump from Drumpf.

The Last Week Tonight bit was funny because it was pointing out disgusting behaviour of Trump's (attempting to use someone's 'unamerican' sounding name as a weapon against them) while turning it back on him . . . Giving him a dose of his own medicine.  Continuing to call Trump 'Drumpf' signifies that you missed the whole point of the joke and are in fact doing it for the same reason that Trump did.  To appeal to bigots.  Given the great many perfectly valid reasons to criticize Trump, there really isn't any reason to cling to this one label is there?

Cyanne

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2016, 02:31:53 PM »
Thanks for the clarification. I don't call Trump "Drumpf" but was curious why it was offensive if it was his ancestral name.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3643
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2016, 02:54:47 PM »
Thanks for the clarification. I don't call Trump "Drumpf" but was curious why it was offensive if it was his ancestral name.

Yup, I'm curious as well.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2016, 05:58:05 PM »
Thanks for the clarification. I don't call Trump "Drumpf" but was curious why it was offensive if it was his ancestral name.

Yup, I'm curious as well.

Because it's not his name? Also, GuitarStv has covered this pretty well. See Below:

The Last Week Tonight bit was funny because it was pointing out disgusting behaviour of Trump's (attempting to use someone's 'unamerican' sounding name as a weapon against them) while turning it back on him . . . Giving him a dose of his own medicine.  Continuing to call Trump 'Drumpf' signifies that you missed the whole point of the joke and are in fact doing it for the same reason that Trump did.  To appeal to bigots.  Given the great many perfectly valid reasons to criticize Trump, there really isn't any reason to cling to this one label is there?

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Location: Canada
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2016, 07:49:49 PM »
Thanks for the clarification. I don't call Trump "Drumpf" but was curious why it was offensive if it was his ancestral name.

GuitarStv points out the main reason, it misses the joke and actually shows the same ignorance that the jokes mocks. Another reason is that there is strong anti-German sentiment in the West. When the joke is just "Drumpf is a funny German sounding name", it's offensive.

Another reason it is offensive is because it tries to make someone, or a group of people, an outsider. Think about Barack Obama: the photo the Clinton campaign used in 2008, the birther movement they birthed, or the use of Obama's middle name (Hussein) in conservative talk radio starting in late 2007/early 2008. Trying to paint a presidential candidate as an outsider or making fun of their name is a horrible path to go down.

Cyanne

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2016, 07:57:55 PM »
I never knew about anti-German sentiment in the west. I live in Minnesota where 38% of people are of German decent and they are proud of their ancestors. Many families changed their surnames when they came to the United States. My husband's family is one of them. They don't hide this nor are they ashamed of it. It is just another piece of history.

Ebrat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2016, 06:31:23 AM »
Well, I don't call him that to anyone. As I said in my post, it's a plug-in on my browser for my own amusement (not because I'm anti-German or am trying to appeal to people who are) that happened to change what I quoted without my noticing. That might not excuse the offensiveness in some people's minds, but I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

So what other antimustachian documentaries have people seen?

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2016, 07:26:32 AM »
Extreme Home Makeover. You know the one where they select some worthy family who is down on their luck, raze their house, and build and GINORMOUS one in its place with all their dream fixtures and doodads? I always look at the final product and wonder, "If the family wasn't able to pay their heating bill on their 1000 square foot house and was about to lose their home, how are they going to afford heating/electricity/water/taxes on this monstrous 3000 square foot open concept house?

That being said, perhaps the show pays off their mortgage and covers expenses for the first few years as well.

$1M house nestled among average or below average homes. I've always wondered how the family would ever find a buyer if they wanted to leave.

And here Mr. and Mrs. Moneypockets - we have a very nice home for a right price. Never mind that the neighbors' houses are worth a fraction of the asking price of our house.

Royalty among mere peasants!

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2016, 11:03:53 AM »
If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly and don't change what I wrote. Her name is Trump, not "Drumpf". See note above.

Settle down. I have the Last Week Tonight Chrome plugin that changes "Trump" to "Drumpf," and it quoted it that way without me noticing (did it to your last post, too, and I had to change it back manually). I couldn't care less what you call her.

I call people by whatever name they use and prefer to be called by. It's considered a sign of basic human respect. For this reason, I don't delegate my spelling to a computer program. When it comes to what I write, the buck stops with me.

joleran

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2016, 01:36:29 PM »
And here Mr. and Mrs. Moneypockets - we have a very nice home for a right price. Never mind that the neighbors' houses are worth a fraction of the asking price of our house.

Royalty among mere peasants!

Doesn't that typically mean that the houses around them will tend more towards lavish spending in a (possibly subconscious) attempt to keep up?

Digital Dogma

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2016, 02:19:37 PM »
Project Azorian: the raising of the k129

It cost 800 million dollars at the time, which translates to over 3 billion dollars today (The following is from the Wiki article about it)

Quote
"Azorian" (erroneously called "Jennifer" by the press after its Top Secret Security Compartment)[2] was the code name for a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) project to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129 from the Pacific Ocean floor in 1974, using the purpose-built ship Hughes Glomar Explorer.[3] The 1968 sinking of K-129 occurred approximately 1,560 nautical miles (2,890 km) northwest of Hawaii.[4] Project Azorian was one of the most complex, expensive, and secretive intelligence operations of the Cold War at a cost of about $800 million ($3.8 billion in 2016 dollars).

The engineering feats achieved during that project were amazing, but the dollar cost is incomprehensible.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2016, 02:33:24 PM »
And here Mr. and Mrs. Moneypockets - we have a very nice home for a right price. Never mind that the neighbors' houses are worth a fraction of the asking price of our house.

Royalty among mere peasants!

Doesn't that typically mean that the houses around them will tend more towards lavish spending in a (possibly subconscious) attempt to keep up?

Maybe. Travel around enough and you too can see people living in expensive houses next to run down trailers. Personally I'd rather buy into a nicer cluster of homes and not look at my neighbors previous half dozen beater cars rusting away in the yard. They might be nice folks in that trailer. They also might be a mess and their problems could become your problems.

I don't really want an HOA situation but neighbors motivated to keep up their places like I do mine is enough. 

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2016, 02:39:09 PM »
And here Mr. and Mrs. Moneypockets - we have a very nice home for a right price. Never mind that the neighbors' houses are worth a fraction of the asking price of our house.

Royalty among mere peasants!

Doesn't that typically mean that the houses around them will tend more towards lavish spending in a (possibly subconscious) attempt to keep up?

I would find it unlikely. The house would be more likely to be egged or vandalized.

Conventional real estate wisdom says that it's better to buy the cheapest house in a more expensive neighborhood. I suppose human psychology could be a factor, but there are two quantitative facts that jump out at me and explain the phenomenon well enough on their own.

(1) Property taxes are tied to home values, and
(2) Housing spending tends to be a function of income because of lending caps related to household income

The property tax base in richer areas is sufficient to support more spending on things like public schools, police, and road maintenance. As Billie Holiday famously sang: "them that's got, shall get." A person in an affluent area gets more police presence, better 911 response, better public schools, and more access to parks, public libraries, peace and quiet, sidewalks, and public transit. They get more bang for their tax buck than a person in a poorer part of the city. So, buying the cheapest house in such a neighborhood lets a family enjoy the benefits of what can only come from taxes and contributions from a more affluent community, without paying as much.

Because housing spending tends to at least partially reflect income (we Mustachians are statistical outliers), an expensive neighborhood tends to have occupants who can afford to spend more time and money on schools, local businesses, parent-teacher associations, civic clubs, and other things that improve the quality of life in the community. Living in such a neighborhood makes it possible to have your kids go to a high quality public school within easy walking distance. Yes, you will still have to pay extra fees if your kid plays the tuba in the marching band or is a cheerleader... but nowhere near as much as if he or she went to a have-not school. Your kid will also benefit from a many years' worth of investment by the band and athletic booster club.investment which purchased the rental instruments, the uniforms, the performance rights to hipper, newer music and an actual budget to hire assistant coaches and attend out of town performances or competition. Result: a better experience through the public school system, at a fraction of the price participation would have cost if you had to pay it all out of pocket.

The recipients of an "extreme home makeover" are generally left with the exact opposite of what conventional real estate buyers want: the most expensive home in a cheaper neighborhood. The things that reduce a neighborhoods desirability (crime, noise, lack of services, and crappy schools) are still present.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Antimustachian documentaries
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2016, 01:46:00 AM »
Project Azorian: the raising of the k129

It cost 800 million dollars at the time, which translates to over 3 billion dollars today (The following is from the Wiki article about it)

Quote
"Azorian" (erroneously called "Jennifer" by the press after its Top Secret Security Compartment)[2] was the code name for a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) project to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129 from the Pacific Ocean floor in 1974, using the purpose-built ship Hughes Glomar Explorer.[3] The 1968 sinking of K-129 occurred approximately 1,560 nautical miles (2,890 km) northwest of Hawaii.[4] Project Azorian was one of the most complex, expensive, and secretive intelligence operations of the Cold War at a cost of about $800 million ($3.8 billion in 2016 dollars).

The engineering feats achieved during that project were amazing, but the dollar cost is incomprehensible.

This sounds fascinating. I'll have to look it up. Russia should have caught on - they could have just sold America a new atomic sub for 2 billion, and called it a win-win. :D