I Saw You MIT

1. Posted at December 24, 2012, 3:20 am by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   isn't this the second time chi phi was on there...

2. Posted at December 24, 2012, 12:55 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   what did you expect from chi phi?

3. Posted at December 24, 2012, 5:17 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

   sexiness@Chi Phi

4. Posted at December 24, 2012, 7:09 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   I think it was Sigma Chi last time.

5. Posted at December 24, 2012, 7:46 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

   Lol at chi phi. Got trust fund?

6. Posted at December 24, 2012, 9:33 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   frat boys are all the same anyway

7. Posted at December 24, 2012, 10:30 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   cute. But actually.

8. Posted at December 24, 2012, 11:37 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   second time for chi phi, sigma chi was earlier.
   
   Jobless Chi Phi alum on esplanade: http://totalfratmove.com/1090657
   
   Sigma chi: http://isawyou.mit.edu/post.php?id=7871

9. Posted at December 24, 2012, 11:51 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

   I worked with a chi phi guy over the summer
   
   I couldn't tell if he was just an asshole or actually had asperger's syndrome
   
   It was a broadening experience to say the least

10. Posted at December 25, 2012, 12:02 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    Frats? Seriously?

11. Posted at December 25, 2012, 2:15 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @9 are the two mutually exclusive?
    
    http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20121222.gif

12. Posted at December 25, 2012, 5:56 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    Chi Phi - where upper middle class thinks they're upper class.
    
    - Upper class

13. Posted at December 25, 2012, 11:53 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    lest we not forget pi lams also featured on fail Friday
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dS7onB-Mic

14. Posted at December 26, 2012, 1:24 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    ^ gold.

15. Posted at December 26, 2012, 1:29 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @12, you should be careful. You could pull a muscle trying that hard.

16. Posted at December 26, 2012, 6:08 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @15 Not really, just stating the obvious. The truly rich are unrecognizable; the people you see wearing brand names are always upper middle class. Own an Audi as your first car? Bitch please. I don't have my car here at MIT because you'd all shit your pants.
    
    Upper middle class desire attention and material goods; the truly upper class desire hidden prestige and access.

17. Posted at December 26, 2012, 8:10 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @16 I think what you're describing here is more nouveau riche than upper middle-class. I know plenty of modest upper middle-class families. This is stupid.

18. Posted at December 26, 2012, 8:38 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    Somebody get 16 a gatorade.

19. Posted at December 27, 2012, 1:52 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @17 That wasn't my point. My point wasn't about hiding wealth or not. That's not the distinguishing factor between upper class and upper middle class.
    
    Funny you mention nouveau rich though, that's what a load of Chi Phi is

20. Posted at December 27, 2012, 2:28 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @16
    
    cool story bro! enjoy having a small penis.

21. Posted at December 27, 2012, 2:39 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @16 Whatever plebe

22. Posted at December 27, 2012, 3:04 am by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @20, 21
    http://narwhaler.com/img/88/r/do-you-hear-that-its-the-sound-of-butthurt-88r4BO.jpg

23. Posted at December 28, 2012, 3:10 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    This is ridiculous. I've known a great deal of fabulously wealthy people, and there's only one universal truth that applies to all of them: there's NO universal truth that applies to all of them. I've encountered so-called 'new money' who behave in a manner commensurate with multigenerational wealth; I've come across individuals who are, by all measures, 'old money', but nonetheless behave like the star of a bad reality TV show. Wealth--and when an individual attains it--isn't an indicator of how people will act. Much more telling are tacky posts about the fabulousness of one's first car on an anonymous website. It certainly runs counter to the assertion that "hidden access and prestige" are more desirable than "material goods and attention," no?

24. Posted at December 28, 2012, 3:24 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

    lol rich people's problems

25. Posted at December 28, 2012, 10:17 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @16: You do realize that your invalidated your first statement with your second, right? The truly rich are all unrecognizable and aren't partial to brands, yet your car is so stunning that it'd make us all need a change of pants? Your car must be so unrecognizable! It must hide your wealth and prestige really well!
    
    (I know you didn't bring it to MIT - I would think this has more to do with convenience than anything - but I suspect you drive it somewhere.)

26. Posted at December 29, 2012, 9:43 am by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @25 when I said unrecognizable, I don't mean impartial to brands. I mean their clothing is tailored personally by great but unknown to the average person designers.
    
    The fact that so many of you dont understand what I am referring to shows how little you know about the lifestyle of the ultra rich.
    
    When I'm talking about valuing access over material goods, I mean access to things unobtainable with straight up cash. The designers who work with my family don't tailor just to anyone who give them money. The only tailor for certain type of people, and it's this access that the rich seek. Another example: suppose you have a lot of money and you want a really nice car. Something mega exotic like the Enzo Ferrari. Guess what? Even if you had the money, you can't buy it. Ferrari checks who you are and decides who gets to buy the Enzo, and other limited edition Ferraris. This is what I mean by the rich desiring access. Access to goods you need a shitload of money to have, but still cant have.
    
    This is what I mean by prestige and access. This is what separates the middle class, which values goods based on their price tag, from the upper class, which values goods on their accessibility. That's what I mean when I say people walking around in Ralph Lauren or even Gucci and Armani aren' upper class, they're just upper middle class, because the upper class, like me, don't wear clothes that can be readily bought with enough money.

27. Posted at December 29, 2012, 12:30 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    at the risk of angering the mod gods, here's another MIT appearance. This time by phi delts: http://totalfratmove.com/1011935

28. Posted at December 29, 2012, 2:09 pm by F Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @26: I don't think we're using the same definition of super rich. The super rich, for me, are simply the top .1% (or .01%, whatever you want) by some metric. I would say that net worth is much more reliable than income, though some may disagree.
    
    Your definition seems to be something like people who mostly buy items to which access is limited by more than money. Or perhaps not mostly; does it need to be a certain amount or portion?
    
    I think you assume that there's more exclusivity than there is though. Hermes has very quickly established relationships with nouveau riche pop stars like Jane Birkin and Posh Spice that they've long had with wealthy French and Monegasque families. While Ferrari might only sell the Enzo to certain people, they designed an automatic transmission Murcielago for Kobe Bryant's wife. Perhaps her having the only such car in the world doesn't meet your definition of exclusivity though. I also really don't know anything about cars.
    
    You can see royalty across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia buying and wearing many an item that anyone with enough money could. It's a rare person among the super rich who owns primarily items that only exclusive access can buy them. If your definition of super rich can't fit with that reality, then I don't think it's a very good definition.
    
    Let's also not forget that this idea of exclusive access is directly contrary to the ideas - or perhaps theoretical ideals - of capitalism that got most of the (American) super rich their money.

29. Posted at December 29, 2012, 2:14 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @27
    
    That's actually pretty funny, but that isn't an MIT phi delt. We don't have those shirts.

30. Posted at December 29, 2012, 10:52 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @29 I recognize tha kid. That's probably on some Phi delts road trip

31. Posted at December 30, 2012, 8:12 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    mo' money, mo' problems
    
    #isawyoumitproblems

32. Posted at January 2, 2013, 8:39 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @26/16 The fact remains, you contradict your own arguments with your posts.
    
    You say the super rich want hidden prestige and access, yet you brag about your tailor and your car on the internet.
    
    If you actually cared about "hidden prestige" you wouldn't have taken the time to explain it in intricate detail. You would've just sat back and watched all of us commoners bicker with each other, completely oblivious to the nuances of your privileged (and most likely fictional) lifestyle.

33. Posted at January 2, 2013, 10:36 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    @32 Because bragging to the commoners always feels good.

34. Posted at January 12, 2013, 10:27 pm by M Are you sure?:Yes/No

    this is hilarious
    
    - a chi phi