The Racial Discrimination Thread « Gaming Outpost Discussions

Gaming Outpost Discussions » Multiverser

The Racial Discrimination Thread

(404 posts) (11 voices)

Started 3 years ago by M. J. Young
Latest reply from JohnA1nut

Tags:

« Previous 123…9 Next »

M. J. Young
Moderator

Prejudice isn't something you're born with, it's something you learn.

Yes--but then, so is a healthy respect for fire and other pain-avoidance traits.

I'm afraid to drive through Woodstown. It's a small town, but I've had three cars bread down within its confines, never to run again. That's something of an irrational fear, and it's not that strong, but I do recognize when I am in Woodstown that it's a place where I keep losing vehicles. The distortion in the random events causes me to feel that way.

There is a degree to which a lot of violent crimes are committed by "crazy" people. Most of them are not psychotic but sociopathic--but in the lay mind, that may be too fine a distinction. Besides, we would rather believe that the truly violent crimes (e.g., Columbine) are committed by people who are "crazy", because it gives us some basis on which to believe that the "sane" people constantly around us would never do that and so are not dangerous. The backlash of this belief is that should we happen to encounter anyone who is "crazy", we lose our assurance: this person is not "normal", and so cannot be expected to act and react in a "normal" way, and that makes them "unpredictable" in a way that is outside the normal parameters of human unpredictability. That unpredictablility in turn makes them "dangerous": we do not know what they might do, and so we cannot be certain they will not do something harmful.

The little girl has not yet learned that some people are dangerous. Her parents (commendably) did not teach her that the "crazy" person living in that other apartment might be dangerous, and she had no reason to think that you would be. In fact, she probably had no reason to believe that anyone might be dangerous--the adults in her life are not merely safe but a haven of protection from danger.

The man next door is different. He has reason to believe that other people, even "normal" people, are dangerous. That you are "not normal" amplifies that.

--M. J. Young

Tue Feb 10 2009 8:35 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Well, that was the first contact that I had with Nadia or her parents. They lived in a different building, not next door to me. Nadia just followed her toes and went walking. Children learn how to walk before they learn how to tell you where they are going.

For a brief time, there was a registered sex offender living next door to me. I got that notice in the mail about him. "Registered sex offender" does not necessarily mean he was a child molester or would have hurt Nadia if he had been the one to find her, but I'm glad he didn't.

The thing of it though is that my neighbor was gay. Gay is believed to be a mental illness by some people. He was proud of his mental illness.

Whenever I spoke to him, I was always completely calm and rational. I only ever freaked out when I was alone. After I had that first freak out, I asked him "Do you want to hear about how my therapy works?" He replied "Not really mate, I'm not really a doctor." The therapy involves putting myself into a low-grade psychotic state, and in that state, teaching myself to control it. If he had let me explain this to him, he might have understood better.

Speaking of stereotypes, the gay neighbor was also British. Gay men are stereotypically very polite. British people are also, stereotypically very polite. He was a gay Britain. You'd think he would have been the most polite person in the world. Stereotypes are bad.

The mentally ill are one of the few remaining groups of people who are still acceptable targets of open discrimination.

If I told the gay neighbor that he wasn't allowed to be gay, he would be up in arms about it. However, he had no problem telling me I wasn't allowed to be psychotic. Double Standards.... Perhaps he should have lunch with Adam sometime.

Wed Feb 11 2009 12:17 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

Your gay neighbour is being completely logical.

People are not allowed to be strange in a way that causes problems for society. Gay=normal, and it does not cause problems for society. The fact that some people object is evidence of their reactionary homophobic problem that they need to cure because their objection to homosexuality causes society problems.

For another example or two: Its not okay to be a falling down drunk or a 'if you don't like my driving get off the sidewalk' driver. Such a person deviates from the norm, and causes problems for society.

And if you're like me, and believe that homosexuality is deviance, and that it causes problems for society, then you're obviously a Rethuglican homophobe who needs treatment to be cured from his sin, err, mental condition, because y'know, sin doesn't exist, but happily electroshock therapy does. And if you think some of the gay tyrants wouldn't be happy to throw the switch, well, just look at how they treated Prop 8 supporters in California.

Wed Feb 11 2009 1:48 pm #
Nikolaj
Member

Dear John, don't define yourself with your illness. If everyone is to be accepted because they are 'x', then childmolesters, murderers, rapists, ... should just be accepted like that, because that's what they are.

Which is a lie, they are not child molesters (for example) but they are "performers"/"practitioners" of that said vile act (which is an act, and not a state of being). They have a tendency for, and maybe even a dependency on it, but it is not them, their 'self' (ego?).

I'm not sure if I brought my message across, because while I'm typing this I have the feeling that I'm not being logical and am jumping from one thing to another, skipping thoughts or wrongly stating/defining things.

Wed Feb 11 2009 4:07 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Tad, I couldn't make heads or tails of what you just said. I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Mind explaining?

Wed Feb 11 2009 6:24 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

Tad, I couldn't make heads or tails of what you just said. I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Mind explaining?

I'll take a stab at it; hopefully I'm not stepping on toes here.

The first point is that people who call themselves homosexual want society to accept the proposition that homosexuality is a normal state. If homosexuality is a form of normalcy, then it follows that self-defined homosexuals are perfectly safe members of society. If homosexuality is not normal, then it is not unreasonable to suspect that it might be dangerous. However, the lines get drawn sharply: if homosexuality is normal, and I am one that thinks it might be dangerous, then I am the one in error, the one whose prejudices approach psychotic (because I firmly believe something about reality that is false) and in need of forced treatment by those normal people who recognize my condition.

People whose abnormality makes them potentially dangerous are fair game for discriminatory treatment That includes the drunk driver: we can legitimately discriminate against him by revoking his license and by incarcerating him if he continues to drive without it, because even if he has never harmed anyone his conduct is such that he might. We can't deprive blacks of their licenses because they are normal--being black does not make them different or dangerous. We can deprive epileptics of their drivers licenses, because they are not normal, and their abnormality is such that it makes them hazardous drivers. Even if we believe that homosexuals are not normal, we cannot deprive them of their drivers licenses unless we can demonstrate a connection between the nature of their abnormality and hazardous driving. However, if we accept that homosexuality is normal, we cannot even explore the possibility--it would be akin to attempting to demonstrate that being black makes you a dangerous driver, not that being epileptic does so.

The claim that homosexuality is normal is in part an effort to mark those who believe otherwise as abberant.

And I also want to underscore a point made by Nikolaj. I do not believe that anyone is homosexual. I believe that there are individuals with strong temptations toward homosexual conduct. Were I to believe that some individuals are, by nature, homosexual, I would have to believe the same about pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, feishism, and other abberations. No one is "naturally" attracted to shoes. It is a weakness usually created by indulgence of one sort or another.

--M. J. Young

Wed Feb 11 2009 9:27 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

MJ explains it well.

I would further add that tolerance of damaging behavior is an important part of society. Freedom is an important value as God allows us to mess up, and frequently stopping someone from making an idiot of themselves is more damaging to society than allowing them to do so.

Thu Feb 12 2009 3:38 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

The thing was though that I told this gay neighbor right up front, the day that I met him "I'm psychotic, expect to hear weird noises from time to time." By that point, my therapy had gotten my psychosis a lot more under control from where it had been four years ago. What he heard where I hit the door and screamed for a few minutes was NOTHING compared to what he would have been hearing before that. On top of that, it was the last episode of that magnitude that I had at all!!!!

I guess the really amazing thing is that no one before him complained about it. I would have these episodes where I would be screaming obscenities for hours on end. No one else ever said anything, called the cops, got the rental office involved, or anything. I'm not exactly sure what to make of that, whether it's good or bad.

I had a single father and his five year old son living next door to me for a while, while this was going on. I am so sorry that the five year old (Spencer) had to hear that. However, we all became really good friends, and Ben (the father) actually asked me to babysit Spencer. He was trusting a guy that screamed at night with his five year old son. And he knew rightly that Spencer would be OK.

Completely unrelated to that though, how many times do you hear it? "A psychotic killer" the word "Psychotic" has become a synonym for Insane. I was talking to a lady that I met through a personal ad. She had Muscular Dystrophy or something and was confined to a wheelchair. I was thinking "Finally, someone who will understand what it's like to be discriminated against for a handicap." I told her I was psychotic, she said "I'm afraid you're just a little too psychotic for me buddy." and hung up on me. I called her back and said "How would you feel if I said 'You're just a little too CRIPPLED for me????????'"

And that's something else. Like I said, I get stopped by the cops for talking to myself. Just minding my own business, not bothering anyone, but I'm talking to myself, and the cops feel the need to hassle me for it. WHY????????????? Do they treat ALL handicapped people like that? If my friend in the wheelchair showed up, would the cops feel the need to hassle her? Would they assume she was dangerous because she was handicapped? I think I would be more afraid of someone in a wheelchair than I would of someone who was talking to themselves. The person in the wheelchair could have a nuclear bomb hidden in that thing!!!!!! I bet the cops never feel the need to hassle someone for not being able to walk though!!!!!!!

Thu Feb 12 2009 10:46 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

The other thing with my gay neighbor was after I had that flip out, I went outside to talk to him. I was speaking calmly and rationally. I asked him if he wanted to hear about the therapy that I was doing. He said "Not really mate, I'm not really a doctor." then less than 2 weeks later, was screaming "I think you're dangerous and need to be locked in a straight jacket!!!" Not two weeks before, he admitted he wasn't a doctor, so how can he possibly say that he thinks I am dangerous and need to be locked up? By his own admission, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

My family seems to think that I can just will it to go away. Psychosis means that the synaptic pathways in your brain fire too fast or too hard, or just don't stop firing. Yeah, I should be able, by sheer force of will, to command the synaptic pathways in my brain to slow down..... I flat out told my mom "I'll do it after you do it first."

Thu Feb 12 2009 12:46 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Three Posts

MJ, you seem to be bringing up the Nature vs Nurture argument, that you are born with certain things, and no matter what, you cannot break them.

I have to go with nature on that one. I had (past tense) a very good friend who was adopted as a baby. He was adopted within days of being born. He adoptive parents are very protective, and very strong Christians. His adoptive parents are practically Ward and June Cleaver.

His adoptive father is about a year younger than my grandfather, so they are getting up there in years, but that just means they are more experienced and wiser. His adoptive father is a decorated, WW2 era Marine, and as I said, they are both very strong Christians. In fact, I met him at church. The two outcasts.

*I inadvertently helped* him get mixed up with a bad crowd of people. He is now a drug addicted alcoholic. I take absolutely no responsibility for that whatsoever. All I did was make the introduction, he was the one who followed through with it.

My point is that his upbringing couldn't have possibly led him to have proclivities toward that type of behavior. Only his Nature, the patterns he was born with could have given him that type of mindset.

*I thought he could help a lady that I knew with some problems she was having. I didn't expect him to ever talk to her again. He kept talking to her. Pretty soon, he was too cool to hang out with his best friend of 10 years (ME!!).

Sat Feb 14 2009 8:49 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

I'm sure you believe it, John, but such anecdotal evidence is not all that valuable. For every story that supports one view, there is a reason why it doesn't and another story that supports the opposite view.

--M. J. Young

Sun Feb 15 2009 1:17 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Yeah MJ, I'll go along with that. I can recall things that happened to me when I was 5 or 6 years old, which had a significant impact on who I am today. Things that I didn't fully understand then, which shaped who I am now. So yeah, I can see the Nature vs Nurture argument going both ways.

Sun Feb 15 2009 5:46 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

They tell us in psychology
That thinking works mechanically:
A thought from our heredity
Is formed environmentally.
They tell us in anatomy
That thinking works electrically:
A jolt of electricity,
A slightly altered chemistry--
A brain can be built and bought!
Is that all there is to thought?

(I Use to Think, verse 4, Mark J. Young)

--M. J. Young

Sun Feb 15 2009 9:22 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Oh hey MJ, I just wanted to say that regarding Plunger, the 2 year old girl from my story. You must be the exception, because everyone else that I told that story to said that they immediately thought of a toilet plunger when I mentioned that. You must be the exception.

Tue Feb 17 2009 1:30 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

Yeah, well--they say that you're cultured if you can hear The William Tell Overture without thinking of The Lone Ranger.

I guess I'm not; but I do think that there are some things "everyone" connects which I do not, because I do make different connections.

--M. J. Young

Tue Feb 17 2009 5:05 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Ya know what IRKS the HELL out of me? If I called a black person a Nigger, or I called a Jew a Kike, or I called a Mexican person a Wetback, they would be up in arms and ready to fight.

HOWEVER!!!!!!! No one would think twice about calling me a PSYCHO, and I would probably be thought to be even more insane if I wanted to fight them over it.

Double Standard?????????

The mentally ill are one of the FEW REMAINING groups of people that it is still socially acceptable to discriminate against. That pisses me off like you would NEVER believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wed Feb 18 2009 4:55 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

You wanna know something else? I STILL don't know what a nerd is!!!!

If I had one wish, it would be to go back in time to the first time I asked those guys "Why are you doing this to me?" and when they say "Because you're a nerd" I, the 31 year old, would be waiting. I, the 31 year old, would make these 10 year old kids tell me what a NERD is. They wouldn't have an answer. "Oh, I see, when you were just dealing with him (8 year old me) you were so sure that HE was a nerd, but now that I am here (31 year old me) you don't even know what a nerd is!!!!"

I imagine many an Atheist is going to have the same problem when they are standing before God. Their answers to why God couldn't exist can't be refuted by a Christian, however, when God asks them, they won't have an answer.

Wed Feb 18 2009 5:11 am #
Nikolaj
Member

Today I stumbled over another form of discrimination that shocked me severely.

from the bbc site:

When Cerrie Burnell (pictured) joined the presenting team of the BBC children's programme CBeebies last month many applauded the decision, not least because, as a disabled person with one arm, it appeared to be fulfilling the Beeb's avowed aim of offering equal opportunities.

However, they didn't counter on the bigotry of some parents. A flurry of complaints about the appointment have appeared on parenting message boards on the CBeebies website, with some so vicious that they had to be removed by moderators. Wrote one blogger: "Is it just me, or does anyone else think the new woman presenter on CBeebies may scare the kids because of her disability? I didn't want to let my children watch the filler bits on The Bedtime Hour [a segment of CBeebies] last night because I know it would have played on my eldest daughter's mind and possibly caused sleep problems. And yes, this is a serious post."

Some even accused the BBC of hiring 29-year-old Burnell because of 'political correctness' and solely to meet employment quotas. One notice board comment read: "What is scary is the BBC's determination to show "minorities" on CBeebies at every available opportunity! This new presenter is crap -face facts - but because she has a disability then she was given a job. [It is] positive discrimination in my books."

A BBC spokesman said it had received only nine formal complaints about Burnell, and insisted that the new presenter had also received messages of support and that many parents were keen to have a range of people on screen. As to Burnell, who admitted she was upset by some of the remarks, she said: "It just goes to show how important it is to have positive disabled role models on CBeebies and television in general."

I had first somewhere else read that she was repelled from the screen. But it doesn't seem to be that bad.

Tue Feb 24 2009 5:39 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Well, as much as I hate to say it, I can kind of see the point of the parents in this case. In the 1960s, there was a drug given to pregnant women. This drug was called Thalidomide. It caused the babies to be born with hands that grew out of their shoulder sockets. (Do a search for Thalidomide Babies if you want to see pictures) No arms, just hands that grew straight out of their shoulder sockets.

When I was a kid (5-6 years old) there was a guy who lived in my neighborhood who was a Thalidomide Baby. We would see him walking around, with his hands growing out of his shoulder sockets. He terrified my two younger sisters and I. Not for anything that he did, just his unusual appearance. It wasn't anything that he did, it was just that we were too young to understand it, and so we feared him. (Why? There's no way he could have possibly hurt us with no arms!!!) I can kind of see the point that the parents are making here, because of that. If you could explain to the children that there is nothing wrong with that person, and it's just a disability, then that could do wonders for raising awareness for things like that. However, that's just the way children are. As much as I hate to say it, I can kind of see their point.

Tue Feb 24 2009 6:46 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

Ah, but then, the reason you were afraid of that man is that to you he appeared to be a "monster", a deformed mutant creature (which I suppose he was). Had there also been a similar person on Captain Kangaroo or Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers Neighborhood or whatever shows you watched, introduced as a sympathetic character, would that have reduced your fear of such people in real life?

That raises the question of why the BBC had trouble introducing this new character. Is it that they did not make an effort to bring the character in in a way that would let the children viewers grasp that this is an ordinary person with a handicap, or is it that their effort failed--or is it that the adult viewers did not believe that any such introduction could succeed, because they believe that handicapped people are inherently terrifying to children and no care in presentation would be sufficient to address it?

--M. J. Young

Tue Feb 24 2009 10:57 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Had there also been a similar person on Captain Kangaroo or Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers Neighborhood or whatever shows you watched, introduced as a sympathetic character, would that have reduced your fear of such people in real life?

Ya know MJ, you're absolutely right, and now that I think about it, I kind of wish there had been such a character on one of those shows (I watched all three of them) I remember one time I was at the grocery store with my mom, and Mr. Thalidomide was there. (I don't know his real name) He was trying to pick up a package of red roses with his teeth, and he couldn't do it. I remember thinking how easily I could have picked up the roses for him, and indeed, I wanted to do just that. However, I couldn't bring myself to go near him. If there had been a character like that on Sesame Street, then Mr. Thalidomide would have had his day made that much easier by a child who understood rather than feared him.

That's something else that makes us human, BTW. Our racism and fear of unknown and people who are different.

Wed Feb 25 2009 3:06 am #
Nikolaj
Member

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7906507.stm

This link gives her experience with children in opposition to the experience with the adults. It's usually the adults that have problems while the kids ask questions. (there's a little anecdote of a wheelchair user who says the questions some kids ask are rather more like 'can you do a wheely?' :P

Wed Feb 25 2009 8:09 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Not to change the current topic, but there is something else that I wanted to say about my gay neighbor who freaked out on me.

I had lived in that apartment for about 5 years before he moved in. For about 2 1/2 of those 5 years, I was having psychotic episodes where I would scream obscenities for hours on end. Even after I figured out how to control that, I was still punching my front door, and I still had screaming fits, albeit much shorter than before.

Up until this point, all of my neighbors had been heterosexual white people. Up until this point, I had gotten exactly one noise complaint, and it was because of my television, not because of the screaming fits.

Now, I get a black neighbor on one side and a gay neighbor on the other side, and I get three noise complaints in less than a month.

Heterosexual white people didn't have a problem with it, but a gay guy moves in and a black guy moves in, and I'm getting noise complaints left and right.

Coincidence?????????????????

Wed Feb 25 2009 3:31 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

If you mean, "Is it a coincidence that the first people who happen to have trouble with the noise I make when I'm having a psychotic episode happen to be a gay man and a black man?" yes, that is a coincidence. There are plenty of white heterosexuals who would have filed complaints.

My wife brought home a stray. This time it's a dog--a rather large overly friendly one. Several times he has gotten out of the back yard because someone failed to secure the latch on the gate and he is big enough to push it open. One of the neighbors calls the state police almost as soon as she sees the dog has gotten out, even if we are chasing him--and she owns a dog. Some people complain when things are outside their comfort zone; some people adjust their comfort zone to deal with things.

However, the fact that you've had exactly one black neighbor and one homosexual neighbor (of which you were aware) creates the possibility of prejudicial stereotyping on your part. Is it a coincidence that these two people made the noise complaints? The fact that you ask indicates that you suspect that black people and homosexual people are more likely to complain than white heterosexuals, but it's based on knowing (as neighbors) only one of each. That's how prejudicial stereotypes are created: I know a person who is X, and this person who is X is also Y, so therefore I conclude that all or most people who are X are also Y.

--M. J. Young

Thu Feb 26 2009 7:58 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

I think the reason why racism happens is that you remember the black jerk better than you remember the white jerk. I was thinking about it last night after I read your reply, and I have only ever been hit in the face by one black person. The rest were white. Those guys that I mentioned who followed me to school "Because you're a nerd"? They were all white. I never got bullied by a black person. Well, not in the same magnitude. The one black guy that hit me did it after I seriously insulted his sister, so I kind of deserved that one. (And no, it wasn't that guy from church I was talking about. He never hit me. I probably wouldn't have survived that.)

I think what it is is that you remember the black guy better than you do the white guy.

I also thought it was kind of ironic that, in our own way, all three of us (the two neighbors and I) were all minorities. A gay, a psychotic, and a black. All minorities. We should all be looking out for each other. Instead, we all fought each other. The one though that really bugged me was the gay guy. I flat out told him the first day we met "I'm psychotic, expect to hear weird noises from time to time." He told me that he was sick of being discriminated against because of being gay. I told him that I understood, having had much of the same discrimination for being psychotic. I really thought we were going to be good friends. I thought I had finally met someone who would understand the discrimination that I felt. Instead, he made it a point to discriminate against me, and probably never even realized he was doing it.

Every time I talked to him, I was completely calm and rational. When I had that freak out in my apartment, I was doing psychosis therapy. The therapy involves putting myself into a low-grade psychotic state. The reason I freaked out is because I had started the episode without having the needed stabilizer. It was the worst episode I had had in about 2 months, and the last of that magnitude that I had at all. I tried to explain this to him, how the therapy worked, and he didn't want to hear it. Isn't that kind of ironic? Three minorities all discriminating against each other.

Thu Feb 26 2009 4:43 pm #
Nikolaj
Member

you are still yourself judging towards certain groups with different values, comparing this one to that one, making judgments over the entire groups instead of over the persons themselves. As long as you do that you will always be discriminating too, be it positive or negative discrimination.

Thu Feb 26 2009 5:45 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Another thing about the gay neighbor. When I tried to explain to him how the therapy worked, he said he didn't want to hear it because "I'm not really a doctor." Yet, less than 3 weeks later, had no problem proclaiming "I think you're dangerous!!!!" By his own admission, he isn't a doctor, so how can he possibly say that he thinks I am dangerous? I so wanted to say back "Yeah, well, at least I don't molest little boys."

My own family, especially my mom, seems to think that I can just will the psychosis to go away. I told my mom "I want you, by sheer force of will, to slow down the synaptic pathways in your brain." She said that she couldn't do that. To which I replied "Then what makes you think I can?"

EDIT Looks like I cross posted with Nikolaj. Yeah, I know, I am a racist. I really need to work on that. However, you must admit it is a strange coincidence that the first two people to have a problem with my psychotic episodes are a gay man and a black man. That's a strange coincidence which would only serve to support my racist thinking.

Thu Feb 26 2009 5:48 pm #
Nikolaj
Member

If you allow it. I would suggest, if you want to try to change it, and you seem to want to, to try and put yourself in the shoes of the other and imagine how it would feel to you if someone said something like that to you. A big word for that is empathy or I guess, empathic thinking. Try to see it from their point of view. This is very hard though, and it wont come easy.

Yet I've been able to do it most of the time, and still have. Often in such a way that I forget to see if I have a perspective of my own, which is an inconvenient side effect. A balance must be kept :)

Thu Feb 26 2009 6:05 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Ya know Nikolaj, I didn't realize it until after I read what you said, but I'm doing the same thing my gay neighbor was doing. Discriminating when I am being discriminated against.

If you really want to know how I feel about racism, download and listen to the stand up comedy routine by Chris Rock "I love black people, but I hate niggaz" Chris Rock is a black stand up comedian, actor, and noted authority on racism.

"Who's more racist? Black people or white people? Black people. Ya know why? Cuz we hate black people too!!!! There's like a civil war going on with black people, and there's two sides. There's black people, and there's niggaz. And niggaz have got to go!!!"

That is a quote from the stand up routine.

Thu Feb 26 2009 8:43 pm #
Nikolaj
Member

I think I saw that once :)

I'm glad you realized what you were doing :)

Thu Feb 26 2009 9:43 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

I also thought it was kind of ironic that, in our own way, all three of us (the two neighbors and I) were all minorities. A gay, a psychotic, and a black. All minorities. We should all be looking out for each other. Instead, we all fought each other.

Ah, but what the minority wants is to be mainstreamed, to be accepted as the majority. The outcome of this is that when confronted by the situation, he wants to distance himself from the other minorities, to be able to say to the majority, "I'm with you guys, not with them." Nerds do it, too--attack each other so that they can try to create the illusion that they're not with the other nerds because they're one of the cool people. If the nerds banded together they could probably take down the cool people, but then they'd be grouped with all the other nerds and would never be cool.

And those computer geeks who laugh that the geeks have taken over the world don't quite have it right--because they've separated themselves from the geeks who are not computer literate and established a new class of "cool" in opposition to the geeks.

--M. J. Young

Fri Feb 27 2009 1:19 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Jocks vs. Nerds.

Michael Jordan having "retired," with $40 million in endorsements, makes $178,100 a day, working or not.

If he sleeps 7 hours a night, he makes $52,000 every night while visions of sugarplums dance in his head.

If he goes to see a movie, it'll cost him $7.00, but he'll make $18,550 while he's there.

If he decides to have a 5-minute egg, he'll make $618 while boiling it.

He makes $7,415/hr more than minimum wage.

He'll make $3,710 while watching each episode of Friends.

If he wanted to save up for a new Acura NSX ($90,000) it would take him a whole 12 hours.

If someone were to hand him his salary and endorsement money, they would have to do it at the rate of $2.00 every second.

He'll probably pay around $200 for a nice round of golf, but will be reimbursed $33,390 for that round.

Assuming he puts the federal maximum of 15% of his income into a tax deferred account (401k), his contributions will hit the federal cap of $9500 at 8:30 a.m. on January 1st.

If you were given a penny for every 10 dollars he made, you'd be living comfortably at $65,000 a year.

He'll make about $19.60 while watching the 100 meter dash in the Olympics, and about $15,600 during the Boston Marathon.

While the common person is spending about $20 for a meal in his trendy Chicago restaurant, he'll pull in about $5600.

This year, he'll make more than twice as much as all U.S. past presidents for all of their terms combined. Amazing isn't it?

However...
If Jordan saves 100% of his income for the next 450 years, he'll still have less than Bill Gates has today.

In short, nerds win.

Fri Feb 27 2009 6:00 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

Something I never understood is why do people want to be popular? There was a guy at my high school. My sister dated him for a brief time. He was quite unpopular, and he really wanted to be popular. My sister said "He would have done ANYTHING to be popular!!!"

One day, he did just that. He gunned down two girls from the rival high school, killing both of them. He thought it would make him popular. My sister said that he was sitting in the library bragging about it, and the SWAT team came in and arrested him. He was convicted as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment if I'm not mistaken.

I bet he's really popular now, especially with the big bull queers in the shower. I guess he finally got his wish.

Fri Feb 27 2009 6:08 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

People want to be popular because it affirms their self-worth.

It also means they're more likely to "get the girl" (or the guy) they find most desirable.

Some never go through that; that usually reflects a strong sense of self-worth not dependent on outside opinion. I suppose sometimes it can reflect such a weak sense of self-worth that the individual inherently knows that the positive opinions of others wouldn't help.

Some outgrow it. The come to a place where they are comfortable with who they are and what they have. This is often linked to finding a few, or particularly one, who affirms their value as persons.

Some never are satisfied. They need that input of adulation from others to overcome their own inadequacy.

There are probably other cases.

--M. J. Young

Sat Feb 28 2009 12:08 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Some never go through that; that usually reflects a strong sense of self-worth not dependent on outside opinion. I suppose sometimes it can reflect such a weak sense of self-worth that the individual inherently knows that the positive opinions of others wouldn't help.

In my case, it was just I flat out didn't care.

That was something that I never quite got when I was in school. People would talk about "School Spirit" "School Pride". Not I. To me, school was a place that I was forced to go to get an education. I never got my senior pictures taken, and thus, am not even pictured in my graduation yearbook. I don't think anyone that knew me would need a picture of me to remember the class psychotic.

Ya know what though? I'm going to ask you the same question I want to ask those guys that followed me to school. That question is "What Is A Nerd?" If I could go back in time (Infinity loop, I know, but who cares?) I would make those guys tell me what a nerd was. They wouldn't have an answer.

Something I got asked quite a bit in high school "Why aren't you normal?" My response invariably was "Define 'Normal'" To which no one ever answered.

Sat Feb 28 2009 5:10 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

Ya know though, going back to what Nikolaj was saying about discrimination on the basis of physical handicap. As I've said, I get hassled by the police several times a year because I am talking to myself. Just minding my own business, not bothering anyone, but I'm talking to myself, and the police feel the need to hassle me for it.

I bet they never stop anyone just for being in a wheelchair. Why not? I think I'd be more afraid of the guy in the wheelchair. He could have a thermonuclear bomb hidden in that thing for all they know. Shouldn't they stop him and search him, just to be on the safe side?

I bet physically handicapped people rarely if ever get stopped by the police for their handicap, so why do I? Do they treat all handicapped people the same way?

Sat Feb 28 2009 8:09 am #
Nikolaj
Member

Actually, you're not going back to the people with the physical handicap, you're going back to your own 'handicap'. That, and you are repeating yourself on a point that has already been discussed (see page 2). This is not meant offensive btw, just trying to not keep us repeating the same thing, because then I will lose interest in the thread. (And I don't want that because the topic is extremely interesting, even though we have deviated somewhat from it)

Sat Feb 28 2009 11:02 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

I thought that sounded familiar when I was typing it last night. Sorry, it's a thing with the psychosis. I will often repeat the same sentence twice in a conversation and not even realize it.

Since I'm apparently not capable of getting us back on that topic, how about you get us back onto people with physical handicaps?

Sat Feb 28 2009 5:07 pm #
Nikolaj
Member

I figured that much, that's why I emphasized that I didn't mean offense.
The topic is actually the racial discrimination, which went to discrimination on all fronts.

So far we had racial discrimination, discrimination of mentally and physically handicapped.
We've only handled the way the human mind learns and thinks (by grouping things) and that recognizing difference isn't the same as discriminating.

I think that thus far we've only handled negative discrimination, but there is also positive discrimination. There is also discrimination on age we could handle maybe.

I also just saw that discrimination comes from the Latin discrimen, which only means distinction. But we (the society) seems to have changed the meaning to treating someone less or more because of a distinction. Which has the potential to make people think that distinction itself is wrong.

Sun Mar 1 2009 6:25 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

Ah, definitions.

I've never really thought about it before, but my best guess is that a Nerd is anyone lacking social skills sufficient to the task of becoming popular. There are other reasons for people not to be popular, but this is the one that creates the "Nerd" category.

For a more authoritative definition, see Dictionary.com.

Discrimination most literally means making a distinction between two objects. In psychology it is the opposite of generalization, and a necessary cognitive function--that we can all some things chocolate and some things vanilla and mean different things by the two words. In American jurisprudence, discrimination is closely associated with prejudice and segregation, because in order to exercise either one must first discriminate people into a category ("black", "gay", "handicapped", "nerd") and then to segregate isolate (either physically or socially) those in the category and to be prejudicial generalize details (usually negative) to the entire category ("blacks are lazy", "gays are child molestors", "handicapped people are incompetent", "nerds are stupid"). The only valid non-prejudicial thing you can say about a discriminated category is that members of that category all exhibit the trait which is the basis for the category (blacks have dark skin and come from Africa, gays are attracted to members of the same sex, the handicapped are have medical or other problems that prevent them from doing some tasks which are considered normal, nerds are socially inept). The problem in jurisprudence is that we live under the dictum of Brown vs. Board of Education, the famous "separate is not equal", which in essence means that if you divide people into categories and provide goods or services based on the categories in which you have placed them, you are engaged in illegally discriminatory prejudicial segregationist conduct--at least, you are of those in what is deemed the minority group object. For some reason it is not illegal to separate Spanish-speaking children into Spanish-speaking classes, to separate handicapped children to disability-enabling facilities and provide them with government resources, to give jobs and school openings to less qualified black applicants instead of more qualified white applicants, and so on. This is usually viewed as "corrective" discrimination, attempting to level the playing field by identifying an unfairly disadvantaged group and giving unfair advantages to them. It's still discrimination, and it's still prejudicial and discriminatory, but it's not considered wrong.

--M. J. Young

Mon Mar 2 2009 12:01 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

to give jobs and school openings to less qualified black applicants instead of more qualified white applicants, and so on

Yeah, I think the best way I've ever heard this summed up was "Affirmative action, reparations, quotas. No matter what you call it, all it means is that another qualified American won't get a job, just because he's the wrong color. Isn't that what we wanted to get away from?"

Mon Mar 2 2009 1:30 am #
JTM
Member

Best solution if it can be arranged is to just not tell the admissions officer/HR guy the skin color of the applicant.

Mon Mar 2 2009 2:14 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

The thing with this is that I had a friend (white) who was trying to get on the police department. There was one position, and two applicants. The other applicant was black. Because of the quotas, the black applicant got the job, EVEN THOUGH my friend scored higher on the test.

So, racism is taken care of, everyone has a job, and things are made right, right? WRONG!!! What this means is that there is a police officer out there, responsible for your safety and mine, who is LESS QUALIFIED than my friend. Is that REALLY how you want the world to work?

Mon Mar 2 2009 2:37 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

Best solution if it can be arranged is to just not tell the admissions officer/HR guy the skin color of the applicant.
That makes sense to me.

I understand the reasoning for affirmative action. In essence, the idea is that members of minorities are less qualified because they, and their families, have been discriminated against in the past, leaving them less qualified in the present. Thus by discriminating in their favor we theoretically level the playing field.

Part of the problem with that reasoning is that the fact that the playing field has been uneven in general in the past does not mean that it has been uneven in particular. When you make the decision that Ivy League universities must admit a specific percentage of black applicants to remedy the inequity that they have always admitted mostly white applicants in the past, the problem is "remedied" by taking scholarship positions away from impoverished white applicants and giving them to the children of wealthy blacks. Black does not equal impoverished, nor even discriminated against. Blacks excel in the fields of sports and entertainment, and do quite well in many other fields, including politics (how many major American cities have never had a black mayor?).

Certainly there has been an unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity in this country since the Civil War. It has been equalizing. At present, programs which benefit blacks based solely on race penalize impoverished and sometimes middle class whites, and do not penalize wealthy and middle class blacks.

A better system is needed.

--M. J. Young

Tue Mar 3 2009 12:54 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/

That link is to a story about a mother who beat a registered sex offender with a baseball bat, for merely talking to her daughter. I might be in the minority on this, but I think that's very wrong. Sex offender or not, there's nothing wrong with just talking to anyone. It made me think of Plunger, my 2 year old neighbor. Imagine if her father had reacted that way. When I saw her standing on the sidewalk, I got down and asked "Hey, where's your mommy and daddy at, huh?" (Obviously, I had to know which direction to walk her back to) She pointed towards their apartment. Imagine if her father had seen me talking to his 2 year old daughter, and beaten me up, for the "crime" of talking to her, with the intention of taking her home.

What does this have to do with discrimination, you ask? Well, that's discrimination against someone for their past. Can't we learn from our mistakes and move past them? The sex offender had been in jail, so his debt to society was paid. The story said that he was just talking to the woman's daughter, and she attacked him with a baseball bat. There's something wrong with that.

And yes, I know I mentioned a small amount of prejudice towards a sex offender who was living next door to me. However, he's allow to live, he's allowed to not be harassed for his past crimes. If I saw him talking to Plunger, I would keep an eye on him, but wouldn't take any kind of action unless it was needed. Just talking is allowed.

Tue Mar 3 2009 10:15 am #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 123…9 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.