Remember readers...sociopaths reproduce and when their violent progeny are not only tolerated but treated as heroes by the American public, the world's terrorists can feel a lot better about what they do.
Remember readers...sociopaths reproduce and when their violent progeny are not only tolerated but treated as heroes by the American public, the world's terrorists can feel a lot better about what they do.
Jocks really are spoiled and cuddled. You have to behave pretty abominably as a jock to actually suffer any real consequences for your actions. You just know that the real, super-bad assholes are the ones who actually get punished. Most others don't usually cross the line because the line is practically a mile long.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Ridge is a great example, it wasn't until some jocks gang-raped a retarded girl that people began to publicly rebuke them and their society they had formed at that school.
Remember that athletes are not people; they're commodities like crude oil, utility patents, and corporate stock. It's also important to remember that the value any individual or group places upon another individual or group is a function of their relationship. In the example you cited the rapists were athletes, highly valued commodities to the local community while the victim was a mentally retarded girl who was obviously looked upon as someone who would never amount to much. If the rapists had mistakenly victimized someone who mattered to that community the general opinion of the case would have been very different.
DeleteActually, a punk rock kid at the school (who despised the jocks) is the reason they got in trouble.
DeleteHe called up dozens of national media outlets and told them about this story of a bunch of wealthy, coddled jocks raping a retarded girl.
Because most of the country lived outside of the Glen Ridge bubble, they were impervious to the worship of the jocks there and when a national media outrage descended on the town via a small horde of reporters and journalists, that forced the law enforcement there to actually do their jobs.
Check out Izzy Kalman's last blog. Of course you and I already know his general viewpoints but it is funny the way he pushes his agenda. His latest essay is along the line of: Feel sorry for the bully receiving punishment so the bullying victim should just suck it up and it wasn't a big deal at all in the first place. The funny thing about his article is that he out of nowhere starts by saying that people who physically assault others, murder, rape MUST be punished or else they will continue to doing the crime. I don't remember such logical though process coming from Izzy before. That occurs right before he goes on a tirade about how what people have referred to as bullying never falls under the category of actions worth punishing. That's certainly contradictory to my story and to the many examples publicly available that "bullying" historically and most often is when a large brute indeed assaults the physically weak nerd. I guess when the jocks at columbine would use geeks as bowling balls it wasn't assault because it was just a game, can't those nerds take a joke? Even Karate Kid wasn't about bullying, Daniel's anxiety and anger issues came out of nowhere, after all Johnny wasn't beating him up, just teaching him some cool martial arts moves. Or how about Biff, the neighborhoods friendly chiropractor, Marty Mcfly is just too sensitive and unappreciative of the free procedures...so on and so forth. Izzy is trying to convince his reader that bullying victims are just thin skinned trouble makers who go into a rage from the slightest criticism. Yep, Izzy is right, we live in a world where bullies are simply class clowns who we should learn to laugh with, even if the joke is sticking the nerd's head in a toilet or putting the nerd in a trash can and roll him down a hill....but god forbid the bully is restrained, that can never be called as a joke, trivializing the unfairness to the poor bully, it is excessive punishment and the bully deserves to get revenge on the system, something along the line of "snitches end up in ditches", am I getting that right, Izzy?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to be helpful, leave a comment asking why Kim L. Short has been banned from leaving comments. At the bottom of his article is the statement, "I believe in free speech and rarely censor comments, no matter how nasty." Ask him why insults that make someone appear crude or stupid are allowed while my comments are banned. If there is a specific comment of mine that was too insulting for his sensibilities, ask him what it was.
DeleteRead this first:
http://chickensoupfortheterroristsoul.blogspot.com/2013/05/chicken-soup-has-been-banished-from.html
I just took a quick look at some of Kalman's old articles. Apparently he is either unwilling or unable to delete my old comments. This may call for a new post.
ReplyDeleteRationalized hypocrisy is common amongst the dogmatic set.
ReplyDeleteThey'll scream objective-this or loony-that, but when called out about something they’ve wrapped themselves around, which appears subjective-loony to rational-minded others, they'll rationalize their own massive use of logical fallacies and defense mechanisms.
The Incognito/Martin case outcome (so far) seems an excellent example of what should be happening to workplace bullies - what works. And it’s an excellent example of what doesn't work - trying to buddy up to them.
Simply put, it was in Incognito's own perceived best interest to quell threats coming from Martin (and other talented rookies) to his own lucrative position. When Martin tried to buddy up as the good underling teammate, the bullying increased, and Martin’s own performance suffered from the increasing mental torment (which was probably as-planned by Incognito).
I don’t see anything coming from Kalman about this high profile case (which strongly implies the fallacies of his own system). No explanation about why Martin apparently failed badly doing what Kalman recommends, yet succeeded doing with what the majority of experts recommends.
Kalman will acknowledge the failure of Bullies2Buddies when Al Sharpton acknowledges that Michael Brown died because he was violent, not because he was black.
DeleteNever.
Here’s another thought. Instead of countering Kalman’s ideas with rational generalizations, why not offer specific incidences where buddying-up failed? Ask him what went wrong and what the victim should have done better.
ReplyDeleteAnything outside of a clear wise answer, means “dogma”.
Convincing Kalman to admit that bullies, not victims are the problem would be like convincing a skinhead that a Jew is his equal. His parents are Holocaust survivors and he makes his living pushing appeasement. I'd love to hear his explanation.
Delete