Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Reassessing Friendships
If there was one thing that characterized my 4 years of high school, it was the complete lack of infighting that I involved myself in amongst friends. If two of my friends didn't like each other, I didn't care. If they fought, it was their own problem.
I should also say that I have been generally uninterested in my friends' personal beliefs. Typically, if a friend of mine treats me well, I couldn't care less how crazy their beliefs are.
This strategy worked brilliantly and I never had any enemies because of my consistent neutrality. Things become more difficult however when I am the one who has a problem with a friend.
My one friend whom I shall call X has been a good friend of mine for a number of years. But when we started going to the same college, I spent more time with him, and learned more about his own personal leanings and beliefs. What I learned was pretty troubling.
I had always known him to be one who would say things for the sake of shock value. But when at dinner a few weeks ago, somehow the topic of overpopulation came up with a fellow diner. (I personally think the notion of overpopulation is a sham, and that the world still has a quite a bit of room.)
X not only thinks that overpopulation is a scourge to "the fit" as it were (my words, not his), but he said that he revels in abortion and AIDS because that means less ignorant people and less of a strain on resources.
Before I go on, I should state that I don't take his comments to be racist. He seems to think that AIDS and abortions in any race is a positive thing, so it's not exclusive. I shuddered at these words as I remained silent. While I am unsure of what should become of abortion legally, I am ferociously morally opposed to it on personal grounds. It's one thing to say that abortions are necessary or not, or right or wrong, but to say that AIDS is a good thing? What possible justification is there for thinking that?
For the betterment of the "fit" of course. And what is it exactly that makes about 95 % of people unfit? Besides the vagaries of being a "drain on resources", others reasons include "people being so ignorant and close-minded", low IQs, "people having pitifully poor grammar and interchanging 'good' instead of 'well' " (I don't kid there).
I stoically braved the storm of nonsense I was hearing and said nothing, much to my regret. Later on, I thought about what exactly qualifies X for being "fit." He goes to a state-funded school (drains financial resources), he does use good grammar, but he has never really had a job as far as I'm aware. Not exactly the poster boy for the Ubermensch society.
I think the most bothersome thing about this whole affair to me is the snobbishness of such philosophical positions. In this fairyland, most everyone else is sub-par in every aspect of social performance. The believer in such nonsense sees himself as above average or fit naturally, and everyone else is the ignorant underling. To me, it is much different than your typical Arrogant Andy who just has a bit too much of an inflated ego. (I've often been guilty of this) It's another thing entirely to think that not only are people less capable of a job than you, but that they are actually lesser humans because of it.
It's difficult for me to reconcile such shockingly arrogant and downright evil beliefs about others. I'm all for judging people, but this is eugenics through and through.
Curiously enough, he has provided great inspiration for a novel I've been writing about how a modern-day federal eugenics program would work in America. I have I think humorously had him in mind while crafting the well-spoken, but sinister head of my fictional eugenics department. There is also an unstable serial killer in the story who ironically declares such evil men to be "unfit" and therefore he makes it his job to kill them.
I had written a synopsis for my novel (about 14,000 words so far) so I could explain the storyline easily to those interested. I shared it with X one day and he seemed unimpressed. The idea of a government telling you whether or not you're allowed to reproduce must not seem so bad. I naturally assume that most readers of the novel will be opposed to eugenics prior to reading it, but it would be interesting to gauge his reaction when I am finished.
I should also say that I have been generally uninterested in my friends' personal beliefs. Typically, if a friend of mine treats me well, I couldn't care less how crazy their beliefs are.
This strategy worked brilliantly and I never had any enemies because of my consistent neutrality. Things become more difficult however when I am the one who has a problem with a friend.
My one friend whom I shall call X has been a good friend of mine for a number of years. But when we started going to the same college, I spent more time with him, and learned more about his own personal leanings and beliefs. What I learned was pretty troubling.
I had always known him to be one who would say things for the sake of shock value. But when at dinner a few weeks ago, somehow the topic of overpopulation came up with a fellow diner. (I personally think the notion of overpopulation is a sham, and that the world still has a quite a bit of room.)
X not only thinks that overpopulation is a scourge to "the fit" as it were (my words, not his), but he said that he revels in abortion and AIDS because that means less ignorant people and less of a strain on resources.
Before I go on, I should state that I don't take his comments to be racist. He seems to think that AIDS and abortions in any race is a positive thing, so it's not exclusive. I shuddered at these words as I remained silent. While I am unsure of what should become of abortion legally, I am ferociously morally opposed to it on personal grounds. It's one thing to say that abortions are necessary or not, or right or wrong, but to say that AIDS is a good thing? What possible justification is there for thinking that?
For the betterment of the "fit" of course. And what is it exactly that makes about 95 % of people unfit? Besides the vagaries of being a "drain on resources", others reasons include "people being so ignorant and close-minded", low IQs, "people having pitifully poor grammar and interchanging 'good' instead of 'well' " (I don't kid there).
I stoically braved the storm of nonsense I was hearing and said nothing, much to my regret. Later on, I thought about what exactly qualifies X for being "fit." He goes to a state-funded school (drains financial resources), he does use good grammar, but he has never really had a job as far as I'm aware. Not exactly the poster boy for the Ubermensch society.
I think the most bothersome thing about this whole affair to me is the snobbishness of such philosophical positions. In this fairyland, most everyone else is sub-par in every aspect of social performance. The believer in such nonsense sees himself as above average or fit naturally, and everyone else is the ignorant underling. To me, it is much different than your typical Arrogant Andy who just has a bit too much of an inflated ego. (I've often been guilty of this) It's another thing entirely to think that not only are people less capable of a job than you, but that they are actually lesser humans because of it.
It's difficult for me to reconcile such shockingly arrogant and downright evil beliefs about others. I'm all for judging people, but this is eugenics through and through.
Curiously enough, he has provided great inspiration for a novel I've been writing about how a modern-day federal eugenics program would work in America. I have I think humorously had him in mind while crafting the well-spoken, but sinister head of my fictional eugenics department. There is also an unstable serial killer in the story who ironically declares such evil men to be "unfit" and therefore he makes it his job to kill them.
I had written a synopsis for my novel (about 14,000 words so far) so I could explain the storyline easily to those interested. I shared it with X one day and he seemed unimpressed. The idea of a government telling you whether or not you're allowed to reproduce must not seem so bad. I naturally assume that most readers of the novel will be opposed to eugenics prior to reading it, but it would be interesting to gauge his reaction when I am finished.
0
Comments
As for the grammar nazi part, well, that's his problem. Unfortunately for him, language changes over time, and the old rules of grammar will fade out eventually, as will the old usages for many words. He definitely has attachment issues regarding some rules.
Palzang
Or something like that
As it says in Pally's signature - standing by and saying nothing is not an option.
I'm not sure. He seems to think pretty highly of himself. Obviously, he seems to believe in his theories, but doesn't really have any plan or willpower to try to go about implementing it. (How would he?)
But I really dislike this kind of elitism.
He has also brought up the "survival of the fittest" numerous times in the past. Ironically, that's the opposite of eugenics as far as I'm concerned. In a society that operates with the philosophy of survival of the fittest, people are left alone to their own devices. You lose in the game of life because you are outperformed by people who do better in jobs and such. Eugenics is the opposite because it entails a society where the social engineers arbitrarily decide who gets to survive.
Before I could clear this up, X continued saying that since fetuses weren't powerful enough to protect themselves, then he's not concerned if they get aborted because after all...it's survival of the fittest.
Just thinking right now, I wonder what he would think of killing already born infants.
Or, just don't worry about it and keep looking for new friends to associate yourself with. There's no rule that says confrontation is necessary here.
I'm sure we've all come across dyed in the wool racists, mysogenists, etc and ended up just giving up arguing .... strangely enough some of them are quite nice people when you get them off their pet subject, but knowing how they feel on that one subject makes one a bit suspect about them in general
It is not entirely surprising that you have come across eugenics and fascism among your peers. Strangely enough, I can begin to glimpse the attraction of such ideas - although it has taken me a long time to realise it. The fundamental reason for embracing such (to us, I hope) repellent philosophies is the same as ours (again, I hope): the effort to improve the lot of humanity. Perhaps it is precisely this aim that makes any debate so difficult.
In many ways, it mirrors the problem of dialogue with those who support, even non-violently, auto- or theocracies such as the New Caliphate.
My own solution when faced by a friend who embraces such a different world-view from my own has become both more absolute and more flexible. Absolute is my decision either to avoid the person or, if the person is dear or near to me, to avoid the hot topic. My personal example was my eldest son's first fiancée (first but, thankfully, not his last!). She is a white South African and a supporter of apartheid. She is also antisemitic! But blonde and full-breasted! She left my son for some Formula One stud at a Grand Prix and, later, my son commented that he had been very worried about my meeting her. And he thanked me (a wonderful event for a parent) for having avoided any opportunity for deate on burning issues.
I think that my solution is to hold as much of my bundle of opinions and beliefs as 'lightly' as possible. Do you know Robert Bolt's play and film A Man For All Seasons about Thomas More and the question of Henry VIII's divorce? More was executed for refusing to endorse the king's divorce and is now considered a saint by the Catholic Church. Bolt's picture is of a man who is prepared to shed each of his 'principles' until he came to the final one, the one by which he defined his life and, without which, life is more terrible than death. I think, too, that you can see the same thing in that wonderful film Downfall when Frau Goebbels explains why she is killing her children and herself.
Every belief, principle and opinion that you hold, dear friend KoB, is a construct, built on other beliefs, opinions and, dare I say it, fallacies and errors. This is precisely why we examine them. It is why we mix with people of different value sets from our own, because they become the irritant by which we begin to scratch at the surface of our own.
Somewhere I read “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. It applies as much to their ideas as to their personalities. The secret lies in remaining balanced and even-minded throughout. As with all other skills to be learned, we need practice, practice, practice and, if we avoid all situations where we are so challenged, how will we ever find the opportunity to practise?
College is a period for examining ideas and changing views. Maybe he'll do it on his own, maybe you (KoB) will help move him along the path, or maybe he'll stumble through college without changing at all. Time will tell; try not to get too bent about it in the meantime.
Quite a possibility Matt - I know a few people of "mature years" who are still stubbornly clinging to their own particular brand of facism but as I say, outside of that have other stirling qualities.
I know one old gentleman who makes horrible sweeping generalisations about just about every race and nationality, women, the Irish, the Scots, etc etc etc to the point where most people wouldn't try (or even want to) talk to him after ten minutes in his company. What they don't know is that his generalisations are skin deep - coming across anyone in difficulty he will immediately drop everything to help. And when asked "but that person is ...." he'll bluster even more and find no explanation.
People - the strangest species on this earth.
Ah, indeed! After all "we-the-people" seem to vote for pretty horrendous outcomes, whether it is Austria in 1938 or (ssshhh!) the US in 2000 and 2004.
All 'haters' have their 'utopia'. That great world they'd live in, if they could just get rid of...
Whilst their leaders may espouse lofty ideals and aims, they are happy to hand the dirty work over to the lynch mob; the bullies, thieves and terrorists.
It's human nature to buy this rubbish. We all need a 'bad guy' out there to blame for our insecurities but, believe me, it's not nice to be on the receiving end of a hypocritical, self-righteous mob of vitriolic haters - even if it's just a group of screaming neighbours attacking your family in the street (as we were two weeks ago).
When this is politically and legally sanctioned, it's even worse.
"They came for the Jews" etc.
It doesn't matter who you are, you will always be somebody's Untermensch. That's a sobering thought for your friend.
Hi Knitwitch,
Glad to see you back.
Well, it's a long pathetic tale of parking woes, the sort of thing that makes me regret living in the UK and having my family here.
Too long to bore anyone with but the upshot is my wife and I whilst carrying our two sleeping kids (5 & 3) into the house one evening from the car were confronted by two ladies who live near us who (in a coordinated attack, their blokes looking on just in case) came out of their houses screaming and shouting abuse at us.
We were 'unloading' (public highway and not blocking any access btw) in front of their houses. They told us to move, or they'd call the police and inform the council. That everyone hated us on the street (the frequent and threatening notes they leave for us are always signed "the street") and that we think ourselves better than everyone else.
I told my wife to ignore them and get the kids in the house. They hounded us until we got indoors. When we got in my boy was crying and was worried that the police would take me away.
Yep. I got a 'taste' what it must be like to be at the receiving end of prejudice for outsiders (my wife is foreign btw). It's odd to be in my forties and have to confront playground bullies. What depresses me is that other people on the street (who quietly complain about the attitude and manners of these thugs) now completely obey the unjustifiable diktats of these two families. We British are such a compliant breed - anything for a quiet life.
Kids avoid that part of the street now, since the previous occupants moved away two years ago - as they tend to let their dogs out if any kids come near.
I would seriously think of reporting those neighbours to the police - that is a racially motivated attack and I'd also save those nasty notes. If you can convince the police that this is a sustained campaign and not an isolated incident they will probably take it seriously.
This kind of behaviour isn't tolerated any more. If they are council tenants I would also report them. You never know - if you start the ball rolling then other residents might just join in - it always takes someone to put their head above the parapet.
I know that parking is a problem in the UK - where my stepdaughter lived was a battlefield from 4pm and verbal abuse was a regular occurance, as was the odd outbreak of scuffling and car scratching. But that is no excuse and vicitmising your family is most certainly harrassment.
Why (ssshhh!)? Most Americans realize that GWB was a waste of space and time although too late. What I've found interesting is that people who were so pro-GWB now can't stand him and I stand back and just smile. I did feel sorry for him when 9/11 happened as he didn't have what it took to deal with the situation as an adult. He was busy reading children's books (:)) There is much more that I could say, but only 49 days left and he is out of the White House! Maybe they will have a kicking out ceremony. We could put a big sign in front of the White House saying "Presidency Survived" But I digress.
That stinks majorly! I am so against discrimination of any kind. Being raised post civil rights, women rights, and other rights movements that are still in progress, I am appalled at anyone being treated less than civil. I bend over backwards to treat everyone the same.
In Toledo, Ohio an African-American woman adminstrative assistant at the University of Toledo stated in a local AA paper that gays did not deserve any rights as they could join an "ex-gay" ministry and change. They weren't born that way and don't deserve anything. Needless to say, the glbt student population were incensed. She was told that she needed to go through some "sensitivity training" and apologize. She said that her religion said that being gay was wrong (FEC [Fundy-Evangelical-Charismatic]) and she would not apologize for her opinion. Now I agree that she has the right to her opinion, but I'm sure if someone had made disparaging remarks about an African American, she would have been up in arms. It's really funny in the U.S. as glbt people are one of the last groups that it is still okay to discriminate against. It's turning around slowly, but if someone decided to fire me for being gay, they are within their rights. And the list goes on.
You deserve to be treated with respect and dignity as you are a fellow sentient being. It makes it difficult to treat people who act ignorant with dignity and respect when their major organ used to think is their gluteus maximus. Know you and your loved ones are well worth the respect and dignity afforded all human beings.
I know there's a very large element of racism in what they are doing but I haven't got a hope of pursuing that angle. My wife is white European, so any nastiness directed at her can't be racist cos she's white, right?
Her crime is that she speaks German to the kids (one of her languages) and anyone speaking that around here is a F***ing Kraut (even in the tabloids). We keep the notes and try to log every time one of their visitors parks in the disputed zone - of course there's no problem with them doing it.
In theory perhaps, but try proving it. It's your word against theirs and the other neighbour (whose grown up daughters have been similarly assailed) refuses to do anything apart from obey. They don't want to annoy these people. They have lots of friends, most of whom don't look at all friendly.
Alas, they own it. It's not a bad area - all private housing but along with their legitimate property, they feel that they also 'own' the pavement and the road in front of their house (even on the opposite side of the street).
I doubt it. Most are busy doing the very English "problem - what problem?" routine and parking away on other streets, as if that's all they've ever done. It's sad to see how people will do almost anything to avoid even the whiff of confrontation. The lady in question campaigned for 2 years to get double yellow lines in front of her house. In the end some council official agreed to paint a "Keep Clear" notice. It was a unilateral action (no consultation) and no other street in the area has it. It doesn't change the legal situation apparently but it has afforded her and her pal enough justification to go on the attack when they wish. Like I say, they both 'violate' this notice whenever they want to. It's territorial and they see that bit of road as 'theirs'.
It is indeed.
I refuse to be drawn into verbal confrontation of any kind with them but I also refuse to be cowed, so occasionally, when I have no alternative, I park there and face the music. My main concern is that they will overstep the mark and we'll get into the illegal side of things and I don't want to put my family through that.
So, some people have 'worries' eh?
I get it over here - people comment on my accent and ask where I am from where they wouldn't dream of walking up to a black or Arab looking person and assuming they weren't born here. They tell me I am English and are very dismissive when I tell them I am British or Scottish but not English. I seem to be expected to just accept all this whereas if I were of a different colour I would be running screaming to the race relations people.
OK I am out of ideas. It must be horrible for you all. Big hugs all around.
Palzang
There is one thing you could do with this gentleman. Question him seriously as to how he came to these conclusions. As one who has been at the end of discrimination for many a year, I find that if you call someone to the carpet and make them answer for their statements, they are less likely to make them (or at least in your presence).
An example: While I was in college, I worked at a fast food restaurant in the back making food with an African-American person who knew that I was gay. He would yell "Hey Princess, bring me some buns!" or "Girl, you need to move a bit faster. Just because you're a queer doesn't mean you have to work like one". I stopped what I was doing and asked "What would you think of me calling you 'boy' or 'the big N' to get you to do something?". He looked kind of dumbfounded. I then informed him that he had no right to call me either of those names as I would not call him racial slurs out of respect for him. I also told him that if a fellow homosexual would have said it, it might not have offended as they would have understood a common struggle, just as African-Americans may say certain things that no other group would dare say as they don't have the context.
Or you could offer to shave your friends head and tattoo a swastika on him. Of course don't sterilize anything. Tell him it is part of your own eugenics program. Or you could wish Metta follow him and his footsteps until it infiltrates his being.
I think you're doing the right things though. Especially when you use it for practice. Very, very wise.
There is another non-violent tactic you could use. You could videotape them while they're attacking you. When they start to question you about it remain silent and repeat in your head over and over "Don't apologize. Don't explain." Maybe some day you'll have the opportunity to show them the video thus showing them what they look like in the mirror. Just raving demons. That's all.
He proceeded to unleash a torrent of cuss words and stormed out of the room. Later on, he asked why I was a republican, and after explaining my answer calmly, I realized that he had no understanding of politics at all. He could not really give any defining characteristic of the Right or the Left or tell me any difference between liberalism or conservatism. Added on to the fact that he has never held down a job, and gets all his money from his parents, he feels himself to be in the position to say who should live and who should die based on intelligence and health alone? This would raise the eyebrows of any legitimate fascist because he seems like such a good candidate for the "liquidation" he seems to champion.
If anything, it would be much more consistent for someone like me to believe these kinds of absurdities. I am a successful blue collar worker with job security extending for as long as I want. I am practically economically independent from my parents when you factor in my job, my investments, and my full scholarship in college. But of course, I don't believe in eugenics because I believe it's immoral and evil.
I'm beginning to wonder if I have underestimated the importance of religion over the past few years. Maybe a moderate upbringing in religion is actually a very positive thing and that good dogma can serve as a solid bulwark against such nonsense I've encountered. I'm beginning to wonder if G.K. Chesterton was right when he said that "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they will believe in anything."
People should be judged on their individual merits, not a blanket statement. There are things that other religions and people believe that I tend to think is hogwash. But they still have the right to believe so.
Perhaps your room-mate is more of an aristocrat than a fascist. As you say, he sounds fodder for liquidation either way. He certainly does not appear to understand that the real basis for democracy (to which, I imagine, he gives some lip-service) is diversity of opinion. This is the safeguard against one-party states, autocracy and tyranny.
Stick in there. You never know: your example may have some good effect. And remember what Eric Berne teaches: when we stop playing games, other players will round on us in anger because we are spoiling their fun.
Not much I can add that hasn't already been said and probably more eloquently...
But I would consider this... Sometimes silence indicates tacit approval.
I think if this were me, I would say that I did hold nor share in those beliefs, and that you would appreciate him not espousing those beliefs in your presence. The ball is now in his court. If he is a true friend, you'll not have to ignore his rantings, because he won't do so in your presence, and of course if he ignores your request, then he is saying he doesn't care about you all that much either, and that will make it easier for you to pull away from him over time.
Just my 2d worth.