Scoffing at "weirdness" makes no sense (narcissistic, feelings, people)

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Actually saying out loud that you think somebody is a pedo or a pervert, just because they look strange and/or read books in a public setting to kids. But as much as that upsets me, what makes steam come out of my ears are the people who are basically accusing TEACHERS of such things. Like, no one should be accused of such unless there is PROOF.

I agree. The same can be said relative to women who judge all men who date a (younger) adult woman as a controlling, manipulative perv as well. It’s just another stereotype/personal bias based in re: appearances as well.

Bottom line, people are going to judge, often unfairly without even knowing us. Hence the importance of having one’s psychological health intact because those who scoff, per the thread, do not.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by SnazzyB

But I WILL make snap judgements to protect myself or those I'm responsible for. I WILL put as much distance as possible between ourselves, if I feel the other person is a threat to my safety.

That doesn't mean I'm going to scorn or treat that person disrespectfully...at least to their face.
We as humans make these decisions almost on a daily basis. "Someone's walking up behind me. I'm going to cross to the other side of the road." "Someone is being extra schmoozy to me in the bar. Don't accept a drink from him." "There's a man over there who just pulled a half eaten sandwich out of the trash can and is now arguing with the trash can. I'm glad he's on the other side of the metro station." I get to decide if I feel safe or not and take appropriate action.

[/quote]

1. If the hyperactive yeller and screamer is putting on hostile, threatening, or predatory airs (the latter includes your "shmoosy"), that's certainly grounds for avoiding the person. If that person's not seeming to be hostile, threatening, or predatory toward others, that's going to be a little harder to back up.

The most your comment proves is that not all forms of oddity and eccentricity are harmless or demeaning. But that's a different matter from saying all forms of it are harmful or demeaning

Even here, there's still the issue of whether the hyperactive yelling music-listening person is actually more threatening than a belligerent drunk who otherwise (i.e., when sober) has at least average social skills. I san not, and in fact, probably less so.

Originally Posted by zentropa

OP uses an example based entirely on a person's erratic public behavior, and then uses it to argue about lifestyle choices or inherent aspects of personality that have absolutely nothing to do with erratic public behavior. It's a head scratcher.

The last paragraph above applies to your remarks, too. The actual argument is that I find such people less threatening or demeaning to others than a typical belligerent bar drunk; yet we're quicker to scorn the eccentric who's harmless and not abusing substances than we are a belligerent drunk in a bar (esp if we keep in mind "a drunk's words and acts are a sober person's thoughts", meaning that eventually that person will mistreat you comparatively badly when they're sober at some point).

[sholomar]

It might make no sense, but it makes perfect sense when you look at evolution. Deep down most of us are insecure beings that desire a sense of belonging. The easiest way to achieve this is to fit into a group and ostracize the outsiders. From an evolutionary perspective it's perfectly logical.

The alpha people (men or women) are so desired by society because of their perceived conquering of their fear. The truly alpha aren't threatened by anything or anyone, and have no need to control or ostracize. The fake alphas use control as a means to maintain their power. This entire planet operates under a dominance hierarchy. Without it our species would not function effectively. As it stands, fake alphas control most of the planet. In some cultures, like China or Arab countries, it's not even alphas... it's through brute force of betas that control is maintained. Their power is there because it was inherited, and these societies are often authoritarian.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by sholomar

It might make no sense, but it makes perfect sense when you look at evolution. Deep down most of us are insecure beings that desire a sense of belonging.

I agree we desire a sense of belonging, as a whole; and psychologically healthy people are able to achieve this easily i.e. particularly those who understand their social/public behavior affects others (and often has consequences).

Originally Posted by sholomar

The alpha people (men or women) are so desired by society because of their perceived conquering of their fear. The truly alpha aren't threatened by anything or anyone, and have no need to control or ostracize. The fake alphas use control as a means to maintain their power.

It’s a matter of psychological health, not control. In other words, per the examples given by the OP relative to public behavior, anyone has the right to think what they want (and/or simply move away so they may enjoy the public space as well). That said, it is psychologically unwell people who attempt to manipulate, control or mock others; to the contrary, it’s usually people who feel powerless or lack self-esteem who need to do so.

It’s a matter of taking control of your own situation and doing something about it - not about controlling the guy who is drunk, the uncontrolled park behavior or the drag queen in the library.

[sheena12]

Scoffing or poking fun at weirdness is a simple defense mechanism. It confirms the that the scoffer is "not weird" and this must be thus "normal".

It's very primitive and not at all an emotionally evolved response. Childish.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by sholomar

It might make no sense, but it makes perfect sense when you look at evolution. Deep down most of us are insecure beings that desire a sense of belonging. The easiest way to achieve this is to fit into a group and ostracize the outsiders. From an evolutionary perspective it's perfectly logical.

Some people keep bringing up evolution, not entirely unjustified.

Note: below is not my genuine belief of how evolution or social groups works. I'm simply giving the proponents the greatest benefit of the doubt I can give them.

Back in the Stone Age, or at latest, the 1920 Wealthy World (The West + Japan at that time)...

...before we had anything even approaching modern modes of living and ways of making a living for the masses (phones, cars, electricity; almost- modern levels of knowledge of education, medicine, the beginnings of psychology, general scientific knowledge, etc.)...

yes, the evolutionary arguments and snap judgments about highly different people just might have made a kinda-sorta sense. But with modern levels of these things, there's both medical treatments (if necessary), cognitive skills training, and generations of accumulated cultural experience showing that we in the past made far too hasty judgements about people well outside the norm. They usually aren't even a substantive threat as we presumed. So the scorn and contempt for the highly different lost its usefulness because the reason for the scorn and contempt no longer exist.

[Sonic_Spork]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Some people keep bringing up evolution, not entirely unjustified.

Note: below is not my genuine belief of how evolution or social groups works. I'm simply giving the proponents the greatest benefit of the doubt I can give them.

Back in the Stone Age, or at latest, the 1920 Wealthy World (The West + Japan at that time)...

...before we had anything even approaching modern modes of living and ways of making a living for the masses (phones, cars, electricity; almost- modern levels of knowledge of education, medicine, the beginnings of psychology, general scientific knowledge, etc.)...

yes, the evolutionary arguments and snap judgments about highly different people just might have made a kinda-sorta sense. But with modern levels of these things, there's both medical treatments (if necessary), cognitive skills training, and generations of accumulated cultural experience showing that we in the past made far too hasty judgements about people well outside the norm. They usually aren't even a substantive threat as we presumed. So the scorn and contempt for the highly different lost its usefulness because the reason for the scorn and contempt no longer exist.

Well, we are moving towards that higher level of tolerance in more populated parts of the West, arguably. But there are still many cultures, from the rural or "small town" to (more severely) the more authoritarian in the greater world, that strictly enforce social norms.

I mean we have a whole huge ideological conflict that could bring humanity to extinction if it goes far enough, going on right now. There are countries that have had it right up to -here- with American notions of tolerance. I read an article giving perspectives of some Russian people about the current situation, asking questions regarding Ukraine... And a common thing that people will say there, is that the reason they are at war with Ukraine is America. It is our fault. We gave them weapons, this whole thing is nothing but a proxy war with the degenerate west. And when asked, "what comes next, how does this end" they say that, very sadly, it will be necessary to use nuclear force to defeat the threat...from America. One of them said, "How can we be friends with people who have gay parades?"

Then you can look at Hungary. They are specifically working to have an "illiberal democracy"...one in which they do have elections, but the outcome is well in hand with no real uncertainty...and it is a Christian nation with no room for gay people or social nonconformity.

You talk about what is normal and what's not, and decry the possibility of people scorning or shunning a simply jovial public frolicker, but at least in this country, the State is not going to simply put a bullet into them. Well. Unless you count the very valid concerns that the mentally ill and certain demographics have to fear from overzealous police, who might shoot anyone if they feel "threatened."

As for the belligerent drunk, well, I agree that this person won't seem very safe to some of us. I don't care to be around drunk people, and have my own bad memories of an alcoholic father who certainly did put lives at risk at times. I agree, that person is more harmful. But alcohol consumption is normalized in our culture, and that "guy," if he is in a position of power (such as the father in a family) does whatever and gets away with terrorizing everyone around him. People are often too afraid to stand up to him or confront his behavior. And I know what that's about, because I had an ex who did things that could have been jailable offenses (sometimes while drunk), yet I never called police. Because the mechanisms of the justice system would have made my situation more dangerous, not more safe. Such a man won't be held forever, and when he is free, he'll come for his "enemy" and no restraining order will stop him. I don't want to be the one who only gets "justice" when I am a corpse that's found somewhere.

So.

Frankly I believe that who is excused, versus who is shunned, for various behavior, has a lot to do with what kind of person it is and the biases of the observer. As I said, if it was a middle aged white man in a nice suit running around in a park, I'd assume that he just made a fortune on his investments or something, or lol...maybe his divorce is finalized and isn't going to bankrupt him. I'd be wondering, "what's the good news?" If it's someone who looks dirty, disheveled or scruffy in some way, I may assume drugs are involved. If it's a woman, I'll probably think she's insane. Kind of says a lot about my biases, doesn't it? We all have them. And while they might have primitive "keep me safe" origins, that does not mean that they lead us to fair or accurate conclusions about other people.

My ethics tell me that ultimately, as we've established pretty well here, we all have a right to keep ourselves safe, but that right does not extend to harmful words or actions against another human being. If they are being weird in a way that doesn't affect or harm us, well...we can just go the long way around and make sure that continues to be the case.

[Phil75230]

Great explanation, Sonic_Spork. Covers all the bases I know about

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Frankly I believe that who is excused, versus who is shunned, for various behavior, has a lot to do with what kind of person it is and the biases of the observer.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Great explanation, Sonic_Spork. Covers all the bases I know about

There’s a huge difference between ‘shunning’ i.e. persistent, overt rejection vs. choosing to avoid someone relative to their publicly disruptive behavior (per your examples, OP) - whether another perceives it as such or not.

[SnazzyB]

1. If the hyperactive yeller and screamer is putting on hostile, threatening, or predatory airs (the latter includes your "shmoosy"), that's certainly grounds for avoiding the person. If that person's not seeming to be hostile, threatening, or predatory toward others, that's going to be a little harder to back up.

The most your comment proves is that not all forms of oddity and eccentricity are harmless or demeaning. But that's a different matter from saying all forms of it are harmful or demeaning

Even here, there's still the issue of whether the hyperactive yelling music-listening person is actually more threatening than a belligerent drunk who otherwise (i.e., when sober) has at least average social skills. I san not, and in fact, probably less so.



The last paragraph above applies to your remarks, too. The actual argument is that I find such people less threatening or demeaning to others than a typical belligerent bar drunk; yet we're quicker to scorn the eccentric who's harmless and not abusing substances than we are a belligerent drunk in a bar (esp if we keep in mind "a drunk's words and acts are a sober person's thoughts", meaning that eventually that person will mistreat you comparatively badly when they're sober at some point).[/quote]

If I feel threatened, or I feel a person MIGHT be dangerous, I will take action to avoid that person. Stop and end. That MIGHT be the belligerent drunk. It MIGHT be the guy spinning and talking to himself at the park. It MIGHT be the schmoosy guy in the bar.

If a person is NOT behaving in a way that I perceive to be threatening, then this whole topic is moot.

I feel like YOU assume that we ALL have the same prejudices as you. (And no, I'm not trying to imply you're racist...we all have biases.) I don't know that a bohemian looking person would make me uncomfortable. I don't think it's a 'thing' I'd have to overcome. Not THAT anyway. Believe me, I have my hang ups...but I'm pretty sure they're not the same as yours.

And I'm not sure why you assume I would scorn ANYONE I perceive as 'different'. The happy eccentric is free to do his/her thing. I'm not going to harass that person. But I'M the one who gets to decide if I think that person might be threatening...or not.