Or, "It's My Birthday and My Blog, I'll write what I Effin' Please!
People fascinate me. Collectively, I think people are greedy, selfish, paranoid, reactionary and lazy. Generally, I tend to view people as a whole, with contempt. But individuals are different. It's very rare that I can't find something in common with a person. I generally know enough about what's going on in the world around me to be able to contribute to whatever conversation/discussion I find myself involved in (except TV- don't have one, don't want one). Inevitably people end up talking about some other group in a non-complimentary fashion- Republicans, Liberals, Gays, Arabs, Jews, Women, Cyclists, Blacks, French, etc., and it is always the same script- it's just the subject that changes... "Things would be so much better if it weren't for those damn _______, they ruin everything." There are lots of variations - "Mexicans are taking all the jobs and killing the economy", "cyclists don't belong on the roads", "Muslims are all terrorists".... ad inifinitum.
So are people defined by who they hate? Here's what I think (and yes, this is my opinion, and no, no one is making you read this) People have an overblown sense of self importance and are generally insecure. People are social, they like to belong to a group, a club, a society, whatever. So they find one, maybe they find it because of shared beliefs, maybe because of a perceived status, maybe because they think someone in the group is cute, maybe it's out of relief to find a group that is accepting. Once in the group, they take on more of the characteristics of that group and the group becomes a part of the individuals identity.
Let's say that this group has a core belief that Red Roses are the best flower in the world. The whole group agrees and they all commend each other on being so wise for understanding this. What happens when they meet someone that thinks Peach Roses are the best, or Orchids, or Daisies, or Tulips? This is where the insecurity part kicks in and things tend to fall apart. See, the group can't just be secure in their appreciation and acceptance of the Red Rose's dominance. They have to see everyone else with differing beliefs as a threat. Why? Because it brings up the possibility that they are wrong- maybe they will harbor secret thoughts about whether or not the Red Rose really is the best flower.
Of course in the grand scheme of things 1) Who Cares? and 2)So What?
But because this group has become part of the individuals identity, a challenge to the group is a challenge to the individual and instead of a debate about the relative merits of flowers, things turn into a series of personal attacks. "You like Daisies, you're stupid". At this point there is no debate, there are no compromises reached by an intelligent exchange of ideas. All effort is focused on trying to find information (usually in the form of biased statistics) that support what the individual already believes.
In other words, people aren't interested in learning anything new, they are interested in being recognized as being "right". It's important to note that it is not *being right* that people want, it is being recognized as being right. In this case, that equates to "winning".
An obvious example of this is
Paul Krugman. A brilliant economist who was recently awarded the
Nobel Prize. After the award was announced, I read a comment that basically stated it was unfortunate that the Nobel Prize had become a "Political Award" instead of one based on merit. Whoever made the comment (which is not to say there was just one dissenting voice, but it's the one I'm using for my example) could step back and say "Wow, this guy is brilliant, but his views are different than mine. Maybe I should spend some time learning about what he says. He did just win the Nobel Prize after all." Nope. This guy didn't like that Krugman has liberal views, so he didn't care what Krugman had to say. If I was into the whole betting thing, I'd put money on the commenter not being able to understand the subject matter anyway. Which just reinforces my position. If you put someone in a situation where they are hopelessly outmatched, they find a diversion. Imagine if I dared debate
Stephen Hawking. He'd make some brilliant statement about string theory, which I wouldn't even be able to understand, let alone refute, so I'd respond with "You're in a wheel chair, bitch!"
How very dignified and mature, right?
It's easier for people to be dismissive of dissent than to try and educate themselves to the point of understanding it.
Look at the recent
Presidential Election results. It was considered an overwhelming victory for Obama. But the US margin of victory paled in comparison to
World Opinion.
Why the difference? Looking at
voter data, we see that over 42% of registered voters were Democrats and roughly 33% were Republican. A slightly larger overall gap than the final results. Since these were registered voters and not actual voters (National voter turnout was around
53%)
So why was it so much closer in the US than in the rest of the World? In my opinion it's because even though
McCain/Palin was an ugly Red Rose, people insisted on supporting it. Voting otherwise would cause them to question their preformed opinions about what is right.
More telling than the results though, is the campaign. Claims of "Liberal", "Socialist" and "Terrorist" were often floated around in attacking Obama. Obviously none of these are true. His voting record is not liberal, his Cabinet choices have not been liberal or Socialist. It will be hard for him to do anything more
Socialist than the current administration's actions of late.
Clearly these attacks were not intended to be educational or even informational. They were meant to scare people that were currently uninformed and expected to be too lazy to verify the information being given to them.
It makes me think of the following quote:
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Herman Goering Another example that affects me directly is the
conflict between cycling and driving. As a commuter by both car and bike, I see some amazing things. I see both incompetent and reprehensible behavior on both sides. I'm always amazed though, at hearing motorists complain about cyclist acting entitled to use the same roads. Which is odd, because
they are. I see people using there motorized vehicles as weapons to intimidate the vulnerable cyclists as if to say "I'm bigger than you, I could kill you, stay out of my way." and this seems perfectly acceptable to them.
Yet this behavior is no different than if I were to see them: on the sidewalk, in the supermarket, in a bar, etc. and threatened them because I am bigger than they are.
I've had people intentionally try to run me off the road while yelling at me that I didn't belong on the road, I've been hit by people that turned without signalling and weren't paying attention. I've been hit be people pulling out of a parking spot without looking. The list of times I've almost been hit by people who had no idea I was even there is too many to count.
There must be some level of jealousy involved, for this to be such an emotional issue with people. Driving in heavy traffic is inherently frustrating and stressful.
More so in SF than anywhere else I've lived. Drivers that see cyclists not being affected by the heavy traffic must be resentful of it. To be fair, drivers are not courteous to other drivers either, but cutting off a car with another car is not likely to lead to injury. And the cut off car cannot ultimately ride past the offending driver and offer advise on how to improve the poor technique.
Motorists see bikes as something they can take out their frustrations on. Much like someone that comes home from a bad day at work and kicks the dog/ smacks the kids.
Yet to hear people try and justify this behavior by blaming bikes holds up to scrutiny about as well as a colander holds water.
But they aren't trying to be right, they are trying to make people believe they are right. They are trying to "Win". Maybe that's what it all about. So many games, so many contests, so many challenges, and so few winners adds up to a lot of discontented, bitter, spiteful people.
I'm not saying I don't fall into this as well, but I do like learning things, anything. Any day I've learned something is a successful day.
I'll close with another quote, from
my favorite band.
Trying to hold steady on the righteous path
80 miles and hour with a worn out map
No time for self-pity or self-righteous crap
Trying to stay focused on the
righteous pathPatterson Hood / Drive-By Truckers
