Dude. Of course I’ve heard of Don Rickles. Have you SEEN Don? If you don’t think short, bald-headed and lizard-looking Don Rickles doesn’t have issues, I’m guessing you’ve heard his reputation but you haven’t seen much of his act. Lots of stand-ups are insecure. So are actors, musicians, and a lot of performers.
But I never said bullies had low-self-esteem. And I never said bullying has anything to do with one’s esteem, period. I know low self-esteem is a myth, I’m a public schoolteacher. I said bullies are insecure. They get their validation fucking with people. Insecure people do that.
Again, I never said it. You can’t use different terms than the ones I use and then say, “You’re wrong.”
No, but inclination and frequency often equals causation. If you’re inclined (for example) to making purchases all the time based on buying the biggest, the most expensive, the newest, the latest, the most originaI – well, that’s just feeding some sort of need that isn’t about the item itself. I think most extreme behaviors can often be a sign of insecurity unless there is a valid religious reason or articulated rationale behind it.
Yeah, I am often guilty of inductive thinking. It works more often than it doesn’t.
But paranoia is a form of insecurity. Also, I’m not talking about “race” --I’ve been very careful to coach this argument in terms of a specific enthic group and a possible emotional component of its culture.
I don’t assume that about everyone – just people who do so even when there is no demonstrable need, or when its not fiscally sensible, or sometimes (heh) not in good taste at all. I mean, hell. have you seen PIMP MY RIDE?
What does how he looks have to do with his self esteem or security. Plenty of ugly people are secure with themselves. I agree that lots of performers have issues, but so do many cops. Doesn’t mean you can paint them all with one brush. Either way, making fun of people isn’t about a person’s insecurity.
I used a different term, however your own link states there is a correlation between low self esteem and insecurity. I think they are synonymous in most cases. I disagree that bullies are insecure. It doesn’t make sense that people with high self- esteem would be particularly insecure.
So valid religious reasons and articulated rationales are mitigating factors? Most people feel they have a good reason to buy an expensive watch, car, or leather jacket. Paying a premium for something because it doubles as a status symbol isn’t a sign of insecurity. It’s recognizing that a guy in a $5000 suit is treated differently than one on a $100 suit in many circumstances.
Do you have evidence that black people are more likely to do that, and that this could be traced to black culture? Is seems like you are taking a stereotype and using it to demonstrate a shaky conclusion you’ve already drawn (not to mention the ones regarding other cultures).
And some stereotypes may be true more often than they are not. Doesn’t mean that they are valid statements.
But it’s not paranoia. Also, you don’t have a need for most of the things you buy. Do you need to buy separate shampoo or deodorant? No, but you do it so that you feel comfortable and are able to smoothly function in society. Others do the same thing with expensive clothes and cars. This has nothing to do with security. Some of these people may be insecure, but it’s not always shown by their behavior.
Looks have plenty to do with one’s sense of security. Ask anyone undergoing chemotherapy or facial reconstruction. Bullying people is usually about the bully’s insecurity.
Insecurity. Self-esteem. The terms are not really synonymous at all. I firmly believe many bullies with apparently high self-esteem have an inflated sense of worth and are using bullying as a coping mechanism to hide their own insecurities.
Once again: paying a premium to buy status symbols every once in a while is perfectly fine (There’s a thread about the ethics of doing that, but I haven’t read it.) But it seems to me doing so frequently and often excessively for non-essential luxury items like clothing, jewelry, electronic gadgets, exotic foods and regular pampering services usually marks some sort of insecurity. (I think most people who shop for the sake of shopping are insecure. Who needs to boss around sales clerks?) It’s showing off. It’s about recognizing that in the real world, the guy who can simply afford $5000 suits doesn’t even have to be wearing one to expect to be treated differently. Overcompensating for substance by making sure you look the part is a sign of the nouveau riche, or at least the I’m no longer poor, the unseasoned professional, people with downturns in success and want to keep up appearances and guys who think luxury office furniture alone screams, “I’m a success!” My only evidence for black people doing this is ancectdotal: the materialism of rap culture, the low-rider phenomenon, the styles blacks wear at the Player’s Ball, my aunt’s spending habits, my brother’s huge missteps in managing finances after plunging into the internet bubble eight years back, my friends in corporate America in hock buying cars they don’t drive and shoes they don’t wear, my ex-girlfriend’s too expensive downtown apartment, my dating the occassional affected Black American Princess because I’m a sucker for long hair and pretty toes. Almost all of it stems from bad judgment stemming from wanting to be seen as a success. Now there are many African-Americans like that, and plenty who aren’t, but I’ve never claimed that just because it is widespread culturally means that it’s symptomatic down to every last person. My first words in this thread were, “Not every single last black person. I’m speaking as a whole, culturally.”
Stereotypes tend to be proven untrue when you indiscriminately apply all stereotypical characteristics to everyone within a group. I try not to do that.
No, sorry – it’s paranoia. I don’t know about your finances, brickbacon, but I personally need most of the things I buy. I’m pretty frugal. I get my shampoo and deodorant from the Family Dollar two blocks up the street.
Askia Is it being insecure, when you are aware of what the results are if you don’t have ‘status’? If dressing down creates a negative image, are you being paranoid if you feel you must look good?
i have a relative who’s in a “mixed” marriage, been married for 40 years and his wife always purchased the best for their kids, because they realized that they didn’t have luxury to allow their kids to look ‘shabby’. If they did, the kids got the “look”, and were treated, well…like trash. Like their mother took a step down and married a man who couldn’t even dress his children properly.
However the white kids, who shared the same economic status; never got the “look”, they were just wearing just “kids”.
Now granted, the people may have treated them and the kids badly anyway, but she wanted them to have to work for it. Her thoughts were, that when people already expect you to be lesser, you must always be better in manners, speech and dress. Never make it easy for them, to ignore you.
As far the pimp my ride crowd goes, there’s a difference between ghetto fab and a Brook’s Brothers suit…the same way there’s a difference between the houses of the Mob and that of a famous movie-maker.
Now were my relatives insecure? Paranoid? I don’t know, I wasn’t in their shoes; but there’s a reality to how people of color are treated if they don’t look good…it’s not just a manner of screaming success, but also of not making it easy for them to look down on you because you’re feeding the lower caste image that many people have of African-Americans…of course you risk the Caddy and Cognac tag too; so as always; moderation in all things.
SD can be pretty PC at times, and nobody wants to be called racist. But what Aeschines says about whiteness has all been true in my experience, I don’t even consider it or feel any obligations whatsoever. White people tend to be very insecure too though. We are insecure about finances, looks, being normal, etc. The motive for our insecurity could be different than blacks though, blacks may feel insecure because they are and have been considered a threat or inferior in this culture and need to compensate for it, while white people do not have to deal with that. Well some do, for example obese white people who lose weight may become oversexualized in an effort to compensate, I guess this is the same thing as a black rapper spending all his money on an expensive car, its an attempt to overcompensate for feeling inferior.
As far as black culture and its emphasis on one up manship and showing off success, that has taken hold in white culture too. Pimp my ride, the word pimp and gangster rap are big parts of white culture too.
Not according to Dan Olweus, a psychology professor at Norway’s University of Bergen and one of the world’s leading experts on bullies and their victims. As he states here:
I believe your statement is not supported by the data. Bullies aren’t bullies because they are insecure, nor do they pick on people to elevate themselves.
I think they are. There is a reason the previous site links both things together. There is strong correlation between the two.
I don’t mean to say you are saying every single black person does it. That was not my intention. I just don’t see the behaviors you described being disproportionately higher in the black community. I know just as many whites (proportionally) who shop at abercrombie or diesel buying $120 jeans, as I do blacks.
While rap music is materialistic, I think that has more to do with companies catering to the audience (mostly white people, ironically). American consumers are materialistic, and thus rappers, who are typically primarily motivated by economic success, make that kind of music. Rap music used to be thought of as a fad, but what has sustained it is that it has been able to seamlessly adapt, and provide consumers with what they want (unlike many other forms of music). When people wanted gangsta rap, it was produced in mass. When people wanted bling bling rap, companies started putting that out. If the consumer wants rap music that isn’t materialistic, you will see more rappers rapping that way.
Companies that sell “overpriced” stuff aren’t typically catering to blacks. They don’t stay in business because of blacks. Far more white people do the things you mentioned. If you are arguing that many blacks live beyond their means, then you might have a point (if you could back it up with real evidence). But, claiming that such behavior means you’re insecure isn’t supportable. Why is buying a expensive car a sign of insecurity when buying a million-dollar painting isn’t?
Fair enough.
I didn’t mean to put you on trial. But, I doubt you need most of the things you buy. You don’t need shampoo, deodorant, a computer, or a SDMB membership. There is nothing wrong with wanting things. Of course materialism can be a problem, but it’s a sliding scale, and to assume everyone who is more materialistic than what you’re comfortable with is insecure is unfair.
You raise a good point. A lot of what’s being explained away as self hatred and insecurity can also be explained as wanting the best for your family. Some name brands, private schools and neighborhoods are just plain better than the generic stuff. That’s why they have the good reputation. For example, I don’t know much about the previously mentioned pockets of “old rich blacks” in large cities, but maybe their behaviors aren’t completely explained by insecurties. We all know that everyone is judged at some point on the basis of what they wear, how they speak and where they’re from. Why shouldn’t parents give their children a head start? It’s good sense for everyone of every race. More than once I’ve seen someone’s behavior change from cautious and nervous to friendly once they find out where I’m from.
I think the dichotomy here is a bit false: you can feel legitimately paranoid and have the good sense to take steps to avoid being harassed by dressing up, or dressing in accordance to the dictates of your profession. But when you constantly seek designer labels ultimately to receive someone else’s validation or to prove what a hustler or player you are, to me that essentially smacks of being at least somewhat insecure. It’s completely different when you like it and its done for fun. it’s different when you recognize you don’t have to have something. But if you don’t think your world simply isn’t complete without that diamond and platinum necklace… that’s nuts. To my way of thinking, using your people’s example (and this is not a slam on them; people handle this kind of peer pressure in different ways) if my kids are healthy, happy, safe, clean, well-fed, well-educated and adequately clothed, in a warm and loving home I could personally give a damn whether someone else thinks they need designer jeans and $100 sneakers. If my kids want it, they can work for the money, I’m not going to hand them something that frivolous without good reason. Anytime you feel compelled to dress a certain way and buy certain things to avoid ridicule, that’s nearly always a recipe for insecurity. The real strength of character comes from not giving a darn.
Wesley Clark. Oh, I know how PC-sensitive SDMB can be. I’m always cracking jokes about it.
brickbacon. Of course, further down Olweus describes four factors that makes a bully and his own research backs up what I’m saying:
In his own words, three out of the four factors that make bullies tend to make insecure children who become insecure adults. No warmth or attention? Insecurity! Poor supervision? Insecurity. Being parented aggressivey? INN-SUH-KUR-AH-TEE. So-- bullies aren’t secretly whiny cowards but that’s not the sort of insecurity I’ve been talking about. Yes, aggressive behavior tends to come from feeling insecure: jealousy, self-doubt, fear. Assertive behavior does not.
Let me state this again: excess tends to denote insecurity unless there’s a religious reason or articulated rationale. Buying AN expensive car or two (if you can afford it) for one person is not necessarily insecurity. Having more than three just might be. Cars tend to depreciate unless they’re classic models. (If you’re a car enthusiast and work on 'em and drive 'em, you probably get a free pass.) Most paintings valued (and insured at) more than one million dollars won’t depreciate.
We’re talking two entirely different levels of self-indulgent luxuries, here. You’re talking shampoo, deodorant, and my seven dollar annual SDMB subscription. I’m talking ostentatious displays of riches and discretionary income unrelated to generational wealth.
Omega Glory. I think the danger in relying on material possessions in giving your kids a head start is that it is still the same old story: tends to have your kids judged by superficial appearance rather than the content of their character.
Some of the tactics and mores of old money blacks smack of racial insecurities and the overwhelming desire not to be viewed or treated as one of the ordinary black American masses, some being holdovers for more segregated times past. Distancing themselves from working class blacks, forming exclusive clubs, living in exclusive neighborhoods, preferring light-skinned, light-eyed, straight nosed appearances and avoiding outdoor activities that darken one’s skin in the summertime; preferring Ivy League educations over HBCUs, being Presbyterian instead of AMC or CME or Baptist, implementing the brown paper bag test, learning – AND this narcissistic desire to A few of these aspirations and inclinations is fine, but when the aggregate picture forms, you’re talking about very insecure people here.
Of course the opposite is true, too. You have some black folks who don’t wish to learn anything about their history, culture, mores, traditions or cultural arts beyond today’s hip-hop and rap scene and what Martin Lawrence movie is coming out. They limit themselves by not being particularly curious about life or planning for the future. Lacking certain educational opportunities and job skills they (particularly men) resort to overinflated exaggerations of manhood. Lacking maturity, they don’t take care of their responsibilities. By not taking care of their responsibilities they hamper their kids sense of security. They despise themselves for being too dark, having thick lips, wide noses and kinky hair. If they go to church they don’t wish to learn about other religious faiths and become intolerant of other faiths. They don’t read because they don’t value reading or learning and that limits their value on the marketplace. They don’t support their kids in school because of their own bad experiences in school. They don’t travel because they’re afraid of new experiences and don’t like the idea of finding their place in the larger scheme of things or exposing themselves to possible rejection, prejudice or bigotry. Again, a few of these traits don’t necessarily mean you are insecure but add them together and the picture’s bleak.
The least insecure black people tend to work hard; tend value tradition but aspire to new experiences and ideas; aren’t color-struck; value all kinds of education; value the arts; tend to respect the variety and diversity of the black experience. Clinging to ghetto-fabulousness and the mores of inbred old-fashioned enclaves is where fear, self-doubt and jealousy reign; experience the ugliness of racism and are able to challenge it or push it aside. Happiness is the middle way, moderation in all things.
I’m looking at it as giving them a foot in the door, so to speak. It’s the difference between someone looking at your child and thinking “thug” instead of seeing him and thinking “kid”. Once they get to know him, then they’ll see that he’s smart, honest and kind, but they have to give him a chance first. Unfortunately people don’t give everyone an equal chance to prove their character yet. It’s similar to choosing between wearing a suit to an interview or wearing a tank top. Once the interviewer sees your resume, he’ll learn about your credentials, but you’ve got to look the part to get to that point.
Thanks for giving more information about the old money types. I just wanted know a bit more before I agreed or disagreed (after all, I was sort of accused of being an insecure self hater here on the board awhile back;)).
Omega Glory. That wasn’t-- I didn’t – Did I–? Oops, yeah. Sorry, man.
To your point about getting your foot in the door by dressing well – I actually agree with you 100%, but I’m arguing there’s a slippery slope between being well-groomed and buying simple clean black suits and – to my mind – wasting money on a designer name. You’re talking to someone who used to hang on the corner selling bean pies and THE FINAL CALL rocking a Sears suit and red tie. You can make a cheap suit work without looking cheap.
What? You took what he said and added on your own bias. He explicitly says bullies are not insecure. This is written explicitly. He says, in no uncertain terms that this is a myth. I can’t believe you are trying to defend your position when you are clearly wrong. If he meant what you think he does, he wouldn’t have stated that it was a myth, the #1 myth in fact.
What does being able to afford it have to do with anything? If you are saying that buying expensive things means you are insecure, than it doesn’t matter whether you are a billionaire or a pauper. Those toward the poorer end of the spectrum may be poor financial planners, but if you argue the act itself denotes insecurity, the the finances of the individual is irrelevant.
I agree we are, but a person who lives without an SDMB subscription and a computer may see you as materialistic. Not everyone really cares about generating generational wealth. Some people would rather have a nice car now than save it in a 401k. That’s their prerogative. As long as their dependents have their basic needs fulfilled, I don’t see a problem with it. I don’t see any inherent superiority in either position. If you view generating wealth as a noble thing than that’s fine, but don’t foist your biases on to others.
For example, some rich people leave all their wealth to their children. Others, like Warren Buffet plan to only leave a few hundred thousand (of his billions) to his kids. Is one better than the other. If Buffet does what he says he will, he will go a long way toward interrupting the generational wealth he created. Either way, none of this has to do with how secure a person is. It’s about how they view money and their level of economic responsibility.
brickbacon. He states two opposing things explicitedly; one of them must be inaccurate; I choose to believe it’s the limited use of “insecure” rather than his four factors, three of which point directly to childhood insecurity. If you look at his own words, then Myth Number One is only half-right: active bullies don’t have low-self esteem but they must feel insecure. Why do they have low or high self esteem? Because bullying increases their esteem of themselves. Why did they become bullies in the first place? Because of some innate insecurity or instability in the home and being bullies lets them feel more in control. Olweus’s using insecure in the ‘myth’ part as a synonym for ‘feeling anxious’ when as I already explained, being insecure is more complex emotion because it involves fear, self-doubt, feeling unwanted and jealousy. I can’t help it if he didn’t consider the other meanings of “insecure.” Dude needs an editor.
I parsed my statement as “being able to afford it” because while I’m not certain data exists that shows black Americans disproportionately spend beyond our means compared to other ethnic groups, I do think evidence exists that as a culture we’re awfully brand name conscious and anecdotal evidence exists as to us wanting the biggest, the best, the newest, etc. being a pattern of behavior. And (once again) I’m not saying buying expensive things automatically means you’re insecure – but frequently shopping and buying only the best when there’s no real need to own it, use it or show it off may indeed point to some insecurity.
Oh, THAT. A quick tour of my one bedroom apartment with all second-hand furniture, milk crate bookshelves, no TV, cable, stereo, DVD or air conditioning should quickly disabuse them of that. I mean, I do okay and I’m paying off student loan debt and one might charge me with being materialistic if they check out my library and comics collection, but I’m by no means flaunting this. I am living decidely below my means.
How did this get to be about me?
It’s called, “Saving for a rainy day.” Suppose they do have their needs met but they’re running up thousands in consumer debt? What if someone gets sick or incapacitated? Why do they need a nice car as opposed to a reliable one? Why is it an either/or supposition to spend money on a fancy car OR let your 401K languish when you could be frugal and do both if you settle for a lesser car?
Politely, you’re not required to listen to whatever I foist. I merely note that ostentatious displays of wealth are not typical of really wealthy people-- people who have generational fortunes and who are usually secure with their wealth. Lots of “flaunt it if you got it!” behavior of the nouveau rich is really insecurity masquerading as extrovertedness. Compare Trump’s behavior with England’s royal family. Contrast Michael Jackson’s largesse with the understated wealth of Bono. Look at some recent multimillion dollar lottery winners a few months after they get their checks.
Right, glad I have you to tell me what a well-regarded expert in the field meant to say. If you choose not to accept what he says then fine, but don’t try to tell me he was being ambiguous. He explicitly states it is a myth. Please just admit you are wrong. This is getting sad.
Sorry, it shouldn’t be an attack on you. If you have any evidence that shows blacks are more brand name conscience I would love to see it. Until then, it seems rather pointless to speculate. Not only would that have to be true, but then you would have to prove that caring about brand names portends some sort of insecurity. Seems to me like you have a long way to go.
People who spend beyond their means are bad financial planners, they aren’t necessarily insecure. It’s not an either/or thing, it’s the fact that some people have completely different value systems. Your example about illness is incomplete. Bottom line is that the vast majority of the public would be wiped out if a breadwinner developed a chronic, serious ailment. In 2001, half of all bankruptcies were caused by medical bills. It’s not that these people were uninsured or deadbeats. Plenty of those people saved for a rainy day. The reality is that an umbrella is useless against a tidal wave.
You mean Donald Trump, son of Fred Trump, who built one of the most substantial real estate empires in the U.S., managing more than 25,000 apartment units? The Donald is hardly what you’d call new rich. He grew up rich. He’s an ostentatious asshole because he’s an ostentatious asshole. Plenty of new rich people are understated. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Michael Dell come to mind. Or if you like, Bill Cosby, Willie Gary, and Oprah Winfrey. Classiness has nothing to do with how much money you have. Most old money rich people act the way they act because they were raised that way. You act as though rich white people are eating at Burger King, shopping at Old Navy, driving Saturns, and wearing Casio watches.
How is the million-dollar diamond studded watch P. Diddy wears is different from Bill Gates having a 97 million dollar house, or Jerry Seinfeld destroying Billy Joel’s old house that he bought for 32 million. All of them buy things because they want them. I don’t understand why you would assume P. Diddy does it because he’s insecure.
We don’t see all the cool gadgets old rich people have because they usually aren’t celebrities. Who’s to know if these rich kids act like Paris Hilton. One things that is sure is that they are buying plenty of things they don’t need, and I don’t think they do it because they are insecure.
I am a very white guy, from a very white family history, and live in a very white community that is just now, in this decade becoming a mixed race community. The best example I have in my own life is my workplace. Twenty five years ago it was ninety percent white, and ninety percent female, and ninety nine percent at least second generation US citizens. It was also 90 percent college educated in my job description.
Now it is 85 percent African, Asian, and Central American immigrants. It is also sixty five percent female, and I am pretty much “the white guy” in my particular job description. Degrees are much less common.
On the subject of the thread, the place where I notice the racial emotions of Afro Americans is their relationships with Africans, in America. Talk about emotional reactions to the issue of race! The fact that you really don’t like Africans is a tough thing to find out when you have been vocally deriding the racism of the white majority for your whole life. (Note, the white folks don’t have this problem if they are racist, since one black face is pretty much the same as another, wherever they come from.) My native American black coworkers have been forced to face their own racism with a slam in your face reality check far outside of their life experience, and not all of them are comfortable with the results.
The racism gets hidden, of course. Social issues, and nationality are used to cover it, clumsily, I might add. And here and there comes the awakening that black pride is just as racist as white pride and we all have the weakness of being more comfortable with familiar folks, with similar natures. But it just gets real obvious when you see a vocally militant black American trying to explain why they don’t think Africans should be promoted to supervisory positions. Finding out that racism is the original equal opportunity experience is very hard on your self image.
Basically, the gist of the article seems to be that negative stereotypes have effects on anxiety that afflict everyone, but that writing about it can decrease that anxiety. It’s been known for quite some time that cognitive control can be wrested from the “fight/flight” response governed by the amygdala, so thinking and writing about the issue instead of merely reacting to it is likely therapeutic. It’s the pure reaction that causes the trouble. If your experience is saturated with a certain archetypical representation of race and normality, such a level of cognitive vigilance may be difficult to maintain 24/7. Hence the general insecurity you describe, perhaps.
Seems the best thing to do is actively seek out positive role models, keep up thoughtful dialogue, and don’t generalize too much, as that tends to feed into the anxiety-causing paradigm.
brickbacon. Thinking about it some more, Olweus is right: bullies aren’t insecure. They pick on insecure people – people of perceived weaker physical strength, lesser confidence, lesser capabilities or who are demonstrably more anxious, fearful or for whatever reason unable to stand up for themselves. In terms of African-American humor, which is where bullying first came into this conversation, some really quick-thinking, silver-tongued people use their wit as weapons to verbally belittle, mock and humiliate people even unprovoked.
But frankly, that kind of behavior is something I’ve only ever associated with people who are themselves anxious, jealous and otherwise insecure about something. Because they think they just might be dumb. Or not as smart as they think they are. Or ugly. Or too fat. Or they have small dicks. Or big noses and crooked teeth. Or they’re embarassed about being poor. Olweus says I’m wrong, bullies are secure. So how do I reconcile what this expert is saying about insecure bullies being a myth with what I’ve witnessed and experienced about bullies my whole life?
Then it hit me: we’re both right.
Olweus made me realize something I never really considered before: bullying isn’t just shitty behavior. It’s empowering.
Bullying so empowering it raises the self-esteem of an insecure child (or adult) to average or above-average levels, increases his/her self-worth, makes them more confident and aggressive in temperament and physicality-- it’s a road to acceptance, deference and popularity, maybe even sex appeal.
So considered in those terms, it’s true that bullying is not a facade of strength. It’s armor.
You shouldn’t make the assumption that just because bullies have high-estem it means they always did. I maintain bullying itself in most cases must stem from some kind of insecurity – at least in the beginning, when children first begin to act as bullies. Olweus says as much himself when he describes bullies having a home life of little warmth, lax supervision, aggressive parenting and impulsive temperaments. Olweus is a behaviorist? I’m an early childhood educator. That is not an environment that tends to produce secure children. If bullies aren’t checked early in life and continue getting validation from acting like thugs and brutes, then bullying can be self-perpetuating habit for years and years even if, by some miracle the home environment improves-- violence being the first refuge of the incompetent
.
Agree or disagree, brickbacon, this is the only way I can reconcile the conflicting data you presented.
Now if your contention still is that Olweus “insecure bully myth” is unassailable and there’s no possiblity I’m right, then hell no, I don’t agree.
You’ll just have to excuse my temerity for suggesting he used the wrong word. That’s just the way I think.
Although I’m glad you’ve come to realize this is true, I’m a little surprised that it’s taken you so long.
I think you are a bit misguided if you think this is more a part of black humor than it is humor. Not to mention it is debatable if this would be considered bullying. All Jay Leno, and every other later night talk show host, does is make fun of famous people in the news. Did they provoke that? You think Paris Hilton really appreciates being called a whore on TV ad infinitum by comedians? Making fun of people is a lot of what comedy is. Usually the jokes aren’t as caustic as what someone like Don Rickles or D.L. Hugley does, but the point is the same. Most funny jokes are made at someone else’s expense.
No, you are wrong. He is clearly right. When you do 20+ years of study on the matter, maybe you could make such a claim based on your experience and evidence. I respect that you, as a teacher, have observed some of the behavior we speak of, but let’s be honest here.
Wow, you are getting desperate. I guess you missed the part of the myth that shoots a huge hole though your new argument.
Bullies don’t become bullies, or engage in aggressive behavior in order to raise their self esteem or become secure. Please give it up. I know this world view doesn’t reconcile whatever preconceived notions you had of bullies, but you can be sure that it is accurate.
Nor should you make the opposite assumption. Why can’t you just admit you are wrong. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t even damage the “AAs are insecure” argument. I don’t get why you are so insistence on being right when all the facts don’t agree with you.
Since when is making fun of someone violence? That’s what we first talked about, black comedians who make fun of the white guy in the audience. Either way, your whole “violence being the first refuge of the incompetent” thing is nonsense. Sounds good, but it is garbage.
Or you could act like a man, and admit you are wrong. Or, present some other credible evidence that substantiates your claims. But most importantly, please stop saying the data is conflicting. You are the only one who’s conflicted. The data is clear and explicit. Just because it doesn’t jive with what you think it should say doesn’t mean it ambiguous.
No, nothing is unassailable. But, you have produced no evidence, or logical reasons to counter it, beyond playing semantic games and throwing out ill-conceived conjectures. I hope, for your sake, that being obstinate isn’t a sign of insecurity.
I tried *one more time * to explain why I don’t agree with the entirety of Olweus’ conclusions. I restated the parts I agree with and carefully explained the observations and experiences I’ve had personally and professionally dealing with bullies and why I don’t think he’s entirely accurate stating flat out, “Bullies aren’t insecure.” Unlike you, ** brick,**I’ve tried to be dispassionate about it.
You say, “Of course! I’m surprised it took you so long to agree! I guess you don’t know how to read. You don’t have 20-plus years of research to back you up. Maybe if you instead of pointing out a contradiction in Olweus’ own study I’d listen to you. Please give it up. Wow, you’re desperate. You’re misguided. You are wrong. Why can’t you admit you’re wrong? You can act like a man and admit you’re wrong! You’re not logical or rational. I know this worldview doesn’t reconcile with your ill-conceived preconceived notions but you can rest assured now that I, brickbacon, have brought it to your attention it’s correct!”
You appear to be taking all this rather personally, if you’ll permit a candid observation. All this time I just thought I was doing an inadequate job of explaining why I don’t agree with Olweus. Turns out you’re not even considering my point of view. You’ve been rude as shit to me for days now. Frankly I’m a little surprised – we’ve disagreed before without you ever being this insulting. Of course I’m insecure. Everyone is about something. Some people manage to live with their insecurities and having their beliefs challenged without attacking other people, which is my point about bullies. Your own behavior in this thread is a classic example of aggressive and bullying while I’ve been assertive and confident in my opinion. Obstinacy appears to be your problem, not mine.
brickbacon, you might want to take a day to think through carefully your response to me so you don’t sound quite so whiny next time. Have a cookie.
Triskadecamus and Loopydude, sorry I didn’t get to react to your points just yet. I’ve been a bit… distracted. I did read through yoour link, Loop and I wanted to comment. I promise my next posts with be back on topic.
When professional comedians deliberately mock, belittle and humilate specific individuals of their audience unprovoked based on their gender, weight, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, level of education or sense of fashion, that is a form of violence – psychological violence. I don’t mean teasing, like monstro said. I don’t even mean some minor sport they was brickbacon is implying. I don’t even mean when comedians go off on hecklers. I mean unnecessary mean-spiritedness. If you resort to “making jokes” about people frequently, egregiously and publicly you might be funny as shit but in my book (and others) you’re still a bully. You may assume I’m being oversensitive, but – no. You can cross a line.
My casual, unscientific observation of many stand-up comics from Billy Cosby to Margaret Cho to Sam Kinison to Martin Lawrence is that black male comedians easily tend to have the most aggressive comedic personas. Richard Pryor made it trendy, but he was easily as self-deprecating as he was on the attack and I don’t recall him crossing the line with the audience much. Def Comedy Jam and The Comic View insitutionalized and validated a lot of this.
That said, I agree with brickbacon that most late night talk show hosts get a free pass and the benefit of the doubt when they go after celebrities, public officials and people thrust in the spotIight for dubious personal behavior. But suddenly picking on the little people in the audience who don’t have a mic, spotlight or any real way to fight back is just being a bully. Just making broad comments about white people in the audience can be intimidating and mean. I’m sure there are people here who’d agree.