Davenport, wtf is up with that personal attack on the poster for raising an interesting question?
This is especially odd:
First you comment on the categories, generally saying you agree, and then you say its childish to even mention categories like these?
I think its quite universal. I remember noticing the same thing when reading the Odyssey. Most of the way through Odysseus is the underdog, so that’s fine. Near the end, however, the suiters become the underdogs. So the author(s) go out of his/their way to put the suiters in a bad light here. And still the gods have to give signs, and give them warnings, etc.
Here in Denmark, our most famous author, Hans Christian Anderson, is basically all about rooting for the underdog.
Just for the record, I’m not talking about me here.
Could it be that most people are “losers” and therefore we’re more sympathetic to “loser” characters?
Most of us aren’t beautiful. Most of us aren’t rich. Most of us don’t have mobs of friends. Most of us aren’t work-a-holics. Most of us do not shop at Lord & Taylor.
I personally can’t identify with atheletic people. I’m not against them–in fact I admire the art of skillful body movement. But being hopelessly clumsy, I am more sympathetic to characters who are like me. I don’t see their clumsiness as a failing; rather, I see it as a trait that makes that person more “human”. One reason why I can’t identify with most atheletic people is that they don’t seem to get clumsiness. It’s not precipitated by laziness or other moral failings, people. It’s just the way some people are.
It could be that you’re right that the values or traits you listed are considered “winning” ones in society. So…it makes quite a lot of sense that film, TV, and book heros are not societal “winners”. Art has always been about bucking the rules of society. Who wants to eat pro-establishment propaganda?
For the same reason someone looks at a “geek” and says, “He looks like a fine, intelligent chap!” and another says “Ew! What a dweeb!”
Or for the same reason someone looks at a poor person and says, “I hope she’s got a roof over her head and some food to eat” and another says, “What a lazy-ass street whore! I wish she would just die!”
You’re basically asking why some people are mean and others are not.
IMHO, most humans feel inferior in some way, for obvious reasons, however incorrect. Feeling inferior is psychologically very unpleasant. So people cope with it, in a number of ways.
Solve the problem. Become atletic or rich. The attitude or psychological “story” that goes with this is: *“I got here through hard work and talent. Most people could make something moreout of themselves, if they put some work in it. if they don’t they’re a buncha slackers.” *
Stop caring. The story that goes with this attitude is: *" To each his own. Fine for them, but I don’t like it, or not enough to put in the effort. I’m just not the type for it. I like other things." *
Blaming yourself. Becoming defeated: “It’s not for the likes of me” Depressed: " I’m a f*ing loser, and always will be".
Blaming others. Anger, jealousy. “They all hold me down”. “Rich people are greedy materialists” “Extrovert people are superficial babblemouths.”
Hoping. “Someday…”
Imho, a large part of culture caters to these needs. Stories supply fodder for any of these psychological positions. Stories in books, magazines, movies, or in the stories people tell each other. That doesn’t make the stories incorrect or correct perse. Truth has little to do with it.
I see a popular athlete and recognize his or her prowess and wonder why we lionize someone for doing something of little or no value. I see someone who lives in a big house and wonder what they had to sacrifice to get it. And then I go on with my life.
Aside from anyone’s opinion about the average nature of top executives, what would be the point, dramatically, of story centered upon a good CEO? Someone with that much power would immediately get what he wants, and if his goals are good, the story would be over as soon as it started. The last movie I’ve personally seen with a good CEO was Robots, and the drama came from the fact that he was ousted by a bad CEO. The goal of the hero was to reinstate him into power. If he was in power at the beginning of the movie, it would have either been over in thirty-minutes, when the hero got to the company gates, or the entire story would have been changed to that of long, Oz-like quest where the company isn’t even reached until the last act. That’s another type of story where the good CEO fits in (I can’t immediately think of any examples right now, in Wizard of Oz, he was a powerless fraud, but I know the storyline exists as a staple).
I think it’s that more people can relate to an athlete than they can relate to a CEO. Most kids (or at least a lot of them) at one time dream of being an athlete. Most people have played some kind of sport at some time.
While a CEO or other top executive also had to work hard and sacrifice to get where he is, for the most part I think we still associate them with “that cheap prick who signs my paychecks”.
Because he’s raised it time and again.
Discuss my Grand Unifying Theory on Coolness and Dorkism
Are there more “nerds,” “dorks,” and “weirdos” these days?
He’s used this whole “nerd/cool” schism in those threads, as well as in his contributions in other threads that I’m too lazy to dig through right now. And basically, I think it’s a tad immature. I’ve never heard anyone past their freshman year in college use “nerd” and “dork” as an insult, especially not a “successful businessman” like msmith. And actually, I said I DON’T agree with the categories. I believe in other categories: good people and bad people. And while I admit to having some anti-rich prejudice (based on life experience), generally I think it is best to judge people as individuals. msmith appears to judge them based on how “cool” they are, and I think that’s a little sad, especially since he’s in his thirties, way past the age where this type of judgement is understandable and forgivable.
What part of my post was bitter? I’m honestly not seeing it. And a lot of those people you put down as being “losers” work just as hard as you do. Why should YOU be able to put THEM down, just because they might be unattractive, or not as suave, or whatever? And then you expect people not to put you down in retaliation? You’re just reinforcing the rich businessman/fratboy=jerk association in my mind. Not helping the cause, dude.
And I think you should know my gender by now.
How can you call a man heroic who purposely collapsed the British currency so he could profit a billion dollars (in one day, btw) on his currency speculation?
Looks as if you define “heroic” and “shitbag” by whether their political inclinations match yours, irrespective of their actual doings. Pretty lame definition, but one that’s all-too-common.
Well, I think this is over-simplified, surely. Let’s take John Stockton as an example. Popular athelete who could really play basketball. Hard-working & even a little bit of an underdog at one point. But I hated him. Made my skin crawl. Why? Because he played like a dirty little prick. All elbows and cheap shots. So, while I could admire his basketball prowess, he was still an asshole.
Which brings me to another point. Many folks at the top of their field have indeed sacrificed some bottom-line human qualities. The highly successful often get that way because success is their top priority. Family, love, morality, decency—these sometimes fall by the wayside. Not always, but they do. And this is surely a large contributing factor to the bias you’re suggesting. These people become so focused that they’re almost incapable of other interactions. I know I’ve had that buddy who sort of faded away into his job, working 70 hour weeks and getting constant promotions, yet, when you go out for drinks, all he can talk about is office politics & shit he’s going to buy. It consumed his life &, IMHO, made him a worse person.
And you seem like someone who has forgotten where you are posting.
Do not insult other posters in GD.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
If you’re talking about this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_soros#Currency_speculation – Soros did absolutely nothing dishonest or unethical, by the standards of the business community. And it’s those standards I’m applying when I call him a “hero.” Certainly he’s not a hero the way a soldier or a firefighter can be a hero. He doesn’t put his own life on the line, nor is he expected to; and whatever he does with the rest of his life, he’ll die a billionaire. But at least he’s trying to use his money and influence to do some good in the world. Some real good, beyond founding an opera or a hospital and getting a tax break and his picture in the paper. In that regard, he outshines practically all of his peers.
Not “irrespective of their actual doings.” And taking doings into account, it’s a perfectly valid standard. See post #18.
Why? Who the fuck are you that I should know who you are?
On furthur investigation, it would appear that you represent yourself as a woman.
So what? Why do you care? How is it any different from Evil Captor’s thread on “lookism” in certain industries. You are living in a freakin fantasy world if you think that high school-esq superficial stereotypes and prejudices don’t carry over into the adult world. I’m just raising the topic for discussion and didn’t make any personal judgements against any specific individual. If the topic is too painfull for you because the cool kids picked on you in jr high or some bullshit, don’t vent your anger at me.
That’s your problem, not mine.
And, on re-reading the thread more closely: While not crossing any explicit lines, this is rather more rude than necessary and you should work very hard to avoid a repetition:
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Sorry, but I stand by my borderline statement. Adult men should cast off the baggage of high school and treat people as equals. I don’t feel that the OP acts like my definition of an adult, so I made a statement highlighting that.
Gettin’ a little hysterical there, huh smithy?
Then you need to take it to the Pit. This is not that Forum.
You will not continue this attack on another poster’s person, here.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
You sense wrongly, as our exchange in that thread demonstrates:
Where is this resentment you speak of, white man?
Again, I don’t see it as an attack. He IS rich, he IS a former fraternity member. Those things are facts. I guess you’re talking about the quotation marks, which are meant as a sarcastic statement on msmith’s lack of adult manliness, so I guess I’ll retract those, if not the sentiment that goes with them. Which is more than msmith will do, I bet, after opening a thread that calls all poor people losers.