Americano no room here (lactose intolerant). :)

I don't know about the UK but here in the US we have a lot of goofballs 
like this.  We call them "self-entitled" and if it can be done they will 
do it.  I don't know how many times I back out of a head-in parking spot 
in a lot with barely any room for a car to pass and some moron will come 
screaming through that thin spot.  I figure these are highly neurotic 
individuals who are someday not going to be so lucky and get their car 
smashed into and *then* they'll try to bend things to make it look like 
it is the other guy's fault.  I think we put so much wrongly placed 
emphasis on "self-esteem" that we now have a bunch of buttheads in society.

Now sometimes in a case like yours I will get another reaction like 
"sorry, I a really stupid person and do this all the time."  Like being 
stupid is a valid excuse.  "Sorry" would have sufficed.

Maybe its time to bring in the asteroid.  ;-)

Paul Mason wrote:

>TurqB, mine's a capuccino.
>What you are going on about people trying to avoid personal criticism 
>by deflecting it on to others, it reminds me of something that 
>happened a while back, something that still galls me...
>I was walking along a pavement (the stip of pathway running down the 
>side of a road & reserved solely for pedestrians) and I was shocked 
>to find a car backing down towards me at speed. Though I hardly had 
>time for evasive manoevures I jst managed to dodge out of the way in 
>time. I then whacked my hand on the car to gain the driver's 
>attention and pointed out to him that he had come that close to 
>mowing me down. 
>And do you know what he does? Does he apologise? Does he try to 
>explain his actions? Does he heck? Instead he shouts and gestures 
>angrilly denying everything. And do you know what seems to get to him 
>most is the fact that I touched his vehicle!
>Now, as this incident happened a while back, I have had time to 
>reflect on this ^!*?*$'s behaviour. I think what happened is that he 
>chose denial because he feared any confession might be used against 
>him. 
>Clearly, this car driver's behaviour stems from a misplaced self-
>interest, as does Rama's, with his brushing off personal criticism 
>as 'Anti-Buddhist'. 
>But, I'd like to know what, if anything, is actually achieved by such 
>twisty behaviour? Personally I think that in spite of deflecting 
>attention from their own misbehaviour they eventually pay the price. 
>Even the mighty fall - for surely none can dodge the karma?
>
>
>--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>I've grown fascinated with this phenomenon over the last
>>few days, not so much on this forum (although it has
>>certainly shown up here), but because it's reared its ugly 
>>head on a number of other spiritual forums that I'm a part 
>>of. So I thought I'd rap about it a little. Those of you 
>>who don't enjoy Sunday morning café raps by weird old 
>>farts who live in France can hit the Next key now. :-)
>>
>>The phenomenon I'm talking about goes like this. Whether
>>in person (in some kind of interview) or on an Internet
>>forum like this one, someone takes a member of a spiritual
>>group to task for his or her *personal* behavior. For 
>>example, the person criticizes a poster for consistently
>>trying to make excuses (often lame and rather strained
>>excuses) for behavior on the part of the leader of his
>>group or the group's organization that *most* people 
>>in the world would consider unethical. 
>>
>>And so how does the person whose personal behavior has
>>been criticized respond? By trying to portray it as
>>criticism of (or an attack on) the *group*, not him.
>>
>>Thus suddenly you've got the person whose *personal*
>>behavior was questioned spouting phrases like "anti-
>>Buddhist" or "anti-TM" or "anti-Christian" or what-
>>ever. So what's the purpose of this dodge, and where
>>does it come from?
>>
>>I think it's learned behavior, taught in many cases
>>by the organizations to which these people belong.
>>They've watched the teachers of their organizations
>>or the other representatives do this so often that
>>they've come to believe that pulling this stunt is
>>acceptable behavior. 
>>
>>Some examples, from the Rama guy I studied with for
>>some time. He came under a lot of fire for the amounts
>>of money he charged as tuition, and for the flamboyant
>>ways in which he spent that money (not to mention his
>>unorthodox lifestyle). And whenever a bout of this
>>criticism would come up, he'd try to turn the criticism
>>of *him* *personally* into criticism of the entire group
>>of students. "The people saying these things are the
>>enemies of enlightenement." "They resent the light they
>>feel coming from us." "They are attacking Buddhism."
>>
>>Well, they *weren't* attacking Buddhism; they *weren't*
>>criticizing his students: they were attacking "him*. But 
>>to *deflect* that criticism, he tried to convince his 
>>students that these criticisms were aimed at *them*, 
>>because they practiced Buddhism, and were not directed 
>>at him (the teacher) personally.
>>
>>I've seen the same thing in TM, and in lots of other
>>spiritual groups. The point of this dodge is twofold.
>>On the one hand, it is an attempt to defuse the things
>>the critic is saying by portraying him as some kind of
>>bigot who has an issue with the spiritual group to 
>>which the person or persons being criticized belongs.
>>On the other hand, it is a "rallying cry" for the other
>>members of the group, a transparent attempt to make
>>them stop thinking about the criticisms themselves
>>and the person or persons the criticism were really 
>>aimed at, and instead get all paranoid and start to 
>>believe that *they* personally (as fellow members of 
>>the group) are being attacked.
>>
>>I find it fascinating. It shows up in *so* many 
>>spiritual contexts (not to mention political ones,
>>such as how the Bushies deal with criticism of them,
>>personally). And it's often effective. When this ruse
>>is employed, often otherwise rational people start 
>>joining in with the paranoia, *ignoring* what and
>>who the original criticism was about, and feeling
>>all persecuted because they've been convinced that
>>the critic is attacking their group, and thus them.
>>
>>I'm mentioning it here because this dodge has been
>>tried here a few times lately. A poster or posters
>>make some comments about how one or more of the other
>>posters at FFL handle themselves *personally*, and
>>their *first* response is to trot out the phrase,
>>"anti-TMer," and attempt to brand the critic with it.
>>
>>I might suggest a strategy when this next happens.
>>I've seen it work, and work well, on other forums
>>on which it has been suggested. Whenever anyone tries
>>to label another poster who has criticized *them*
>>*personally* as an "anti-<fill in group here>-er,"
>>notice whether the person doing the name-calling
>>has actually dealt with or attempted to refute the
>>behavior of theirs that was questioned in the first
>>place. I think you'll find that they rarely do.
>>
>>It's like they believe that if they use the olde
>>tried-and-true "Call the critic an 'anti-whatever-er'"
>>trick, the other people on the forum (who still, after
>>all, feel some allegiance to the group in question)
>>will abandon their critical faculties and become so
>>emotionally upset that someone has attacked *them*
>>(which no one has done, of course...they criticized
>>the name-caller, not them, not the group) that they'll
>>ignore the fact that the name-caller has never denied
>>the original criticism. 
>>
>>If you think back (or watch posts in the future), I
>>think you'll be as amazed at how often this tactic
>>appears as I am. It's like the people who employ it
>>think that it's the Ultimate Answer to any criticism
>>of their personal behavior -- attempt to convince 
>>the other posters on the forum that it's not them
>>that's being criticized, but the group to which they
>>belong. Sadly, often the Ultimate Answer seems to work
>>exactly that way.
>>
>>So I'm just posting this rap to see whether this tactic 
>>works as well after someone has exposed it for what it is:
>>cult-think.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to