Monday, March 10, 2014

Contempt for civilized norms becoming "acceptable" behavior



These days “fast food” is almost as expensive as real food, and whenever I do feel constrained to satisfy my internal consumption needs, I stick to the “value” or “dollar” menu When one considers that fast food establishments should be sued for false and misleading advertising purporting to show burgers requiring two hands to hold, you are more likely to get more “value” for your money that way.  

Anyways, in one location in Kent there is McDonalds and Burger King next door to each other. The former was advertising two Big Macs for $5; the latter has a new menu item, called the “Big King.” It looks exactly like a Big Mac, selling for $3.89. I told the clerk this, and he told me that it was, and in his “opinion,” it was “better.” I thought I’d find out if this was true. I should have known better. Five minutes later an order was put on a tray and called out for pick-up. I thought to myself “That can’t be mine. That sure is a small burger.”

But the clerk indicated that it was my order, and I incredulously went forward. I examined the “Big King,” and it looked more like the court midget. I was disturbed enough about this that I called on the manager to ask him if some kind of mistake was made, that this couldn’t possibly be worth $3.89 plus tax. He “assured” me that this was indeed all I was going to get for my money. And it didn’t taste as good as Big Mac, either. So be forewarned: Don’t buy the “Big King.” 

Anyways, the next day before I left for work, I decided to take advantage of the “deal” on two real Big Macs. I wanted to save one for breakfast and the other for lunch. I consumed the first without incident, and placed the second in the refrigerator in the company break room. Over six hours later, it was time for lunch. Except that I couldn’t find it, at least not in the refrigerator. I did find its remnants, however: The empty bag and carton was right there in a garbage can a few feet away, on top of the heap indicating that it had been recently consumed. I was naturally unhappy about this, and naturally nobody admitted to or had seen the theft.

So now I’m thinking, who here could have been so contemptuous of others to take and consume something that they knew belonged to someone else, right in front of everyone, not caring if the owner walked in and caught them red-handed? Someone who might say “I didn’t know it was yours,” or more likely, “I don’t give a damn”? There are a few people I suspect of having such contempt for societal norms that is just part of the “culture” of disrespect of others—the same people who demand “respect” for themselves.

This behavior, unfortunately, is becoming much too pervasive in this society, thanks largely to the “mainstreaming” and “acceptability” of gang “culture.” There was a recent incident in Seattle where a 17-year-old high school football player demanded the cell phone from a man who refused to comply. The ‘kid” walked away, but when he overheard his intended victim call 911 on his cell phone, he returned with gun in hand and shot the man dead. The “kid” made off with the victim’s cell phone, which he complained to a friend was not as “nice” a model as he had expected. 

As shocking as it is that someone could act in such cold-blooded contempt for another human being, it is also demonstrates how many people are naïve about how their belief that other people share the same “respect” for civilized norms and the props that keep it up. The victim here made a fatal mistake in his faith in the “system.” Even more “shocking” was the attitude of the victim’s wife and the killer’s mother. The former had already “forgiven” the killer, while his mother claimed he had been a “good kid” until a few months ago, and was completely “surprised” upon hearing of the shooting. If this is the “message” that such people are receiving, than no wonder this behavior is becoming all too pervasive.

Contempt for civilized norms can be found in some of the damndest places. I’m no fan of” Judge Judy” Sheindlin, but I  was amazed how the usually verbally contemptuous judge  afforded a black defendant in one case every benefit of the doubt,  probably because she didn’t want to be accused of racism, since the plaintiff was white. I wasn’t entirely buying the act, because surely the judge has to prepare for each show, and she would be a poor “judge” if she went into a case without any idea of  its particulars. Apparently the defendant and the plaintiff had lived together for awhile, had a falling out, and some items, like a plasma television, mysteriously disappeared. The plaintiff was accusing the defendant of theft.

Judge Judy told the plaintiff that just because she said the defendant was guilty did not make it so. It soon became obvious that the defendant was guilty as hell, despite his too-casual denials. He claimed he didn’t remember an email he sent to the plaintiff in which he told her to stop emailing him; she had been “played” and needed to get over it. He must have been “on drugs,” and the judge with feigned empathy informed him that drugs did indeed make people do “dumb” things. I frankly had never heard such “nice” things coming out of Judge Judy’s mouth. Still, I think she was just playing for the cameras, because after that you kept thinking that this guy needed to be in jail, and she knew it. 

Up came a witness who said she was told by the defendant’s friend that he had a television for sale—the exact one stolen from the plaintiff. When asked where he got the TV from, he smirkingly said Walmart, and you just wanted someone to come in and haul him off to jail right then. His unfriendly witness friend also stated that the defendant admitted to clearing out some property from the plaintiff’s apartment, apparently because she "deserved" it. The defendant was asked about his prior criminal record, and he pompously asserted he was a “free man”—that is not currently on parole. He had his own “witness,” except that as soon as he opened his mouth to explain his presence, it was clear he was only there to cast dispersion on the plaintiff, who was trying to get his “bro” in trouble (again).

I didn’t watch the finale of this episode because I had to leave for work, but I thought that whatever punishment meted out short of having him arrested was not enough. This defendant’s attitude obviously indicated that he felt he had done nothing “wrong,” at least according to his warped interpretation of “civilized” norms. It was “OK” to steal from another and lie about it, so long as it abided by a particular “code” opposed to that which is generally accepted. On a larger scale, it would be called “looting,” and that usually occurs in the total absence of respect for law and property.

While I consider myself a “liberal” on most issues, unlike right-wingers I am not ossified in that position. If a person believes that they are justified in behaving in a manner that “confirms” negative stereotypes, they do not just hurt themselves but others by “connection.” I have nothing but contempt for people who have no respect for themselves in how they are perceived by people who are trying to live by accepted norms, or for others that do.

No comments:

Post a Comment