Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Husband humor
My husband and I have had the flu for the past week or so; can you believe we're both sick AGAIN? Between this flu, the prior one (see my post of 9-8-06), and the food poisoning (see my post of 11-11-06), we've been sick more in the last 3 months than in the last 5 YEARS... him especially, since it's usually just me who gets sick (he says that germs can't approach him because they don't have gas masks, lol). The really grim thing is that we'd just gotten back to normal eating and excretory functions a week before the flu hit (yes, the food poisoning knocked us out for 2 WEEKS), so it was with GREAT dismay that we faced having to switch back to "sick food" again. We didn't have much left, so we wearily started putting together a list of what we'd need from the grocery store before we got too sick to go out; this shouldn't have been a big deal, but my husband is legendary for slurping up most or all of a bunch of food items and then developing amnesia about it... which doesn't stop him from claiming that he didn't consume the stuff, and that he "knows" how much we have of everything, with such certainty that he'll resist checking it out, or even letting ME check it out. Luckily, I've learned over the years that he's only sure about things that are totally UNsure (and vice versa), so:
Him: We have enough bread for us and 3-4 other people to have the eggs on toast meal, so we don't need to get more.
Me: We didn't have that much the last time I saw the loaf, so how could we have that much NOW?
Him: Yes, we did, you're just not remembering correctly.
Me: Oh yeah, THAT'S likely. Even if I WAS misremembering, I know you've eaten some in the interim, so we STILL wouldn't have enough.
Him: Yes we do!! I told you that we have...
Me: Yes, and if I didn't KNOW you I might believe that. Check the loaf and see how many slices we've got left.
Him: No!! I know we've got...
Me: Then I'LL check. {getting wearily up from the floor}
Him: NO!! I'll look!! {lunging for the fridge, since, inexplicably, he'd always rather do things he's refused to do than have ME do them for him}
Me: Well?
Him: I don't understand... there's only a couple of slices left!!
Me: Told ya.
Him: But I could have sworn...
Me: Same as always, yes. How were you envisioning us and 3-4 other people making a meal out of that?
Him: Er...
Me: And if I'd been foolish enough to trust your assertions, what would we have done at dinnertime when it turned out we only had 2 slices of bread instead of the 6 we need?
Him: Um...
Me: {sighing} Just put it on the list. How are we doing on saltines?
Him: Oh, I'm sure we've got plenty.
Me: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That's not the only thing I've been irritated with him about; he got sick several days before I did, so HE did this to me... he must have coughed around my computer or failed to wash his hands often enough or some such thing, because I wouldn't let him anywhere near me in an attempt to not catch this flu. Since he prefers to isolate himself when he's sick, he had no objections to being banished to sleep in his study, but he clearly wasn't taking "Operation Protect Omni" seriously, because when I went to the study to say goodnight:
Me: Do you need the nose spray or anything else from the medicine cabinet?
Him: Nope, I'm all set... what are you looking around for?
Me: The dirty clothes are piling up...
Him: Well, if you come in here tomorrow in your incarnation as "Laundry Girl," remember not to touch any socks.
Me: HUH? Why would I not... oh no, are you blowing your nose on your SOCKS again?!!
Him: Uh-huh, lol.
Me: You disgusting creature!! Just put a box of tissues in the room!!
Him: No, I like the socks better-they're softer.
Me: You're REPULSIVE!!
Him: Yeah, so watch out, or you'll find a crusty sock stuck under your door when you wake up.
Me: EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!! That's GROSS!! You stay in this room and don't come out until you're healthy... and maybe not even THEN!!
He wasn't quite done with his mucous-related "humor," as it turned out; a few days later, when I was having to blow my nose every 5 minutes, and was cursing HIM even more frequently, he came into the room while I was blowing, and blowing, and checking to make sure a LUNG hadn't come out, and blowing, and blowing:
Me: All this blowing and wiping is making my nose sore.
Him: Would you like a sock?
Me: NO, I WOULD *NOT* LIKE A SOCK!!!!!!!!
Him: lol
Imagine how much I must love him to let him LIVE.
On a less revolting note, he really tried to pull a fast one on me a couple of days ago: He was going out to run some errands, and we'd laboriously compiled a list of things for him to get (this is necessary because if he's sent out to get even TWO things he'll only remember ONE); given the frequency with which he's traditionally been able to mislay lists in the 5 minutes between their completion and his departure, before he went out the door I demanded visual verification that he had the list:
Him: I've GOT it.
Me: Good, then let me see it.
Him: No, really, I've GOT it, and it's getting late, and...
Me: And you're not leaving this house without showing me that you've got the list.
Him: {sighing and pawing ostentatiously through his pockets} Ok, ok, see, there it is. {flashing the edge of a crumpled bit of paper}
Me: Oh no you don't!! That's NOT the list!! The list is on white paper, and THAT paper has colors-it looks like the coupons on the back of the grocery store receipt!!
Him: Well, it was worth a try, lol.
Me: WHERE'S THE LIST?
Him: I've got it, I've got it.
Me: WHERE?
Him: It's all in my head, it's...
Me: Do I LOOK like an idiot? Go find that list!!
He went off, grumbling, and after several minutes of banging around returned with the list, which, once I'd verified that that's what it was (as opposed to a random piece of white paper), got stowed safely away. Then:
Me: Ok; have you got $ on you?
Him: Yes.
Me: Let's see it.
Him: {fumbling through his pockets again} Yes, here it is.
Me: Let's SEE it.
Him: sigh {starting to pull his hand out of the pocket}
Me: And DON'T show me that same receipt.
Him: SIGH!! {goes stomping off to find his $}
Whoever it was that said "you never really know another person" needs to come spend some time at MY house.
Him: We have enough bread for us and 3-4 other people to have the eggs on toast meal, so we don't need to get more.
Me: We didn't have that much the last time I saw the loaf, so how could we have that much NOW?
Him: Yes, we did, you're just not remembering correctly.
Me: Oh yeah, THAT'S likely. Even if I WAS misremembering, I know you've eaten some in the interim, so we STILL wouldn't have enough.
Him: Yes we do!! I told you that we have...
Me: Yes, and if I didn't KNOW you I might believe that. Check the loaf and see how many slices we've got left.
Him: No!! I know we've got...
Me: Then I'LL check. {getting wearily up from the floor}
Him: NO!! I'll look!! {lunging for the fridge, since, inexplicably, he'd always rather do things he's refused to do than have ME do them for him}
Me: Well?
Him: I don't understand... there's only a couple of slices left!!
Me: Told ya.
Him: But I could have sworn...
Me: Same as always, yes. How were you envisioning us and 3-4 other people making a meal out of that?
Him: Er...
Me: And if I'd been foolish enough to trust your assertions, what would we have done at dinnertime when it turned out we only had 2 slices of bread instead of the 6 we need?
Him: Um...
Me: {sighing} Just put it on the list. How are we doing on saltines?
Him: Oh, I'm sure we've got plenty.
Me: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That's not the only thing I've been irritated with him about; he got sick several days before I did, so HE did this to me... he must have coughed around my computer or failed to wash his hands often enough or some such thing, because I wouldn't let him anywhere near me in an attempt to not catch this flu. Since he prefers to isolate himself when he's sick, he had no objections to being banished to sleep in his study, but he clearly wasn't taking "Operation Protect Omni" seriously, because when I went to the study to say goodnight:
Me: Do you need the nose spray or anything else from the medicine cabinet?
Him: Nope, I'm all set... what are you looking around for?
Me: The dirty clothes are piling up...
Him: Well, if you come in here tomorrow in your incarnation as "Laundry Girl," remember not to touch any socks.
Me: HUH? Why would I not... oh no, are you blowing your nose on your SOCKS again?!!
Him: Uh-huh, lol.
Me: You disgusting creature!! Just put a box of tissues in the room!!
Him: No, I like the socks better-they're softer.
Me: You're REPULSIVE!!
Him: Yeah, so watch out, or you'll find a crusty sock stuck under your door when you wake up.
Me: EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!! That's GROSS!! You stay in this room and don't come out until you're healthy... and maybe not even THEN!!
He wasn't quite done with his mucous-related "humor," as it turned out; a few days later, when I was having to blow my nose every 5 minutes, and was cursing HIM even more frequently, he came into the room while I was blowing, and blowing, and checking to make sure a LUNG hadn't come out, and blowing, and blowing:
Me: All this blowing and wiping is making my nose sore.
Him: Would you like a sock?
Me: NO, I WOULD *NOT* LIKE A SOCK!!!!!!!!
Him: lol
Imagine how much I must love him to let him LIVE.
On a less revolting note, he really tried to pull a fast one on me a couple of days ago: He was going out to run some errands, and we'd laboriously compiled a list of things for him to get (this is necessary because if he's sent out to get even TWO things he'll only remember ONE); given the frequency with which he's traditionally been able to mislay lists in the 5 minutes between their completion and his departure, before he went out the door I demanded visual verification that he had the list:
Him: I've GOT it.
Me: Good, then let me see it.
Him: No, really, I've GOT it, and it's getting late, and...
Me: And you're not leaving this house without showing me that you've got the list.
Him: {sighing and pawing ostentatiously through his pockets} Ok, ok, see, there it is. {flashing the edge of a crumpled bit of paper}
Me: Oh no you don't!! That's NOT the list!! The list is on white paper, and THAT paper has colors-it looks like the coupons on the back of the grocery store receipt!!
Him: Well, it was worth a try, lol.
Me: WHERE'S THE LIST?
Him: I've got it, I've got it.
Me: WHERE?
Him: It's all in my head, it's...
Me: Do I LOOK like an idiot? Go find that list!!
He went off, grumbling, and after several minutes of banging around returned with the list, which, once I'd verified that that's what it was (as opposed to a random piece of white paper), got stowed safely away. Then:
Me: Ok; have you got $ on you?
Him: Yes.
Me: Let's see it.
Him: {fumbling through his pockets again} Yes, here it is.
Me: Let's SEE it.
Him: sigh {starting to pull his hand out of the pocket}
Me: And DON'T show me that same receipt.
Him: SIGH!! {goes stomping off to find his $}
Whoever it was that said "you never really know another person" needs to come spend some time at MY house.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Group vs one
I saw an episode of M*A*S*H recently in which a new nurse who'd decided to try to become a doctor had joined the staff, and the other nurses, far from being supportive and proud as they SHOULD have been, treated her like dirt for daring to try to better herself. Major Houlihan, who's as smart and tough as they come, analyzes the situation and tells the innocent nurse that, since the nursing staff had been running smoothly before SHE showed up, she must somehow be to blame, and she'd better find a way to magically make all the other nurses stop mistreating her or else... and at no point is there any indication that the Major said a single word to the actual wrongdoers about their catty, belligerent and therefore utterly unacceptable behavior, or even suggested that they should take any part in rectifying the situation (that THEY had created) as part of being "team players."
Unfortunately, the way that problem was (MIS)handled on the show is perfectly in tune with how these things get dealt with in real life, and we're so used to this grossly unfair and stupid judgment of "group vs one" situations that the M*A*S*H writers felt comfortable incorporating it into the plot without fear that anyone would find anything wrong with it... and that's what's so grim, that nobody would have a problem with even a top-notch officer like Margaret failing to grasp the real problem and do the right thing.
The central issue here is so important that I'm going to "shout" it:
WHENEVER THERE'S A GROUP AGAINST ONE PERSON, THERE'S A 99.9% PROBABILITY THAT THE ONE IS A VICTIM AND THE GROUP ARE ATTACKERS.
Actually, it's more like a 99.999999999999999999999999999% probability... and it'd be 100% if not for online trolls and the 1 case in a million where people gang up on an actual wrongdoer (as opposed to winking and nodding at them or rewarding them like they usually do).
Do you doubt that? Think back to all the many times you've seen a group against one; how often was that one someone who'd done something wrong for which they were getting well-earned retribution? NEVER, right? From earliest childhood, when someone became the target of group abuse it was because they were fat, or bespectacled, or short, or tall, or homely, or dressed poorly, or bad at sports, or "too smart," or spoke with an accent, or were a different color or religion; did it ever consciously occur to you that none of those things constitutes wrongdoing, and thus they're NOT valid reasons for doling out abuse? By the late teens, some of these "reasons" (in quotes because they're lame excuses, NOT actual reasons) for ganging up fade away, but not many, and new ones get added, such as; being gay (or suspected of being gay, or not stereotypically "masculine" or "feminine" and so assumed to be gay), not wearing the "right" brand of sneakers, being a slut (aka female and "too sexually active," or believed to be), being a geek, not developing as fast as the majority, or simply being different in any way. Once adulthood is reached, most of these things stop being socially acceptable "reasons" for taunting people directly or for forming groups to oppose them, and get demoted to merely being "reasons" to dislike others or to badmouth them behind their backs; some, sadly, such as race, religion, and sexual orientation, do persist as "reasons" for groups of unpleasant types to be openly hostile to, or openly "against," given individuals within certain social circles.
Bigots and such aside, it'd be nice to think that part of being an adult is having the maturity to not be interested in playground-type gang-ups, but cyberspace teaches us that, for many people at least, what happens is that they learn through observation that they have to stop doing it in "real life" or be seen as IMmature, but the DESIRE to form attack groups remains... we can see the proof on nearly any forum, message board or other internet gathering place that isn't relentlessly moderated. While there are certainly cases where someone gets gangbanged online because of, say, their religion or ethnic background, the overwhelming majority of group attacks occur for one reason; the victim expressed an opinion contrary to theirs. It doesn't matter how politely the contrary opinion is expressed, how dispassionately, how logically and reasonably it's laid out, it doesn't matter if no disrespectful insinuation is made about previous commenters, or no reference to them or their remarks is made at all, or even if no one else has yet expressed the opposing position; an astonishing # of people respond to anything posted that's contrary to their views with vicious attacks, including personal remarks, foul language and insults... and if there's more than one of them around they instantly bond together, even if they're total strangers, and launch a flamewar against the innocent commenter.
Sometimes, the attack doesn't start until after the commenter has had the unmitigated gall to, GASP, rebut the responses to their post; I don't think that people who'd have been satisfied if the commenter had humbly caved in after their sacred responses, and so wait until "round 2" to start attacking, are any better than those who attack instantly... they're WORSE, really, because of their arrogance and irrational expectations. Perhaps the most contemptible of all are those who start out at least pretending to have a calm discussion, or even a heated but properly-done debate, against one person, and then, once it becomes clear that they're being out-argued, or, just as bad in their minds, that the victim is showing no signs of conceding or giving up no matter how many times they're hammered, start getting ugly, rapidly escalating to full-out flaming if the commenter stands their ground instead of heading for the hills; this is nothing but a petty, childish desire to hurt someone who isn't doing things their way. Regardless of which version of this concept is being played out, the commenter isn't guilty of ANY wrongdoing, and the central truth is the same; a group against one person = attackers against an innocent victim, which means that the members of the group are the bad guys, NOT the victim... despite the inexplicable tendency for all observers, including the authorities, to assume otherwise.
As mentioned earlier, there ARE exceptions, but they're so easy to spot that you don't have to worry about them: Should you ever encounter a group of people harassing someone because they're a convicted child molester rather than because of their race or religion, that'd be an exception. Online, if someone shows up on a forum and starts posting incoherent insults (usually in all-caps and without benefit of a spellchecker), and people decide to respond protractedly in kind (which they almost never do, have you noticed?), that'd be an exception; be aware, though, that most people who get labeled as trolls are simply those who voiced contrary opinions and then defended them, and/or defended themselves when the personal remarks started flying, so don't buy it when the attackers call their prey a troll... scrolling back to the beginning of the battle will virtually always reveal that the victim was NOT trolling when they got jumped on, and neither refusing to change an opinion nor lashing back when insulted makes them trolls at any point in the fight.
Why is it that those who disrupt a forum with a mass attack on one person never get called trolls, which they in fact ARE... but if they label their target a troll people believe it? Why is it that those who gang up on one person in real life never get seen as troublemakers... but their victim often DOES? If we observe ONE person attacking another, although we tend to side with the attacker and to see the victim as a loser we do at least usually grasp who's at fault even if we don't pass the correct judgment based on it; however, we foolishly refuse to accept that it's not only possible but COMMON for multiple people to collectively decide to kick the butt of someone who hasn't done anything wrong... despite all our personal observations to the contrary, we're sure the victim MUST have done something awful to have a whole group attacking them at once.
What can you do about all this? When you witness a group attack on an individual, take an honest look at what judgments you automatically passed, and then consciously alter those judgments to the correct ones. Make note of who the attackers are; they're bad people, and you'd do well to remember that if you're ever tempted to hang around with them. Last but far from least; if you want to be able to consider yourself to be a good person, you have to do more than look and think... you have to interrupt the assault and demand that it cease. This might be scary the 1st time you try it, but fear not; the psychology of the situation requires that the victim be fighting alone (yes, this means that the attackers are cowards as well as cockroaches), and if even 1 person intervenes it'll nearly always bring the action to a screaming halt... the best they'll ever manage is the occasional attempt to protest that the victim had it coming (usually "because (s)he won't stop arguing," although THEY are arguing every bit as much, the hypocrites), but when you dismiss that with the contempt it deserves that'll be the end of it.
Aside from the justifiable pride you'll feel for defeating evil and protecting the innocent, taking action against bullies will be good for your karma; the next time YOU get ganged up on, you want someone to jump to YOUR defense, right?
Unfortunately, the way that problem was (MIS)handled on the show is perfectly in tune with how these things get dealt with in real life, and we're so used to this grossly unfair and stupid judgment of "group vs one" situations that the M*A*S*H writers felt comfortable incorporating it into the plot without fear that anyone would find anything wrong with it... and that's what's so grim, that nobody would have a problem with even a top-notch officer like Margaret failing to grasp the real problem and do the right thing.
The central issue here is so important that I'm going to "shout" it:
WHENEVER THERE'S A GROUP AGAINST ONE PERSON, THERE'S A 99.9% PROBABILITY THAT THE ONE IS A VICTIM AND THE GROUP ARE ATTACKERS.
Actually, it's more like a 99.999999999999999999999999999% probability... and it'd be 100% if not for online trolls and the 1 case in a million where people gang up on an actual wrongdoer (as opposed to winking and nodding at them or rewarding them like they usually do).
Do you doubt that? Think back to all the many times you've seen a group against one; how often was that one someone who'd done something wrong for which they were getting well-earned retribution? NEVER, right? From earliest childhood, when someone became the target of group abuse it was because they were fat, or bespectacled, or short, or tall, or homely, or dressed poorly, or bad at sports, or "too smart," or spoke with an accent, or were a different color or religion; did it ever consciously occur to you that none of those things constitutes wrongdoing, and thus they're NOT valid reasons for doling out abuse? By the late teens, some of these "reasons" (in quotes because they're lame excuses, NOT actual reasons) for ganging up fade away, but not many, and new ones get added, such as; being gay (or suspected of being gay, or not stereotypically "masculine" or "feminine" and so assumed to be gay), not wearing the "right" brand of sneakers, being a slut (aka female and "too sexually active," or believed to be), being a geek, not developing as fast as the majority, or simply being different in any way. Once adulthood is reached, most of these things stop being socially acceptable "reasons" for taunting people directly or for forming groups to oppose them, and get demoted to merely being "reasons" to dislike others or to badmouth them behind their backs; some, sadly, such as race, religion, and sexual orientation, do persist as "reasons" for groups of unpleasant types to be openly hostile to, or openly "against," given individuals within certain social circles.
Bigots and such aside, it'd be nice to think that part of being an adult is having the maturity to not be interested in playground-type gang-ups, but cyberspace teaches us that, for many people at least, what happens is that they learn through observation that they have to stop doing it in "real life" or be seen as IMmature, but the DESIRE to form attack groups remains... we can see the proof on nearly any forum, message board or other internet gathering place that isn't relentlessly moderated. While there are certainly cases where someone gets gangbanged online because of, say, their religion or ethnic background, the overwhelming majority of group attacks occur for one reason; the victim expressed an opinion contrary to theirs. It doesn't matter how politely the contrary opinion is expressed, how dispassionately, how logically and reasonably it's laid out, it doesn't matter if no disrespectful insinuation is made about previous commenters, or no reference to them or their remarks is made at all, or even if no one else has yet expressed the opposing position; an astonishing # of people respond to anything posted that's contrary to their views with vicious attacks, including personal remarks, foul language and insults... and if there's more than one of them around they instantly bond together, even if they're total strangers, and launch a flamewar against the innocent commenter.
Sometimes, the attack doesn't start until after the commenter has had the unmitigated gall to, GASP, rebut the responses to their post; I don't think that people who'd have been satisfied if the commenter had humbly caved in after their sacred responses, and so wait until "round 2" to start attacking, are any better than those who attack instantly... they're WORSE, really, because of their arrogance and irrational expectations. Perhaps the most contemptible of all are those who start out at least pretending to have a calm discussion, or even a heated but properly-done debate, against one person, and then, once it becomes clear that they're being out-argued, or, just as bad in their minds, that the victim is showing no signs of conceding or giving up no matter how many times they're hammered, start getting ugly, rapidly escalating to full-out flaming if the commenter stands their ground instead of heading for the hills; this is nothing but a petty, childish desire to hurt someone who isn't doing things their way. Regardless of which version of this concept is being played out, the commenter isn't guilty of ANY wrongdoing, and the central truth is the same; a group against one person = attackers against an innocent victim, which means that the members of the group are the bad guys, NOT the victim... despite the inexplicable tendency for all observers, including the authorities, to assume otherwise.
As mentioned earlier, there ARE exceptions, but they're so easy to spot that you don't have to worry about them: Should you ever encounter a group of people harassing someone because they're a convicted child molester rather than because of their race or religion, that'd be an exception. Online, if someone shows up on a forum and starts posting incoherent insults (usually in all-caps and without benefit of a spellchecker), and people decide to respond protractedly in kind (which they almost never do, have you noticed?), that'd be an exception; be aware, though, that most people who get labeled as trolls are simply those who voiced contrary opinions and then defended them, and/or defended themselves when the personal remarks started flying, so don't buy it when the attackers call their prey a troll... scrolling back to the beginning of the battle will virtually always reveal that the victim was NOT trolling when they got jumped on, and neither refusing to change an opinion nor lashing back when insulted makes them trolls at any point in the fight.
Why is it that those who disrupt a forum with a mass attack on one person never get called trolls, which they in fact ARE... but if they label their target a troll people believe it? Why is it that those who gang up on one person in real life never get seen as troublemakers... but their victim often DOES? If we observe ONE person attacking another, although we tend to side with the attacker and to see the victim as a loser we do at least usually grasp who's at fault even if we don't pass the correct judgment based on it; however, we foolishly refuse to accept that it's not only possible but COMMON for multiple people to collectively decide to kick the butt of someone who hasn't done anything wrong... despite all our personal observations to the contrary, we're sure the victim MUST have done something awful to have a whole group attacking them at once.
What can you do about all this? When you witness a group attack on an individual, take an honest look at what judgments you automatically passed, and then consciously alter those judgments to the correct ones. Make note of who the attackers are; they're bad people, and you'd do well to remember that if you're ever tempted to hang around with them. Last but far from least; if you want to be able to consider yourself to be a good person, you have to do more than look and think... you have to interrupt the assault and demand that it cease. This might be scary the 1st time you try it, but fear not; the psychology of the situation requires that the victim be fighting alone (yes, this means that the attackers are cowards as well as cockroaches), and if even 1 person intervenes it'll nearly always bring the action to a screaming halt... the best they'll ever manage is the occasional attempt to protest that the victim had it coming (usually "because (s)he won't stop arguing," although THEY are arguing every bit as much, the hypocrites), but when you dismiss that with the contempt it deserves that'll be the end of it.
Aside from the justifiable pride you'll feel for defeating evil and protecting the innocent, taking action against bullies will be good for your karma; the next time YOU get ganged up on, you want someone to jump to YOUR defense, right?
