John Stossel: Social Cruelity - Does high school never end?
N9NWO
John Stossel is having another special tomorrow night on ABC
(he is replacing 20/20 because they can not get ratings during
the Olympics). It airs at 10 PM ET on ABC.
What he is talking about is bullying that goes on by the in crowd
in junior high and high school. And does it ever end once you
get out of high school. He does recognize that many of the in-crowd
do have a built in advantage in that they gain social skills earlier.
But there are those who overcome being a geek, as did Bill Gates.
They used adversity instead being overwhelmed by it.
This is something that I have noticed. What got my attention was
how the Hollywood left always seemed to focused on high school.
Revenge of the Nerd type movies and teen angst. It just seemed
that they never grew up, never got over the pain of high school.
Then came Columbine. It became clear what was happening. The
in-crowd elite bullying the losers. The jocks and the preppies against
everyone else. These in-crowd types go on to become successful
(usually) as they do have a great head start in social skills. Many
high
school jocks are cops, keeping on their "enforcement" skills over the
underclass. The in-crowd often does wind up as business leaders,
yuppies. They are often moderates, having learned that having strong
beliefs will lose you popularity. Thus they are not very creative but
do know how to gain and use power. We see this type in politics all
the time, in both parties. They just have to have a geek in the closet
(often a former professor and someone on staff) to come up with the
ideas which they then run through a focus group to make it socially
acceptable.
The losers, the misfits, the geeks and the freaks often wind up in two
camps. The loners often become conservatives to libertarians in adult
life. Never learned how to play well with others.
The other group has social skills but are just weird. They often become
liberals, left wingers. They develop a hatred of success as it reminds
them of the in-crowd. Often pacifist as they never learned how to
defend
themselves. They become well educated (if they do not get wiped out on
drugs) but lack common sense. Creative yet lacking in understanding of
how to get their ideas into the general society.
This is a rough model. It does have exceptions. But I would say
that it does apply to about 80% of the public. Thus a good model
for predicting how people will react.
Todd Robinette
Man I met one DNC-Clinton groupie that told me straight-up and this
almost an exact quote:
"Todd even if could show the facts and all the proof that that was
true I still wouldn't believe you."
This was in response to a discussion about the hilary health care plan
to require government approval on who could be parents. I never
discussed anything else with and yes, she was a soccer mom.
'trails
Whammo
> http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=stossel
>
> John Stossel is having another special tomorrow night on ABC
> (he is replacing 20/20 because they can not get ratings during
> the Olympics). It airs at 10 PM ET on ABC.
Good. Best reporter they got. Picks apart the PC crap like the "drug
war" and other fear mongering.
> What he is talking about is bullying that goes on by the in crowd
> in junior high and high school. And does it ever end once you
> get out of high school. He does recognize that many of the in-crowd
> do have a built in advantage in that they gain social skills earlier.
> But there are those who overcome being a geek, as did Bill Gates.
> They used adversity instead being overwhelmed by it.
Nietzche said it best: "That which does not kill you makes you
stronger."
> This is something that I have noticed. What got my attention was
> how the Hollywood left always seemed to focused on high school.
No, queenie, you're the one focused on high school.
> Revenge of the Nerd type movies and teen angst. It just seemed
> that they never grew up, never got over the pain of high school.
Whereas it was the best seven years of your life.
> Then came Columbine. It became clear what was happening. The
> in-crowd elite bullying the losers. The jocks and the preppies against
> everyone else. These in-crowd types go on to become successful
> (usually) as they do have a great head start in social skills. Many
> high
> school jocks are cops,
Well, at least they had that to fall back on. Lord knows, they're not
exactly the brightest people around.
> keeping on their "enforcement" skills over the
> underclass. The in-crowd often does wind up as business leaders,
You mean like Bill Gates. Wait...didn't you say that he was a geek?
Which one is it queenie?
> yuppies. They are often moderates, having learned that having strong
> beliefs will lose you popularity.
Yeah, you're pretty unpopular.
> Thus they are not very creative but
> do know how to gain and use power. We see this type in politics all
> the time, in both parties.
And yet, they're the ones who "gain and use power." After all, they
were elected.
You just make it too simple to beat you up.
> They just have to have a geek in the closet
> (often a former professor and someone on staff) to come up with the
> ideas which they then run through a focus group to make it socially
> acceptable.
A social group comprised of who, queenie?
> The losers, the misfits, the geeks and the freaks often wind up in two
> camps. The loners often become conservatives to libertarians in adult
> life. Never learned how to play well with others.
So you were a loner in HS? Who'd have thunk it?
> The other group has social skills but are just weird. They often become
>
> liberals, left wingers. They develop a hatred of success as it reminds
> them of the in-crowd. Often pacifist as they never learned how to
> defend
> themselves. They become well educated (if they do not get wiped out on
> drugs) but lack common sense. Creative yet lacking in understanding of
> how to get their ideas into the general society.
Geez, these two groups you've created sure do encompass a wide
spectrum of thought.
> This is a rough model.
Not to mention laughable.
> It does have exceptions.
You don't say.
> But I would say
> that it does apply to about 80% of the public. Thus a good model
> for predicting how people will react.
Except that you have NO scientific basis to back up this bile. Don't
try to play in a game you know nothing about. It makes you look
REALLY stupid, and you have quite a problem with that as it is.
z
> Man I met one DNC-Clinton groupie that told me straight-up and this
> almost an exact quote:
>
> "Todd even if could show the facts and all the proof that that was
> true I still wouldn't believe you."
>
> This was in response to a discussion about the hilary health care plan
> to require government approval on who could be parents. I never
> discussed anything else with and yes, she was a soccer mom.
>
Somebody somewhere along the line seems to be dyslexic, and I strongly
suspect it isn't your 'DNC-Clinton groupie'.
John Q. Public
> Man I met one DNC-Clinton groupie that told me straight-up and this
> almost an exact quote:
>
> "Todd even if could show the facts and all the proof that that was
> true I still wouldn't believe you."
>
> This was in response to a discussion about the hilary health care plan
> to require government approval on who could be parents. I never
> discussed anything else with and yes, she was a soccer mom.
>
> 'trails
Todd,
If ever you learn how write sentence, maybe can you understand better
single-payer health insurance or yes, make better better argument to
soccer mom you will.
Take a few months off from your job as forklift-driver, go back and
get that GED (the gov't will pay for it) and you may find yourself
better equipped for these complicated discussions.
Todd Robinette
So you believe its ok to mock someones disability because you don't
like the truth?
Ah, another dnc--bc groupie discovered and let me guess your a soccer
parent too.. right?
'trails
Todd Robinette
Public) wrote:
>Todd Robinette <trob...@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:<rj2o6uoi48uftqk07...@4ax.com>...
>> Man I met one DNC-Clinton groupie that told me straight-up and this
>> almost an exact quote:
>>
>> "Todd even if could show the facts and all the proof that that was
>> true I still wouldn't believe you."
>>
>> This was in response to a discussion about the hilary health care plan
>> to require government approval on who could be parents. I never
>> discussed anything else with and yes, she was a soccer mom.
>>
>> 'trails
>
>Todd,
>
>If ever you learn how write sentence, maybe can you understand better
>single-payer health insurance or yes, make better better argument to
>soccer mom you will.
Ah a grammar troll.
I feel so slighted by you.
or maybe you don't know what slighted means.
>
>Take a few months off from your job as forklift-driver, go back and
>get that GED (the gov't will pay for it) and you may find yourself
>better equipped for these complicated discussions.
So you believe that tow-motor operators are to stupid to discuss this
topic?
Or maybe you just don't like the truth...
'trails
BTR1701
So anyone who is conservative doesn't know how to play well with others?
Interesting...
And above you noted that "in-crowd" members often become business
leaders. Well, business leaders are most often conservative also. Then
you say the losers and misfits become conservative.
Seems kind of contradictory.
JerryMouse
"Todd Robinette" <trob...@nospam.neo.rr.com>
> >
> >Somebody somewhere along the line seems to be dyslexic, and I
strongly
> >suspect it isn't your 'DNC-Clinton groupie'.
>
> So you believe its ok to mock someones disability because you don't
> like the truth?
Being a 'Soccer Mom' isn't a disability; it's a choice. Like
alcoholism or gambling.
betweentheeyes
news:57010b38.02021...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
thanks for joining Talk Politics Guns. Why did you go out of your way to
add TPG to the cross posted news groups?
N9NWO
Most of the business community are moderates,
not conservatives. You get ahead by being well
liked, not by have strong opinions.
And remember that many of the radical left have
gone into the corporate world. Sort of a fifth
column inside of the business community.
Steve
Isn't 'The Onion' kinda notorious, as being a hangout for elitists ?
> Or maybe you just don't like the truth...
>
> 'trails
-- The decoy in my email address is for spam bots --
-- remove it and you'll have my actual address --
Cheers
Steve
Gus McNally
> in junior high and high school. And does it ever end once you
> get out of high school.
Is that supposed to be a question? If it is, the answer is that it
usually does end after high school, because grades 1-12 are an
artificial environment that does not simulate the real business or
academic world.
> He does recognize that many of the in-crowd
> do have a built in advantage in that they gain social skills earlier.
If you want to call that social skills, fine. My perception is that
most of the "in-crowd" lack any real social skills, and make up for
that lack by being macho bullies. For them, social status is a zero-
sum game, and the way to gain it is 1) mindlessly aping what they see
on TV and movies, and 2) bullying those below them on the popularity
ladders.
> But there are those who overcome being a geek, as did Bill Gates.
> They used adversity instead being overwhelmed by it.
That still doesn't mean that such adversity is right. Columbine
was a wake-up call for everyone, pointing out exactly what is wrong
with public education. And it will happen again and again until
the PTB do something about it.
> This is something that I have noticed. What got my attention was
> how the Hollywood left always seemed to focused on high school.
> Revenge of the Nerd type movies and teen angst. It just seemed
> that they never grew up, never got over the pain of high school.
Those two are not mutually exclusive. There are many people still
in post-traumatic shock over the abuses that went in school, even
decades after the fact.
> Then came Columbine. It became clear what was happening. The
> in-crowd elite bullying the losers. The jocks and the preppies against
> everyone else. These in-crowd types go on to become successful
> (usually) as they do have a great head start in social skills.
No, it's because most of them are rich, and their dads and moms have
connections, if not own the company. They are just smart enough to
squeak by in college, and often cheat. These are not creative or
brilliant.
In my experience, the people with real social skills are the ones
who are friendly, pleasant, yet sincere. They do not kiss asses.
They are the ones invited to join the in-crowd, but leave because
of the country-club atmosphere. Rather than bullying, they are the
ones who try to stop bullies. These are rare.
> Many high school jocks are cops, keeping on their "enforcement"
> skills over the underclass.
Dumb knuckle-dragging bozos stuffing themselves with donuts. And
what about the jocks with such lifetime careers as flipping burgers
and pumping gas?
> The in-crowd often does wind up as business leaders, yuppies.
The rich ones do, that squeak by a 65% on their report cards. They
go to colleges that value money and connections over intelligence.
> They are often moderates, having learned that having strong
> beliefs will lose you popularity. Thus they are not very creative but
> do know how to gain and use power. We see this type in politics all
> the time, in both parties.
What you are saying is they are the type that are real ass-kissers
to those in power. And they are often not as moderate as they appear.
> The losers, the misfits, the geeks and the freaks often wind up in two
> camps. The loners often become conservatives to libertarians in adult
> life. Never learned how to play well with others.
They often become true individualists, is what you mean. I have seen
just as many conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists with a herd
mentality as I have seen lib-lefties. Do not confuse the two.
Besides, did a committee come up with the Theory of Relativity?
> The other group has social skills but are just weird. They often become
> liberals, left wingers. They develop a hatred of success as it reminds
> them of the in-crowd.
No, that's not why. Its more likely a rebellion against their parents.
> Often pacifist as they never learned how to defend themselves. They
> become well educated (if they do not get wiped out on drugs) but lack
> common sense. Creative yet lacking in understanding of how to get
> their ideas into the general society.
Many of these are just as conformist as any conservative, it's just they
belong to a different group. Again, the emphasis is on the group not the
individual. And they are rarely as creative as they claim.
- Gus
Bud Keith
"John Q. Public" <leftw...@huevador.com> wrote in message
news:57010b38.02021...@posting.google.com...
news:<rj2o6uoi48uftqk07...@4ax.com>...
> > Man I met one DNC-Clinton groupie that told me straight-up and this
> > almost an exact quote:
> >
> > "Todd even if could show the facts and all the proof that that was
> > true I still wouldn't believe you."
> >
> > This was in response to a discussion about the hilary health care plan
> > to require government approval on who could be parents. I never
> > discussed anything else with and yes, she was a soccer mom.
> >
> > 'trails
>
> Todd,
>
> If ever you learn how write sentence, maybe can you understand better
> single-payer health insurance or yes, make better better argument to
> soccer mom you will.
Since you find it impossible to argue with the content of his post,you feel
you must be critical of his english. You then take it upon yourself to
assume that he makes his living as a fork lift driver,is this one of the
working types you liberals are always looking out for,whom you look down
your intellectual noses at.
The one thing that we can say about him,that we cannot say about you,is that
he signs his name to what he writes. While you sir cower behind your assumed
name.
Liam Devlin
Or homosexuality, right?
John Q. Public
> Since you find it impossible to argue with the content of his post,you feel
> you must be critical of his english. You then take it upon yourself to
> assume that he makes his living as a fork lift driver,is this one of the
> working types you liberals are always looking out for,whom you look down
> your intellectual noses at.
> The one thing that we can say about him,that we cannot say about you,is that
> he signs his name to what he writes. While you sir cower behind your assumed
> name.
I do find it impossible to argue with the content of his post, because
it is a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.
I don't use my real name because I don't want to get spam. You want to
know my real name? Fine, it's Peter Smith. Feel better now?
Peter Smith
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and
causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . .corporations
have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will
follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all
wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I
feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than
ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions
may prove groundless."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
Bud Keith
"John Q. Public" <leftw...@huevador.com> wrote in message
news:57010b38.02021...@posting.google.com...
It would appear that god granted old Abe's wish,statistics show that the
middlecalss is shrinking. but the lower classes are not growing. All of the
movement is from the middle to the upper class,which shows that wealth is
not owned by only the very few.Thank god for capitalism where every man can
make his run for the gold though all will not make it.
N9NWO
The old three economic classes (poor, middle and rich)
were products of the Industrial Age. In the Information
Age, with the mass movement into the universities, the
middle class split producing four social classes based
on education.
We now have the Lower class, the Working class (non
college educated from the old middle class), the Professional
class (college educated) and the upper class (ruling class).
With the mass movement by Americans into the universities,
we are seeing more wealth for more people.
N9NWO
: > in junior high and high school. And does it ever end once you
: > get out of high school.
:
: Is that supposed to be a question? If it is, the answer is that it
: usually does end after high school, because grades 1-12 are an
: artificial environment that does not simulate the real business or
: academic world.
But, as you point out later, many are so
traumatized that they never get over the
abuse of high school.
: > He does recognize that many of the in-crowd
: > do have a built in advantage in that they gain social skills earlier.
:
: If you want to call that social skills, fine. My perception is that
: most of the "in-crowd" lack any real social skills, and make up for
: that lack by being macho bullies. For them, social status is a zero-
: sum game, and the way to gain it is 1) mindlessly aping what they see
: on TV and movies, and 2) bullying those below them on the popularity
: ladders.
I watched Stosset's show. For girls it is clothes and looks.
For guys it is size and humor. For both it is having at least
five friends. And it is all about power. It is the Lord of the
Flies. A very primitive tribal existance. And it seems that it
something we go through but most adults refuse to remember.
: > But there are those who overcome being a geek, as did Bill Gates.
At Columbine, everyone was rich. Yet there was
still an in crowd and losers. While money pays a
part in most high schools, it did not matter in Littleton.
And part of being popular is being able to use humor.
But bullying is still there. Remember being popular is
about power.
: > Many high school jocks are cops, keeping on their "enforcement"
: > skills over the underclass.
:
: Dumb knuckle-dragging bozos stuffing themselves with donuts. And
: what about the jocks with such lifetime careers as flipping burgers
: and pumping gas?
:
: > The in-crowd often does wind up as business leaders, yuppies.
:
: The rich ones do, that squeak by a 65% on their report cards. They
: go to colleges that value money and connections over intelligence.
Often the popular kids are well liked by their
teachers, fun to be around. And they do well
in school. It is a mistake to assume that they are
just a bunch of rich dumb kids.
: > They are often moderates, having learned that having strong
: > beliefs will lose you popularity. Thus they are not very creative but
: > do know how to gain and use power. We see this type in politics all
: > the time, in both parties.
:
: What you are saying is they are the type that are real ass-kissers
: to those in power. And they are often not as moderate as they appear.
Most are moderate. They have no core beliefs.
Strong beliefs are dangerous unless it is something
that is accepted by a large portion of the population.
It is very conformist.
: > The losers, the misfits, the geeks and the freaks often wind up in two
: > camps. The loners often become conservatives to libertarians in adult
: > life. Never learned how to play well with others.
:
: They often become true individualists, is what you mean. I have seen
: just as many conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists with a herd
: mentality as I have seen lib-lefties. Do not confuse the two.
:
: Besides, did a committee come up with the Theory of Relativity?
Very little in our modern world is done by individuals.
Committees rule.
: > The other group has social skills but are just weird. They often become
: > liberals, left wingers. They develop a hatred of success as it reminds
: > them of the in-crowd.
:
: No, that's not why. Its more likely a rebellion against their parents.
To a certain extend, yes. But peer battles are
more important.
: > Often pacifist as they never learned how to defend themselves. They
: > become well educated (if they do not get wiped out on drugs) but lack
: > common sense. Creative yet lacking in understanding of how to get
: > their ideas into the general society.
:
: Many of these are just as conformist as any conservative, it's just they
: belong to a different group. Again, the emphasis is on the group not the
: individual. And they are rarely as creative as they claim.
The popular crowd and the left wing are conformist.
Conservatives are too individualistic. That is why so
many battles within the conservative ranks.
jack Kass
Topic.
well, i think social cruelty is a problem. WE need more of it.
Let's face it, Nature is cruel, Man is cruel, the more you hold it in,
the weirder people get. As Andrew Dice clay said, 'there would be
fewer wars if there were more punches on the nose'. Supressing our
natural, God given cruelty only results in a society of repressed
individuals. So i say, express your cruelty, be yourself, talk about
your cruelty with friends and family, experiment with your cruelty on
partners. It's a free country.
John Q. Public
This is an absolute load of shit. Where do you come up with this
stuff?
The average wage in America has finally gotten back to 1973 levels (in
real dollars) ater 3 decades of stagnation and decline.
95% of our nations wealth is in the hands of the wealthiest 1%. That's
the ELITE you people should be worrying about.
Read this article for starters:
mhirtes
N9NWO wrote:
>
>
> The popular crowd and the left wing are conformist.
> Conservatives are too individualistic. That is why so
> many battles within the conservative ranks.
Maybe on the "Bizarro World", but here on Earth, it's the
KKKonservatives who fight like crazed buzzards over who gets to be the
first one to nibble that bear carcass.
--
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition
dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."-- Edward R. Murrow
"The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the
future is that man may become robots." -- Fromm
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be
done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality,
deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how
despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than
be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under
the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein
Gus McNally
> : > What he is talking about is bullying that goes on by the in crowd
> : > in junior high and high school. And does it ever end once you
> : > get out of high school.
> :
> : Is that supposed to be a question? If it is, the answer is that it
> : usually does end after high school, because grades 1-12 are an
> : artificial environment that does not simulate the real business or
> : academic world.
>
> But, as you point out later, many are so
> traumatized that they never get over the
> abuse of high school.
OK.
But I will point out that workplace bullying is quite different from
that in schools. The people are older and (usually) more mature, for
one. You can quit your job, and usually find a better one. It's much
harder to quit or change schools, and for homeschooling you need
sympathetic and qualified parents. While many businesses have a
privileged class, there is no equivalent of school jocks.
> : If you want to call that social skills, fine. My perception is that
> : most of the "in-crowd" lack any real social skills, and make up for
> : that lack by being macho bullies. For them, social status is a zero-
> : sum game, and the way to gain it is 1) mindlessly aping what they see
> : on TV and movies, and 2) bullying those below them on the popularity
> : ladders.
> I watched Stosset's show. For girls it is clothes and looks.
Promulgated through movies, TV, fashion magazines, tabloids, etc.
> For guys it is size and humor.
Size, yes, because their action heroes are musclebound jocks. One
exception is good young Harry Potter.
I don't see how humor fits in all this. The kind of people who become
(or are forced to become) the class clown or court jester are typically
bullied just the same. Religious fanatics are not noted for their humor,
yet they usually escape bullying. In fact, they often are the bullies.
I suspect they keep mostly to others like them and thus form majorities
in their schools and churches; that helps.
Perhaps you mean using humor as a weapon, to put down others in a
parasitic power-play, to suck their social status?
And as for size, it also applies to females. For males size means
height, muscularity, and shoulder size. For females; height, thinness,
and breast size. The latter two are seldom found together, but that
can be overcome with silicone breast implants. I should also mention
blondness as being important to girls. And eating disorders.
> For both it is having at least five friends. And it is all about
> power.
Power, yes, and wealth, and prestige. And belonging to a powerful
group. And having rich, powerful, supportive parents.
In non-academic schools, academic talent does not equal power. It
is the fault of the schools for having an anti-education agenda.
They all pretend to be pro-education, but are really just baby-
sitters (or childsitters, or teensitters), who artifically over-
value jocks, and appease the rich brats. Few schools nurture
academic talent, or the love of knowledge. Many teachers are just
time-servers who prefer a student who shuts up, follows the rules,
never makes waves, brings glory to the school, and gets a mark
of 60-70 rather than a genuinely gifted student who challenges
the teachers' knowledge.
> It is the Lord of the
> Flies. A very primitive tribal existance. And it seems that it
> something we go through but most adults refuse to remember.
And it has little to do with social skills either. Some of the
students are "berms", who are very perceptive when it comes to
social interplay and trendiness. They have an intuitive knowledge
of where everyone stands on the social ladder. I suppose that
counts as social skills, but something is missing. Empathy,
perhaps. Needless to say, berms are the ones who may become
politicians. Some of them are school bullies too.
As for jocks, most of them are no more socially astute than nerds.
It's just that schools, and society, values them in a more visible
and more immediate way. Most jocks are follower types, and in a
military-type team situation, they just follow the leader. The
leaders - the coaches, captains, quarterbacks, etc. arguably have
good social skills, at least in that environment.
> : > This is something that I have noticed. What got my attention was
> : > how the Hollywood left always seemed to focused on high school.
The Hollywood left, BTW, is no ally of techno-nerds. In the early 80s,
it seemed that way, but most of the "Revenge of the Nerds" movies were
attacks on the pro-Reagan jocks, preppies, and yuppies. The movie
"True Genius" is a better indicator of Hollywood's true attitude.
> : > Then came Columbine. It became clear what was happening. The
> : > in-crowd elite bullying the losers. The jocks and the preppies against
> : > everyone else. These in-crowd types go on to become successful
> : > (usually) as they do have a great head start in social skills.
> :
> : No, it's because most of them are rich, and their dads and moms have
> : connections, if not own the company. They are just smart enough to
> : squeak by in college, and often cheat. These are not creative or
> : brilliant.
> :
> : In my experience, the people with real social skills are the ones
> : who are friendly, pleasant, yet sincere. They do not kiss asses.
> : They are the ones invited to join the in-crowd, but leave because
> : of the country-club atmosphere. Rather than bullying, they are the
> : ones who try to stop bullies. These are rare.
>
> At Columbine, everyone was rich. Yet there was
> still an in crowd and losers. While money pays a
> part in most high schools, it did not matter in Littleton.
Yet in most other schools, including ones which did have shootings,
money mattered. And among the rich, there is still rich and poor.
> And part of being popular is being able to use humor.
I addressed that. Someone who may be hypersensitive, insecure, or
lack humor is not so much a target for bullies, but rather someone
more likely to react violently to bullying.
> : > The in-crowd often does wind up as business leaders, yuppies.
> :
> : The rich ones do, that squeak by a 65% on their report cards. They
> : go to colleges that value money and connections over intelligence.
>
> Often the popular kids are well liked by their
> teachers, fun to be around. And they do well
> in school.
Because of teacher bias, rather than talent.
> It is a mistake to assume that they are
> just a bunch of rich dumb kids.
Many of them are, if in a place where money buys friends.
> : > They are often moderates, having learned that having strong
> : > beliefs will lose you popularity. Thus they are not very creative but
> : > do know how to gain and use power. We see this type in politics all
> : > the time, in both parties.
> :
> : What you are saying is they are the type that are real ass-kissers
> : to those in power. And they are often not as moderate as they appear.
>
> Most are moderate. They have no core beliefs.
Or hidden agendas?
> Strong beliefs are dangerous unless it is something
> that is accepted by a large portion of the population.
> It is very conformist.
It's possible to hide a strong belief.
> : > The losers, the misfits, the geeks and the freaks often wind up in two
> : > camps. The loners often become conservatives to libertarians in adult
> : > life. Never learned how to play well with others.
> :
> : They often become true individualists, is what you mean. I have seen
> : just as many conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists with a herd
> : mentality as I have seen lib-lefties. Do not confuse the two.
> :
> : Besides, did a committee come up with the Theory of Relativity?
>
> Very little in our modern world is done by individuals.
> Committees rule.
That may have been true in the 70s. Right now, there is a high demand
for people with technical skill and talent, and problem solving ability.
Teamwork counts for less. TBTB are more willing to overlook, and maybe
even encourage, individual quirks that help get the job done.
> : > The other group has social skills but are just weird. They often become
> : > liberals, left wingers. They develop a hatred of success as it reminds
> : > them of the in-crowd.
> :
> : No, that's not why. Its more likely a rebellion against their parents.
>
> To a certain extend, yes. But peer battles are
> more important.
I have found that many of the anti-success liberals, particularly the rich
ones (e.g. from Hollywood), have a good dose of guilt and self-hatred of
their own success and that of their parents and family. If they were born
rich or came from that background, it makes that worse. Yet they love to
give away other people's money, the more hard-earned, the better - rather
than their own.
> : > Often pacifist as they never learned how to defend themselves. They
> : > become well educated (if they do not get wiped out on drugs) but lack
> : > common sense. Creative yet lacking in understanding of how to get
> : > their ideas into the general society.
> :
> : Many of these are just as conformist as any conservative, it's just they
> : belong to a different group. Again, the emphasis is on the group not the
> : individual. And they are rarely as creative as they claim.
>
> The popular crowd and the left wing are conformist.
Yes.
> Conservatives are too individualistic.
No. Few real conservatives are individualistic. They just claim to be.
Many of them do that by defining "individualism" to mean the right to
personal property. That is only one of many issues. What about the
right to freedom of speech, freedom of dress, freedom of artistic
expression, and all that? Most conservatives are silent or worse on
those matters.
> That is why so many battles within the conservative ranks.
Any "wing" is bound to have these power struggles. Liberals are hardly
a super-efficient monolith. And the more extreme people and groups are
the ones more likely to fight. Conservatives and liberals are mirrors
of each other.
N9NWO
: > Conservatives are too individualistic. That is why so
: > many battles within the conservative ranks.
:
: Maybe on the "Bizarro World", but here on Earth, it's the
: KKKonservatives who fight like crazed buzzards over who gets to be the
: first one to nibble that bear carcass.
I rather doubt that you are left wing but
rather, from your hatred of conservatives,
a libertarian.
And, just as you are a bit of an asshole being
that you are right wing, so are most conservatives.
Keith C.
>still an in crowd and losers. While money pays a
>part in most high schools, it did not matter in Littleton.
The kids were from mostly MIDDLE-CLASS backgrounds. Just because the kids were
mostly white or because they were in CO, or whatever you were thinking, does
not mean their parents were rich.
Keith C.
United States Army Reserve
Elite Strength Training Links
http://members.aol.com/linksworld/strength.html
Jeffrey C. Dege
>>At Columbine, everyone was rich. Yet there was
>>still an in crowd and losers. While money pays a
>>part in most high schools, it did not matter in Littleton.
>
>The kids were from mostly MIDDLE-CLASS backgrounds. Just because the kids were
>mostly white or because they were in CO, or whatever you were thinking, does
>not mean their parents were rich.
Middle class, yes, but towards the upper end of it.
One of the highest median incomes in the country.
And the highest rate of teen suicide in the country, as well.
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another:
"What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
--C.S. Lewis