(AUTHOR'S NOTE, added 12/31/07 - For all the discussion on the ramifications of how to deal with a bigot, the underlying problem is not apparently clear to some readers. THIS GUY WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SOME MIND-ALTERING DRUG. ANY ATTEMPT TO USE LOGIC OR EVEN WORDS WITH SUCH PEOPLE IS IN VAIN. They cannot think rationally. As soon as the dinner patrons realized this, they stopped their attempts, which was the right thing to do, because it was in vain, and because he was not directly attacking anyone present, and because it would have created a brawl for the host to have to deal with.)
I had the dubious experience a few nights ago of another of the holiday dinners. Even moreso (dubious, that is), I was seated next to a madman. Addict, I think, actually - on some sort of upper. Rather like having a machine gun going off in your ear, shattering your equanimity as you try to enjoy the filet. It would have been excellent, otherwise, as it was very, very rare, the way I like it....
It was most interesting to see the normies at the table react to him. You see, they haven't the filter of knowing the addict's mind (lack thereof, actually, while they're using), and to them, he's a "normal" person behaving crazy. To others of us, he's behaving perfectly "normally," for being an addict. I smirk, at the irony of that.
They tried to reason with him, calm him, bring him to other points of view in his rantings. I just tried to focus on my filet. I knew it was moot, to do so. Either one.
I guess the good part was that, while they left agitated, I felt much more calmed at the conclusion. I was just glad, when he was out of my range of vision, and on his way. He works for a Washington, D.C. law firm. I had to wonder how many of them are like him. I spent a chunk of my professional life in D.C., swimming in the fast lane, dining with the movers-and-shakers.
Once, I fired a lobbyist my company had hired, and he was pissed off, when I sent him a mere $100 bottle of wine, in condolence.
Been there, done that. The fast lane was an experience, but I feel no need to return, thanks. It is the perfect concoction of circumstances to make crazy people - everyone in that town is chasing an agenda, and thinking they are cleverly hiding it, cloaking it in smooth language under the guise of somebody else's "need."
Hm. Come to think of it, it's a lot like Hollywood.
- The Traveler
10 comments:
Cool graphic. I wish I had a clearer idea if the table's objection was more to the content of the lawyers speech or to the way he said it--I guess it all became on in the same.
It's also fascinating how some people make it to very powerful and influential places in life while regularly im/exploding. "Entourage" (speaking of Hollywood) did a fantastic episode of ficition mirroring reality when they had Harvey Weinstein doing exactly that--playing himself!
By the way, your blog is still the second one I read every morning.
pssst. you're the 'site of the moment' right NOW
It was both. The content was so inflammatory that I dared not put it in a public blog. It was racist and violent and quite illogical. But so goes the mind, on substances...
He is effectively the legal thug for his law office, so his behavior has suited him over the years, that is, until one day when he loses it and goes after his firm's people. That day is probably coming.
His office does transportation law. Did you know that if a truck full of prescription drugs has the door seal broken that the whole shipment is voided and cannot be legally used or sold any more? The underworld knows this and tracks shipments of various drugs and gets those trucks, that's how the supply chain on the blackmarket is paritally fed. The trucks magically disappear off route, and re-appear later, empty. Absolutely unbelievable amounts of wasted money on these intercepted shipments. Of course, I know this from stuff he's said during dinner conversations... interesting the topics on his mind... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
It was a good thing there was nobody else marginal there, or he surely would have provoked a fight. They held their blood pressure well.
I see this guy a few times a year, and it's getting worse each time, and harder to take him. He was really amped up the other night.
Of course, I'm getting more crotchety, too, I suppose!
-TT
I find it interesting that people rarely directly challenge those who behave badly. The rest of the group works at being polite, and if any thing is said to address the boor's behavior, it is always done politely.
You say that his content was inflammatory, racist, violent, and illogical. Did no one ever think to tell him that his words were no longer welcome?
There is a scene in a film starring Gregory Peck, "Gentleman's Agreement," in which a non-Jewish woman tells a Jewish friend, who is a decorated veteran of WWII, of boorish, anti-Semitic remarks made by a dinner party guest. Her Jewish friend repeatedly asks her, "What did you do?" She doesn't understand the question and variously responds that everyone else ignored the man, felt embarrassed for him, etc. Finally, she really hears the substance of his question, "What did you do when you witnessed this man's bigoted commentary?" Upon understanding the question, she looks away, unable to fully face her friend's gaze, finally comprehending that silence in the face of bigotry is a sort of agreement to overlook the bigotry and in doing so convey to the perpetrator a tacit approval of his beliefs.
I read the book and saw the movie in my 20's and I've never forgotten that scene. There are a few people who have not invited me to join them for dinner more than once. I don't suffer boorish behavior.
The film was adapted from a novel of the same name by Laura Hobson, and published shortly after WWII when the world was still trying to understand the how and why of the horrors revealed in the camps. I've always thought that Hobson was challenging us all to look in the mirror and ask ourselves, "What did you do?"--Sheria
They did initially challenge him, and got an irrational response. One cannot use rational logic with someone who is irrational, and the crowd was educated enough to recognize this.
And then, they did what I agree with: they took their cues from the dinner's host, and let it ride without creating a major confrontation.
Engaging with this guy would have had a single, distastrous outcome AND centered the dinner around HIM, to boot.
There was no safety at stake, no human rights infringement. Had the host decided to ask this guy to leave, it would have been his prerogative. We did not feel it ours, however.
The barrage only lasted a short while, because after this guy garnered no further responses, there was no point-to-counterpoint to feed him, and he fizzled out for the most part.
The moral of the story: Drama often takes two.
-TT
I agree that engaging such an individual is usually pointless, but I don't get why there appears to be discomfort in asking such an individual to leave. It sends a clear message that there is no approval, tacit or otherwise, for whatever bigoted nonsense the individual may be spouting.
I recognize that at times, one may be a guest at some gathering at which you have no authority to ask the individual to leave. In those circumstances, why not express your disapproval by leaving the event yourself?
I don't ask this of you personally, I'm asking a broader question as to why we are so afraid of making it perfectly clear that we do not share bigoted view points? Why do we have more concern for not offending the bigot?
If it's my gathering, I have no problems with asking someone to either apologize for a bigoted comment or leave if the individual insists on persisting in the commentary.
When I use the term bigot, I'm not speaking only of racist comments, but any derogatory comment based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other group characteristic.
About a year agao, I was present at a work related social gathering at which two of the guests insited on equating homosexuality with pedophilia. There comments were public and overheard by many people. When some of us attempted to steer them away from this topic, they persisted. I calmly stated what was wrong with their reasoning, explained that I disagreed with their views and that I found them offensive. Then I left, as did a few others. I am not naive enough to think that I made any impression on the two bigots, but I may have made a someone else, not as committed to homophobia, rethink their position.
My point is simple, why do we tolerate such bad behavior? It's a rhetorical question, not one that I feel that you have a responsibility to answer. Your post just triggered my thoughts on this matter, and isn't that what you want, a sharing of thoughts?
I'm not at all a timid sort. What I am, is deliberate.
In the case of this guy, his racist, irrational remarks were not toward any person in the room. If they had been, my reaction would have been different. He was referring to a distant specific scenario with a person of an ethnicity not represented in the room.
It's not that I like to tolerate boorishness, but you do have to pick your battles in life, and this wasn't my battlefield. I had the host to consider.
And, by the way, I can say this with some credibility because I am biracial, and all my life have taken comments about it. Some quite ignorant and hurtful.
I am not a card-carrying member of the WASP good ol' boy club.
-TT
BTW, I disagree with your comment that everyone in DC has an agenda. Many do, admittedly, some with quite honorable intents and some with intentions not at all honorable, but not all. Born there, worked there, still within the burbs and occasionally downtown 46 years later. Some of us are "just" people, too.
Seems I've forgotten my blogger password. I"m Robin. Ceilisundancer
http://journals.aol.com/ceilisundancer/RandomThreads/
Interesting blog, referred to by Aimer "on my mind." Have a great new year.
Addendum added to the post 12/31/07.
-The Traveler
Post a Comment