| « | Have You Been Wishing Folks A "Happy Kwanzaa"? |
»
|
|
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Let’s Play “Spot The Loony”
Heather at Lil Cup Of Love has a half-hilarious, half-ominous post up today about recent encounters between a hairstylist friend and a couple of seriously defective customers. Give it a read and hurry back.
Finished so soon? My, my. One cannot but feel immense sympathy for that hairstylist, and a great desire to remain several thousand miles away from the customers of whom she complained. What you should note about these...persons is that both are beyond all dispute the sort of creature that seeks out helpless victims to loonify (Copyright © 2004 by Your Curmudgeon). Therefore, they go to "public accommodations" which offer one-on-one services of the sort that compel the tradesman to endure anything the customer might happen to dispense short of actual violence. The vendors of services who must perforce touch the client, or who are required by their trade to listen to the client, are particularly vulnerable. Barbers and hairdressers are among the worst afflicted.
The problem is rooted in the disappearance of a little sign that once hung on the wall of every store, barbershop, tavern, and bordello in America:
You can still find that little sign in some shops, but legal changes have emptied it of its significance. For all practical purposes, no one who sells any good or service to the "general public" -- that is, with no requirement for prior introduction, specification, and negotiation -- can refuse to serve anyone, without risking both civil and criminal consequences.
So the loonies have their way with folks such as Heather's hairstylist friend.
America's loony population is not evenly distributed over the fifty states. They tend to concentrate in cities, with the greatest densities observable in the coastal megalopolises such as Los Angeles and New York. There's a lot of information buried in there, actually. Since loonhood normally includes a ravenous appetite for the attention of others, the loony will automatically go to where that can be had. Large cities offer the most potential victims, and large American coastal cities, which are utterly under the spell of leftist moral relativism, unearned guilt, and legally mandated "compassion" for the unfortunate, will naturally be the worst off.
Granted that there are degrees of loonhood. Heather's friend didn't suffer any physical damage from her encounters; she was merely offended and somewhat shaken by them. But a fearless researcher with a good pair of walking shoes could easily turn up a dozen far more radical cases, some physically threatening, in a single afternoon's stroll on the streets of New York.
It's not against any law to be an irritating, irrational whiner. It's not against any law to complain baselessly about one's treatment by some hardworking, longsuffering tradesman. It's not against any law to shout imprecations or outright threats at the objects of one's disaffection, with the exception of government officials in the performance of their duties. But damn it all, there used to be curbs on this sort of thing -- unofficial but quite stringent curbs that kept it out of the faces of the decent and honest, so that we could count on civility and courtesy even from complete strangers.
The more severely diseased of the loonies were confined for their own protection. Those with milder strains of the virus were told to "keep moving." And that is exactly as it should be.
Those who've read extensively of your Curmudgeon's blather will find this opinion unsurprising. Indeed, it seems to be widely shared. So why can't we act on it?
The answer is uncomfortable to ponder. We're afraid.
We're quite reasonably afraid of the gendarmerie. Many of these are dumb as rocks. Many others take an unholy delight in any opportunity, however unrighteous, to exercise their "authority" over the rest of us. Not much to be done there, except to lobby strenuously for changes in the laws that govern retail commerce.
We're also afraid of the loonies themselves. Some of them genuinely are dangerous, and will do what they can to punish anyone who refuses to submit to loonification. Others exert a rather subtler sort of intimidation, the variety enforced by great embarrassment.
But in large measure, what we're afraid of is our own consciences.
We've been hypersensitized to the "plight of the less fortunate." We've been harangued to death about how, in some indefinable and ultimately elusive way, their condition is our fault and our rightful burden. And those "less fortunate" have been overdefined to include persons who take a perverse pleasure in annoying others.
Compassion freaks will immediately rise to condemn this. Their usual argument is that the defects of these unfortunates are not their fault. Even if that were true, that the responsibility for dealing with them should fall on the shoulders of the sane and civil does not follow.
A society is not an infinitely elastic or tolerant construct. Enough abuse of its unwritten rules will cause it to fragment in ways that no man can predict. Those rules deal with what is legally permitted but is nonetheless unacceptable: the gray zone of human conduct that demands action by the civilized to quell the barbarians, but which cannot, for diverse reasons, make use of the weight of the law. This is inadequately understood and even less adequately articulated.
Heather's friend probably understands it. No doubt she'd appreciate the right to act on it, if that could be restored.
Is there a freedom commando out there who's willing to make this his personal mission?
Comments
One person at a time.
The bigger problem is one of fear and not wanting to stick your neck out. It’s an attitude problem of “It’s not my problem.” Misbehaving people in public IS our problem. They get away with it simply because no one calls them on it--they see no reason to behave otherwise. They are social bullies.
While the behavior of some is unquestionably boorish, the bigger problem (that many who deal with the public fail to factor in to the situation) is that not dealing with horrid customers actually drives the nice ones away. Rinse. Repeat. And you find yourself with nothing but the awful ones.
It may seem like I’m blaming the victim here, but in these cases “the victim” becomes one by refusing to stand up for themselves and the other civilized people in their midst.
Dueling. We need to bring back dueling.
Posted by Mrs. du Toit on 12/30/2004 at 12:52 PMFrancis, your message that we are told we must endure and tolerate these people because we are somehow responsible for them is spot on. I didn’t really consider that implication until you pointed it out. Enough is enough.
Connie, I agree that not dealing with a customer like that will result in losing better customers. In fact, the son of a very prominent businessman was sitting in the other chair getting his haircut while this little debacle was taking place.
My friend doesn’t own the salon, she pays booth rent. Her partner does own the salon, and she’s turning out to be as weird as some of her customers. I have a feeling my friend will be in the market for a better deal in the future.
Posted by Heather on 12/30/2004 at 02:19 PMYou and Heather have identified, anecdotally, yet one more agent of oppression.
Any one of us reacting to such a miscreant introduces a level of risk that flashes before our minds and stops us in our tracks.The oppressors?
We have been intimidated from defending ourselves by hoards of faceless agents we imagine would ride to the defense of the “underdog.” These are bastards who we just know would gleefully flip the definition of who is victim and who is agressor and who have unlimited funds to back them up.Yet each time we succumb to this fear, we instutionalize further outrages. Each time an outrage goes unpunished, deeper outrages are looming in our future. It may be slow in coming. It may come faster at times. But it is inevitable. “Defining Deviancy Down” was more than just a good book title; it was a visionary bon mot.
Personal morality and personal respect would prevent most decent people from behaving in any way as this creature did.Yet such feelings are constantly under attack. Moral relativists rule the wheels of justice. They help propel miscreants to mistreat those they feel dare not strike back.
We are trained to endure such excesses in public schools when we see culprit and victim treated as equally responsible. That only served to encourage the bully and discourages the victim from. When we allow our children to be mercilessly indoctrinated into accepting injustices, just when do we expect them to learn to overturn the wheels of injustice? Worse, the miscreants learn how to gain power from the system.
We saw that here. This miscreant tossed about charges that he and we both know will be receptive to cynics, and to which we fear the authorities might succumb just as the school principal did.
Likely any personal morality the miscreant has he only applies to those like himself. He dare not behave this way with them or he’d turn up dead.
We who have whatever little we have are apt to see him as having a good deal less. We see confrontation with him as endurable to some extent lest the authorities become involved and, subjecting ourselves to their rules, find ourselves losing a great deal more than ever this pathetic creature could. Worse. They may arbitrarily find grounds to reward him with all we have.
He sees it. We see it. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain. We may gain momentary peace, but may lose a great deal more.
Most immediate answer?
The Market. “Dealing with Miscreant” Insurance.Or, going back to simpler times, but introducing a smidgeon of modernity: Dial 711 and relief arrives likety-split.
Best Long Term Answer (IMHO)
Attack moral relativists at every opportunity.
Eliminate the Rousseau/Marxist idea of social justice as a reasonable point of discussion.
Build up organizations that reinstutionalize the right to self-defense.Posted by Pascal Fervor on 12/30/2004 at 05:55 PMGood grief...a well written and thought provoking essay...and the bonus Monty Python reference. Well done Fran (and Heather)
IRPosted by IR on 12/30/2004 at 06:05 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
