Social Stigmata

Why are people so ignorant and judgemental?

Click to expand...

Beats the heck out of me. I mean, who here hasn't hacked an ex-spouse and her friend to death? We're all just human, man.

Dwayne, you really have to stop using cartoons as a reflection of human nature. Cartoons are meant to mock and subvert human nature. Yes sometimes they reveal truths, but only through exaggerations, through black and white. They are entirely the opposite of what you are looking for as examples of true human nature. Time to watch some other shows.

Aside from that a man who is found guilty in a court of law of murder (in a civil suit at least) to me is not all that deserving of my empathy. The same man who robs someone with an armed weapon and is sentenced to jail, again does not deserve my empathy. The world is shades of grey. But shades of grey include black and white. Not that often, but there are times when people do do unequivocally bad things in the world, individuals who are just bad people. And deserve to be judged harshly for it.

Also you used the wrong word in your post. It's "stigma". Stigmata are "(in Christian tradition) marks corresponding to those left on Jesus’ body by the Crucifixion, said to have been impressed by divine favor on the bodies of St. Francis of Assisi and others."

I hear there's gonna be this big concert in London and lotsa people want to go ...

DwayneA said:

what does that have to do with the subject being discussed within this thread?

Click to expand...

A better question is how any of this thread relates to the discussion of writing, which the AW Roundtable board is supposed to be about.

Phoenix Fury said:

A better question is how any of this thread relates to the discussion of writing, which the AW Roundtable board is supposed to be about.

Click to expand...

Family Guy would be a great subject for razor-sharp writing and social satire though. But, yeah, I agree. Roundtable seems like the wrong fit for this thread.

mlhernandez said:

Family Guy would be a great subject for razor-sharp writing and social satire though. But, yeah, I agree. Roundtable seems like the wrong fit for this thread.

Click to expand...

Agreed entirely with your first sentence, but that doesn't seem to be the point of this thread, from what I can tell...?

DwayneA said:

Today I saw the new Family Guy episode "The Juice is Loose". What I want to know is, is that really how people treat someone like O.J in real life? What about anyone else who has a history of doing bad things or has been accused? How do people in real life treat those kind of people?

Frankly I'm disgusted that people tend to judge others based only on terrible things they've done, while completely ignoring the good things they've done. I mean, people are supposed to be both black and white, or put simply, "shades of gray" as I've learned. Why are people so ignorant and judgemental?

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Toothpaste. You're better off changing the channel because Family Guy is meant to be a satire on current family values and pop culture. Some people find it funny and it's not meant to be taken so seriously.

benbradley said:

I hear there's gonna be this big concert in London and lotsa people want to go ...

Click to expand...

DwayneA said:

what does that have to do with the subject being discussed within this thread?

Click to expand...

Michael Jackson, who's been accused of some pretty heinous crimes, is somebody else "...that people tend to judge...based only on terrible things (he's) done, while completely ignoring the good things (he's) done." He's announced a string of concerts in London and the tickets sold out within seconds after going on sale. From what I can tell, benbradley's trying to draw a parallel between Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, and the questions you're asking.

That was my point. Discussing comedic writing as a form of social satire might fit in Roundtable. Morality and judgment discussions definitely belong somewhere else.

DwayneA said:

Today I saw the new Family Guy episode "The Juice is Loose". What I want to know is, is that really how people treat someone like O.J in real life? What about anyone else who has a history of doing bad things or has been accused? How do people in real life treat those kind of people?

Frankly I'm disgusted that people tend to judge others based only on terrible things they've done, while completely ignoring the good things they've done. I mean, people are supposed to be both black and white, or put simply, "shades of gray" as I've learned. Why are people so ignorant and judgemental?

Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with stigmata?

Toothpaste said:

Also you used the wrong word in your post. It's "stigma". Stigmata are "(in Christian tradition) marks corresponding to those left on Jesus’ body by the Crucifixion, said to have been impressed by divine favor on the bodies of St. Francis of Assisi and others."

Click to expand...

"Stigma" is the singular, "stigmata" (or "stigmas") the plural. "Social stigmata" is fairly common in the social sciences (try google scholar).

Dawnstorm said:

"Stigma" is the singular, "stigmata" (or "stigmas") the plural. "Social stigmata" is fairly common in the social sciences (try google scholar).

Click to expand...

Um, not sure where you got that from. Stigmas is the plural of Stigma, not stigmata, in terms of social stimgatism.

I google for social stigmata and I get a nice little question asking if I meant "social stigma". Also, this thread is number two on the results list

Of course, it is used in terms of leprosy and such, IE "The stigmata associated with leprosy". But that is a medical term, not a sociological one as far as I know.

Prozyan said:

Um, not sure where you got that from. Stigmas is the plural of Stigma, not stigmata, in terms of social stimgatism.

Click to expand...

Have you followed my link? The downside of google scholar is that you often can't view the articles because you'd need access to certain mags, library services etc., of course.

If you want a direct quote, that doesn't take long, using normal google and adding "Goffman" who wrote the book "Stigma".

here

[FONT=helvetica,arial]Language can be very powerful. Social stigmata associated with cancer are so deeply engrained that derogatory terms are commonly used without taking into consideration the psychological impact it can cause on a cancer survivor.

Click to expand...

"Stigmata" is perfectly valid plural for "stigma" in social sciences.

[/FONT]

I google for social stigmata and I get a nice little question asking if I meant "social stigma". Also, this thread is number two on the results list

Click to expand...

Hehe. Nevertheless, you'll find plenty of valid examples if you know where to look.

Of course, it is used in terms of leprosy and such, IE "The stigmata associated with leprosy". But that is a medical term, not a sociological one as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Yes, there's a medical-diagnostic term "stigma(ta)" but I'm hard-pressed to believe that this sense is behind the word in the following quote:

Based on the narratives and observations of people living in colony and street settings, I trace three destructive processes by which the social stigmata of leprosy become physically expressed. First, strategies of concealment further the progression and spread of HD through late detection and undertreatment. Second, the internalization of stigma can lead to bodily dissociation and injury through self-neglect. Finally, some people intentionally seek injuries under conditions of desperate poverty.

Click to expand...

This is from an abstract, here. The first sense in above quote is fun, as it does reference symptoms of leprosy, but the point is that through non-treatment these symptoms are allowed to spread.

***

"Social stigmas" is, I think, more common, but I would have used "social stigmata" myself.

I'm just curious, Dwayne.

Let's say that your bike breaks down at the side of the road, and you need a ride home. Two people stop their cars and offer you that ride. One of those people is an average, regular guy who never broke a law. The other one murdered two people and got away with it.

Which one would you go with?

Dawnstorm said:

Yes, there's a medical-diagnostic term "stigma(ta)"

Click to expand...

See, I thought they were separate terms. Stigmata used medically to describe social problems due to physical appearance caused by disease or illness, such as lesions, and stigma used to describe various social problems caused by things not medically related. One used medically and one used sociologically.

Thanks for all the info, I defer to your knowledge!

DwayneA said:

Today I saw the new Family Guy episode "The Juice is Loose". What I want to know is, is that really how people treat someone like O.J in real life? What about anyone else who has a history of doing bad things or has been accused? How do people in real life treat those kind of people?

Frankly I'm disgusted that people tend to judge others based only on terrible things they've done, while completely ignoring the good things they've done. I mean, people are supposed to be both black and white, or put simply, "shades of gray" as I've learned. Why are people so ignorant and judgemental?

Click to expand...

You're disgusted by that? Really? I'm sure many a dictator, child abuser and murderer has done something 'good' - even if just for minutes - but frankly, the 'terrible' things they have done take precendse.

As for Family Guy being your social barometer, this is not just a cartoon but one where a talking dog provides much of the satire...

DwayneA said:

Frankly I'm disgusted that people tend to judge others based only on terrible things they've done, while completely ignoring the good things they've done. I mean, people are supposed to be both black and white, or put simply, "shades of gray" as I've learned. Why are people so ignorant and judgemental?

Click to expand...

Of course people are black and white. But the fact remains that we have to take the consequences of our actions. Some of those consequences are that if we commit crimes, we lose the respect and the trust of our fellow human beings.

If you beat someone up and get caught and are taken to court, will you tell the judge that he's judging you based on the bad thing you've done, while completely ignoring the fact that you're nice to your family?

Family Guy picks on everyone and everything. Plus, I'm curious. What has OJ Simpson done to make you feel bad for him? I'm all about giving people second chances, but they sort of have to earn them...

If you think people should ignore what he's done, then should there also not be a list of registered sex offenders? That's not 'seeing the good things they've done'. But if I had one living near me, I'd want to know, because sorry, I would want to keep an eye on them.

Queen of Swords said:

I'm just curious, Dwayne.

Let's say that your bike breaks down at the side of the road, and you need a ride home. Two people stop their cars and offer you that ride. One of those people is an average, regular guy who never broke a law. The other one murdered two people and got away with it.

Which one would you go with?

Click to expand...

What a ridiculous question, such hypos are useless when the choice is so stark. Of COURSE you'd go with the guy who killed and got away with it. Chances are, he killed for financial gain, which means he's gonna have a way cooler set of wheels than the other, do-gooding, dorky square in his Ford spec. Duh.

Perhaps it should be like a balance sheet? All the good things you've done in column A, all the bad things in column B; whichever has the most decides how people treat you.
I suppose there'd have to be a numerical value for each thing - a murder isn't going to be offset by donating 50p to Children in Need.
Hmm...I'll think on it and get back to you, I think we have something here.

JimmyB27 said:

Perhaps it should be like a balance sheet? All the good things you've done in column A, all the bad things in column B; whichever has the most decides how people treat you.
I suppose there'd have to be a numerical value for each thing - a murder isn't going to be offset by donating 50p to Children in Need.
Hmm...I'll think on it and get back to you, I think we have something here.

Click to expand...

Oh hell, imagine what Bill Gates could get away with if crime was off-set by financial contributions!

Hitler: manipulated his long-suffering country and its neighbors.

Hitler: orchestrated the grand plan of eradication of Jews and like minorities in Europe.

Hitler: catapulted the world into a second devastating war.

Hitler: was a vegetarian and couldn't stand to think of, let alone see, an animal in pain.

Hitler: was sickened by the mere sight of blood.


Moral: Humans. We so (mortally) crazy.

Dwayne: STOP OVERANALYZING. And like Toothpaste wisely said, cartoons provide you no insight into human nature. You're trying to bleed a stone.

You not being able to see how grey, black and white can all coexist within the world and the human is somewhat, well... black and white of you. Man is a complicated animal.

kaitlin008 said:

Family Guy picks on everyone and everything. Plus, I'm curious. What has OJ Simpson done to make you feel bad for him? I'm all about giving people second chances, but they sort of have to earn them...

If you think people should ignore what he's done, then should there also not be a list of registered sex offenders? That's not 'seeing the good things they've done'. But if I had one living near me, I'd want to know, because sorry, I would want to keep an eye on them.

Click to expand...

I think what happened for Dwayne was there was a scene where Peter was trying to get OJ to confess to the murders, OJ finds out and starts to cry, asking why anyone can't put that whole little mess behind them (I don't think Dwayne understood the joke of the situation, that OJ was crying like he'd maybe once run a red light and everyone was judging him, that he was treating the idea of murder as if it was nothing more than a small little mistake - that was the joke, Dwayne btw). Peter then feels bad for him and tries to introduce OJ to the rest of the town, but they all show up as an angry mob.

OJ then convinces them all that he's okay because, "Who amoungst us isn't flawed?" Again I think Dwayne saw that speech and agreed. What he didn't realise was again, this was satire. Yes we all have made mistakes in our lives, but very few of us have committed double murder for which we were found guilty. I don't think Dwayne understood that once more Family Guy was making fun of OJ Simpson. Once more putting his crimes on par with minor mistakes. We were meant to laugh at OJ Simpson, not feel pity for him. We were meant to laugh at the townspeople for agreeing with the speech.

And Dwayne? Did you see that final moment? When OJ then kills three people with a knife and runs away? You see that after all the sympathy people wound up feeling for him, it turns out he is actually a bastard? I notice that part of the episode you conveniently ignore.

Hon. Just because someone says something on tv doesn't make it true. I know that is tricky for you, but try to remind yourself of it. I know how upset violence against men made you in cartoons (note how in this episode a woman was killed btw) but a cartoon is a cartoon. It is meant to be over the top. Again it is meant to mock life, and by mockery we see some truth about life.

I have some advice for you when you watch the Family Guy. Now this isn't an absolute, nothing is absolute, but when you are watching the Family Guy, assume for the most part that they want you to think the OPPOSITE of what they are showing you. Family Guy, believe it or not, takes a very sophisticated viewer to understand what is going on. It is very complicated. Just because it is a cartoon does not make it two dimensional.

As to the whole "social stigmata" thing, grand. But I still don't believe Dwayne meant it in the way you are defending it as. It isn't a big deal, though.