Do you make mistakes? Ever?
We all make mistakes.
Don't we? Oh, no! Am I the only one?
Gosh, that's a shock. I thought it was one key element of being human.
Well, what do I write about now? How and why I'm a weirdo?
Oh, you're just pulling my ... ummm ... you know, that watchamacallit ... below the waist ... oh, bugger my drugs ... oh, that's it ... leg. I see. Very funny. Ha, ha, ha. "Drugs"?
No, no, no. Not that sort. I need some help to manage my chronic suicidal depression, that's all. Lifelong thing, not to worry, I don't think I'll cark myself between now and the end of this post. Much and all as you might want me to. Although, I guess you can always click out of here. So I suppose I'd better get onto the point.
Right. The point is not to write a string of not-very-funny jokes. Oh, all right, very unfunny jokes-like statements. I'm a dad, I learned them at dad's camp. It's their fault. Honest, true dinks, rewly trewly. My dad's camp people were a real bunch of duds. Dud's camp! Ha, ha ... ha.
There, that's my point. You see how I've not made an excuse, I've given a reason. I've not admitted "I" made a mistake, I've shifted all the blame onto the dad's camp people. It was all their fault. And I've made a joke effectively indicating "Aren't they a bunch of duds!" Feel sorry for me, because I was the harmless victim here.
In itself, this statement is not particularly indicative of anything much. It's quite possible all, or at least quite a few, of us will make this type of "excuse" at various times. Principally because it's often true! And you want the "real" reason for what appears to be your fault to be known, and those who caused the mistake to be correctly identified.
So the issue here is not the occasional one-off. Rather, it's a clear trend, a habitual habit which we need to look for and identify. Because then, we know what we might very well be in for, and avoid the person completely, or make sure your back is covered at all times.
Undoubtedly the best strategy is to just walk away from them, no matter how attractive their personalities are, how wonderful their ideas seem to be, whatever. Because if you don't, you will soon be in diabolical strife.
Okay, back to the point. Excuses are everyone's fallback, of course, at certain times, but to better illustrate my point, I'll use an example from the Right because:
Although, then, of course, as with everything else in my life, it becomes depressing when I think of all those unfortunate people dancing on the ends of these dogs' guts' strings.
Puppetmasters? More like syphalitic ulcers on a baboon's arsehole!
By the way, these people exist on the Left as well, so despite my obvious prejudices I've genuinely chosen this because of the above reasons. Well, now I look at them, the first of the above reasons. If I could think of an easy Leftist one I would use it ... maybe!
Oh, and before someone tries to divert your attention from the point of my argument, I most certainly oppose suggestions Trump's wife should be raped, and I do not think Donald is a kiddy rapist, although I do believe he's a serial sexual molester and pest. Among other things.
As to Melania, I have no thoughts. I don't find her attractive, despite being heterosexual, but would no more think of calling her a Slavic Strumpet or whatever, than I would of referring to Michelle Obama as, well, what she was referred to, which I don't want to advertise by repeating. Only that it was, especially in the US, but in Oz as well, a significantly more insulting term than "Slavic Strumpet"!
What do I see here? Two women, lovely in the way all women are lovely (well, perhaps apart from Maggie Thatcher - all right, already, I've said I'm biased, okay? No? Well, stiff titties!), amazing for their ages, and I won't even comment on the possibility Melania's had plastic surgery and has the brain of a dead mouse because that would be unfair, and quite possibly untrue, because I don't know, and why the hell would it be any of my business even if it were true?
Of course, we all make excuses for ourselves from time to time. When you read my previous blog entry (which I'm sure you've just done, it being unusually short for me!) you would have noticed me making excuses, although, of course (?!), I was joking (more ?!?!).
But, serious or not, most of us can tell when we've made a mistake or not, and whether we're telling porkies when we're making excuses or not. And we can joke about it. Sometimes!
Sadly, however, there are people, most, if not all, of whom suffer from various psychological disorders, or, in a number of cases, psychiatric disorders, who can't tell they've made a mistake, and can't tell the difference between an excuse and a reason.
And it's these mentally disordered people I want to touch on, because if we don't identify them, we're subject to being led astray by them. They often have remarkably attractive personalities on the outside, and it's not until you touch their inside that you discover your fingers have melted.
Primary among these people are those afflicted with conditions called narcissism, psychopathy, or that element of psychopathy commonly called sociopathy, but which seems to have been absorbed by the definition of psychopathy in recent years (very annoying US psychiatrists' mob who determine these things, as so many "sociopaths" come nowhere near fitting the common perception of a psychopath, being a sadistic, cold-blooded serial killer of innocent young people.
The differences between these conditions (for the sake of my discussion, I'm rating sociopaths as different from psychopaths, so I'm writing about 3 conditions) can often be difficult to pick, and indeed I sometimes wonder whether sufferers might have a combined version of these afflictions, so difficult are they to deal with.
Now, how does this connect with my points about excuses? Well, among other things, sufferers of these conditions seem genuinely unable to believe they can make mistakes, so they have a strong tendency to say and do stupid things. Not because they're stupid, although they might well be. But because, of course, whatever they say or do can't be "stupid" because they can't do or say "stupid" things.
In other words, if I say or do anything, it's never "stupid"! I hope it's obvious I'm writing from the perspective of one of these people, not myself! Oh, come on guys. Don't be mean! Rotten turds, and you've got the cheek to be horrible about my sense of humour.
Anyway, in what they would regard as the "right" conditions, these peoples' "non-stupid" things can be seen to be daringly successful. But, in the "wrong" situations they can lead others into total disaster - not that they'll ever accept that any wrongness rests with them.
Remember! These people can't make mistakes, so it wasn't their fault! According to them. So they seek to find excuses they find acceptable. Again, because they didn't make a mistake, they don't see these excuses as "excuses", but as "reasons".
And these "reasons" almost always involve piling all the blame on someone else, often someone close who has been a friend, but is now often portrayed as some perceived "enemy", usually to the intense shock of the person involved.
Note that these people don't really have friends, at least not in the way we others have friends. They have people who are of use to them to greater or lesser degrees, and the degree of use determines how "close" the "friendship" is.
Hence, and this might be where some of you drift off, if you've managed to stay around this long, an obvious sufferer of at least narcissism, like Donald Trump, can't blame himself for making ineffably stupid remarks. So, he'll blame the media, or someone on the "other" side for setting him up, or someone on his team, hence the common sackings that have occurred both before and after Trump's election as US president-in-waiting.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's unfair, but I just couldn't resist it. As a bloke only 10 years younger (!) than Donald, with a full head of hair, I can't get his carry on. We all know it's a hair piece, and if it isn't that it's a seriously weird hairdo, or coloured weirdly. But this is probably more evidence of the narcissistic side of his persona. Mind you, I know bald men who are VERY sensitive, and I wouldn't make fun of them. But Donald makes himself such a target.
I could, of course, go on for some time about Trump. He's a fascinating and not particularly complex case, but I know many people get a bit hyped up about attacks on him, so I'll "pick" on someone else. In fact, two someone else's.
Pamela Ramsey Taylor and Beverley Whaling, step up, please.
Now, I'm not going to repeat the material that forced these two to "resign" from their respective positions, Whaling as Mayor of her local municipality, and Taylor (or is that Ramsey Taylor? And why do I care?) as CEO of a non-profit NGO that helps fund services for elderly and low income people in the same municipality.
You're probably well aware of this kerfuffle, but to reiterate briefly, after Donald Trump's win in the US presidential election, Taylor put an intensely racist message about Michelle Obama up on her Facebook page for all her "friends" to see.
One of these "friends" was Whaling, who appeared to respond very favorably. Whaling later said her response wasn't intended to approve the racist tone of Taylor's message, but the pro-Trump aspects (which I would regard as almost as bad, but am more than happy to accept it's actually nowhere near as bad).
I can't prove or disprove Whaling's claim, but I note in an extract from the comments I've seen (see below) the previous comment was intensely opposed to Taylor's perverse sense of humour.
If you look up above Whaling's stupid comment, you will see Karmella Wynne's comment appears to start with a criticism of Taylor's language. Next, Taylor starts a response I will bet my arsehole's freedom starts along the lines, "No you are just ignorant", perhaps followed by something like "of the facts" (that's not part of the bet!).
So I see no reason why Whaling couldn't perhaps have commented on both aspects, one at least a bit negatively and the other positively (eg "Gee, Pamsie Baby, I'm not too keen on the way you put that, but 'Go Trumpy Baby!'" - "to hell", I would add, somewhere in there, but I'll happily admit that's just my bias!).
You can stand down now, ex-mayor Whaling. And remember, if you were approving the racist non-humour in Taylor's ineffably stupid Facebook post, you'd better watch whatever you say or do in future because you'll be watched for the slightest hint of racism!
If you weren't intending to show approval for Taylor's racism, well, bad luck, because you should have told her the comments were all sorts of wrong.
Okay, Taylor, Ramsey Taylor, whatever, you know who the hell I mean. Let's have a look at you. You're a racist. If you don't like that, sue me. But, of course, I can prove it. That Facebook message of yours leaves no room to move.
It's true, I don't agree with you being the target of death and other threats, but I presume, despite the obvious issue that you support Donald Trump who is no more than a narcissistic, sociopathic lying con man who will undoubtedly let you down the hard way over the next four years, you're not a completely stupid person.
I presume to be CEO of the organisation you head requires at least some smarts and, I would presume, some understanding of the world outside your own little corner of it. So, why the hell were you so stupid as to put your true feelings, and I don't doubt this post was an expression of your true feelings, in a Facebook post that could be viewed by all your "friends"?
You would know as well as I do, these "friends" are not real friends, apart, maybe, from the few I hope a racist like you might have (!), but people who, for a vast array of reasons, have made contact with you. And it was undoubtedly at least one of these "friends" who outed you, probably by sending a copy of your crime against humanity to the media, or by stupidly forwarding it to their own "friends" (and so on), until it reached one who perceived it to be what it was.
Did you think, now that Donald was in charge (he's not of course, until his inauguration - but in your excitement did you forget?) your type would now be free to say and do whatever they liked. "Free" speech at last?
Well, I could go on about how the right to free speech has and must always come with conditions, but that's another discussion. You can't, surely, have been so stupid as to think everyone out there is a secret racist who agrees with you and would now be free to express their true feelings? Or maybe you were.
Or, maybe, you genuinely had no idea what you were saying was wrong. You believe you have a right to say whatever you like, whenever, wherever, and to whoever you like. You believe you're superior to everyone else, especially non-whites, and non-whatever else's you get your knickers in a knot about. Your opinion, your belief, you, is/are always "right", as in correct.
Everyone who disagrees is stupid, or ignorant of the facts, or some other negative epithet. In this regard, I note your probable reply to Karmella Wynne noted above.
But it's what you do next I really want to focus on. You first saw fit to try and move blame away from you and on to "Clinton supporters" for sending your Facebook post viral. Excuse me (pun intended), but weren't you the stupid idiot who put it up in the first place? And shouldn't you be perfectly knowledgeable about the possibility, nay, probability it could go viral?
How would you react to a staff member who put up a message critical of your NGO's elderly and poor clients, or board members, some of whom I'm sure are probably black. Some of your clients, at least, considering the appalling economic and social state of most black people in much of your country.
This state being for all sorts of reasons you probably put down to genetics, forgetting or not believing genetics in fact proves all our forebears came from Africa and we're all related, and there's no physical, intellectual, or brain difference of any importance to this discussion.
Oh, but that's science, isn't it? Do you perhaps think all scientists are in some sort of massive conspiracy to make it appear blacks are equal to whites?
Nonetheless, I suspect your response would be vicious, because that underling's stupid mistake would be taken by you to reflect on you. I know I don't know you, and I can't be certain, but I wonder what your staff, if interviewed anonymously, might say?
Especially your black staff. You do have some, don't you? I know they're only a couple of % of your area's population, but surely you have staff who are able to culturally relate to your clients. Don't you?
So, when the attempt to divert blame from yourself failed, what did you do next? Fall down pleading mea culpa ("I'm at fault", or words to that effect) in an effort to seek reprieve from punishment by way of making people feeling sorry for you? No, although that would not be an entirely untypical response from someone of what I suspect to be your sort.
No, what you did was even more typical. You went on the attack by trying to turn yourself into the victim, seeking support and sympathy by that means, and again attempting to divert attention from yourself and onto those you still believe to be fully responsible for your "situation".
That is, you claimed you were being slandered and libelled all over the place and you were going to take legal action against these terrible people.
The "Lee Kuan Yew defence", I call that, after the awful, but amazingly successful, prime minister of Singapore, who used his ability to control the judgements of Singaporean courts to sue his enemies for libel and/or slander for such amazingly high amounts, which "his" courts were only too happy to award him, he managed to bankrupt them, driving them out of parliament and business, and ultimately life.
Surely you remember the bloke. He's the "great" character who put an enemy, falsely accused of being "communist", on display in a pen in a fun park, for tourists to laugh at. I must say, the fellow bore it with great humanity and humility. Something I suspect neither you nor Lee Kuan Yew and his cronies would ever understand.
But, of course, until your hero Donald manages to replace all the judges, or frighten them to such a degree they will do what they're told, you might, but I suspect, perhaps rather hopefully, you might not, be able to count on the support of the locally elected judges.
Elected! Good grief! Not, I hasten to write, our system in Oz is all that much better, but at least we make a surface attempt to make our judicial and policing people more representative of society than the small percentage of your population that votes.
But (back to the point!) once your case gets to the Federal and/or Supreme Courts, I think things could become more difficult. Not only are some Latino or Hispanic (which seems to have caused your hero Donald some issues, although I notice he's headed off the possibility of being found to have been fraudulent before being inaugurated by paying off the people bringing the case against him), but some are even black!
Yes, the Chief Justice was appointed by Bush junior, but he's unpredictable and not under total control, unlike the previous one who fortunately carked it (and although Hispanic he was a Republican arse-licker, and, oh, that would be "unfortunately carked it" from your perspective!), and others have been appointed by Clinton and Obama.
So, the US is not Singapore. At least, not yet. Give it four years and we'll see! And now you're "on leave", according to yourself, from your NGO, which itself asserts you're no longer "employed" by them. It looks like you've been given the old heave-ho, although I note that the "leftie" media outlets you probably hate are generously saying you've "resigned".
Notice Taylor's reluctance to admit she's either been fired or forced to resign because she was an idiot. She's desperately trying to give the impression nothing bad's happened, and anyway if it did it wasn't her fault.
Okay, so what's the point of this discussion other than demolishing the character of a racist turd? It's that this woman has undertaken all the steps characteristic of a psychopath/sociopath. Of course, it could just be accidental. I stress I'm not qualified to ascribe any condition to her, and couldn't anyway without consulting her at some length.
But each step she's taken has been perfectly typical, so she's at least of value in illustrating my point:
Oh, and two more things.
First, I noticed Taylor's use of "a ape" instead of "an ape". I'm not a pedant, although my partner described her as an "uneducated ignoramus".
No, no, dear, I'm not suggesting you are a pedant. Of course not, I love you far too much for that! And besides, you make such a wonderful chocolate cake and I couldn't face the rest of my life without it! (Aside: Just as well she's got a sense of humour, eh!)
Anyway, I'm not going to make any comment on that mistake, because how could I then excuse any minor errors of my own?
Besides, I'm a big believer in language being all about communication, that very many grammatical and spelling rules are unnecessarily stupid, and "a" or "an" makes no difference to my or anyone else's ability to understand what she's communicating!
And secondly ... ummm ... bugger it, I've forgotten. My excuse? Because I've got one of course, is that I'm taking drugs for my mental illness which make me a bit fuzzy, and damage my recall.
Honest, true dinks, rewly trewly!
Oh, I remember. I find it amazing such an obviously racist person, at least in that Facebook comment, has been put in charge of an program responsible for aiding elderly and poor people.
Fortunately, we now know about her racist views, even if she previously managed to hide them. But what does she think of poor people.
Does she believe, as the economically and socially "irrationalist" Right does, that these people are poor only because, in full possession of all the necessary knowledge, they've insisted on making "irrational" decisions that put them in poverty.
That is, rather than "rational" decisions that would put them in wealth, or at least have made them financially comfortable?
Rational decisions, based on all necessary knowledge. The totally nonsense nature of this dearly loved position of the Right is so amazingly obvious. It's incomprehensible to me how and why the public has allowed itself to be convinced by this load of hogwash.
Or that so many on the right appear to genuinely believe it, and a good few from the Left, focused on being elected, have taken to spouting it.
Tied in, of course, are such views as "all criminals are totally responsible for their decisions to commit crime, so it's justifiable to chuck more and more of them in more and more prisons, for longer and longer terms, for lesser and lesser crimes."
And this will reduce crime, will it? No, of course not! History clearly shows it will do the exact opposite. But historians and criminologists, at least those who don't pander to the Right, are all Leftist toadies who are hand-in-hand with the criminal gangs in an attempt to cause society to collapse so they can turn it into a communist state.
Oh, and in Taylor and her ilk's case, you can probably throw all Semites in there, Jew and Moslem, anyone black, yellow, or brindle, or with purple or green hair, and anyone else they decide they don't like. Oh, that's right, "elites", whatever they mean by that!
Anyway, back to my point. Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sociopaths. They're dangerous. Not, the very, very great majority of them, because they'll stab you in the back to the sounds of horribly scary music.
No, because they'll take you down a series of paths, often very excitingly and enticingly, thrilling you with their great eye contact and their methods of making you feel ever-so important, that will almost inevitably, sooner or later, tip you into a huge bowl of bubbling, boiling, roiling shit from which you'll probably never, ever, ever escape.
I reiterate, there's only one way to escape such an end, and that's to walk away before it happens. And even then, if it happens to soon after you've walked away, you'll still find that wonderful, generous, kind, incredibly appealing person throwing boiling shit on you at every opportunity. And it may be old, it may be much over-used, but it's still true, that statement: "Shit sticks!"
However, not absolutely everyone who appears to be like that is one of these people. There are things to watch for, and the genuine acceptance of fault, although not an iron-cast proof, is one of them. Especially if it forms part of a pattern of refusals to accept, or avoidances of accepting, blame.
Get on out there, folks, the world's a great place. Just watch you back and your pocket for conmen (and women - conpeople?), because they're a lot of them, and they feel absolutely no empathy or sympathy, and won't hesitate to take you down at any opportunity. You're their prey.
Don't get gobbled (as in "eaten", naughty person!) - as have around 26%, a minority in two ways (and no, folks, there were absolutely not 3 million illegal votes from illegal immigrants - for goodness sake, think about it!) of the US voting population in the recent US presidential election.
Hi, we're Lex & Bronwyn, and we really like Sandy McCall Smith's Mma Ramotswe novels.