Sunday 9 July 2017

ANTI‑SOCIAL SOCIABILITY

(2017)

We grow tired of everything but turning others into ridicule, and congratulating ourselves on their defects.

At about 15:20 on Friday, 9 June 2017, in Tunbridge Wells’ Public Library, I was part‑way through a computer session on PC05 – minding my own business.

As he ended his computer session, a male seated next to me on PC04 began attempting to rebuke, ridicule & mock me (enjoining another present to do likewise) for not engaging him in conversation. I was under no obligation (legal nor moral) to talk with him; while he had no right to demand attention nor to waste my time while I was busy doing something else.

I remained completely silent and continued about my business.

This incident was a clear violation of Item 9 the Library Service’s AUP in that an attempt was made to: Violate the privacy or disrupt the work of others.

There are few legally‑enforceable contracts in personal relations, unlike political ones, because legislating‑for‑love is impossible. There was no mutual respect here, since – in public – I never consent to anything other than a political relationship based on live‑and‑let‑live. I was not being treated as an end‑in‑myself – only as an imagined means to someone else’s psychologically‑lazy and discriminatory end. In such circumstances, publicly‑expressed frustration at not achieving such ends becomes the flimsiest pretext for bigotry, intolerance & antisocial behaviour.


Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes.

Clearly, this gentleman’s computer‑use was merely ostensible; his real goal was to strike‑up acquaintanceships, in public places, with complete strangers in order to fill an emotional void in his personal life. Because there is no requirement on anyone’s part to entertain strangers nor to befriend them – without payment in cash or in kind – since emotionally‑blackmailing neediness can never be a valid claim upon anyone else’s virtue.

He clearly has an inordinate fear of personal rejection (matched only by his equally‑learned emotional discomfort at being in the physical company of Black people). This confounds his equally‑inordinate need for sociality – a need that can never be satisfied by the rudeness paradoxically used to obtain such unearned social interaction. He vainly hopes this behaviour will help him overcome his phobia of those who do not look like him nor share his abusive values, mores or world‑view. The crass hypocrisy here lies in the fact of a White male trying to belittle a Black one for not socialising with him by behaving in the selfsame anti‑social manner openly condemned in others.

My anti‑sociality with such people is based upon the obvious futility of attempting sociability with those who are, themselves, innately unsociable, since their complaining about the unsociability of others is, is itself, an unsociable act and cannot, therefore, lead to the equality that all successful personal relationships require. In reality, one can only be sociable with sociable people; unsociable with unsociable people. Any other social behaviour can only produce absurd beliefs such as chickens befriending foxes or Jews Nazis; meaning that the unsociable could achieve friendship just by emotional bullying.

Conflating the personal with the political, in this way, implies a belief that ones personal needs could be met, regardless of whether or not one is actually attractive and/or interesting to others. But this is nothing more than the social parasites’ usual attempt to get something‑for‑nothing because they believe the world owes them a living (without the necessity for any productive input from themselves).

Regards,









D022317344
Audio
KCC Libraries: Acceptable Internet Use Policy
Expect Respect

No comments:

Post a Comment