Pages

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Till Hate is Indistinguishable from Insanity

 (Insane hate is as American as apple-pie.)

Across the blogosphere there reverberates the echo of an entire ideology's death-throes, and their summary rebirth a la the phoenix of ignorant youth. I speak specifically of one blog post that sums up the author's anti-Semitic complex quite nicely in his title: "White Jew Problems."

And it all started because one customer of Chipotle managed to convince an entire company to be more transparent about what's on their menu... through a tweet.

Unfortunately, some people apparently cannot handle the thought that companies should be accountable to their customers. Well, if they want our money then it makes sense for them to "bend over and grab their ankles", because otherwise people will find somewhere else to go for a burrito.


More importantly, this topic illustrates the divergence of America between rational people who support the middle & lower classes -- and people whose hate has become a point of view, justified through their own insanity, even if it means voting against their interests, their socio-economic bracket, and even at times their own self.

Case in point: the blogger, Chuck, is a waiter with a lot of debt to pay off, and yet instead of supporting the class to which he belongs that would grant him a bigger paycheck, more reasonable loan-terms, and an overall more equitable piece of the proverbial pie, he opts to destroy the system entirely -- rather like a frustrated child destroys a toy they cannot figure out or comprehend.


It reminds me of being 10 years-old again, watching some kid kick over their Lego blocks because they couldn't build the spaceship from the instructions provided. Instead of asking for better instructions, or help, they'd rather just kick the fucking thing over and throw a tantrum.

And this directly compares to minimum-wage earners who vote for the interests of the top 1% at their own expense -- more expensive education, fewer social benefits, higher costs of living, no healthcare, no social security, no regulation, more pollution, more corruption, and a general reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary Americans.

Welcome to self-destructive behavior. Apparently, it has gone from a pathology, to a point a view, and is now poised to become a political statement.


And this is aside from the various problems that the blogger (and, arguably, much of Middle America) has with Jewish people. We're seen as greedy, power-hungry, corrupt, lying, backstabbing, anti-Christian, anti-White, evil mothafuckas who goddamnit killed Jesus!

No, seriously, many Americans truly believe that Jews like me are responsible for some kind of gradual decline of Western Civilization, specifically in America.

To which I can only cock my head, and wonder, "if we had such power over the world, then why isn't it actually called Jewmerica?"


Kidding! But, again, more seriously, some people are incapable of accepting that other religions exist and, just like with Christianity, we exist on various spectrum. Some of us are uber-religious and wouldn't be caught dead at Chipotle because they mix meat & dairy, while others of us just don't eat the swine.

I notice nobody ever questions a Christian's religiousness just because they're Protestant, versus Catholic. Yet as many of the comments in the post suggest, apparently some people don't understand that Jews have multiple denominations, from liberal Reform & Reconstructionist, to much more religious Conservative & Orthodox, as well as various sects besides.

Welcome to the world where people are unable to grasp complexity! Because, seriously, different denominations for non-Chritian religions do exist, and if you can't even understand that concept, then you're in a lot more trouble than from a conspiratorial possibility that Jews are going to takeover the world.


Yet, I've forgotten another aspect of this entire discussion. Not only was there a problem with religious minorities using social media to instigate change in a companies policies, allowing consumers to make informed decisions -- heaven forbid! -- but there was hardly a mention of the fact that pinto beans cooked in pork as an issue not just for Jews & Muslims, but also for vegetarians and vegans.

Gotta wonder how many of these non-meat-eaters realized upon this occasion that they'd violated their personal diet. Sure, to some it was probably no big deal, but others may have felt very strongly about it.

Again, there seems to be an inability to understand that there are people in this world who are different than you are, and who may actually feel differently about things than you and the small clustfuck of people you talk to.

But I digress, in the end it all comes back to this basic problem. One segment of society is hell-bent on hate-filled, self-destructive insanity, and the rest of us can only shake our heads and either try to stop them, or get out of the way by going somewhere that they can find us.

I hear Iceland is pretty chill.



Cheers


***Bonus***

Images that I couldn't find a place for, but are worth posting:



Okay, now for reals... Cheers

31 footnotes:

Brotha Wolf said...

I see Piggy is at it again. Someone should give that dude a pacifier. Seriously.

Zek J Evets said...

Brotha Wolf,

A pacifier would only increase the childish sense of self-entitlement. But it'd also be funny!

Mira said...

Yes, people like him work against THIER best interest. So if they hate others, do they also hate themselves? What makes a poor, working class person think that rich & powerful are there to protect them?


As for not knowing about complexities in Judaism... Are you kidding me? The rule number one of Othering is "treat all of them as basically the same" (but consider every small diversity in your own group as HUGE and IMPORTANT).

PS- I liked "compassionate conservatism" one. So true. SO TRUE! It wasn't like that in my country, but I am sad to say we're getting there.

Zek J Evets said...

Mira,

And it's not just him, but an entire segment of people, across generations, but particularly noticeable (and therefore lamentable) in my own. They are fundamentally incapable of understanding... anything.

Haha @ Compassionate Conservatism. Hypocritical at best -- self-destructive at worst. They make ideological seppuku like In-N-Out Burger makes julienne french-fries ; )

P.S. The things you share about your country are so depressing sometimes! I almost want to find you a rich celebrity to adopt you!

Or just a creepy old guy who's into three-ways.




Kidding!

G.L.Piggy said...

Where have I asked for an entitlement? I *would* be voting against myself if I thought that I had a moral right to getting higher paychecks and good student loan terms from the government, but I don't. The collective student loan problem is a function of loan terms that were *too easy*.

And you say something about minimum wage workers voting against their financial interests. Excuse me, black people voted for Obama.

Besides all of that, you're running around in circles if you think my post title "White Jew Problems" meant anything other than a superficial joke. I don't rail against Jews. The title was a play on "White People Problems" such as when someone on Facebook complains about their iPhone skitzing out. It's a very unserious problems, much like pork juice in pinto beans at Chipotle. So it seems you missed the joke. Not surprised.

Zek J Evets said...

Chuck,

When you post about getting rid of social welfare programs, affirmative action programs, and other programs like these that help people who have been historically (and currently) disenfranchised because you feel they are unfair to you and you think Black people are too coddled in this country and that they as a group should specifically tip you better (because people in general are all great tippers, right?) and that immigrants shouldn't be entitled to programs that they pay for with taxes from their wages, or that your ideology is criminalized when it really isn't ... yeah that's you being entitled.

Which is funny because if you were entitled in a logical sense -- as opposed to your emotional one -- you'd have voted for Obama too, because he promised to do things for regular people. (Sadly he hasn't lived up to that promise.)

Obviously there is no "moral right" to better pay or better educational loans. But there is a right to the pursuit of happiness enshrined in our nation, and the government used to help its citizens achieve that.

(As for the student loan problem, well, sadly you seem to be missing the larger picture of fraudulent for-profit schools, decline of funding for higher education, and the shrinking job market. Loan terms in and of themselves -- but notably not government loans at state colleges -- are a VERY small part of the problem, and will be fixed as soon as the Bureau of Consumer Protection gets rolling. Provided the GOP doesn't try stick it to the John Q public. Again.)

Your lame excuse that you were "joking" is a pretty pathetic refuge. I'm sorry, but if it's not funny, is it really a joke then? If no one laughs at it but a bunch of racists, then is it really a joke? Or is it just another form of racism? Or in this case, anti-Semitism.

More importantly, if your humor depends on mocking people (as opposed to just the individual from the story) who have historically been marginalized in our nation merely because some of them want to have their beliefs and practices respected then, again, you're not being funny. You're acting like a classic d-bag fratboy.

But I'm not surprised either. It's kinda your shtick these days =/

Brotha Wolf said...

"Besides all of that, you're running around in circles if you think my post title "White Jew Problems" meant anything other than a superficial joke. I don't rail against Jews. The title was a play on "White People Problems" such as when someone on Facebook complains about their iPhone skitzing out."

Piggy, who are you trying to kid? Why couldn't the title be "White Folk's Problems" or "White Dudes' Problems." Putting a Jew in the title and then saying how it was a "joke" is just exposing yourself, yet again, about your anti-Semitism.

"And you say something about minimum wage workers voting against their financial interests. Excuse me, black people voted for Obama."

I don't even know what's the point in making that statement other than the usual racial generalization that flourishes all over your blog.

Zek J Evets said...

Brotha Wolf,

Why couldn't the title be "White Folk's Problems" or "White Dudes' Problems."

Exactly. Or why not just some people's problems? Jews, Whites, and other groups are not alone in having problems with certain foods, and using social media to instigate change that accommodates their practices/preferences.

But for Chuck (and this is classic prejudice) when one, two or even three White people do something like this it's just an isolated incident of someone being picky. Unless those Whites happen to Jewish, in which case it's suddenly something all White Jews do that are ruining our culture.

Gotta shake my head at such heights of ignorance >_<"

foosrock! said...

This whole post brought to mind a comment an expat white American made last year while we were counting down Sylvester (Old Year) at his home. We had all hit the sauce pretty hard, when he out of the blue said: "It's hard for a white male in America". The entire room went silent for a quick minute while we took a sip of the champagne he provided, then we resumed our conversations, relegating him to the typical whiner......

G.L.Piggy said...

Zek, Wolf:

When have I ever used space at my blog to denounce Jews or take part in anti-Semitic discussion? That's a topic I've never once broached.

My favorite stand-up comedian is Louis C.K. He has performed a couple of bits where he talks about "white people problems" or "white girl problems" where he discusses how whites (he uses his young daughters as examples) complain about minor inconveniences and pretend as if they're a big deal.

"White Jews Problems" - while I don't deny that I assumed at least somebody would get their panties wadded (Hi Zek!) - is a play on this. Since the Maxim editor is Jewish and made such a big deal about the beans, I felt the title was perfect for this piece.

So for your arguments here to stick you'd have to show me where I've derogated Jews. Some of my commenters say stuff about Jews, but its a topic I don't take part in. You're being over-sensitive here.

Zek J Evets said...

Chuck,

Just because you're not a Klan member does not mean you are not being anti-Semitic when you say something offensive or degrading to Jewish people -- specifically that someone can be accommodated in order to practice their religion.

And this failure to understand the commonality of prejudice (whether it be a burning cross or feeling that restaurants shouldn't be accommodating to religious minorities) is something which you have done time and again. And that is why Louis C.K. can make jokes like he does and still be funny -- while your blog posts are just offensive.

But, of course, I must be acting over-sensitive! And so must you when Stormfront says Whites shouldn't mix with redheads =P

Anyhoo, while I could comb through your blog and find the requisite evidence, I'll stick to this specific post where you were directly derogatory to Jews. One easy example is where you question the Jewishness of Seth Porges. Can't Jews also exist at various levels of devotion and still have their beliefs respected?

And that's just a taste. But I digress.. if you were capable of understanding you'd have turned from "the dark side" long ago.

Cheers

Zek J Evets said...

Chuck,

Sorry, but calling me a "fucking pansy" isn't a comment. Nor is it even an argument.

But by all means, keep trying to make yourself look more and more ridiculous =P

Brotha Wolf said...

Piggy,

Oh my flippin' goodness. You're just making excuses.

You are in no position to tell others that they are being oversensitive over something you said that was offensive to them. It doesn't matter what you meant to say. What matters is what you offended someone and you try to excuse that. That's why they are angry at you, and that's why you need to own up to it and stop making excuses.

Also, I saw a video of Louis C.K. explaining being white, and it was funny as well as on-point. What YOU'RE doing is just pissing people off for your amusement and the amusement of your drones. All you seem to do is finding faults in everyone who are POC or non-Christians, and when you are caught you deny it while whining.

C'mon, man.

The Dude said...

Zek (aka "The Baby Boy Who Cried Wolf),

What a whiny little boy you are. . . jeez! Cry much while writing this post out?

So let me get this straight: a non-Jew uses the word "Jew" and that makes him a Nazi? I'm not a Jew, but methinks that with people like you, the term "anti-semitism" is soon going to become as meaningless as the terms "sexism" and "racism," at least insofar as rational people are concerned.

Luckily, some of my best friends are Jews, so if you are a Jew, that's okay, because I know for a fact that not all of them are as stupid as you.

If you're not a Jew, I suspect the majority would want you to shut up since you're making them look like a bunch of neurotic pussies.

BTW, when you attempt to find anti-semitism under every rock, you end up devaluing the word.

You're like a false rape accuser in that your behavior actually makes things worse for real victims. Not unlike the story of the boy who cried wolf.

The Dude

Zek J Evets said...

The Dude,

Please point to me where I called anyone a Nazi. I'll wait...
.
.
.
.
.
Anyhoo, while you're pulling your foot from your mouth, and your head from your ass (an impressive display of mental and physical gymnastics) I think I've found the crucial difference in our perspectives.

You think this wasn't anti-Semitic. I do. I am Jewish. Are you Jewish? If you are not, then likely you have no idea what anti-Semitism means since you're not Jewish to have experienced any. If you ARE Jewish then how do you decide what is or isn't anti-Semitic, since as a Jew you know we as a people are not a monolith, but a spectrum like every other group.

By the by, I wonder if your Jewish friends would still want to hang out with you after finding out that you think anti-Semitism is becoming a meaningless term and that someone making anti-Semitic remarks is no big deal. My bet? They'd probably do you like the Maccabees did the Seleucids.

But back to the point. The comments ARE anti-Semitic, and part of a larger pattern which was the main thrust of my post (something you skipped over, I'm guessing, which means you're not a very skilled reader) that many people, a vocal, vitriolic minority are unable to deal with people who are different -- whether it be racially, sexually, religiously, culturally, or whatever.

That said, I'm willing to bet that as a Jew and survivor of acts of anti-Semitism, I know more about anti-Semitism than you probably do.

In summation... Have a nice life, and stop giving Lebowski a bad name by stealing his epic name.

Because they should really be calling you: The Douche.

The Dude said...

Witty response.

Question about this though:

"If you are not [Jewish], then likely you have no idea what anti-Semitism means since you're not Jewish to have experienced any"

So let me get this straight, if you're not a woman, you likely have no idea what sexism toward women is. If you're not black, you likely have no idea what racism towards blacks is.

Really . . . like, no shit, seriously . . . REALLY!

So I guess that you can't comment on issues concerning blacks or women because you're not a black or a woman? But doesn't that mean you can't comment on anything concerning anyone else because, well, you're not anyone else?

Question: have you in your life commented on an issue related to sexism towards women or racism towards blacks? Be honest now.

Another question . . . does this mean you can't comment on G.L. Piggy, because, well, you're not G.L. Piggy and you don't know what's in his mind? I understand you have his blog post, but can you really know, IF YOU'RE NOT HIM? If so, why are you saying/implying/whatever you want to call it that he is an anti-semitic person, the most powerful of which were Nazis?

Note to the ignorant (this is you, Zek, please read carefully, it will serve you well in the future and make you look less like a pussy): I don't have to directly experience something to comment accurately on it or to know what it is about.

For example, I didn't experience World War II, but I would be correct to state that it happened in more than one country and that the death toll was staggering.

Likewise, I don't have to be a Nazi or a Jew to know that the Nazi party was/is anti-semitic.

And so you know, my Jewish friends, who are for the most part libertarians and rational people, would agree with me, of that I'm sure. You would be an embarrasment to them.

And, so you also know, I also prefer dating Semitic women, though Jewish or Arab it doesn't matter . . . I've banged both. And the next time I'm banging one of my Jewish girls, I'll make sure to pump one in for you, then tell them about you, after which we'll be sure to have a good laugh over how silly you are, little boy (the boy who cried wolf!)

Shalom,
The Dude

Zek J Evets said...

The Dude,

Hahahahahaha!!! Oy vey, buddy. So now to make yourself seem cool after the embarrassment of our last exchange you've interspersed your comment with some Hebrew, allusion to "Semitic" women you want us to believe you've had sex with, and a logical fallacy of yours that you've projected onto my argument?

Please. This is school yard level trash talk. Come back when you've got some game to throw at me.

Until then, your comments are gonna be more food for the spam-blocker.

Zek J Evets said...

Unamused,

homophobic slurs and anti-Semitic trash talk aren't really comments. But that's okay, frothing at the mouth is normal for rabid haters ; )

(This counts for your other spam on other topics.)

Zek J Evets said...

Phalluster,

Your link did not work, nor was it comment. Please try again?

After you read this:

http://zekjevets.blogspot.com/2011/02/navigating-zsa.html#more

G.L.Piggy said...

zek,

wasn't it your sense of humor as a people that has sustained you (the Jews)?

if so, what happened to you?

Zek J Evets said...

Chuck,

Oh, what makes you think I'm not indulging my sense of humor right now? Trust me, I've been laughing this whoooooooollllleee time =)

But your lame attempt at culturally baiting doesn't change your own prejudices.

Next!

Aaronovitch said...

White People Problems = hilarious
White Jew Problems = SOUND THE ALARM!!!

Zek J Evets said...

Aaronovitch,

I'm sorry, but don't you have to get back to making sure your girlfriend doesn't attempt to flirt with her ex-boyfriends behind your back? Or have you gotten tired of arguing with Obsidian? ; )

Zek J Evets said...

Aaron,

Nice try. But please, make a comment about the post itself. Maybe it'll even be worth publishing?

Maybe.

Zek J Evets said...

All,

So far most of the trolls here have been unable to make a concise, coherent, and otherwise legitimate comment on the post. What a shame.

I moderate comments because of this very reason -- people posting slurs, epithets, and generally derailing discussion or attempting to influence the content of my blog.

You may whine about "censorship" and "free speech" and complain back in your hidey-holes all you like. (While you're there, may I suggest you look up the definitions of censorship and free speech, and see I'm not infringing anything.) In the meantime, if you have a real comment, please post it.

All others will receive The Hebrew Hammer of Moderation =)

G.L.Piggy said...

It's become pretty clear that you are hypersensitive and hold a double standard pertaining to jokes about Jewish people. You can't take a joke, noted.

On a more substantive point, I quibble with this:

"Unfortunately, some people apparently cannot handle the thought that companies should be accountable to their customers. Well, if they want our money then it makes sense for them to "bend over and grab their ankles", because otherwise people will find somewhere else to go for a burrito."

You toss the word "should" around so cavalierly. Nobody should do anything here; Chipotle has no duty to anyone. If they want to please customers to gain more profit, then they *should* do so. But they have no motive other than their own profit motive.

So basically, Porges' appeal to Chipotle did not match their duty to the only thing they have duty towards: their profit motive. Porges has every right to say that he felt misled about the pork in the beans (btw,it's pretty common for pinto beans to be cooked this way; Porges was ignorant; should Chipotle compensate all of their customers' ignorance?), but he has no grounds to say that Chipotle's bean policy is "unacceptable". To him, maybe, but not objectively unacceptable.

That was the thrust of my entire post and pretty much all that I wrote about there, but you focused on one little part of fit - namely the part where I used the word "Jew".

Zek J Evets said...

Chuck,

Well, apparently you missed that we're using "should" in the same way. Not surprising.

Companies should be accountabe to their customers (the unspoken is that if not they'll lose profits, business) and yet apparently you felt they shouldn't really because these customers constitute a minority of all their customers and that they should just deal with it however they may.

Such thinking is typical of basic prejudice whereby minority groups agitate for greater equality (including protection and accommodation of their beliefs) and are summarily dismissed because it would inconvenience others to do so.

How it is inconvenient to all other Chipotle customers to make a sign letting people know they cook pinto beans with pork is beyond me. Especially since so many of their customers are vegetarians, vegans, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and other groups who abstain from the swine.

As for whether something is "objectively unacceptable"... I notice you set it up as if things can be objectively unacceptable. I agree on this, but you seem to have warped our culture's mutually agreed upon ideas of unacceptable until they scarcely resemble anything close to ethical morality. Specifically, that people shouldn't be offended when you say something offensive because you're not *really* being offensive, they're just being too sensitive/can't take a joke/whatever.

Hiding behind humor IS a great tactic, if only you were funny, not attempting to use humor to justify ignorant prejudice, and could understand why most people (including Louis C.K. apparently) wouldn't find your brand of humor to be hilarious. But I digress.

It's only now that you come to the main point of my post: that a vocal minority of Americans cannot understand, or even accept people who aren't exactly like them. Others are not merely intolerable, they are something to begrudge, to ignore, and then finally to diminish until it seems there's nobody in America except WASPs (and the occassional redhead, I suppose, if your ideological brethren don't eliminate you simultaneously too).

So in the end, instead of getting into the "meat" of my post, YOU decided to focus on the small part about your minor act of anti-Semitism. You got butthurt at being called out on a small piece of prejudice, and completely missed the larger argument at hand.

Again, I'm not surprised.

But I will say this: at least you're consistent ; )

G.L.Piggy said...

“Well, apparently you missed that we're using "should" in the same way. Not surprising.”

You wrote that companies “should be accountable” to their customers. No. They shouldn’t. They’re not accountable to customers; they are accountable to their bottom line or whatever other ends *they* want to achieve. Chipotle could stop serving all types of meat to accommodate other patrons with more extreme food limitations (one guy that dines regularly at my restaurant asks me to have the kitchen wash their utensils before they prepare his food; fat chance). But would that be in Chipotle’s best interest? No. So the company gets to decide how they want to prepare their food and how they want to offer it.
The problem here is that Porges felt that Chipotle owed him this, and he acted as if Chipotle abrogated their duty to him. Again, he used the words “unacceptable” and, IIRC, “outrage” (or some similar word) to describe their use of pork. Porges has every right to bring the confusion to Chipotle’s attention, but his choice of presenting his argument was poorly formed.

“Such thinking is typical of basic prejudice whereby minority groups agitate for greater equality (including protection and accommodation of their beliefs) and are summarily dismissed because it would inconvenience others to do so.”

You are ridiculous. I don’t give a whit about exercising prejudice against minorities. I’m discussing whether one person has the right to agitate for a company to change based upon an argument that the company has some duty to change to accommodate that particular customer. If (hypothetically) Chipotle doesn’t want to change their signs or their bean recipe, then that is their prerogative. It has nothing to do with dismissing minority wants; it’s about weighing a multitude of tastes, preferences, and limitations within a certain budget constraint to maximize profitability. Which is why kosher delis and such thrive in areas with more Jewish people. They are profitable.

“How it is inconvenient to all other Chipotle customers to make a sign letting people know they cook pinto beans with pork is beyond me. Especially since so many of their customers are vegetarians, vegans, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and other groups who abstain from the swine.”

I never made the argument that it was a net inconvenience. I’m making the argument that Porges went about it the wrong way and misunderstood the obligations and duties of Chipotle and other restaurants. If making new signs to accommodate a minority of their customers would help improve their revenues and profits, then the company should probably do that. If it doesn’t help their profits (or even hurts them; though, it probably wouldn’t in this case) then the company would do so only out of their own kindness.

Also, as far as I understand, Chipotle informs patrons who order otherwise vegetarian dishes that the pinto beans are prepared with pork.

G.L.Piggy said...

“As for whether something is "objectively unacceptable"... I notice you set it up as if things can be objectively unacceptable. I agree on this, but you seem to have warped our culture's mutually agreed upon ideas of unacceptable until they scarcely resemble anything close to ethical morality. Specifically, that people shouldn't be offended when you say something offensive because you're not *really* being offensive, they're just being too sensitive/can't take a joke/whatever.”

Being offended is a subjective thing, is it not? What I’ve said to you in comments here is that my “white Jew” headline is relatively non-offensive. Out of all offensive things that could be said about Jews or anyone else, my headline was benign. It registers at around the same level as an off-color blonde joke. Of course, if the listener were easily-offended, then this all changes. So, subjective.

“Hiding behind humor IS a great tactic, if only you were funny, not attempting to use humor to justify ignorant prejudice, and could understand why most people (including Louis C.K. apparently) wouldn't find your brand of humor to be hilarious. But I digress.”

This would affect me if I had any previous respect for your sense of humor. Since I don’t, me caring what you say on this matter would be like Einstein giving a fuck about what some dumb girl thought about his Theory of Relativity.

“It's only now that you come to the main point of my post: that a vocal minority of Americans cannot understand, or even accept people who aren't exactly like them. Others are not merely intolerable, they are something to begrudge, to ignore, and then finally to diminish until it seems there's nobody in America except WASPs (and the occassional redhead, I suppose, if your ideological brethren don't eliminate you simultaneously too).”

My girlfriend is a vegetarian; I am fully aware of how to deal with people who aren’t like me – especially as it pertains to the meat thing. I don’t begrudge Porges his choice not to eat meat; I begrudge his idea that Chipotle has an obligation to bend to his whim. But you’d like to read something different into my post.

“So in the end, instead of getting into the "meat" of my post, YOU decided to focus on the small part about your minor act of anti-Semitism. You got butthurt at being called out on a small piece of prejudice, and completely missed the larger argument at hand.”

Zek, the title of your post was “Till Hate Indistinguishable from Insanity”. Most of the post was spent taking me to task for my bigotry and racism. So, yes, I was responding to your post which only responded to a minute snippet of mine.

Zek J Evets said...

Chuck,

Well, I can see we're going to get long-winded here... I 'spose I better just respond in full and then move on (mostly because I can already tell from past conversations that further discussion will be fruitless, however I'd like to take a moment -- or two -- for the benefit of my audience).

1. "They’re not accountable to customers ... would that be in Chipotle’s best interest?"

Apparently we have VERY different ideas of what constitutes "customer service". It's actually amazing you're still a waiter from that attitude. (Or maybe not?)

A company IS accountable to their customers, which is why corporations obey the law, and suffer the consequences when they break it, and hurt people. I'm thinking specifically of PG&E toxins that gave people cancer, from former employees to residents to customers.

It may seem that it is in Chipotle's best interests to ignore their customers and merely scrap for the "bottom line", but apparently their CEO thinks otherwise judging from his quick response and quick solution.

Apparently some companies feel that *trying* to be accountable to their customers is Good Business since it ensures future business, and more importantly is consistent with the laws of our nation.

But if you feel that money-grubbing is better than running a good business... by all means, keep hating!

2. "You are ridiculous. I don’t give a whit about exercising prejudice against minorities."

Haha! Of course you don't. That's only why you do it, blog it, and preach it ALL THE TIME. From HBD to BBB, you're a mess of prejudice buddy. And the sad thing? You think you're actually a nice person =/

3. "I’m making the argument that Porges went about it the wrong way and misunderstood the obligations and duties of Chipotle and other restaurants."

How did he go about it the wrong way? Because it was successful? Because you feel restaurants shouldn't accommodate their customers? Because you feel it's smarter to only try to please some people, rather than as many as you can in a business based around getting as many people as you can to buy your product?

This is why even with a college degree you're still a dumbass. That's a HORRIBLE business model.

But whether you're of the opinion that Porges went about it wrong, or that Chipotle has no obligations to its customers, in the end Porges was successful in changing Chipotle's service to be more accommodating in a way that utilized new methods of power for people to use. Furthermore, Chipotle upped their popularity by taking swift, decisive action to a customer complaint in a very public way that will help ensure their market-share goes up. And finally, everyone involved feels better instead of bitter.

Oh, except you.

Zek J Evets said...

4. Being offended IS a subjective thing in that different levels of offense cause different reactions in different people. However, prejudice is not subjective. When you negatively characterize entire groups of historically oppressed people based on isolated instances of behavior... you are engaging in prejudice.

Or, to put it more simply, when you're getting pissed at a Jewish person for being kosher you are officially being anti-Semitic.

My advice? Stop doing it. And then get over being called out on it, because people do this shit every day and somehow manage to not turn into a Dementor.

However, you are pretty close to Emperor Palpatine-level evil when you get a-rolling with the scientific-racism.

5. "This would affect me if I had any previous respect for your sense of humor."

Chuck, I'm pretty sure you don't have any respect for a lot of things.

But the irony is, nobody worth knowing has any respect for you. Proud-to-be Racists are generally despised in our culture.

6. "My girlfriend is a vegetarian; I am fully aware of how to deal with people who aren’t like me..."

No, you don't. Not based on your writing, self-professed ideology, and general attempts to mock people who aren't racists, misogynists, reactionary conservatives, and into combing the internet for videos of Black people fighting.

You're used to dealing with a very small world, which is why you've retreated further and further into the internet, presenting a facade of yourself to the real world. Again, these are things you've admitted and posted. Just accept it and maybe try to be a better person?

Or don't. And keep on hating.

7. I'm glad you were able to correctly read the title of my post. But I'm afraid you are unable to distinguish a the informal You, from the personal you.

My post was about a group of people -- you included! but not you only -- and naturally builds upon my encounters with your corner of the blogosphere. You were a mere stepping stone in a much larger issue. Dare I say, a snippet of thread in a blanket of bigotry that I was discussing.

And now I would like to bring this sad exchange to an end. I appreciate your attempts at commenting, but you seemed to miss the point on a great many things, making conversing any further an even more depressing waste of time.

I hope someday you have cause to seriously re-examine your life. Because you really need it.

But I have a feeling that you won't.

Either way, good luck with your prejudices, because the world is only going to get more diverse as time goes by.

Cheers! =)