Posted on

White Privilege ,Civility and the “Victimhood Culture” in Bergen County

village council meeting

file photo Village Council Meeting by Boyd Loving

October 23,2017

the staff of the Ridewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, In the paper , “The Rise of Victimhood Culture.” by Conor Friedersdorf  , Friedersdorf explains, Americans previously settled conflicts within the frameworks of the “honor” and “dignity” cultures:

“In honor cultures like the Old West or the street gangs of West Side Story, they might engage in a duel or physical fight. In dignity cultures, like the ones that prevailed in Western countries during the 19th and 20th Centuries, ‘insults might provoke offense, but they no longer have the same importance as a way of establishing or destroying a reputation for bravery,’ they write. ‘When intolerable conflicts do arise, dignity cultures prescribe direct but non-violent actions.’”

But now, we have the victimhood culture. Quoting Campbell and Manning, Friedersdorf explains this as

“characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.

Victimhood cultures emerge in settings, like today’s college campuses, “that increasingly lack the intimacy and cultural homogeneity that once characterized towns and suburbs, but in which organized authority and public opinion remain as powerful sanctions,” they argue. “Under such conditions complaint to third parties has supplanted both toleration and negotiation. People increasingly demand help from others, and advertise their oppression as evidence that they deserve respect and assistance. Thus we might call this moral culture a culture of victimhood … the moral status of the victim, at its nadir in honor cultures, has risen to new heights.”

According to the paper, the following social conditions allow the victimhood culture to get a foothold:

Self-help in the form of dueling or fighting is not an option.

“The availability of social superiors—especially hierarchical superiors such as legal or private administrators—is conducive to reliance on third parties.”

Campaigns aimed at winning over the support of third parties are likeliest to occur in atomized environments, like college campuses, where one cannot rely on members of a family, tribe or clan to automatically take one’s side in a dispute.

Since third-parties are likeliest to intervene in disputes that they regard as relatively serious, and disputes where one group is perceived as dominating another are considered serious by virtue of their aggregate relevance to millions of people, victimhood culture is likeliest to arise in settings where there is some diversity and inequality, but whose members are almost equal, since “a morality that privileges equality and condemns oppression is most likely to arise precisely in settings that already have relatively high degrees of equality.”

In simple terms the members of the victimhood culture operate within a relatively privileged and sheltered environment and try to solve conflicts in a childish fashion by tattling to authority figures so that they may gloat over their perceived aggressors.

Posted on

Civility Forum Tonight 730pm

Yevgeny_Onegin_by_Repin

Civility Forum – June 1 at 7:30PM

The next Civility Forum will be held at 7:30pm in the Senior Lounge at Village Hall.

Rev. Jan Phillips will lead the discussion. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Dueling Rules

In 1777, a committee of Irishmen drew up the dueling code that would come to be used widely throughout Europe and America. The 1777 Irish code was called the Code Duello, and you can read the complete set of rules at PBS.org: Code Duello. This code was so popular that people worldwide came to see it as the “official” rules of dueling. In fact, the U.S. Navy included the text of the Code Duello in the midshipman’s handbook up until dueling by naval officers was finally banned in 1862 (Holland, pg. 142).

Highlights of the rules include the steps of an apology, might call off the duel; proper dueling etiquette in terms of dignified behavior; the role of seconds; and what constitutes the end of a duel.

Apologies

An apology on the part of the challenged could avert a bloody duel if delivered properly. Keep in mind that most duels were carried out when one man offended another’s honor. As such, the proper apology would logically help solve the problem, even once the duel had already begun. The Code Duello dictates a complex method of deciding who should apologize first:

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

The rules also dictate when an apology can be accepted, thus preventing the duel, and when no verbal apology will be sufficient:

Rule 5: As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore — the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane …

Dueling Etiquette

A duel is not a brawl. It is a controlled battle between gentlemen of honor. As such, a certain level of dignity was expected of all participants. Rule 13 is one that describes dignified dueling behavior. It is also one that was frequently broken, since many duelists did not really want to die, kill or maim. They only wanted to defend their honor. Rule 13 states:

No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children’s play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Since the holding of the duel itself would usually be enough to satisfy honor, duelists might use dummy bullets, or declare ahead of time that they would fire their weapon into the air or at a non-vital area of their opponent’s body. The Code Duello frowned on this.

The Code also encourages duelists to sleep on their wounded pride and then duel with a calm demeanor the next day: Rule 15 states:

Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Seconds

The role of the seconds is spelled out in several rules. (Note Rule 18’s reference to smooth-bored guns as opposed to rifled weapons.)

Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.
Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

The Code Duello acknowledges that the seconds might get involved in the fight themselves, as mentioned in the previous section. The Code is highly specific as to how this involvement might occur:

Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals.

When a Duel is Over

Dueling “to the death” is not considered desirable in the Code Duello, although this may have been the ultimate end to many duels. Remember: Dueling is about recovering honor, not about killing. Rule 5 states:

… If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

Rule 22 addresses the issue as well:

Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

Perhaps one of the most important rules of dueling does not involve the mechanics of the duel itself, but rather who is allowed to duel. In medieval Europe, dueling was the sport of noble-born men. Although commoners did fight and certainly did face each other in contests that could be called duels, an actual, honor-bound duel had to be conducted between two men of noble rank. One reason for this was economic — swords are expensive weapons, and not every peasant had one. But it was also a means of distinguishing the upper and lower classes. Many countries had laws forbidding commoners to fight amongst themselves, while dukes, princes and even kings were expected to duel each other.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/duel2.htm

Posted on

Civility Forum – May 11th at 7:30PM

dueling-swords

Rev. Jan Phillips will lead the discussion. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Ridgewood NJ, at the last meeting  there was a consensus to continue the series of forums that are exploring civility. Additionally, we agreed to further discuss rules, regulations and guidelines for community sports.

Several participants have asked to discuss the recent Mahwah Council Meeting. The forum will discuss the impact of anger, frustration and behavior.

We have access to the Senior Center located within the Ridgewood Municipal Building,Monday May 11, 2015, 7:30 P.M. – 9:00 P.M.

Posted on

Readers feel the Mission of the “Civility Forums” is nothing more than Censorship and Control political speech of Village residents.

unnamed-6

unnamed-6

Readers feel the Mission of the “Civility Forums” is nothing more than Censorship and Control political speech of Village residents.

I have not been able to attend the the so-called Civility Forums initiated by Paul Aronsohn of Ridgewood. I am sure that most of us would like to have the volume lowered in public discourse. The irony is that much of the high volume public discourse is perpetrated by politicians, pundits, and the print and electronic news media. I agree with the blogger that it is elitist that elected officials, a lobbyist, and a newspaper publisher would use their position and power to imply that anonymous bloggers are in someway destructive to the democratic process. I should not have to remind the participants that history is riddled with people in power who have sought to control and re-write the public narrative to their satisfaction. Mr. Tedesco and Paul Aronsohn should read Robert’s Rules of Order to maintain orderly public meetings. Public opinion, free speech, and dissent are the domaine of all the people including those who choose to remain anonymous.

“Ed Koch  once said ,”If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist.”

But not according to Stephen Borg, Publisher and President, North Jersey Media Group, who insisted that the whole problem is that since people have found their voice through social media they have come to so many different opinions civil discourse has fallen .Things were so much better when North Jersey Media had a monopoly on public discussion and could always dictate terms .  Borg implied that elites like himself we the only ones qualified to make those decisions. Borg pointed out how this blog and its anonymous posters are the greatest enemy to not only American Democracy  but to the dominance of North Jersey Media Group. While I was rather flattered that the Publisher and President, North Jersey Media Group thought this blog shook the very foundations of civil discourse  and was viewed as the barbarians at the gate , I would suggest the far larger problem might be the totally bias, and slip shot reporting  of his Media Empire. Borg set the tone for the evening which came down silencing critics and reasserting the elitist “we know better  than you ” , so time to be quite .https://theridgewoodblog.net/civility-forum-moves-forward-to-squelch-public-dissent/

Yes, it does sound as if some Gruber-like sentiments about the general public were expressed at the most recent event of Mr. Aronsohn’s series of discussions designed to lay the groundwork for the Obama administration’s plans for naked and direct government censorship of the political speech of individual citizens.

The general public, as a whole, has and regularly displays, far more integrity than do, as a whole, the self-appointed elites in this country. That’s why the following sentiment has always rung so true:

“I would sooner be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand members of the faculty of Harvard.”― William F. Buckley Jr., Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist

Hillary Clinton, pining for Aronsohn-style “civil discourse”…as if! Sounds suspiciously like Borg with her complaint about non-standard media sources.

Hillary Clinton Blames ‘Different Media’ For Dividing Country by Charlie Spiering/Breitbart , the Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained that “different media” are dividing the country, making it impossible for people to even have a conversation with each other.”

Chemistry.com

Esurance

Posted on

Civility forum moves forward to squelch public dissent

civility
unnamed
Civility forum moves forward to squelch public dissent 
February 25,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

 Ed Koch  once said ,”If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist.”

But not according to Stephen Borg, Publisher and President, North Jersey Media Group, who insisted that the whole problem is that since people have found their voice through social media they have come to so many different opinions civil discourse has fallen .Things were so much better when North Jersey Media had a monopoly on public discussion and could always dictate terms .  Borg implied that elites like himself we the only ones qualified to make those decisions. Borg pointed out how this blog and its anonymous posters are the greatest enemy to not only American Democracy  but to the dominance of North Jersey Media Group. While I was rather flattered that the Publisher and President, North Jersey Media Group thought this blog shook the very foundations of civil discourse  and was viewed as the barbarians at the gate , I would suggest the far larger problem might be the totally bias, and slip shot reporting  of his Media Empire. Borg set the tone for the evening which came down silencing critics and reasserting the elitist “we know better  than you ” , so time to be quite .
unnamed-6
So the Mayor hosted his panel discussion on Civility in Public Discourse at Ridgewood Public Library on Tuesday . Panelists included Lynne Algrant, Councilwoman, Englewood Stephen Borg, Publisher / President, North Jersey Media Group Jacqueline Luthcke, Captain, Ridgewood Police Department Robert Sommer, Public Affairs Executive / Jersey City Official and the headliner James Tedesco, Bergen County Executive . The facilitator David Fine, Rabbi, Temple Israel and yes it did appear to be a Democrat love fest.The Councilwoman went a bit off script and focused on the idea that public servants have to set the standards an idea we can fully agree with , next came Mr Borg with a rousing  to the point ;its all about anonymous bloggers , the Ridgewood Police Captain gave a bit of confused speech about dealing with the public yet managing to stay on script and you guessed blame those mean and uncooperative anonymous bloggers ,to me she was most disappointing , because as a Police officer dealing with the public in often less than optimal settings her input on those situations would have been most instructive.  Robert Sommer from Jersey City , basically stuck to the script but added it was ok him to exaggerate the consequences of decisions , but its not ok for you , yes he said that .
All four also hit on “respect” and  “the benefit of the doubt” , humm the benefit of the doubt , well that lost me with the Village Hall renovation fiasco, $500, 000 golden toilets , turf fields in flood zones  and my personal favorite “Quartergate ” . As for respect  , respect has to be earned , and also given so thats simple . The headliner James Tedesco, Bergen County Executive spoke well touched on some of what the others said and surprise no comments on anonymous bloggers . Perhaps he came for a meet and greet or perhaps those same anonymous bloggers, supported his police merger plan long before he knew he had it.  In any case politics aside he made a good impression , and was clearly not the fabled Paramus hot head of yesteryear, speaking on how personal tragedy had giving him a softer world view.

show?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=355335
Microsoft Store
Hotwire US
Coffee.clubshow?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=363195