Invoking Hate While Pleading Tolerance

First of all, I hope that everyone had a wonderful World Goth Day on the 22^nd. 

          I wanted to continue my thoughts on morality and bullying, but change it slightly, so I have decided to talk of Sophie Lancaster as well as hate and tolerance in general.

          I am sure many Goths are very familiar with the name of Sophie Lancaster and her story, so I am not going to go into the greatest details on it. The basics are that Sophie and her boyfriend, Robert, were walking in a public park, were seen by a small group of teenage boys and attacked for their attire, which was Goth in nature. First they attacked Robert, and Sophie, pleading for his life, was attacked next. Her boyfriend lived, but she did not. As far as I know, those involved still see nothing wrong with what they did and felt it justified because they were Goths.

         What is it about those who are different that instills so much hate in people? Why are people so quick to be negative and harsh and cruel, but hesitate to be kind and stand up in a respectful manner for what they believe in?

         Sophie and Robert did nothing to elicit any sort of crime against them and no one deserves that sort of treatment regardless. But people are quick to judge, quick to slander, quick to hurt. People often forget that we are all human.

         I have always found it sad that media and others tend to portray Goth in such a negative fashion. More often than not, people have an image of what Goth is that is not true and this image invokes hate which can lead to horrible actions and deadly consequences. At this same time, I have found that Goths tend to be passive and tolerant, accepting of others and their lifestyles and beliefs. Not at all as we are portrayed by so many venues.

         Then we have the very few that are role models in the media. Take for instance Abby from NCIS. She is a good Goth role model. However, though I love Abby’s character, she is used more often than not as a ‘kinky’ sex symbol.I don't exactly see this as a good thing. Not all Goths are sexy, and not all Goths are kinky in bed. Goth is a music subculture, not a BDSM, satanic orgy what consists of vampirism and loose morals. (not that there is anything wrong with BDSM, Satanism, orgies, or vampirism if that is what you like!)

         What I find most depressing about the violence against Sophie and Robert (other than Sophie’s death) is that Sophie pleaded to be left alone. Even in such a perilous situation, she was pleading tolerance. And they had not listened, they had not cared.

         Hate is a terrible thing. It can eat the soul, destroy your humanity. It can make you angry and lash out at others. Hate is not healthy and one should always be mindful of the hate they carry and try to understand why they carry it, and if possible rid yourself of it.

          No one deserves to die for being different. No one deserves hate. And no one deserves to be treated uncivilly. I think we, as people, have largely forgotten what to do with humanity. All the fighting, all the senseless deaths and intolerance. Sophie should never have had to die .she should not have been a martyr for the Goth subculture. No one should.

          I often think that people are so quick to hurt others and cause negativity because it is easier than standing up for yourself and being kind. But then, as mentioned in my last post, I also think there is a bloodthirsty part of us that people simply long for and it shows every now and then in our actions towards others and towards ourselves.

          Let’s stop the hate, people. Because another instance like Sophie Lancaster and Robert Maltby should never happen. Sophie’s mother started the S.O.P.H.I.E Foundation in honor of her daughter. It S.O.P.H.I.E stands for “Stomp Out Prejudice, Hatred, and Intolerance Everywhere.” I hope we can someday do just that. 

Let Us Stomp Out Violence Everywhere

(In Gothic Memory Of Sophie Lancaster)

Oh, let us stomp out violence everywhere

May its hatred and pain forever cease

Let us stomp out violence everywhere

So our souls can rest in peace

They vowed to be together forever

But forever came to soon

As hand in hand they walked in the park

In the light of a midnight moon

The teenagers seen them coming

They laughed at them and jeered

They did not care that they were people

As they looked and hated and sneered

Oh, let us stomp out violence everywhere

May its hatred and pain forever cease

Let us stomp out violence everywhere

So our souls can rest in peace

Time seemed to stop its ticking

As the group lead them into hell

Unconscious the boyfriend then laid

And to his side the girlfriend fell

She pleaded for his life

His bleeding head within her hands

But instead of letting it rest

They ignored her suffering demands

Oh, let us stomp out violence everywhere

May its hatred and pain forever cease

Let us stomp out violence everywhere

So our souls can rest in peace

They focused then on her

They beat and kicked her head

Only when the damage had been done

Did they leave them to their bloody bed

The couple was rushed to the hospital

But the help for one came too late

Though the boyfriend would live

She had met her fate

Oh, let us stomp out violence everywhere

May its hatred and pain forever cease

Let us stomp out violence everywhere

So our souls can rest in peace

She was a stunning beauty

Her life but a moment in time

A life full of potential ended

By such a foolish crime

Let us Stomp Out Prejudice

Hate and Intolerance Everywhere

Let the violence end with us

And show others how to care.

Oh, let us stomp out violence everywhere

May is hatred and pain forever cease

Let us stomp out violence everywhere

So our souls can rest in peace

-Midi

December 2009

Relative Morality

      This post is dedicated to ALL who have been victimized.


         I have long believed that everything in life is relative, that is to say that what is true and acceptable for me, may not be so for someone else. I feel that this relativism ‘law’ applies to all things, however absurd a view that may be. I am entitled to that view; just as someone else is entitled to refute it. After all, what is an opinion if not blind faith in one’s own intelligence, however right or wrong?

        When speaking of polar opposites, such as right and wrong, one may- or even should-ask if such extremes should even exist.  After all, if everything is relative, and nothing is wholly one way or the other, then surely there can be no extremes. Everything is a grey area. In my mind, not even a purely altruistic person exists, nor do I believe no one person ever alive – now, in the past, or in the future, could ever be fully immoral in every regard. Every ‘evil’ person has good moments, pure moments, and every ‘saint’ has a tendency to want to ‘sin’. In my mind, this is human nature. We cannot be only one way all the time- the human race is too dynamic to stay so unfailingly constant in personality.

         If this be the case- where does morality fit in, why should we be moral creatures, and what exactly does morality mean? Questions like this could puzzle a person if one thinks on it long enough, because, as stated above- these answers vary from person to person…or does it- does it really?

         I am not sure how many of you, my dear readers, are familiar with Emile Durkheim or his work. I am utterly enthralled by him. Emile Durkheim was a sociologist (the father of sociology, actually), and a profoundly intelligent man. He wrote on topics such as suicide, religion, crime, and morality.

        Durkheim believed that people consist of two warring halves. The individual self and the social self. We must give some of our individuality to progress, attend to, and be a part of, the societies we create. 

According to Durkheim  

“The painful character of the dualism of human nature is explained by this hypothesis. There is no doubt that if society were only the natural and spontaneous development of the individual, these two parts of ourselves would harmonize….In fact, however, society has its own nature….Therefore, society cannot be formed or maintained without our being required to make perpetual and costly sacrifices. Because society surpasses us, it obliges us to surpass ourselves, and to surpass itself, a being must, to some degree, depart from its nature—a departure that does not take place without causing more or less painful tensions…” (Elementary Forms [1914] 1973, p. 163).

         In this way, we think, on a basic level, as a whole, or what he calls the collective consciousness. It is not so unlike the Borg from the Star Trek series when you stop to think about it, or a worldwide computer. We are individuals functioning and existing together, creating our moral codes on a whole, cultural scale that can, for the most part, appease everyone and brings us all together for a common goal- social harmony and the idea of justice, regardless of individual opinion. The societal dictates outweigh the dictates of one and to appease the society we must abide by the moral laws therein. 

        Through this process of conforming, while at the same time constructing social morality, one must realize that though morality in and of itself is subjective on an individual level- on a cultural level, basic morality holds true for most people and therefore people within a given society are prone to the same moral ideas, for better or worse. So what exactly is morality? I like to think of morality in the same context that Durkheim defines crime:

“An act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective consciousness. In other words, we must not say that an action shocks the common consciousness because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common consciousness. We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it” (Durkheim, [1893] 1933: 80-81).

        If you replace ‘(a) crime’ with immoral, then you have my definition of what exactly morality means to me. When something offends, it therefore has the potential status of ‘immoral’ behavior.


        Now, in one’s life (be it only once or many times over) a person will come into contact with a person or people who takes delight in being offensive in such an intellectual manner as to seem logical, while at the same time proving his or herself to be utterly devoid of all common dignity, decency and morality. Is the person(s) who behave in such a manner sociopathic, trolling the internet; cyber-bullying or bullies other people in general? Should we even care?

        We shouldn't care about the cruel ideas of others, but the sad fact is most people do. The likely answer is that we care because it shocks. People flock to negativity and disgraceful gossip and opinions just as the Romans flocked to the coliseum to watch people and animals be tortured and killed, and why even today when some trauma happens be it physical or emotional, people are apt to witness, rather than act and make the situation better. It’s the shock, the understanding that it is exciting in its misery and it gives us a glimpse of the bloodthirsty part of us that we tamed long ago, but still has a tendency to rear its ugly head when the smell of blood is fresh and near.

         However ‘intoxicating’ such behavior might be (either for perverse pleasure, pride, offense, or what-have-you,) the behavior displayed by the creator(s) of the vulgarity is committing social immorality. Why do I make such an extreme suggestion that the person(s) who seek out others to hurt for spite are socially immoral- because it is a cultural recognition, both in America and abroad, that bullying is wrong, can be considered a crime, and for many- is considered an immoral act against other individuals.

         Such vocal vulgarity against others is tolerated because of free speech, which I defend, even when I feel it best a person not speak at all for the sake of both self-respect and the pain the person(s) inflicts knowingly on others (such as Westboro Baptist Church and Terry Jones from Gainesville Florida). But, with that said, exactly how far can one take free speech? When does free speech turn into hate speech and when does hate speech become a crime? Now, in England, there are laws in place for hate speech, but the defining of these laws are lines I do not know personally. I also know that there are laws, again both in America and abroad, in regards to bullying. I also know that Florida- the state I live in- is one the states that have laws against cyber-bullying. I also believe that the modern day laws need to catch up to modern day problems. The bullying can go across countries, the hate speech can be vile, and the laws are not enough for the socially immoral person(s).

          Please note that I said socially immoral (and even social morality is subject to change with each generation, taking for instance slavery, racial intolerance and the present day civil debate on marriage equality). I do not believe that any person can be utterly despicable in every regard, because, though I believe that people such as this takes pleasure in being a menace to other people (either online, in person, or both) I also do not believe the person(s) responsible to be wholly immoral, evil, or what-have-you. Again, as said in the beginning, I do not believe such singularity exists in the human nature. We all have moments of goodness, just as well all have moments of maliciousness. 

         But the doings of people who seem to do everything possible to make the lives of other people utterly miserable, begs the question:  why do people prey on others, especially over the internet where such attempts seems so cowardly and contemptuous since the person(s) can hide behind their screen and never have to face in person the ones that they slander?

According to Durkheim:

“The totality of moral regulations really forms about each person an imaginary wall, at the foot of which a multitude of human passions simply die without being able to go further. For the same reason—that they are contained—it becomes possible to satisfy them. But if at any point this barrier weakens, human forces—until now restrained—pour tumultuously through the open breach; once loosed, they find no limits where they can or must stop. Unfortunately, they can only devote themselves to the pursuit of an end that always eludes them” (Moral Education, p. 42). 

“The notion of the infinite, then, appears only at those times when moral discipline has lost its ascendancy over man’s will. It is the sign of attrition that emerges during periods when the moral system, prevailing for several centuries, is shaken, failing to respond to new conditions of human life, and without any new system yet contrived to replace that which has disappeared” (Moral Education: [1925] 1961, p. 43).

“Whenever moral rules lack the necessary authority to exert, to a desirable degree, a regulatory influence on their behavior, we see society gripped by a dejection and pessimism reflected in the curve of suicides (Moral Education: [1925] 1961, p. 68)

“During periods when society is disorganized and, as a result of its decadence has less power to exact the commitment of individual wills, and when, consequently, egoism has freer reign—these are calamitous times. The cult of the self and the notion of the infinite go together” (Moral Education, p. 72).

           Perhaps the ego or morality compass has gone astray in people such as this. Maybe the person(s) have a lack of compassion and empathy. Maybe the person(s) needs an ego check and needs barriers desperately. Maybe the person(s) are simply cowardly if hiding behind a computer screen to fill whatever voids, physical constraints, or emotional deprivations that he or she is enduring or has endured. 
           Bullying brings the person(s) empowerment, just as a raping gives the rapist the euphoria of control. So long as the person is given credence, is gaining attention, and getting his or her high through such means of intellectual degradation, it will never cease and the person(s), like the gladiators of old, will have the moment of glory, however vicious.  But never forget, for all who are victimized by those who cause harm that even a gladiator can fall given the proper methods of extinction (such as ignoring, kindness, understanding, getting law enforcement involved, etc…).

         So, even though morality is relative, we are still humans and share common ideas in the barest, most basic of ideologies. Therefore, things such as respect, manners, and proper etiquette will always be something I value, not only in myself, but in others. Those who have little to no social or public morality are not worth my concern.  Morality, though relative, is needed for civil human discourse and daily ‘public’ functioning within a culture. We all have our predispositions to do harm, but we also have predispositions to rise above it. It is called cognitive ability and the evolutionary trait of being able to think critically, subjectively, and socially. It is such a pity when the person(s) behind the neurons and synapses uses the connections within the brain to hinder rather than encourage in productive ways.

       If you have been victimized by those who would do you harm, never let them rule your life- your decisions. Get help. Learn your laws. Please, do not ever let anyone break your spirit.

         I leave you now with a song by Wendy Rule. Enjoy.