Published on 12, July, 2020
Why do so many people have a sense of entitlement?
I was discussing this with a friend at the weekend and we couldn't really get to the bottom of it, other than perhaps it's just been a slow erosion of society and work ethic.
They don't work, but are entitled to (net) taxpayers money, so they can have things that taxpayers can't afford, to live in areas that those taxpayers can't afford, to have holidays, to not work a job they don't want to, to be entitled to an easy and well paid job. That they have "rights" that must be treated as gospel, but not any responsibilities that are tied to those rights. That rules are just for "someone else", a whole attitude that everyone else owes them a living etc.
What is the flawed mental process where people decide that they are entitled to things just because they want them? How can anyone even attempt to justify that "want" means "entitled"?
[Removed by moderator as this message contravenes our rule 4 of the community: Be nice to one another and enjoy chatting with others. We encourage conversation and respectful debate; however, insulting posts or comments making personal jibes will not be tolerated.]
Robert124 said:
I have a short memory.
So. Who is our 'deleted user' and why ?
The 'deleted user' was MattBucks, and it may have been due to negative statements made about him, quite possibly.
Bicycle said:Turn your head around a bit and look at the agenda behind it all. Blame the unemployed. Blame the sick. Blame the immigrants. Keep your focus on blaming them. That way, the ones that are truly bleeding society can continue to get away with it.
The 'Blame' game is an insidious and pervasive social deviation that involves Authoritarian role transfers of responsibility. This has developed, as normalised abuse, involving the collectively shared and enforced delusions of inferiority, i.e. that people are inferior, mediocre and superior to self and or others, which further perpetuates the ability to react in an instinctual, subconscious or unwitting manner ~ as in the sense of lashing out at or persecuting others that are assumed to be more or less inferior.
Crime and punishment on this basis is an enforced state of mind and body, where rehabilitation is largely ignored for the sake of at least psychological assassination, keeping in mind that people are being murdered on the streets, or at least allowed to starve or freeze to death whether housed or not, which serves as a warning to everybody so afflicted, or yet to be afflicted, by the abuse of which.
Condemnation is by far the much lesser need, and rehabilitation by far more the greater need ~ in society as a whole. Both environmental and sociological pollution are the main cause of the present sufferings and deaths in humanity and otherwise.
The environmental pollution began with increasing volcanically activity about 15,000 years ago, along with the resulting psychological and physiological pollution becoming as it has since. When humans are for instance denied oxygen, they tend to become giggly as if in that way drunk, whereas when toxic pollutants are introduced and oxygen absorption decreases, humans become niggly as if in that way drunk.
A few examples for further reading:
30 Apr 2016 - Indeed many volcanic eruptions are followed by climatic unrest, leading to war, starvation and epidemics. The exact cause of the LIA unknown, but volcanoes may have played a role. Volcanoes can influence the atmosphere - and therefore the climate - for years and on a global scale. Until 1980, it was ...
7 Apr 2014 - No school textbook I've seen mentions that only two months before Napoleon's final defeat in Belgium on June 18, 1815, the faraway Indonesian island of Sumbawa was the site of the most devastating volcanic eruption on Earth in thousands of years. The death toll claimed around 100,000 people, from the ...
* Comment deleted by Bicycle *
As someone who gets up every morning with a sense of dread about what my employer is going to do to cause me more stress, who leaves work thoroughly exhausted, who is constantly belittled and micromanaged by my employer, who is made to feel like a caged animal, and when I finally pluck up the courage to make a complaint about it get told that they will offer me a wholly inadequate sum of money to leave or else procedures will be put in place to dismiss me on 'poor performance' (totally unwarranted) I know very well that someone without a job is not necessarily there because of a sense of 'entitlement' to benefits.
As I said in my previous post, this whole thread seems to be based on a sense of envy that some people are for some reason perceived to be on benefits because they choose to.
I was without work for over twenty years, not because I wanted to be on benefits (most of that time I was not on any benefit anyway). It was because I was unable to get a job despite applying and getting interviews. I was not unemployed because I was stupid, or because others were better than me. I was out of work because I was useless at interviews due to my autism. I always froze, didn't know how to answer the questions, didn't engage in eye-contact, my 'body language' was all wrong and was thought of as 'odd'. Although I have been in employment nearly continually for the last 20 years, I have not progressed. I have been kept in my place by a system that feels threatened by autistic people.
So there is no way I would judge anyone who is on benefits and not in work. The system puts them in that situation and in the vast majority of cases I believe it is no fault of ther es.
We should try to be more understanding and less judgemental especially when we don't know of the individual facts and circumstances.
Bicycle said:Balls. You claim benefits. You're obviously pampered on them. Give them up for people who need them - and go get a bloody job! People like you make me sick. You moan about the pampered society. And meanwhile, you live off the taxes I pay.
Your morals are obviously based upon an enforced sense of 'will to power' entitlement, with ethics that are dubious in that you in part understand what you do, but you do not comprehend your statements or wholly the position or reasoning of others.
Consider firstly for instance that commanding someone to get a job that involves having to bleed, shows little comprehension of what slavery involves, and why so much work still yet has to be done in order to phase it out ~ wage slavery for instance.
Consider secondly that you are psychologically and physiologically able to work, and pay your taxes, in so much as you do in being one of 74% from about 66 million people in the UK. You were not able though during the writing of your post to distinguish laziness from psychological and physiological exhaustion as being a disability, and the psychological fragmentation involved with which ~ i.e. Autistic Black and White Thinking as involves contradiction.
Along with your use of base and thus offensive language, you were contravening the 2010 Equality Act (which legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society) as is being addressed here of course.
Consider for instance Autism ~ involving Social Communication, Imagination and Interaction difficulties ~ as being a protected characteristic against:
1.) direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others
2.) indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
3.) harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them
4.) victimisation - treating someone unfairly because they’ve complained about discrimination or harassment
Keep secure in mind as the expression goes, "There are more things in heaven and [on] earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" as applies to each and everyone of us. Therefore when you do not understand something someone has written here, nor then the factors involved with so doing, point out what does not make sense to you in a respectful and informative manner, and as such do no harm.
Recall or read anew:
Content submitted by users must adhere to the following conditions:
The NAS may edit or remove Content that does not meet the conditions listed above. Users who submit Content that does not meet these conditions may have their account closed without notice. See ‘Community moderation’.
You are responsible for the Content submitted from your account. Should any legal action arise from the Content you submit to the Community, you undertake to indemnify and hold the NAS harmless against all costs arising from such legal action - including any claim liability, cost damage or loss incurred by the NAS.
That’s interesting. I’d like to visit that museum. I think that might be a little adventure for me this year. There’s a nice hotel I like to stay at in the Black Country. Cheers, it sounds very interesting.
That wouldn't surprise me at all. Inbuilt obselescence keeps on track g our disposable things and keeps is slavishly spending and if that is possible then why not create deliberate stagnation too. A modern, inexpensive design for spectacles that is more flattering too should not be an impossibility now.
A tour guide from the Black Country Living Museum told me that in the 19th and early 20th centuries the middle classes attended church primarily for religious and spiritual reasons. They didn't need the church as a force for discipline because they believed that they would be able to discipline themselves. In contrast, the working class folk considered church first and foremost as a force for discipline and morality with religion itself of secondary importance.
Therefore it could be possible that there was less social mobility and less of a sense of entitlement in the early 20th century because the poor and the working class folk were indoctrinated by church sermons that they are poor and working class because God wants them to be poor and working class. Therefore social mobility was a dirty word and anybody trying to climb the social ladder lived under fear that they were sinning so would pay dearly on the day of judgement.
The decline in Protestant Christianity in the post war decades resulted in society abandoning this restraining force and almost everybody wanting to better themselves one way or another.
Public services have to move with the times and changing consumer demands. The latest and greatest designer specs might be asking too much of the NHS but should customers in the 1980s really have to make do with frames unchanged since the 1940s?
This is cynical but it's plausible that deliberate stagnation is a cunning way for politicians to kill public services.
What I am surprised about is that no one yet has drawn attention to advertising, which is definitely designed to create desire and therefore possibly a sense of entitlement. If the Joneses can have it why can't I?
I think what the NHS did for people, which they did pay for out of their taxes from their hard-earned salaries. Life expectancy increased and the majority of people stayed healthy for long.gercwhen they might otherwise have suffered or died earlier.
Again, who was it started the anti-welfare rhetoric? One word again - Thatcher. She was the one who referred to the welfare state as the nanny state. She used it as a verbal bludgeon to bully adherents of other ideologies, as every good social darwinism does. Investing in citizens becomes pandering to weakness, need demonized to become something parasitic. We all know where this kind of thinking may go.
I haven’t really looked into it so I have no idea really.
I'm inclined to think that the sense of entitlement increased in proportion with the decline of Protestant Christianity in Britain.
I agree. Totally.
I think a lot of this discussion is apocryphal, someone hearing their neighbours friend's second cousin once removed is behaving in a way that we don't approve of.
And as such it is one of the ways of divide and conquer. As autistic people, we should try to support each other, be glad when someone manages to obtain what they are entitled to, not try to fight against it on the basis that someone else more worthy has not managed to obtain their 'entitlement' so the other person cannot be entitled to anything.
It is very unlikely we know someone's full story, why they should or should not be entitled to anything. Yes, I am sure some will try to play the system, but there are safeguards in place, the real problem is that the safeguards are too strict which puts people off applying and makes the 'entitlements' very difficult to get.
On a lighter note, you may or may not have heard of Doreen Tipton (not her real name, just a character from the Black Country played by an actress) but you may find it amusing (it is not serious....)
Doreen 'Lazy Bovine' syndrome
Doreen on Benefits Street
Good morning community users,
We have noticed that many of our Community rules are being broken in this thread.
We would like to remind you all to adhere to the rules and should the rules continue to be broken, we will be forced to lock this thread.
Furthermore, any user that repeatedly breaks the community rules will be put into moderation or, in extreme situations, banned.
Kind regards,
Ayshe Mod
I don't share most of my fathers political views either and my mum doesn't have any, which to be honest, is more in line with my thinking, so I guess I'm closer to my mum in this respect.
Yes. Often one person in a couple takes their sense of identity from the other. It sounds like your mum has been through quite a lot. I trust she has some level of peace in her heart now.
Blue Ray and Bicycle
I never saw eye to with with my mother on her political views - to say the least. I think before Dad died she derived so much of her sense of status through him, yet she was never able to work again after a drunk reveller ploughed into us whilst we were once on holiday in France.
And 40 years on from Thatcher now look where we are