Jealousy is often the source of condemnation and contempt. People shame other people to balance the attraction that they feel. The contempt is a secondary repulsion to balance (to negate or suppress) the primary magnetism of attraction.
“Why should those people get that result instead of me? Now, for my next trick, I will hysterically condemn the success of their methods based on some factor other than the actual effectiveness of their methods!”
Notice that we pick specific targets for contempt. We do not usually focus on behavior in general. (If we did focus just on a pattern of behavior with respect for the results produced by the behavior, that would be respect for the behavior and its potential consequences, not condemnation and contempt).
So, we may focus on specific instances of a pattern of behavior in order to justify rage toward a particular target. Sometimes we pick the target first (like a particular celebrity or former romantic partner) and then find a long list of things about them to condemn. Or perhaps we are obsessed with a particular behavior (probably because someone that we want to hate has done it) and then we might generate a long list of villains to accuse of that behavior. Whether we make a list of people that did one behavior or a list of behaviors by one person, either pattern of behavior can arise in a panic of outrage.
We might criticize Joseph Smith for having several wives or the King of Saudi Arabia for having over 100 children, but we generally do not care how many children or wives someone has. We don’t ask because we don’t care. We tend to be very selective in our condemnations and shaming.
We do not start protest marches outside of movies that he directed. We do not boycott theatres that show films in which he is an actor. We care so little that we generally do not research the issue of how many women he has impregnated so far (or the details of the various cases). We usually do not even think of the issue.
But what if you find out that your brother-in-law has been having sex with lots of women besides your sister (his wife)? Do you have different standards suddenly when it involves someone you know?
Maybe you do and maybe not. Unless it has happened to you, consider that you actually do not know what you would do. You might only have some cherished ideals about what people (such as you) should do or should not do.
So, what exactly is an elitist?
An elitist is someone who does not complain about other people’s complaints. They do not say “those idiots are complaining about trivia.” They do not even notice what most people are complaining about.
They are too interested in their own interests. They are interested in what results are disappointing to them or attractive to them. They are interested in what frustrates them or provides relief.
They do not mind that many people are going on and on about “how people should be.” They respect that there are different ideas about how people should be. They respect others… which does not imply interest in everyone or loyalty to “everyone.” They just respect that people can change and that different people have different patterns.
So, they are not obsessed about “everyone” or about particular other people (even past romantic partners). They are what is generally called snobs. In other words, they openly admit that they are more interested in their own life than anyone else’s life (or “everyone’s lives”).
Of course, double standards are standard. If two people generally do the same behavior, it is possible that both will get similar reactions. However, keep in mind that most people do not care about what others do. They may say they care, but what if they primarily just care about what other people think of them, so they habitually display “outrage” over whatever issues they hope will attract social validation of them as “morally superior?”
When athletes or rock stars admit to having affairs while married, do we have different reactions to different cases? Why outrage over Tiger Woods but not over Gene Simmons?
One factor is that Gene Simmons does not display shame and regret about having thousands of sexual partners. Wilt Chamberlain did not either, but Tiger Woods and Bill Cosby were shamed for much less shocking things than whats get covered up when it involves British Royalty or Roman Catholic Bishops.
Why is that? Because the British Royal family and the Bishops are well-connected. The mainstream media protects them while making scandals out of other relatively minor incidents. Plus, we do not want to condemn the powerful too publicly. We know that it is dangerous to criticize certain people, so we focus on safely criticizing distant villains (even villains that are safely dead).
But that could never happen in the US, right? We pursue every single criminal accusation equally right?
Plus, we would never pardon a convicted sex criminal, right? What about a famous musician who was also a political activist who confessed to having sex with a 14 year-old? The maximum penalty for the crime was 10 years. He served a few months (his full sentence), and then about ten years later, President Carter pardoned him. But most people did not care.
Or there was the famous rapist named Miranda. He confessed, then was convicted and sent to prison. However, he was released from prison (and his conviction was overturned) after his lawyers raised the issue of whether he had been notified of his right to remain silent. So, how would the rape victim feel when he gets released on a technicality? Eh, no one really cares.
Why do we care so much about Tiger Woods or his wife? The reality is that we don’t care about them either.
A year after we trash-talked about them for hours, eventually we don’t care about Gene Simmons or Clint Eastwood or even Bill Cosby or famous child molester Jimmy Saville, a British celebrity and close associate of the Royal Family (and, allegedly, their top supplier of children to molest). We might feel scared of also being “victimized” so we sympathize and grieve with the victims, but that is not out of actual personal concern for the victims. It’s not like we write them letters, right? We are just concerned about our own safety. Their victimization reminds us of our vulnerability.
We just get addicted to condemnation (and arguing). It helps distract us from shame. It helps distract us from our terror of facing the reality that there are networks of people who can get away with murder and who regularly do.
We don’t really care that the government has had a bail-out program for decades to use billions of taxpayer dollars to protect pharmaceutical companies from personal injury lawsuits from vaccinations. But we might love to argue, so we can pick a few “infuriating” topics for socializing.
But what if the Governor of California has kids with two women? Is that upsetting because we are concerned that these actors who then become politicians might be paid to perform a role for us and read a script designed to promote specific results in the audience?
Please be aware that some of the pictures show nipples that you might find incredibly sexually arousing. Therefore, please go ahead and plan your criticisms of the man pictured below for exposing in public his very sexy nipples.
Do elitist snobs ever make fun of the general public and their worship of hysteria? If they do, they most certainly should not. That would be shameful and elitist and uncommon and distinctive but not even slightly hilarious.