erfahren.info

My take on Sociology...

In an attempt to establish credibility for referring to myself as a "social scientist" I figured that I'd offer an introduction. Oh, you thought that I'd try to use the word "sociologist", didn't you! - oh, haha - so I'd get the "evils of socialism" rant and I'd then stand accused of being a communist ... of course I'm not, but it'd put me on the defensive ... it's like fighting your way out of a paper bag, but what's so hard about that? The question is how you got into the paper bag in the first place; by being cordial & accommodating & harmonious, but of course that reveals a fear of rejection, banishment. Reveal a weakness or vulnerability then sadistic people will have a way to exploit & extort, and have a source of entertainment. (See: Kafkatrapping.)

Introduction ...

I am an autodidact and have some relatable formal education, but also I have been informally, but specifically & purposefully, educated in regards to the application of the guarantee of equal protection of law that the U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment (is meant to) provide.

Here's an introduction to my take on sociology (a rough outline) (To exert control over others ⇾ oppression ⇾ benefaction ⇾ oppression ⇾ benefaction ⇾ isolation ⇾ dependency ⇾ subjugation)

A skeptic could happen upon this presentation and wish to inquire as to how this information is pertinent, i.e., why would an average adult allow themselves to be in a circumstance to where another person would have power over their lives in this modern era with laws and protection, especially for vulnerable people? Of course there is the workplace, and to this day there are reports of discrimination & harassment; an internet search for "toxic work environment" would produce lots of scenarios, anecdotes, and even lawsuits and criminal cases. There are also books and articles on how to tolerate difficult people, etc. That reveals evidence that there are enough abusive people in society to warrant exploration into how another person (maybe like me) could be affected by someone who has some position of power. The question then is obviously what kind of power could another person hold over me if I am a free citizen?

One thing that has been mocked and exaggerated is the idea of "conspiracies" against an average person in that for no apparent reason there are others that want to disrupt innocent peoples' lives. Granted that some people are just cruel, but why would anyone be so committed to oppressing another person to where it involves time, effort & even risk charges of violating law? Notice that I have it as risk "charges" of violating law, in other words the abusive people do violate laws (I will get to that) but not to the extent that it becomes egregious enough to garner the attention of law enforcement.

There is the other word, "collaboration", that I think could be a more accurate description for some circumstances that people have been subjected to but the word conspiracy was used by them or others. Whether the latter word was used deliberately to mock, discredit or stigmatize a person or merely misused by the victimized person is something to consider. The possible motive(s) of the collaborators could be questioned, too. People in general like to have clear, distinguishable reasons for other peoples' abusiveness otherwise it could be merely a series of unrelated events that just so happened to occur at an inopportune time for the victim ... after all, there is the idea of personal responsibility. Such is life.

I'd like to present the ongoing issue that I have experienced with apartment managers and a whole string of incidents, ADA violations and other fraudulent actions committed by what would be thought of as regular, law abiding citizens working in a difficult business. I have lots of documented evidence that continues to be completely ignored (rebuffed) but the issues I have experienced have cost me additional money, not to mention the distress and the effect it has had on my personal relationships. The overall problem that I've experienced (and continue to endure) is really not uncommon among my demographic of what is designated as "mental impairment" by the ADA. I receive gov't assistance due to the history of trauma that I've experienced, much when I was a young adult.

What would be convenient for the skeptic to address now is what sort of "trauma" could I have suffered to warrant gov't assistance for my housing decades later? That is one critical point here now; "What business is it of anybody's other than the dedicated & educated people who put their time & effort into helping me"? Seriously! That is important because now we can examine the idea of "motives" that various collaborators may have to participate in a discrimination occurrence and why would it be considered discrimination, etc. (I must be confused or exaggerating or weak ... etc., right?) A whole lot of work goes into developing gov't assistance programs and someone who's eligible receives some assistance but then there could be some apartment managers who are just jealous and proceed to deliberately cause problems for the recipient.

An article that I've often brought up in social media debates that is somewhat relatable to this topic is about a study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2017: "Colorado’s Alamosa Municipal Court Tramples on the Rights of Poor People". What is ironic is that I would bring that up when conservatives would dismiss the ACLU's contributions and they would stop arguing with me. I would usually also point out that there would've most likely been a combination of human error on the part of the employees of various entities involved, and in that there would also be deliberate exploitation of the human error causation in that some employees probably purposefully conduct business in a way to be able to dismiss their actions (misdeeds) as common bureaucratic inconveniences and the like. Of course there were more egregious issues that the affected impoverished people experienced too, but the point is that it becomes obvious that the gov't employees involved had an agenda. The entire situation can cause someone who is navigating the system to become frustrated. My point is that there are even conservatives in lower income demographic(s) that can relate to the attrition. ("It's befitting for the caste", type thing.)

I am not being dismissive or diminishing the hardships that the victims that were identified in the ACLU's Alamosa study, or others in similar circumstances. It is difficult with social science when there is a cultural attitude, or socioeconomic caste (class) divisiveness, that is result of strife, prejudice, bias, etc. when an average, reasonable person in the higher stratification (middle-class, in this example), wouldn't be so inclined to be critical of a person caught up in the system who's been victimized in some way themselves. In sociology you can be hard-pressed to always have an easy, clear-cut, distinguishable difference between bad & good people. Our country's justice system recognizes that which is why the word "rehabilitation" is used. By that same token it is absolutely critical to acknowledge the fact that crimes are committed against people in the lower caste; victimizing the impoverished elderly in nursing homes by staff sometimes is an example, but the crimes are not always brought to justice. That does not change the fact that the crimes are still committed. Laws protect the wealthy disproportionately more than they protect the poor (and I'm sure there was someone who has already stated something similar).

But here in this presentation of mine I am discussing people in the demographic of, again, what the ADA designates as "mental impairment" and so are generally not associated with the justice system as perpetrators. In fact it could be asserted that they were victims of crime but their U.S. Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of law was denied them in most cases. The demographic is consisted of victims of child abuse, various trauma, rape, and the like but no one was ever charged with any crime. There is not only the difficulty of accepting the trauma they've endured but essentially being scapegoated since people like to believe that abusers are brought to justice. A reasonable person would know that it's unrealistic to believe that criminals are always charged for their crimes but there is a fear of people "faking" being victims, exaggerating, or what-have-you in order to get sympathy and avoid their responsibility. What people may not be aware of, though, is that the sociology involved with the determination of eligibility for various gov't assistance programs takes all that into account. There's anecdotal evidence of people scamming the system, or whatever, but those cases are more exception than the rule. A person on gov't welfare has no business being happy ... unless they're not happy and that means that they're ungrateful. Does that make sense? No? Exactly the point ... the scapegoating of the vulnerable demographic is blatant.

So I've established that there can be a variety of reasons for someone to be on a power trip in the course of their job when they're interacting with a person on gov't assistance. If there are a number of the collaborators then they do not necessarily all need to agree on the motives for desiring to raise the bar or deliberately create disruptions or inconveniences for the assistance recipient(s). In this era there is more discussions of "bullying", even articles about the behavior in the workplace. With that it is reasonable to conclude that there could be more than one tormentor and also those who may participate or not, intermittently or not at all, or are indifferent to the behavior, and so forth. The point here is that to be able to pinpoint exactly who is being deliberately abusive to a vulnerable person, and who is being subjected to peer pressure by their coworkers who are abusive, is something that the person subject to the abuse shouldn't ever have to determine. None of the people who are being paid to do some job that involves interaction with a person on gov't assistance should attempt exercising their own agenda. The problem is that there are plenty that do, out of bias or whatever, and it is a problem because they can do so with impunity and the people who are victimized are not usually granted any recourse and are merely rebuffed when they try. The victimizers use misdirection tactics, shaming, exaggeration, embellishment, etc. and the goal becomes to get by another day. Eventually the frustration that the person on the gov't assistance experiences will cause them to become angry or behave in an inappropriate fashion and the victimizer will have their justification for treating the person badly to begin with.

So my point here is that there were a number of improprieties committed against me by apartment managers, like not properly accounting for the funds they'd receive from gov't assistance for my behalf. It was purposeful to irritate and discourage me, that was all too obvious. I would do what a reasonable person would do by first attempting to meet with the local office management staff, write a letter to their corporate office (and send via certified mail), and when all that didn't work I would submit a complaint to the HUD equal rights representatives, but that didn't work either. It seemed that I was expected to produce a palatable reason for their discrimination against me. My point was that they were treating me differently than other people but the managers wouldn't actually change what they were doing, they still would continue to not account for my gov't assistance funds, for example, and so that's discrimination. That idea was not something I invented up in my head, mind you, but someone explained that to me in my past who had a masters in social work. I even did my very best to convey that fact, but to no avail. It wasn't only frustrating but very hurtful since the people who helped me were very good people but were being blatantly disrespected by people who were not college educated. It still continues now.

Other current relevant behavioral/mental health advocacy information

Brief list of popular related sociology studies & experiments

Other websites of mine