|
I don't know a lot about him – I've pretty much just seen his Facebook. He got married in 1996. From 1998 to 2000, he studied "respiratory therapy" at "CA Health Services," an institution of which I could find no record with a brief search on Google. He has a son, presumably around 17 or 18 years old.
He made his Facebook in 2011, but never posted for a couple years. He liked a lot of pages though – Disney and Dr. Pepper and Nintendo and Star Trek (Enterprise, Next Generation, and Deep Space Nine), Fox News, Damn You Autocorrect, Animal Crossing Community, and 65 other pages liked in that year. He didn't post anything until 2013, kicking things off after two years with a picture of a slug he saw with a caption "Who knows what this thing is???"
About half of his posts are about his son. Many are pictures, others are simple diary-like updates such as "Got Adam today. Gonna swim in the pool and have an awesome day together!!!" He has never posted about his wife.
He likes politics. He likes Paula Deen, as well as a page created in 2013 titled "We support Paula Deen." He once shared a picture with an arrow to his profile picture and text that read "This person supports Stand Your Ground laws... if you try to harm me or my family, I will fight back."
In 2015 he read an op-ed written by Bobby Jindal about how Donald Trump is an impossible candidate for President. He commented on the article as follows:
"Jindal's first name is Piyush. He needs to go away. Go Trump."
 
|
Well if it can help you figure out this mysterious man who's politics to put a tremendous amount of weight on the names of people, "Got Adam today" suggests that he and his wife are no longer together and they have joint custody.
|
On September 16 2015 09:54 Djzapz wrote:
Well if it can help you figure out this mysterious man who's politics to put a tremendous amount of weight on the names of people, "Got Adam today" suggests that he and his wife are no longer together and they have joint custody.
Indeed. Reading into it deeper, I wouldn't be surprised if they split around the time he started posting on Facebook. He had it for two years before, but never posted until 2013. That's probably relatively common when someone gets divorced and starts to feel lonely.
A few more details about him:
He's gone through a few profile pictures. With every one, an older woman, possibly his mother, posts complimenting his appearance. She is particularly impressed by his eyes, which apparently are a family trait. Bizarrely, she also reassured him at one point that she never shares his photos, out of respect for his privacy.
He used to live in Tennessee, but now lives in Louisiana. Why he studied respiratory therapy in CA, I may never know. I also may never know what a 2-year education in respiratory therapy teaches, or for what jobs one would be qualified after such an education.
|
I don't get it... chronicle of a random person's facebook habits? I feel like I'm stupid and must be missing something.
|
I think he's a fascinating case study. I found him through his comment on the CNN post. I think the comment is pretty is obviously racist - but what's weird is it doesn't occur to him to hide that. In fact he thinks it will convince other people.
I mean it's not surprising that someone who likes a page called "we support Paula Deen" would like Trump. But he's also just a regular guy who likes Disney and Animal Crossing and posting pictures of his son on Facebook.
|
On September 16 2015 14:19 ChristianS wrote:
I think he's a fascinating case study. I found him through his comment on the CNN post. I think the comment is pretty is obviously racist - but what's weird is it doesn't occur to him to hide that. In fact he thinks it will convince other people.
I mean it's not surprising that someone who likes a page called "we support Paula Deen" would like Trump. But he's also just a regular guy who likes Disney and Animal Crossing and posting pictures of his son on Facebook.
In my experience, that is true of most racists, sexists, or other -ists and -phobes. Usually they are pretty nice and ordinary people aside from their narrow target of indoctrinated hatred. In a way, I appreciate the honesty and simplicity of that type of open hatred. Much worse is the person with "tolerance" and "acceptance" ever on their lips, who in the rare case that they confess their real feelings, reveal themselves to be full of genuine hate and misanthropy. Nicer to have a viper out in the open instead of hiding in the grass.
|
I don't know that his racism is terribly narrow. In this case it's against an Indian man, but I doubt that he's been indoctrinated to hate Indians specifically. It's just, apparently, obvious to him that someone having an apparently foreign first name would be a reason they shouldn't be president. Obvious enough that he would cite someone's first name as evidence that a presidential candidate would not be fit to lead.
It's also a little deeper than just hating non-white people and supporting Trump because of his racist comments. I'd guess in his mind, caring about politics gives his life meaning. I wonder if he blames Obama on some level for his marriage, or thinks that "Make America Great Again" means that his life will become a little less mediocre with Trump in charge.
|
Supporter of Trump?
Oh shit
|
Welcome to the 21st century.
An age where if you are less intelligent than the avarage, the whole world may find out your stupid things
An age where if you forget to set some privacy settings, you can be viewed, observed,watched and even talked about by dozens of random strangers...
It's a good age indeed.. 
Watch Mr Robot aswell 
|
oh we are analysing some random's facebook?
For a moment I was expecting a proper guy blog
|
On September 16 2015 16:23 ChristianS wrote:
It's also a little deeper than just hating non-white people and supporting Trump because of his racist comments. I'd guess in his mind, caring about politics gives his life meaning. I wonder if he blames Obama on some level for his marriage, or thinks that "Make America Great Again" means that his life will become a little less mediocre with Trump in charge.
That seems to be presuming quite a lot about someone's life and motivations, based on nothing more than their one comment on CNN and their facebook, don't you think? You've gone on to assume that his life is meaningless if not for politics, declared his life mediocre, and guessed he probably blames his divorce on Obama (why?) It's as though you're acting out some kind of grudge on a complete stranger. I could understand if you got into a nasty argument with him, but since you haven't, what drives you to stalk this guy and passive aggressively shit on him? If his life really is shit, then he is punished by having to live it... making a "fascinating case study" out of his facebook is pretty mean in my opinion.
|
@Glowsphere:
I didn't say his life is meaningless, and to be fair, I think most people feel like their life is a bit mediocre sometimes. I have no grudge against this man, and much of this is conjecture for sure. But since people tend to do a lot of guessing about why Trump has so many supporters, it's at least to guess based on one case study than to guess based on nothing at all.
The point isn't to be mean to him, and i don't think I especially have been. Like I said, he's a regular guy who loves his son. I don't even know for certain that he is divorced. But part of the point is, racism doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's part of someone's character, and serves some purpose for them. Why does an otherwise normal guy decide to dedicate himself to a political cause based on what can maybe only be interpreted as racist reasoning? To a lot of us Trump represents an arrogant asshole with kinda racist rhetoric, but what does he represent to a guy like this?
@JieXian: Sorry to disappoint!
|
Why people support Trump and how racists are formed are interesting questions, and perhaps should be asked by themselves. There may even be Trump supporters and racists on this forum, who can explain in their own words what their beliefs are. Meanwhile we have three short sentences from this mystery guy, who for all we know may have meant them jokingly or ironically. If he is as you portray him to be, his reason for supporting Trump is probably not much different from how most Americans choose candidates. Candidates are presented to us like products at a supermarket or sports teams. The rules of advertising and group loyalty are more likely to tip the scale than one person's idiosyncrasies.
Personally I can see Trump's appeal even though I don't want him to be president. He is an entertainer and a clown, which is quite appropriate for the joke of our electoral system. His candor and honesty make him likable despite the stupid shit coming out of his mouth. When faced with either a calculating liar or a buffoon, I feel more inclined to trust the latter.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36948 Posts
|
On September 17 2015 05:52 Seeker wrote:
Are you the guy?
What a twist that would be! Are you M. Night Shyamalan?
|
That blog is fucking scary.
|
As someone who has seen some unbelievably stupid comments on tl and reddit over the years I think you cannot read very much into internet posts. People will put stuff on the internet on impulse without careful thought or consideration. Just cuz this guy put out a random comment does not say very much about him imo.
|
On September 17 2015 05:22 Glowsphere wrote:
Why people support Trump and how racists are formed are interesting questions, and perhaps should be asked by themselves. There may even be Trump supporters and racists on this forum, who can explain in their own words what their beliefs are. Meanwhile we have three short sentences from this mystery guy, who for all we know may have meant them jokingly or ironically. If he is as you portray him to be, his reason for supporting Trump is probably not much different from how most Americans choose candidates. Candidates are presented to us like products at a supermarket or sports teams. The rules of advertising and group loyalty are more likely to tip the scale than one person's idiosyncrasies.
Personally I can see Trump's appeal even though I don't want him to be president. He is an entertainer and a clown, which is quite appropriate for the joke of our electoral system. His candor and honesty make him likable despite the stupid shit coming out of his mouth. When faced with either a calculating liar or a buffoon, I feel more inclined to trust the latter.
Oh, I missed your response. Well it's never possible to completely rule out trolling on the Internet, but he certainly seemed sincere enough, and his post wouldn't have much of a punchline if it was a joke.
Trump isn't like other politicians, and racial reasons for supporting a candidate are qualitatively different from other reasons. Hitler used a sense of racial identity (and, by extension, the exclusion of other races) to give people the sense that in supporting him they were working toward something bigger than themselves. In difficult economic times he gave them the sense that their many troubles weren't their fault; that other races had been destroying them from the inside; and that by creating a new, racially defined nation, and removing the outsiders which were destroying them, they could create a better tomorrow.
Now I'm not saying Donald Trump is a fascist. But when I hear him talk about how because of illegal immigration we don't have a country anymore, and we won't again until we deport every single illegal immigrant, I can't help but hear that as a dog whistle only racists are meant to hear. Worthwhile, then, to consider the types of people he is appealing to, and what type of appeal he has for them.
|
On September 17 2015 05:52 Seeker wrote:
Are you the guy?
Hahahaha
Seriously it took me some time before I realized that he wasn't talking about himself
Anyway op what's the point of this baseless conjecture ?
You don't even get to test if you are correct or wrong
You're spending your time guessing and judging how bad a person is. I sincerely think you have more positive ways of spending your free time right?
|
On September 17 2015 23:15 JieXian wrote:Hahahaha Seriously it took me some time before I realized that he wasn't talking about himself Anyway op what's the point of this baseless conjecture ? You don't even get to test if you are correct or wrong You're spending your time guessing and judging how bad a person is. I sincerely think you have more positive ways of spending your free time right?
What's this judgmental BS? Have you never wondered about anything? Have you never sat to think about something? I personally think it's an interesting thing.
I think it's strange that there are varying degrees of curiosity in people. There are those who'll sit at home all day, never wonder about anything, what you see is what you get. And then you have curious folks, those who observe, they know they may not get the answers but yet they ask questions. Sometimes it's serious, but I've heard a lot of "normal" people who said they had a point in their life where they'd sit in a mall and just observe people out of curiosity. How do they behave? Why do people do things. Sometimes people check their pockets, sometimes people PRETEND to check their pockets when they've been going the wrong way as to declare "oh I'm doing a 180 turn, not because I'm insane but because I forgot something". Others just check their pockets all the time because they're afraid of losing their stuff.
You'll never know what you're seeing. Also, you don't need to observe directly. I've creeped on a few facebook pages wondering "Wtf is that person all about". This girl I knew really hated Obama, but never posted anything about politics. Just bad things about Obama here and there. Could she talk about politics with some degree of coherence but only posted shallow stuff on facebook? Perhaps I'll never know. But it was weird. This other woman I'm friends with from my WoW days, she thanks God a few times a week for everything good that happens. What happens in her brain? I don't know. But I read her posts a lot. "Our Almighty God please help us Christian teachers who work so hard..." etc. She asks for help for other people, but always specifically Christians, as if others could systematically go fuck themselves. It seems crazy. It's fascinating.
|
Surely I'm not the first person to see someone say something racist and wonder where it comes from. What made them this way? Do they realize? If I pointed it out, what would they even say?
Once in college I heard a girl say the most unambiguously racist remark I've ever heard in person. We were talking about our high schools and my friend mentioned that his high school was 85-90% Mexican. His roommate's girlfriend reflexively interjected, "Eww..." I don't know how you're supposed to react to something like that, but we just burst out laughing for several minutes while she just sat there looking sheepish. What defense could she possibly give?
Where do you think her remark came from? My guess is her own school had a Mexican social clique, and she was in a different clique, and cliques often do not like each other. Somehow in her mind she got from "I don't like this particular group of people who are Mexican" to, at least in the context of high school, "I don't like Mexicans." It's true I'll never know for certain, but why does that make it a useless question to consider?
|
On September 17 2015 11:30 ChristianS wrote:
Oh, I missed your response. Well it's never possible to completely rule out trolling on the Internet, but he certainly seemed sincere enough, and his post wouldn't have much of a punchline if it was a joke.
Trump isn't like other politicians, and racial reasons for supporting a candidate are qualitatively different from other reasons. Hitler used a sense of racial identity (and, by extension, the exclusion of other races) to give people the sense that in supporting him they were working toward something bigger than themselves. In difficult economic times he gave them the sense that their many troubles weren't their fault; that other races had been destroying them from the inside; and that by creating a new, racially defined nation, and removing the outsiders which were destroying them, they could create a better tomorrow.
Now I'm not saying Donald Trump is a fascist. But when I hear him talk about how because of illegal immigration we don't have a country anymore, and we won't again until we deport every single illegal immigrant, I can't help but hear that as a dog whistle only racists are meant to hear. Worthwhile, then, to consider the types of people he is appealing to, and what type of appeal he has for them.
Wow, I've honestly never drawn the link to Nazi Germany in my mind. I would guess that there are some pretty major differences, but my knowledge of that period of history is limited. My impression is that Trump is mostly bluster, and does not intend to actually deport every illegal immigrant and construct a giant wall at the border.
|
On September 18 2015 02:48 Glowsphere wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 11:30 ChristianS wrote:
Oh, I missed your response. Well it's never possible to completely rule out trolling on the Internet, but he certainly seemed sincere enough, and his post wouldn't have much of a punchline if it was a joke.
Trump isn't like other politicians, and racial reasons for supporting a candidate are qualitatively different from other reasons. Hitler used a sense of racial identity (and, by extension, the exclusion of other races) to give people the sense that in supporting him they were working toward something bigger than themselves. In difficult economic times he gave them the sense that their many troubles weren't their fault; that other races had been destroying them from the inside; and that by creating a new, racially defined nation, and removing the outsiders which were destroying them, they could create a better tomorrow.
Now I'm not saying Donald Trump is a fascist. But when I hear him talk about how because of illegal immigration we don't have a country anymore, and we won't again until we deport every single illegal immigrant, I can't help but hear that as a dog whistle only racists are meant to hear. Worthwhile, then, to consider the types of people he is appealing to, and what type of appeal he has for them. Wow, I've honestly never drawn the link to Nazi Germany in my mind. I would guess that there are some pretty major differences, but my knowledge of that period of history is limited. My impression is that Trump is mostly bluster, and does not intend to actually deport every illegal immigrant and construct a giant wall at the border.
Oh, for sure. The Nazi card is one you have to be careful playing, and I don't mean to imply that if Trump is elected you should start looking for the death camps. Both in rhetoric and in desired policies, the Trump and Nazis differ in many important respects.
I'm only meant to say that racialized rhetoric isn't like other rhetoric – it has often been used to play to people's biases and galvanize supporters by saying, "Hey, you've got a lot of problems, but they're not your fault! And they're not nobody's fault, either. You see that different-looking guy over there? They're his fault!" Given that point, Hitler seemed like a must cite.
|
On September 18 2015 03:07 ChristianS wrote:
I'm only meant to say that racialized rhetoric isn't like other rhetoric – it has often been used to play to people's biases and galvanize supporters by saying, "Hey, you've got a lot of problems, but they're not your fault! And they're not nobody's fault, either. You see that different-looking guy over there? They're his fault!" Given that point, Hitler seemed like a must cite.
How is that different from all the rest of the political rhetoric though? The Democrats and Republicans both tell their supporters that everything is the fault of the other side. Republicans demonize immigrants, gays, and the poor, while Democrats demonize conservative Christians, gun enthusiasts, the wealthy, etc. Racial rhetoric may be more pernicious, but I don't think it's so different from all the rest of the divide and conquer tactics used to win votes.
|
I think we all spend far too much time on the internet, distracting ourselves with endless streams of information/knowledge. But it is only rarely that said input matures into wisdom. I would much prefer the latter, but inconveniently, it only seems to take root when I dedicate lots of time to reading boring, slow, old-fashioned books. Oh boy the next generation are screwed.
|
@Glowsphere: That's cynical. I suppose scapegoatism can exist in other rhetoric as well, but at least it's not innate to it. A Republican can argue that the lower earners in America pay too little in taxes without demonizing the poor. A Democrat can argue for better treatment of Muslims and less special treatment for Christians without demonizing Christians. Perhaps both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of scapegoatism from time to time, but it's certainly not innate. Whereas in racial rhetoric, I don't see the alternative option.
@bITt.mAN: I'm afraid your point is too broad, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm not even sure why you think the next generation is screwed. Is it because they get too much information online and read too few books? I'd be curious what you mean by "wisdom;" often books give something a fuller, slower, more point-by-point treatment of a subject, but surely there's more to wisdom than that. Even more confusing to me is what connection you're drawing to this particular thread.
|
Ten years ago, someone my age in my situation would have nowhere near the access to the sheer breadth and number of articles I've stockpiled on my 'To Read' list.
I spend most of my free time following links and reading trivia. Sure, all of its interesting, but there comes a point when endless distraction stops being worthwhile.
I have lots of exposure, I have lots of information about WHAT hardcore feminists or racial justice activists are on about. But that doesn't particularly help me figure out what _I_ believe.
I have lots of knowledge about their opinions, but feel none the wiser. I know more ABOUT the world, but don't feel any more empowered or able to do worthwhile things with that knowledge.
It's kind of like if you went on a huge tangent reading all about Taoist philosophical teaching, such that it became your primary leisure activity. But you were doing it out of nothing more than boredom, and some vague sense of not wanting to be out-of-the-know - you actually have no intention of adopting any of said Taoist beliefs. At some point, all this specialized knowledge you've accumulated feels useless, since it only acts as information, as trivia. It isn't some profound truth that'll improve your own life. You just know more stuff.
It would have been far more inconvenient to get access to this sort of obscure, nice writing even just 10 years ago. But with the explosion of blogs, media farms, and even Wikipedia, the Internet opens us a never-ending rabbit-hole of interesting yet not life-changing articles.
In my experience, feeling having gotten something more substantial than 'trivia' out of reading happens much more often when reading books. I NEVER read books, because I'm so captivated by incessantly clicking, which is frustrating.
I know it was just for fun, and just random, and something your IRL friends probably wouldn't really understand the appeal of, and it's totally OK to post about our strange internet-enabled pursuits and odd fascinations. But I felt the subject-matter of this blog was exactly the sort of thing I find myself consuming with too high a frequency. Things that seem somewhat intriguing, but are largely useless, sadly.
I mention future generations, because this problem of incessant-clicking and frequency-over-depth overdosage will be a burden that will only be worse for people younger than us.
|
Oh, sure, checking out this guy's Facebook probably won't make a big positive change in my life. For what it's worth, since you're not the first person to argue this is a waste of my time, I didn't spend very long doing it. I spent a little longer when I decided to write a blog about it, and even then it was motivated to a significant extent by wanting to practice my writing. So don't worry too much about me, I'll never get that half hour back but I doubt I'll be too much worse off for it either.
I think every generation faces its own unique challenges along these lines. Many people will suffer from it, the smarter and more capable ones will develop coping mechanisms for it, but I don't think it will cause some catastrophic drop in productivity or something. I mean if nothing else, time wasted on reading useless articles is probably still one of the best ways to waste your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
