Chavs with Aspergers...

Post Reply New Topic

i generally tend to find that those that sound like bigots are bigots. you know the saying about ducks, call a spade a spade, whatever. "oh, they're a burden on our welfare state". it's just like saying "sorry to sound like a racist, but those foreigners come over here and take all our jobs, bla blah...". or are some of your friends chavs? even better. rather than apologise for sounding like a bigot, why not just refrain from making bigoted statements? or at least have some conviction in your opinions, and just dont apologise? either would be better, i would feel.

You're right of course, as much as it pains me to say it. Post amended accordingly.

And for the record - refrain from bigotry is much the same as giving consequence to political correctness, which I will refuse to do. Free speech is the right to offend, and all that bollocks people don't seem to say nearly enough. I bet you'd call Hitler a looney, after all? I'd be pleased to know, 'cause I can comprehensively prove that if you do think he was looney, you're a bigot, and if you don't, you're a bigot. For the record, I think he was a looney, I'm a bigot, and I'm happy with that. It's the same with every other human on the planet. Agree or disagree, the second you form a not-entirely evidence-based opinion, you become a bigot, and that's down to definition.

As for apologies, they're made on the grounds of stating politely, an opinion held with some great deal of conviction. If that makes me a bigot, I welcome it, but I refuse, (except in this case, evidently), to sacrifice general politeness and decency to make the appearance of less than palatable personal truths more pleasing to the ever-opinionated masses.

Pick me to bits all you want - I count at least seven potential contradictions between this post and the last - but the joy of it is, right now, I still won't care - Life is about contradiction, self-interest, and bigotry, amongst other things - so let he who is guiltless cast the first stone or whatever.

Not a clue what you're talking about with the ducks, though of course a spade is a spade. It could, however, be called a shovel, a trowel, a scoop - whatever. Nobody likes a smartarse I know, but I think we've got that covered amicably well already.

Oh, and yes - a handful of my friends are Chavs - I find them useful (in a fifth manner) as drug dealers. They know exactly how I feel about Chavs in general too - however - with every rule, there are individual exceptions. Surely someone of your apparently self-proclaimed liberal mindedness can comprehend that?

Oh, and please - reply again - I've enjoyed this so much, I think I might toast my next pint to you...

I have just one question: Who cares?

I think that was my point exactly.

ah well i just typed out a long winded reply for you silent bedlam, but my computer froze up and i had to force firefox to quit.

so suffice to say, the so called "chavs", in my opinion are simply a product of their environment. the lowest strata of english social life, and if some people like to define themselves by labelling as "other" the least privelidged members of their society then so be it. it is not too disimillar to the label of "otherness" assigned to various ethnic groups in years gone by by the british populace.

as for the hitler analogy, all it takes is to read mein kampf to harbour doubts regarding hitlers mental accuity, so i dont think that calling him a looney in any way exhibits unreasonable and extreme intollerance. it is somewhat different to make judgements on an individual who published his ideas and beliefs, and has also been written about quite extensively, than it is to judge an entire underclass of people based upon a few personal observations and tabloid media demonisation.

and i apologise if my previous post seemed somewhat harsh or inflamatory. this was not in any way my intention.

This is also, not supposed to be inflammatory, but some questions for you:

1. Why do you refer to them as an "underclass", and what does that say?

2. Do you honestly believe I read (or barring a few moments of drunken boredom waiting at a kebab shop) have ever read the tabloid newspapers?

3. "Other" is the same as calling them "Chavs"?

4. Underprivilidged? I'm sorry - but howso? In this wonderful(ly misguided) culture of trying to give everyone the same chances in life, I am certain that at least some of the blame for their supposed "social predicament" falls on their doorstep. These are the people who deride education as "uncool", reject civilised culture for something which barely exceeds aggressive animalism, and terrorise society for their own entertainment.

Now, don't get me wrong - I flatter myself that I am a great (in prolificity, if not quality) critic of "society" and there is not a day that goes by when I do not find some new ill that said "society" causes. I also believe that humans are merely sophisticated animals - slightly more complicated that most, but they remain, animals. However, even the most aggressive, and dangerous of animals use violence as a means of self defence, and sustainance. I find nothing morally wrong in the idea that a mugger may have his blade turned back on him by a strong attackee fighting the assault off, and we will of course, as omnivores, never be able to get away from the need to kill animals to survive - nor should we try.

If you'll pardon the image, however, I do not consider that (as we so often read happens) a chav, or indeed anyone else who attacks a defenceless victim, does so to be able to eat? One might suggest, that a mugger steals another persons wallet/purse, because they need the money for food - it is not impossible - but how is this kind of violence to be justified when there are other measures in place in what remains a wealthy country, to ensure that people do not go without food or shelter? How do you reconcile these traits?

In my book, there is no excuse, and if that means appearing bigoted against the group of people in which this kind of behaviour is most prevalent, then I am happy to do so.

i refer to them as an underclass because that is indeed what the majority of them are part of. i dont think it can be denied that an underclass exists in the uk. that is self evident, i am sure you would agree.



being that i don't know you or know much about you at all, other than a few of your posts i've happened to read on here, i honestly couldn't say. however on the basis of you asking this question i will asume that you do not.


calling them chavs is simply a means of projecting "otherness" onto them. ie, a way of defining oneself by projecting what one wishes not to be onto others.



i am semi-hoping that you are not really serious with this question. if you are, ask yourself this - how many upper and upper middle class "chavs" have you come across? very few if any, i would propose. therefore, what you are in effect saying is that poor people are stupid and nasty with a predisposition to become violent maniacs, no? you think it is coincidental that "chavism" and lower working class existence go hand in hand? and i really hope that you don't honestly believe that everyone in the uk has the same chances in life, this is nothing more than a fallacy.
i get the distinct impression that you may be from quite a comfortable background yourself, although i may be wrong and please do correct me if so.


in terms of your last point here, i would perhaps suggest a look at freud's "civilisation and its discontents". it's a very interesting read, not too taxing or longwinded, and in my opinion quite relevant to modern society in some of its main points, in particular man's tendency towards violent behaviour. there is an excerpt from it here, if you are interested.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/ ... d-civ.html

Going back to the original question, I find it highly doubtful that there are many Aspie chavs. Chavs in general are not exactly a very "accepting" social group - they tend not to like anyone who is too different from themselves. That said, not all chavs are like that, but a lot of them are.