> Okay, first I acknowledge y'all (most of ye here probably) are of
> different generations than ole
> RobtCohen.
>
> So, given that semi-qualification up front, a 64 year ole alta cocker
> is allowed to ponticate ad nauseam, which can be fun & also less than
> fun
>
> I just listened to that prank call: Jewish girl tells parents she's
> dating an Italian, and the radio personality plays the boyfriend: The
> parents swallow the bait including the fishing rod & tackle box
>
> Needless to say
>
> It's more than a "shanda to the goyim"
> non Jews>
>
> It's a Phillip Roth scene without the author
>
> Who needs an intellectual's truths & clever humor when ya got this
> here taboo breaking internet ?
>
> Me & Ye, that's who
>
> I'll defensively first acknowledge that "Archie Buinker's" creator,
> Norman Lear, says Arch is (also) about his own Father:
>
> Lear knows better than to merely stereotype for the cheap laugh,
> though that what ALL IN THE FAMILY sometimes feels like
>
> That's what one-deminsion commercial media have done too damne much of
> in history
>
> Exception
>
> Shakespeare's MERCHANT is much more complex than a villainous
> predatory lender, as the author constructs & dramatizes the central
> character Shylock
>
> People are folks, and we are them, or at least that's from where
> "polititically correct" & introspective n.g. types come from
>
> Thus, expected afterward You Tube comments are that "Jews are racist."
>
> Well, no shite: Jews are people too. Gee whiz. It's a shanda.
>
> If that shocker is news to ....uh....a virgin minds, then the prank
> call has f'ed-up a naive mind
>
> The NAZI admirer & wannabe makes his bread n butter cases portraying
> Jewish people as less than human, devilish, unethical, hypocritical,
> greedy, impure, conspiratorial ....and thus implicitly deservedly
> damned to gas chambers & hell.
>
> Such is reality, and I try to deal with such as best I can.
>
> Somebody with a brain attacks Adam Sandler as perfidious, and
> RobtCohen jumps into the duh-bait like it's cancer that needs
> treatment
>
> One can't win against racially tinged stream of conscious obssessions-
> confessions
>
> One can sometimes try
As you probably know there has been some mixing already, and there is
probbly a "rate" of mixing, however small. Have you checked genetic
histories to find out what that rate is now and in the past? How much
mixing would be allowable before you became aroused by it? If there
has always been some mixing that wasn't detectable, would that disturb
the mother in the prank call? How much of this is learned tradition?
Do different races care more or less about mixing? How have traditions
influenced the idea of mixing.
--------------
In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”,
but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group
membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to
think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national
“level of self”. Apart from the “level of self”, an individual has
multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-
concept derived from perceived membership of social groups. In other
words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us”
associated with any internalized group membership. This can be
distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to
self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.
Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/
self-categorization and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at
the expense of the out-group. ...the mere act of individuals
categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them
to display ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group
membership, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by
positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on
some valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means
that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather
than ‘I’.
...three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup
favoritism is particularly important.
A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to
internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept.
B) the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for
comparison between groups.
C) the perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will
be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup.
Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is
central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful
or the outcome is contestable.
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%%20clusters/Interpersonal%%2.../
http://www.learnpsychology.net/g/421
Social identity is a theory formed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner[1]
to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. It
is composed of four elements:
-Categorization: We often put others (and ourselves) into categories.
Labeling someone a Muslim, a Turk, a Gimp or a soccer player are ways
of saying other things about these people.
-Identification: We also associate with certain groups (our ingroups),
which serves to bolster our self-esteem.
-Comparison: We compare our groups with other groups, seeing a
favorable bias toward the group to which we belong.
-Psychological Distinctiveness: We desire our identity to be both
distinct from and positively compared with other groups[2].
As developed by Tajfel, social identity theory is a diffuse but
interrelated group of social psychological theories concerned with
when and why individuals identify with, and behave as part of, social
groups, adopting shared attitudes to outsiders. It is also concerned
with what difference it makes when encounters between individuals are
perceived as encounters between group members. Social identity theory
is thus concerned both with the psychological and sociological aspects
of group behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity
