How did being poor effect your friendships?

Answered Feb 6, 2020

Being poor often means being in poor environments, surrounded by other poor people.

There is a huge division between the working poor, and the non-working poor.

These environments have some decent, hard-working, civilised, functioning adults with realistic views of life, who just happen to have low income and assets. They may be very guarded, with low time and availability.

However, these environments are largely filled with scummy, unemployable, out-of-control, overgrown toddlers who are trying to leach off of, and prey upon members of the previous group. They have very high amounts of time and energy for this. And are highly available for new “friendships” (or for implications of romantic “love”).

When you are in the first group, the mere fact of being employed puts a big concentric-circles target on you. No matter how low your paycheque, bank balance, or possessions. The parasites tend to fantasise that you “really” have a limitless amount of resources. And they will do anything to extract those resources.

When you are struggling to work for your basic shelter, food, etc necessities, they will expect you to cough up the cash for them to buy luxuries.

If you own a car (even if it barely runs), they will treat you like their personal, on-demand, free limousine. They will call you at work, expecting you to drop everything, and come give them a ride.

Some will expect 100% total financial support. Such as living in your home, rent-free, while they trash the place and bring their homeless “friends” over. Others expect you to pay their entire rent every month on a separate apartment, buy expensive food, etc, etc.

Some have drug habits that they expect you to enable, because they are entitled to a co-dependent enabler.

Some are on welfare benefits (including disability and old-age type), on which they can survive. But they feel entitled to a luxury lifestyle, funded by you. Others don’t even have their act together to fill out a welfare application and attend an appointment. And so you will be their personal welfare agency.

They will give any sob-story they can think of. They will tell you any lie they can think of. They will be ingratiating, telling you what a great “friend” you suddenly are, very soon after meeting (as soon as the first conversation). They will engage in sexual come-ons (resentfully, and without any intention of following through).

If you try to be their friend, while setting boundaries, they will never respect those boundaries. If you persist with boundaries (e.g. “No, I don’t have any money to give you”), they will become increasingly agitated. They may become openly hateful. Some may try to steal from you. Some will escalate to physical aggression.

Some of these people are engaged in constant crime, creating risks to anyone who associates with them.

Some of them have an extremely impaired concept of actions leading to consequences (even after the consequences have happened). And extremely impaired ability to plan, to think of appropriate behaviours and solutions, or to rationally predict which actions lead to which consequences.

They may take the attitude that, there are two options. First, for you to provide enough (i.e. infinite) resources to lift them out of the gutter. Or, failing that, their recourse is to forceably drag you into the gutter with them.

They will hold you personally responsible for every “need” that they claim to have. They will also hold you personally responsible for every dissatisfaction or problem they ever had. Including dissatisfactions and problems going on for years before you met them.

They believe that you have already promised them a free, easy, zero-stress, zero-responsibility fun life. Simply because you started out being open to possible “friendship”.

They are frustrated and angry that you are maliciously impairing their access to the infinite pile of money and other resources which they see as rightfully, already theirs.

When you are working poor, you may have high exposure to these people, due to the poor environment in which they are concentrated.

These people may kill off your empathy, and incite you to become just as self-centred and uncaring as them. Except that you will be motivated by legitimate self-protection/defense.

When you are decent, civilised working poor, openness to “friendship” (or to sexual relationships) is generally very dangerous. It is vital to learn to be very closed-off, and very quick to dismiss people when you see red-flags of parasitism. This mindset can still effect you years later, even if you work your way into less impoverished/desperate environments.

An interesting point is that, some of the scumbags actually come from very coddling backgrounds. Including with indulgent middle-class parents. That is where they learned their sense of entitlement, and failure to understand real-world adult consequences.

How will Google reduce the stigma of wearing a head-mounted display?

Answered Jan 19, 2020

It isn’t just about the person wearing the device.

First, there are safety issues.

Forget about using it while driving a car. In some jurisdictions, it might already be covered under “distracted driving” laws originally for mobile phones. If not, then such laws will be expanded to cover these devices. And with very good reason.

Some people may claim that they would just set it to alert about traffic hazards, or to give GPS directions. But, as with phones, plenty of people would be taking photos to post to social media, having ongoing chats (with the other party responding by text), etc. When you cause a crash, the other motorists/pedestrians aren’t going to be admiring your cool tech gear.

Other safety issues arise without a car.

Some pedestrians already jaywalk right into traffic, which they can’t hear or see, due to headphones blasting, and to eyes locked onto a little screen.

This also makes a person more vulnerable to street crime, since they can’t hear or see the menacing thug approaching them.

Second is the social factor that goes far beyond just looking odd.

We already have mass social rudeness, when people claim to be multitasking by having an in-person conversation, while playing with their phone. It alienates the other person, especially those of us who like to be truly present during a conversation.

A major issue is that, I don’t like random people pointing cameras at me. With these devices, you would be doing so, continuously, with everyone. And they won’t know for sure if you are recording video and audio of them, without their consent. And won’t know what you may do with the recording.

How is that camera going to be perceived by your boss? Or the security personnel in a hospital, or a government building, or an airport, etc? Or by someone upset about something personal?

Is it really ever going to be socially acceptable for some creepy dude to hang out at the beach, with a camera strapped to his face, looking in the direction of young girls?

Going further, some people want to use these devices to immediately do an internet search on someone they just met. Or worse, use facial recognition to look up information about a total stranger, without even having a conversation with the person. Do you really want some creepy dude on the train thinking you are cute, and finding out your name, employer, etc, just by surreptitiously taking a photo?

How do parents unintentionally teach their children that the child’s consent doesn’t matter, so much so they carry it into adulthood?

Answered Jan 1, 2020

The problem with this question is the word, “unintentionally”.

In reality, it is deliberate. Including the deliberate effort to have this continue into adulthood.

Also, nearly the entirety of the female half of society also refuses to respect consent by offspring vis-a-vis their mother. Yes, this a very female-biased issue.

When a parent dictates to a child, it is backed up by either physical force/violence, or the threat thereof. Consent doesn’t matter when someone is twice your size, and can beat you into submission if you resist. While society thinks that is a perfectly acceptable way of establishing compliance.

No matter how you are being treated, you don’t get to just walk out. Because society views you as the property of your parents, and you are not equipped to financially support yourself.

Then, when you are a legal adult, and self-supporting, parents still think they can dictate to you. They have become addicted to this authority, and established their sense of entitlement.

Also as a legal adult, nearly the entirety of the female half of society will treat as still being beholden to your mother.

For example, you will be told that you “have to” physically live in close proximity to mommy’s house, and physically visit her on a frequent basis. This mentality and command is pervasive among (alleged) adult women. And will be spewed at you by random women whom you have just met, and who realise that you have, at some point, geographically relocated.

Another major point of consent is whether you have any children of your own. Every woman who has had unplanned/unwanted children feels entitled to dictate that everyone must have them. Thereby recycling the disrespect for consent.

What’s something you can’t believe you had to explain to another adult?

Updated Fri, Dec 27, 2019

So many things I have found myself explaining to (alleged) adults…

  • It is possible for an adult to live someplace that is a long distance from the town where they were born, or from anywhere they lived as a child. Actually living in that place, not merely a brief, temporary vacation.
  • Extended from the previous item, it is possible for an adult to pack up and move to a new town, city, state/province, or even country. To actually live, not a vacation.
  • The US military has a pervasive practice of requiring servicemembers (and, by extension, their children) to pack up and move to new places, long distances, repeatedly. It is normal within the context.
  • There are other job fields involving high rates of geographic mobility. Which results in children becoming accustomed to the concept of relocation.
  • When an adult relocates to another country, she will generally continue speaking with an accent from her original country. It doesn’t instantly change, and she isn’t obligated to change it. She gets tired of hearing, “You have an accent” over and over. Also, claiming that, native-born New Zealanders don’t speak with any accent is totally ignorant.
  • Some people’s parents don’t live together. Or anywhere near each other.
  • If you are eighteen, and your mother is moving to rural NothingTown, with very poor job prospects, it is reasonable and legitimate to move a long distance to your father, who lives in a city with much better job prospects. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is the mature, responsible thing for some people to do.
  • There are eighteen-year-olds who are mature and responsible enough to be living completely independently of their parents, voluntarily. Working, paying the rent, etc. And, being eighteen, they are legally adults, and within their rights to act like it. Some people have to start supporting themselves younger than that.
  • It is possible for an adult to live a long distance from her mother, and to be quite satisfied with that situation.
  • Extended from previous item, it is possible for an adult to permanently refuse any contact of any kind with her mother. And to be quite satisfied with that situation.
  • There are mothers who don’t love their children. There are mothers who physically beat their children in a manner that constitutes a crime. Denial and victim-blaming are completely inappropriate, and make you into a moral accomplice to the abuse.
  • It is possible to travel to an unfamiliar area, whether across town, or to a new city. And to navigate one’s self, without another person giving directions. This involves the use of a thing called a map, which some people actually possess the basic skill to use.
  • Rubbish and recycling pickup may be scheduled for very early in the morning (so the truck is no longer blocking the street by the time people are driving to work). A neighbour knew this, since she stated that, she had attempted to put her rubbish out on the way to work, but the truck had already been past. It happened at least twice. She saw me placing my rubbish out on the evening before pickup day, and said, “That’s a really good idea”. She hadn’t bothered to read the printing on the official council bags that said you could put them out starting 5PM the evening before. She was in her 40s, and my guess had been dependent on her now-former husband for this simple task and knowledge.
  • When at a retail store, you may need to wait your turn in line to checkout. Barging up to the counter, demanding that the cashier stop in the middle of a transaction with the person ahead of you, and let you proceed first, is unrealistic.
  • There are jobs that pay more than minimum wage. Often in exchange for more than minimum effort, skills, and attitude.
  • There are jobs that pay for more than 8 hours x 5 days/week of work. This is perfectly legal (with some safety limitations, e.g. transportation), and there are employees who are actually willing to do this. The fact that you aren’t willing to do so is irrelevant.
  • There are jobs (e.g. courier services) that involve physically going to different locations throughout the day. Including on-demand orders, without any fixed route or pre-set itinerary. The worker may even go to locations that she has never been to previously (see item regarding maps). The fact that you cannot psychologically handle such a job is irrelevant.
  • There are jobs that pay on productivity (commission, piecework, etc), without any hourly wage. And, with some of these jobs, it is possible to earn enough money to support one’s self. The fact that you don’t feel willing or able to do so is irrelevant.
  • Even on an hourly wage, it is reasonable that an employer will expect you get a commensurate dollar-value worth of work done. There isn’t any rule requiring them to pay you to just show up and sit around all day long.
  • There are jobs that involve working at night, so the person must sleep during the day. Calling them on the phone in the daytime, and being informed that you woke them from sleep, does not somehow indicate that they are lazy.
  • Generally, a telephone is not a leash for you to randomly jerk. If you call an acquaintance, or your “booty-call” person, without prior agreement, you might receive the voicemail, for a variety of reasons. Acting offended or victimsed is inappropriate.
  • Depending on income and expenses, it is possible to put a portion of one’s income into a savings account, and leave it there. Then gradually build up savings over time. Without just compulsively spending every dollar between paycheques.
  • When someone requires her car to get to work, or during the workday, she should prioritise finances to keep it running. Saving aside money for the next possible repair does not mean she “wants” the car to break down. It also does not mean she chooses to be constantly miserable.
  • Buying lottery tickets is a very poor strategy for attempting to improve one’s finances, or to pursue financial goals. Claiming that it is the only viable strategy, and denigrating someone who doesn’t buy lottery tickets is inappropriate.
  • Some people live in bad neighbourhoods because they are working poor with a low income. Not because they are somehow bad people who enjoy the atmosphere. Not everyone can afford to live in a nice, middle-class neighbourhood.
  • There are adults who can not simply call the Bank Of Mommy And Daddy for a withdrawal anytime they are short on cash. And this does not automatically make them bad people.
  • There are people who don’t use any recreational/addictive drugs, and don’t drink alcohol to excess.
  • When you openly throw large numbers of cigarette butts around the outside of a small apartment building, your neighbours have the right to react negatively. This includes when your butts keep landing in your neighbour’s vegetable garden. When you flick still-burning butts onto the grass, you are creating a fire hazard. Don’t lie and claim that they aren’t your butts, when you do it openly, are the only person in the building who smokes, and there is a trail from your parking space to your door.
  • Some people have views on religion that are different to yours. For example, some don’t believe in any god or afterlife. And that doesn’t automatically make them evil or dangerous.
  • People have the right to refuse to have sex with you. In a specific manner, on a specific occasion, or at all. They have the right to assert boundaries (sexual or otherwise) within a sexual relationship, including the right to unilaterally terminate the relationship. I once explained this to a middle-aged woman, who still refused to understand.
  • Within a relationship, a person has the right to respond negatively when you attempt sexual coercion or assault. Including dumping you to prevent a repeat.
  • Ordering your sex partner (“booty-call”) to barge into her doctor’s office, and coerce a prescription for magical breast-enlargement pills is inappropriate. She isn’t somehow victimsing you by refusing to comply with this demand.
  • There are some females who sexually abuse and assault (sexually and/or non-sexually) their female partners. Denial and victim-blaming are completely inappropriate, and make you into a moral accomplice to the abuse.
  • There are people who socialise and try to meet new people for platonic friendships, and not necessarily for sexual relationships.
  • People have the right to refuse to be friends with someone they don’t like.
  • If you want to establish or maintain a friendship or relationship, it is reasonable that you will be required to contribute positively to the other person’s life. And required to not use or abuse them. See previous items.
  • When meeting a new person socially, immediately saying, “I can only talk to you if you promise that, anytime I tell you to do something, you will do it”, is a very poor strategy for making new friends.
  • Empathy, kindness, openness, and generosity are not a deliberate invitation to use and abuse the person. Those things are also limited, and may be exhausted or withdrawn.
  • It is reasonable to pay one’s credit card and other bills, in order to maintain a positive credit history, which is a valuable thing to have.
  • In a classroom full of adult students, it is reasonable to expect them to behave in a civilised, respectful manner. Such a not continuously carrying on irrelevant conversations at the top of their lungs. A more civilised student has the right to respond negatively to out-of-control classmates who degrade the education for which she is paying in money/time/stress.
  • There are people who don’t attend any formal schooling as children, and who still learn the same amounts and types of skills and information. Such as partly being taught (e.g. a parent teaching the child to read), and also by independently reading and studying.
  • Don’t physically touch an acquaintance, classmate, coworker, etc, without their consent. They have the right to respond negatively if you do this.
  • There are women who have never done sexual activity in exchange for money.
  • There are women who never have any children, and are quite satisfied with being childfree. And this is not a deliberate affront against you. There is zero obligation to have unplanned children just because somebody else did.
  • There are women who remain single (not married or partnered), without just desperately marrying/partnering with any random available person.
  • It isn’t reasonable or realistic to expect people to just hand you resources, merely because you believe that they possess those resources.
  • The fact that a person has a job does not automatically mean that they can afford to, or are obligated to, hand you any amount of cash you feel entitled to.
  • The fact that another person possesses a car does not automatically make them your personal, on-demand, free limousine.
  • When you are a passenger in a moving car, it is highly inappropriate to suddenly waive your hand in the driver’s face, so that she has to quickly jerk her head back to avoid being hit. When I was a teenager, I had to explain this to my middle-aged mother.
  • When you are living on someone else’s couch, openly abusing and threatening them is conducive to being thrown out on the street. If you don’t like the conditions, rules, or host, your recourse is to go out and find a living situation that you feel is more satisfactory.
  • When you threaten to commit a violent crime against someone, it is reasonable to expect that they will take steps to avoid that. Which may include contacting the police.
  • Physically beating someone is still a crime, even if you don’t put them in the hospital.
  • There exist people who actually will start an unprovoked confrontation with a stranger on the street, which may escalate to an unprovoked physical assault. Denial and victim-blaming are completely inappropriate.
  • If you want to reduce your future chances of arrest and incarceration, you should consider reducing the amount of idiotic crimes that you commit.
  • Your manner of dress and hairstyle will affect your chances of being hired for a job. Deliberately wearing dirty clothes, refusing to bathe daily (despite access to facilities), and stinking up the area will affect many people’s willingness to interact with you in any way.
  • If you walk into a store and attempt to steal something, the employees and owner have a reasonable position to prevent you from doing so, or to otherwise respond negatively.
  • Your drug problem is just that – yours. Other people don’t just exist to enable you.
  • If you approach a taxicab driver, wanting a free ride, it is reasonable that s/he will refuse. If you take a cab ride and then evade payment, it is reasonable for the driver to respond negatively. If s/he suspects that you are likely to do this, there are regulations stating that s/he may require an estimated payment before the trip starts.
  • There are passengers who take taxicab rides to score drugs. And, no, driving them to the police station isn’t a smart idea. And some other passengers will rob and/or assault the driver, who has the right to be paranoid.
  • It is possible and allowable for a middle-aged person to go to university.
  • It is possible for a person to learn new skills and procedures, for a new job.
  • It is viable to live in an apartment that consists of a single room plus bathroom. It is possible to sleep and to prepare food in the same room. And no, this is not somehow equivalent to living in a cardboard box on the street.
  • Stealth camping on public land, for an extended period, is a viable option for some people.
  • It is possible to resign from a job for legitimate reasons, and is not automatically lazy or irresponsible. For example, moving to another city, enrolling at university, or just getting a better job.
  • If your employer is having lowered profits, and shrinking (e.g. a retail chain that shuts down some store locations), it is perfectly legal for them to make you redundant/laid-off, and no longer employed there. You can lose your job without personally doing anything wrong, and you have zero recourse.
  • The fact that someone else feels stuck in a job they hate, or a location they don’t like, or other miserable life situation, does not obligate everyone else to set their lives up that way.
  • Openly insulting someone you just met is not a good way to make friends and receive admiration.
  • Demanding financial information, medical information, or similar private information from someone you just met socially is inappropriate.
  • A person’s money is theirs, to use in the manner that they choose, without being dictated to by some random acquaintance, such as you.
  • A person’s time, physical body (including medical care), sexuality, physical appearance, and tastes/preferences belong entirely to them, without being dictated to by some random acquaintance, such as you.
  • People have the right to walk down a public street, minding their own business. The fact that you don’t like their physical appearance is irrelevant.
  • It is viable to live without owning a television set. Including long before the World Wide Web or video streaming were invented. Even with a computer, it is viable to simply not watch mass-market television shows. There are actually other activities that can be done in one’s leisure time.
  • There are adults who voluntarily read books, nonfiction, adult-level. Some people actually enjoy reading.
  • When you blatantly lie to someone, it is reasonable that they will never trust you on that issue, or anything else.
  • The limits of your life are yours. What you have or haven’t experienced or witnessed, what you feel capable of, etc, are not the universal limits of everyone else’s life.
  • There is only one guarantee in life – that it will eventually end. Everything else involves some level of ambiguity. And that fact is not a personal vicitimisation against you.
  • Different behaviours are conducive to different results. Things don’t just “happen”.

In some cases, multiple different items above were explained to one person. Some items were explained to multiple different people.

Even when explaining these principles, some people still didn’t comprehend. Some adamantly argued, and insisted that I was the ignorant one.

Are violent people mentally sick?

Answered Oct 24, 2019

It depends on the sex of the violent person.

If a man beats his wife, then he is automatically, 100% sane, and responsible for his actions. He is an evil thug.

If a woman beats her child, then she is automatically an innocent victim, of anything and everything. Such as being labeled mentally ill. Although that is a distant third, after denial and victim-blaming.

This extends to any and all other situations where, either a man or a woman, commits physical violence.

How do I tell my parents that I know they put a camera in my room?

Updated Aug 17, 2019

It sounds like you are probably a teenager.

What to do depends on if you are a teenage boy or a teenage girl.

In either case, do not actually say anything to them about it. And, when doing the following, do not look directly at the camera. Just pretend that you don’t even know it is there.

If you are a boy, make separate, A4 size printouts of photographs of each of your parent’s faces. Sit down in a chair, so that you are facing the camera, fairly close. Look at one of the photos, and hold it up, so that it is visible to the camera for a few moments, and they can see it is their own photo. On different occasions, alternate between using either your mother’s or your father’s photo.

Then (while holding the photo in one hand and looking at it), undo your pants, and start masturbating. Keep going until you you spooge right onto the camera lens.

If you are a girl, go into the bathroom, or somewhere outside of camera view. Take a wide felt-tip pen, and write “Mom” on your left buttock, and “Dad” on your right buttock, in large letters. Then get dressed again, with a very short skirt, but no underwear.

Then, go back to your room, put on some cheerful music, and start cheerfully dancing around.

Get right in front of the camera, turn with your back to it, bend over, and start twerking. So that your short skirt flips up, and they can see the, “Mom” and “Dad” written across your buttocks. Make sure they can see everything.

After whichever activity you choose, just relax, and go back to regular, boring activities (studying, sleeping, etc) that you normally do in your bedroom.

Do this routine at least once per week, on a continuing basis, at random intervals, so they never know when it will happen.

There is nothing lewd or disrespectful about any of this, because you will be doing it in the privacy of your own room. Where you can reasonably expect that nobody would observe you.

Again, do not directly mention it to them. Whenever you see and talk with them, just act completely normal and innocent.

What is it like to move to a big city from a small town and what are good tips on adjusting?

Answered Jul 27, 2019

Get ready to be surprised by some mind-boggling, willfully-ignorant, small-minded attitudes.

This includes from people who have spent their entire lives in the suburbs of a major city. I know that I seem to belabour this point, but it is heavily female-biased.

Even in “the big city”, many, many women assume that, every person just lives their whole life stuck in one town. Or even just one particular suburban area.

I met people in Orange County, California, who acted like “going to LA” was a special occasion. Or that, going to any unfamiliar area inside the local area would be a disorienting, frightening experience.

There are people in big-city areas who literally don’t know how to use a street map to get to the suburbs on the other side of town. It should be a basic skill, but many actually lack it. To the point where, they are unaware that anyone has that skill.

Then, add on the psychological/social factors. Some people will actually insist that every “adult” stays in whatever town where their mother lives. With zero other factors under consideration. This is one of the female-biased points.

There is a mindset that, any kind of new environment, especially without any familiar people, would just be impossible to withstand.

Then, add on the ignorance of how different other places are. I met people in Los Angeles who couldn’t comprehend, “Smallville has very poor job prospects and mass poverty, and zero educational prospects”. Or maybe they just didn’t care, since they weren’t the one being told that they would inevitably “have to go back” to Smallville.

And, speaking of “have to go back”, you can expect to hear those words decades after you escaped Smallville, without even any visits back there. You will still be treated like you are on vacation.

There are people who simply cannot comprehend that, someone might have moved around repeatedly, long distances, as a child, and so doesn’t have a fixed “hometown”. There are people who cannot comprehend that, your Mommy’s location isn’t your personal “hometown”. Because they cannot comprehend that, anyone’s parents ever relocated.

Some women (that bias again) take the attitude that, the “right” thing to do, is to just draw a twenty-kilometre radius from your birthplace (and/or Mommy’s house), and just accept that that is your world. What is or isn’t available in that tiny world isn’t seen as relevant.

This includes “right” thing in terms of “common sense”, as if every reasonable, rational person would agree.

It also includes “right” thing in terms of morality. Which is a euphemism for dissuading you from doing anything positive with your life that someone else feels too incompetent and/or afraid to do.

If you absolutely can’t stand the thought of anyone being homeless, and you run a homeless shelter, do you kick people out when they find a job and are able to afford some kind of rent?

Updated Jul 27, 2019

I didn’t work there, but saw how things operated.

It was very small in “shelter” terms – Just a house with 9 bedrooms.

It also wasn’t free. They ran it with the micromanaging, condescending. thinly-disguised-contemptuous attitude as if it were a free shelter, but actually charged rent. The amount was seriously overpriced for the conditions (crowding, micromanaging etc).

However, they didn’t view the residents as paying customers. Because the general model was for the government welfare department to pay the residents’ dole directly to this place. The residents were all viewed as bludgers, (primarily welfare mothers), with the welfare department being the actual customer. And yes, the welfare mothers crammed as many as three or four children into the room with them. Said children were being raised poorly, and will likely repeat the cycle in another ten years or so.

It was all about chronic dependency. People for whom the term, “no-hoper” was invented. Higher education, or even basic, minimal employment just weren’t on the radar for these people.

They called the people living there “residents”, not “tenants”, and that wasn’t just to be polite or friendly.

The rent was probably set at the maximum they could get based on either welfare regulations, or just the maximum to where the residents had just barely anything left over.

Stays were theoretically for a maximum of three months, but there were suggestions that they didn’t actually enforce this.

They provided a room and food. Residents had to buy their own soap, toothpaste, transportation, etc., with the small amount left over after the rent.

You would have been in very serious difficulty if you had any one-time or ongoing medical costs.

This place acted like they were doing people a personal favour by allowing people to live there. It was owned by some allegedly religious entity, and the abusive manager claimed to be religious. But it was really a business, profiting off of fleecing desperate people.

The deal included rotating duties of cooking dinner, and also cleaning common areas (bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, etc), as a condition of living there. Which meant that, a childfree resident had to clean up the daily mess made by other people’s children.

It also included a level of micromanaging rules that no normal landlord could get away with. No visitors in your room, no booze, all kinds of intrusive questions (including finances and medical information) and “here is what you are going to do about your pathetic situation”.

One command was to apply for long-term welfare housing (with a very long waiting list), with the expectation of long-term welfare dependence.

Another command was to see a “budget counselor”, who would demand a detailed accounting of every dollar you received and spent. So that they could dictate what you were allowed to buy.

The manager and a night supervisor (i.e. adult babysitter) actually reacted negatively towards a resident who got a part-time job.

They lied (because they were generally dishonest and disrespectful). Manager claimed that, the job was willful misbehaviour, because it allegedly distracted said resident from “dealing with” a recent bereavement. Babysitter claimed that, said resident wasn’t mentally fit to be working at a job with other people. It was absolute gaslighting.

The manager confronted the resident, and stated that, a condition of continuing to live there was to get diagnosed with a psychiatric disability, and apply for disability welfare benefits. Despite the fact that said resident was working part-time and attending university part-time, and was a sane, rational, reasonably-functioning person. The manager wanted this person to just give up on life, throw away any future potential, and become one of the totally dependent no-hopers.

It was a blatant attempt at gaslighting a person who happened to be having a very sad moment in life.

Why the negative reaction? My guess is a few reasons:

  1. When a person receives over a certain income from working, the welfare department penalises their dole. This could result in that benefit being lower than the rent amount. Which would mean that, this place would need to arrange for the resident to directly pay some or all of the rent. With the risk of non-payment.
  2. There may have been the idea of a disability benefit paying more money, which the facility could take, based on allegedly providing more services (i.e. micromanaging). And/or the idea of demanding that, the tenant’s entire benefit be paid directly to the manager of the facility, since you can’t trust crazy people with money.
  3. A working person would have a position to feel like a paying customer. With expectations and standards. Like objecting to the poor conditions, and the bad behaviour and attitudes of the other residents and their children.
  4. A person who was working, with good credit history, zero criminal history, zero eviction history, generally adult functioning, childfree, and only low-income due to being a university student… just did not fit with the business model, or the contemptuous mental model of residents.
  5. Said person might actually have other alternatives, and might not be such an easy target for financial exploitation.
  6. There was always at least one empty room in the house. So, if someone moved out (due to working and/or refusing to tolerate the conditions), they couldn’t just reload the room with another profit-making resident.
  7. A working person didn’t “fit in” with the other residents. One of whom tried to instigate conflict based on envy and tall poppy syndrome.

This place actually wanted people who were shut out of education, jobs, and regular housing rentals. They wanted people who had/perceived zero other options. Who were terrified of being booted out on the street. And who would submit to bullying and micromanagement, while being used for revenue.

At what age, and how, did you come to realize your mother is abusive and different than most other mothers?

Updated Jul 24, 2019

These are two different questions/issues.

Age 11, when she directly stated that she beat all three of her children not for discipline”, but rather, because it “made (her) feel better”.

I figured out, after years of violence… “She isn’t beating me because I’m a bad person … But rather, because she is a bad person”.

Years later, when I was twenty, I learned about the massive denial, victim-blaming taboo that is endemic among women.

I naively assumed that, the average adult woman had awareness and understanding of the pervasive reality of maternal child abuse.

It was at that age that I learned that, females who didn’t experience maternal child abuse are all in a state of denial and victim-blaming. Non-survivors live in a fantasy-world. And that was a realisation almost as profound as the realisation of my mother’s abusive nature.

Those people are effectively accomplices to the abuse. And, due to their numbers and pervasiveness, cannot be jettisoned with anything near the ease that the one direct abuser was dismissed from my life when I was eighteen.

What is a tall poppy?

Updated Jul 24, 2019

A tall poppy is a person who is perceived as doing better in some way, compared to the person with the perception. It can be one-to-one comparison, or it can be a group of people targeting one person.

Tall poppy syndrome is contextual.

I have spent time in an environment where someone who just graduated with a bachelors degree is the shortest poppy in the room. And have also spent time in environments where, simply being a first-year uni student would constitute being perceived as the tall poppy.

I have spent time in a low-wage, part-time job at a university, as the lowest employee in the department (e.g. washing test tubes in a lab, etc). And have spent time in other environments with chronic non-workers who would perceive me as a tall poppy for that (or any) job. Although they didn’t quite envy the job, but rather, envied the paycheque that they imagined.

Some other mind-blowingly petty tall poppy experiences:

  • They suspect you of earning more than minimum wage, forty hours per week. Even if they know this is due to working harder.
  • You don’t smoke cigarettes (or anything else).
  • You don’t have any unplanned children.
  • You live someplace other than the town where you were born.
  • You get passing grades in an educational course.
  • You have never received money to have sex with strangers.
  • Somebody projects a fantasy that you possess resources that you actually don’t.
  • Somebody projects a fantasy that you possess situational advantages that you actually don’t.

Some people answer questions regarding tall poppy syndrome with a defensive excuse that, it is only directed towards people who act haughty, and flaunt high levels of success or resources. But that is not true at all.

Merely giving simple, polite answers to someone’s personal interrogation about the above-listed matters is enough for them to target you. Merely existing while they project the above-described fantasies is enough for them to target you.