The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)No pudding for him! 
[img]
[/img]
raptor_rider
(1,014 posts)Seen all of the videos.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)Here's one from VG Cats (got to about 6 minutes):
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)This is brilliant! About half-way through I was laughing so hard, I could barely see the screen.
Thanks for posting... this day need a laugh.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)priceless.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Slayed. LOLOLOL.
trof
(54,256 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)Isn't that the Planter Peanuts guy, painted white?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)
Hmmmmm...
nikto
(3,284 posts)with his legs cut short.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)next victim!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)
In one of the cases, a Woman ran into the street, if a car had been going by she would have been hit and killed. She was lucky no car was going by
This is enough of a shock to cause a heart attack if done to someone who has a bad heart condition.
The biggest threat, is that the snow man scares a man from the rural south. The men raised in the Rural South tend to opt for attack in such situations, not laugh if off as is the common situation in most of the rest of the Civilized world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_United_States)
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep03381391.pdf
In simple language, when frightened Southerns tend to ATTACK (i.e. when frighten they will attack not laugh it off or run away), while other people tend to back off and look for support (which gives them time to laugh off little scares like this one). Various explanations are given for this difference, most start with the fact the original settlers of the South tended to come from the herding areas of the United Kingdom, while Farmers settled the North. Urbanization increased interactions of people, and forced people to back off and laugh about bad interactions as opposed to attacking.
You have to remember that prior to the 1960s every US City had lower then average murder rates, why? Because the Murder rate in the South was that high do do rural men opting to ATTACK in bad situations rather then back off and laugh off the bad situation.
African Americas were overwhelming in the south prior to WWII, now some immigration started before WWI, but it accelerated after WWI and accelerated again after WWII (For example Mississippi went form 60% African American to just 40% during that time period). When African American moved North, they brought with them their "traditions" which included traditions developed and adopted over the previous 300 years, and the main influence on those tradition was the traditions of the Rural South. Thus African Americans brought with them a higher rate of crime, including murder.
Since the 1960s, as African Americans became part of Urban Northern Cities, they slowly adopted the norms of Northern Whites, i.e. the murder rates of African Americans have steadily dropped since the 1960s, when the great immigration from the south ended. Southern While murder rates have also dropped, but it appears to be do to massive movement of Northerns to Southern Cities, when you look at the rural South, they appears to have been NO drop in the murder rates.
Just a comment, that this works in Harvard, the city of upper middle class northern culture. In areas with heavy southern influence, the snow man has a much higher chance of being attacked.
The reason for this higher level to attack among Rural Southerns, in an attack or run situation, is while known, but the cause is debated. Some people call it Genes (but that would NOT explain how rural southern African Americans became equally as violate), other says it was cultural norm the rose out of Slavery (Murder rates were low under slavery, for killing a slave was NOT murder). While some blame instability of government and social standings, that tends to refuted by the fact people in the Mountains were LESS likely to commit such murders (and feuds) then people living in low lying areas where slavery was more profitable.
I suspect it is cultural and came out of the "Need" to control Slaves. It started with the traditions of herding, i.e. you had to defend your head, for by the time help came the people who were stealing the herd would be long gone, with the herd. Farming communities did not have to worry about this, for it was hard to steal crops still in the fields and once harvested could be dispersed (Thus farmers could wait for help against thieves, while herders could not).
From that tradition of herding, the South Developed the need for "Patrols" run by the County Sheriff, "Patrols" tied in with the Militia for it was the duty of every while male in the county to go on "Patrol" once a month. The "Patrol" was a group of men assigned to guard a cross road or other point, at night. and to check who was going down the road. If any African Americans came across a Patrol, they would stop the African American and Check his papers to make sure he was out with his master's permission (or of a Free African American he had papers to show he was NOT a slave, the law presumed all African Americans were SLAVES, and could be arrested and it was up to the African American to prove he was NOT a slave. If arrested, the AFrican American was held by the Sheriff till his master showed up, and if the master never showed up (for example if it was a FREE African American without papers), the Sheriff could sell the African America to pay for the cost of keeping the African American.
Now, to get this system to work, the members of the Patrol had to have some latitude, and that was given by the law, including the right to kill any slave that crossed they path (the Sheriff then had to pay the slave owner for the Slave). Again the reason was to put the fear of getting caught into the minds of any African American Slave who even THOUGHT of trying to escape. In most cases Slaves were just beaten, thus no costs were incurred by the Sheriff, but this rule brought with it a hardening of these Southern males to beating and killing, a hardening that affected even how they interacted among themselves. Thus the high murder rates of Rural Southern Males.
The end of slavery should have stopped this pattern of violence, but during reconstruction the KKK was built on the ruins of the pre Civil War Sheriff's Patrols. Group of men, Five to ten, riding together to keep African Americans in their place. At the end of Reconstruction, the South turned to the Law to reestablish slavery. This time they looked at the 13th amendment and notice it had an exception for criminals. Thus Southern Whites started to charge African Americans with various crimes, including agreeing to work for the someone and the African American NOT doing the work. i.e. any white man could accuse any African American of agreeing to work for him, and the burden was on the African American to show he had NOT made such an agreement. The Courts would rule the African American failed to full fill his obligations under the agreement to work, the Courts would ORDER the African American to work for that white man till the "Debt" was paid off in full. This system needed violence to work, for violence was needed to make sure other African Americans did not get to the court to testify no such agreement was ever made, you also needed to use violence to keep the African American from running away (unlike pre Civil War slaves, more and more post Civil War Freedmen knew that all they had to do is cross the State line not the Ohio river, ALSO they knew how far the Ohio River was AND more and more of these Freedmen knew how to read and write, and thus could explain these concepts to other Freedmen). Thus to keep these Freedmen in Criminal slavery took more violence then pre-Civil War slavery.
By 1900, imprisonment for debt started to go out of favor even in the South, the Federal Government even started some feeble attempts to enforce Federal Law forbidding imprisonment for debt. At the same time the KKK was reborn and segregation became the rule of the South. This saw a further increase in violence to make sure African Americans stayed in their place. This tendency to violence INCREASED when the Civil Rights Movement started its big push in the 1950s and continued till the 1970s.
Since the 1970s, violence has been down played in the South, it is still on going, often race related, but also as often NOT race related. It just reflects the greater tendency to Violence Southern Males have compared to other groups. The above explains HOW it occurred and why it did NOT drop, as the South went from Herding to Cotton farming and slavery (Pre Civil War), to Cotton Farming with no legal slaves (Post Civil War), to Cotton Farming and segregation (1900 to 1950), Cotton Farming Desegregation and mechanization of Cotton Farming (1950 to 1970), and finally today. Each period had its own reason to resort to violence and did so, but those reasons often related to the fact the previous period was as violent (i.e. the problems of today, can be solved the same way it was resolved in granddad's day, with violence).
The South since the 1970s has had a period of peace and political stability that in many ways has NEVER been the case when it came to the South, but it takes several generations to reduce the tendency to violence, as seen in the inner city African American Population, whose murder rate is still much higher then whites, even through most African Americans had in those cities since at least the 1950s (Please note in wide sections of the Rural South you still have majority African American counties, but African Americans living is such rural areas are the minorities compared the the number of African Americans living in Urban Northern Areas).
Just pointing out this stunt is dangerous, not only because it might cause some one to be hit by a car, it might lead to an attack on the person in the Snow man suit. It has only worked do to the location of the Store, in a lower income neighborhood this can become dangerous quickly.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)...O...K...
Wow.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)We scare the hell out of one another for jokes all the time, and I can promise you most of us have absolutely no problem running as if our lives depended on it, if the joke is scary enough.
If we are more prone to attacking when frightened than other people, it's because it's way too hot to put up with any shit.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)
The tendency has been noticed more by others in men from the Rural South then in other "Western" Nations. The Fight or Flee mechanism is hard wired into all of us (of both sexes), but the society we are raised in will to a degree, determine which option people will pick. That is all the studies show, and those studies also tend to show it is more a lower or working class action to an attack, as opposed to a Upper Middle class or higher tendency.
The studies also show the tendency to attack increase as the security one has in his or her life declines, i.e. much of what was Historically the Rural South went into a great depression in the 1880s and did not come out of it till after WWII and that may explain part of the tendency to violence.
On the other hand NO ONE COMMENTED ON MY OBSERVATION OF THE WOMAN WHO RAN INTO THE STREET. In many ways that was almost worse, for it IS common among ALL people. I did not go into it much, for it was obvious how bad it was. This is bad given WHERE it is being done.
AS to Dogs, most dogs will RUN if they can, they attack when they are on a lead and can NOT run. Dogs know when they are on a lead, and act differently when they are. It is called "Lead Aggression". It only occurs when the option of retreat is viewed by the DOG as not existing.
http://www.suzanneclothier.com/the-articles/handling-lead-aggression
http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/dogs-who-are-reactive-leash
http://milosdogtraining.com/2013/05/20/lead-aggression/
nolabear
(41,963 posts)The wrong is so thick I can't even begin to...oh, never mind.
Lucky Luciano
(11,256 posts)
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)rudolph the red
(666 posts)and then I read your post...Holy Shit!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and macaroni.
Still Blue in PDX
(1,999 posts)As for the cultural commentary, not goin' there. That is all.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I have to point out one area where I know for a fact that you're mistaken. When you say, "... people in the Mountains were LESS likely to commit such murders (and feuds) then people living in low lying areas where slavery was more profitable."
While it's true that mountainous areas don't work for large scale farming, where slavery was indeed profitable to the owner class, you've been misled about the fractious nature of mountain folk. The Hatfield-McCoy feud may have been one of the worst, but in general it was not unusual in the least. Nor has that much changed yet that I can see. I retired to a sort of highlands area that's not quite officially mountains, but it is remote and still largely inhabited by descendants of the original settlers. These people's grudges pre-date the Civil War! During that time all the churches had to be closed because people would simply congregate there for shootouts.
Today they don't shoot quite so often, but still a lot more than I find reasonable. Besides, there are many other ways of warring among themselves, and those methods remain in full swing. My first spring season here, I was ambling down the sidewalk around the town square when a huge number of cars suddenly careened into sight and started racing around, with horns blaring and people yelling and screaming and throwing things at each other.
Instinctively I ducked inside a store and the clerk thought that was the funniest thing in the world. I asked her what the hell was going on out there. She explained that the senior class always did that after graduation ceremonies to get in their last blows before dispersing to the four winds. Well, guess what - most don't disperse. They stay here and breed, and teach their kids who their local enemies are. It's downright savage.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If you remember the 1950s and desegregation, Mississippi was the hot bed NOT the Appalachian Mountains. Yes, people have feuds in the Mountains, but the real problems with violence was in the Black belt of Georgia to Arkansas. Birmingham Alabama is right at the tale end of the Appalachian Mountains, but most of the violence in that city was from the low lands around the city (and the city itself). Thus there is strong evidence to support that theory put forth by the studies I cited, it tends to be more covered up an less reported then the Feuds in the Mountains, mostly do to it is more one to four men killing someone, as opposed to the much larger groups reported in the Mountain Feuds (i.e. the famous observation by Pulitzer, a Dog biting a man is NOT news, a Man bitting a dog is NEWS, in this case, an African American being killed by a white man is NOT new, but a full scale armed rebellion between two families, where no one gets killed or even injured IS NEWS).
Thus I have to go with the Studies, not personal observations, personal observations is often affected by the same problem Pulitzer was citing when he made his famous comment, we tend to dismiss what happens frequently as normal, even if it is violent. On the other hand something out of the ordinarily even if no one gets hurt, is talked about for days for people had NOT heard of such a thing. The Mountain Feuds were reported for it was rare to see such number of people involved in one fight. On the other hand, people getting into fight in bars happens all the time and rarely makes the news, do to this well known news bias if favor of the Strange over the Norma;.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)mention as you did the various time frames of the STUDIES. I'd read plenty of those STUDIES myself before daring to move to a remote area where I knew not a soul. I did know that at the very least I'd face a settling in period, but the xenophobic venom thrown at me at first was still a heavy shock. Everybody likes to think of their own small town as Mayberry, when it's far more a cross between Peyton Place and Beirut. If an outsider dares plop down in their midst w/o invitation or permission, they don't take it lightly no matter who you are. If you happen to be a liberal Northeast DamnYankee Yellow Dog Democrat, you're pushing a giant boulder up a steep hill for years before some of them will give you the time of day - and some never will. No matter how hard you try to keep interactions neutral and free of politics, they see the campaign sign in your yard, they notice 'you don't talk like you're from around here!' etc. Perhaps most galling of all, they see or hear about the letters you write to the local newspaper.
With the luck of the Irish and YEARS of hard work trying to build bridges, if you're lucky you might be reasonably welcome at a local church. People will stop getting up and moving when you sit beside them in a pew or at table. Many will start to smile and wave when they see you, perhaps throw a brief friendly chat your way. But make the least hint of interest in joining a subgroup and you'll find they've suddenly disbanded. "Been thinking about it for years; low attendance, etc." Then for the forseeable future you'll continue to see and hear announcements of their next meeting. One evening when I really needed a lift, I tiptoed over to the UMC around the corner and sat in a dark side room listening to the bell choir practice. That music always cheers me up. While I sat there in the shadows, mellowing out nicely, the pastor rushed in all stirred up because his wife had told him I might ask to join the bell choir. Sweat beaded on his forehead and his voice shook as he tried to dissuade me from something I assured him I had no intention of doing.
So during my 8 years here, I've seen more than a few newcomers, usually couples, arrive starry eyed and before long run screaming into the night. The only chance a new arrival has is to already have relatives here, or to move from within a hundred mile radius AND then fit seamlessly into the fascist political milleu. During my virtual incarceration here I've very slowly chipped away at some of the armor, but I have no illusions as to how far it will get me. Fortunately I was an Army brat and career Army man's wife, so I have loads of independence and adaptability. Quite frankly I do prefer my own company to theirs 90% of the time. But I have to venture out occasionally, if nothing else than for the sound of live human voices regardless of what they're saying. After 3 years I'm beginning to feel reasonably welcome at the UMC Sunday School adult class, and they've got a new, more progressive pastor now who doesn't make me want to throw books at him. That's about as good as its going to get. I'm not satisfied by any means, but I'm reasonably content. It beats the hell out of a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Yes, Harvard is rarely the first choice of most Southern Rural residents, but in at least in theory, some such people would be going to Harvard. A few years ago, I was walking by a person in Pittsburgh and because I walked to fast past him, he went into a position to punch me. I just kept on walking for he looked like he just left a mental hospital (i.e. his clothes were cheap, but clean but he had that look that everyone was out to get him).
Yes, you would more likely find someone who would go on the attack in Florida as opposed to Cambridge Massachusetts, but that is NOT the same as to say such an attack is NOT possible in Cambridge Massachusetts.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)co-opted by the oppressor class and redesigned to pacify the oppressed worker as they cope with their dismal existence during a long dismal winter. At Harvard Square - the ultimate playground for the spoiled children of the bourgeoisie - we see our class enemies mocking the very folk symbols of workingclass forbearance while instilling in their mind a state of fear - no doubt crafted by the bourgeois in their relentless campaign to insure potentially insubordinate proletariat never forget their place and start believing that they have a right to a seat at the table in the Harvard Squares of the world. .
Owl
(3,642 posts) 
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)Thanks for the laugh, Will!
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)I hope no one shoots the snowman... 
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)HappySlug's comments call to mind a puzzling thing that happened in my own life. I was living way out in the sticks after spending quite a few years in L.A., during which time I'd studied martial arts quite a bit. But at this point I only had one dog and he was at the vet's recuperating after an operation. So I rounded the corner of the house and got surprised by a neighbor I hadn't heard arrive. It startled me so that I jumped backwards, and for some strange reason instinctively adopted a Japanese defensive posture. Never could figure out why, because what I'd studied was Tae Kwon Do (Korean).
My neighbor, who'd only walked over to borrow the traditional cup of sugar, was as startled as I was. She thought I was going to strike her. But I can tell you that only once in my life did I ever have the urge to deliberately hit anyone outside the ring or dojo. Any degree of self protection training has a tendency to make people more peaceable because they're more in control of themselves and at least feel more secure in their surroundings.
Funny; one time in L.A. I answered the door to find a very non-threatening LEO standing there. He was on some mundane community errand or other, can't remember what. But I was new to the neighborhood, and he was awfully handsome, so naturally we got talking. Pretty soon he asked me if I was into martial arts and I wondered, totally surprised, what led him to ask such a question. (I dressed very girly at that age.) He told me he'd noticed that every time he changed his position in the least, so did I, in a way that optimized my ability to strike if necessary.
I said, "Damn - does it show that much?" wondering what kind of weirdo I'd turned into.
He said, "No. It wouldn't be noticeable at all to most people."
We were both single and went on a few dates, but you can guess what made the situation untenable - politics.
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)both coasts. It's generally thought that I am an old soul. One thing I love about this hundred-year-old house I bought in what was an early settlement along the Lewis-Clark Trail, is that it's built around an 1848 log cabin. People think I'm silly (for many other reasons too) when I tell them I can feel past spirits in old homes. And that I tend to find it comforting.
One time in California in an area settled even earlier, a farmer's wife invited me over to keep her company when the rest of her family took a trip she preferred to skip. I walked in the front door for the first time, looked around, and said, "I thought you said you were alone. That all your family had gone." She said, "Well, they all left this morning." I replied that the minute I crossed the threshold I could feel quite a few people around. She almost broke down in tears of relief, telling me that she never heard better news in her life. Seems her ancestors had owned that farm since the early Spanish settler days, and she kept telling her family that some of them were still hanging around. They kept telling her she was crazy.
I said, "No, you're not crazy. They're deaf."
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)A strange universe this is.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)the title did remind me of Calvin of Hobbs snow work.
illachick
(28 posts)I heard about this before and when it was mentioned there was a Youtube channel dedicated to this prank, I wanted to subscribe but forgot, so thanks for reminding me because this is awesome stuff just in time for the holiday season.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)the Bushman on Fisherman's Wharf. AFAIK no one has ever died because of his prank.
I agree with FailuretoCommunicate though --I've seen much weirder things in Harvard Square. MUCH weirder. 
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)
and the pisser was I *knew* he was down there somewhere. 
chknltl
(10,558 posts)It's a common problem with snowmen.