Apparently this started with a character on South Park who described redheads as "evil" and "soulless". This gave a fourteen-year-old boy the idea of starting a Facebook group dedicated to the idea of promoting November 20 as "National Kick a Ginger Day". The group soon had over 5000 members, and unfortunately some people decided to take the idea literally.
Comments
If its any consolation, the rest of the story is what happens after his more sensitive friends prank Cartman by turning him into a ginger with make-up while he is sleeping.
There's an expression I've heard; "Beaten like a Ginger step-child".
Not very nice but disturbingly evocative.
I'd rather be dead
like a bump on a log
Than red on the head
like a dick on a dog
Looks like the idiots in the facebook didn't actually watch the entirety of the South Park episode, incidentally, considering what happens in the end.
More likely, most of them just didn't care.
On one of the articles I read it said something along the lines of, "We try to keep some order on our website, but it's just too big and busy for us to keep an eye on all of it."
Red hair is defined by a gene complex called MC1R that has 30 variations among the redhead population, but basically changes receptors on cells to change production of melanin to eumelanin, thus preventing dark skin tones and hair colours. There is also the effect of increasing the amount of synapse-jumping chemicals, which ( Confirmed in a 2006 study ) lead anaesthesiologists to always use about 45% more sedation on redheads than others, and could explain the 'fiery hair, fiery temper' reputation ( And I know the swift anger of gingers ); Heightened sensitivity to pain may change one's mental view of the world.
Contraversially, many geneticists who veer away form eugenics in ANY form point out that many features of MC1R fit the profile for mutation, and some parameters even fit the deleterious mutation path like Huntingdons. If so, then this might explain the animosity toward redheads in the same way as the lack of general attraction to sufferers of Parkinsons or severe deformity mutations; It is the in-built drive to share and combine genes with healthy, similar but not too simialr organisms of our own kind ( Yes, there are exceptions. )made manifest in behaviour. Not that such condones violence toward anyone, but were do you draw the line at cruelty - If you reject someone you find unattractive, are *you* doing the same thing morally speaking?
Two solutions exist - One, the whole species' reproduction could be made a community affair, via In Vitro methods, thus no longer being a matter of choice by individuals and totally random. thu, no need for likes or dislikes.
Two, the race could develop beyond the need for reproduction at all, through genetic manipulation/regeneration or the Transhuman movement.
I need not nmention the third - the Voluntary Human Extinction movement have covered that.
( refer to "Mutants" by Armand Marie LeRoi for more info. )
Besides which, jo, I'm sure that if we examined your life, you have some predjudice against some group so heavily ingrained into your thinking that you don't even recognise it _as_ a predjudice and can come up with soooo many justifications for thinking that way. All you humans are like that, so I have discovered in my many decades on this planet.
You might also consider some spelling checkers before you debate things like this - It might make you less of a target.
They're lucky to be getting off with only ONE "national kick a ginger day". They are more deserving of "National kick a ginger month".
They're lucky to be getting off with only ONE "national kick a ginger day"." A person this ugly on the inside is most certainly ugly throughout and deserves all the misery their ugliness draws.
Also, this was listed as an event on Facebook, but it has recently been taken down.
By the way, happy kick a ginger day. Go kick those faggots.
A kid in my school was kicking everyone.
and i just can't believe that they dont realize this is a type
of bullying !
This is absolutly chocking news to hear that young students beat up other young students because of their red hair! Dont their parents react and how could youngster do such of crime? All this I blame politicians and the media for. All the evilship children and young daily read in the newspaper about hate, rasism, violence play-games and all politicians lies! All this have poisoning the worlds children and young and much of the parents dont even care? What kind of world!
You young with hate to redheaded! Why do you bear so much hate inside you? Think about it and take a deep look inside your self. Look at the world outside there and instead think about what must be done NOW to stop all the crime and evilship! The world need your love.
Please write to me about what you think about this "kick a ginger day!"
Lise Tollefsen Slembe
Leader of the norwegian organisation HULK
Help for young in seriouse lifecrises
http://www.hulk.no
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
"Come on people, get over it. IT'S FUNNY!"
Oh I feel so terrible sorry for this person who could write something like this! (Just like a kid on around 9 - 10 years!)
It just tell me how much devilship and general shit we find among us today!
People who enjoy to be cruel to others and only because they feel so terrible lonely in them self!
Lise Tollefsen Slembe
Psychoterapist
and leader for the org. HULK
Help for young in seriouse lifecrises)
http://www.hulk.no
Now, someone here is claiming falsehoods under the guise of being some sort of psychological expert, and whose grasp of English and loss of temper combined make me doubt their claims.
The link between low self-esteem and predjudice has long been questioned and recent studies have shown it to be false ( http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/commonly-held-beliefs-about-self-esteem-are-myths-warns-new-research-review ). Indeed, the opposite seems to be true - youth who have a strong self-esteem level develop a counter-action in that they are more likely to have contemptuous views and/or hatred for others not of their 'kind' simply because they have such a high opinion of themselves and their peers ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/health/deflating-self-esteem-s-role-in-society-s-ills.html ), which makes them a danger to other people in the community.
A quote from a documentary on a reality TV show also springs to mind from a lecturer in media studies at Stanford University; " For thirty years, wwe promoted high self-esteem as a cure for all social ills and boosted it in children at every turn. Nowadays, we see from Reality TV contestants ( Like Ameiracn Idol ) that we have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams . . . and that high self-esteem may not be for everyone."
Also, was it not Norway that had a policy of detaining the children of local women and German soldiers in insane asylums on the assumption that they would be killers and criminals due to having 'Nazi Genes'? Not a good track record of accurate science there; Still, they might have been right - one of the ABBA team was one such, and arguably their music was a crime 😊
I am the psychological nine year old who was propagating "devilship," as you so eloquently put. Maybe you should read some of D F Stuckey's articles before you show us how much of a quack you are. Many things are blamed on the media, internet, society, etc. that are really just the fault of the victims. If the kid didn't like getting picked on maybe he should have stood up for himself. A good threat or punch goes a long way. Thats how Darwinism works.
PS-I feel "terrible" sorry for you, Charles Barkley.
For starters, like most Americans you seem to confuse the idea of cruelty, brutality and selfishness with Darwinian theory, through sheer ignorance and religious propaganda; Darwin never used the phrase "Survival of the fittest". That was a clown named Herbert Spencer who used it to justify the domination of Europeans and other races by the 'naturally superior' English, since they had conquered most of the world ( Reasoning a posteriori as we call it. ). H G Wells had a much better handle on the situation and wrote 'War Of The Worlds' to demonstrate the true Darwinian theorem; A species is successful only if it has competition lesser than itself and the circumstances of its environment remain the same. In some ways, evolutionary fitness is a Medieval concept like the Medieval scholar's idea of gravity - an internal intrinsic trait that can only be measured in context to outside forces.
All that aside, while I agree that the 'gingers' should stand up for themselves, there is more merit to having a social environment where people whose self-control over internal drives is rewarded until it is great enough that they do not act like simple animals and treat each other with a modicum of tolerance; After all, what comes next for these "Kick A Ginger Day" people if they are rewarded for acting on their drives without restraint - "Rape An Aryan Blonde Week"? "National Urinate In Our Pants Month"? ( Though, I suspect from some of your statements that's a year-round thing for you Eric given the solid link between bed wetting and interpersonal violence 😊 )
Now, let's stick with facts shall we?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but didn't your first post espouse Darwin's tenets? I don't see much of a difference between your original claims and my subsequent statements (other than a lack of pomposity on my part and an inflated sense of self-worth on your part). Gingers failing to defend themselves and being seen as undesirable mates equates to Darwin's natural selection.
Certainly, people should treat each other better. I agree; I also think kicking gingers is hilarious. The only thing I'm sorry about is missing the holiday. I guess there is always next year...
The genes involved in redheadedness may seem to be detrimental under the current conditions, just as being blonde is a bad thing in the tropics. However, it is possible that under other environmental conditions redheads would be in a good position to survive and thus be desirable mates. It depends entirely on the place and time. *THAT* is the true Darwinina tenet rather than your more rassenwissenschft based viewpoint.
And i will admit like I did to the guy who put me in my current position that you are far superior to me. And it si true that I don't have many friends here apsrt from the nurses, and I suspect they would rather be doing other things tahn manually evacuating my bowels and all the other little chores that have to be done after a normal, everday, non-pompous bloke like you got a little drunk and good-naturedly beat me until my spine broke.
Or perhaps your partner might read it to you?
Clearly you have never actually seen that episode considering the term is never mentioned in the show.
Doesn't anyone remember that Chuck Norris is somewhat ginger, a REAL man..
Anyways, Gingers are just another variation of whites, you can compare to Asians, lots of different forms (Ex. Thai, Chinese, Japanese)I guess gingers are too easy to be made fun of, just for psychical appearance, what has the (Kid's) world come too?
I decline your offer Eric, as I can respect those so-called Aryans for at least having an ideal outside of their own internal gratifications . . . I dislike their misuse of science in justifying their views, and harangue them for that as much as I do liberals when they do exactly the same thing.
Besides, I am pretty sure that you are probably a pleasant and social person, well thought of by people in the world outside of here and I mean that sincerely - it's my experience, having faced down some rather similar people on FB games in real life that people tend to behave very differently behind their monitors and on their keyboards. We might even be friends . . . 😊
You're right D F, I am pleasant and well-thought-of. But you are wrong about being different behind the keyboard; I'm very much the same in real life.
"FB games in real life"-Hahahaha. An oxymoron if I've ever heard one...
Which shows which of us has read it then, Eric . . . The theory simply states that certain physical features are linked to certain traits of biology, such as moral beahviour the the angle of the forehead; However, the theories granted superior character therefore to people of Arabic and Northwestern Indian descent as well as other non-white races, and theorised that like the Arabs and the Mumbai Indians, the historic Aryans ( Who were real - basically like cauacasian Mongols in central Eurpoe, Turkey and Asia Minor ) interbred with them and improved their genetic pools.
"FB games in real life"-Hahahaha. An oxymoron if I've ever heard one..."
Forgive my typing, I meant to format that has "Having faced down people in real life from FB games . . . " naything sounds ridiculous if quoted out of context I admit 😊
And I would say we would be *more* than friends in rela life, given the type of man you are and my attarction to that sort . . . 😉
I admit that I'm trying to stir things up. I truly do find the concept of "kick a ginger day" funny though; its too ridiculous to not be. I got sick of seeing indignant comments about it calling for hate crime prosecution, litigation against South Park, etc. It is fun to take revenge on confused people by upsetting them further.
Eric C.=Eric Cartman, South Park's propagator of hate
The word, like most German words, breaks into syllables with specific meanings - 'Rassen' meaning race, and 'wissenschaft' meaning specialised study area or science.
Who is the author of this theory?
Authors contributed to it for some time - the first was arguably Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin who took Spencer's 'survival of the fittest' and his comments about the Englsih and formed a theory of breeding for human superiority that became eugenics. The German school of Rassenwissen shchaft and Rassenhygiene ( Pretty clear what the latter means) was formed by Alfred Ploetz, who among other ideas, claimed that the world's problems could be solved by ensuring the peoples of the world stayed in the areas the had originated in since they had developed to suit the environment there best. Actually a liberal opposed to colonisation and slavery, Ploetz campaigned for repatriation of foreign-born citizens of the newly-formed Second Rich ( The Kaiser's government of Germany ) in the 1890s; Part of this movement also lead to the formation of the welfare states in the Scandinavian countries to assist people with illnesses and the poor as a state-based charity. However, to define race needed a systematic approach, and this began to be gathered in with other eugenics theories from around the world, phrenology and such fringe ideas, until the final formulation of the so-called 'race prototypes' by Otto Reche and others, based on body measurement and later by blood typing. ( A good book on this is RACIAL HYGIENE: MEDICINE UNDER THE NAZIS by Robert N. Proctor )
Because of this, and general xenophobia, the Blood Protection Law was passed and the German people were divided into pureblooded Aryans, 'mischlings' ( half- or less-blooded Aryans ) and others. Immunisation was halted, as it was seen as an artificial and unnatural way of adjusting blood to make the person suitable for living in an an unsuitable environment. This eventually lead to the nastier parts of the Nazi regime . . .
The problem is, that it has tainted any study of the genetic difference between the minor variants of humanity we call 'races' almost taboo; Yet, differences on a cellular level exist - such as the response many people of African descent have to families of drugs that differ from other ethnic groups - and are valuable things to know from a medical in the same way blood groups are.
Although the Nazis even that as a weapon - In 1939 Peter Dahr, for example, cited a case in which a (non-Jewish) woman married to a Jew had three children and wanted to claim that one of them stemmed from an extramarital relationship with a "German" and should therefore not be considered Jewish. Dahr showed how blood types could be used to determine paternity and resolve the racial status of the child. The mother was type OO, the father AB. Because the child in question was type OO, it could not have been fathered by the woman's husband. The child could therefore be considered German under Nazi law (From the book quoted above )
Anything can be used to justify hate it seems.
And if you ever find yourself on the way to New Zealand, Eric, let me know, won't you? 😉
D F, thats some interesting stuff, I'll definitely check it out once finals are over. See you in Auckland!
Lobotomies are not performed for psychiatric disorders anymore, only for severe neurological disorders such as severe epilipsy where medication does not elicit a response from the patient.
Counselling for this type of behaviour is not brainwashing or lobotomising, it is allowing the individual to work through anger issues that they may have in many aspects of their lives. People aren't born hating redheads, or black people, or gay people or any other minority group, it is a learned behaviour. A psychologist will listen to their beliefs and ask them to question them with logical answers. It's all about challenging beliefs with facts, not forcing someone to believe something different. Differences in values are acknowledged, but extreme beliefs are not usually coming from the inner self, they are influenced by external factors, which in turn create the extreme behaviour.
If a behaviour is damaging to others and to themselves then it is not benefiting the person behaving that way to continue with this behaviour, it is antisocial. Humans are social by nature, so it is going against their own "natural selection" to behave this way, if you want to get into a genetic debate.
"basically changes receptors on cells to change production of melanin to eumelanin, thus preventing dark skin tones and hair colours" DF Stuckey.
This information is not entirely accurate, as there are certain natural redheads who have olive skin (thus have no deficiencies/mutations in melanin in their skin) and even aboriginal cultures who have red hair.
(http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php)
We must acknowledge that "fact" is only science...and science is never absolute. So whilst you may rest your theory of discrimination against redheads on Darwin's, it is just that, a theory.
I realise you are not condoning violence to redheads, you are trying to present the other side of the argument, but do you see that by trying to justify the other side you give more fuel to those who see it as ok behaviour?
We have all scene what scientific studies have done to African American cultures when it was supposedly shown that they weren't as intelligent as Caucasian cultures...it simply sparked reason for whites to show more discrimination "we won't hire you, not because you're black, but because you're not as intelligent as the white candidates". Of course when socioeconomics were taken into consideration in further studies it was obvious that it was actually racism, that had perpetuated the cycle of low education that appeared to be low IQ.
Thus again, science is only science if it can be disputed...therefore it is not absolute. I'm sure there is other research which you haven't mentioned that supports the null-hypothesis. Perhaps redheads are a more evolved breed of humans - after all, that is what evolution is isn't it? The survival and thriving of mutations?
Firstly, I mentioned my lobotomy experience was in the 1970s; Today, microsurgical techniques and brain mapping make this a more accurate tool for specific neural disorders, but then it was considered routine for not being part of the social norm, and by definition, anti-social.
Secdonly, you seem to be setting science up as a straw man to be knocked down. You point out how laypeople who have a preference for absolutes have misused scientific studies for their purposes, forgetting the cardinal rule of statistics - What is true for the group is false for any random individual in the group. ( Sadly, not enough characters available here to disprove thsi by example ). Havign spent decades waking up int he morning to face the 'fact' that everything I knew yesterday is wrong today and having to check everything against a yardstick ( Well, metric measure . . . ), which in its turn has to be checked it gets annoying when someone comes along with set, fixed and unchallengable ideas and claims that *I'm* arrogantt for quoting verifiable data. Likewise, I did not go into the hair colour genetics of non-caucasian peoples because I don'y know enough about it, plus which it's irelevant to the topic.
" Thus again, science is only science if it can be disputed...therefore it is not absolute. I'm sure there is other research which you haven't mentioned that supports the null-hypothesis. Perhaps redheads are a more evolved breed of humans - after all, that is what evolution is isn't it? The survival and thriving of mutations?" Oh, this is full of falsehoods which ARE absolute! I said in my post on 30th November -The genes involved in redheadedness may seem to be detrimental under the current conditions, just as being blonde is a bad thing in the tropics. However, it is possible that under other environmental conditions redheads would be in a good position to survive and thus be desirable mates. I think that supports the null hypothesis. In any event, your definition of evolution seems to be based on a Great Chain Of Being idea of genetic superiority, when evolution is not about fixed measures - Evolution is a process of gradual changes in populations due to genetic drift, and rarely by sudden mutations, the majority of which can be deleterious. For someone who denies 'facts' as absolute, like the ENRON boys did with the 'fact' that 2+2=5, this is an odd statement to make and smacks of rassenwissenschaft again.
I would like to have dismissed you with a simple rude remark, which would have come in under the 3000 word mark, but I respect people with some brains which makes me anti-social of course; So, forgive the length of answer.