Constructive criticism is the rarest kind of criticism given to people who are seen as contributing little or nothing to society. The one thing that effective constructive criticism will never do is leave a person feeling unnecessarily vulnerable and therefore, ashamed.
Too often less respected people are seen as overly sensitive to criticism when they really just can't survive by tolerating any more shame (especially undue shame attributed to them so that others can attempt to avoid it). Their options for protection are often limited to counter-criticism of a similar nature or defensive posturing. This cycle then repeats itself because criticism of leadership is the type of offensiveness that gets recognized and punished.
The worst of assumptions are made about what the least resourceful people require to survive in their unique environment.
What is described as peoples basic hierarchy of needs is also used as a way to label peoples worth. If people haven't acquired typical standards of material wealth they aren't seen as being as highly evolved. The lack of self awareness attributed to these people is used as justification for many ways they are mistreated.
In this article Biological Theories of Crime: A Historical Overview which I referenced in my last post it says this about people who were considered degenerate:
In describing the Degeneration Theory : ca. 1870-1910:
"The late nineteenth-century physicians and social scientists who studied human degeneration taught that individuals can devolve over the course of a life span. Self-abuse and excess lead to degeneration, a weakened physical condition that in turn weakens one’s moral capacity and thus leads to crime and other social problems. However, by obeying the laws of good health and morality, even degenerates can reverse their downward slide and begin to regenerate physically and ethically."
"To study degeneration scientifically, researchers conducted genealogical research on “bad” families. This method originated with “The Jukes” (1877), Richard Dugdale’s famous study of a rural clan that, over seven generations, produced 1,200 bastards, beggars, murderers, prostitutes, thieves, and syphilitics.4
The findings of bad-family research alarmed policymakers, who concluded that degeneration could wreak havoc in generations to come. The message was not entirely gloomy, however, because degenerationists did not view inheritance as fixed and immutable. If degenerates could be persuaded (or forced) to lead more upright lives, they might produce better “stock” and thus produce fewer social problems in the next generation."
So the claim was that by attaining the arbitrary social status of "worthy to reproduce" you were a better human being and would genetically transfer this achievement probability to your children. This of course was considered as it is today an incentive for responsible behavior. Being a degenerate wasn't a life sentence because you could better yourself and therefore, improve your likely-hood of having worthy offspring.What continues to be the problem with this idea is the claim that promiscuity, unfair acquisition of resources, killing, and disease occurs mainly in an environment where there are fewer resources (a claim which is seen as not needing to be proven) and the reason for these peoples lack of resources, which is seen as not needing to be addressed.
To reinforce this claim there has to be "white-collar prisons" where the elite has lighter punishment for their indiscretions, a court system where having the resources to acquire council is the way to protect someone's so-called rights, and the typical definition of justice is the protection of the elite and the elitist system.
By focusing on behavior problems for the least valued members of society with hyper criticism based on ever-changing definitions of normal (which have more to do with social etiquette than anyone's view of morality or ethics) everyone involved in leadership becomes less responsible and more dependent on manipulation and control.The ways that status offenses have been used shows how the courts continue to label people who are less respected community members in ways that hinder their success rather than encourage it.
These are examples that Wikipedia gives for status offense:
"Status offenses may include consumption of alcohol, tobacco smoking, truancy, and running away from home. These acts may be illegal for persons under a certain age, while remaining legal for all others, which makes them status offenses.
Status offense may also apply to other classes, including laws forbidding ownership of firearms by felons, where such ownership is otherwise legal.Laws that prohibit certain actions to certain persons based on their sex, race, nationality, religion, etc., are also status offenses. A law that prohibits men from using public toilets intended for women, or a law that prohibits the use of a drinking fountain by people of a given race, or a law that sets a curfew for people below a certain age, are examples of status offenses, although they are not always thought of as such.
In some jurisdictions, as social conventions have evolved over time, status offenses that were codified into law long ago are either no longer actively enforced or actually conflict with more recent legislation and cannot be enforced, even though they remain on the books. An example (in countries such as the United States) would be a local ordinance that forbids women from wearing pants instead of skirts."What this broad interpretation of the law provides for the judicial system is a way for someone in authority to enforce someone's instant and often biased individual definition of the law without having to regard any special circumstances.
Being conveniently and impersonally labeled as offensive based on impractical social judgments reinforces peoples role as someone who is insufficient rather than discouraging their bad choices.
This is very much a part of the institutional mindset. It is an example of how behavioral specialists depend on convenient methods of manipulation and control. Autistics and our families really need to be aware of how unwarranted and biased negative descriptions of autism can affect how we are treated.
Social justice should be a requirement of leadership more than a characteristic to be rewarded. Focusing on valuing one group of people at the expense of devaluing another creates a hypercritical rather than encouraging society.
Since the people who have been appointed with leadership roles are so often allowed and even encouraged to be irresponsible, people who are not empowered by them should be encouraged to focus their criticism on the leadership instead of on each other.