Author: Ientity Andreas En Lafira Dallelle
IALD ESSD:EHSBETA 20000303
Distribution: It is the desire of IALD, that this document should be freely distributable in unmodified form, with the intention that those described in this document as "dereguels" may benefit peacefully from such distribution. All other uses are prohibited.
This is mainly for those people in America who are striving to have the American Dream just like everyone else, but are kept from those dreams by irrelevant social conformity issues that they are not capable of complying with. I speak of the guy who wants to be a taxpaying employed citizen, and who wants to be a non-disruptive part of society with friends and possibly a spouse. Unfortunately all Americans do not reach this American Dream, and for a relatively small percentage of Americans, the things keeping them from these goals are nothing short of rediculous.
In general, this document seeks to provide a common and standard vocabulary for the elements found in the situations of people who "miss out" due to social conformity issues. It designed to augment American vocabulary/culture, that for whatever reason, did not feel these concepts important enough to include.
For the detailed purposes and benefits, an attempt to build a case for the creation, benefits, and use of this document appeared in the EHS Demo, a document written prior to this one. I will discuss my current and pressing feelings below, some of which were previously mentioned there.
First, I state that solving the problem of these well-meaning people not being able to accomplish their dreams will require changes to both the American misfit, and also American society. It is important to note that not just the desire but the ability of a nerd or misfit to conform varies from misfit to misfit. This means that solutions which involve increasing society's tolerance are also an essential part of the solution.
Next, I want to say that nerds need to be able to work together, communicate effectively with each other, and use technology (i.e. one guy today building on the works of those before him, which are in turn built upon later..) to solve their common problem. Nerds are not "joiners" aparently, and because many define their situations differently, there will never be "a nerd union" or anything (atleast not on any large scale). This means that any successful methods must be tailored toward circumstances where nerds "who do not know each other well" are doing large parts of the solution development in an impromptu fashion.
Also, one thing disturbs me about the nerd situation. Note that Americans all have different ways of undertstanding this situation. True that some genuinely don't believe the problem is real for nerds, it seems that others possibly even use the present confusion of this situation to smokescreen their own other-than-benign activities. When nerds raise the issue many times, they are questioned extensively about the inclarity of the situation... They are asked "who are you?", "why do they single you out?", "what are they actually doing to you that is so offensive, and why is it actually wrong?"... When nerds can't provide dead-on accurate answers, they are considered paranoid or look like baffoons. You cannot tell me someone isn't using the nerds' inability to clarify their situation to their own advantage right now.
Please also note that nerds, like any other group you can name, have those within their group who make the rest of them look bad. Some propose radical and unconstructive solutions, and others have related problems that are actually caused by some other personality attributes entirely (i.e. some nerds aren't employable cause they're simply "lazy")... Any solution we employ must provide a way to distinguish between these nerds and the rest of us, and to eliminate them from discussion at debate-time, as they really aren't part of the cause we should be defending. There -are- actually nerds who are "wrongfully abused", and this is what we should be centering on. If we should decide to defend the "unproductive" nerds too, then we will always "lose our battles" because -they- will become the center of discussion, as they have in the past. (Remember, many of the opponents of nerds are looking for any excuse to make the situation of -all nerds- viewed as purely their own fault, and many will never admit that even some nerds are not responsible for causing all of their own troubles.) If we want to help these "distracting" nerds, the strategy should include "upgrading them" to the stardards the rest of us want to follow (as this will provide far better results).
As another note, I want to toss in the idea that the nerd situation is complex with many varied arenas. In a college or high-school/childhood setting, the circumstances could almost be described as "terrorism". Though it was minimal for me, I know of pranks such as fraudulent phone orderings (pizza, Playboy, etc..) by others in the nerd's name and annonymous obscene cartoon deliveries ("starring" the nerd) slid under the nerd's door as things I have seen proof of in the lives of others (Such things are not designed for the benefit of the receiver and can cause irreparable damage whether society admits it or not..)... Still, other arenas, such as the workplace and adult life, can be full of gossip, "warnings about the nerd" delivered to the girl who has decided to date him, and perhaps worst of all, a culturewide disinterest in him as a person (including a general belief he has nothing to contribute, either occupationally or socially). I am saying this to establish the point that the problems faced take a variety of forms which may each require different types of solutions.
Finally, I leave you saying that anything we can do to provide nerds with a way to make the situation clearer in their own minds will be greatly beneficial. Words make concepts solid and stable. Words also make concepts easier to remember and re-identify. If nerds understand their own situation atomically, the negative affects upon an attacked nerd are less, and they are far better prepared for the debate scene as well, as their understanding is already organized logically.
Last note: The word 'dereguel' in this document sets a significant standard for nerds. It may be questioned, "Do -I- [the author] consider myself worthy of that standard?" I insist that it is irrelevant, cause if I am not, I am extremely certain that I know others who are. I might be/possibly was/could have been worthy of that standard. If I am not, that does not take away from the others who are, or this one word which attempts to describe them.
dundrag - (noun) - activities of building ones own self esteem or improving ones own standing in the eyes of others which fall under catagories such as: unprevokedly insulting another person, unjustified and otherwise purposeless defamation, or other forms of psychological, emotional, or social vandalism --as opposed to-- methods where the benefactor himself has chosen to meet these same ends by acquiring new knowledge, skills, or universally beneficial (or "personally beneficial"- as long as benign to others) accomplishments. Every human being has at some point done such acts of dundrag, though most people vary in the parameters under which they will perform, try to prevent, and regret such acts.
Depreciated synonym: antidilety
detendral - (noun) - an entity who practices dundrag as a regular (i.e. a standard and relied-upon mechanism for personal power production), unprevoked, and unregretted means of personal power production or image improvement. Though every human being is a practicer of dundrag, the differences between practicers are in amount, intent, provocation, and in the regret of the committed dundrag. Those who practice dundrag carefully for defense or reparation (usually of damage done to them through dundrag) and who would probably regret committing it later (or who simply wish "there was another way") if they had to do it are generally not considered detendrals.
If I commit dundrag against someone who has been attacking me (including verbal attacks and previously unprevoked acts of dundrag against me), and I have genuinely desired good relations with them (i.e. I'd prefer to get along with them -anyway- and not have to deal adversely with them in -any- form...), odds are that this set of circumstances (by itself) does not help to describe me as a detendral. (Here we're not talking about someone "who lives off" dundrag, but someone who uses it as a last resort.)
lidant - (noun) - A person who subscribes to strict standards of conformity in things such as clothing, appearance, and how to act in social situations (asside from those things that are published legal laws), and whose value system (the parameters of who -they- will accept) is unforgivingly tuned to the same parameters.
Depreciated synonym: fletendral
rigendral (noun; extension of word "lidant") - A lidant whose conformity standards that they follow and also expect those they value to follow includes a repulsion to things such as: math, science, knowledge, etc. This also includes "sci-fi", as (very tightly) sci-fi represents "the dreaming and hoping for the science that hasn't yet occurred".
dereguel - (noun) - a life form, that despite his or her certain intentions to be a communicating, friendly person (make friends, marry, etc) and a taxpaying citizen (hold and succeed at a job, etc) is noticably kept from any of these socially benefiting ends due to an inability to either understand or follow social customs which by themselves do not produce an actual product or serious benefit.
solidalient - (adj) - [Adjective describing the presence of a particular value system and the implementation thereof within a sentient entity] having the quality of being Dalient (see IALD DALI:DALIENTDEF 20000218 for definition of this word) with such seriousness and intensity that the possessor of this quality also acquires the following attributes:
Dalent (adj - no "i" in spelling) - attribute of a person or life-form whereby he/she/it would almost always treat a dereguel equally to an otherwise equal entity not having those attributes that classifies the dereguel in question as being such. In other words, a dereguel would be perceived based on his friendly, citizenly intent, but not on the basis of any of the non-essential social rules he may be having problems following, understanding, or understanding any reasons to follow.
Dalent can include both the relevant attributes of those who accept dereguels due to not understanding the prejudice that dereguels encounter, as well as those who accept them out of a sophisticated understanding of their situation. However, motives to interact with dereguels that are a desire to cheat someone, to accomplish deceipt, or for undisclosed non-mutual personal gain* (including making the dereguel interactor's deity or pastor happy, or simply getting some sort of laughs or satisfaction at the expense of the dereguel) absolutely doesn't count toward making someone Dalent, and depending on what this interaction indicates about the interactor's motives for other encounters, can exclude Dalent entirely as an attribute of this person. Finally, Dalent people do not "love all dereguels"; they just don't refuse them a chance for equality -because- they are dereguels.
*(comment on "personal gain") - Clearly any person "gains" by friendship with another, but this is mutual (for both the Dalentu and the dereguel), and therefore not the kind of motive we are restricting from the definition.
Dalentu (noun) - A Dalent life-form of any gender... Also notice the femine version (Dalenta) and the male version (Dalento) of this noun. The plurals are formed like most English words, by adding a letter 's' (i.e. Dalentus- pronounced as long "u", Dalentas, and Dalentos).
The last statement in "Dalent" above conjurers up a thought I recently had: "If you are a dereguel who thinks he knows an ex-Dalenta, then you should probably look first to see what you may have done, and then consider the great loss to us all."
Even as the author, I do not like some of the present word names/word labels. When better ones are created, so will synonyms.
One of the document's biggest loopholes is that it provides no way to describe a person who is having trouble fitting-in due to lacking the ability to understand some social rule which does have a somewhat legitimate reason. In other words, I'm talking about a well-meaning person who has a problem that he'd correct if he understood it, but he hasn't reached this point yet (for whatever reason). We could be speaking here about a grade school kid who hasn't grasped the concept of "showering regularly enough", or an adult who hasn't mastered "not interrupting", for example.
Once you add a symbol for the above concept, this leaves another problem: "Dalent" (as a word/concept) won't include a tolerance of such people, yet it is still very important to be able to discuss those people who will judge such a person by their intent and not by their presently unresolved flaw. In fact, we are left with only two resolutions to this: 1) "Dalent" is extended to include a tolerance of these people (thereby excluding presently defined Dalentus as no longer being such...), or 2) A new word is included to extend "Dalent" in this manner (causing a whole new set of confusions)... At the present time, I would like to avoid a hasty solution to this situation, so "I leave this for later".
Differences between IALD ESSD:EHSBETA 20000303 and IALD ESSD:EHSBETA 20000301