Stans can’t be reasoned with. Why is this even a post? I asked myself that when I sat down to write it. It would seem that this is common knowledge. But nah! It’s not…either that or some people don’t possess commonsense. (Make of that what you will.) It is stans that are harming society and creating chaos. Now, this is not aimed to be a political post; although, much that will be stated can be applied to politics. However, it cannot be applied more to one position and/or party than to another. This is something that expands across any board and is bipartisan. However, it is important to note that a stan is an individual. Any large group will undoubtedly have stans embedded. Thus, it may be the few stans that cause an entire group to be labeled, stereotyped or discredited. That isn’t fair, but that how it goes. However, I’m jumping ahead.
So, where to begin? Let’s start with the standard definition of a stan. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a stan is an extremely or excessively enthusiastic, overzealous, obsessive, and/or devoted fan of a particular celebrity—and I’m going to add cause or movement to this definition as well. Another definition is also required and that is the meaning of fan. By definition, a fan is an ardent admirer, enthusiast, or devotee of a celebrity, sport, performing art, or pursuit and who is usually a spectator. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a stan is not a fan. Why? Because a fan, at least on the surface although not defined as, appears to be a positive influence. Stans are anything but positive. But wait? How can I say that when stans say positive things and support the person or cause that they stan for. It’s because stans are biased. Stans have no perspectives. Stans cannot and will not hold their celebrity at cause to any accountability for wrongdoing.
For example, let’s rip an event that happened years ago and made national news. A woman claimed to have had her car carjacked. In the rear seat were her children. The car was later found in a lake with her children deceased in the backseat. The cause of death was drowning. The woman later confessed to having killed her children and lying to the police. CONFESSED. Let’s break it down.
Prior to her confession, her stans who rushed to her side swore this was something that she simply could not and would not do. They claimed that she was an excellent mother who loved her children; although, there was some evidence to suggest she had been neglectful to them for quite some time (more emotionally than physically). Persons who were closer to her, who grew up with her, stated that they questioned if she could have done this. However, her stans who never met her a day in their lives stated that it was impossible to have done it because she looked like a good mother during a news interview. So, we’re basing the quality of motherhood on how someone looks on the five o’clock news. Okay. She looked innocent. How many people have fallen prey to serial killers because the serial killer did not look dangerous? Stans will disregard information given by credible people and persons who have more insight and knowledge of the situation. Stans do not care about the truth.
Now, if you’re saying that’s not true and this woman’s stans would have changed their opinion after her confession, you’d be absolutely wrong. They didn’t label her a monster for killing her babies. Instead, they diverted and defended. Rather than focusing on the crime, her stans brought up all the good she’d done in the past. They pointed to her work history. When that didn’t seem to wash, they focused on her mental health and how she was driven to do it out of postpartum depression. No, she didn’t. She murdered her children because they were in the way, plain and simple. She wanted to be with a man who did not (according to her) want children (at least, not children who had been fathered by another man). She determined the only way to be with this man was to get rid of her children. Now, in my mind, a logical person would have chosen their children over someone who may or may not have remained in his/her life. However, I understand that some people aren’t equipped to be parents. Parenting is difficult, and some parents crumble under the pressure. That doesn’t mean they kill their kids. She had options. She could have transferred custody of them to their father. She could have allowed her parents or family to raise them. If those were not options, she could have called child social services to intervene. But stans overlook her options use mental health to excuse her act of murder.
Her horrible behavior didn’t just include murder. First, this woman was married which meant she was cheating on her husband with this man who didn’t want children. This shows she exhibited very little regard for the sanity of marriage or the feelings of her husband. She didn’t care how if this affair (even had it not come to murder) would tear her family apart. Since she was still with her husband, did she plan to kill him, too? Why would she choose to take his children away from him?
Another issue was her blatant lying. People gathered in search parties and spent days looking for her children. The police spent time and officers looking for these babies when those resources could have been going to help someone in true need. Her lies stole and robbed her community. Furthermore, her accusations worsened racial tensions.
For the stans who do acknowledge her behavior as being irreprehensible, they diminish it by stating she is remorseful. Remember, this is a woman they have never met. Their opinion of her remorse if from what they see on television. Other viewers who watched the same news footage would disagree. They would point to the fact that she doesn’t cry or make eye contact. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt because people grieve differently. Not everyone cries, cries immediately, or cries in front of others. However, if one listens to her words, she only seems sorry that she was caught. She was sorry that people criticized her lying and believed that she should be punished. She appeared sorry not to have won the affections of the man she wanted since he left her after this incident. She didn’t speak on the hurt that she caused others and focused on her own pain. Yet, stans excused her. The beautiful lives of two innocents who had no chance of saving themselves perished at the hands of a person who was supposed to love and protect them. Instead, she discarded them like garbage for a man she wanted to a future. She took her children’s future to enrich her future.
When she was found guilty and sentenced to prisons, her stans claimed the sentence of life in prison was too harsh. But at least, she has her life which the same cannot be said for her children. They will never have a first day of school, graduate, get married, or have children of their own. The world will never know what they would have contributed. Maybe one of them would have grown to become the person who invented a cure for cancer or become president. But her stans do not acknowledge this either, and it wouldn’t matter if they did. They respond with “Haven’t you made a mistake?” or “It happened so long ago people need to stop punishing her.” The worst excuse stans make is that she has apologized; therefore, she should be given. Again, wrong!
Apologies are for the person(s) who has been hurt or offended. It is theirs to accept or decline. While outsiders may have an opinion, the apology isn’t intended for them. In other words, the majority of her stans who are accepting her apology are accepting an apology not meant for them. A clearer example is if someone vandalized your car. The person apologizes to your neighbor. The neighbor then says to you that you have to accept the apology. Stans dictate how others should feel about a given situation. If a person’s opinions differ from that of the stan, the stan often will engage in bullying behavior.
As long as stans exist, truth and justice become irrelevant. Progress becomes unachievable because their stans are not open to compromise or admitting failures. Their mind and ideas are single-focused, not for the betterment of the hole but only in support of one cause or purpose. They will allow an entire city to burn to the ground in order to save a single person. They will never look beyond themselves and their point of view. They will never care about others. They will always internalize every situation to revolve around what they believe of the person or thing they are stanning for. They will bring in extraneous and immaterial (and at time inappropriate) factors that distract from the main issues.
So, how should one reason with a stan?
- Don’t waste your time.
- Don’t waste your breath.
- Don’t waste your energy.
- Move onto something better.
- Ignore stans, and eventually they fade away. It’s hard to argue with self.
- On social media, block them. Do not repost anything they publish. In isolation, a stan isn’t as damaging. His/her voice isn’t loud unless it’s in a crowd.
- Many stans are keyboard warriors. In real life, they are cowards and will not act unless in a group. That’s why they seek out other stans. And the way they find other stans is through people spreading the word.
- Stans turn on other stans. They get so wrapped up in their cause that they will actually argue with people who hold the same beliefs as they do.
- Stans believe that they are in some type of relationship with the person they stanning for when the majority of the time they do not know the person. They do not grasp that the person who they are stanning for likely does not care two cents about them. That person doesn’t know their name or owe them any allegiance. That is why stans are often devastated when they meet the person they stan for and that person is cold or indifferent to them.
- Stans have closed minds. Nothing said against their beliefs will cause them to change their beliefs. Write them off as a loss and have a conversation with a rational person instead.
Don’t forget to pick up a copy of my new steamy, sports romance, Ice Gladiators, guaranteed to melt the ice. It’s the third book in my Locker Room Love series. Available at https://amzn.to/2TGFsyD or www.books2read.com/icegladiators.
Taz has problems: a stalled career, a coach threatening to destroy him, a meddling matchmaking roommate, and a thing for his other roommate’s boyfriend. The first three are manageable, but the last… well, that’s complicated. Because as much as Taz is attempting not to notice Liam, Liam is noticing him.
Missed the two books in my sports romance series? No frets. Out of the Penalty Box, where it’s one minute in the box or a lifetime, out is available at http://amzn.to/2Bhnngw. It also can be ordered on iTunes, Nook, or Kobo. Visit www.books2read.com/penalty. Defending the Net can be ordered at https://amzn.to/2N7fj8q or www.books2read.com/defending. Crossing the line could cost the game.
Life’s Roux: Wrong Doors, my steamy romantic comedy about what could go wrong on vacation, is available at Red Sage Publishing. To order, follow the link to http://bit.ly/2CtE7Ez or to Amazon at http://amzn.to/2lCQXpt.
For more of my stories, shenanigans, giveaways, and more, check out my blog, Creole Bayou, www.genevivechambleeconnect.wordpress.com. New posts are made on Wednesdays, and everything is raw and unscathed. Climb on in a pirogue and join me on the bayou. If you have any questions or suggestions about this post or any others, feel free to comment below or tweet me at @dolynesaidso. You also can follow me on Instagram at genevivechambleeauthor or search me on Goodreads or Amazon Authors.
Until next time, happy reading and much romance.