Recently while standing in the checkout line at Walmart I witnessed another shopper attempting to place (from rear of his shopping cart) a bag of wild bird seed into the rack underneath. The basket of the cart was full of potted plants just purchased, and one of his hands was handicapped with a wallet while the other was handicapped with the change. This handicap added to the difficulty of bending way down to place the 20 pound bag into the rack. Also, from my vantage point I could see the shopper was trying to insert the bag into an opening that was too narrow for the length of the bag. The bag should have been turned 90° so that it could be inserted endways instead of sideways. Nevertheless, the shopper managed to get the bag through the opening by aid of a few swift kicks placed at strategic locations on the bag. All the while the shopper was cursing the bag with sayings such as, “Get under there bitch.”
Of course, a bitch is a female dog. And a dog is man’s best friend. But a female dog, based on my experience over the years and having several at this time, can be and usually is more suspicious of strangers and automatically enters defensive mode for that reason. (?extension of maternal instinct?) Also, you can have some bitches, who often don’t get along with one another very well, drop their discord for the sake of standing shoulder to shoulder while confronting a stranger or a suspected threat.
The vicious and unreasonable nature of the bitch has resulted in the term being borrowed and applied to animals not of the Canidae family. But for the term to be applied to an inanimate object has got me bewildered. I mean, I know a dog will bark at a bag blowing in the wind, because he/she is ignorant of the phenomena involved and perceives the bag as a possible threat. But isn’t the human supposed to be “The Intelligent Animal”? Isn’t the human supposed to have the ability to understand that an inanimate object can’t logically be blamed for being “uncooperative” or “unruly”?
Still, we humans tend to play the blame-game, regardless of how illogical the fault-finding is. A car that won’t start, a alarm that malfunctions, a computer displaying errors, and et cetera are blameworthy according to the rules of the blame-game. And do you realize the implications of this phenomenon? This means that even when humans are advanced enough to realize that a so called “will” that is free from the laws of cause and effect cannot possibly exists, the illogical blame-game shall nonetheless remain popular.
Voltaire speculated that if God didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent him (“Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer”) in order to maintain control of the masses. The same speculation has been made by some modern philosophers in regard to so called, “free will.” The fear is that if the masses realized free will is an illusion, too many questions may be asked that could undermine the Status Quo if truthfully answered. But I suspect the old blame-game is so popular that the truth of the matter would have practically no effect.