commenter-thread

“...promoting...”
“...acknowledging...”
“...believe...”

Here we go again with some interesting — and what I suspect is intentional — word choice.

Just curious... would you say the business world has been “infiltrated” by folks with a profits-over-people ideology?

Ooo... “invaded”’ too.

“Infiltrated” is an interesting word.

It’s a quarter-baked though, at best. But I’m always a fan of nuance. Plus, I think if we’re going to (hope to) change minds, we need to create space for dialogue.

I work with young kids. Kids often say things that are or can be offensive. When we respond smartly, we do NOT shame them. We WANT them to tell us what ideas are percolating in their brains so we can engage and challenge and hopefully help them develop ones aligned with our values.

That won’t be true or possible for all adults. The guy whose Twitter pic is Adolph Hitler is probably unreachable and probably isn’t gonna find many job opportunities, and probably rightfully so.

There are folks who should be actively resisted. There are folks we may want to avoid. There are folks we should try to nudge. There are folks we should shake our head at. There are folks we want blasted.

You clearly didn't watch the video.

In the post accompanying the video, he said the following:

“ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.

“HER: What’s that?

“ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!

“HER: He won’t come to you.

Things just went from bad to worse for Central Park 'Karen'
“ME: We’ll see about that…” before adding, “I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn’t even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog."

He later added:
"Christian later explained that he pulls the dog-treat ploy on owner scofflaws hoping they’ll leash their pooches to restrain them from taking the goodies, thus getting them to comply with the rule."

Amy Cooper later said her reaction was based in part on her fear of the treats.

So, yea, if you want to call that "threatening the dog" go for it. It's a silly semantic argument. But his actions don't make him an "ass". She was in violation of both the law and common courtesy, allowing a long to run unleashed in an area where it was prohibited and in proximity to other people. Dog owners who do that are asses. Many people have allergies and/or fear of dogs. They should be able to walk through park areas where unleashed dogs are prohibited without having to worry. Christian Cooper has obviously encountered this before and developed a response that encourages others to not be asses. He tried to do so directly and she refused.

He's not the ass. She is. Period. Trying to make this about both of them is just wrong. Stop it.

I'm not comfortable around dogs. One of my sons likes dogs but is very skittish around them. We've been scared by unleashed dogs running at us. Whatever we do in response to that isn't on us; it's on the person who decided to break the law AND ignore basic common courtesy.

He threatened her dog? Um, no.

I heard that people were debating whether his decision "hurt or helped?" Um... what? Hurt or helped what? It's a personal decision and should remain as such. He doesn't owe anyone anything.

I once read a definition of racism that went more-or-less as follows: prejudice plus power. I don't want to get into all the ins and outs of that particular definition BUT... that logic feels a bit instructive here.

The social backlash of any bad behavior should be proportional to both the badness of the behavior and the positioning of the person to realize the negative impacts of that badness. So if my barista at Starbucks wrote an unfortunate Tweet five years ago... he shouldn't lose his Starbucks job. Maybe those who interact with him on Twitter should challenge him or push back on him. Anyone in his personal life who was offended by it should feel empowered to challenge him or distance themselves from him. But does he need to lose his job and be dragged through the mud forever? I'd hope not.

Conversely, does someone who holds immense power in society and who says, "Women shouldn't hold these kinds of jobs," have that power wrested away from them if possible through social means? Yea... probably. Because those words likely become actions or policies that have real world, negative, and powerful consequences on many many people. So maybe that guy's employer should be shamed or boycotted or berated into firing him.

So... yea... maybe we need some kind of metric that looks at the badness potential of the action and the person's ability to realize it and then calibrate our response accordingly.