theWRITEstuff
Hypersensitivity breeds antipathy, not just because it’s annoying, but because it can literally destroy lives. People might remember the story of Justine Sacco, the woman whose life was upended when she tweeted a joke to a friend prior to boarding an 11-hour flight to South Africa. The tweet went viral and she was fired from her job before her flight touched down.
“I had a great career, and I loved my job, and it was taken away from me,” Sacco said.
There’s no arguing the tweet, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” was in terrible taste. Unfortunately, terrible taste is an ingredient for good jokes, and the politically correct police have a scanner for good jokes on Twitter.
Sacco’s story is not anomalous and there have been plenty of lives crumbling in ruins as a result of tweets made in bad taste.
More recently, J.J. Downum, an ex-athletic director at Florida Southern College, was dismissed from his position after bragging on Twitter that he had heckled professional golfer Ian Poulter.
Poulter’s followers justly fired back with a storm of angry tweets that resulted in Downum’s ultimate termination.
But not all of Twitter’s wounds are self-inflicted. In 2013, Adria Richards snapped a photograph of a man who was sitting behind her at a tech conference in Santa Clarita after he had whispered a joke to a friend about computer “dongles.”
Richards shared the photograph with the caption, “Not cool. Jokes about … ‘big’ dongles right behind me,” to her 9,209 followers. The man, who chose to remain anonymous, was fired the next day.
“I’m not one to shed tears. But when I got in the car with my wife I just … I’ve got three kids. Getting fired was terrifying,” the man said.
Feedback from Twitter is highly overvalued. The comments that are posted on the Twittersphere are nothing more than passing thoughts aired by the same types of people who live vicariously through reality TV stars.
But more importantly, the disproportionate rage that gets pointed at these inconsequential microaggressions only serves to stifle any sense of personal expression, stirring up antipathy for important causes like feminism or social justice.
There are other, more important forms of oppression that need to be addressed in the world. Too often they get lost in the crowd of angry Twitter followers who have nothing better to do.
​
Top-running Republican candidates have consistently named political correctness as one of the major problems facing the country today. Some critics might call this a double-standard in light of their collective reaction to the treatment they received from CNBC anchors on the GOP debate stage last Wednesday.
It’s true, debate moderators Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood had some harsh, and in some cases, mocking questions for the candidates, but the race for the GOP nomination so far, hasn’t exactly been tempered with good sportsmanship.
During the last debate for instance, Donald Trump responded to a question about his ability to lead the country with an unprovoked attack on Rand Paul and his looks.
Even though this debate saw a much more even-tempered version of Trump and a higher degree of solidarity among the candidates, the tone had already been set by previous debates and one of the first questions out of the gate was again to Trump, asking if he was running a “comic book version of a presidential campaign.”
But the bulk of the questions focused on whether or not it’s realistic for a person who is running for a position in government to effect change without the aide of government. Especially with both houses of congress now under a Republican majority, one would think that an argument against the size of government would be self-defeatist at this point in the game.
Predictably, candidates did not waver on their anti-government stance, no matter how nonsensical the rhetoric became. Dr. Ben Carson, when asked about the possible necessity for regulations on the prices of some life-saving drugs in light of recent scandals, drew a direct comparison between corporate giants and “the average small manufacturer,” saying the high-cost of regulations “makes it a whole lot easier for them to want to go somewhere else,” completely ignoring the gravity of the real-life situation.
Carly Fiorina responded to a question regarding the role of government in retirement plans with an abrupt denunciation of the federally mandated minimum wage. “There is no constitutional role for the Federal Government to be setting minimum wages,” Fiorina said. Of course, anyone who’s ever had to survive on the minimum wage knows that employers who offer their workers the bare legal minimum would pay less if they only could.
There was an especially awkward moment right toward the end of the debate when Chris Christie began explicating a necessity to invest in green energy only to be interrupted by moderator John Hardwick who said, “You mean government?”
Governor Christie responded with characteristic sarcasm, calling Hardwick’s behavior “rude”, before he went on to say that “we work with the private sector to make solar energy affordable.”
But one has to wonder what exactly did he mean by “we need to invest,” and if that’s the same “we” who works with the private sector in his state of New Jersey. More importantly, do these candidates understand that they are defined by the government they purport to abhor?
A person who hates government might go into community organizing as a method of giving citizens a voice, but community organizers don’t have super PACs or lobbyists.
The GOP has suspended their relationship with CNBC in response to the treatment they received at Wednesday’s debate and the candidates’ respective campaigns are considering revising rules for debates from here on out, according to an article in the New York Times.
Maybe this will teach the candidates how to lead by example. And maybe their next moderator will be wearing kid-gloves.
GOP debater’s anti-government rhetoric contradicts reality
Twitter has built a damaging culture propelled by sensitive users
At a time when politicians are gaining popularity by distancing themselves from their respective private interest-driven parties, it’s becoming evident that voters are eager to reward public officials for acting in the public interest. Such was the reason given by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake for deciding not to seek re-election for the upcoming term.
“It was a very difficult decision, but I knew I needed to spend time, the remaining 15 months of my term, focused on the city’s future and not my own,” Rawlings-Blake said at a Baltimore City Hall press conference.
Her decision is followed by a judge’s ruling against moving the trial of the six police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray to another city.
Rawlings-Blake went on to say that she did not want all of her decisions to be judged in light of a political campaign.
What may appear to be political pacifism is more likely a patient, political move in a longer game. After all, the city has yet to go through six of the most highly publicized trials in the country. Rawlings-Blake has been involved in public politics since the age of 25, when she was elected to the Baltimore City Council. Rawlings-Blake claimed that she has not lost an election since she was in middle school. She is no stranger to the political process and she understands the potential longevity and room for growth that a political career can offer.
Following the civil unrest that Baltimore suffered in response to the death of Freddie Gray, Rawlings-Blake has found herself in an unexpected limelight. Every move she has made, and every move she makes from here on out, will be heavily scrutinized through the lens of history.
If she ever wishes to ascend to a higher office, Rawlings-Blake will have to make every decision regarding this potentially explosive trial unencumbered by distractions like fundraising and the type of increased public examination that a political campaign would invite.
Rawlings-Blake will return to public service after all is said and done, and her record will reflect a woman who chose to prioritize her duty to Baltimore over the advancement of her political career—even though she will still have a political career.