Quote:
Originally Posted by LongSufferingToady
Look, I grew up in a rural area and I know how folks talked when I was a kid. I am so glad people didn't write down the stupid shit they said and post in on a world-wide gizmo so everyone and their brother could see it.
On the flip side, I NEVER saw my dad use the language that Gruden reportedly used in his emails. NEVER. My dad could be salty... very salty. A gawddamn here, a JC there, and calling people stupid idiots and assholes and such. But he never went there with racism and gays. I don't know why. He just didn't. Perhaps being in a foxhole in WWII with men from all walks of life had an effect on him. But he just didn't do that shit.
And neither should anyone. It's just stupid. Talk shit. Just talk smart shit.
|
At some point, though, isn't that just a matter of . . . style?
Trying hard to wrap my mind around how it's OK to be hateful and denigrating, often in very harsh and harmful terms, . . . so long as you don't phrase it in certain sensitive ways. And also, if you veer into those certain sensitive ways, there is no obviation or excuse that you didn't intend to be as hurtful or hateful as some took it.
I mean I get how, in realspeak, some areas create wider outrage than others. But we seem to be trying to navigate this incompatible dual-standard where everyone is equal, but some people are more sensitive, so we can't actually treat people as equals.
Gruden was clearly disdainful and exasperated at the behaviors of certain high-profile, powerful individuals, and certain socio-political undertakings in the NFL, and he worded things in ways that triggered many demographics renowned for sensitivity and outrage. That's his cross to bear.
But plenty of people have voiced similar criticisms in more diplomatic terms, and many others have been similarly crude and hurtful against groups and traits for whom there isn't the same presumption of entitlement to protect.
I guess my central quandary is, how do we treat people equally when explicitly treating groups as presumptively distinct, some with frailties that need to be navigated and some with presumed hardiness that can take all manner of abuse?