A “Cracked” video highlights four examples of irresponsible, cruel and disrespectful conduct that have been widely cheered on the internet. It is spot on. See for yourself:
The one that most interest me is the first: the Burger King customer who was annoyed at the child whining about wanting an apple pie behind him, so he bought out all of the pies in the store and ate one in front of the kid to teach him a lesson. On a Consumerist poll, less than five percent of respondents thought the guy was wrong.
Game, set, match, “Cracked”:
1. It’s not a bystander’s job to discipline someone else’s child.
2. The guy left the mother to cope with the now thoroughly upset kid, as he walked of with the pies.
3. There might well have been several other customers who wanted one of those pies. Ah, yes, the old shotgun approach, and collateral damage to innocents be damned…
4. This was gratuitous cruelty, excessive for the transgression. What a jerk.
Of course, the story was related on Reddit, and is likely fake. Never mind: the web shouldn’t be applauding unethical conduct. That was Cracked’s point, and also mine.
What I want to know is how I missed this story, which is almost two months old. Or did I just miss one of the e-mail alerts from my invaluable scouts, Alexander and Fred? If so, I’m sorry guys. If not: how did you miss this? You catch almost everything else!
__________________________
Pointer: Tim LaVier
Ethics Alarms 
Fascinating, truly. Does anyone know if the dad in the second video was driving while videotaping his daughter taking selfies? Regardless, these people all seem “off,” except for 50 Cent. Mr. Jackson probably has a CD/headphones/nasty-tasting beverage to sell.
I kind of feel bad for the dad, because unless I’m missing some context, he probably just thought it was cute, and didn’t realize that if he posted it on the internet Bad Things Would Happen.
I saw that in a “greentext” somewhere, probably Imgur (not sure if Imgur is part of Reddit or not). On 4chan, to say a sentence that describes something or sets up a scene, you use a > bracket before the sentence. Something like, “>be eighteen years old”. This text appears in green on that website to indicate it’s supposed to be narration or whatever.
I saw it a while ago. And I was pretty sure it was fake. But I always knew that either it’s a lie or a jerk who shouldn’t be getting attention, so I ignored it. I hadn’t even thought to send it to you because it seems so obvious.
If I was the guy at the counter, I probably would have held a pie or two back just to spite THAT guy. But would that have ALSO been wrong? I mean, the guy SHOULD know better. The kid has an excuse.
A hypothetical restaurant could simply refuse to sell any pies, because A) they would enable a jerk, B) they would upset non-jerk customers who wanted pie.
GREAT VIDEO!
I agree – stick to criticizing politicians, celebrities and crooked public officials. Even if you feel compelled to pick on a kid (all kids act dumb, by the way, it’s what kids do and you and I did, too), don’t set out to completely ruin the kid’s life! Just the other day a kid made a nasty racist remark. I was tempted to get into a fight with him, but hey, he’s a dumb 16-year-old kid. Instead I sent him an image of Carl Weathers as Apollo Creed that said “I’m not Apollo Creed but you’re a racist”. Never heard from the kid and I don’t know if it had any affect on him, but at least he’s been called out.
Regarding the magazine, I started reading MAD (my favorite) and CRACKED (my second favorite) at age 10 back in 197(mumble). They introduced me to the world of sarcasm and taught me how to spot hypocrisy and injustice through wicked humor. I rarely read them anymore because, frankly, because I’m a grownup now.
Once in a great while I’ll pick up an issue and I’ll be glad to see that their insightful venom doesn’t appear to have been tempered by all the annoying advertisers who must have some sway in the content. Not as funny as when I was a kid–too corny. But only the people at the magazines know for sure what WASN’T in them because Snickers threatened to pull the money plug. I wish they’d go back to no advertising, but money once greed has bitten you, it’s hard to go back.
By the way, even though I’m gay one of my favorite “lines” from a MAD issue was a Star Wars spoof. C3PO was a flaming queen of an android and when Luke Skywalker saw him for the first time he was in awe and said, “You look just like and Oscar!”
3PO responded, “Take a good look, honey, ’cause this is as close as you’ll ever get to one.” LOL
Cracked’s changed quite a bit since its magazine days; for one thing, the magazine doesn’t even exist anymore (it’s all online now), and the current writing is definitely not meant to be read by (unjaded) 10 year olds. Heck, the old MAD-ripoff days seem to be something of an old shame for the current staff.
The big discussion around the country tends to focus on children being bullied by other children. Why not include adults? Do polite, law-abiding adults have to put up with rude, threatening (by size/race/socioeconomic/attitudinal) factors and behaviors by other adults? I decided long ago not to put up with it. When a car is parked in the pick-up line of a grocery store, I call that person on it. When an asshole walks against the light, I call him/her on it. When someone is being loud and disruptive in a public place, I call that person on it.
Who’s bullying whom here? We let other adults get away with acting nastily and selfishly because we’d rather not get involved. Stop doing that! Only makes them (the perps) think they have the right to be uncivil. They DO have that “right,” of course, but that doesn’t mean others shouldn’t point the behavior out as lacking civility and contributing to a nastier public environment.
Anecdote re car parked in pick-up lane at grocery story. Woman parked her car in the rain and did all her shopping while her car was in the pick up lane. It was raining, late, and I was only trying to buy milk for my son. I told her it was inconsiderate of her to do that (when we left the store at the same time) and she told me to “shut up before she slapped my white face.” Refusing to cower to the 300-pound bully (a racist bully), I dared her to do it. I told her I had already given her car’s tag number to the store manager, and that (1) by threatening me she had already committed battery; and that (2) if …oh please do! .. she actually slapped me I’d have her in jail for assault. Unfortunately, I did begin my own tiny tirade with “How about a little education, lady?” (BTW, the woman slunk into her car while the rest of the shoppers outside gave me a round of applause.)
My confessional for the day. But I do think adults have the same responsibility of trying to create civility when and where they can. It ain’t just kids doing the bullying, friends. And my examples are only ones that relate to general civility; I’m sure more is going on in the adult-to-adult category.
Im gonna take a hard line against the two cases described early in the video. And also the progressive list of feel-speak causes at the end (but thats another thing entirely). The guy buying out the burger king and the dad shaming his daughter. Were these things unethical? In some ways they certainly were. In others, they were the grandest kind of ethical.
Looking at Burger King Guy (BK-G), on the negative side of the balance we have the mild inconvenience of denying future restaurant goers an apple pie. At least for however long it takes them to fry up some new ones (30 minuets on the outside? How many apple pies do they sell in a half hour?). On the other side of the balance we have the real ethics of the issue. It was never about punishing a child for being inconsiderate/rude (i.e. childish) it was a completely civil and appropriate way of punishing a mother for allowing her child to be inconsiderate and rude.
BK-G didnt yell at her, or confront and shame her on video for the world to see (and do the same). His solution was downright elegant in how considerate it was. He denied the spoiled brat the object of his desire and wordlessly made sure the mother knew why. Perfect. This Rembrandt of polite social justice struck a blow (however singular) against the growing cancer of lazy, indulgent, and apathetic parenting in this culture. I dont care if the mom was tired. I dont care if she had a bad day. In short I dont care what rationalizations she or others offer in her defense. If you bring your child to a public place, that is not explicitly meant for rambunctious children (like Chuckee Cheeses or a playground) then you have the responsibility to ensure your child behaves appropriately. My mother raised not one, not two, but three children single handedly while working enough to keep a roof over our head and food on the plates. Dont think for one second that she ever justified inaction because she was tired or burned out. If we misbehaved we got a righteous pop in the mouth or if it was bad enough the classic (and modernly underrated) belting across the ass. Somehow, as if by magic or common-sense, we managed to not be public nuisances when we were taken somewhere and I doubt that we were outliers of that style of parenting.
In short BK-G did the right thing, with minimal collateral damage, to reciprocally punish someone who did not have an excuse for their behavior, and in doing so (unexpectedly, but warmly received) contributed to the zeitgeist’s understanding of what is and is not appropriate parenting.
Now lets take a look at the dad. I offer this scenario for you to consider: Lets assume hes the opposite of lackadaisi-mom up there and say that hes a model parent. Somehow either by having the misfortune of following modern soft-hearted and soft-willed parenting advice and/or by simply having his hard work undone by the relentless drudge tide that is modern pop culture, he managed to raise a narcissistic idiot. Did you see the faces? Did you see the self-absorption? I get it, shes a teenager. Again, I dont care. Its one thing to be a narcissistic idiot in private its entirely another to do it on social media in an attempt to capture as much attention as possible. One is a youthful indulgence, the other is an addictive and vapid ego feeding frenzy – the likes of which are enabled by (and support) things like Jersey Shore, Kanye West, and… soft-parenting.
Staring down the horrifying barrel of a daughter that self-centered and projecting her doubtlessly sorority and service-industry filled future, he went nuclear with it. He recorded her nauseating self-love and held it up as the fun house mirror it is. Where his daughter and all the daughters in the world can take a second and say “Wow. That is ridiculous. I shouldn’t be caught dead doing that.” Slowing down the culture wide rise of narcissism is hardly unethical. On the flip side we balance that against internet notoriety. That fickle beast with the attention span of a house cat. His daughter endures a week or two of widespread infamy whereupon she is promptly forgotten and is only a few growth spurts and one quick (desperately needed) personality change away from being unrecognizable as the dolt in the video. Long term prognosis? She’ll be fine, end very probably better off.
Is the culture saved? No, but the rot is slowed a bit. Enough little wake-up calls like nuke-Dad and BK-G and maybe we can keep it from being terminal.
“In short BK-G did the right thing, with minimal collateral damage, to reciprocally punish someone who did not have an excuse for their behavior, and in doing so (unexpectedly, but warmly received) contributed to the zeitgeist’s understanding of what is and is not appropriate parenting.”
Nonsense. He’s no authority to punish her. You are absolutely correct that it is HER responsibility to keep her child from being a nuisance and that she failed miserably in either A) prepping her child to behave or B) simply removing the child from the scene because she rationalized it via laziness. That doesn’t give BKG the right to buy out every pie because he thinks a lesson will be learned by spite-induced osmosis (to be clear, he does have every right to buy out every pie if he wants to…but we’re discussing ethics).
Nope. Civil society demands civil censure. If BKG wanted to really “teach a lesson”, he would have been brave enough to engage the woman directly. Before the storm of protests arises about “if someone did that to me, I’d sock em in the mouth” or “I’d never listen to someone who censured me”, y’all can stuff it because those attitudes are part of the problem of why we can’t have a civil society. Since he wasn’t brave enough to engage her tactfully, he surrendered his ethical right to do anything at all regarding the child’s behavior.
Your assessment of the dad humiliating his daughter on mass media is quite inventive. I’m not sold, and your comments sound a lot like “Ends Justifies the Means”, “#3 It Worked Out for the Best (hopefully)”, “#8 Trivial Trap”, “#13 It’s For a Good Cause”, “#25 I Have No Choice”, “#28 These Are Not Ordinary Times”, “#29 It’s For Her Own Good”…
Bingo, Bingo, Double Bingo.
Parents shaming their children on the web is despicable, and abuse of power, cruel, and a Golden Rule breach, as is making cute videos of toddlers looking stupid or doing disgusting things. Why this is so hard to understand, I do not know.
I never claimed web shaming was ethical. Only that its less damaging than you’ve argued (especially for young people who will almost certainly outgrow their recognizability) and that when weighing the ethical against the unethical, nuke-Dad comes out ahead.
Again, the “it’s unethical, but not THAT unethical” is itself a rationalization. It’s unethical, and the Dad’s desired results from his unethical tactics don’t make up for it one bit.
Again, not a rationalization (unless I’ve been misunderstanding rationalizations this whole time). Im not saying that web shaming is ethical, only that it is less unethical than you’ve made it out to be which is important to consider when balancing conflicting ethical prerogatives. I also know that this isnt the first time we’ve examined the balance of ethical prerogatives, so the distinction I’m making should be pretty clear.
A rationalization is an intellectually dishonest argument that has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to dop with making excuses for being unethical. “This is unethical, but I have a good reason to be unethical” is kind of a meta-rationalization. Isn’t that what this is?
Unless RPE asserts the father faced an Ethical Dilemma, in which one is forced to choose between two unethical options (with no other options available), then I’d say your concerns are accurate. But I don’t see what Ethical Dilemma faced the dad.
I think I covered this in my response below (the one at 4:01 – it looks like you posted while I was typing), but I’m not sure what RPE is so maybe not.
your name…
Oh! RPE is an abbreviated third person reference for my handle right. I was staring at it and going over lists of named ethical principals in my head.
I meant to say you were presenting an Ethics Conflict, not an Ethical Dilemma. I still don’t see it – the dad didn’t face a dichotomy of two unethical options with nothing else available.
Nothing else available is the key. As with “do no harm”—the principle is to accomplish an essential ethical goal with as little harm as possible.
RPE
I should have just abbreviated to “Red”…
I say its: “This is unethical, but my alternative is more unethical.” Classic ethics conflict, in which case you side with the most ethical option. Lets start with the reasonable assumption that narcissism is as a general trend over time, more damaging than beneficial at both the personal and social scale. Nuke-Dad was faced with two unethical options, fail to lead his daughter away from narcissism or go with an extreme disincentive to teach that lesson. Which unethical option is more ethical?
Operating under the assumption that he’s been an otherwise competent parent – a case of “Sorry, Leonidas, you were simply outnumbered.” – the only thing left is go big or go home. Clearly, if hes never talked to her about narcissism or was simply a bad parent, his actions were unethical. But considering the extremity of the disincentive, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if you dont, for the purposes of hypothetical ethical analysis, well work under that assumption since its the only one that warrants a deeper argument.
In this case, under the context I originally defined and (more explicitly) reiterated above, nuke-dad was faced with two unethical options, of which he chose the least unethical option that, in addition to being the lesser of two evils, would have significant personal and wide spread positive ethical consequences.
It’s only an ethical conflict if there is no alternative to violating one of the principles. That’s not the case here.
I do not see why you are giving the parent the benefit of the doubt. Public shaming on the internet is an unfortunate trend that is very common. It is a trend that needs to be called out and stopped.
Even if this particular father felt his daughter was becoming an uncontrollable narcissist, subjecting her to the public pillory is grossly unethical. Cyber harassment brings the same risks as in person risks; possibly more so because people promising harm are hiding behind a nickname. Sure, she may “grow up” and not be easily identified with the video found anonymously, but there is immediate harm possible as well.
To purposefully subject a teen to this is a dereliction of fatherly duty. The only benefit I’d be willing to give is that the father truly did not anticipate widespread anonymous harassment, as Windypundit suggest. He thought he was posting a light tease, and it turned horribly wrong.
Authority has nothing to do with it, at least in the sense you probably mean it. You need authority for formal punishments sure, but informal peer punishments are reasonable, legitimate, and necessary for encouraging compliance to reasonable social norms – the only authority required is the clear presence of a failure to comply to a reasonable norm. He certainly could have addressed her, that was one ethical possibility. But as you’ve already pointed out, thats a possible that will likely lead to conflict escalation. His way was subtler and much more profound for it.
If you’d like to rebutt my case for the Dad, explain how those rationalizations apply rather than just listing them. At no point do I say his unethical actions were ethical (the classic use of a rationalization). They were in fact unethical is some ways. And ethical in others, the balance of which, I argue falls in ethical.
Your utilitarian argument is a little strange. In utilitarianism, likely outcomes are balanced, not ethics themselves. Taking a video of someone who expects privacy without their consent with the objective of embarrassing them is per se unethical: the ends don’t justify the means. What you are talking about is more like ethics accounting, another rationalization. The good obliterates the bad. But it doesn’t. You can’t get there from here.
Its a strange utilitarian argument, because its not a utilitarian argument. The other sub-comment above (3:29) also applies here.
This should go here.
BKG, The Free Market Vigilante
informal peer punishments
What? I think I used “authority” quite appropriately. However, you may wish to rethink your use of “punishment”. Again, he is in no position to punish. I don’t “punish” my friends if they “misbehave”….they don’t “punish” me… I think you’re playing loose with the term there. Your original term “reciprocal punishment” really reveals that it is more like “revenge”.
Nope. The service provider has every right to refuse service if they feel the child’s misbehavior has gone too far, BKG has every right to confront her directly, with candor, he has no right to take material action against her in the manner in which he did — which is what he clearly did.
“But as you’ve already pointed out, thats a possible that will likely lead to conflict escalation.”
I think that’s a non-ethical consideration. We don’t avoid solving problems because we worry other people may choose to make the problem worse, otherwise we make ourselves hostage to unproven fear.
“His way was subtler and much more profound for it.”
So subtle that NOT ONE PERSON was made better for it. Like I mentioned, his reliance on spite-induced osmosis is a huge mistake.
The Betraying Dad and your potential rationalizations
You’re comments in italics:
“Now lets take a look at the dad. I offer this scenario for you to consider: Lets assume hes the opposite of lackadaisi-mom up there and say that hes a model parent.”
Building up an unusually cushy hypothetical.
“Somehow either by having the misfortune of following modern soft-hearted and soft-willed parenting advice and/or by simply having his hard work undone by the relentless drudge tide that is modern pop culture”
These Are Not Ordinary Times, #28
“, he managed to raise a narcissistic idiot. Did you see the faces? Did you see the self-absorption? I get it, shes a teenager. Again, I dont care. Its one thing to be a narcissistic idiot in private its entirely another to do it on social media in an attempt to capture as much attention as possible.”
It’s For Her Own Good, #29
“One is a youthful indulgence, the other is an addictive and vapid ego feeding frenzy – the likes of which are enabled by (and support) things like Jersey Shore, Kanye West, and… soft-parenting.”
These Are Not Ordinary Times, #28
“Staring down the horrifying barrel of a daughter that self-centered and projecting her doubtlessly sorority and service-industry filled future, he went nuclear with it. He recorded her nauseating self-love and held it up as the fun house mirror it is.”
I Have No Choice, #25
“Where his daughter and all the daughters in the world can take a second and say “Wow. That is ridiculous. I shouldn’t be caught dead doing that.” Slowing down the culture wide rise of narcissism is hardly unethical. On the flip side we balance that against internet notoriety.”
It’s For a Good Cause, #13
“That fickle beast with the attention span of a house cat. His daughter endures a week or two of widespread infamy whereupon she is promptly forgotten and is only a few growth spurts”
…
“and one quick (desperately needed) personality change away from being unrecognizable as the dolt in the video. Long term prognosis? She’ll be fine, end very probably better off.”
Trivial Trap, #8 and
It Worked Out for the Best (hopefully), #3 + hope
“Is the culture saved? No, but the rot is slowed a bit. Enough little wake-up calls like nuke-Dad and BK-G and maybe we can keep it from being terminal.”
The whole thing being a justification to slow down cultural rot rounds out that this is an Ends Justifies the Means argument.
Punishment is an appropriate word and it is likewise used appropriately. Punishment is and always has been a form negative behavioral disincentive. If you dont think you or your friends apply a broad range of direct and indirect behavioral disincentives to each other, then your probably being willfully ignorant – human interaction even between friends is not all sunshine and roses. BK-G has every right to confront her directly, especially if no one else will. Thats one ethical disincentive. Another, informal punishment, is also appropriate. Do you genuinely believe or argue that the mother was unaware of her social trespass? Of course not. Thats the only context where punishment, even informal ones, are inappropriate – when the person cannot reasonably be expected to be aware.
Reciprocal punishment, is less colloquial way of saying “dose of your own medicine”. Inconvenience and inconsideration paid back with the same to make the person emotionally aware (vs intellectually but detached) of what their conduct does to others. In this case, it stands on reasonable, far from revenge, and even farther away from “spite induced osmosis” [which is in and of itself a deliberate and unproductive misrepresentation, the corrective method “like for like” is an established one and unambiguously described]. The only time “does of your own medicine” wouldn’t apply is for more serious trespasses like theft or damage of property. Its perfectly capable and appropriate for things like breaches of social protocol.
As for fear being a non-ethical consideration: Women arent magically incapable of violence and men arent all capable in self defense. Or alternatively, what if he simply not good with words? A stumbling less than confident delivery of even a reasonable point in a public admonishment is less than likely to have the intended effect. You or I might be able to engage is succinct and well argued ethical breakdowns in high pressure situations but other people might not. For people who are either unwilling to risk direct confrontation or incapable of mastering it, indirect confrontation is a perfectly reasonable route. Saying other wise is ironically unethical, in that it locks onto a non-solution in lieu of real solutions – unless you genuinely believe that everyone everywhere is capable of mounting an effective impromptu high-pressure argument or defending themselves should such a public confrontation turn ugly?
Instead his behavioral disincentive (aka punishment), clearly and plainly expressed the inappropriateness of her actions by making her suffer the consequences for them (which is not unethical), in a way that she couldn’t possibly claim injustice and public sympathy over. Like I said, a master stroke of civil and polite social justice.
The rest is just a list-sans-argument and implications that X sounds like Y with the occasional cute-but-unsubstantiated title claim for flavor. Nuke-dad has been covered in other comments.
You are assuming that world can be perfect, and that any deviation from perfect is possible. We live in the real world, and an ethical system that cannot make accommodations to reality simply does not hold up.
With young children, sometimes they are simply incorrigible. While the mother has a responsibility to keep her child on his best behavior, sometimes this is not possible. The mother must then balance her other responsibilities, such as keeping the child fed an healthy.
Since this the Burger King incident may be a hoax, lets construct a plausible hypothetical in the mother’s favor. Perhaps she just brought her son to the doctor. Perhaps she had to travel some distance to get to the doctor. Perhaps the child was already hungry and tired, and then got a shot so is now in pain.
The mother promises an apple pie to calm him down. Then some jerk buys all the pies to win internet points.
Yeah, let’s sock it to that awful mother!!!
Sure, maybe she could have use the drive through – but then she is stuck in the car with a screaming child. A short break on the way home could have made all the difference. Sure, maybe she could have removed the child from the restaurant while he’s making a fuss in line – but then the hungry child is not fed.
What if she didn’t even have a car, and she and then son had to walk to the doctor? Then the child is walking home tired and sore on an empty stomach.
Well then why didn’t this terrible mother not pack snacks in anticipation of her son’s total meltdown? Ha, bingo, we have evidence that the mother is awful and deserves public shaming on the internet and random strangers making life just a little bit more difficult because she forgot to pack snacks just in case.
RedPill, you seem to go to absurd lengths to defend the hypothetical Burger King Guy’s decision to passively aggressively shame a mother for not keeping her son perfectly calm and quiet for the five minutes she has to wait in line at a fast food restaurant. With just a tiny a bit of forethought, one can construct numerous sympathetic scenarios for the mother.
On the balance, I would assume there are more sympathetic than blameworthy situations. Burger King Guy would thus be a jerk for assuming a blameworthy situation.
We live in a imperfect world with imperfect people, and very imperfect children. People are entitled to relative peace and quiet while at a restaurant, but not every situation can be perfectly controlled. If listening to child cry for a few minutes will absolutely ruin their day, then they should stay home. Mothers need a tiny bit of sympathy; it is actually demonstrated that showing sympathy rather than scorn can help deescalate and improve the situation for everybody. Compassion is ethical.
* You are assuming that world can be perfect, and that any deviation from perfect is preventable.
Precisely why, BKG’s only ethical option starts with discourse. Engaging the mother directly, with tact, to gain a bit more info before either ratcheting up or down the conflict.
Now if the boy was dropping f-bombs, he may begin that engagement a bit more aggressively. If, the boy was merely being loud and fussy, then less aggression is warranted. But fear of the mother’s response is no consideration if you approach the mother in an appropriate, proportional way, and not the “hope my spiteful move teaches already unresponsive kid a lesson”
You are seeing this girl in the worst light imaginable. I won’t speculate why but I find it a bit baffling. You conclude from about a minute of footage of her amusing herself with a camera that she is a ‘narcissistic idiot’? That’s a serious accusation and very uncharitable. Narcissists have hugely inflated self esteem, brag all time, can’t empathise and use people. I think she was just having fun with the snapchat app that kids use to send an ugly picture to a friend that then self deletes after half a second. Harmless fun, not a sign of the end times. If anything it’s nice to see a young girl taking some silly photos of herself rather than seductive ones and I hope she takes all of this nonsense in her stride. Self absorption is on the rise, I’ve no doubt. In politics, relationships etc. but girls have always been interested in their own reflections. Your ire is misdirected.
As for the father if he did this to punish her for vanity then shame on him. I think I may just be repeating what Jack has said in the past but I loathe this trend of parents posting videos of their children misbehaving or being disciplined so that they can be mocked by thousands of strangers. Children should be allowed to do daft things without fear of their mistakes (and corrections) being broadcast to the world. Teenagers have topped themselves over lesser things than world wide derision instigated by their own parents. Unless you would want video footage of your own worst behaviour uploaded to youtube for everyone to judge you cannot approve of this method of punishment for others. I suspect the father of this particular girl just thought it would be funny and did not intend to humiliate her or invite condemnation but if so he is naive. It is inevitable that people would say horrid things about his daughter and accuse her of all sorts of unforgivable character flaws (e.g. narcissistic idiot) and that she would read those comments.
Well done.
A couple of comments:
Living as I do, in an area of concentrated senior citizens, I have on more than one occasion witnessed the phenomenon of “interfering with brats and parents”.
It’s when a parent does nothing about their wild and loud spawn or is possibly not doing the best thing and an older person intervenes to spare everyone any more suffering.
I’ve seen it work and also backfire explosively.
I do think it is done out of goodness but I could be wrong.
The last time I witnessed this was in a very long line at the post office when a parent decided to have a “put your shoes back on” showdown with an obviously over-heated and over-tired toddler.
Granny put the shoes on and everyone was rendered silent as she walked away.
Win/win. That time.
I decided earlier this year that I was simply not going to take anymore crap from rude/clueless people.
Swallowing anger, not addressing rudeness…not good – for anyone.
Some people haven’t been taught better and if we remain silent they will never learn.
Meanwhile we become a nation of classless losers and ulcer patients.
So far my personal project has been working out fairly well, at least no one slapped me in the face so far or put video of me complaining online.
heheh
And before anyone says anything, no, I do not think it is my job to teach everyone manners/civility.
However, when, for example, a Walgreens employee, who is supposed to be giving me good customer service fails because he is a jackass with no manners or sense, he is going to hear about it and depending how mad I am about it, his boss, as well.
BK-G makes me want to smack him for the simple reason that he self-reported his self-congratulatory behavior as if it were the best and most clever thing ever. If someone else had seen him do it and told about it I’d have much less of a problem with it.
Similarly that girl’s dad could have made his daughter aware of her ridiculous behavior (if it really was that, I think she was just doing what almost everyone has done, except she had the misfortune to do it when her father had his camera out as well. ) without publishing it to the world. It’s the publishing of what used to be private moments for the pawing over of strangers that rankles with me.
It seems so exhibitionist.