Discussions
Isn't that Overstating it Just a Bit?
Posted by MadameX • 1/17/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
In this forum--and in many others--I've been struck recently by the way that terms like "free speech", "censorship", "discrimination" and others have been thrown around. It's not unique to this forum, or to the Internet community. It seems that every person who didn't get a job thinks he was the victim of discrimination, and anyone whose article was rejected for publication has been "censored". But I think we're doing ourselves a dangerous disservice by wiping out the impact of words that should make us sit up and take notice.
What do you think? Is it irresponsible for people to throw around terms they don't understand as a means of garnering attention and sympathy, or am I just a secret agent of the anti-free-speech-censorship brigade?
whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2008/01/cut-drama.html
User Comments
-
I agree with you. To me, a large part of the overuse of the terms is a result of "politically correcting" ourselves to death. It seems everyone searches for offense in the smallest events, prefering to create it rather than evaluating possible fault in themselves.
I think your original thought for the title was appropriate. -
I feel a lot of the behavior you cite has to do with a trend toward a lack of personal responsibility for actions and consequences. There seems to be a growing narcissism in society where fewer people appear to self-evaluate in order to say, "Hey, I should have approached this differently."
I'm concerned this will increase along with the number of children who have grown up never being said "no" to by their parents. -
You are absolutely correct. It's tied in to the constant stream of frivolous lawsuits as well. -
"or am I just a secret agent of the anti-free-speech-censorship brigade?" :-D-
LOL I know ... should I be offended at that?
haha -
It MIGHT be discrimination...
-
-
Agree -
I guess this is what happens when control is given to the most easily offended.
Really, I haven't been able to get a stable job in *ages*. I don't think I'm being discriminated against of censored in anyway. The job market around here is kinda tough and I don't have much experience or a piece of paper to back up my application.
Really, using words like "censored" and "discrimination" make my eyes roll.-
That's exactly what worries me, Brigid...because doesn't it seem likely that you (and many others) will automatically have the same reaction on that rare occasion when someone is talking about REAL discrimination or censorship? Aren't we being conditioned to ignore the very things we should take most seriously?
-
Oh definitely. In fact, racism was a serious problems before Affirmative Action et al. It's gotten so overboard, though, that people have started feeling resentment toward 'privileged' minority groups.
While I was at college there was a rash of robberies. There was a suspect, a former student, but neither campus security nor local police were paying much attention to what he was doing, or where he lived. One of the ladies where I worked wondered how they could be so negligent. Another lady, rather exasperated, said, "It's because he's black."
That, and the lower standards for black scholarships do not present a very good environment for taking claims of racial prejudice against blacks seriously.
-
-
I've added the post to Reddit. That might get you 100 extra readers, including a fair number of language abusers.
-
Thanks, Mark.
-
Whatever it was that I did to them back when must have been serious--as far as I could find this never even showed up.
-
-
I feel so disenfranchised!!!!
excellent post, madamex. It's the boy who cried wolf all over again. -
I agree. Sometimes, you just have to buck it up and realize that you weren't the best person for the job, or that the other person was just a little bit better.
-
[It seems that every person who didn't get a job thinks he was the victim of discrimination, and anyone whose article was rejected for publication has been "censored"]
Being rejected first time can't make those people feel so. There, most probably, has to be chain of rejections. Apparently, if such incidents happens now and then, you need something to defense your self. -
People complain for a reason.
Wether its the truth or not, still its not for anyone to judge.
Not all people have shifty personalities you know.-
Tiffany was talking not about people's complaining, but the language they use to do it with.
-
CM, do you intentionally make things up and then respond to them, or are you unable to comprehend what you read? I'm not sure where you might have gotten the idea that this was about complaining. Maybe it's another one of those things you "just know" without any actual information? Did you read the post before disagreeing with it?
-
Maybe it's some kind of performance art.
Edit: or maybe he's just trying to wreck another thread. -
Stoneman,
Duh! How shallow indeed your comprehension.
What can you say about madameX' claim, " ....It seems that every person who didn't get a job thinks he was the victim of discrimination, and anyone whose article was rejected for publication has been "censored". ??
I think you need to read between the lines.
MadameX' is claiming in general, which is a bit prejudiced. Talking about the point of this topic thread, she should be careful herself using words. Didnt you noticed her chosen words: "every person" and "anyone"?
How was she sure that "all" the person who didn't get a job thinks he was the victim of discrimination? And "all" whose article was rejected for publication has NOT been "censored"?
So was it bad that I conveyed by irritation on her being prejudice? If yes, where is the freedom of speech gone to?
Dont be shallow minded, man. -
She's saying it seems that way because there has been so much yelling about it. The weirdos yell loudest and so it can look like they represent the majority.
Maybe you're reading too much between the lines and not enough of what is actually on the lines. -
ChessMagic, dear, do you not see how your last post here was a perfect example of MadameX's point? You said that she was prejudiced because she was generalizing. You took her words out of context to make your point and even then it wasn't a valid use of the word "prejudiced". It's posts like this that inspire the eye-rolling.
-
-
So, here's ganging up against me again huh.
I feel special
I was polite enough to respond to this thread but instead I got insulted.
Are these really intelligent and nice people to be starting discussions?
Hey, I only gave my opinion.
No need to be bullies -
Tony...please, please, please give us "ignore"!
-
ChessMagic, I certainly hope your lack of comprehension of this thread doesn't spread to your chess game.
-
thanks mikster for the advice.
I'll take that on board
-
-
yes please tony
I dont need to be bullied this way. -
We've recently had quite a bit of discussion on our blog about freedom of speech. Some of our founders want commenters to reign in their potty mouth language and others call it freedom of speech. We started with the idea of allowing our commenters to speak their minds, but even this is getting controversial. What's a flower smeller to do?-
Follow Tiffany's lead and realize that moderating or not moderating comments on your blog has nothing to do with free speech. Besides, does foul language comport with your feel good, group hug, flower image?
Perhaps this thread on one of the groups will interest you: "Fighting Blind, Bashing Ghosts, And Feeding Trolls." www.blogcatalog.com/group/blog-straight-talk/discuss/entry/fighting-blind-b... . -
Snobs might abuse the power of moderating discussions.
Foul language and hurtful truth is of two different things.
Why, Stoneman and MadameX? Dont you want me to respond on your abuses? -
CM, Take a step back and just watch for a while. You'll see that not every comment I or others make is negative or filled with some hidden agenda. You might also figure out that a bunch of us know each other already. I don't think the flowers have ever had a problem with my candor.
[edit] Meanwhile, since everything I write causes you offense, I will do my best to ignore whatever you write. Perhaps you could do the same with me? That would make for a much more pleasant experience for other readers on the board. These squabbles tend to send everyone running for cover, until there's no one left to talk with. [/edit] -
Where's JamesV when we need him?
-
Well, I guess no discussion about folks crying foul of a perceived injustice would be complete without... er... folks crying foul of a perceived injustice.
Can ya smell the irony? -
Time for a fresh box of baking soda.
-
Stoneman
Ignore this one if you like but didnt you read your response on my first comment on this thread? How is that not negative and no hidden agenda against me?
The thing with you if one has an opposite opinion on your ideas and is not easily backed down by your tactics, you resort to abusing the person.
A taste of your own medicine didnt go well in your stomach didnt it?
I may sound arrogant with my opinion but there's no need for you or MadameX to be the real arrogants against me.
With you I only need to keep you commenting to expose how shallow you really are. Dont play aristocrat with me and ganging up with MadameX. In discussion, there is no strength in numbers but the way you handle the discussion.
Its not about winning, its about fighting what you really believe in.
Remember I am a chess player, and I think like one.
You wouldnt like playing mind games with me, mr stoneman
Just be nice to everyone, even if they dont go for what you believe in.
Thank you. -
Man, this guy's something else.
-
CM, I think you miss the point even of our objections. No one is threatened or angry or any such thing. I can't speak for Mark, but I simply find you boring and think it unfortunate that you keep throwing irrelevant blather into otherwise interesting discussions and killing them off. But carry on. Wouldn't want to infringe on your "free speech". I'll just avoid reading your responses.
-
Dear madameX,
Here's a word for what you said: Baloney!
-
-
Even I used to do same things in my friends group when I was in college. You know, intentionally making things up and then argue alone against rest. I did realize how it offended them when one of the girl (who was monitor and my friend as well) did accept assignments of my friends after submission date, except mine ;-)
Well this comment is not offensive its just about experience. -
MadameX,
In honest truth, you bore me as well.
You dont stick with the topics like Stoneman. Maybe that's why you get along well together on complicating things.
Partners in chaos are you's?
Cheers!
By the way, it was not me who started killing this thread.
Have a look further up back. I just posted an opinion in response to the topic then you and stoneman came along started abusing me. So who killed the topic? Me?
I am just returning what you were throwing you know.
I had to defend myself against rough tactics.
Be nice to me and I'll be nice back.
The golden rule, have you forgotten? -
And from the choir, Amen.
There are many things in the US at least, that we have so degraded the meaning of the words tyo describe them that I think we have begun to erode our attitudes toward the very thing.
When a simple disagreement is called censorship, how can we continue long to hold censorship as the reprehensible thing that it is? So to with many other word people rush to cloak their sense of victimhood and entitlement in. -
I keep relaying between this and the other thread trying to understand what happened. Being the BC newbie that I am, that doesn't know anyone, my knees are a knockin'...so no one hit me ;o)). I feel that when we see thread topics that stimulate us in a certain way, our minds start rolling through our fingers. Certain topics stimulate in certain ways. Sometimes our thoughts are frustrated about how things should be in this world, because they "aren't"....and, many (some would say all of the time)see that a constructive approach is axiomatic agreement before the discussion can progress towards concrete solutions. This, of course, is helpful in an International group, taken into account language barriers. Sometimes discussions are stimulating because people let their thoughts flow in, "what should be". It's so easy to pass by each other in certain mindframes. It doesn't seem to me that anyone really meant any harm to begin with. And, nothing needs to be "killed" if it isn't wished. Ok...this is getting corny, so I'll crawl back to my corner! ;o)
-
Coming from an old timer, Pentad, welcome-- and fear not.
Honestly, folks on the whole here are very nice. And well-meaning. And genuinely want interesting discussions to twine through the threads. Sometimes, discussions just, however, end up being almost a caricature of themselves, and we're left blinking a bit. -
* still blinking here *
And thanks, Pentad, for helping us get back on track on that other thread.
-
-
I use a dictionary when I'm not sure.-
Bravo!
I always have a dictionary open.
-
-
LOL @ stoneman -always on alert to snatch himself an allie. Bravo!
-
besides echoing the "hear, hear" comments already posted, you have inspired me to choose The Top 25 Censored News Stories of 2007, a book by Peter Phillips and Project Censored for an upcoming review on my blog. If we are to talk about censorship, let's talk about it accurately.
(and I moderate all first time commentators on my blog in my fight about spam and will slap silly anyone who dares suggest that that is censorship)-
I'm pretty sure that the first amendment requires you to not only allow spam on your blog, but refrain from speaking negatively about it in public forums.
-
Amen.
-
rofl. finally got around to checking your newest blog btw. And left you a virtual bon bon in the comments to eat on your chaise lounge. Good luck with the new gig.
-
-
"I have to admit that there was a part of me--a fairly large part--that wanted to title this post 'Please Don't Say Stupid Shit Anymore'" (haha) I loved that sentence, Madame...
I think there are a few sets of people: the ones that complain about being a criminal on Papal, and those who speak about topics that may seem controversial, yet rational.
People get offended very easily. Paypal didn't accept me so I'm going to play the criminal card. Well, he/she didn't hire me, so I'm going to play the 'gay card'. Those types of things may be seen as irrational, and are - however, there are cases when it does truly happen. (In some cases.)
To me, online forum threads are just a fun way to get people talking, buzzing, chatting and even debating if necessary. Some people, like myself aren't much into posts that deal with things like baking soda (even though I'm on that thread like crazy), hehe, ...or mundane topics.
I love challenging people on beliefs, thoughts, relationship advice and even other topics that may be seen as offensive. People take my posts as 'combative' because they feel that I'm one-sided when I'm actually just asking questions and desiring to hear what people believe - their opinions.
It's a tricky thing. Everyone's so different. -
As someone who has experienced discrimination many times in her lifetime. I think you develop somewhat of a sensitivity to perceived discrimination.. real or not. It's like being rubbed with a sandpaper for too long and even one little careless remark can set you off.. because after lifetime being asked where you are from when it's obvious you don't have an accent or being called Chink, Gook, or being stared at because of your race; you develop a "discrimination radar"
That's not to say that using your race as an excuse for not getting the job are justifiable but sometimes it is just that much harder. I have never tried to let my heritage affect me. I am proud of who I am and where I come from and no one can take that away from me. However; it took me a long time to get here.
After living in cities like New York City and Miami where it was culturally diverse; I now live in a small town and it's hard adjustment to the stares, the differential treatment and actually being called a chink at a bar. Of course not everyone is like that.. but it does happen.-
Ouch. I'm afraid I'd probably be one of the people asking where you're from. ^^; But that's not because of any biases or anything. Around where I live there are hardly any people of Asian descent. So one showing up is unusual and most are foreign students at a university.
Sorry you don't like the small town life. I grew up in a small town and really like it. But I do know that small towns tend to be more homogeneous and differences stand out a lot. Also, small towns tend to be close-nit and newcomers, no matter what their race, aren't treated very warmly. Usually it has nothing to do with an actual hostility. It's just different and they don't know how to deal with people they haven't known since grade school.
-
-
@ Deb & Susie:
You both raise good points. But Deb, I think there's a big difference between passionately stating a point you feel strongly about (even if it raises controversy) and irresponsibly throwing around terms designed purely to incite. For instance, you've come under a lot of fire for talking about God and religion in these forums, but I've never heard you suggest that your first amendment rights were being violated, that the people who disagreed with you were trying to prevent the free exercise of your religion or that your free speech rights were violated if another member objected to something you said. I certainly haven't read all of those threads, but in the ones I have read you have conducted your arguments largely on the issue's own terms, not with a bunch of irrelevant buzzwords.
Susie, I definitely agree that it's experience that makes people--at least some people-oversensitive. My concern is that the fruit of that oversensitivity is overuse and misuse of concepts that are most critical to the very people who are cleansing them of all meaning.
Here's an example that I think illustrates the process well. Last summer, the Gay Games were in Chicago, and there was apparently a bit of fuss about it in advance. Thus, naturally, when the participants arrived, they were a bit on the lookout for a negative reaction.
One day I went into a convenience store at lunch time. It was unusually crowded. While I was choosing something to eat, a man at the deli held something up to show another man who was standing about twenty feet away. The second man immediately began yelling in a high pitched voice, "Oh no! You did NOT get ketchup! Please tell me that doesn't have mayonnaise and..."
I looked toward the yelling man and I think it's fair to say that the expression on my face was not flattering. I was a bit amazed both that ketchup and mayonnaise were such life altering issues and that he felt it appropriate to yell this the length of a crowded store.
And then something happened that absolutely astonished me. The yelling man slammed down whatever it was that he'd been holding, marched purposefully over to the other man, snatched up his hand and looked at me defiantly. Apparently, he thought my distaste was based on his relationship, which I hadn't even noticed until that moment (and had no interest in once I had).
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they went back to their friends and told the story of this judgmental bitch who was glaring at them in White Hen. And I can't really quibble with that assessment. But I was being a judgmental bitch about this man's decision to carry on a loud, whining conversation with his partner across a crowded store, not his sexual orientation.
I happen to have two very close friends who are homosexual, and who tell stories like this all the time. But since that day, I've found myself much less inclined to take them seriously, because I've seen firsthand how that sensitivity radically skews perceptions in the moment. Undoubtedly, some of those incidents are real. But when the people who are sensitive to them can't tell the difference and report them all equally, how can those not directly affected possibly hope to sort out the real problems that need to be addressed? It brings us to that point I mentioned in my post--the point where so many people have yelled "censorship" in so many contexts that no one hears it as anything but background noise when we're being censored.
The biggest irony, in my mind, is that the person who gratuitously yells things like "discrimination" and "censorship" the loudest and most often is in the direct (if unwitting service) of the very forces they're most angry with and frightened by. After all, whose interests are served if we as a society begin to shrug and move on when we hear those words?
[edit] Um, now that I see this in print, maybe it should have been a blog post.-
Pardon me guys, am not being rude. Maybe my english comprehension is not too good.
Her long post didnt made me get the points she is trying to convey. I think the sequencing of ideas to another need some touching up. Will someone explain to me what she is trying to explain? Please make it short. I just want to understand her. Thank you...
I understood a little at some paragraph that she is being judgemental at some point...which only strengthen my impression of her as being prejudice -I hope Im wrong. -
Ah, but being judgmental about someone's inappropriate response to a minor inconvenience is not the same thing as being prejudiced. I would have been caught in the same situation with a raised eyebrow and perhaps a scornful look. Like MadameX, I would have been passing judgment (right or wrong though that may be) on the behavior of the individual.
Prejudice springs from preconceived notions of a person based on stereotypes. In this situation, the judgment comes from a person utterly overreacting to condiments rather than any personal dislike or fear of gay people. You just don't scream at people in a store for forgetting you don't like ketchup, at least not if you're an emotionally stable person. That's from where the reaction comes.
The problem is that people who have experienced prejudice tend to see it in innocent situations once they've been sensitized. That means that people who react to something unrelated to their religion, race, or sexual orientation get dismissed as bigots. That's harmful to both parties. -
rofl. not fags you can't stand, just insipid drama queens. great story.
-
What the heck made him think you could tell what the relationship was?
Sheesh. He should try acting like a civilized human being before he gets all huffy about people's reactions to him.
-
-
We've had a 200 comment thread over a flowers that really sparked off a debate and led to 2 founders resigning!
Form all this we have decided that our community should not tolerate any personal attacks, off topic.
Apart from that, we'd rather not draft up a charter or a rule book.
With flowers comes thorns.
Without thorns there is no harmony.
Ying / Yang.
Brrrring on the debate! Heres the thread:
www.gosmelltheflowers.com/blog/archives/2031 -
hmmm stating my opinion while respecting yours....stating my opinion in words which describe my experiences not my experiences of you....if your behavior or words violate my boundaries regardless of your race gender sexuality religion or age then you are going to know about it.....I am gay but I have had the experience of being labelled racist simply because I spoke up against the undesirable behavior of someone....the problem is a lot of people get over sensitive because throughout their lifetime they have been subjected to racism and so on and they look for it in everyone and everything....its an expectation-
Another good point. Nicely put, robinj.
-
-
I missed most of this but it looks serious. We need some jurisprudence - an eModerater at blogcatalog.
-
of course some of us like debates and some of us want to be heard but can't handle the debate. I agree with MadameX that there is a sensitivity issue - your public then you gotta expect a rift.
-
If it makes a statement regardless of what words are used - people have the right to make a "buzz" about whatever. Just because "you" may get offended or taken aback a bit by the terms used, doesn't mean that my arguments aren't legit or don't matter.
Now isn't that overstating it just a bit?-
But so do the critics
-
I don't think that the issue has anything to do with whether or not someone else is offended. It has to do with precisely the point you raised: are your arguments legit? If you have to redefine language in order to present your argument, I would suggest that they are not, and that they are harmful to people who might need those words to make legitimate arguments later.
-
-
Eeek, ....you totally lost me on this. I think I may have been confused with your overall post.
*walks out slowly*-
Deb, what I'm objecting to is when people invoke dramatically terminology in ways that are clearly inaccurate in an effort to stir people up. I still think that the best example is when someone yells that his "free speech rights" have been violated because someone moderated his comment on a blog. We can argue all day about whether or not blog owners should accept and delete comments based on whether or not they agree with the substance of the comments. There are legitimate arguments on both sides and people are free to disagree in good faith. But it's not legitimate to call it a "free speech violation" when it's just not. That's not a matter of opinion--"free speech violation" has a very clear, very specific meaning, and that is not it. The person who makes that allegation isn't just voicing an opinion others might disagree with: he's either wrong or he's lying. Unfortunately, the frequency with which people are honestly wrong about that kind of thing is mushrooming, probably as a direct result of the fact that the language is so badly misused.
It basically comes down to this: you can call me a bitch or a good person or a troublemaker or a voice of reason (in fact, I've been called all four of these things in this very forum) and that will simply be your position--and that's fine, whether it offends me or not. But you can't say that I'm a man, or that I'm a computer programmer, or that I'm Jewish and have it be anything but false. -
I'm not entirely sure what the debate is about - lol, that might be the problem.
But I do understand alittle of what madame x is saying. I am not sure of extremity of what conditions of brought about this debate.
But I would say that there are clear definitions to things but that definitions are also subject to change. I do not know anything about 'Constitutional rights' or 'statute rights' but natural rights and natural law has always been an area in philosophy that has intrigued me. I believe certain conditions are changing and therefore so is the nature of certain rights. Or perhaps all conditions are changing.
I'm not defending anybody - because I'm still not sure what this debate is about.
Are we really talking about rights? -
I wasn't, Kevin. I was talking about misuse of the language for dramatic effect in a way that undermines the power of concepts we should all take seriously.
-
I think we're talking about crying wolf because you're angry or frustrated and you know that accusing someone of being a bigot or a censor hurts much more than calling them a nasty name because people react more to it. Or crying wolf because you don't understand the actual term. Using strong words for a weak cause takes the very strength that makes those words mean something. It weakens and dilutes the words in situations when they actually do apply.
That's what I think, anyway. There have certainly been some side trips on this path.
-
-
I don't think free speech was ever intended to be an open ended license to publish, speak, print, or broadcast anything and everything.
For example.... am I free to walk the streets of New York broadcasting your social security number to every passer-by?
Laws have to be in place to protect the rights of others....and if that means that free speech requires some limits, then so be it.
If you feel like you've been "censored" or your free speech rights have been violated, take it to court.
Whining about it to others who are just going to work day after day supporting a family - is just asking someone else to shoulder your burdens, when they have burdens of their own already.
Yes, I think things like this get overstated all the time.... when a person seeks to saddle everyone else with their objections in life, instead of taking real action in a court room to protect their rights.
If the law isn't working for you either.... then get a petition together and take the issue to a congressman or senator...
If that doesn't work for you... put together a special interest group, get it funded and lobby legislators.
The point is... there is a system in place to address almost any of these type of complaints rather than just whining about it.
A good example of this is the case where Phelps and his followers attended the funerals of soldiers killed in action, who gathered at the grave site and harassed the mourners and family members of the soldier while they attempted to bury their son or daughter.
After a lot....and I mean a LOT of work...the group was finally banned from coming within a certain distance of the funeral.
Was their free speech rights violated? No... they are free to spew their hate-filled message all they want.
But at a distance - so that their rights didn't infringe on the rights of others who are trying to grieve in peace.-
Or, in brief:
Free speech does not give one the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.
Wish I knew who first said that.
-
-
Oooooooooooooh.......kinda' like the news when they sensationalize a topic and then it ends up being a pile of nothing?
Am I getting this correctly?
(You'll have to excuse me, I'm slow!) -
Exactly. And then eventually, because ten thousand people have screamed "censorship" when they were just personally pissed off, real censorship happens and the word has lost its power--no one listens anymore when it's pointed out because we've become so accustomed to everyone saying something is censorship every day. And that's really, really good for the people who want to slip in bad policies and not so good for the people who want to prevent them.
-
Kinda like how everything caused cancer a while back. It was pretty stupid.
-
-
I do think that sensationalizing anything is going to detract from the main point. For instance.. All of sudden. The Global Warming has garnered so much attention and EVERYTHING being contributed to Global Warming that the message is getting diluted. People aren't taking it seriously because of all the hoopla... It is a serious message as well as freedom of speech and racism... but of course few will ruin it for everybody.
I do understand your point of view. I do think hysterics is not the solutions to anything... I just wanted to point out that sometimes people who cry foul or discrimination are doing it because they truly do feel at that point that they are being discriminated or put upon... -
I disgaree (respectfully) with Madame X.
Its the system, and we did not create it. We as in minorities, gays, etc. Some people are paranoid or easily offended because of repeated and constant prejudice. It happens, and it builds over time.
It is not easy to quell those feelings or stop the paranoia. It is easy to state that it SHOULD NOT happen. -
Yes, I agree with that.
Truth is more important, it is only detrimental to the truth when the point is exagerated.
Here is a short personal story.
I know smoking is bad and I quite almost three months ago but I used to be a smoker.
One thing I never did was smoke in the house, car, or around or infront of my daughters.
But my daughters 'Ex pediatrician' told my wife 'it didnt matter' and that nicotine and other chemicals would some how still manage to attack my daughter and my hidden habbit was endangering there health. I should say that they were never ever exposed to second hand smoke and that when I did smoke it was in the open because didnt want to smell like it either. I even washed my hands anytime I came inside after a cigarette.
I knew smoking was bad and I was motivated to quit on my own. But that doctor clearly overstepped 'reality' to serve what she believed was the better interest.
I was really pissed that a Dr. and alleged intellectual would 'overstate' the truth and I called and had words about it with her.
I told her I had lost all respect in her as a professional and we now have a different doctor for my daughters. Not to mention that I don't smoke anymore but I didnt need propaganda to do that.
But there is alot of overstating the cause.
In marketing I have one rule: Never insult the clients intelligence.... which is what the pressure salesmen do. But from a PR perspective you risk damaging your cause when you overstate it because it is detrimental to your credibility. Just like the good doctor - in her mind she was advocating a higher cause that was right, but she crossed the lines to make her point, ultimately damaging her own credibility, possibly detrimental to her cause.-
That was responding to dharmagypsy
-
Well, maybe to you it was overstepping her bounds.. but as your daughter's doctor, I think she had a legitimate concern.. There has been a lot of studies that prove that even if you don't smoke in front of your daughter.. There could be some residual chemicals left over on your clothes and such. I don't think she was exaggerating. Perhaps it was the way she delivered the message? Doctors are not known for their communication skills. I just had a visit with a specialist and it didn't go over too well so I can relate
My dad offered to baby sit my daughter when she was born but my dad is also a heavy smoker and I know that it wouldn't be healthy for my daughter.. even if he didn't smoke around her so I politely declined. I am not trying to tell you to stop smoking.. but I think it was a legitimate concern for her to address.
-
-
about the secret agent thing, do you do agent 99 impersonations? -
Yeah, I can understand the concern. I really questioned my wife before I made my complaints to make sure she emphasised my discretion. Let me put it this way - most people I associated with on a day to day basis did'nt know I smoked. I know that because of the dramatic reactions I would get when somebody would find out.
The good doctor was just dramatic.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
