Let me tell you a story . . .
A woman with an infant child was shopping at a department store and needed a place to nurse her child. After finding a place to nurse her child, store staff asked her to move, offering her someplace where she wouldn't be seen by the public.
Now, that is a very short story, but it elicits a variety of responses. Some examples:
She seated herself to nurse on the floor in the middle of a department, in a foot traffic area, in a place where should could have easily been run into. This is the spot from which she was asked to move. Her response? To organize a protest against said department store in response.
Now, everything stated in both halves of this story is true, but can you see where perspective and credibility both become an issue? On the one had, yes, she shouldn't have been told to go someplace out of view. On the flip side, though, she organized a protest because she was told to move from the floor of a foot-traffic area, potentially hazardous for her, other customers, and her nursing baby!
So, while a portion of her outrage is understandable, her cry for public response is tainted by the fact that her anger is rooted in not having made a wise choice in the first place. In other words, I would understand her rage a lot more if the situation had not been caused, in part, by her initial choice of location.
Here's another example: a local TV station runs a human interest story on how truckers have a hard time with people driving passenger vehicles. The story uses various clips of dash-cam footage to demonstrate the point that people drive crazy around truckers, as well as testimony from the truckers themselves.
The problem? Statistics tell us that the per capita accident rate among truckers is seven-times greater than that of drivers of passenger vehicles. And these are the people telling us that drivers of passenger cars are unsafe drivers. Sure, they have dealt with people driving in an unsafe manner around them, but because that message is coming from people who by and large are much less-safe drivers, it changes the credibility of the complaint.
*(After reading back through this, I guess those two examples may be a little involved, so here's a simpler one: someone who hates black people blames a neighborhood black kid for vandalizing their house; it's hard to accept the validity of the person's story without corroborating evidence).
So, I think I know your next question: who cares?
Well, the internet is a place where massive movements can occur as a result of a single tweet or news story. One person says a cross word and gets fired; one person does something that is questionable in the eyes of a few and finds the press tearing their lives apart. It happens, and we've probably all been a part of something like that.
So, when we got all caught up in the frenzied internet movement of the day, did we stop to see where it started, and if we're really supporting something good? Or is the movement of the day the result of someone with bad perspective stirring the pot?
Our first example is a great one: "Let's rally against the oppressive store" is tainted by the fact that the woman created a bad situation in the first place. Doesn't that take some of the zing out of her cause?
"Truckers have a terrible time with regular drivers" is mitigated by the fact that they get into accidents seven times more often than we do. Do I really want to rally behind people who can't point the finger at their own shortcomings?
Other examples (tainted perspective is in parenthesis):
Now, in each of these situations, you can see why the individual feels the way they do, especially from their perspective. Is their statement justified? Not really. Their individual experience is what it is, but it doesn't mean that their statements are valid.
So, it took all of that to say this: whenever you take in information from anyone (including me), ask yourself if what they're telling you is actual truth, or if it's tainted by their individual perspective. A lot of people have a lot of things to say; not all of them are valid . . .
Now, that is a very short story, but it elicits a variety of responses. Some examples:
- "I can't believe they would mess with her while she was nursing her baby!"
- "Good; women shouldn't nurse children in public."
- "What store was it? I'm going to boycott them."
- Did she do or say anything else that caused them to ask her to leave?
- In what manner was she asked to leave? Was it polite? Was it pushy?
- Was she covered?
She seated herself to nurse on the floor in the middle of a department, in a foot traffic area, in a place where should could have easily been run into. This is the spot from which she was asked to move. Her response? To organize a protest against said department store in response.
Now, everything stated in both halves of this story is true, but can you see where perspective and credibility both become an issue? On the one had, yes, she shouldn't have been told to go someplace out of view. On the flip side, though, she organized a protest because she was told to move from the floor of a foot-traffic area, potentially hazardous for her, other customers, and her nursing baby!
So, while a portion of her outrage is understandable, her cry for public response is tainted by the fact that her anger is rooted in not having made a wise choice in the first place. In other words, I would understand her rage a lot more if the situation had not been caused, in part, by her initial choice of location.
Here's another example: a local TV station runs a human interest story on how truckers have a hard time with people driving passenger vehicles. The story uses various clips of dash-cam footage to demonstrate the point that people drive crazy around truckers, as well as testimony from the truckers themselves.
The problem? Statistics tell us that the per capita accident rate among truckers is seven-times greater than that of drivers of passenger vehicles. And these are the people telling us that drivers of passenger cars are unsafe drivers. Sure, they have dealt with people driving in an unsafe manner around them, but because that message is coming from people who by and large are much less-safe drivers, it changes the credibility of the complaint.
*(After reading back through this, I guess those two examples may be a little involved, so here's a simpler one: someone who hates black people blames a neighborhood black kid for vandalizing their house; it's hard to accept the validity of the person's story without corroborating evidence).
So, I think I know your next question: who cares?
Well, the internet is a place where massive movements can occur as a result of a single tweet or news story. One person says a cross word and gets fired; one person does something that is questionable in the eyes of a few and finds the press tearing their lives apart. It happens, and we've probably all been a part of something like that.
So, when we got all caught up in the frenzied internet movement of the day, did we stop to see where it started, and if we're really supporting something good? Or is the movement of the day the result of someone with bad perspective stirring the pot?
Our first example is a great one: "Let's rally against the oppressive store" is tainted by the fact that the woman created a bad situation in the first place. Doesn't that take some of the zing out of her cause?
"Truckers have a terrible time with regular drivers" is mitigated by the fact that they get into accidents seven times more often than we do. Do I really want to rally behind people who can't point the finger at their own shortcomings?
Other examples (tainted perspective is in parenthesis):
- "That bank is terrible" (from a person who is constantly assessed fees for overdrafts and bounced checks)
- "That company is racist" (from a man who has been a terrible employee and was given several chances to turn it around)
- "There are no jobs in this town" (from a person who refuses to apply at certain places that may or may not be below their pay grade)
Now, in each of these situations, you can see why the individual feels the way they do, especially from their perspective. Is their statement justified? Not really. Their individual experience is what it is, but it doesn't mean that their statements are valid.
So, it took all of that to say this: whenever you take in information from anyone (including me), ask yourself if what they're telling you is actual truth, or if it's tainted by their individual perspective. A lot of people have a lot of things to say; not all of them are valid . . .
