Injuries, Insults, and Who's Better?
- Liz Flaherty
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
On my morning scroll through Facebook, I enjoyed the few messages and memes and funny graphics still allowed. I clicked on some news stories I might not have found otherwise, wished people Happy Birthday complete with emoji, and invited everyone to read my weekly Window post on the pages I always do. (I haven't actually done that part yet, but I will if I'm able to wind this up.)
I also wondered how long I would stick around for all the "sponsored" unfinished stories that never really happened and the ads for pretty clothes that you might or might not get if you order them and likely won't look at all the way they did in pictures. You know the ones I mean--where an extra large might fit a size six. Sometimes I dump the things that annoy me. Sometimes I just keep scrolling, thinking I might actually see something from a familiar name.
I criticize the writing on TV station posts. For example, "Few kids have fought harder for a title than P-----." P----- has a story, and it's a good one, but why did someone think it was a good idea to start a story with that line? All these other kids with injuries are okay, too, right? But maybe they're not as good because--and this is a subjective thing--they probably didn't fight as hard.
Who says they didn't? And why would they say it?
I have to admit that I've used that comparative language myself, and never thought of it being insulting to the one who didn't quite make the cut. But it was. I was ... dang it ... wrong.
It reminds me of politics. (I know--here we go.) How many political ads say very little about the candidate's platform, but a whole lot about their opponent's? How many people accuse others of not voting for one person but against another one. I do both, if I'm honest about it, because I've occasionally voted for whom I thought was the lesser of two evils. However, being told I'm only voting against one person gives that one an importance I don't intend and makes me sound as if I'm not "as good," because I didn't really vote for anyone.
I admit this is kind of a stretch in comparisons, but both instances go along with ... what, our culture? When we use negatives to try to make ourselves look positive. A few weeks ago, I wrote about what I considered Cracker Barrel's ill-considered new logo and that I thought the restaurant's changes were led by greed and ageism.
It was amazing how many people--from both sides of the tall and opaque political fence--let me know how wrong I was on all points. My credibility slipped with members of my own party because I like Cracker Barrel and I don't care who their CEO voted for. I didn't have credibility to lose with the other side, but some (although fewer) of them said they wouldn't eat at Cracker Barrel anyway. One side didn't want to eat there because they didn't used to be diverse in their hiring. The other side didn't want to eat there because they are diverse in their hiring.
I still eat there, although I don't like what they've done with their menus and that new logo was boring. You should eat where you want to, too. I don't believe that makes either of us better than the other.
I hope I've made sense here this morning. I'm not at all confident I have, but thanks for coming, anyway. On a strictly personal note, Go, Warriors! Have a great week. Be nice to somebody.
A New Kind of Hope
Fee and Jed were best friends who fell in love, but that was high school. Life and families and other loves had happened since that dear and distant time. They’re friends again, comfortable with each other and having so much fun at Christmas time in Dickens. They’re not still in love, but…wait…could it be happening again?
Pre-order now. The sweet Christmas story, with new title, cover, and a few changes will release on September 15. Buy links are below.
