The news: Where do we get it? How do we know what to trust? How do we see through material that has been distorted or is simply untrue and meant only to manipulate us as readers and as citizens in a troubled democracy?
Opinion
The other day, I received a Facebook post sent by a friend who received it from a friend. This post was written by a person who said he’d been told the story by a person who was an acquaintance of a friend of his — that is, the storyteller heard it from a person who had a friend who heard the story from an acquaintance of that friend.
Here’s the story: Two people are in line at the check-out counter of a pharmacy. One is an older man — maybe late 70s. The other person is a woman whose age is unknown, but we will soon learn that she is married and has a daughter. The older man is wearing a MAGA hat. The woman is wearing a T-shirt that says “Liberal AF.” We’re told the pharmacy is in a deeply blue city in an even more deeply red state — Iowa.
The man says to the woman, “You liberals are a cancer on our society.”
The pharmacy clerk is speechless. No one moves. Even time seems to stop.
The woman thinks to keep her mouth shut, but something wells up in her — our political situation and the threats against democracy both in our country and worldwide, her personal life, how some days we feel we can take no more. At the end of our rope, we speak.
She says, “My daughter has cancer, and you can call me what you want — a liberal, a fascist, whatever, but I know what cancer is. I know what it’s done to my daughter, what it’s done to me, to my marriage. I pray to God each day that I might take my daughter’s place. So don’t call me a cancer.”
Or maybe she says, “I am not a cancer.” Either way, she goes on to tell the reader that surely this man, who appears to be in his mid-to-late 70, has had a loved one suffer from cancer, has seen what cancer does to both victim and loved one, and has faced the death from cancer of someone he cares about. The woman begins to cry — she’s angry about crying in front of this man and these strangers in a public place. But she cries.
Now the man is chagrined. He apologizes profusely, asks the woman to forgive him, offers to pay for everything in her cart. But she doesn’t want him to pay. She says, “Tell me, 10 years ago, would you have said something so thoughtless and so cruel to a stranger in a store?” She adds, “Be honest.” As if in asking for honesty, we will be given some guarantee.
The man says, “No.”
Ten years ago, he would never have said such a thing. He wonders what he can do, and the woman asks him to throw away his MAGA hat. Maybe if he throws the hat away, he will once again be the more compassionate person he once was. Leaving the store, the man does what the woman has asked, taking off his hat and tossing it into the trash bin.
Now the clerk recovers the power of speech and says something like, “Oh, my God. That was unbelievable.”
The first comment below this story was to ask if the woman would throw away her Liberal AF T-shirt. This seemed to me beside the point because the woman had not verbally attacked the man. The comment obscures the fact that I have no idea if the event really happened.
It’s a heartening story, and I hope it happened. I hope that when pushed, we see the limitations of our bitterness towards others and the truth that wishing others didn’t exist will never get us anywhere in our search for a just and fair democracy, a society in which all are treated with equal concern, where all stand an equal chance to make a life that is personally enriching in community with others, both those we feel are like us and those we imagine are unlike us.
Maybe it doesn’t matter if the event actually took place. Maybe what matters is its inner truth, that we can be changed by opening ourselves to the other. And if we were to do this, I think my doubts about the sources of information I receive might go away, that I could trust what I saw — even on Facebook — because we’d have no need to manipulate one another in public in pursuit of our private ends.
OK, so you are thinking of a story based on MAGA and Liberal AF (assuming AF, starts with As..). Short messages that mean different things to different people. Then you have a comment made off-hand and a reaction that is strong and made to evoke feeling, designed to make the off-hand comment be reconsidered. It does not always play out that way.
It is a classic “man’s inhumanity towards man story”. And the story is printed two days after a man is shot in Utah for his deeply held beliefs and his expression of those beliefs.
So what is your point? In your story, the man feels regret. What is your solution to the one who reacts using violence?
I have seen people threatened with death for their political positions. I have seen violence perpetrated senselessly.
The caption to the picture, “When we aren’t being listened to, we can’t just go on as usual when legislation is actively putting us in danger” is rhetoric. Does it put people in danger? Or is that a perception that is inaccurate and a manipulation of the man standing there with the power to veto any legislation.
What should happen is ardent dialog with respect. We should encourage those who will speak to the other side. In fact all of us should express our views, find common ground. Have the heated debate on what we do not agree on. We should have the marketplace of ideas without fear.
The late 70’s year old guy “verbally attacked” the young lady? IT could be that his experience coming home from Vietnam, being called a “baby killer”, and being spit on for being drafted, and serving his country may have colored his views. Maybe in a different line in a different time, the reader would have a different reaction.
Speech, in this story, is not the problem. The perception that someone is evil for a political position is a current problem. It colors the conversation unfairly. And when it leads to tragedy, evil people celebrate the end results.
Someone needs to explain to grandpa how social media works. Maybe have someone under 35 to review the column before submitting? Of course the story isn’t true, none of it is.
I am an American! I do not identify as a Republocrat or a Demican. I vote for who is going to best represent me and my values in the state and federal governments. Right now, I don’t believe we have good representation in either. Pay attention to what they do and not what they say. God bless America, united we stand, divided, the great American experiment doesn’t exist anymore.
There is nothing liberal about Leftism; but sadly Liberals tend to side with Leftists. I see Liberalism in the classical sense of proposing new ideas worthy of exploration, while Conservatives are the brake pedal to Liberalism’s gas pedal. Yes, let’s debate and explore; but not adopt the idea if it leads to society’s demise. If the idea is sound, let’s try it and adopt it if it works, and course correct if it doesn’t.
Leftism is the philosophy of destruction, misery, and oppression masquerading as Liberalism. There are probably 100+/- million examples of death in the 20th Century and continuing on in the 21st Century. The number of people living the misery and oppression of Leftism numbers in the billions.
I couldn’t fathom what you are talking about, so I looked up the definition of leftism.
“What is the leftist ideology?
AI Overview
Leftist ideology is a political stance centered on principles of social equality and egalitarianism, often advocating for collective action, government intervention to reduce inequality, and progressive social change. Key characteristics include supporting robust social safety nets, environmental protection, social justice, and a belief that human potential flourishes through cooperation and reduced disparities in wealth and power.
Core Principles:
Social Equality: A fundamental belief that society should strive for greater equality among its members, seeking to reduce or abolish unjustified inequalities in status, power, and wealth.
Government Intervention: A tendency to believe that the government should play an active role in addressing societal problems, such as poverty and inequality, through programs and regulations.
Progressive Change: An embrace of social change and progress over maintaining the status quo, viewing societal evolution as beneficial.
Cooperation: A belief that individuals thrive in cooperative environments and that strong social institutions can facilitate this.”
Sounds quite a bit different than your thoughts of leftism and a lot more beneficial to a democratic society….which is the one I hope we live in.
Leftism = Marxism, Communism, Socialism. I’m not sure which AI chatbot you used; but it sounds like it displayed the company’s/programmer’s inherent bias that we all have. AI is impressive technology; but it was built by flawed humans. I use AI on occasion for technical research; but I still heed the fine print that it can make mistakes.
I’ve had to chastise ChatGPT 4 & 5 on occasion when it has violated my instructions listed in my profile to respond in a clinical (for lack of a better word) tone. I’m testing out Proton’s Lumo, and it looks promising; but I will correct it if it starts acting like a smart-alec teenager.
Cheers.
If true, it only reinforces the angry baby boomer stereotype that is all over the comments at wyofile. A whole generation of folks need to disconnect from their “entertainment” if it causes them fear, anxiety, or hatred.