Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'd disagree. Anyone "having a particularly bad day" venting on anyone who's being a PITA even though they're just doing their job... that's pretty human. Sure, it's bad and should be avoided--same thing with, say, gluttony or envy.

It sucks, but it's not evil, IMO.

And anyone who's working with customers should get a thicker skin eventually, or change jobs eventually.

For the sake of clarity, I believe that the gentleman of Asian origin who was verbally attacked by the Île-des-Soeurs Karen was not an employee of the store.

He seems to have been the client ahead of her at the checkout.

Carry on, now...

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Ah yes the good ol' days! If only bigots were still allowed to verbally abuse anyone they hated with no social consequences.

Oh right, they can still be elected President of the United States of America. Poor persecuted bigots.

I don’t like bigots, but I am still uncomfortable with the concept of millions of potential strangers as the faceless shame brigade.

The irony of a the most bigoted President in recent history being elected in an era of very anti-bigot sentiment might indicate that the shame brigade isn’t exactly achieving its goals, if that is indeed their aim.

Ironically, the more people push the us-vs-them narrative, the more they may alienate potential allies. Hillary Clinton’s ‘Deplorables’ line played perfectly into his narrative. Oops.

Archie Bunker’s behaviour spoke for itself. Which was the point of All In The Family, as Archie was greatly out of touch with a changing society. He wasn’t the hero of the show.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Can I ask who decides to unleash racist diatribes on grocery store employees because they're having a bad day? There's a reason Karen has become such a popular meme. Those racist thoughts didn't simply materialize because of a bad mood. The impulse to attack someone in the service industry isn't innocent. It's malicious behaviour. I doubt any of these people have worked a retail job in their lives. Having had many shitty jobs and been verbally abused by customers I have zero tolerance or respect for that.

I am not the one who brought up "maybe she was having a bad day".

I am in fact saying pretty much the same thing as you: that in the 2020s in North America, "having a bad day" doesn't get you out of objectionable behaviour like this.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some of this was still at play when I first started working in the late 80s, but progressively fading away until it became largely verboten (with no room for apologies even) as it is today.

I don't really think there's "no room for apologies" in this case so much as there isn't really any apology she could make that would be satisfactory and seem genuine. She can change or she can never do something like that again, but both of those take time.

[suburbanite]

The "Having a bad day" excuse just reminds of me of people who say "Oh sorry I'm an asshole when I'm drunk". Alcohol doesn't create thoughts in your brain, it lowers your inhibitions and lets you espouse what you normally wouldn't say. Similarly, if certain emotions cause you to verbally abuse other people, than you're not having a bad day, you're just an asshole. Whether being an asshole is justification for "cancelling" depends on what exactly you being an asshole entailed.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder if social punishments are determined over long periods in an evolutionary way few people explicitly understand, such that they generate the right long-term outcome (partly happens indirectly by making groups more or less successful; some probably not just cultural but baked in over millions of years of group primate living). To the primates, the response that makes the group successful on average may "just feel right" over time. In more complex societies we can invent reasoning for why we feel how we feel.

The right proportion for punishment as a deterrent depends on the odds of being punished and the severity of punishment, and for reputational punishment the severity depends on how long people remember what happened. In the past the punishments were sometimes incredibly severe (death penalty for theft) but odds are a lot of people got away with crimes. One way to look at that is to ask what punishment is required to make the expected value of the activity negative, given severity and odds of punishment.

If technology changes suddenly the costs can shift in a much shorter period of time than adaptation of primate brains or even culture. Invent social media and the de facto reputational cost goes up by 10,000x but people's feelings about how angry to get when they see somebody doing something bad are about the same. The people may still even deserve to be punished but the proportionality may be off.

(I think in practice it's even worse than this with some social media dynamics because people can get rewarded for punishing others.)

In some ways I think the anonymity of the late 20th century was an outlier. If someone had done this in 1950, 1900, 1850, or even 1050 the word would have gotten around in the relatively tight knit communities where people lived and the perpetrator would have faced some sort of ostracism. It was only in the late 20th century (when, perhaps not coincidentally, the Karens grew up) that someone had a reasonable chance of anonymity.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't really think there's "no room for apologies" in this case so much as there isn't really any apology she could make that would be satisfactory and seem genuine. She can change or she can never do something like that again, but both of those take time.

My point is that a couple of decades ago, an apology from Bob (even of doubtful sincerity) would have been considered amply sufficient, and everyone would have quickly moved on.

Even if everyone in the office knew that Bob would almost surely do something similar at some point in the future.

Organizational behaviour and culture has evolved tremendously. I mean it's on a whole other level from racist outbursts (at least in my books) but it wasn't that long ago - well within living memory - that many organizations would more or less tolerate sexual or physical abusers in their midst, only with the occasional stern talking down or a rap on the knuckles, and then the problem (ie the person) would simply be moved elsewhere.

Where they would almost always repeat the same behaviour.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I don’t like bigots, but I am still uncomfortable with the concept of millions of potential strangers as the faceless shame brigade.

The irony of a the most bigoted President in recent history being elected in an era of very anti-bigot sentiment might indicate that the shame brigade isn’t exactly achieving its goals, if that is indeed their aim.

Ironically, the more people push the us-vs-them narrative, the more they may alienate potential allies. Hillary Clinton’s ‘Deplorables’ line played perfectly into his narrative. Oops.

Archie Bunker’s behaviour spoke for itself. Which was the point of All In The Family, as Archie was greatly out of touch with a changing society. He wasn’t the hero of the show.

I know he wasn't the hero of the show. I was merely illustrating to those arguing about how much better society was when that type of bigot could say whatever they wanted with zero pushback how we all suffer for it. It doesn't take a ton of Archie Bunkers to poison the well. Just look at the MAGAts south of the border. But like you said, their seething anger at being restrained led to the election of one of the worst Presidents in their history.

I don't know the solution, but the culture wars don't seem to be going away anytime soon. There is a balance that needs to be struck between social activism / protecting the vulnerable (LGBTQ, visible minorities, women) and over policing. I think there is a difference though between people demanding consequences for bad behaviour (ie job loss, social shunning whatever) vs. hateful rhetoric that would like certain groups of people to be attacked or killed.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In some ways I think the anonymity of the late 20th century was an outlier. If someone had done this in 1950, 1900, 1850, or even 1050 the word would have gotten around in the relatively tight knit communities where people lived and the perpetrator would have faced some sort of ostracism. It was only in the late 20th century (when, perhaps not coincidentally, the Karens grew up) that someone had a reasonable chance of anonymity.

Great point, and very true.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think that in any legal system worth its salt "having a bad day" would never be an acceptable excuse but that's because we're talking about actual crimes.

I do think there is a difference between today and 1985 or 1975 in that perhaps outbursts (in a public space, in an office, etc.) that involved intolerance would not have had such serious consequences on someone's career and life back then. My guess is that a lot of them were shrugged off with a "Bob was having a bad day" or "That's just old Bob being his crotchety self".

And if Bob apologized - then everything was almost always forgiven and forgotten.

Some of this was still at play when I first started working in the late 80s, but progressively fading away until it became largely verboten (with no room for apologies even) as it is today.

I think the Wendy Mesley case is a pretty good example of what I am talking about, and that wasn't even an outburst or even a deliberate attempt to insult. She apologized, repented, begged for forgiveness, you name it. But she was still a goner.

This isn’t the Wendy Mesley case, or people getting cancelled for something they did decades ago, or people being cancelled for having an unpopular opinion. This is a grown woman who had a public temper tantrum in a supermarket.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My point is that a couple of decades ago, an apology from Bob (even of doubtful sincerity) would have been considered amply sufficient, and everyone would have quickly moved on.

Even if everyone in the office knew that Bob would almost surely do something similar at some point in the future.

Organizational behaviour and culture has evolved tremendously. I mean it's on a whole other level from racist outbursts (at least in my books) but it wasn't that long ago - well within living memory - that many organizations would more or less tolerate sexual or physical abusers in their midst, only with the occasional stern talking down or a rap on the knuckles, and then the problem (ie the person) would simply be moved elsewhere.

Where they would almost always repeat the same behaviour.

Yes society has changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. Workplace protection is a good thing imo. I guess I don't understand your motivation in saying this. Previously you appeared to be arguing in favour of the laissez faire attitude of the 80's. If you are simply observing facts why even bother stating the obvious?

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes society has changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. Workplace protection is a good thing imo. I guess I don't understand your motivation in saying this. Previously you appeared to be arguing in favour of the laissez faire attitude of the 80's. If you are simply observing facts why even bother pointing out the obvious?

Are you new here?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In some ways I think the anonymity of the late 20th century was an outlier. If someone had done this in 1950, 1900, 1850, or even 1050 the word would have gotten around in the relatively tight knit communities where people lived and the perpetrator would have faced some sort of ostracism. It was only in the late 20th century (when, perhaps not coincidentally, the Karens grew up) that someone had a reasonable chance of anonymity.

I think maybe the Karens (who are generally of the same generation as me) grew up in a sweet spot between the shift of the vast majority of the population from rural areas and small towns to larger cities and metros (bringing them greater anonymity in everyday life) and the technological revolution of the past couple of decades that's now taken a lot of that anonymity away.

I mean we surrender a lot of anonymity willingly with stuff like Facebook and Instagram profiles, but a lot of privacy "violations" we don't consent to. Like if someone makes a document of all the names and addresses of the PTA committee I am on for my kids' school and posts it online, or if my employer posts a photo of me speaking at a conference or receiving an award.

Let's say we are in 1986 and want to identify the Montreal Karen. Where do you start? Even if you have her name, how far does that get you in 1986? (I mean unless you are an investigative journalist but who is going to go to all that trouble for something like that?)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This isn’t the Wendy Mesley case, or people getting cancelled for something they did decades ago, or people being cancelled for having an unpopular opinion. This is a grown woman who had a public temper tantrum in a supermarket.

Not sure I understand you.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes society has changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. Workplace protection is a good thing imo. I guess I don't understand your motivation in saying this. Previously you appeared to be arguing in favour of the laissez faire attitude of the 80's. If you are simply observing facts why even bother stating the obvious?

I am not arguing in favour of anything. Just taking stock of the evolution.

You'd be wise to stop jumping to conclusions.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure I understand you.

The woman in the supermarket did not use an offensive word as part of a serious discussion or in the course of doing her job. That is something that is new in the last year or two as being something you could get fired for. It has never been appropriate for someone over the age of 3 to throw a temper tantrum in a supermarket.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think maybe the Karens (who are generally of the same generation as me) grew up in a sweet spot between the shift of the vast majority of the population from rural areas and small towns to larger cities and metros (bringing them greater anonymity in everyday life) and the technological revolution of the past couple of decades that's now taken a lot of that anonymity away.

I mean we surrender a lot of anonymity willingly with stuff like Facebook and Instagram profiles, but a lot of privacy "violations" we don't consent to. Like if someone makes a document of all the names and addresses of the PTA committee I am on for my kids' school and posts it online, or if my employer posts a photo of me speaking at a conference or receiving an award.

Let's say we are in 1986 and want to identify the Montreal Karen. Where do you start? Even if you have her name, how far does that get you in 1986? (I mean unless you are an investigative journalist but who is going to go to all that trouble for something like that?)

Yes, I think that is what I was trying to say. In 1986 the person would have had a certain anonymity. But in 1966 she almost certainly would have been recognized, people would have discussed the incident at church, at the PTA, and within a few days it would have been widely known in the community.

[O-tacular]

This would be someone having a bad day:

• Video Link

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The woman in the supermarket did not use an offensive word as part of a serious discussion or in the course of doing her job. That is something that is new in the last year or two as being something you could get fired for. It has never been appropriate for someone over the age of 3 to throw a temper tantrum in a supermarket.

OK thanks.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Archie Bunker’s behaviour spoke for itself. Which was the point of All In The Family, as Archie was greatly out of touch with a changing society. He wasn’t the hero of the show.

We're all aware of the objective and messaging behind the Archie Bunker character, but in retrospect it at least partly backfired as Archie became a kind of folk hero for racist, intolerant and xenophobic people.

I think I've heard Norman Lear express some regret about that.

I have vague recollections in my childhood of people repeating various Archie Bunker lines, insults and slurs. They weren't primarily doing that because they thought Archie Bunker was the bad guy. In a way he kind of normalized some of that and gave it legs, unfortunately.

Were Polish-Americans ever called "meatheads" before All in the Family came on the air?