Hmmm, my counting is not so good. 1, 2, 3, 1. Obviously meant 4.
Iāll expand on 4. because you did, but I HATE long posts. Like, irrationally so. I hate that I choose to respond in long form in these discussions. Ugh. Must work on that. So, consider my badly numbered post my reply to VHM and apologies for the length of the rest. Please feel free to skip it!
If you have a ācrazy uncleāĀ and the stuff he posts is okay with you, then so be it. Iām not okay with that stuff. What some dismiss as bizarre can have real life consequences (e.g., armed man showing up at pizza parlour; plans to kidnap elected officials) so Iām not inclined to brush a lot of this stuff off. Further, if you place yourself in the public realm willingly, actively promoting your activities and eagerly cooperating in media coverage about your event, yourself, your wife, and your lifestyle, you cannot subsequently be upset if people notice your other public behaviour and take issue with it.
Those of us in the professional world (and most who have no such professional concerns) understand that how we conduct ourselves in public, both IRL and online, reflects on our character and values. It can also reflect on our professional lives and associations. Mr. Glaccum seems not to have understood this or he doesnāt care. If that latter, thatās his prerogative. Neither, however, is indicative of a sophisticated (nuanced?) understanding of current standards of professional conduct.
Posts like that may have contributed to the problem with the name issue. I can see how it could call into question the claims that the name and the refusal to entertain calling it anything else had no basis in bias if the leadership of the organization were behaving that way in public. Again, free to post/say/do what he pleases; not free from reactions to/consequences of doing so. I do not want him stopped from making such posts. I actually see the value in that public behaviour for myself b/c it makes it easier for me to avoid connections that would embarrass or reflect poorly on me if those values and sentiments remained hidden. Itās tantamount to a public service for people who want to steer well clear of that BS.
Most of us understand that we cannot say or do anything we want without consequences if it reflects poorly on our associates and employers/businesses and our own judgement. If I were a wealthy, educated, dominant culture figure who was trying to promote a big event and raise money for charity and grow the consumer base for my product, I would not post that kind of crap. If I did and I got blowback for it, Iād not whinge that itās not fair that people object to the hurtful crap I post and itās my right and tHe fiRSt AmendMEnt!!1!!
Iād own that either I had poor judgement and impulse control, or that I didnāt give a ruddy ratās arse so all you snowflakes just suck it up! But, either way, I would be bright enough and self-aware enough not to blame others for merely reacting to my choice to represent myself a certain way in public.
I scrupulously avoid any association with that kind of thing for my personal and professional integrity. I donāt want to be seen as giving even unintentional support to those kinds of actions, words, or sentiments which is why Iād steer clear of events lead by people who behave that way. And thatās my choice and itās a perfectly rational reaction to clearly offensive memes and posts.
