I heard about this on the radio on my drive into work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUk-5R14jE0
Adam M Smith, CFO of Vante, Tuscon AZ, harangues Chick-Fil-A girl, who maintains a professional demeanor throughout. He filmed this himself, and posted it, that he might spread his fame throughout the world of his proud accomplishment.
My comment: This is typical rather than extraordinary for the Left.
What we are seeing is a moral retard, offended that anyone would dare work for a company that upholds basic Christian decency, assuming a stance of moral superiority to lecture and hector his betters.
I heard on the radio that the self-righteous Mr Smith was surprised, even shocked, to discover that everyone thought he was a braying jackass rather than a Richard the Lionheart the Bold Crusader. That he is a financial officer haranguing a working girl, or, if I may say, one of the one-percent hectoring one of the ninety-nine percent, merely adds irony to the unpleasant dimensions of a blind self-regard.
Make that FORMER financial officer. He has since been fired:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vante-tucson-az-regrets-actions-210200513.html
For many, many years I have been puzzled and astounded at the behavior on the Left, both what they say and how they act, and I cannot figure out if they are serious or just seriously stupid.
Many of them seem perfectly bright and morally upright if you talk to them on issues unrelated to the particular areas of their thought prison called Political Correctness. Within those areas, they act like men possessed by spirits or drunk on spirits.
In their private lives many PC Thought Prisoners are decent and generous, even while they promote and applaud evils large and small, from vulgarity to blasphemy to pornography to sexual perversion to social breakdown to violent riots to tyranny and terrorism and genocide. They will help an old lady across the street, but protest when bold leaders resist and fight the Soviet Union or the Jihad, and do all they can to aid and abet these and other purveyors of unimaginable evil.
If it is not ignorance and not devotion to evil, what is it?
Political Correctness seems to be a psychopathology caused by the use of false-to-fact analogies and emotional images rather than rational thought.
To the PC Thought Prisoner, affirming the family is the same (by analogy) as opposing sodomy, and sodomites are regarded not as the practitioners of a disordered sexual appetite but (by analogy) as a separate race or ethnic group who suffer unjust persecution, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws. Hence, reasoning entirely by analogy, if a seller of chicken sandwiches and waffle-cut potato fries affirms the family (which, to sane men, is a comment as boilerplate and boring as being in favor of Mom and Apple Pie and the Flag) to the PC Thought Prisoner, that man is (by analogy) a slaver and a segregationist.
The emotions of the PC Thought Prisoner are, I suspect, a mixture of sincere outrage and a type of method-acting that is utterly insincere, but has by long habit become second nature.In other words the emotion is real, but the cause of the emotion is imaginary.
To the PC Thought Prisoner, hectoring a girl selling the chicken sandwiches is (by analogy) the martyrdom of Saint Telemachus.
For those of you who forget the bravery of saints and heroes of days long past, Telemachus was an graybeard monk visiting the Colosseum in 404 AD to behold the Games in their terror and splendor. Upon witnessing the gruesome spectacle of men slaughtering each other for the idle pleasure of the mob, Telemachus scaled the wall onto the bloodstained sands to interpose himself in between two gladiators. He shouted thrice: “In the name of Christ, forbear!” And the enraged crowd rose up and rioted and stoned Telemachus to death for interrupting their afternoon’s entertainments. Upon hearing this report, the good emperor Honorius commanded the gladiatorial games abolished forever.
Reasoning by analogy, the PC Thought Prisoner sees traditional marriage as an institution as oppressive as the gladiatorial games, and in the name of sexual indecency to urge a clerk to desist from her fastfood sales is the same as Telemachus in the name of Christ urging the gladiators to desist from their bloody sport.
Mr Smith was perhaps expecting the palm of the martyr. Small wonder he filmed himself and spread it abroad. Unlike the heroes of old, most PC Thought Prisoners expect the palm without the pain. They want only easy victories, and universal applause. They want praise for what they have not earned, and plaudits for what they have not done.
(Even for Christians, if you can stomach her bile, Ayn Rand is worth reading, because she has the psychology of these creatures perfectly and clearly autopsied. They are spiritual looters. The PC Thought Prisoner wants a moral dignity for which he has not paid.)
And the PC Thought Prisoners scream like brats when they do not get their way. Their complaints are loudest when the affront is least. (Recall the example of Lawrence Summers being expelled as Dean of Harvard University for listing biological differences as one of several possible factors to investigate to explain an inequality of number of women go into the hard sciences less than men.)
The screaming in this case has already started, or at least the pouting. The mainstream press, or so I have heard, has already given more press coverage to the “kiss-in” planned August 3rd, the anti-Chicken protest planned by the sodomites, than was given to the Chik-Fil-A day “buy-cott” on August 1st.
All I can say about this is that, reasoning by analogy myself, the mainstream media reminds me of the parents of Violet Beauregard from Roald Dahl’s CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. The press applauds and enables and encourages and flatters and pets the PC Thought Prisoners, and tells them that they are indeed Crusaders like Lionheart and Martyrs like Telemachus.
But seeing these events unfold, I finally begin to understand the psychology of the PC Thought Prisoners. I begin to see why they act like men possessed, men drunk, men unable to reason except by analogy.
They are barbarians.
A barbarian is a man who understands no civilized things, neither rule of law nor courtesy of court nor self sacrifice of the saint nor the courage of the hero nor the purity of the virgin nor where and how the luxuries and prosperity of the city are created.
To the barbarian, all these things come out of nowhere and pass into nothing at the whim of omnipotent and unseen goblins or fates or the inhuman materialistic forces of history.
The barbarian always feels inferior, always imposed upon, always insulted by the grandeur and honor of civilization, the soaring columns, the impartial justice, the awe-inspiring libraries of the accumulated lore and learning of centuries.
To the barbarian, all this is magic, and all of this is unfair.
He has been cheated by the goblins of fate of his due (for since it comes from nowhere for no reason, it was the bad juju of the oppressor that took it from him) and so his life consists of raids and thefts to restore to him what his envy tells him (reasoning by analogy) should by rights be his. No one has earned anything in the barbaric world view (nicely expressed in the slogan “You don’t Build That”).
To the post-christian post-modern barbarian, the mechanisms of the raid and the goods to be stolen are more often spiritual than material, the warfare more often legal than physical, but the impulse to eat the rich and loot their goods is never far from his mind.
The barbarian does not think in the long term. The past, to him, is forgotten, and the future is unforeseeable. This is why the modern barbarian of Political Correctness is unmoved by experience. All the failures of all socialist schemes means nothing to him because the barbaric mind cannot live other in the immediate moment. He eats his seedcorn because the idea of planting and harvesting in seasons yet to be is beyond the limit of his mental horizon.
A particularly sad example of this modern barbarism, this inability to think in the long term, was the Great Depression, which was caused by inflation of the currency and an artificial lowering of credit rates. The current depression was caused by the same economic behavior, this time with the housing market rather than the currency market; and the next one, which promises to be even larger, will no doubt be due to the same behavior in the student loan market. The economic behavior I mean is borrowing beyond one’s means or intention to repay. Inflating the currency is nothing other than a roundabout way of destroying the value of IOU’s and other debt instruments. All the convoluted nonsense, doubletalk, jabberwocky and bafflegab which is Keynesian economics is merely to cover up for this same economic behavior. The barbarian eats and drinks and make merry, and tomorrow he defaults on his loans and goes broke. When you have barbarians, especially New Deal barbarians, running the government, the whole nation defaults and goes broke.
Do you object that I am being too harsh? How could a refined Englishman of impeccable academic credentials like Keynes be considered a barbarian?
When told his policies would exacerbate the problem in the long run, Keynes merely smirked with impeccable wit, and said, “In the long run, we are all dead.”
Whether spoken wittily or vulgarly, Keynes just said “Piss Off!” to us, the generation that comes after him. We are living in his long run, members of the future Keynes was too self absorbed to bother with. Unconcern for the future is the slogan of the barbarian.
Now, you may object that the PC Thought Prisoners are very concerned about not just the future, but the remote future, the Global Warming which threatens to pounce a century or two from now, or other environmental concerns which might being to be felt in a thousand or ten thousand years. The PC Thought Prisoners are worried about overpopulation, which may crowd out space for growing trees by the year One Billion AD.
Don’t be deceived. To the PC Thought Prisoners, the “future” is a make believe place like the “Otherworld” found beyond the fairy mounds in Celtic folk yarns. It is a misty Cloudcuckooland who lack of reality allows them to paint any picture, utopian or dystopian, their current concerns inspire them to paint.
The PC Thought Prisoners talk about the future the way the Millenarians talk about “the End Times”; namely, as a culmination of a cosmic drama when all merely worldly concerns will fall by the wayside. If the Antichrist has already conquered Jerusalem, and the angels have extinguished one third of the Sun, all concern for long term plans and fears fall by the wayside.
Likewise with Global Warming and other secular, pseudo-religious forms of End Time prophecy: the point is not the think like a civilized man and prepare for things to come by making plans. The point is to prepare for the Second Coming by reaffirming your faith in the pious beliefs which sustain you. The difference is that the PC Thought Prisoners don’t believe in a First Coming.
The PC Thought Prisoners merely borrow the emotional flavor of Christian prophecy without borrowing the prophecy itself, which gives a reason for the emotion. This is yet again reasoning by analogy, but it is not the civilized planning for the future any farmer who stores his seedcorn must do.
But more than this, the prime and essential characteristic of a barbarian is his infantile self-regard combined with an embarrassing unmanliness in the face of adversity, suffering or toil.
The prime manifestation of this characteristic is cowardice combined with boasting of the sort we see in bullies.
What defines barbarism is the inability to imagine an honorable opponent.
If a barbarian strikes a girl, he laughs and vaunts with no trace of conscience, considering it an innocent amusement and a mighty victory. If a gentleman strikes a barbarian in return, he barbarian and yowls and rolls on the ground with tears streaming down his face, begging and groveling before the fight begins.
We saw this desire for preemptive surrender to the Jihad on shamefully shameless display in 2001. At the time it puzzled me, since it was so obviously self-destructive. Now I understand it. It was the groveling of barbarians.
The puzzle of why the libertine and semi-anarchic Left would ally itself with the Puritan Jihadists or totalitarian Soviets, otherwise impossible to explain, is simple enough. All barbarians are natural allies against their mutual enemy, that delicate wonder called Civilization. That they feud among themselves and hate each other does not obviate that fundamental and natural alliance.
To a barbarian, every war is total war, and every sleight and trick and treason is fair game. He tells lies because it would never even occur to him (were he in the other man’s shoes) to tell the truth, and he tells the simplest and laziest lie (the ad hominem) because inventing a believable lie takes effort.
He lacks the forethought to imagine a future where current foes might be allies and recall unmerciful treatment at his hands. The barbarian lacks the faith to imagine any foes might treat him justly or honorably (since he himself never so behaves); and he lacks the sportsmanship needed to be ashamed to boast when he wins and embarrassed to bitch when he loses; and lacks the moral imagination needed to be able to view other man as he views himself.
And so we have the spectacle of a man unashamed to pick a fight with a girl not only smaller and weaker than he, but bound by her trustworthiness to her post not to answer him discourteously. She must show him the same deference a servant of the old days must show a private master.
And yet he thought he would be applauded for this.
Only a barbarian, a childish and churlish bully, so thinks.
Wrong again. Most of us who even care enough about the issue to bother simply don’t go to Chick-fil-A. But I’d wager the majority of people who consider themselves liberals simply don’t think this whole Chick-fil-A thing is that big a deal, and many probably still eat there. When will you learn that the plural of anecdote is not data?
Also, your framing of this is a bit misleading. The only objectionable thing he said to her was, “I don’t know how you live with yourself.” And I completely agree that comment was over the line. But to describe the entire exchange as him haranguing her is misleading at best. Nothing else he said was remotely impolite. He was just explaining his position and what he was doing there, and the entire exchange lasted barely more than a minute.
Ah. It is a big enough deal that two mayors of major cities threatened to forbid zoning permits; and it is a big enough deal that a ‘kiss-in’ of homosexual activists is organized for August 3rd; but when and if you discover that the public is solidly against you, it is “no big deal.”
And you, of all people, would lecture me that I do not know that anecdotal evidence is not data? The midget contrives by contorting his spine into a hoop to look down his nose at the giant.
Are there any actual numbers for that, though? All I keep hearing is superlatives and echo-chamber.
In other words, how much of the public is actually in either camp?
(Also: I go away for a while, and when I come back, the style has changed! Quelle suprise!)
I’d like to see that proven. Or to quote John Derbyshire:
‘In the first place, “data” actually is the plural of “anecdote.” When a researcher gathers data, he is gathering particular instances — anecdotes — of general phenomena. When the Department of Justice assembles the National Crime Victimization Survey, they do it by collecting anecdotes — individual people’s stories of crime victimization. A data set is just a mass of anecdotes.’
Looks like Goldberg is going to have a new cliche to add to his next Tyranny book.
No, they do not. They conduct a scientific survey to ensure that they get a representative distribution. Collecting ancedotes would mean just collecting whatever stories they happen to be told, which would be governed by people’s motives in so telling them. (That is how Kinsey’s figures got so wildly skewed: he sought out people to volunteer their sexual experiences, in not very representative locations.)
Now in this we’ll probably start arguing over semantics. As I would point out that on a technical level, a survey is just a tool for collecting an anecdote. What you seem to be distinguishing between is methods. If we go by Dictionary.com’s definition:
Surveys could still technically be considered anecdotes. What you described with Kinsey would be selection bias. Which may or may not have anything to do with anecdotes.
Well, I don’t know that he deserved to lose his job over this – a public apology for being an idiot would have sufficed, but he wanted to wield the tool of public opinion and he forgot it’s a two-edged blade.
He was polite, if refraining from using four-letter words or such counts as being polite, but he was definitely haranguing her by staying in the line, not ordering anything, and giving his little speech. She didn’t even ask him to move because he was blocking other customers, which is more reasonable than I would have been.
But in essence, he used his time and effort to lecture a counter assistant who is making a low wage in a service job and has zero influence on company policy, instead of asking to speak to a manager or someone with some authority. He may have felt good about himself, but all he did was insult a young woman whose job depends on being pleasant to customers, even those who are rude or condescending.
I just did a quick transcript of the video, and any errors are my own; he comes across as smug and annoying, and I think he most damages himself by his remarks at the start, before talking to Rachel – that crack about the sandwiches tasting better with hate is just lame, and parroting that line about hate groups is no better – it needs a bit more substantiation than “Some newspaper said the SPLC said they gave money to a hate group”. Plus, the part about the college students and his wishful thinking! And the whole “I’m not gay myself” bit at the end – and if you have to explain that you’re a nice guy, it’s fairly clear that you are not, in fact, behaving like a nice guy:
Smith: Well, I’m waiting in line, I’m next in line. I’m pretty excited about my free water. Um, I also see, like, a group of thirty college-age students over there… I’m wondering if they’re doing a sit-in, I’m so excited I might just join them.
Let’s see what happens with my free water and I think I might just say a few words too. Let’s see.
It’s been a long line, there’s a long line of cars too, I don’t know if you can see but it’s – ah, you know. People have to have their Chick-fil-A anti-gay breakfast sandwich. Mmm! Always tastes better when it’s full of hate. Hmm, yeah, love it.
Come on, I want my free water. Come on. I really hope those students over there are gonna do a sit-in. I think they are. It just makes sense.
Here I go!
drives up to window
Smith: Hey, how you doing?
Rachel: Fine.
Smith: Good. Is this my free water?
Rachel: It is.
Smith: Awesome! You know why I’m getting a free water, right?
Rachel: I do not.
Smith: Because Chick-fil-A is a hateful corporation.
Rachel: I just think they – I wouldn’t – you know, we don’t treat any of our customers differently,
Smith: speaking over her I know, but the corporation gives money to hate- hate groups. Hate groups. Just because people wanna kiss another guy
Rachel speaks across him
Smith: Sorry?
Racherl: I have to stay neutral on the subject. My personal beliefs shouldn’t be in the workplace.
Smith: No, I understand. I believe that, too. I don’t believe corporations should be giving money to hate groups.
Rachel: I’m really uncomfortable that you’re (I can’t make out the rest of what she says here)
Smith: Totally understand! I’ll take my water.
Rachel: It’s my pleasure to serve you always.
Smith: Of course! I’m glad that I can take a little bit of money away from Chick-fi-A and maybe less money to hate groups. Have a great day.
Rachel: Well, we’re, we’re always happy to serve everyone.
talking across each other
Rachel: Anything you need.
Smith: I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.
Rachel: We’re here to serve you in any way that you need.
Smith: You deserve better. You deserve better. Rachel, you deserve better. Okay?
Rachel:: I hope you have a really nice day.
Smith: I will. I just did something really good. I feel purposeful. Thank you so much.
Rachel: Have a good day.
Smith: Okay. I’m a nice guy, by the way, and I’m totally heterosexual, not a gay in me, I just can’t stand the hate, you know? You gotta stop, it’s gotta stop, guys. Stand up!
Rachel: Well, have a nice day, sir.
Smith: Okay, see you guys.
I wonder if he did end up going over to the group of young people? And was he disappointed they weren’t doing a sit-in (but probably either queueing up for breakfast or for the shops to open)?
How “interesting” (sarcasm quotes) he automatically assumes the college students agree with him. For some reason the “it just makes sense” stands out to me as telling one far more about him than anything else could.
Right. What stands out is the utter self-importance and self-satisfaction. He acts as if he were actually doing something! It was all about him posing.
Actually, yes he did deserve to lose his job over this. He was an Executive, and that does have a meaning. Let us change the frame of reference. What is the difference between Officers and Enlisted? There is an amount of responsibility given to Officers, an expectation of behavior. An Officer is never “off duty”. An offence that might cost an Enlisted a strip can end an Officer’s Career. Doesn’t have to be the Officer committing the offence either. Did the men you lead screw up? Your responsibility. Same concept with an Executive. They have more power, they get more money, they are held to a higher standard……
I would add that it’s not so much the behavior, as what it says about the man. Even if his boss was a liberal, this incident shows an almost ridiculous lack of judgment. To put this online, thinking he’d be celebrated and no one would object, was flat out stupid. Would you trust your corporate finances to a man like this?
Remember we have had mayors think they would be applauded for making blatantly unconstitutional threats. It’s the dangers of liberalism and diversity — you spend so much time in a monoculture you are unaware of the world outside.
Not that I would particularly trust corporate finances to the CFO of the company I work for, either. In true capitalist fashion, he has decrees that nearly every employee is not a person, but is instead a “resource”. The only exception is the Officers.
That would be Marxist fashion, and it’s why they have no problems with feeding people into ovens. They are just following their holy book. Capitalist fashion would be Romney closing down the whole company to search for one lost girl. He was following his Holy Book.
Now, Marxist fashion has been pushed in our best schools for decades, and it’s not surprising that the eaters of dust (who take over after the founder of a company retires) , will likely be Marxist in outlook, referring to people as “resources” and chasing after the fast food profits of government money…..
On the contrary, the CFO (along with pretty much everyone on the Executive Staff) is aggressively trying to get the government out of our business, along with eliminating various Federal regulation over us. Both from an industry standpoint (i.e. rules that prevent us from building certain things), but also over a workforce standpoint (i.e. things like SOX and PPACA).
Certainly. But those regulations, five will get you ten, followed in the wake of “free money”, as the Colleges found out with the G.I. bill, as quite a few useful idiots Catholics found out with “National Health Care”, as the businesses in New York found out with “Living Wage”, etc, etc. “We want only to help, and keep you safe!” the government says, and once inside, the “crucifixions” begin (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/us/epa-crucify/index.html)…..
And your context is wrong as well. The “fast food profits” of government money is no bid contracts, special tax breaks, etc. The part where the company transitions from a Capitalist one to a Socialist one, where it goes from “How do we serve our customers” to “How do we stop competition and maintain our comfortable jobs” (The answer always ends up being “Use the government to become a Monopoly!”).
Seems to be a problem with the government having enough power in its regulations to actually strangle competition such that a monopoly can exist…
Oh, yes. Google “Regulatory Capture”. Heck, read up on monopolies. They really don’t happen without the government creating or sustaining them. It’s quite a depressing cycle. Leftists get unhappy with business, grow government to control business. Business captures the regulators, becomes well-neigh bulletproof to customer pressure. Leftists get unhappy with business, grow government. Repeat until Ovens. You would think Bon Vivant or Siberia would be an easy choice……
Rachel said that she was uncomfortable with him recording her.
The very fact that he clarified that he’s not gay implies a bias or different standard for gays, rather like the media calling whites racist for not voting for Obama on the platform of “I’m black!”
The problem is not that Leftists don’t want to go to Chick-fil-A. The problem is that Leftist political officeholders openly boast about their intentions to commit the felony of malfeasance to prevent other people from going to the restaurant.
I’d suggest that there is one element missing from this exegesis of barbarism that is necessary to bring it into closer accord with history and modern occurrence: that of tribalism. Barbarians unfailingly divide the world into two groups, My Kind and Those Others, and the process by which one determines who goes into what group is vital to organizing how one acts towards them. My Kind are those who share whatever civilized law and order you subscribe to; Those Others are subhuman, and do not. Taking from Those Others is not theft, violence towards Those Others is not murder, and abuse of Those Others is merely amusement, not cruelty. Similarly, you are loyal to the ideals and beliefs of My Kind not because you think them true but because you think them Ours, Which Must Be True Because Those Others’ are False Because They’re Held by Those Others. They do believe they are acting for the best of the future, they simply refuse to entertain the notion that their conception of “best” or their preferred methods of attempting to realize it may be wrong, misguided, or impossible because to do so would undermine the certainty of being Our Kind.
Thus, I would suggest a modification to your definition: “What defines barbarism is the inability to imagine an honourable opponent outside His Kind. What defines an ideological barbarian is the a priori definition of “honourable” as a trait solely of His Kind, thus begging the question.”
The fatal weakness of modern social-justice Leftist progressivism is that it is built on an incredibly complex web of hierarchical distinctions concerning which demographic or special interest group is validly of Our Kind on any one issue at any one moment and which is not; a shift in how the participants define these distinctions, or a failure to grasp when they are not shared by the larger public, can undo otherwise well-intentioned actions with tragic ease.
I think you’ve got it — the most self-consciously Nietzschean/nihilist man I know expressly divides the world into “my friends/communities” and “my enemies”, and anything is allowed in the “protection” of the former against the latter. No lie, no assault is beyond the pale if “his kind” perpetrate it.
I regret to say that “no honorable opponent” formulation is correct. In leftist in-fighting, one slip ruins all: either you grovel the instant someone claims you’re racist, etc. or you are a fake.
Unless you can come up with a more persuasive way to accuse your accuser.
This reminds me of the discussion of the nature of moral argumentation among the Bloomsbury group in Chapter 2 of After Virtue (quoting Lord Keynes):
“‘In practice , victory was with those who could speak with the greatest appearance of clear, undoubting conviction and could best use the accents of infallibility’ and Keynes goes on to describe the effectiveness of [G.E.] Moore’s gasps of incredulity and head-shaking, of [Lytton] Strachey’s grim silences and of [Goldsworthy] Lowes Dickinson’s shrugs.”
Brilliant! Tribalism and fetishes permit no hierarchy of truth in any Other.
Hey now, as a barbarian I’m offended! There’s nothing we love more than fried meat served by cute girls! Why I’d take that Adamses’ smug wee bonce and use it to decorate me Ork cave I would!
And here I thought real barbarians preferred fried girls served by cute meat.
Well okay, maybe I’m just more of a general trouble-maker then.
No disrespect to our host, but I do wonder if barbarian is the right term, because even the historical barbarian Germans or Slavs or Berbers had more integrity and honor than the curs who walk like men but have the hearts of beasts.
The “hearts of beasts” reminds me of George MacDonald’s book The Princess and Curdie (the sequel to The Princess and the Goblin). Have you read it?
I’d argue that while the beliefs and attitudes of what Mr. Wright labeled as PC Thought Prisoners are despicable they aren’t barbarians . . . or they are just one type of barbarian.
The vikings, whatever else they may have been, were at least valiant in battle (something those people most definitely aren’t) and, in theory at least, they valued courage and honor.
Not barbarians, but savages. As Chesterton wrote about Prussianized Germany:
Great quote! Thank you for sharing it.
I was going to quote that bit myself, but you beat me to it. Well chosen!
I might have done so myself.
Seems appropriate.
Perhaps there is a lawyer here who can help me with this one. Ideally, that person might also have some experience in ethical journalism.
Mr Smith appears to have covertly recorded a conversation with a Chick-Fil-A employee, Rachel, without obtaining her consent and subsequently published the recording on YouTube, again without consent. Rachel was, in no sense, a public figure and was not seeking publicity. She was performing a stressful job. Mr Smith’s tone was rude and insulting. If Rachel had been someone less poised and self-controlled, Mr Smith might easily have provoked a ruder retort, which with a bit of selective editing would then show the essential homophobia and violence of all Chick-Fil-A employees. Rachel would then suffer damages. She would lose her job and be the subject of the televised “two minute hate” which is such a staple of our media.
Are Mr Smith’s actions legal?
I am not a lawyer, but I’m not sure Rachel would have a case here, sadly.
First of all, by working in a public-service occupation she has no expectation of privacy when dealing with a member of the public. Secondly, for a job to count as “stressful” in a legally significant sense it has to meet criteria of danger, import or physical/emotional demand that a fast-food counterperson’s job simply doesn’t. Thirdly, the recording was not for commercial or legal purposes, and thus required no waiver or permission; fourthly, Mr. Smith was not acting in any kind of official capacity, so even if he had provoked a self-damaging hostile reaction from Rachel, it would not have counted as “entrapment” in any sense and she would have had to be responsible for her own reaction.
Tempting as it is to want to find a legal way to punish Mr. Smith, I suspect the fundamental point here is ironically the very one that got people so indignant on Chick-fil-A’s behalf in the first place: Being an offensive a–hole can’t in itself be a crime; if it’s punished at all, it is to be punished by private freedom of association (like his bosses’ freedom to retain or fire him), not public force of law.
I am oddly cheered by your answer.
Whew! My sacred right to be an offensive a–hole is still protected…for now.
What if Rachael is a minor? I don’t know if she is or not, but if she is only 16 or 17, would that affect the legality? When I was a student teacher and had to compile a portfolio of my student teaching experience, I had to had signed permission forms for every student I showed in a photo of my portfolio, even though the portfolio would only be viewed by myself and my professors. In some areas at least, there would be different laws covering the videotaping and publishing of a video of a minor.
A good question, and I don’t know the answer for certain; as you note, it may depend on the state in which it happens. However, again, I believe the no-expectation-of-privacy and no-official-use-intended points (your portfolio, I think, would count as an “official” use, since it is a legal reference document for your career certification) would trump Rachel’s being a minor, were she one. (If you’re old enough to be employed as an adult in a public service position, you’re old enough to be treated as an adult for the purposes of your function in that position, I believe is the thinking.) News crews are not required to get signatures from everyone in the background of a news broadcast, that I know of, even if some of those in the background are not of age.
However, as noted, I am not a lawyer, so I may in fact be wrong on this.
“He eats his seedcorn because the idea of planting and harvesting in seasons yet to be is beyond the limit of his mental horizon.”
Would this also not be a working definition of a secularist.
In my understanding, the word comes from the Latin ‘saecula’ which is generally translated as ‘now’.
saecul.a N 2 2 NOM P N
age;
generation, people born at a time;
breed, race;
present time/age; century;
time;
past/present/future (Plater);
[in ~ => forever];
worldiness; the world; heathenism;
It is the cycle (saecula) of the world. Hence, “in saecula saeculorum”: in age of ages, aka “world without end”
I guess my confusion comes from seeing ‘in saecula saeculorum” translated as ‘now and forever’.
My point primarily was secularists I know tend to live in the present with little concern for future consequences of their actions and in this way fit Mr. Wright’s barbarian and Steven J.’s tribalist.
Two very revealing posts describing what I have always found a very confusing mindset.
Saecula means “the age,” and hence “the world.” A secular person is someone living in the world, or someone worldly.
For more detail, see C. S. Lewis’s Studies in Words. Short version: the use of “world” in that statement is in fact a synonom for “the age” which in the case of “worldly” means the Age of Evil.
let me also recommend STUDIES IN WORDS just as an well written book fascinating to anyone interested in words and their origins.
Remember Zeitgeistheim?
“I am confounded,” as said Reepicheep to Aslan. “ I am completely out of countenance. I must crave your indulgence for appearing in this unseemly fashion.”
That I, who quote Lewis incessantly and admire him extravagantly, have not only never read Studies in Words, but have never heard of it. I am in a fever, which will not abate till I have possessed and read this book.
Fair warning: it is an academic work, and makes for dry reading.
Taken under advisement; but I really don’t fear that I will be put off.
As a callow adolescent I found that Lewis fascinated me on the Romance of the Rose and the English Hegelians; subjects which would have driven me into gibbering panic had another broached them.
On word origins? No problem. I was delighted to find that the book is 300 pages long.
Dry Lewis is like dry gin; goes down smoother.
Are you aware that Mr. Simon has self-published his fantasy comedy on Smashwords; and is offering a temporary free Coupon?
The former CFO apologizes (though he doesn’t seem particularly repentent to me) at the attached link. The video is at the end of the article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183590/Tearful-apology-executive-fired-verbally-abusing-Chick-fil-A-employee-Same-Sex-Kiss-Day-protests-cause-chaos.html
It’s typical leftist Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. Good Cop: “Why are you so worried? Other people in same-sex marriages don’t affect you in any way.” Bad Cop: The Chicago mayor who all but said you can’t have a business unless you swear fealty to the homosexualist agenda. Then there is the Deliberately Obtuse Cop: “What homosexualist agenda?” Or, “Oh we weren’t really paying much attention to the Chik-fil-A thing.” Of course had public opinion gone in favor of jerk-drive-in guy, instead we would be hearing “ride the wave or be crushed by it” rhetoric.
Mr Wright,
You do defame the ancient barbarians who had due respect for the Law, Saints and Virgins.
They are neither barbarians nor savages, both of whom adhere to an ethos, even if different from that of the civilized man. Both wild Indian tribes and viking jarls listened to differences of opinion in their councils. The moderns are simply decadents – the post-civilized – who have nothing sacred, hold no taboos, and have no respect. They have far more in common with the worst of the late Romans or the Renaissance than any barbarian or savage.
Alas, I accept the correction with grim resignation, because I think you are right, and post-civilization is worse than pre-civilization. Barbarians are at least innocent of any experience of anything better. Their guilt is that of Eve, who had no experience of sin. The Decadents are guilty as the Lucifer, who once harped in paradise, and shattered his lyre on the azure floor of heaven, and stormed away to stinking perdition, because perfection was not good enough.