Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: Seeking reasons to be offended

Skip to comments

Mike Peterson Published: August 17, 2016 1 minute 2 comments

Over at Between Friends, Susan's been obsessing over having been addressed as "ma'am," yet another installment in her ongoing and seemingly permanent obsession over age and self-image. Having her vent to Maeve is perfect, because, while Maeve has a substantial package of insecurities, that certainly isn't one of them.

However, the whole "ma'am" thing apparently is pretty widespread, because I was struck by the timing when the story arc coincided with someone plunking this article on Facebook. But when I went to find it, I discovered a massive herd of articles on the topic dating back several years.

Which doesn't make it important, but it does make it prominent and there's a huge difference, because, judging from that HuffPost piece, the Maeve response is at least as common as the Susan response.

I liked this, from someone who "got her first 'ma’am' when she was just 18."

“It kind of blew my mind, but at the time I liked it. I felt very grown-up. It’s kind of a weird word but it doesn’t bother me."

That ties into my ongoing obsession with the sense that we used to want to grow up, that Wally and Eddie and Lumpy would wear ties on certain occasions and that Wally often chided Eddie about acting in ways that wouldn't work once they got out of high school and were expected to be adults.

When's the last time you saw a commercial, or a trailer for a movie, that took that attitude towards life?

I also liked this response:

“Get over it. Stop making it mean something it’s not meant to mean.”

Which, stay with me now, leads to this:

I'm not blown away by Walt Handelsman's cartoon, though it's well-done for what it is.

I have, however, been blown away by some of the video of rescues and destruction in Louisiana, particularly, of course, this sequence:

The cartoon itself is a salute to the heroism of a fleet of rescuers reminiscent of the Dunkirk evacuation, and critically relevant to his local readers.

There will be time later to ask the Army Corps of Engineers "Wasn't the post-Katrina clean-up supposed to stop this from happening?"

However, it also, along with that oft-played video and others, is a refutation of yet another waa-waa-waa from the whiney "What about me?" subculture we've managed to create.

There are — I kid you not — whiners declaring that the media has avoided covering the flooding in Louisiana. 

Let me be clear: In 2005, there were people who complained about how Katrina was covered, blaming racism for much of the distortion. I'm not in disagreement with those complaints, though it's convoluted, since race was probably also a factor in which neighborhoods were hardest hit.

But, yes, I do think we'd have heard of people "having to raid abandoned stores for necessities" rather than "looting," had the stranded people been white.

There is, however, a major difference between "I don't like the way this is being covered" and "There is no coverage."

We seem now to have people poised over their computers, eager to pounce on any shred that they can elevate into an offense, and it sure seems like they have their conspiracy theories already formulated to apply to whatever shortcoming they can seize upon.

Another example: Perhaps you can make something out of the fact that, in the rush of medals and events in Rio, your pet sport didn't get massive, stop-the-presses coverage the moment the gold was announced.

Now, if you think it was because of a conspiracy to suppress winners from certain political or racial communities, you don't know much about the media. Still, if you can post your tear-stained accusations before the reporters catch up with the awards and post them, hey, you win!

But to claim there has been no coverage of the flooding in Louisiana is not simply whiney, childish and silly.

It is wrong. Provably, objectively incorrect.

There has been coverage. Lots of coverage. And, while the Rio Olympics have, IMHO, had more coverage than they merit, the flooding has been prominent in mainstream media.

This is not my opinion. It's a fact, and here are the ways you might have missed that fact:

1. Your friends are superficial dweebs and so only stupid stuff comes up in your social media. (And you rely too heavily on social media for staying current.)
2. You are deliberately looking for reasons to be offended and for conspiracies to confirm your preposterous, paranoid theories.
3. You are a mooncalf with no idea how the world functions.

In small towns, we have petty, vindictive gossips who not only talk about things that decent people would let pass unmentioned, but invent stories when they can't find real ones.

Sounds awful, but small town people have dealt with it for generations, and here's how: They know who the gossips are, and decent folk don't listen to their ugly talk, nor do they believe it when it is forced upon them.

In the city, perhaps you don't have that automatic back-story, so that, when someone pokes their head through the window of your subway car and screams about the Trilateral Commission's world-wide conspiracy to put mind-altering drugs in everyone's lunches, you don't know the person and must ask, "I wonder if he's right?"

I would think an intelligent person would look for a second source.

Maybe that's just me.

And here's a more detailed analysis

I mentioned the other day that the rise of Trumpery has not been sudden, that it is the result of a lot of garbage we've chosen to allow to fester.

Now comes Ann Telnaes with a long, elaborate analysis of what has been a long, elaborate slide to the bottom of civilization.

Go read the rest. It's not cheerful, but she's right and we need to hear it.

Maybe, like an addict, this country has to hit rock bottom before it will correct its flaws.

But let's hope we don't need cattle cars and ovens to sort this one out.