ABC Wednesday Archives - Page 38 of 91

T is for Trolls

Trolls never need proof of their claims. They get their power from readers’ outrage.

Trolls, in Scandinavian folklore, were entities that “live far from human habitation… and are considered dangerous to human beings… Trolls may be ugly and slow-witted…”

Whereas an Internet troll is “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” Very similar.

“This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe ‘a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.'”

I was thinking about this because some “person” suggested that shootings in Sandy Hook, CT in 2012 did not happen, and he would give anyone $25,000 if they could provide him with “proof.”

Naturally, this caused all sorts of anger. Someone wrote, “He’s the one making an extraordinary claim. It’s up to him to support his hypothesis with evidence.” But I think that’s wrong. Trolls never need proof of their claims. They get their power from readers’ outrage.

A few months ago, SamuraiFrog linked to this interesting article, 10 Former Internet Trolls Explain Why They Quit Being Jerks. One response, in particular, I found instructive:

1) I had two different personalities and demeanours, one online and one offline. I even ended up being obnoxious online to somebody I knew personally and he pointed it out to me. It was a wake up call.

2) I wasn’t making any friends or allies. Even when I was right about something or other people held the same opinions, I was getting fewer and fewer responses or agreements. I didn’t care about the numbers, but I realized I was making myself irrelevant and unwelcome in discussions and forums. And sometimes I was banned…

3) I saw the effects of trolls. The increasing number of news stories… about suicides, harassment, death threats, racism and other revolting behaviour got to be too much. I may not have been guilty of any of those types of assaults, but I recognized that I was part of the problem.

4) I was starting to become the target of trolls and abuse… I saw a news item about a man who left a white supremacist group and changed his tune when he realized the group’s list of “undesirables to be euthanized” included his own mentally disabled son. It wasn’t until the hate affected him personally that he realized he was on the wrong side. Same here.

When foolish people say inane things online, feel free to vent your anger. But know that you may just be feeding the beast.

ABC Wednesday – Round 17

S is for a story about the South in the ’60s -Booker Wright

What was the mystery surrounding Booker Wright’s courageous life and untimely death?

Back in 1966, NBC News aired an hour-long documentary called Mississippi: A Self Portrait, hosted by Frank McGee and filmed by Frank De Felitta the previous year, which you can see here or here, and a transcript here.

The documentary showed a relatively short piece about a black waiter named Booker Wright which you can watch here. After extolling the menu of the food at Lusco’s from memory, Wright noted:

Now that’s what my customers, I say my customers, be expecting of me. When I come in this is how they want me to be dressed. “Booker, tell my people what to do with that.” Some people are nice, some is not. Some call me Booker, some call me John, some call me Jim. Some call me [expletive]. All that hurts, but you have to smile. If you don’t, “What’s wrong with you? Why are you not smiling? Get over there and get me so and so and so and so.” …

Then I got some old people who come in real nice. “How you do, waiter? What’s your name?” Then I take care of some not so good, and I keep that smile. Always learn to smile. The meaner the man be, the more you smile, although you’re crying on the inside. Are you wondering what else can I do? Sometimes he’ll tip you, sometimes he’ll say, “I’m not going to tip that [expletive], he don’t look for no tip.” “Yes, sir, thank you.” “What did you say?” Come back, “Glad I could take care of you.”…

I’m trying to make a living. Why? I got three children. I want to give them an education. A lot of us never get the education. But I want them to get it. And they are doing good. Night after night, I lay down and I dream about what I had to go through with. I don’t want my children to have to go through with this. I want them to be able to get the job that they would be qualified. That’s what I’m struggling for.

…”Hey, tell that [expletive] to hurry up with that coffee.” “I’m on my way.” Now that’s what you have to go through with. But remember, you have to keep that smile.

From the Grio: “The repercussions for Booker Wright’s courageous candidness were extreme. He lost his job and was beaten and ostracized by those who considered him ‘one of their own.’ Almost fifty years after Booker Wright’s television appearance, his granddaughter Yvette Johnson, and Frank De Felitta’s son, director Raymond De Felitta, journey into the Mississippi Delta in search of answers: Who exactly was Booker Wright? What was the mystery surrounding his courageous life and untimely murder?”

Watch the Democracy Now interview about the 2012 documentary Booker’s Place, which tells the story of that black Mississippi waiter who lost his life by speaking out. Also, see the 2012 NBC News Dateline story about both documentaries, made nearly a half-century apart.

Yvette Johnson has created The Booker Wright Project. It was designed “to help move the conversation along. By conversation, I mean discussion on race, class, gender, sexuality, age, religion, and more. The topics that tend to divide us. These issues are like fault lines running through our nation, threatening not only to further divide us but to destroy us. In spite of all we have in common, in light of all we’ve overcome, there are several areas in which Americans are consistently, undeniably divided.

“We don’t have to agree on everything. But we have to respect one another enough to not let our individual preferences lead to violence, hate, a lack of empathy, or turning our backs to the challenges of others.”

ABC Wednesday – Round 17

P is for popularity of names

“Roger” was the 31st most popular boy’s name in 1953.

My friend Arthur did this some time back, based on this TIME magazine article, which, not incidentally, is US-centric.

“The popularity of your name is likely far different today than it was the year you were born. Maybe you’re one of those men born in 1983 and named Michael, the most popular name of the year.

“Today, if you were given the most popular boy’s name, you’d be named Noah. The following interactive shows you which name had the same popularity in the past year and every decade since 1890 as yours did the year you were born, using [then] newly released baby name data for 2014.”

The premise is slightly misleading in that, early on, there was a paucity in the diversity of names. For boys, John and William were heavily used in the 1880s (89,951 and 84,881, respectively), well ahead of James (54,058). For girls, Mary (91,669) was even more dominant; Anna (38,159) and Emma (25,404) were far behind.

Still: “Roger” was the 31st most popular boy’s name in 1953. It was MOST popular in 1945, hitting its peak of #22, I dare say, because of World War II: “Roger that. Roger over and out.”

My name today would be Oliver, a name I associate with the TV show Green Acres, Charles Dickens, and Elvis Costello.

My 2000s name is Isaac, a good biblical name, son of Abraham (nearly sacrificed) and Sarah, and father of Jacob and Esau.
My 1990s name is Mark, my brother-in-law’s name, and the shortest of the Gospels in the Bible.
My 1980s name is Edward, my great uncle’s name on my maternal grandmother’s side.
My 1970s name is Terry. I knew a guy named Terry in the 1970s at college and worked with a woman named Terry in the 1990s.
My 1960s name is Alan. Not incidentally, the Social Security list does not combine spellings, such as Allan and Allen.
My 1950s name is Henry, the VIII, and Aldrich.
My 1940s name is Ernest, another great uncle’s name on my maternal grandmother’s side.
My 1930s name is Leonard, as in Bernstein, and Nimoy.
My 1920s name is Elmer, as in Bernstein, and Fudd.
My 1910s name is Eddie, as in the Renaissance Geek, though that’s not his given name.
My 1900s name is Alfred, as in Tennyson or Batman’s butler.
My 1890s name is Sam, promoter of Green Eggs and Ham, or the Sham.

“Name trends are provided by the Social Security Administration… This tool only searches for names of the same gender as what you entered at the top. Many names have drifted from being associated with boys to being associated with girls over the years, so it can appear as though female names are showing up in the male results.”

ABC Wednesday – Round 17

N is for Nonviolence: Walter Wink

Imagine, then, the soldier’s surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack, and the civilian says, “Oh, no, let me carry it another mile.”

Back in 2002, the late theologian Walter Wink (d. 2012) ran a workshop at my current church about “militant nonviolence.” “The idea, he said, was not to be a doormat to aggressors but to turn their arrogance against them. He cited Jesus’ advice: ‘If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.'” But what does that look like?

You should read JESUS’ THIRD WAY, excerpted from Wink’s 1998 book The Powers that Be: Theology for a New Millennium. It explains that when one has received a backhand slap, it’s done to insult, humiliate, degrade. “The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the master wishes to do is to establish this underling’s equality.”

My favorite example, though involved “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.” (Matthew 5:41).

It is drawn from the relatively enlightened practice of limiting to a single mile the amount of forced or impressed labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples… Whoever was found on the street could be coerced into service… The majority of the rank and file… had to depend on impressed civilians.

What we have overlooked in this passage is the fact that carrying the pack a second mile is an infraction of military code… The centurion… might fine the offending soldier, flog him, put him on a ration of barley instead of wheat, make him camp outside the fortifications, force him to stand all day before the general’s tent…

It is in this context of Roman military occupation that Jesus speaks. He does not counsel revolt. One does not “befriend” the soldier, draw him aside and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was surely aware of the futility of armed insurrection against Roman imperial might…

But why carry the soldier’s pack a second mile?… The question here… is how the oppressed can recover the initiative and assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar’s, but how one responds to the rules is God’s, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine, then, the soldier’s surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack, and the civilian says, “Oh, no, let me carry it another mile.” Why would he want to do that? What is he up to? Normally, soldiers have to coerce people to carry their packs, but this Jew does so cheerfully, and will not stop. Is this a provocation? Is he insulting the legionnaire’s strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to violate the rules of impressment? Will this civilian file a complaint? Create trouble?

From a situation of servile impressment, the oppressed have once more seized the initiative. They have taken back the power of choice. They have thrown the soldier off balance by depriving him of the predictability of his victim’s response. He has never dealt with such a problem before. Now he must make a decision for which nothing in his previous experience has prepared him. If he has enjoyed feeling superior to the vanquished, he will not enjoy it today. Imagine a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew to give back his pack! The humor of this scene may have escaped us, but it could scarcely have been lost on Jesus’ hearers, who must have been delighted at the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.

Nonviolent direct action was the strategy of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. King outlined four principles of action:
1) Define your objectives.
2) Be honest and listen well.
3) Love your enemies.
4) Give your opponents a way out.

Wink specifically points to King’s fourth point: “Jesus did not advocate non-violence merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy, but as a just means of opposing the enemy in such a way as to hold open the possibility of the enemy’s becoming just as well. Both sides must win. We are summoned to pray for our enemies’ transformation, and to respond to ill-treatment with a love that not only is godly but also, I am convinced, can only be found in God.”

Nonviolent direct action is Jesus’ third way.

ABC Wednesday – Round 17

M is for Magna Carta

How did a failed treaty between medieval combatants, the Magna Carta, come to be seen as the foundation of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon world?

The Magna Carta turned 800 in June 2015, signed by King John “Lackland” Plantagenet in 1215, though, in fact, it was not dubbed as the “great charter” until a couple of years, and some changes, later. It was violated quickly and reinstated in an altered form a number of times.

From the British Library:

The Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law…

Most of the 63 clauses granted by King John dealt with specific grievances relating to his rule. However, buried within them were a number of fundamental values that both challenged the autocracy of the king and proved highly adaptable in future centuries. Most famously, the 39th clause gave all ‘free men’ the right to justice and a fair trial.

Some of Magna Carta’s core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

Incidentally, it has been proven that every President of the United States, save for one, is related to King John. Do you know which one was not?

Here’s the English translation of the Magna Carta. One element still in effect: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” It inspired those colonists who believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen.

Read this contrarian view of the document’s import. But see also this article that asks how a failed treaty between medieval combatants came to be seen as the foundation of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Oh, that outlier President, not related to King John, was the 8th President, Martin Van Buren, who was Dutch.

ABC Wednesday – Round 17