This morning I had a chance to interact with someone who was appreciating a person doing a good deed for someone. Yet the headline included the employer of the person doing the good deed which overshadowed the actual doing of the deed. I hate this type of narrative control where the bad actor, the despicable employer, tries to make himself look good by using a good deed by one of his employees. Many of us liberal/progressives often fall into the trap of praising the deed while also inadvertently praising the bad actor.
Which is why I always avoid such posts that include a much hated entity despite a positive spin from something they did nothing to create. There are enough good people doing good deeds for me to post and write about without having to use some message of good manipulated by a despicable employer. If anything it confuses the readers into thinking that the bad actor employer isn't such a bad person or that their product for sale isn't such a harmful exchange for money. Yet it still is. When we support the bad actor we are just making life harder for those who are being vilified for no democratic reason.
I know that sometimes there are no other opportunities for employment in certain areas and the need of revenue will outweigh our principles, yet for those of us who are under no such desperate situation there is no need at all to give benefit of doubt to a worthless bad actor. Those employers and companies that support anti democratic harms should never get a positive spin out of our mouths even when some ancillary connection to them is a positive one. The naming of the bad actor company in a post about a good deed is disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst. Like I said, if like say for instance in the extreme Hitler were to have helped someone across the street, I would no more share that then if a bad actor company is purposefully clumped into a good will story.
Which is why I always avoid such posts that include a much hated entity despite a positive spin from something they did nothing to create. There are enough good people doing good deeds for me to post and write about without having to use some message of good manipulated by a despicable employer. If anything it confuses the readers into thinking that the bad actor employer isn't such a bad person or that their product for sale isn't such a harmful exchange for money. Yet it still is. When we support the bad actor we are just making life harder for those who are being vilified for no democratic reason.
I know that sometimes there are no other opportunities for employment in certain areas and the need of revenue will outweigh our principles, yet for those of us who are under no such desperate situation there is no need at all to give benefit of doubt to a worthless bad actor. Those employers and companies that support anti democratic harms should never get a positive spin out of our mouths even when some ancillary connection to them is a positive one. The naming of the bad actor company in a post about a good deed is disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst. Like I said, if like say for instance in the extreme Hitler were to have helped someone across the street, I would no more share that then if a bad actor company is purposefully clumped into a good will story.
No comments:
Post a Comment