It may have occurred to some readers that I take others to task over various foibles or ethical issues a bit too often. Maybe, but that snark has some pretty sharp limits and I want to briefly explain them.
If the story deals with someone acting or filing suit in such a way that indicates the person might not be in their right mind — like the recent suit by the an individual acting on behalf of God, and His Son, Jesus Christ against all homosexuals — then I don’t write about it. (Except just there, but without name, or link, because I need an example.)
You see this in pro se suits with some regularity. In a nation of 300 million people and a country that (usually) takes pride in keeping the courthouse door open to those who believe they’ve been aggrieved, this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
While such stories may be amusing to many, I don’t see them serving any larger purpose. It isn’t just being politically correct regarding someone that may well need a mental health professional, but that the anecdotes serve no broader purpose. There is no lesson to be learned.
On the other hand, if the targets of the stories are lawyers or other individuals who are capable of fending for themselves, I see no problem, so long as there is a point to be made.
That’s it, my philosophy as to who I think it’s fair to target and who not.
I think you could summarize your rule as “Don’t punch down.” It’s a pretty good rule.
I think you could summarize your rule as “Don’t punch down.” It’s a pretty good rule.
I wish that had occurred to me. I could have just tweeted the damn thing instead of writing it up.
It’s certainly not a problem that you didn’t just tweet this. Love the whole idea and I’m glad you wrote it up. I know I always love explaining to people that my philosophy is “You’re allowed to think you’re better than everyone, as long as you admit that’s what you think.” That usually sparks up some debate and I was interested to read what you thought about you’re philosophy of “Don’t punch down.” Anyway, I appreciate the read!