Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our tax dollars don't make gov't officials our indentured servants, on the clock for us 24/7. If you wouldn't mind your boss interrupting you during your down time to berate your job performance in a restaurant, a play, a sporting match, etc. that's your perogative, of course ... but we have anti-slavery and labor laws here to prevent such human rights abuses. And those laws protect even the officials that we love to hate.
There's a time and place for discourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine
Think very carefully about what you've said here.
Would you be ok with your boss coming down to the beach on a Saturday afternoon where you are relaxing with your friends and family, and giving you a verbal reaming over a work-related issue?
Because you just condoned that kind of behavior under the guise that the person who pays your salary has that right.
Think about that for a bit.
Your point is very well taken. While it's true the threshold for what crosses the line from an etiquette standard is much stricter than what crosses the line from a legal standpoint, doesn't mean it's a good practice to do so. And if someone angrily confronts a person when they're trying to relax, regardless of their role (public or private), how much do people think they're going to be willing to "go to bat" for that person compared to the person who respectfully communicates with them at an appropriate time and place (even if they need to be more politely persistent to get beyond the canned response that they may get the first time around)? They're likely to be more irritated than anything even if they handle the situation diplomatically.
And of course, no one gets a pass on doing things like communicating threats, which is a crime regardless of who the victim may be.
I wonder if the same people who think that it's okay to angrily confront politicians at the beach because they are paid with a tiny, fractional portion of their tax money must also think it's okay to angrily confront their McDonald's cashier at the beach for shortchanging them on french fries because a tiny, fractional portion of their salary was paid with their "Happy Meal" money."
At what point does an encounter become harassment, for the purposes of this discussion? There's a lot of territory between saying to someone, "I dislike this policy," and actually threatening them or disrupting a place of business they have chosen to patronize.
Coffe shop girl and Pruitt totally fine. Cameras not necessary for the discussion but she was probobly concerned with slander and libel against her since she obviously realized she was approaching someone with out character.
Neilssen in Mex Restaurant. Not okay.
The protestor heckling should have been swiftly removed.
Neilssen swiftly behind them.
A " take it outside" stance when things get disruptive is as neutral an act a business owner can do.
When the president of the US publicly belittles individuals and tells people to "punch them in the mouth" how can we then tell people it's not ok to confront public officials? Its not a R or D problem but, the truth is writing letters to our public officials or calling them only gets one a robo response.
I think its ok to speak to public officials when they are in public because after all they work for us don't they?
I don't think they should be angrily confronted or shouted at but, what the teacher did with Pruitt was perfectly acceptable IMO.
But what would have been the story had people wishing to push against Obama's agenda been harassing all of his cabinet members wherever and whenever they were in public? methinks it wouldn't have gotten the same "aw shucks, look at the patriot exercising their free speech" kudos that the folks harassing Trump's people seem to enjoy.
If memory serves, even disagreeing with Obama indirectly led to charges of racism. It sure as heck wasn't given patriotism credit.
So I am just checking for consistency here - is this the new normal? From here on out, harassing public figures in public places, near their homes/cars is cool, since that is simple voicing of dissent? It will be cool when a Democrat occupies the White House?
No, of course not. Here's the thing...no two situations are exactly alike. What they will do is find whatever small difference there is, no matter how insignificant it seems at first, and turn that difference in to the Big Reason why what was OK for them to do is not OK for their opposition to do to them. The media will back them up on it too.
You know what this reminds me of? People here on CD. Is it ok for us to bash Trump and Obama (etc) on CD but then if we met them in person to say "Hey, you know what you did in Iran was a real dick punch to America" or "what exactly again did we get from that NK summit?"
If our speech is limited to an online forum and not on a "forum" that actually matters - one that could engage with the people running this country, that what the hell is the point of free speech anyway?
LOL. Trump harassed Obama about not being US born for how many years while he was president?
Get a grip, as we are not talking about one famous person making comments about Obama, now are we.
I pointed out how many disliked/despised Obama, but didn't organize groups of loud mouth fools to track down his cabinet members and harass them on their own time.
Try to say on the subject with realistic comparisons, and not let your TDS get you too far off topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.