This is a continuation of the previous thread, to which FunkyMe72, Sarah, Jason, Tiiu, and Lily commented. Lily, I think you’re in the minority here, although you do seem to agree with the points raised by myself and others. I understand why you feel I am being harsh to Tamie because I am being harsh to her. But she deserves it. Anyone who puts him/herself out there in such a manner must accept the responses, as long as they are “legitimate.”
And just as it’s not fair for people to dismiss her merely because of her age, she cannot expect to hide behind her age. Therefore, she speaks crap, she gets called on it. She wants to defend the union via her “column”–which many readers of the Star say is more appropriate for a blog or twitter–she has to expect people to attack that very union.
I know you disagree with me on that, Lily, but I believe in reactions matching the action. That is, she wrote certain things in a certain way, thus she gets responded to in that manner. Her column was very “in your face” and her picture says it all. She says, “bring it on,” and I (and others) bring it on. I think it’s great that young people are expressing their opinions. I used to do that too, although in those days it was in person, rather than internet. If I said something worthy of respect, I got that respect. If people disagreed with me, I argued my point. If I said something full of crap, I got called on it. The same applies here.
As someone who knows something (okay, a lot) about the psychology of language, I can tell you very clearly that she has an extremely manipulative writing style, whether she’s aware of it or not. Look at the intro to her latest piece, part of which you cited yourself. I’m not going to analyze it in as much depth as I could, but I’ll give a brief analysis:
Life certainly can be unfair. However, that doesn’t mean it’s time to give up.
Starts off fine; she’s conveying a message of “hope.” Heck, in case someone didn’t get it, she even mentions “hope” below. But she’s also throwing in “resilience” in the face of adversity. Who could argue with such sentiments? Good start.
Maybe I’m young, maybe I’m inexperienced, maybe I’m a bit too raw … but I still believe that if you’ve got enough guts, enough cheek, enough nerve, you can change the world.
Again, she’s got the hope thing, but she prefaces it with acknowledging her possible shortcomings; personally, I think the “Maybe I’m young…” bit is trite/cliched and, at this point, it’s manipulative. What does changing the world have to do with this strike? She’s incorporating valid, laudable principles into this issue, where none of the parties involved–not the city and it’s spineless mayor/council (and the ever testicularly challenged Premier of Ontario) and definitely not CUPE–gives any evidence of even a modicum of such values.
That is the thought that kept me going as I walked in a circle for four hours yesterday morning as a member of CUPE Local 79. Hope.
Again, tying in beautiful ideals/principles with a very ugly reality. MANIPULATIVE. She’s also trying to garner a bit of sympathy: “I walked in a circle for four hours…waaa…” Don’t think she’s doing that? Read the next few lines:
I had been awake since 5 a.m., when my father, a manager for the City of Toronto, headed out for another 12-hour shift. By 6 a.m., I’d managed to drag myself out of bed and into the bathroom, where I sat on the floor and promptly fell back asleep for another 15 minutes. Most of my friends were still sleeping, snug in their beds, and by the time I finished my shift, they were probably still snug in their beds. Not that I was bitter. I would have had to get up at 6 for my summer job as a lifeguard instructor.
This is, in fact, manipulation via “passive-aggressive” tactics (I’m using the term more colloquially than clinically, since I believe she knows what she’s doing here, hence it’s not truly passive-aggressive). That is, she’s showing what a “hero” she is, overcoming such adversity, just like her father…while her peers are snug in their beds. Wow, she’s an inspiration…And of course, she finishes it off with the passive-aggressive “not that I’m complaining or anything…” as she tries to put on a stoic face, since she would have been up this early anyway.
I know that might seem harsh and over the top, but in my field, language is everything. And her language is very telling. Of course, one could simply say that this is the immature writing of a 16 year-old drama queen, hence her motives are not nearly as nefarious as I make them out to be. Well, if that is true, then it has no place in a national newspaper. And once it’s in a newspaper, it is open to criticism, refutation, ridicule and/or derision just like any other piece, especially when it is as biased, uninformed, misguided and detached from reality as her piece is. I’ll leave it at that for now.