A sickening tweet

[ralph60]

I didn't want to pollute the Humbolt thread with this sickening person's writing, but Quebec writer, activist and self-described "happy socialist" Nora Loreto had this to say on Twitter Sunday regarding the reaction to the crash:
"I'm trying to not get cynical about what is a totally devastating tragedy but the maleness, the youthfulness and the whiteness of the victims are, of course, playing a significant role."
She's a freelance writer and has been published in Macleans and the Globe and Mail. She isn't an employee of either publication and hopefully will never earn another cent writing for anybody.

[KC]

People see or frame things from their own orientation.

[MrOilers]

What kind of psychopath celebrates a horrifying mass casualty simply because the victims are young sons of white Canadian families?

I am thankful that people like her are in the extreme minority.

[RichardS]

What I find sad is that there are so many trying to excuse her behaviour. The most pathetic excuse is that if this was a bus of women, or Indigenous, or African youth the outpouring would be less.

No.

If it was all women, it is more than likely people like her would be crying misogyny.

The outpouring of sympathy would be huge if it were any of the above. 16 young lives snuffed out...for no reason other than they were at the wrong place at the right time.

There is no excuse for her actions. If a Caucasian male wrote a "sucks to be you" tweet at the ficticious all female or all African bus crash...she'd be campaigning for this person to be shot..pee'd on...and emasculated. Not in that order

[Highlander II]

I don't agree with her, particularly on the maleness part, but there's nothing sickening in that tweet, especially compared to MrOilers' insinuations in his post on this thread.

I don't get why so many people care that she said something wrong on twitter - and if what she said was wrong I would hope that wiser people would be able to engage in a reasonable debate.

There's a lot more wrong with the response that she's received on twitter and via emails. There are unfortunately a lot of vile people out there who apparently feel the need to let her know how much hate they feel.

[The_Cat]

A terrible tweet. Loreto won't be able to leave her house any time soon.

[H.L.]

What a !diot She's sick..

So I'm guessing she didn't wear a jersey yesterday..?

[Marcel Petrin]

I don't agree with her, particularly on the maleness part, but there's nothing sickening in that tweet, especially compared to MrOilers' insinuations in his post on this thread.

I don't get why so many people care that she said something wrong on twitter - and if what she said was wrong I would hope that wiser people would be able to engage in a reasonable debate.

There's a lot more wrong with the response that she's received on twitter and via emails. There are unfortunately a lot of vile people out there who apparently feel the need to let her know how much hate they feel.

Agreed. It was a poorly worded tweet, but I can kinda sorta see the point she was attempting to make (that I don't agree with). None of that justifies the hundreds of death threats that she's almost inevitably received.

[hungryman4000]

It's one of the biggest Canadian tragedies in the last decade or so and for someone to try and diminish the outcry/help/aid that these families are receiving BECAUSE of the boys age, race and gender is absolutely disgusting.

I hate when ANYONE tries to take a tragedy and try and spin it to push their own agenda, its wrong, it doesn't help which ever political side you're on, and it makes these families feel like their personal tragedy isn't important.
Shame on her. Also death threats are bad too though. but she should realize how silly her tweet was.


EDIT** and let's be real with Justin Trudeau as the Prime minister right now if it was 16 poor ethnic young women you best believe there would be a %[email protected] of help coming their way, come on. That chick is so out to lunch.

[overoceans]

It may very well be the case that certain tragedies are under-reported, because of the minority or marginalized status of the victims. But the way to address that is when such a tragedy happens, and you write "This doesn't seem to be getting the kind of attention that I think it should". Rather than hijacking the coverage of another incident.

[hungryman4000]

It may very well be the case that certain tragedies are under-reported, because of the minority or marginalized status of the victims. But the way to address that is when such a tragedy happens, and you write "This doesn't seem to be getting the kind of attention that I think it should". Rather than hijacking the coverage of another incident.

I agree with everything you said here
but I also just want to point out I think (don't quote me on this) the hashtags and gofundme, jersey wearing etc all started from the community rising up and supporting the families, they started their own movement.
It wasn't only main stream media coverage that made this big, I think that depending on the community the tragedy is in it also heavily relies on how that community responds. In this case going straight to social media, gofundme, sticksoutfortheboys, wearing a jersey type things that are catchy and easy for people to do so it really reach a wide audience. IMO

The message is really positive and easy to get behind, other tragedies do seem to have a lot more political clashing behind the scenes, which is unfortunate and unfair.

[RichardS]

Now...I don't think sickening is the right word either, and I don't condone violent responses....

BUT

...so now it is "poorly worded"...and the threats of losing income, prestige, boycotts, etc are offside?

Let's change this up.

The accident is a plane load of female hockey players, indigenous even.

The nation has an outpouring of respect. People are devastated. Jerseys are worn. World leaders express condolences. A GoFundMe shows up, and I GUARANTEE it would have similar numbers (as the donations are out of grief, not political allegiance)...

A tweet like this shows up...

I'm trying to not get cynical about what is a totally devastating tragedy but the FEmaleness, the youthfulness and the ethnicity of the victims are, of course, playing a significant role.

The author is Ezra Levant, Raheel Raza, or any outwardly open right wing commentator...

...would you have the same attitude? Would this be an "unfortunate choice of words?" ...or, would you, and many others, be upset?

So, does this mean that Laura Ingraham's "unfortunate choice of words" means just that...and the calls for a boycott and other threats she's received are offside too? Would you be standing up and saying...

Agreed. It was a poorly worded tweet, but I can kinda sorta see the point she was attempting to make (that I don't agree with). None of that justifies the hundreds of death threats that she's almost inevitably received.

or

(...) I would hope that wiser people would be able to engage in a reasonable debate. There's a lot more wrong with the response that she's received on twitter and via emails. There are unfortunately a lot of vile people out there who apparently feel the need to let her know how much hate they feel.(...)

No need to answer...just be one with your conscience.


...and as for...

I don't get why so many people care that she said something wrong on twitter(...)

You can't be serious...

On C2E, we have loads of threads littered with people so upset with something wrong said on twitter...be it gun control, climate change, the Commander in Tweet, US investigations...the list is exhausting.

A comedian says a "wrong joke" (Ricky Gervais and the Catlin Jenner driving joke)...and the outrage is insane...

It is a lot of faux outrage, but the problem (and the crux of why this reaction bothers me so much) is that it is often hypocritical. Nora Loreto is someone who would be just another faceless name amongst the twittersphere of self-righteous dolts...but she took a statement, juxtaposed it with a major tragedy, tried to make a silly correlation...all to get noticed and notoriety with her point of view...and is now concerned at the reaction. ...yet she employs the same boycott, name smearing, threatening protocols when she is offended...


I agree, death threats are not appropriate and should be investigated. But, when you employ guerilla tactics to try to defame people whose opinion you disagree with...then get upset when the same tactics are employed against you... You also cannot have twitrage on one hand, and then wonder aloud why people have twitrage...the answer is in the question...

That's the problem.

[Highlander II]

*I would say the same thing if the offending tweet were coming from the opposite direction. Asking those kinds of questions are valid even if the hypothesis is wrong - even from provocateurs. I'm not a fan of group-think, PC enforcement and taboo opinions on any issue.

[RichardS]

...neither am I...discussion and rational debate is key...be it climate change, oil, wedge issues, science v religion...etc...

but I will guarantee if the hypothetical situation I posed would be the real world one...the media and reaction would be wildly different. The tweet wouldn't be under the radar...it would be front page CBC news.

[Marcel Petrin]

I think your own biases are showing a bit here Richard, because that tweet pretty much has been "front page" news, to the point that MacLean's released a statement distancing themselves from the writer because of the amount of crap flying their way because she'd written a single freelance article for them at some point. It's been all over my Facebook as well.

[Highlander II]

^^I don't think so, though it would depend heavily on who said it and what their public profile was. I'm assuming she wasn't particularly widely know prior to this though that's mostly based on me being so ignorant of Nora Loreto that I had to scroll to the top for her name.

Doug Ford or Ezra Levant might make some waves, I guess.

[RichardS]

^^I haven't seen that type of coverage...so if I am wrong...my bad.

MacLean's did release a statement, and I saw that on Twitter, but on the main news feeds I haven't seen it today. I am open to be proven wrong.

As for my bias...I'd like to see how that is showing. I am asking for objective debate, and I actually have been writing for a return to journalism and not infotainment...

[RichardS]

(...)
Doug Ford or Ezra Levant might make some waves, I guess.

agreed...but those were the only names I could come up with...I am not versed in the blogsphere. My point is that there is a hypocritical set of reactions. Stupidity should be challenged...provocations should be addressed with debate...but if you are a provocateur, and then are surprised that your provocation caused a reaction, then maybe you should review the definition of provocateur.

Death threats need not apply...

[MrOilers]

there's nothing sickening in that tweet, especially compared to MrOilers' insinuations in his post on this thread.

That's your liberal privilege speaking.

[Highlander II]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths, something that she objectively did not do.

She called no one names, not did she accuse anyone of celebrating anyone's death, only that we might care more or less depending.

Your appeal to "liberal privilege" makes no sense.

[KC]

It's one of the biggest Canadian tragedies in the last decade or so and for someone to try and diminish the outcry/help/aid that these families are receiving BECAUSE of the boys age, race and gender is absolutely disgusting.

I hate when ANYONE tries to take a tragedy and try and spin it to push their own agenda, its wrong, it doesn't help which ever political side you're on, and it makes these families feel like their personal tragedy isn't important.
Shame on her. Also death threats are bad too though. but she should realize how silly her tweet was.


EDIT** and let's be real with Justin Trudeau as the Prime minister right now if it was 16 poor ethnic young women you best believe there would be a %[email protected] of help coming their way, come on. That chick is so out to lunch.

I think the fact that someone sees racism and sexism here, may possibly reflect on their own racist and sexist tendencies. (Possibly forced on them but nonetheless on their mind when no such thought may enter others’ minds.) The ageism I’m not so sure about. I think reacting more strongly to the loss of many young lives vs say elderly lives (which I believe has happened in fires) elicits a stronger sense of loss and I’d guess that that sense of loss is very strong across all ages of survivors.

Tragedies regularly happen all over the world so I’d also say that there are many other factors playing a role in raising sympathies in this tragedy. Race and sex though? I sure don’t buy that.

[KC]

Seems that there are others out there victimizing Macleans based on this.


Maybe they deserve some apologies?

Statement from Maclean's - Macleans.ca

by Maclean's Apr 12, 2018

We’d like to clarify that, contrary to misinformation being spread on social media, Nora Loreto has never been an employee of Maclean’s. She is a freelance writer who published one article on our website a few months ago. We had nothing to do with her extraordinarily inappropriate tweet regarding the Humboldt tragedy. We will have nothing else to say on this matter at the current time because we do not wish to distract from the tributes and grief being expressed on behalf of the victims of the accident, nor do we wish to feed into the torrent of abuse that Ms. Loreto has been subjected to since publishing her tweet.

http://www.macleans.ca/general/statement-from-macleans/

BATRA: Social justice warrior misses the boat on Humboldt | Toronto Sun

http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...at-on-humboldt




BTW, friends of ours with East Indian and African backgrounds (oh, and immigrants to Canada, one as a refugee) immediately put hockey sticks out on their lawn. White, male, native born me - didn’t.

[ctzn-Ed]

In all honesty, the topic at hand is not offensive; it is the timing of the release of the tweet that has me bothered. she should have waited for those that have passed to be buried prior to engaging in such topic.

[MrOilers]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths

No, I did not. I asked what kind of psychopath would.

But her own words tell us that her conscience is telling her that this tragedy isn't so terrible, simply because the victims in this case are "youthful white males".

[borntohula]

Welcome to the social media era, even car accidents are politicized. Pathetic.

[Drumbones]

I think her and her tweet are UNCANADIAN.

[ralph60]

I think your own biases are showing a bit here Richard, because that tweet pretty much has been "front page" news, to the point that MacLean's released a statement distancing themselves from the writer because of the amount of crap flying their way because she'd written a single freelance article for them at some point. It's been all over my Facebook as well.

Marcel, I searched CTV, CBC, The Journal and the Toronto Star, there is zero coverage of this in any of them. How can you say this is front page news?

[East McCauley]

^In other words, as much media coverage as this tweet deserves.

It's not like she's a prominent journalist or public figure.

Who on this board had even heard of this person before she sent out this unfeeling and insensitive tweet? I didn't.

[ralph60]

She's a published book author, she writes articles and is active in numerous "progressive" causes, etc. Here is a link to her personal website: https://noraloreto.ca/
The main reason I started this thread is to publicize who she is, so that anyone who is thinking of publishing her work will know what kind of a person they're dealing with.
Hopefully, from now on, when you google Nora Loreto, you will be lead to her tweet.
This is why I'm against censorship of any kind, people with hateful or disgusting viewpoints need to be exposed, not hidden.

[RichardS]

^In other words, as much media coverage as this tweet deserves.

It's not like she's a prominent journalist or public figure.

Who on this board had even heard of this person before she sent out this unfeeling and insensitive tweet? I didn't.

I'd agree with what I bolded...

But...replace her with me...someone most of you wish was dead, buried, and rotting in the ground...I'm a nobody POS...no known allegiance...broadcast as a Centrist...

...and I take a giant leave of common sense, respect, and basic human dignity...and I say something stupid like the hypothetical plane crash example I put on a more known commentator...

...the backlash starts...it gains momentum in social media...how long before this gets put up on Slav Kornik's twice hourly social media rage segment? I'd bet within 48 hours...

Now, I am not condoning anyone or anything...and I am not saying that my hypothetical outburst should get media coverage...but I'm willing to bet I'm right...

[KC]

There needs to be a bit of push back. She took the offensive on a disaster so some push back is good and it outs just what people are thinking.

However to push back and drag into the debate innocent parties like Macleans is just as offensive.

Basically if I were to flip out over this comment, wrongly lash out at innocent parties then I should be called to task and asked to further explain myself and apologize if I wrongly attack innocent parties because I’m offended.

So issues like this are good in the sense of outting people that are careless and create even more collateral damage.

[Replacement]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths, something that she objectively did not do.

She called no one names, not did she accuse anyone of celebrating anyone's death, only that we might care more or less depending.

Your appeal to "liberal privilege" makes no sense.

The statement was sociopathic. It was bereft of any understanding of the nature of tragedy and public grieving and occurred in the context of that to diminish it. The recoil happens for a reason. The tribal response recognizes the sociopathy inherent in the statement.

Now of course I'm not in favor of any threats or violence but Loreto has quite clearly lost any semblance of being able to be a journalist. She has lost all credibility with one statement.

[KC]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths, something that she objectively did not do.

She called no one names, not did she accuse anyone of celebrating anyone's death, only that we might care more or less depending.

Your appeal to "liberal privilege" makes no sense.

The statement was sociopathic. It was bereft of any understanding of the nature of tragedy and public grieving and occurred in the context of that to diminish it. The recoil happens for a reason. The tribal response recognizes the sociopathy inherent in the statement.

Now of course I'm not in favor of any threats or violence but Loreto has quite clearly lost any semblance of being able to be a journalist. She has lost all credibility with one statement.

Or... it’s a problem with using a tool (Twitter) that encourages brevity and miscommunication

[Replacement]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths, something that she objectively did not do.

She called no one names, not did she accuse anyone of celebrating anyone's death, only that we might care more or less depending.

Your appeal to "liberal privilege" makes no sense.

The statement was sociopathic. It was bereft of any understanding of the nature of tragedy and public grieving and occurred in the context of that to diminish it. The recoil happens for a reason. The tribal response recognizes the sociopathy inherent in the statement.

Now of course I'm not in favor of any threats or violence but Loreto has quite clearly lost any semblance of being able to be a journalist. She has lost all credibility with one statement.

Or... it’s a problem with using a tool (Twitter) that encourages brevity and miscommunication

While I agree the medium was a concern I'm not convinced I would want to know what the longer version of Loreto's hateful rant would be. Has their been any explanation, retraction, apology since? Or has she expanded on her heinous view?

edit; sigh, just looked at her twitter account. Quite obvious she is a purposeful troll. It was her whole missive to get hits and some notoriety. She's relishing her deplorably found fame. The most depressing aspect of Loreto's apparent bait and switch tactics is its by design attempt to drag discourse into an inane gutter. She's quite simply just somebody who learned to tactically offend, then obfuscate. She seems better at the offensive part.

[Mla]

It's the highjacking of a tragedy. An analogy would be me walking into a funeral, walking up to make a speech, then announcing that I have cancer and expecting people to feel bad for me at that very moment.

It was just **** poor timing and very insensitive. And now she's wondering why everybody is reacting to her emotionally when it was her choice to highjack an emotional tragedy in the first place. Good grief.

I don't agree with her receiving death threats but my goodness of course people are upset.

[ctzn-Ed]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths, something that she objectively did not do.

She called no one names, not did she accuse anyone of celebrating anyone's death, only that we might care more or less depending.

Your appeal to "liberal privilege" makes no sense.

The statement was sociopathic. It was bereft of any understanding of the nature of tragedy and public grieving and occurred in the context of that to diminish it. The recoil happens for a reason. The tribal response recognizes the sociopathy inherent in the statement.

Now of course I'm not in favor of any threats or violence but Loreto has quite clearly lost any semblance of being able to be a journalist. She has lost all credibility with one statement.

Or... it’s a problem with using a tool (Twitter) that encourages brevity and miscommunication

I think this is the trend in today's moral standards. This is no different than some of the speculations made on here when facts weren't presented. Whether it is speculations or sensitive topics, we disregarded the direct individuals pains and sufferings for our amusement which is shameful as for as im concerned. As I stated, it was a wrong time to bring the topic about when the victoms has not yet been buried. There is some validity to her topic imo, but I won't engage in such manner out of respect for the families and those that are truly affected by this.

[Highlander II]

^It’s not at all like hijacking a funeral, and looking at it again it’s not even attention-seeking.

she didn’t tag Humboldt, no one searching for Humboldt on twitter would have seen it, it was intended for her twitter followers.

edit: her very next tweet after this one said
”·





Apr 8






I don't want less for the families and survivors of this tragedy. I want justice and more for so many other grieving parents and communities.






And then after that she called out a response that called her disrespectful and then tagged all the Humboldt hashtags, effectively broadcasting it where survivors could see it.

this was the equivalent of a barroom conversation the next town over that got way too much attention drawn to it.

[KC]

You called her a psychopath and claimed that she celebrated their deaths, something that she objectively did not do.

She called no one names, not did she accuse anyone of celebrating anyone's death, only that we might care more or less depending.

Your appeal to "liberal privilege" makes no sense.

The statement was sociopathic. It was bereft of any understanding of the nature of tragedy and public grieving and occurred in the context of that to diminish it. The recoil happens for a reason. The tribal response recognizes the sociopathy inherent in the statement.

Now of course I'm not in favor of any threats or violence but Loreto has quite clearly lost any semblance of being able to be a journalist. She has lost all credibility with one statement.

Or... it’s a problem with using a tool (Twitter) that encourages brevity and miscommunication

I think this is the trend in today's moral standards. This is no different than some of the speculations made on here when facts weren't presented. Whether it is speculations or sensitive topics, we disregarded the direct individuals pains and sufferings for our amusement which is shameful as for as im concerned. As I stated, it was a wrong time to bring the topic about when the victoms has not yet been buried. There is some validity to her topic imo, but I won't engage in such manner out of respect for the families and those that are truly affected by this.

Speculation is common if not universal. It happened pre-internet and so happens post internet. It happens for any tragic news whether it’s news of a stranger, a friend or a family member. And speculation starts near immediately. After any shock wears off, the next thoughts are often: How did this happen? I wouldn’t say it’s amusing though. It’s out of a need to understand. Those with any sense of empathy feel for the family and friends and because they have feelings want to find ways that tragedies don’t or can’t occur again.

The talk and speculation further serves to reinforce the memory in peoples’ minds so that it isn’t quickly forgotten. On a daily basis most people hear of traffic deaths on the news and spend zero time thinking about those losses and in just a day or two would not even be able to recollect it. The individuals and the impact on family and friends of singular deaths is never even broadcast or known.

Here news coverage is bringing the memory of these kids and adults to the broader community and country because of the nature of this accident. As a result people are talking about it. (As entertainment? I doubt it.) For example: more people are finally signing up to become organ donors out of the news coverage. Higher trucking driver licensing standards are also being discussed among the professionals and that’s coming out of speculation as to the cause. It’s coming before the investigation results are known and it’s coming before the funerals. And it’s directly tied to the behaviour of one of the living victims, the truck driver.

[RichardS]

^^ please don't try to vainly excuse it, or poorly try to inject nuance into her actions or thoughts...especially when she has no nuance or excuses when she lavishes the same visceral and over-the-top actions to things she finds offensive...

She didn't have to tag Humboldt...because it was in a direct conversation about the outpouring due to Humboldt. ...and don't try to excuse the lack of using a #Humboldt. That's like EPRT going off on yet another anti-Trump conversation, in the midst of an anti-Trump conversation, yet never mentioning Trump...and then saying "How did you know I was speaking on my favorite subject? I never used #Trump!"

She tried to back her objectionable comments off with the follow-up tweet, again without using #Humboldt....does that mean we can infer she was talking about Syria, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Waco, Katrina, Oklahoma City...you know...those other tragedies that caught national attention and had a huge outpouring of support, sympathy, and donations?

The fact remains. She tried to utilize a tragedy that is, at the heart of it, about young people being snuffed out before even reaching the prime of their lives...by a completely senseless and avoidable tragedy. The bus was full of youth and promise...and yes...people tend to grieve more when youth is killed vs when older folks are...for we still idolize youth, remember the promise of youth, and wish we could go back to revisit it so we could learn from our mistakes. That is the simple and complete core reason why the reaction to the tragedy grips Canada and elsewhere, and why a reaction to some virtually unknown's tweet is so angry.

This is the reason why the Syrian refugee crisis took such a turn...a drowned child being carried onto shore. That brought more attention and sparked worldwide outpouring of support. Imagine if someone here tweeted...

I'm trying to not get cynical about what is a totally devastating tragedy but the skin tone, the youthfulness and the religion of the victims are, of course, playing a significant role.

No #Syria...no # refugee... but juxtaposed to an announcement of 25,000 refugees coming to Canada... would you be so #forgiving and looking for #nuance? The point would be the same...asking for fair treatment with others.

As for your barroom metaphor, that is a little too low key. This is more like a person taking to a bull horn and shouting this out on a cross continent tour. A bar room is limited in scope. Twitter is a town crier meant to broadcast your ideas and comments worldwide. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she made the tweet, and was HOPING for it to go viral. Don't excuse it. If you read her follow ups, she definitely makes no apologies, and is relishing in the attention.

Conversations about equitable treatment can happen, but the moral of this story is to pick your battles. It probably would have died down if she just simply did what she would more than likely demand a comedian do after a joke she found in poor taste - apologize. Tweet, "I meant no disrespect to #Humboldt. I hoped to start a conversation about reactions to other tragedies. However, my comments were poorly timed, poorly worded, and I can see how they can easily be mistaken. I sincerely #apologize for any insult I have caused." That would have helped. The continued reaction to an unknown is that she is not self aware enough to simply do exactly what she would try to tweet shame and advertiser ban others into doing...

[KC]

More left vs right crap. Is it always about them and their extremely limited, “polarized” view and understanding of humanity.


As for: “But the backlash against Nora also shows hockey’s ugly side,”. What a really strange comment. More like something aimed at triggering another outcry about ‘gross’ generalizations.

Backlash against Nora Loreto shows Canada's ugly side | rabble.ca
side
Michael Stewart, April 14, 2018


“I’ve been thinking about how it could have been worded differently, but I’m still not convinced her tweet antagonizes anyone’s grief. It does, perhaps, confront our empathy and ask, at an admittedly vulnerable time, why it flows now, this way, instead of otherwise.

That’s a hard question, but it doesn’t make Nora’s tweet offensive, or tactless. It does make it perfect fodder for the kind of game the extreme right is playing -- and the game with which our media plays guilelessly along, sowing the ground for toxic masculinity and hate.”

http://rabble.ca/news/2018/04/backla...adas-ugly-side

[Mla]

I don't know how you could call it anything but​ highjacking.

[ctzn-Ed]

^^ please don't try to vainly excuse it, or poorly try to inject nuance into her actions or thoughts...especially when she has no nuance or excuses when she lavishes the same visceral and over-the-top actions to things she finds offensive...

She didn't have to tag Humboldt...because it was in a direct conversation about the outpouring due to Humboldt. ...and don't try to excuse the lack of using a #Humboldt. That's like EPRT going off on yet another anti-Trump conversation, in the midst of an anti-Trump conversation, yet never mentioning Trump...and then saying "How did you know I was speaking on my favorite subject? I never used #Trump!"

She tried to back her objectionable comments off with the follow-up tweet, again without using #Humboldt....does that mean we can infer she was talking about Syria, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Waco, Katrina, Oklahoma City...you know...those other tragedies that caught national attention and had a huge outpouring of support, sympathy, and donations?

The fact remains. She tried to utilize a tragedy that is, at the heart of it, about young people being snuffed out before even reaching the prime of their lives...by a completely senseless and avoidable tragedy. The bus was full of youth and promise...and yes...people tend to grieve more when youth is killed vs when older folks are...for we still idolize youth, remember the promise of youth, and wish we could go back to revisit it so we could learn from our mistakes. That is the simple and complete core reason why the reaction to the tragedy grips Canada and elsewhere, and why a reaction to some virtually unknown's tweet is so angry.

This is the reason why the Syrian refugee crisis took such a turn...a drowned child being carried onto shore. That brought more attention and sparked worldwide outpouring of support. Imagine if someone here tweeted...

I'm trying to not get cynical about what is a totally devastating tragedy but the skin tone, the youthfulness and the religion of the victims are, of course, playing a significant role.

No #Syria...no # refugee... but juxtaposed to an announcement of 25,000 refugees coming to Canada... would you be so #forgiving and looking for #nuance? The point would be the same...asking for fair treatment with others.

As for your barroom metaphor, that is a little too low key. This is more like a person taking to a bull horn and shouting this out on a cross continent tour. A bar room is limited in scope. Twitter is a town crier meant to broadcast your ideas and comments worldwide. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she made the tweet, and was HOPING for it to go viral. Don't excuse it. If you read her follow ups, she definitely makes no apologies, and is relishing in the attention.

Conversations about equitable treatment can happen, but the moral of this story is to pick you battles. It probably would have died down if she just simply did what she would more than likely demand a comedian do after a joke she found in poor taste - apologize. Tweet, "I meant no disrespect to #Humboldt. I hoped to start a conversation about reactions to other tragedies. However, my comments were poorly timed, poorly worded, and I can see how they can easily be mistaken. I sincerely #apologize for any insult I have caused." That would have helped. The continued reaction to an unknown is that she is not self aware enough to simply do exactly what she would try to tweet shame and advertiser ban others into doing...

I'm going to wait another week before I engage in this. It is still too early.

[RichardS]

More left vs right crap. Is it always about them and their extremely limited, “polarized” view and understanding of humanity.


As for: “But the backlash against Nora also shows hockey’s ugly side,”. What a really strange comment. More like something aimed at triggering another outcry about ‘gross’ generalizations.

That is the problem with people on the far side of any debate. They cannot see the hypocrisy in their actions, as they are blinded by their self-righteousness when they do EXACTLY the same things. Be is a Christian fundamentalist, or a self-proclaimed uber socialist...they are kings, queens, and overlords of the do as I say, not as I do party.

[AShetsen]

I have nothing add to the conversation about the questionable or poor taste of her comments.

But several things are quite striking.

First, her snarky reaction to the deaths of Canadians mirrors the snarky reaction seen in so many places, and indeed here from some of the same people loudly contributing to the present conversation, when other Canadians met their deaths in a Quebec City mosque a year or two ago. Her comments are obviously unwelcome to white, native-born, hockey-loving Canadians. But your deflection of your own Islamophobia then was pretty well the same to moslem Canadians, some of whom were immigrants. And the thing both you and she have forgotten is that being a white hockey player no more defines being Canadian than praying in a mosque -- though certainly no more, either.

But that is a minor point.

The second is more important. And that is, if her comments are as contemptible as you believe them to be, then bury them in the silence they deserve. You are giving them too much importance, and are only belittling yourselves.

But on balance that too is not important.

Here is what really matters.

If you are as gutted by the deaths as you proclaim, kindly grieve. The more you criticize instead of grieving, the more you prove that your real agenda is anger and denunciation, not grief.

And that puts the lie to your sentimentality. The "you" here includes, I regret, even the site administrator, who had, I thought, too much sense to go for the bitterness of his post #39.

[RichardS]

(...)

And that puts the lie to your sentimentality. The "you" here includes, I regret, even the site administrator, who had, I thought, too much sense to go for the bitterness of his post #39.

...try listening to the exact problem I am talking about for 15 years...people going off the rails when their opinions are attacked...and then go out and attack others for their opinions using the exact same tactics that they just complained to you about...and then threaten your home, security, job, and life as a result...all because you didn't ban someone, or defend a lie..

...or then try to sue you for not joining in on their cabal...

...you'd be sick and tired of the hypocritical malarkey too...

My comments are directed to the hypocrisy of the extremes on either side. Prove me wrong.

[Highlander II]

^^ please don't try to vainly excuse it, or poorly try to inject nuance into her actions or thoughts...especially when she has no nuance or excuses when she lavishes the same visceral and over-the-top actions to things she finds offensive...

That you and others are refusing to hear nuance or understand excuses doesn't mean that I have to manufacture them. I'm merely explaining what I read when I look at her tweets without prejudice. It may be that she has been on her best behaviour in the past few days since this blew up but I haven't seen "the same visceral and over-the-top" responses from her.

She didn't have to tag Humboldt...because it was in a direct conversation about the outpouring due to Humboldt. ...and don't try to excuse the lack of using a #Humboldt. That's like EPRT going off on yet another anti-Trump conversation, in the midst of an anti-Trump conversation, yet never mentioning Trump...and then saying "How did you know I was speaking on my favorite subject? I never used #Trump!"

You misunderstand me, or you misunderstand twitter. Yes, it second in a series of 3-4 posts about the Humbolt gofundme so the topic didn't need to be inferred but without an @ or a #humbolt it would have been only seen by her followers. Nobody else, unless they went looking for it. Apparent she has followers who follow to disagree, and they spread it further with comments and hashtags.

She tried to back her objectionable comments off with the follow-up tweet, again without using #Humboldt....does that mean we can infer she was talking about Syria, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Waco, Katrina, Oklahoma City...you know...those other tragedies that caught national attention and had a huge outpouring of support, sympathy, and donations?

The follow-up tweet seems to have come before there was a substantial response - it was her very next tweet, after all, and she appears to be a very active tweeter. Seem to me that the whole series of tweets were all part of the same thought, not need to be cynical and think the worst of her.

She earlier tweeted about the tragedy of the crash, when the news was breaking. Later she tweeted how awful it was that two boys' were misidentified. Those do not read as cynical, or political; she seems to be someone who just tweets a lot about how she feels about things.

Conversations about equitable treatment can happen, but the moral of this story is to pick your battles. It probably would have died down if she just simply did what she would more than likely demand a comedian do after a joke she found in poor taste - apologize. Tweet, "I meant no disrespect to #Humboldt. I hoped to start a conversation about reactions to other tragedies. However, my comments were poorly timed, poorly worded, and I can see how they can easily be mistaken. I sincerely #apologize for any insult I have caused." That would have helped. The continued reaction to an unknown is that she is not self aware enough to simply do exactly what she would try to tweet shame and advertiser ban others into doing...

I'm glad she did not apologise, because she has nothing to apologise for on this account - a clarification of her intent may have been helpful but it should hardly be necessary. What she said was not offensive, insulting or disrespectful.

What seems to be happening is that some of the same people who mock campus leftist for their triggers and safe spaces are asking that society as a whole be their safe space.


I agree with you, Richard, on the degree that her statement was actually true. That youth makes a difference to your response is hardly a surprise, nor is it something that anyone would rationally think is a problem. Maleness is the opposite - a girls team would have elicited very nearly the same response. Whiteness too - I have no doubt that if it were a multi-ethnic squad the response would have been the same. A team exclusively drawn from a single ethnic minority might have touched fewer nerves but primarily in the same way that a team in a less-played sport would - everyone would still have acknowledged the tragedy but while everyone and his uncle has apparently been on a hockey team bus fewer have made similar trips for bowling or ju-jitsu or some sort of ethnic-specific event.

[alkeli]

I saw her post the day after she posted it, followed by her bragging about all the impressions and attention that it's getting. Later followed by a bit of panic as she was starting to get phone calls and threats. Serves her right.

[GizmoForMayor]

Rebel Media is now trying to use the Humboldt tragedy to sell $5 memberships. Disgusting.

[RichardS]

^Seriously????? FFS...

Edit...I am not familiar with their website...but I can't find this membership drive...

[RichardS]

@HighlanderII

I understand Twitter well. Hashtag or not, people expect to be heard and go viral. Their ads even use the metaphorical bullhorn I referred to...



As for nuance, I hear it and understand it...and if you re-read what I am saying...I am lamenting the lack of understanding nuance when the hypothetical examples (or especially with comedians like Bill Mahar, Jerry Seinfeld, Ricky Gervais, Steve Harvey, Bill Burr) get either misunderstood, taken out of context, or not looking at the content. So, when someone who often does not tolerate nuance...then is all aghast when no one gives them credit for nuance...my patience is nil.

so as for not apologizing, then I would expect you wouldn't be asking for comedians to apologize ad nauseum. While you may think that what she said was not disrespectful, etc., the juxtaposition so close to the event and the content is what people are up in arms about. ...and no amount of attempted explanations will ever convince me that she was not intending to inflame, and intending for an outcry or for someone to grab their bullhorn and retweet her sentiment. She is a writer...and the old adage of "no publicity is bad publicity" still holds true. At best, the vain lack of not putting a hashtag in her tweet is the same as some ***** putting j/k at the end of something she knows is offensive...or pulling an Erkel and saying, " did I do thaaaaaat?"...

[Replacement]

^^ please don't try to vainly excuse it, or poorly try to inject nuance into her actions or thoughts...especially when she has no nuance or excuses when she lavishes the same visceral and over-the-top actions to things she finds offensive...

That you and others are refusing to hear nuance or understand excuses doesn't mean that I have to manufacture them. I'm merely explaining what I read when I look at her tweets without prejudice. It may be that she has been on her best behaviour in the past few days since this blew up but I haven't seen "the same visceral and over-the-top" responses from her.

She didn't have to tag Humboldt...because it was in a direct conversation about the outpouring due to Humboldt. ...and don't try to excuse the lack of using a #Humboldt. That's like EPRT going off on yet another anti-Trump conversation, in the midst of an anti-Trump conversation, yet never mentioning Trump...and then saying "How did you know I was speaking on my favorite subject? I never used #Trump!"

You misunderstand me, or you misunderstand twitter. Yes, it second in a series of 3-4 posts about the Humbolt gofundme so the topic didn't need to be inferred but without an @ or a #humbolt it would have been only seen by her followers. Nobody else, unless they went looking for it. Apparent she has followers who follow to disagree, and they spread it further with comments and hashtags.

She tried to back her objectionable comments off with the follow-up tweet, again without using #Humboldt....does that mean we can infer she was talking about Syria, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Waco, Katrina, Oklahoma City...you know...those other tragedies that caught national attention and had a huge outpouring of support, sympathy, and donations?

The follow-up tweet seems to have come before there was a substantial response - it was her very next tweet, after all, and she appears to be a very active tweeter. Seem to me that the whole series of tweets were all part of the same thought, not need to be cynical and think the worst of her.

She earlier tweeted about the tragedy of the crash, when the news was breaking. Later she tweeted how awful it was that two boys' were misidentified. Those do not read as cynical, or political; she seems to be someone who just tweets a lot about how she feels about things.

Conversations about equitable treatment can happen, but the moral of this story is to pick your battles. It probably would have died down if she just simply did what she would more than likely demand a comedian do after a joke she found in poor taste - apologize. Tweet, "I meant no disrespect to #Humboldt. I hoped to start a conversation about reactions to other tragedies. However, my comments were poorly timed, poorly worded, and I can see how they can easily be mistaken. I sincerely #apologize for any insult I have caused." That would have helped. The continued reaction to an unknown is that she is not self aware enough to simply do exactly what she would try to tweet shame and advertiser ban others into doing...

I'm glad she did not apologise, because she has nothing to apologise for on this account - a clarification of her intent may have been helpful but it should hardly be necessary. What she said was not offensive, insulting or disrespectful.

What seems to be happening is that some of the same people who mock campus leftist for their triggers and safe spaces are asking that society as a whole be their safe space.


I agree with you, Richard, on the degree that her statement was actually true. That youth makes a difference to your response is hardly a surprise, nor is it something that anyone would rationally think is a problem. Maleness is the opposite - a girls team would have elicited very nearly the same response. Whiteness too - I have no doubt that if it were a multi-ethnic squad the response would have been the same. A team exclusively drawn from a single ethnic minority might have touched fewer nerves but primarily in the same way that a team in a less-played sport would - everyone would still have acknowledged the tragedy but while everyone and his uncle has apparently been on a hockey team bus fewer have made similar trips for bowling or ju-jitsu or some sort of ethnic-specific event.

With the proviso that I do not understand how twitter works and have not ever learned how to read twitter trees (the whole format doesn't make sense to me) I don't have the impression that she is behaving or reticent since. Looking at her own tweets this seemed purposely offensive. What I got from her account is an individual with a serial fashion to offend politically and go to an extreme position to tactically garner a reaction, which she got, and then spend time since pointing to the reaction and to label those that disagree with her as the really offensive.

The narrative I got from her account is tactical offending and finger pointing.

Certainly what she stated was offensive, disrespectful. What do you think any parents or family of the deceased think about her posts?

[GizmoForMayor]

^Seriously????? FFS...

Edit...I am not familiar with their website...but I can't find this membership drive...

Hi Richard. Here's the story: https://pressprogress.ca/rebel-media...subscriptions/

[noodle]

https://briarpatchmagazine.com/blog/...vs-nora-loreto

[ralph60]

Classic, post something disgusting to Twitter, then claim victim status because of the response.

[Highlander II]

^Maybe you should clarify what you think is so disgusting and sickening about it.

And then you could also tell us why you don't find that wishing rape on someone for their opinions is disgusting.

[ralph60]

Personally, I find using a tragedy like the bus crash to score political points is disgusting. If you're ok with that, that's totally on you.
As far as the response, I really wonder what she expected.

[Highlander II]

Isn't "using a tragedy to score political points" exactly what you were doing when you started this thread? What was the point other than a chance to tell us how much better of a Canadian you are?

As for the response, if you think this kind of reaction should be expect then you have a lower opinion of the right wing of Canadian society than I do.

[Replacement]

^What nonsense. How are you even equating the two? the OP even stated here "I don't want this to pollute the Humboldt thread" so that show of civility and respect is already granted and considered. Next, the OP merely states what the plurality of reaction has been to the Noreto tweet.

The initiating tweet was offensive, the reaction to it is natural.

Finally you sink to the same judgements Loreto did. You whitewash "right wing Canadian society" on the basis of a few overtly vitriolic responses. Just what she is doing. Most are just dismayed at the Loreto's tweet and question her judgement as a journalist. There is recoil at how an individual raised in society can be so devoid of consideration of others. Or so bereft of common sense.

As often occurs Twitter as a medium is not a recommended conduit of expressing such thoughts anyway and instead seems to be a powderkeg of reactions and misunderstandings. Makes me wonder why people engage. So often, politically, people are held to the junk they write on twitter and for which they should be held accountable.

Finally, in your every post in this thread you are defending Loreto, commenting that she did nothing wrong, and blaming reactions. Even going as far as to state that you don't know why there we be reaction at all or why people care what was said.

[Highlander II]

What's the good of pointing out that one particular woman on the other side of the country said something possibly impolite? It's news now because the doxxing and harassment has become news, but otherwise what is there other than a chance to point out that this leftist is bad and that you're better than that. As much as conservatives love to mock JT for virtue-signalling with his dew-eyed lefty compassion this is pretty much the same thing but with hockey sticks instead of me too posters.

I'm not the one tarring "right wing Canadian society" broad brush; you are when you excuse a reaction that includes death threats, and rape-wishes as "natural". I don't think it is, and I don't think that you should either. The natural, decent response to a wrong idea is to show that it's wrong, and then to ignore it.

Look, there have been, I think, only three people on this thread who have actually addressed what she said, and all have agreed that she is at least mostly wrong. That's what you need to do when someone says something you think is wrong. Don't just call them sick and disgusting.

The other intelligent point that was raised is that if you're so concerned about the families' feelings you shouldn't go spreading the supposedly insensitive statement around including starting threads about it. Maybe those supposed defenders of decency don't give a damn about propriety or feelings other than their own. So yes, I blame the reactions.

Defending Loreto? I guess, but mainly I just want to live in a place where ideas are debated and dismissed on their merits and where a mob -whether louts on the internet or campus activists - can't define what we're allowed to talk about.

A right-leaning special snowflake has as much right to declare a topic off-limits a left wing one does on campus.

Trigger away.

[KC]

“Avoid any specific discussion of public policy at public meetings.” - Quintus Tullius Cicero


Comparing responses to tragedies isn’t the smartest move. This was an opportunity for him to start - rather than refuse. Perpetuating past mistakes is not good policy.

Ontario residents ‘outraged’ after town refuses to lower flag for Humboldt victims | Globalnews.ca


In a blog post Friday, the mayor said that several other nearby towns also did not lower their flags. He also said residents pushing for the flag to be lowered can’t “cherry-pick” tragedies.

“I didn’t see RATPAC [sic] calling for us to lower the flag when a man shot 25 Canadian Muslims in their Quebec mosque in January. Or when police turned up seven bodies of gay men murdered by a serial killer in Toronto. Or for the hundreds of murdered indigenous women,” he wrote.
...”

“You can’t just cherry-pick your misfortunes. You need a policy.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/4146940/m...g-controversy/

[Replacement]

What's the good of pointing out that one particular woman on the other side of the country said something possibly impolite? It's news now because the doxxing and harassment has become news, but otherwise what is there other than a chance to point out that this leftist is bad and that you're better than that. As much as conservatives love to mock JT for virtue-signalling with his dew-eyed lefty compassion this is pretty much the same thing but with hockey sticks instead of me too posters.

I'm not the one tarring "right wing Canadian society" broad brush; you are when you excuse a reaction that includes death threats, and rape-wishes as "natural". I don't think it is, and I don't think that you should either. The natural, decent response to a wrong idea is to show that it's wrong, and then to ignore it.

Look, there have been, I think, only three people on this thread who have actually addressed what she said, and all have agreed that she is at least mostly wrong. That's what you need to do when someone says something you think is wrong. Don't just call them sick and disgusting.

The other intelligent point that was raised is that if you're so concerned about the families' feelings you shouldn't go spreading the supposedly insensitive statement around including starting threads about it. Maybe those supposed defenders of decency don't give a damn about propriety or feelings other than their own. So yes, I blame the reactions.

Defending Loreto? I guess, but mainly I just want to live in a place where ideas are debated and dismissed on their merits and where a mob -whether louts on the internet or campus activists - can't define what we're allowed to talk about.

A right-leaning special snowflake has as much right to declare a topic off-limits a left wing one does on campus.

Trigger away.

What she said wasn't impolite. It was utter trash. It disrespected the suffering of those in Humboldt, trivialized it, mocked it, and tried to made it about skin color, race, privilege etc. It was an abhorrent post and thus the reactions. I know you can understand that but your feet are dug in. Basically what you are trying to do with the above argument is equate any and all reactions or statements to anything. Clearly you can see that there are levels of what are considered indecent comments. There are degrees.

What you are stating (sorry if I got it wrong) is that we should be relativist moderates in response to any and all statements and treat them with patience and kindness while tacitly explaining the wrongdoing while those doing it label us ignorant bigots. Goes two ways.

Is someone simply wrong if they engage in sociopathic statements? Or are they bereft of any of the decency we would like to think is present and furthered in civilized society. With one of our greatest societal mores is to allow people their grieving, to not interfere or belittle the sanctity of that. So that when someone, Loreto, makes a statement like that it defies understanding. My first reaction was honestly "What on Earth could move somebody to state something like that". I paused on the thought of profound mental illness, others figured Psychopathy, I simply landed on Sociopathy. Theres no way an aware, grounded, considerate person could grow up their whole lives in this society and make that nature of statement in type, leave it, stand by it, and without the modicum of decency or common sense to even comprehend their transgression. She still doesn't get it.

Social media now connects the world. Twitter is its townhall. So that when you make such comments online it can get from Quebec to Humboldt in an instant meaning that what did has said has certainly been heard in Humboldt by people already dealing with extremely painful grief. She's a journalist, if anybody should have an understanding about the responsibility of the written word it should be somebody in that vocation.

[Drumbones]

What the hell does the tragedy in Sask have to do with left or right or politics at all. Get over yourselves.

[RichardS]

^Seriously????? FFS...

Edit...I am not familiar with their website...but I can't find this membership drive...

Hi Richard. Here's the story: https://pressprogress.ca/rebel-media...subscriptions/

Thanks....and *facepalm*....

[RichardS]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...cid=spartanntp

Another one goes off...on Barbra Bush.

She's actually being honest and relishing in the backlash, almost welcoming the onslaught.

Although something was interesting...

At a news conference Wednesday, Fresno State Provost Lynnette Zelezny said the university had put in place “additional security,” a common action, she said, “when we feel that there’s a spotlight on us.”

Fresno State originally responded to the controversy with a statement by Castro that said Jarrar’s words were “obviously contrary to the core values of our University” but that they “were made as a private citizen.”

On Wednesday, on talk-radio station KMJ, the university president told host Ray Appleton: “I want all of your listeners to know that I condemn the tone, substance and timing of Dr. Jarrar’s comments on Twitter last night. I want that to be unambiguous. And how do I feel? I was shocked, upset, appalled just like everybody else.”

Zeleny, the provost, called Jarrar’s comments “deeply disrespectful” and said the school’s administration is taking the matter “very seriously,” KMJ reported.

..so we hear of extra security on both sides when people say controversial things. This article states that it is often a part of the SOP to protect both the personality and the assets...

Also, there is a desire here to make the comments from a "private citizen", but then this "private citizen" often represents the organization...hence why the "fire him/her" hoard wants your job when you say something disrespectful...and they often get it. Yet, here, she openly chides that she cannot be fired...nana nana na.

Source is the Washington Post via MSN

[Highlander II]

Wow, that one really is disturbing. Beyond disrespectful.

[KC]

Barbara Bush May have been a racist, or a snob, or subject to some firm of stereotyping the underprivileged (based on my read of the Katrina comment).

However this person seems at points to be blaming the unelected spouse/mother for decisions that were not hers. If Barbara Bush had a say in the decisions that this tweeter considers war crimes then I’d say it’s fair to lump her in with the son. If not, then in my mind doing so, stereotyping someone because of their skin colour, religion, culture, language, or in this case; family ties, is no different than being racist. Isn’t negatively characterizing a group of people according to ones views if a few being racist?

"I'm happy the witch is dead. can't wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have." - Jarrar



Note that I may be taking her comments out of context.