The hate-filled anti-hate folks in Maskachusetts

Shortly after landing in Maskachusetts last month, I posted the following on the Book of Face:

Note that I said nothing about the photo other than that it was taken at Boston’s Logan Airport in early January. Any inferences about the photo or the individual would therefore have to come from the minds of commenters. Here are some of the exchanges with the righteous:

  • anti-hater: Did you ask to take, and then (publicly?!) post, this person’s photo? Since they would be recognizable from this image, I feel very uncomfortable about this post. I’m also wondering what else you are “communicating” by posting this particular photo.
  • me: Thanks for the welcome! In keeping with its reputation as an artistic backwater, Boston does not have a rich tradition of street photography, which is more associated with New York (Helen Levitt; Garry Winogrand), Chicago (Vivian Maier) and Paris (the pioneers, such as Atget). However, the smartphone has democratized this genre and asking permission from each subject isn’t conventional.
  • (anti-hater): interesting. So you’re an aspiring street photographer, and this image is an artistic expression that you feel doesn’t merit consent? Would it be fine for someone to take a picture of your children and post publicly when their interpretive intent seems to be weaponization of an apparent part of your kids’ appearance or other aspect of their identity? C’mon, please entertain embracing more human kindness and general consideration of others than all of this suggests. Especially now that you’ve returned north.
  • me: also, if a photo makes you uncomfortable then it might be art: “Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable” (various attributions; Cesar A. Cruz is a common one)
  • (anti-hater): sure, but I wonder how comfortable this particular person might be if Philip is outing them in some way they are unaware of. Also, my sense is this post is to poke fun of — not honor or celebrate — freedom of expression. I might be wrong, I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.
  • (Trump-hating, Biden-loving Manhattan immigration profiteer weighing in): I call bullshit. You took and posted this photo for one reason: to make fun. If this is your art, I’d say it needs work.
  • (Pennsylvania Deplorable): You have yourself a complete makeover! The new you has returned to Boston! Impressive.
  • (anti-hater): ✨ Allyship and advocacy ✨ for the lgbtq+ community (anonymous or otherwise) matters, in more life-significant ways than I gather many of the folks commenting here might be aware.
    Please, embrace learning:
    Since I have reason to strongly question Philip’s “artistic intent,” below are Philip’s public blog-thoughts on a recent local MA Pride event — and I’ll add, the town’s inaugural Pride celebration, initiated and organized by its middle schoolers ( 🌈 Amazing, right!?! 🏳️‍⚧️ )…/official-lincoln…/ [a pro-2SLGBTQQIA+ post, in my opinion!]
    !! Importantly for contextualizing my concern about the initial photo on thjs post: “LGBTQ youth are not inherently prone to suicide risk because of their sexual orientation or gender identity but rather placed at higher risk because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized in society.”
  • (Florida pilot, formerly of the Boston suburbs): This is a nice gentle reminder of why I relocated.

To the extent that any negative inferences were made about the photo or individual by the anti-haters, doesn’t that show that they, in fact, are intolerant of the lifestyle that they imagine this individual to be leading?

19 thoughts on “The hate-filled anti-hate folks in Maskachusetts

  1. Brilliant!
    I suppose this person is inappropriately dressed as they just came from Florida?
    (I can’t understand how anyone can wear shorts in the winter, but then I have poor circulation in my feet…)

  2. > they, in fact, are intolerant of the lifestyle
    > that they imagine this individual to be leading?

    There’s no way to tell for sure I suppose but it’s a reasonable hypothesis. A vaguely similar case is the renaming of “monkeypox” to avoid “racist and stigmatizing” language. Apparently, non-white people remind senior WHO officials of monkeys. Or maybe the converse.

    The Woke mind is certainly a mysterious place. Another great example is a recent report on an oppressed woman. She’s quoted as saying “I don’t feel like a victim – all of the choices I made were of my [own] free will.” Which is regarded as entirely consistent with her victimhood status: “She is now helping prosecutors with their investigation.” No doubt an inability to understand that would be a sign of misogyny.

  3. Never figured out what gender that was. It’s always a great day when Greenspun returns to the fatherland.

  4. So this “anti-hater” is telling you to be sensitive about what you say and post (i.e.: this picture) because it could hurt the feeling of someone but the same “anti-hater” wants to display the Rainbow flag in public schools and government buildings not thinking that it could hurt the feeling of someone who may find it offensive?!

    It’s the woke way or the highway I guess.

  5. N*****r what?

    [Bowdlerized by Philip to avoid the site being banned by Google and other righteous.]

    • [list of words certain to result in shadow-banning by Google] A list of forbidden words placed in the comment moderation section might be useful. If you choose to bowdlerize any of the above slurs I will self bowdlerize them moving forward.

  6. “Dr” Phil’s culture war commentary is boring. TLDR.

    You’re offended that they’re offended… They’re offended that you’re offended… Blah blah blah. They are woke, you are anti-woke. Just be sure to walk around with your chest puffed out, all proud of yourself.

    Your holiness, the orange man, defined “woke” in a recent lawsuit as acknowledging that certain demographics have been disadvantaged in the past. Hard to argue against that premise — but somehow you and your ilk do.

  7. I wrote a relatively long post, screwed up and deleted it by accident. Here’s my take: there’s nothing wrong with the photo. It’s an airport! People take pictures, coming and going. I do think our subject here would have been better served and more comfortable given the weather with a nice pair of sweatpants and some comfortable sneakers, though.

    Nor did I think the photo was funny. It’s a picture of a somewhat under-dressed traveler in an airport.

  8. “anti-hater” studied at Moscow State University. How do we know she is not an agent working for Putin himself?

  9. You could post a picture frame with no picture in it and “some people” would find a way to argue with you about it. I’ve become very adept at being reactionless to comments like these. In fact, in most cases, I don’t read comments to posts at all because I expect this sort of justice warrior, woke BS and refuse to waste any of my time on it. I would suggest others follow suit.

  10. Do what you like (within the law) but I find it lacks taste and class. (That’s different from being a hater.)

    • Are you assuming “it’s” gender? Maybe he identifies as a woman.
      People are allowed to dress and coif themselves however they want. And other people are allowed to point their fingers at them and laugh whether it’s Francis Bacon, Marilyn Manson, or some random hipster at the airport.

  11. In a quiz that asks you to choose between AI and human generated pictures, I’d suspect that the background is AI generated.

  12. On the plus side, Boston’s airport comes out better than Chicagos’s. (I love the official response: “Safety, security and an optimal passenger experience is [sic] top priority…”)

Comments are closed.