Hello, dear readers!
We have received a complaint that this story is ageist, and that including the age of the rude customer is akin to unnecessarily mentioning someone’s gender or ethnicity. As editors, and also as humans, we make mistakes so we definitely want to always be learning and improving with regards to the stories we share and provide a platform to.
The editors chose to keep the OP’s original mention of the rude customer’s age in so that the customer’s line “Tell me you haven’t been job-hunting since 1960 without telling me you haven’t been job-hunting since 1960, am I right? Thanks, hun! I just wanted this bottle before, but now I need it!” contains some context with regard to the generation gaps and their overall different mentality to the workplace. While this is an overgeneralization, we felt it was required for the story, so the editors chose to keep it in.
Were we wrong in this regard? Is the overgeneralization about generation gaps not integral to the story at hand?
We’d love to hear from you on this topic.
I can’t see any issue with what was posted. I also can’t see anything on there where the OP indicates the age of the older customer, other than describing them as an “older customer”
Everything that the two customers say is relevant to the story; OP is reporting what was said. It is then left to everyone to draw their own conclusion as to who was in the wrong (and I think it’s fairly unanimous in that regard).
I’d be curious to know why whoever it was complained; hopefully they come along and put their case forward. Like you, I want to learn.
If the story didn’t directly describe the customer as older I would have inferred that from the “Tell me you haven’t been job-hunting since 1960” comment anyway. I don’t think it was a 100% necessary inclusion but I can’t see how it could be construed as offensive if they didn’t take offence from the joke it set up. As always with these things, an explanation would be helpful.
I’m also curious how someone considers this ageist just because the offender’s age is mentioned; it’s not like OP says “as typical for such old geezers” or anything.
I’m thinking it was reported by someone of a similar age to the older customer who is offended that the first customer mentioned things have changed since 1960. Taking things a bit too personally.
Someone in the comments complained about the title. Not all boomers are happy with the stereotypes their generation has accumulated. I think the story is fine and the title is fine, but I bet that the complaint is more about the title than the story.
I think it comes down to what the site is. You guys dont make up the stories you present submissions. So sure you can put in [slur] rather than actually spelling it out when someone is going on a racist rant but generally my inclination is to present thr story as submitted.
OP presented the story in a way to imply age was a factor. Wether it was or not can be debated in the comments. But I dont think its on you guys to try and sanitize submissions so as not to offend anyone. Just show what OP submitted and if OP was a jerk the comments will point that out.
I wonder if the same person will also complain about this new story being ageist…
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.