Just wanted to provide a link to my comments in the Annapolis Patch earlier this month. I don't think it's my best writing, but the content is solid.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Revenge Advocacy
As my family knows, and my friends (both real-world and online) know, I am a fairly vocal advocate and activist for pit bull-type dogs. This involves participating in the political process when any sort of canine legislation is proposed, either good or bad, writing articles and blog posts about these types of dogs, and engaging in probably the most simultaneously frustrating and rewarding part of advocacy: commenting online.
Commenting on news articles or blog posts is an odd activity. On the one hand, it presents a unique opportunity to voice support or opposition to the writer's view, and to present evidence for that supporting or opposing argument. In this way, it's rewarding because it forces me to research my position, to identify weak points in my argument and either adjust the argument accordingly or realize that no adjustment can strengthen those weak points so that they help the argument be more persuasive. And it's obviously rewarding to be able to prove a point at all - that is, to understand a given issue so thoroughly that I can feel confident in what I understand to be the truth.
The frustration of commenting comes from the people with whom I must interact. While venom is delivered by both sides in this fight - both "pit bull" advocates and those who oppose them, I have come to expect significantly greater anger and violence from those who believe pit bull-type dogs to be dangerous animals. In some cases, feeling angry and bitter makes sense; if a person or someone they love is attacked by a dog, pit bull or otherwise, and especially if the attack occurred recently, anger, bitterness and a longing for some kind of justice are inevitable. I can respect the latter emotion (longing for justice) when it is exercised in a sober manner: with an understanding that dangerous dogs are an issue that is relevant to everyone, and that all dogs are potentially dangerous, given the wrong stimuli or conditions. I can't respect those who allow anger and bitterness to reign their thoughts, however; and this is what I see most often in those opposed to pit bull-type dogs.
There is a kind of "meanness" inherent to these people, in every sense of that word. And often a kind of savagery of both thought and speech. This is obviously not unique to conversations about dogs - it most commonly manifests itself in political discussions. Political discussions rarely, however, veer into the overt violence and brutality that discussions about animals can.
Once I had been commenting online for a while, it started to become clear why this was the case. It was actually pretty obvious, but it took some time to understand.
Essentially, pit bull advocates must by nature be compassionate. In general, we are advocating on behalf of animals for whom we feel great affection. Many "pit bull people" I know are also animal lovers in a more general sense, and many are involved in rescue activities for many breeds of dogs, cats or other animals. The core of the pit bull advocate is compassion; savagery and violence are anathema to us.
By contrast, there is no "type" which describes those who oppose pit bull-type dogs. As I mentioned above, they may find themselves advocates of breed-specific legislation or even breed destruction because of a traumatic experience with these dogs. Or they may fall into it because they see it as "the right thing to do," feeling that, based on news reports and Internet anecdotes, these animals are intrinsically dangerous and destructive. Whatever the case, the most vocal opponents of pit bull-type dogs are often the crudest and present the most vivid images - both verbal and visual - of bloodied children and savagely mutilated dogs. Their advocacy is of a dark and pessimistic variety, beginning with the blood of victims and ending in the death and torment of animals.
Never moving beyond victimhood is an unhealthy state of existence. Attempting to affect social or legal change through victimhood is inevitably bound to lead to this sort of dark advocacy intent on revenge rather than justice. Revenge advocacy cannot produce positive results, either legally or socially, because revenge is blind to the nuances of individual action and the subtlety of individual behavior. Unfortunately, those who advocate in favor of banning or destroying specific breeds of dogs are strongly bound to this victim state, and when this advocacy prevails - say, by successfully enacting breed-discriminatory legislation - the resulting law reflects this flawed philosophy. Revenge advocacy packaged as breed-specific law legitimizes and excuses cruelty and ignorance. It is the responsibility of victims advocates to rise above their tragedy and use their experience to foster positive change that benefits everyone, not change that slakes a single individual's thirst for blood.
Commenting on news articles or blog posts is an odd activity. On the one hand, it presents a unique opportunity to voice support or opposition to the writer's view, and to present evidence for that supporting or opposing argument. In this way, it's rewarding because it forces me to research my position, to identify weak points in my argument and either adjust the argument accordingly or realize that no adjustment can strengthen those weak points so that they help the argument be more persuasive. And it's obviously rewarding to be able to prove a point at all - that is, to understand a given issue so thoroughly that I can feel confident in what I understand to be the truth.
The frustration of commenting comes from the people with whom I must interact. While venom is delivered by both sides in this fight - both "pit bull" advocates and those who oppose them, I have come to expect significantly greater anger and violence from those who believe pit bull-type dogs to be dangerous animals. In some cases, feeling angry and bitter makes sense; if a person or someone they love is attacked by a dog, pit bull or otherwise, and especially if the attack occurred recently, anger, bitterness and a longing for some kind of justice are inevitable. I can respect the latter emotion (longing for justice) when it is exercised in a sober manner: with an understanding that dangerous dogs are an issue that is relevant to everyone, and that all dogs are potentially dangerous, given the wrong stimuli or conditions. I can't respect those who allow anger and bitterness to reign their thoughts, however; and this is what I see most often in those opposed to pit bull-type dogs.
There is a kind of "meanness" inherent to these people, in every sense of that word. And often a kind of savagery of both thought and speech. This is obviously not unique to conversations about dogs - it most commonly manifests itself in political discussions. Political discussions rarely, however, veer into the overt violence and brutality that discussions about animals can.
Once I had been commenting online for a while, it started to become clear why this was the case. It was actually pretty obvious, but it took some time to understand.
Essentially, pit bull advocates must by nature be compassionate. In general, we are advocating on behalf of animals for whom we feel great affection. Many "pit bull people" I know are also animal lovers in a more general sense, and many are involved in rescue activities for many breeds of dogs, cats or other animals. The core of the pit bull advocate is compassion; savagery and violence are anathema to us.
By contrast, there is no "type" which describes those who oppose pit bull-type dogs. As I mentioned above, they may find themselves advocates of breed-specific legislation or even breed destruction because of a traumatic experience with these dogs. Or they may fall into it because they see it as "the right thing to do," feeling that, based on news reports and Internet anecdotes, these animals are intrinsically dangerous and destructive. Whatever the case, the most vocal opponents of pit bull-type dogs are often the crudest and present the most vivid images - both verbal and visual - of bloodied children and savagely mutilated dogs. Their advocacy is of a dark and pessimistic variety, beginning with the blood of victims and ending in the death and torment of animals.
Never moving beyond victimhood is an unhealthy state of existence. Attempting to affect social or legal change through victimhood is inevitably bound to lead to this sort of dark advocacy intent on revenge rather than justice. Revenge advocacy cannot produce positive results, either legally or socially, because revenge is blind to the nuances of individual action and the subtlety of individual behavior. Unfortunately, those who advocate in favor of banning or destroying specific breeds of dogs are strongly bound to this victim state, and when this advocacy prevails - say, by successfully enacting breed-discriminatory legislation - the resulting law reflects this flawed philosophy. Revenge advocacy packaged as breed-specific law legitimizes and excuses cruelty and ignorance. It is the responsibility of victims advocates to rise above their tragedy and use their experience to foster positive change that benefits everyone, not change that slakes a single individual's thirst for blood.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
New Blog
This is my first post for my new blog. I will be posting (hopefully somewhat) regularly about pit bull-type dogs and pit bull advocacy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)