The Canadian Shield

This month I want to respond to some of my critics.

A few months ago I was configuring a computer and realized that I needed a video card. Wanting to get one as quickly as possible, I traveled to the nearest store, a major chain store, trotted to the computer section and asked the salesman for their cheapest video card.

"What video standard do you want?" he asked

"I'm in a hurry. I'm setting up a Linux server and I need a cheap video card. I don't care what kind it is."

He rolled his eyes at me. "Sir, I cannot recommend the best video card for your computer if you cannot tell me what standard you are using."

The guy had me stumped. I thought this was an easy, straight-forward sale. "Look, " I said. "I know you're a salesman working in the computer department with no knowledge of computers. I don't want to hear your memorized sales spiel with words and concepts you don't understand. All I want is your cheapest PCI-E video card. What part of that is so complicated for you?"

"Sir, " he said with exaggerated slowness, "I am a trained professional. PCI-E is not a video standard: this does not tell me what card to recommend to you."

How clueless was this guy? There were cheaper stores in the area. "I don't care what your 'recommendation' is." It look me what seemed like 5 minutes to get a video card from him. I regretted making the trip.

Now, what is the best way to convey this story in an Internet column? Is it OK to name the salesman? Is it OK to name the store, especially if it's a publically traded national chain? Is it OK to name the location of the store? Do I need to carry a recorder when I go shopping to prove that these events occurred?

In Canadian law, something written is illegal if it (a) is false; (b) identifies someone, and (c) causes damage. All three are required. So, in the case of the story above: (a) it is true, (b) it doesn't identify the store or person, and (c) I made no claim that this happens at every store in the franchise nor did it cause any measurable harm to their company. (There is also the legal idea of "fair comment".) Although I make no claim of being a lawyer, I'm reasonably certain that, even if I named the store, the story is safe (from a legal standpoint) to put in my web column. And if it is a national brand that many people know, the subject is worthy of public debate.

However, not everyone agrees that such stories should be shared or the implications discussed (as I'm doing right now). I've written many articles this year talking about hidden costs such as cheating in universities, bad interview testing, collection agencies and workplace rudeness. No matter how you approach such subjects, you run the risk of offending someone...even if it is because you brought the subject up.

This is a long-standing area of contention between myself and some acquaintances of mine. They could be called "gun shy" or "brittle" (as Scott Adams describes Tina the technical writer in the Dilbert comic strip). This means that they are people who overreact to everything and are afraid of a disaster around every corner. They look at the worst in everything and everybody. In Dilbert strip, someone says to Tina that "Venus Di Milo has no arms." She responds angrily saying that they really mean that women can't lift heavy objects.

Their opinion about my column is simple: "If you cannot say anything nice, don't say anything at all. You might offend someone."

No matter how "nice" you are, no matter how inoffensive you attempt to be, no matter how positive your article, there are people who will may not be happy about it. American cartoonist Charles Shultz, in his book "Peanuts: A Golden Collection", includes several letters from readers complaining about cartoons that Shultz believed were utterly harmless, while at the same time he is amazed that some of his more opinionated and controversial works received in no complaints at all.

Canadians, in particular, have a long history of trying to be as inoffensive as possible. An American friend of mine believes that this is the result of living so close to the United States. "When a mouse sleeps next to an elephant," he says, "the mouse worries every time the elephant moves in his sleep." Perhaps this uneasy existence with its southern neighbour is the source of Canada's reputation for being being slow to stand up for itself and fast to cover up controversy.

There have been many critics of Canadian culture that have spoken out against its desire to be inoffensive. These include such diverse Canadians as CTS talk show host Michael Coren, author William Gairdner and Andrew Moodie, the host of TV Ontario's "Big Ideas" lecture show. As I recall, Moodie once described Canada's relationship with the United States in this way. Canada is the sensible little sister who tries to please everyone and does what she should, who marries a boring husband but doesn't complain. Meanwhile the United States is the rebellious big sister who often stays out too late and wears the wrong clothes. She does the wrong thing but people love her spirit and envy her uninhibited ways.

Niceness is not a virtue. Niceness can be about greed, selfishness and irresponsibility. It can be about avoiding opposition or conflict to protect oneself at the expense of family, friends, a company or organization. It can be nastiness in the guise of niceness, sliminess underneath slickness, a deception of motives.

To be truly nice means to stand up when it is not easy, testify for the greater good, being willing to dialogue with ones' enemy, talking to achieve conflict resolution and to stand up and become a target for the sake of a friend, even if you're opposition is from the friend.

On my recent posts about Google's hiring process, a critic responded, "You said that Google could improve it's hiring practices! Someone at Google might be offended! Now Google will never hire you!"

Don't tell a company about a better way to do things because then they won't hire you. Man, how Canadian is that?

I think what the critic was really saying was that it was OK for corporations to be offensive to individuals, but not individuals to corporations. That it's OK for the chain store to be offended about my story but not for me to be offended about how hard it was to get a simple video card.

I'd prefer to take my example of different "friends": Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandella, Jesus Christ, and others like them. These are people that stood up and talked about how build a better world and they didn't let the fear of opposition, fear of losing their careers--or even fear for their lives--stop debate on the issues. And they did it because it was necessary.

Canadians too often live to avoid emotional pain instead of asking what things are worth suffering that pain for.

Of course, I'm not advocating acting without cause or careful investigation, nor am I advocating violence, threats or gossip of any kind. However, I've seen this attitude far too often, even in news agencies, religious and charity organizations that are supposed to be about speaking up and improving the world. It seems to me that to speak up is a privilege and a responsibility. The shielding of Canadian hearts means giving up the power of your life into the hands of others, to live a life without meaning and to die forgotten and having accomplished nothing to better the world. Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and, yet, too often it hides itself under a rock. That kind of inoffensiveness comes at too high a price.

I have long held the view that people need to stop acting as victims and start living as if life was an opportunity, as I discuss in Big Online Book of Making a Linux Startup. Indeed, I'm afraid that history will look back at this generation of Canadians and say, "They went to work, looked after themselves, talked about nothing, stood up for nothing, attempted nothing and achieved nothing. An entirely forgettable people."

The store was Best Buy.

December 9, 2007