Editorial: Snow story gets cold shoulder from haters
Share this post:
TribLive shared a story Sunday about kids getting a chance to try something out of the box for them. Children from Pittsburgh were getting an opportunity to try an outdoor activity. They were learning to ski and snowboard.
This isn’t a controversial topic.
We know controversy. We see it all the time. It lives in schools and courthouses. It runs through elections and building projects. It is frequently political, but not always. It is sometimes grounded in too little information and sometimes born of differing viewpoints.
But it rarely involves a feel-good story about kids playing in the snow.
Until Sunday.
The story was about 45 children and young adults in a program from the Outdoor Inclusion Coalition. That’s a nonprofit built on finding ways to get people of color in Pittsburgh into the kind of recreation that flourishes in Pennsylvania — and which many Black and Latino communities seldom experience.
Related:
You can see that limit reflected on the slopes. National Ski Areas Association puts the amount of Black or Latino snow sports participants at just 7% of the overall.
This is about opening opportunities for fun and healthy activity. It’s about enjoying the things the Keystone State has to offer. It also should be noted that it introduces these young people to recreation that could become a career. Outdoor activities are a $14 billion activity in Pennsylvania. In 2021, it accounted for 150,000 jobs.
But some people read it with the idea that what is given to one person is taken from another.
“Hello just read the article on the some children getting free clothing, lessons and trans(portation) to Seven Springs and wonder why all poorer children aren’t getting same advantage,” someone wrote.
“All races of economic poor circumstances should be included. As a child, we could never afford to ski. Same now. Skiing is for the rich,” wrote another.
These do point to an obvious financial hurdle to the sports. That’s a valid point but still doesn’t negate the value of exposing Black kids to a fun day on the slopes.
Other responses didn’t touch the classist take. They jumped feet first into ugliness and hatred, attacking not just the idea but the reporter.
“What (expletive) racist trash to write (expletive),” for example, pulls no punches. It’s worth mentioning that was only the subject of the email and included no actual message. The vile venting was the point, not questions or substantive commentary.
Controversy can be like that. It’s seen in some of the most hot-button topics. There are real questions and definite issues to address concerning things such as education, health care and the rights of disenfranchised groups. Those questions are not always rooted in the mud of hate. They can come from genuine concern or underappreciated perspectives.
But the louder and uglier the rhetoric, the more blatant it becomes that someone isn’t disagreeing. They aren’t offering a different viewpoint. They aren’t part of a debate. They are just throwing rocks and hoping to hit something.