|
Gonzo McFee posted:I like how in that passage he doesn't use the phrase "blackface" but rather "makeup",nor did he mention the pineapple on his head. He also said he apologised which he didn't. For anyone who never saw it: Baddiel taking the p out of footballer Jason Lee which led to much abuse of Lee.  36: I remember my 36th birthday at a pub near work.. There was chaos. The head of IT got very drunk and crashed his car in the staff parking lot, another guy went home very drunk had a big row with his wife and they got divorced, I passed out in the ladies' and my friend went upstairs screaming 'she's dead, she's dead' and a barperson revived me and got a taxi for us and hustled us out the back door... memories eh! Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Feb 7, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
I didnt expect Baddiel to just come out and say being left wing and Jewish is antisemitic. https://twitter.com/TKispeter/status/1358242701649534979?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
I was just off to bed when: https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1357368509135810561?s=20 In the comments, one of the Freds says he was travelling alone which is not apparent from the RSF tweet. Also in the comments, apparently BA deleted their tweet. (It is suggested in the comments that it is a bot that posted the 'glad it all went ok' tweet probably picking up on the praise for BA in the RSF tweet.) Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Sorry to keep going on about this but David loving Cameron dropped an anti Jewish slur right in front of him and Baddiel describes him as "Progressive". https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1357706636874424320?s=19 No scandal, no big deal, just a passing comment where the former Tory Prime Minister is now a progressive ether despite or in light of being casually antisemitic. I don't believe David Baddiel is the man to write a book about any racial issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:For anyone who never saw it: Baddiel taking the p out of footballer Jason Lee which led to much abuse of Lee. 1) What Baddiel did with the blackface is not OK. 2) I'm sure Jason Lee did recieve hatefully motivated racial abuse. 3) Baddiel probably contributed to that abuse, both in terms of severity and amount. But to quote chanting 'He's got a pineapple on his head' as an example of abuse says more about how little the person writing this understands football / lad culture. Again, I am sure Lee did endure horrible racist abuse, and that the abuse was exacerbated by a national TV show punching down like that. But it's the nature of football crowds to rib players, and I feel like the energy coming off the pineapple chants specifically is more the affectionate ribbing kind. Like blokes taking the piss out of each other down the pub. But why not quote a more severe, understandable example of the abuse? I guess the pineapple aspect conclusively links it to Baddiel. And to us, there is a definite argument that it's racist, it's punching down, it's toxic masculinity and exclusionary etc. I just don't think that the crowds doing it were motivated by hatred in the same way chelsea fans making monkey chants are. I think it is still an ignorant kind of racism, just not a hateful one. I can't quite reconcile it, like the extreme tumblr takes like 'my parents made me hug their friends and that's abuse actually.' I mean yes, in the case of a child with unrecognised physical or emotional sensitivity it would feel like harm; but I doubt that the parents were motivated by the kind of malice that the term 'abuse' implies in common parlance. But I also feel like I'm probably wrong for thinking that, and I need help filling in the gaps in the argument. So I expose my poo poo thoughts to the thread to see if I can get help not having poo poo thoughts. I would quite like to not have poo poo thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
Does the intent matter compared to the effect? It is possible to do harm without intending it, and while you can either elect to make a variety of moral arguments about it, at the end of the day, you still want the effect to not happen, and that means changing the behaviour. Yes, there is a form of mockery that is "accepted" and some people perhaps do not find it objectionable, but just because they do not does not mean the subjects of the mockery feel likewise, at all times. So the question becomes, is it more important to preserve that activity, or to avoid the possible consequences. Why is that activity important enough to excuse the times when it causes harm? That is up to you to decide but there is a reason I don't do bantz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 06:03
|
|
|
do you really think football fans would do that? chant racist abuse at a minority player?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
actually, the football fans were deploying irony in an attempt to denature the racist chant of its racism, proving themselves the real allies in the fight against racism
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
what could a particular hairstyle have to do with someone's race? everyone has the same kind of hair as me, don't they?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
I guess my question is why care so much about trying to extract the pineapple part from the blackface part, even if there's some truth to what you're saying? I don't think there, because black people's hair is intensely racialized (cf. "Stroppy teenager of colour" incident), but even if so, okay, it would reduce the intent behind one part of it and leave the rest intact. It actually ties in nicely with the tumblr hugging question as well, in that yes I would also say "abuse" would be a hyperbolic word to use there, but teaching children they have autonomy and the right to set boundaries is a very good policy, doing the opposite is bad, and treating children as not actually being people is likewise bad. So why get hung up because some teenagers on tunglr dot edu get overzealous in making a correct argument? Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
On the NHS stuff, there's also been the fact the government has realised they can't order the NHS around in a pandemic nearly as much as they like and they want more control to fix that problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 09:45
|
|
|
On an unrelated note, this popped up in my Google feed (bolding mine). quote:A council had “no regard for its responsibilities” to uphold a woman’s right to private life… when it entered her home without the legal basis to do so following safeguarding concerns, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found. TL:DR version: social care staff are notified of safeguarding concerns regarding a vulnerable woman's son. They discuss these, agree that they should talk to the woman about them without her son being present. They visit the woman, letting themselves into her flat to do so, and the woman's son then complains to the Ombudsman that they caused his mother significant distress. There's more detail in the article, but while I can see where the Ombudsman is coming from, this seems like it fucks with the ability of social workers to actually safeguard vulnerable adults. Does this woman's human right to be left alone in her home outweigh the legal requirement for social care staff to investigate safeguarding concerns? The whole thing seems really loving grim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:12
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I didnt expect Baddiel to just come out and say being left wing and Jewish is antisemitic. No, he's saying that left wing Jews are apostates, which is much worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:19
|
|
|
What do you mean by "understandable"? Understandable to who? Those on the receiving end or those who wouldn't be the target of it in the first place? So much bigotry is propagated under the belief that it's just a joke and that those who are personally targeted by it and offended are humourless Ash Crimson fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Are you saying I'm wearing a tinfoil hat? Things don't normally disappear from the webarchive as I use it quite a lot. Are you talking about archive.org wayback machine? If so unless there is some other page this one still has >100 snapshots from june 2020. Their homepage wasn't saved in that time which seems odd but was there anything offensive on that page as well? I'm hoping you just made a mistake as I don't think the internet archive would do like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:46
|
|
|
I had a long conversation with my girlfriend about the word ‘oval office’ as she doesn’t like me using it. Her argument is that the word is inherently misogynistic and through using it objectifies women and supports a sexist culture. My opinion is that I don’t use the word to refer directly to female genitals, just as when I say poo poo I’m not referring to faeces or if I say loving I’m not referring to the act of sex – and that oval office is used and has a different meaning in the UK than other places (she speaks English as a second language and is from Europe) Most of the times I’ve heard it recently has been from women (‘Keir Starmer is a useless oval office’), though she also finds this offensive and the women using it don’t know the damage they are doing to all women by saying oval office. She compared it to using racial slurs, which I think are different as they are only intended to cause harm/offence rather than the versatility of oval office. Though in this conversation I felt a bit like a free speech weirdo, I still don’t feel entirely convinced, yet I obviously don’t want to be sexist (or cowardly not use it around her but continue using it elsewhere). I think the context and intent matters with all swearing – and I’d never call a woman a oval office – and there’s plenty of words I wouldn’t use, so I’m not sure where I sit with it really. From the few articles and papers I’ve read it there seems to be too diverse an opinion, though from my personal experience (in Northern England) oval office isn’t used in that way. Personally I find tits and fanny to be more degrading so don’t say them, but should I stop using oval office too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:46
|
|
|
justcola posted:I had a long conversation with my girlfriend about the word ‘oval office’ as she doesn’t like me using it. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:49
|
|
|
Is the whole of Baddiels book just him saying 'I think [some shite]'? Like, has he done any research or interviews or anything, or is it just 'I am famous and successful, therefore whatever thoughts I put to paper are good and worth publishing'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:49
|
|
|
it's super regionalized - in the US and Canada it quite literally is considered as offensive as a racial slur to some people - certainly as taboo in polite society. if you called someone at work a "bitch" in a work enviroment HR would likely get involved, if you called someone a "oval office" you're probably looking at a pink slip. it's just one of those language things - words have different contexts. i would guess with the continuation of NA internet hegemony this consensus will likely spread but who's to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:53
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:For anyone who never saw it: Baddiel taking the p out of footballer Jason Lee which led to much abuse of Lee. i kept seeing reference to the Jason Lee picture and thought it was something to do with the guy from my name is earl
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 10:59
|
|
|
Inexplicable Humblebrag posted:i kept seeing reference to the Jason Lee picture and thought it was something to do with the guy from my name is earl I thought it was funny when I was 12, but unlike David "poopoo" Baddiel, I have matured since then
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:02
|
|
|
but like, and this is more Discoursey, you get into some really sticky questions quite quickly- if there are two groups of people, and a term or behaviour is deeply offensive to one group but not the other is that a meaningful distinction - does the first group have an obligation to meet the social expectations of the second? can a specific usage and context be divorced from unfortunate baggage in this way, and if we say it can't does that have implications as regards cultural imperialism? is it ethical for the offended group to demand or even support another adopt their standard in this way? complicated questions with non-obvious solutions
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:09
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I would quite like to not have poo poo thoughts. I get where your line of thinking is coming from. I think you should read stuff about black hair. There's a lot of writing about black hair out there. Don't Touch My Hair by Emma Dabiri is a very interesting book, although it's primarily about black women's hair its also an overview
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:but like, and this is more Discoursey, you get into some really sticky questions quite quickly- if there are two groups of people, and a term or behaviour is deeply offensive to one group but not the other is that a meaningful distinction - does the first group have an obligation to meet the social expectations of the second? can a specific usage and context be divorced from unfortunate baggage in this way, and if we say it can't does that have implications as regards cultural imperialism? is it ethical for the offended group to demand or even support another adopt their standard in this way? Depends on power relations. If someone asks me not to use "landlord" because it's offensive to them, well they can suck me off tbh. But if someone is part of a group that has experienced targeted abuse via a specific word, then it's reasonable for them to ask you not to be a oval office. Groups are also not monolithic and one person's preference may or may not transfer to their whole group - this is exactly the kind of racialised thinking we're trying to expunge after all The use-mention distinction is an important one imo though, intent should always matter even if I can understand that it's not always sufficiently mitigating
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:20
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:but like, and this is more Discoursey, you get into some really sticky questions quite quickly- if there are two groups of people, and a term or behaviour is deeply offensive to one group but not the other is that a meaningful distinction - does the first group have an obligation to meet the social expectations of the second? can a specific usage and context be divorced from unfortunate baggage in this way, and if we say it can't does that have implications as regards cultural imperialism? is it ethical for the offended group to demand or even support another adopt their standard in this way? Generally I'd say the oppressed group should be listened to, language matters and it doesn't take much effort to stop using words if all they do is cause harm. There's also big regional variance - 'retard' seems to be used more easily in the USA whilst in the UK I'd say its more offensive - as well as intent. If oval office had the same impact here as it does in N. America I wouldn't use it, but as its used by a wide variety of people in different contexts ('look at that oval office over there', 'I've made a oval office of this', 'I feel like a right oval office') I'd err on the side that the words meaning has changed over the last century from its original meaning. I'm not sure if it has been liberated to the extent other words have, but things like Ladies Chatterley's Lover or the Vagina Monologues have shifted its meaning, as well as the ubiquity of its usage in places like Scotland for instance. I dunno though. A lot of swear words are sexualised in some way whilst also not being literal - if I say someone is a dickhead I don't mean they literally have a penis emerging from their forehead, rather that they are foolish - and if swearing can cause offence does that mean it shouldn't be used? Or is swearing good actually? e: VVVV I think its very likely I am wrong, I just want to be convinced. There's a difference between just thinking 'other people find this offensive so I won't do it' against 'I think this is offensive so won't do it' - I want to better understand it justcola fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:25
|
|
|
justcola posted:– and I’d never call a woman a oval office – Why? Is it possible that it's because the use of the word is not as divorced from its meaning as you think? I'm reading it as "I wouldn't call a woman a oval office because then it would easily be taken as a gendered insult" which to my mind translates as "I call a man a oval office because I have an unconscious bias against women" We can't help our unconscious biases but we can definitely try to recognise them and consciously compensate. I may be totally wrong though! I don't personally use oval office, it's a bit strong for me as a southerner. E: conversation moved on, o well Maugrim fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:27
|
|
|
I think it's a fair point - I would freely call either a man or woman a oval office with no preference. I guess I'm just such a great feminist that I call women cunts? It does seem like a tenuous position I admit. Idk if it's even more ubiquitous in Ireland or what, it's regional I guess. In these examples I'm talking to my mates though, I don't tend to call random punters cunts a lot
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:31
|
|
|
justcola posted:should I stop using oval office too? The thread has had many a derail on the matter of the word oval office. In the end the thread decided that the tories are cunts and will always be cunts and should be called out for being cunts. You should probably stop using it within earshot of your girlfriend though if it upsets her. You don't need to use it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:32
|
|
|
Maugrim posted:Why? Is it possible that it's because the use of the word is not as divorced from its meaning as you think? I did call Theresa May a oval office. Maggie Thatcher was a oval office. Lots of women are cunts. The problem with giving up the word oval office, and I can see why some want to, is just there's no other word that I've come across that accurately combines the hard consonant sound with being a meaning that manages to cover idiot, cruel monster & other features like showing how much contempt you hold someone in. It's basically the perfect curse word because it sounds as vicious as it's meant to mean. It's a word that can be described as being spat out. I really value that. But where I draw the line is that I'd never refer to a vagina as a oval office for basically the same reason: it's a foul word & should be reserved for foul things & vaginas aren't deserving of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:35
|
|
|
I was chatting with the missus last night and it came to me that "lardon" could be the perfect non-insult - it implies that someone is fat, a dick, and a gammon all in one word, but is ultimately just an innocuous pork product
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:39
|
|
|
That is the moral difference between calling someone a oval office and a prick? In the UK at least I thought we were pretty gender inclusive in our genital based insults
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:Is the whole of Baddiels book just him saying 'I think [some shite]'? Like, has he done any research or interviews or anything, or is it just 'I am famous and successful, therefore whatever thoughts I put to paper are good and worth publishing'? His appearances on Monkey Dust were not satire. Also, when David Cameron called him a yid, that was David C being lefty at that particular time. Also also if David B could get away with it he would definitely call lefty Jews "kapo".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
Let's just normalise calling people "baddiels" kinda like "bad egg"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
it's complicated! language is complicated, culture is complicated. i don't think there is one easy solution to it and i probably would politely critique many of the solutions posted if they were applied generally were i interested in getting into this topic (which i for sure am not (lol)). i think everyone has to draw their own line as to how they express themselves and am generally sceptical of attempts to police the language of other people, within reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Let's just normalise calling people "baddiels" kinda like "bad egg" "Are we the baddiels?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 11:54
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I was chatting with the missus last night and it came to me that "lardon" could be the perfect non-insult - it implies that someone is fat, a dick, and a gammon all in one word, but is ultimately just an innocuous pork product The fat acceptance people will not be happy. (Not that I don’t think fat people deserve acceptance, but I have to say that movement does annoy me quite a lot as in the vast majority of cases you can indeed lose weight through effort and willpower and probably should for your health, and convincing people otherwise is hosed up). I’d keep saying oval office, just not around your girlfriend. How does she feel about twat, oval office’s cheeky little brother?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 12:12
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I didnt expect Baddiel to just come out and say being left wing and Jewish is antisemitic. The phrasing isn’t great in how he applies it to a whole swath of the left and that type of argument is of course often used as a cover to dismiss criticism of Israel, but in general the potential for individual Jewish people to adopt anti-Semitic points of view is possible and reminds me of Ibram X Kendi’s how to be an anti-racist and his realisation that in his earlier life he and other black people he knew had adopted racist anti-black points of view such as the fear of black super predator gangs etc. Of course in my (admittedly mostly online) experience it’s the Jewish right wingers that engages in anti demerit behaviour when Jews who criticise Israel are described as not real Jews and their Jewishness is erased.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 12:19
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:but in general the potential for individual Jewish people to adopt anti-Semitic points of view is possible and reminds me of Ibram X Kendi’s how to be an anti-racist and his realisation that in his earlier life he and other black people he knew had adopted racist anti-black points of view such as the fear of black super predator gangs etc. Never thought I'd see Baddiel and Ibram X Kendi in the same conversation tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 12:25
|
|
|
justcola posted:I had a long conversation with my girlfriend about the word ‘oval office’ as she doesn’t like me using it. The short answer is "Yes and No." It's about a logical argument as against one that has an emotive response. If your girlfriend finds the word offensive, no amount of arguing about what your intent is will make her less offended by it. The best solution is to not call people cunts when she is in ear-shout. But when you are alone, absolutely use it as a descriptor. Comedian Reginald D. Hunter has a great skit on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r1BmhMs13M The Question IRL fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
The Question IRL posted:The short answer is "Yes and No." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LGEiIL1__s
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 12:41
|
|