Jody
Stubborn git
Pretty poor flounce then
.5 out of 10
Bagpuss Had It Right
- Thread starter Chislenko
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
.5 out of 10
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
Yup...
Not bothering to think about the effects of what you say..
It's often a sign of unconscious privilege, not being a member of one of the groups who often suffer being used as the butt of the 'punching down' 'joke'.
"I've always said what I like, when I like, to whomsoever I like, with nary a thought for the consequence, cos no one ever gives me any bad consequences"
Is the basic message..
Or else yr just a bit of a nobber, who giveth not a shoot, for anyone elses feelings..
Invoking the old 'freeze peach' as an excuse for being deliberately ignorant* or bullyingly rude..
Anyone who objects is 'over-sensitive' or 'cant take a joke'
*If you didn't mean to offend, but then find you really did .
All you need to do is to simply say sorry, and then learn a bit from that..
The German I work with, certainly has an excellent sense of humour...
I mean she must do right .??😊
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
To the tune of "Carmina Burana" aka the Old Spice advert.
Bagpuss! Bagpuss!
Bagpuss! Bagpuss!
Saggy old cloth catpuss!
Bagpuss! Bagpuss!
Bagpuss! Bagpuss!
Saggy old cloth catpuss!
Andy in Germany
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
The problem is that implies the opinion, or even the feelings, of the person claiming offence are automatically more important than the freedom of the person who they claimed said something offensive. I'm not saying they aren't more important, it's the implied assumption that concerns me.
That's a theoretical idea, which I agree has some evidence, but it's a big assumption to make, because it seems that the "offence" or lack thereof is based on the group the person speaking is from; if the person is assumed to have "privilege" then it's a problem. This concerns me because it could be used to silence people for being part of the "privileged" group, which is a pretty dark road to follow. You could in fact make a cohesive argument that it's a 'privilege' to be able to publicly claim offence regardless of intent, and expect people, employers, and civic authorities to act on your behalf.
Last edited:
matticus
Guru
Yeah, must really suck having a language with no Q; imagine having a language that is different to your neighbour's language, people punching down on you all the time. All that effort writing the signs twice - not even the poor French have to do that! I feel terrible now ...
BoldonLad
Not part of the Elite
- Location
- South Tyneside
Threevok
Growing old disgracefully
- Location
- South Wales
If I didn't come here to be insulted, you'd all be wondering where I normally go 
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
No it doesn't 'automatically' do that at all
Either implicitly, or explicitly.
What it does, is suggests that we should , pause think and engage in good faith.
Not immediately assume that someone must be trying to 'get one over' on the other person, if they claim to be upset
I think it comes down to bothering to understand how language is so often conciously or unconciously skewed in favour of already dominant groups .
As greater equality approaches, in language and elsewhere, those people hitherto enjoying unearned privilege, often start to cry foul, because they're no longer 'allowed' the 'freedom' to insult those, who previously had to just suck up whatever was thrown at them..
Such as using stereotypical racist , sexist, or 'othering' language.
Tbh i have no idea what @Chislenko was objecting to, and if it was a legitimate gripe.
It was more a general point agreeing with Julia..
That not bothering to moderate your own language, in a public place- such as on a public forum is a sign of ignorance at the very least, and often a sign of privilege too.
Je suis désolé, je ne vois pas de quoi tu parles...
Andy in Germany
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
The argument is still based on the idea of "privilege" on the part of certain people, and that their opinions or what they say should be filtered through this assumption. If someone from a group less "privileged" then claims to have been offended, the implication is that the more "privileged" person should "learn" and change their opinion. In other words, the opinion of the less "privileged" should be listened to and given priority:
So, for example, what if "someone" was offended by this:
You boyz - you'll start up a big ol' argument, or flouncathon, over anything wont'cha??
Does that still apply, or is it different because of the group the speaker and intended recipient are from?
matticus
Guru
Aha! Well in that case, do feel free to accuse people of:
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
Not 'should' learn , but might choose to, if they wish to be more considerate in future..
But generally yes, I think it's a good idea to consider possible power imbalances in any given situation, and act accordingly.
It's just a form of 'good manners' or even exersising empathy.
If I offended you, or anyone else by saying this Andy I'm very very sorry.
The humour intended clearly didn't land,
Perhaps you would do me the honour of explaining which parts felt the most challenging for you 👍🏼
newfhouse
Resolutely on topic
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
Which people should I accuse of doing this please ??
I've not had any crimes (excepting mine own) drawn to my attention yet..
Rest assured I'm having a jolly good time self admonishing right now 👍🏼
winjim
Smash the cistern
Oliver Postgate was, how can I put it, not exactly a conservative.
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
Point of order..
Why do our magnificent lady parts, so often get used as a slur against people (often chaps) who really aren't very nice..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twat
It seems a deeply unfair comparison ..🙄
