City matchday presenters sacked over podcast (P6)

Damocles said:
That's only if you accept there's link between playful mocking and dehumanisation, which I don't.

I was talking to a lad from South Africa recently, goes in my local. There was some talk about some racist furore in the papers and he clarified this for me in a pretty decent way. He suggested that in the West we've become so far removed from racism that we don't know what it looks like any more. He said that when was growing up in a racist South Africa, he was encouraged not to shake hands with or touch black people because they had diseases and were violent animals. That his black housekeeper was not to be spoken to because she was black and blacks weren't people like us. That's what racism looks like. Putting on a crap accent for the purposes of comedy isn't it and has no link to it.

People talk about it like it's a spectrum of behaviour where this is on the "lower end" and the SA example is on the "higher end" but it's a false dichotomy. Mocking and hatred are not synonyms. Mocking is about noticing and highlighting the differences between different races or cultures for the purposes of humour. Hatred is believing that they aren't people.

It's like when people say that "white people have no rhythm compared to black people". That's broad strokes generally true. Noticing or highlighting differences isn't the act of hatred, it's a form of respect. You are different from me and I think some stuff you do is kitch or funny and you think some stuff I do is kitch or funny and together we can often highlight these in order to laugh at them. As I said earlier, perhaps growing up in a family that is half split in such different cultures has given me a different perspective on the issue.

This is one of the great hypocrisies of modern left wing thought. We'll all special and different yet all the same. We should celebrate our differences but not notice them. We should all love each other but hate our enemies. There's a ton of logical inconsistencies based on invented social contexts. Now usually I'd be respectful of that but my problem is that I don't see the driving force behind these things as empathy or concern for distress but instead as a form of authoritarian control. I genuinely don't think most people who bleat on about offensive speech actually care whether somebody is actually hurt and instead wish to shape an argument in a manner to which their point becomes more valid than others or their morality is seen as greater. Joe Biden is a fine example of such a thing in the US, David Lammy in the UK. These people remind me of those twats who used to grass you up for swearing in school so you'd get in trouble. They didn't give a shit about swearing, they just wanted to use a breach of social convention in order to get you into trouble because they are twats. They yielded speech like a weapon, a tool to assault others.

Authoritarian control of speech by creating new social norms and context is one of the last steps towards dictatorship of thought and banning of radicalism. I'd never support it.
Click to expand...

Apartheidt South Africa IS an extreme example of racism. I'm sure you agree that to suggest anything else is utter nonsense.

Where you haveI extremes, it is a given that there is a spectrum in between. In this case, a spectrum of offence.

Mocking and hatred aren't synonyms but mocking can often be an indicator of hatred.
From a broadcaster's point of view, it is nigh on impossible to police where the line between good-natured ribbing blurs into nastier motives. This is because interpretation is subjective. You might call me a thick Paddy and mean it in a lovable way but an onlooker might perceive that remark as putting me in my rightful place.
It's precisely because of this sort of variable that broadcasters and other institutions adopt a zero tolerance policy. Better not to offend anyone than be perceived as a dickhead, seems to be the party line in most workplaces.

Ironically, most of the people who argue that people are too thin-skinned are the ones most easily bruised by this 'not wanting to look a knob' approach.

This leads me on to what you describe as "hypocrisies of the Left". The examples you offer are in fact, well established paradoxes that have long been debated and accepted as such.
It is somewhat unfair that you cannot attribute the same level of nuance of thought to Left wingers as you do to those who are "only having a laugh, innit".

None of this is to suggest that it's a clear-cut issue. Society, as a whole, is only learning how "not to be a dickhead" in very recent times. There are reasonable arguments to be made that the politically correct pendulum has swung too far.
What isn't helpful to the debate is emotive rhetoric such as "authoritarian control of language" or "last steps towards dictatorship" (unless you are dogwhistleing for Farage, Le Pen & Trump etc, in which case what would you expect from a pig but a grunt, I suppose). That sort of hyperbole is inciteful and unhelpful, not to mention melodramatic and stupid.
 
Damocles said:
That's only if you accept there's link between playful mocking and dehumanisation, which I don't.

I was talking to a lad from South Africa recently, goes in my local. There was some talk about some racist furore in the papers and he clarified this for me in a pretty decent way. He suggested that in the West we've become so far removed from racism that we don't know what it looks like any more. He said that when was growing up in a racist South Africa, he was encouraged not to shake hands with or touch black people because they had diseases and were violent animals. That his black housekeeper was not to be spoken to because she was black and blacks weren't people like us. That's what racism looks like. Putting on a crap accent for the purposes of comedy isn't it and has no link to it.

People talk about it like it's a spectrum of behaviour where this is on the "lower end" and the SA example is on the "higher end" but it's a false dichotomy. Mocking and hatred are not synonyms. Mocking is about noticing and highlighting the differences between different races or cultures for the purposes of humour. Hatred is believing that they aren't people.

It's like when people say that "white people have no rhythm compared to black people". That's broad strokes generally true. Noticing or highlighting differences isn't the act of hatred, it's a form of respect. You are different from me and I think some stuff you do is kitch or funny and you think some stuff I do is kitch or funny and together we can often highlight these in order to laugh at them. As I said earlier, perhaps growing up in a family that is half split in such different cultures has given me a different perspective on the issue.

This is one of the great hypocrisies of modern left wing thought. We'll all special and different yet all the same. We should celebrate our differences but not notice them. We should all love each other but hate our enemies. There's a ton of logical inconsistencies based on invented social contexts. Now usually I'd be respectful of that but my problem is that I don't see the driving force behind these things as empathy or concern for distress but instead as a form of authoritarian control. I genuinely don't think most people who bleat on about offensive speech actually care whether somebody is actually hurt and instead wish to shape an argument in a manner to which their point becomes more valid than others or their morality is seen as greater. Joe Biden is a fine example of such a thing in the US, David Lammy in the UK. These people remind me of those twats who used to grass you up for swearing in school so you'd get in trouble. They didn't give a shit about swearing, they just wanted to use a breach of social convention in order to get you into trouble because they are twats. They yielded speech like a weapon, a tool to assault others.

Authoritarian control of speech by creating new social norms and context is one of the last steps towards dictatorship of thought and banning of radicalism. I'd never support it.
Click to expand...

Quite right, we're starting to live in a world where no-one is allowed to have a view/say anything that doesn't meet certain perceived PC criteria of what might be deemed acceptable.
 
I must be going to hell then - I found Bernard Manning funny in the 70s and 80s as well as some of his cohorts of that time. I laughed at Rising Damp and other similar comedies of that period. Unashemedly I still do if they are ever repeated - not because they express my views, but because I put a context to it and listen in disbelief that anyone could believe those views - To me the joke is at the ignorance of those making them - and I actually believe intelligent but expoitative comedians like Manning knew that. It was also a working class humour from places like the mill towns and factories in and around places like Manchester, a period on the evolutinary scale of humour. That's not to denegrate his audience bcause I think they knew the joke was at ignorance and absudity. I imagine if you didin't witness those times first hand, it is certainly even more of an afront to modern day sensibilities and values.


To get back on track, not heard the podcast so can't comment. Will miss McClean becuse he could be very funny - don't shoot me - but judging from the laughter around City Square, so did a lot of people and families - they didn't look like fascist sympathisers or nazi skinheads.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.