You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City matchday presenters sacked over podcast (P6)
- Thread starter jma
- Start date
BringBackSwales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 33,650
That was my pointThat’s not funny. No wit at all.
Just a question then by extension of this logic, not saying I don’t agree or not, should Fenners have been sacked from Soccer AM for mocking Manx accents like mine or Scouse accents?Admittedly, I think something has been lost in the discussions around this type of thing, so I can mostly understand why you've come to feel the way you do, but I think what's been lost is the most crucial aspect of this. I think we come at this discussion from the wrong angle if we think people being offended is the most important aspect of debates like this. It's easy to see a mock Chinese accent as harmless fun - hell, it doesn't offend me and, as you've said, it doesn't offend the Chinese people you know - but accepting and normalising this type of humour means that it's "acceptable" and "normal" to treat Chinese people as something less, as something to be mocked, be it for the way they behave, the way they act, everything. It might not do much damage short term but this kind of behaviour has a long-term drip effect. It might just be the difference between a Chinese person landing a job or not, being dealt with properly by the police or not, being beaten up for their accent or not. Whereas, a little slap on the wrist for "Squeaky" and "Wingman" here just reinforces the message that it's not okay to mock Chinese accents and, by extension, Chinese people. It's not about offence really, offence is only short term, it's about perception and basic human decency.
Admittedly, I think something has been lost in the discussions around this type of thing, so I can mostly understand why you've come to feel the way you do, but I think what's been lost is the most crucial aspect of this. I think we come at this discussion from the wrong angle if we think people being offended is the most important aspect of debates like this. It's easy to see a mock Chinese accent as harmless fun - hell, it doesn't offend me and, as you've said, it doesn't offend the Chinese people you know - but accepting and normalising this type of humour means that it's "acceptable" and "normal" to treat Chinese people as something less, as something to be mocked, be it for the way they behave, the way they act, everything. It might not do much damage short term but this kind of behaviour has a long-term drip effect. It might just be the difference between a Chinese person landing a job or not, being dealt with properly by the police or not, being beaten up for their accent or not. Whereas, a little slap on the wrist for "Squeaky" and "Wingman" here just reinforces the message that it's not okay to mock Chinese accents and, by extension, Chinese people. It's not about offence really, offence is only short term, it's about perception and basic human decency.
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.
roxy
Well-Known Member
This is spot on. I recently read a book about the rise of the Nazi's in 1930's Germany and although I knew about the concentration camps and the Holocaust, I hadn't appreciated just how that all started. The first thing was the Nazi's creating the story that Jews were "different", sinister and somehow had to be isolated from "good" Germans to avoid "polluting" their purity. They used nothing more than words to do that.Before anyone starts going on about Godwin's Law at me, similar things have occurred more recently in Rwanda & Bosnia where one group was increasingly demonised verbally leading to genocidal outcomes.Admittedly, I think something has been lost in the discussions around this type of thing, so I can mostly understand why you've come to feel the way you do, but I think what's been lost is the most crucial aspect of this. I think we come at this discussion from the wrong angle if we think people being offended is the most important aspect of debates like this. It's easy to see a mock Chinese accent as harmless fun - hell, it doesn't offend me and, as you've said, it doesn't offend the Chinese people you know - but accepting and normalising this type of humour means that it's "acceptable" and "normal" to treat Chinese people as something less, as something to be mocked, be it for the way they behave, the way they act, everything. It might not do much damage short term but this kind of behaviour has a long-term drip effect. It might just be the difference between a Chinese person landing a job or not, being dealt with properly by the police or not, being beaten up for their accent or not. Whereas, a little slap on the wrist for "Squeaky" and "Wingman" here just reinforces the message that it's not okay to mock Chinese accents and, by extension, Chinese people. It's not about offence really, offence is only short term, it's about perception and basic human decency.
neither me nor anyone else is suggesting that McLean & the other guy are knowingly setting out to foster an environment where Chinese people are persecuted. But the point is that racial stereotypes can easily be used maliciously but even if they're used with supposed comic intentions they can easily reinforce negative stereotypes. In fact people might laugh at them when they might otherwise be horrified if they were said with clear malicious intent. So that comic intent might be more dangerous in some ways.
Petethemancinleeds
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 1,327
Shame about Mike McLean, sharp, witty , old school humour / banter has no place anywhere and I've laughed at all his jokes knowing they would get to this stage . He's not racist , have you heard how he rips into kids, other City fans , etc etc he's edgy and thus not suitable for our global brand as indeed at times I guess as a middle aged white bloke I'm not the demographic they want to attract/ retain.
greasedupdeafguy
Well-Known Member
Glad they've been binned. Now for Hugh Ferris!
This is spot on. I recently read a book about the rise of the Nazi's in 1930's Germany and although I knew about the concentration camps and the Holocaust, I hadn't appreciated just how that all started. The first thing was the Nazi's creating the story that Jews were "different", sinister and somehow had to be isolated from "good" Germans to avoid "polluting" their purity. They used nothing more than words to do that.
But there's the problem with this line of thought. It's the same as the gun control debate. The Nazis used words to demonise therefore we need to get rid of the words like how we need to get rid of guns because people used guns to murder. It's irresponsible, it's putting morality onto inanimate objects rather than the people behind them.
And to be fair, the Nazis DIDN'T just use words, Europe has been anti-Semitic for as long as Jewish people have existed and the Nazis tapped into an underlying and already established trend. It's not like everybody loved Jews then the Nazis said some stuff then the Holocaust happened. Jews were already the whipping boy of Europe and were for a thousand years beforehand. I thnk the statistic is something like 104 countries have expelled Jewish people at some point in the past. On top of this the Nazis used films, images, rhetoric, debate, stereotype, nationalism, patriotism, exceptionalism, history, religion, mythology, cultural ideas and a bunch of other things to win their propaganda war.
The connection that you and others make here is not just speculative but also can be shown to be objectively wrong. Yes, the Jews were dehumanised and then genocided. Now what about every other race in history that has had jokes and stereotypes laid at their door but didn't get genocided. Where do they fit into this mental model of harm?
The Preacher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 1,528
Fair enough but I'm very concerned that their sacking could lead to us having to put up with more of "Southampton fan" Hugh Ferris on match days.
I share your concern, believe me. The guy’s a shithouse.
Stiff Little Wingers
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,601
Bloody hell we’ve just won 5-0 and now I have to get my thinking cap on.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.
1. Agree that highlighting cultural or even racial differences is fine within context
2. Agree too that people make careers about perceived offensive speech when they don’t really care. People do it for money- they’ve even done it to me and I’m brown. What that does is to downgrade the effects of real and life altering racism
3. The South African example is like the old drugs pathway in that if you smoke some dope you will end up on heroin or worse. That’s clearly not true but the analogy is not correct because drugs use is only concerned with the person using- offensive words impact on others. If you’re willing to accept a few offensive jokes that does not make you a Nazi by any stretch but does it then influence your views on other issues relating to stereotypes. For example the Muslim stereotypes that go around these days? I don’t know.
4. Sorry, but like South Africa I think you’re a bit out of date Damocles. The authoritarian control nowadays is through The ducks no fumbng down if this and other countries where the ability to question is rapidly being drummed out of us yhtough social media, the shite in the general media, football even. So proper trained investigative journalism is dying out to be replaced by Romesh Ranganathan going somewhere or Stacey Dooley tryouts no to unravel the ISIS atrocities.
5. Finally, from what I’ve heard the podcast wasn’t even trying to make points re differ nice or even much of a joke- it was just shite piss taking and demeaning of Chinese people. There’s Absolutely no need for it. I don’t necessarily want to ban free speech but if you do stuff like that then there may be consequences.