Joey Barton

[SebastianBlue]

Reasonable people can disagree, but who draws the line? Where? Should it be where the sensitive want it, lest their delicate sensibilities be stressed? Or perhaps at the far end of the spectrum, where only the most hardened person might find offense?

It’s a slippery slope and once you head down it, there’s no coming back. Soon, what you say will be deemed offensive by someone and then what?

To be fair, I have unintentionally said or done things that were offensive to someone, was called out for it, and I did my best to own up to it, make amends, and not say or do it again. I am not always successful, but I do try.

There have only been a few times where I genuinely disagreed that what I said or did was offensive (or that I felt the person was acting in bad faith saying that it was), and in those instance I tried to respectfully push back.

Generally speaking, it really has to be egregious or part of a larger pattern of unacceptable behaviour (or both, in the case of Joey Barton) for it to get someone in serious trouble or, as the right like to call it, “cancelled”.

I think some of the issue now is that for so long certain people (white men in particular) were accustomed to generally being able to say or do whatever they wanted around most other groups of people, no matter how offensive or hurtful, without much consequence, as those offended or hurt didn’t have much recourse to call out the behaviour or apply any sort of social pressure to prevent it in the first place. In some cases, it wasn’t just that there was no outlet—in many cases the person would be severely punished for even raising their concerns.

Only know that this privilege is being questioned do we have a lot of “people are too sensitive nowadays” or “people used to be much less quick to offence” or “the world has gone mad with political correctness”. People were always offended or hurt (or worse), they just couldn’t do anything about it for a very, very long time and thus most of the time there was no point in airing their grievances. And when they did things tended not to go well for them.

Do I think some of it has gone a bit far or has become a bit silly, or that it can be weaponised by bad actors? Sure, but that’s the case with most things.

Do I think the development of more sensitivity and respectful consideration of others compared to the past has a net positive impact on the world? I absolutely do.

I think often times losing privilege can seem like oppression for those that enjoyed the privilege before, and I do think a lot of the current backlash stems from that and just generally being apprehensive of how to successfully navigate this new environment.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So calling Aluko's dad a money crook, just because he’s Nigerian isn’t racist?

When does a stereotype become a racist trope?

How you never heard the term “Nigerian Prince” dropped, to loud laughter or applause, when discussing a money scam or loss of money?

Society determines these things, and their context. Do we want to be spring loaded to reflexive offense, even when it’s directed at others? Is it our duty to be outraged on behalf of others, too?

Language is a beautiful thing, especially when used artfully, but should artless language be treated differently?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

To be fair, I have unintentionally said or done things that were offensive to someone, was called out for it, and I did my best to own up to it, make amends, and not say or do it again. I am not always successful, but I do try.

There have only been a few times where I genuinely disagreed that what I said or did was offensive (or that I felt the person was acting in bad faith saying that it was), and in those instance I tried to respectfully push back.

Generally speaking, it really has to be egregious or part of a larger pattern of unacceptable behaviour (or both, in the case of Joey Barton) for it to get someone in serious trouble or, as the right like to call it, “cancelled”.

I think some of the issue now is that for so long certain people (white men in particular) were accustomed to generally being able to say or do whatever they wanted around most other groups of people, no matter how offensive or hurtful, without much consequence, as those offended or hurt didn’t have much recourse to call out the behaviour or apply any sort of social pressure to prevent it in the first place. In some cases, it wasn’t just that there was no outlet—in many cases the person would be severely punished for even raising their concerns.

Only know that this privilege is being questioned do we have a lot of “people are too sensitive nowadays” or “people used to be much less quick to offence” or “the world has gone mad with political correctness”. People were always offended or hurt (or worse), they just couldn’t do anything about it for a very, very long time and thus most of the time there was no point in airing their grievances. And when they did things tended not to go well for them.

Do I think some of it has gone a bit far or has become a bit silly, or that it can be weaponised by bad actors? Sure, but that’s the case with most things.

Do I think the development of more sensitivity and respectful consideration of others compared to the past has a net positive impact on the world? I absolutely do.

I think often times losing privilege can seem like oppression for those that enjoyed the privilege before, and I do think a lot of the current backlash stems from that and just generally being apprehensive of how to successfully navigate this new environment.

Nothing to argue with there.

I just believe “the court of public opinion” should be just that, and not a state sanctioned court, where legal sanctions (as opposed to societal rejection) occur and mark for life.

It is clear that the current court of public opinion has swung to a more sensitive place, but the pendulum is swinging back slowly. Will it ever completely change the current level of sensitivity? Time, and society, will make that determination.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

@mexico1970 @Bluesince1979 @ChicagoBlue just say what you really want to say and stop with the "buts" and "howevers".

I've been noticing a pattern with some here especially these three and it's just funny how the three of you try to play on the intelligence of other posters here.

On your first point, I find that I can read a post and agree on some things, yet disagree on others. What would you have me do? I even used the word “yet” so as not to use either of the words you appear to find offensive.

That said, could you explain your last point, please?

 

[M18CTID]

The 'line' runs directly between these two opinions.

That's an easy one for you and the other line drawing 'liberals'.

In the interests of an open society where freedom of expression is valued, even when we disagree with the opinions being aired, I say no lines. (We have laws for slander and libel already).

The fact is that you or I don’t get to decide where the line is on this. That comes down to the law, and the police and CPS have decided that there is enough of a case for Barton to answer.

 

[Crooked_rain]

So calling Aluko's dad a money crook, just because he’s Nigerian isn’t racist?

It wasn't because he's Nigerian

He was found guilty of being a financial crook when he was a senator. Look it up if you want.

See this is a problem, your brain automatically assumes he was calling him a crook because he's Nigerian when in fact he was found guilty of being a crook....

Your mind Is the one that connected the Nigerian and crook parts and missed out of the part that he actually was a crook, so I think you need readjust how you think if you're automatically connecting the two thing without the facts.

So now we can't be honest? It racist to say a fact about someone past because they're Nigerian?

Ridiculous

 

[BlueHammer85]

The 'line' runs directly between these two opinions.

That's an easy one for you and the other line drawing 'liberals'.

In the interests of an open society where freedom of expression is valued, even when we disagree with the opinions being aired, I say no lines. (We have laws for slander and libel already).

Out of interest - if it was your daughter/wife/mum who worked as a pundit and some ex footballer was constantly hounding her on Twitter and telling the world how awful she is, how she should lose her job, how she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and continually retweeting every hate message she got elsewhere, would you just accept that and brush it off ? Or would you want some form of action to be taken ?

 

[GortonBlue62]

Out of interest - if it was your daughter/wife/mum who worked as a pundit and some ex footballer was constantly hounding her on Twitter and telling the world how awful she is, how she should lose her job, how she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and continually retweeting every hate message she got elsewhere, would you just accept that and brush it off ? Or would you want some form of action to be taken ?

I'd be outraged. It'd eat me up for days. I wouldn't sleep. I'd probably devise all sorts of revenge scenarios in my head. I wouldn't like it but I'd have to lump it.

The big picture is that open societies thrive and prosper. Societies that impose limits on freedom of expression (amoung other things) decline.

Freedom of speech and the rule of law are the big picture here. I believe the law that Barton is being prosecuted under is wrong. We need a US style first ammendment.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Out of interest - if it was your daughter/wife/mum who worked as a pundit and some ex footballer was constantly hounding her on Twitter and telling the world how awful she is, how she should lose her job, how she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and continually retweeting every hate message she got elsewhere, would you just accept that and brush it off ? Or would you want some form of action to be taken

Is having an opinion about someone's ability illegal though? Is using a retweed function on a social media app illegal?

This is the issue here. We all know he's a knobhead, but being charged with what he's doing seems wrong to me. Having an opinion on someone's abililty is not illegal, retweeting is not illegal. He's not told anyone to go after her directly. He just has an opinion that some agree with and some don't. He may be heavy handed in how he let's his opinion known but it doesn't make it illegal.

By charging someone for this, it keeps lowering the bar on people's freedom to have an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it.

It's not a really about Joey Barton, we all know he's a dickhead. It's about arresting people for having an opinion on social media. It might be OK in some people's eyes to do it to Barton because he's a knob, but they won't be saying that in future when its fair game for anyone to be arrested because they aired an opinion on social media. Is that the world we wanna live in? I don't. It's not about Barton specifically. It's the precedent it sets that I don't like.

We all know Martin Niemöller's "first they came for..." quote, and if you don't, then look it up. That's the path society today is heading down. That may sound like too much of a serious claim because we're on the topic of a daft ex footy player and a daft pundit, but this is just one small example of the way things are heading.

Arresting people for an opinion? Really? I come from a family that grew up in countries like that. Nobody needs that here.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Is having an opinion about someone's ability illegal though? Is using a retweed function on a social media app illegal?

This is the issue here. We all know he's a knobhead, but being charged with what he's doing seems wrong to me. Having an opinion on someone's abililty is not illegal, retweeting is not illegal. He's not told anyone to go after her directly. He just has an opinion that some agree with and some don't. He may be heavy handed in how he let's his opinion known but it doesn't make it illegal.

By charging someone for this, it keeps lowering the bar on people's freedom to have an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it.

It's not a really about Joey Barton, we all know he's a dickhead. It's about arresting people for having an opinion on social media. It might be OK in some people's eyes to do it to Barton because he's a knob, but they won't be saying that in future when its fair game for anyone to be arrested because they aired an opinion on social media. Is that the world we wanna live in? I don't. It's not about Barton specifically. It's the precedent it sets that I don't like.

We all know Martin Niemöller's "first they came for..." quote, and if you don't, then look it up. That's the path society today is heading down. That may sound like too much of a serious claim because we're on the topic of a daft ex footy player and a daft pundit, but this is just one small example of the way things are heading.

Arresting people for an opinion? Really? I come from a family that grew up in countries like that. Nobody needs that here.

There’s a difference between some kid in his bedroom slagging someone off to a high profile celeb with millions of followers endlessly and constantly baiting 1 individual (2 if you count Vine) … it’s the constant barrage that needs to be addressed more than the context of the tweets. Turning a blind eye and saying it’s nothing is the wrong attitude.
Bullying and harassment deserves punishment.