Im Lost For Words (almost)

[Ms Diddles]

Again, I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my own right to call him a bell-end for it!



Ms D, you're creative use of the phrase " bell-end", proves that you are indeed an absorber of Glaswegian culture.
And all the better for it.

Good luck with the exams.

Ha! I do indeed seem to have absorbed some of the local vernacular over the years, Barn!

Mainly the sweary words, of which, as you know, there are MANY!

Thanks for the good luck wishes.

Have submitted my final assignment and am awaiting the results now!

If it's good news, I'll be straight off for a "wee swalley"!!

[barnflatwyngarde]

Again, I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my own right to call him a bell-end for it!



Ms D, you're creative use of the phrase " bell-end", proves that you are indeed an absorber of Glaswegian culture.
And all the better for it.

Good luck with the exams.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I think you are absolutely correct that we are "in danger of creating the circumstances where grievances can be imagined", it's just that in this particular example I don't feel like I'm the person to define whether this grievance is real or imagined.

I understand your point Miss D.

Personally though I don’t think it should be important. If I’d written that book and someone said that it offended them I’d have said “ok, thanks for telling me….bye.” Not that I’ve ever upset or annoyed anyone of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Awww, don't be such a negative old git

I actually think that society has been the complete opposite for those of us who are happy to partake in it. Joyless, fearful and repressive? Have you heard of a bloke named Frankie Boyle? Completely outrageous and an accepted authority on bad taste (he knows what it is and then just goes for the throat . Everything is fair game) There is a whole Netflix series dedicated to sexist and cruel comedians (forgot what it's called).

Repressive society? Ever heard of the torture garden in London? Nothing repressive going on there, I tell you. And it's not and underground thing as it used to be in the nineties, it has very much a mainstream clientele these days.

Parties and festivals have never been bigger (well, pre-covid at least). Glastonbury could easily sell a million tickets at 300 quid each. We can AND DO travel to other parts of the world to travel, learn, do gap-years to work on a boat in Australia or organise backpacker trips in Thailand. all of this is what previous generations could only dream of. Hell, my grand-dad still talks about that one work trip he did to New York in 1975 (he's been to Spain and France a couple of times since). A few years ago, I went to New York for a long week-end just to go shopping....

Nah, I'm hopeful of society. what we are dealing with here in this thread are the outrage-merchants and those who can not handle them. We should feed neither of them and let them wallow in their own self-induced. If this makes me a d!ck, then so be it. I mean no harm to anyone.

Cheers.

I hope that you’re right Svensson. But I just see these things being accepted incrementally which leads me to think that this kind of thinking will become the norm. People need to learn to cope with being offended. It’s a part of life and it’s immeasurably less important than infringing on Free Speech.

[Svensson]

Sadly the following generations are heading for an anaemic, joyless, fearful and repressive society.

Awww, don't be such a negative old git

I actually think that society has been the complete opposite for those of us who are happy to partake in it. Joyless, fearful and repressive? Have you heard of a bloke named Frankie Boyle? Completely outrageous and an accepted authority on bad taste (he knows what it is and then just goes for the throat . Everything is fair game) There is a whole Netflix series dedicated to sexist and cruel comedians (forgot what it's called).

Repressive society? Ever heard of the torture garden in London? Nothing repressive going on there, I tell you. And it's not and underground thing as it used to be in the nineties, it has very much a mainstream clientele these days.

Parties and festivals have never been bigger (well, pre-covid at least). Glastonbury could easily sell a million tickets at 300 quid each. We can AND DO travel to other parts of the world to travel, learn, do gap-years to work on a boat in Australia or organise backpacker trips in Thailand. all of this is what previous generations could only dream of. Hell, my grand-dad still talks about that one work trip he did to New York in 1975 (he's been to Spain and France a couple of times since). A few years ago, I went to New York for a long week-end just to go shopping....

Nah, I'm hopeful of society. what we are dealing with here in this thread are the outrage-merchants and those who can not handle them. We should feed neither of them and let them wallow in their own self-induced. If this makes me a d!ck, then so be it. I mean no harm to anyone.

Cheers.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms Diddles,

You won't be surprised to learn I am kind of in agreement with what you say here.

I do think context is crucial, and a clear distinction should be made between giving offence intentionally, and giving potential offence inadvertently.

Anyone who has no wish to cause offence with what they write can usually avoid doing so unintentionally, by taking just a little more care over what they want to express and why. In this example, I have to say it did come across to me as an odd decision, to have a character - albeit a child - refer to Anne Frank [who had no choice but to hide, and ended up dying horribly anyway, at an appallingly young age, just because she happened to be Jewish] and then laugh with her friend, at the comparison with having some summer fun. I'm quite certain no offence was ever intended, but still the comparison followed by the laughter could seem a trifle gratuitous to the more sensitive soul.

I too am not Jewish, and am one of the hardest people to offend on any personal level, so I don't know how the majority of Jewish readers would have responded, but I suppose it might depend on how carefully they read the surrounding context, to judge that no offence was intended and therefore none need be taken. Careless reading is no lesser or greater a fault than careless writing.

I couldn't help thinking of the GSG and the seemingly intentional association between Jews and blame. Some believe it was written by a Jew who was complaining about Jews being blamed, but if so the message was not worded carefully or precisely enough to be unambiguously inoffensive to Jews. Others feel it was intentionally offensive to Jews, while some suspect it was deliberately cryptic, to appeal to the sensitivities or bigotry of whoever happened to read it.

Talking of hiding in attics, I've been watching yet another gruesome documentary on Fred and Rose West, who forced teenage girls and young women into their cellar, where they were tortured and murdered. Race and religion don't come into it, but I do think I'd struggle with a similar passage involving a laughter inducing comparison between a child's innocent hiding game and the ghastly fate of one of the West's victims.

Am I alone in that? Or is it worse if the events happened more recently?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

We do usually seem to be singing from roughly the same hymn sheet on these matters!

I'm not sure if it's worse if events happened more recently.

I'd say it's possibly to do with how connected one feels to the events.

There may be a kind of recency effect thing going on to some extent.

If you recently watched a disturbing documentary about the Wests, the horror of that would be fresh in your mind and would perhaps jar more.

Possibly had you recently watched a documentary about the Holocaust instead, the impact would have been exactly the same??

The GSG phenomenon is indeed interesting. It reminds me in this context of the old psychology optical illusion. Different people see either a young girl or an old woman in the same picture depending on their own stage of life / outlook.

It can be interpreted in two completely contrary ways.

Whether written by the Ripper or not, it would be interesting to know exactly what the writer intended.

[Ms Diddles]

Wouldn’t we be in danger of creating the circumstances where grievances can be imagined if we have look to reading between lines though? For me when you read the passage, Jewishness isn’t mentioned. There’s no implication of any criticism of Jews or Judaism in general or Anna Frank individually as a Jew. She was talking about hiding away and Anne Frank hid away. I’d say that it’s not within a thousand miles of being anti-Semitic. Where does it end? If a writer wrote “I led my family across town like Moses leading his people across the desert.” Would that be anti-Semitic? I’d say absolutely not and that it was a direct parallel.

We can agree to disagree on this one Miss D.

I don't even think that we fundamentally disagree on this, Herlock!

I support freedom of speech and also get frustrated whenever real, meaningful dialogue is stifled by histrionics and finger-pointing.

I think you are absolutely correct that we are "in danger of creating the circumstances where grievances can be imagined", it's just that in this particular example I don't feel like I'm the person to define whether this grievance is real or imagined.

I'm sure Laurence Fox will happily arbitrate for us on that one!!!!

That privileged dude white-mansplained racism to a woman of colour.

You can go with "a bit of a prat", I'll co with "colossal bell-end" !!

Again, I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my own right to call him a bell-end for it!

[caz]

Hmmmmmm!

At risk of gaining an undeserved reputation as this site's resident snowflake, if I'm completely honest I did find the passage a TINY bit, I dunno, flippant? in poor taste?

I think it's just because I recall reading the Diary of Anne Frank as a girl and finding it deeply upsetting (as I'm sure many others on here have too).

I do not personally see the passage as being anti-Semitic, and I don't feel the author had any need to capitulate or apologise.

Her initial defence that it was hyperbole and "an expression of angst from someone who felt marginalized socioeconomically" is sufficient explanation to my mind.

I'm not Jewish though, so I feel like it's not for me (and other non-Jews) to arbitrate as to exactly what is anti-Semitic and what isn't.

What I really hate about the cringing, hand-wringing apology merchants (to paraphrase Herlock), is that it prevents genuine, honest dialogue and detracts from the real issues around actual, genuine, destructive examples of bigotry which exist.

Agreed it can stifle art, culture and comedy too to everyone's detriment.

Hi Ms Diddles,

You won't be surprised to learn I am kind of in agreement with what you say here.

I do think context is crucial, and a clear distinction should be made between giving offence intentionally, and giving potential offence inadvertently.

Anyone who has no wish to cause offence with what they write can usually avoid doing so unintentionally, by taking just a little more care over what they want to express and why. In this example, I have to say it did come across to me as an odd decision, to have a character - albeit a child - refer to Anne Frank [who had no choice but to hide, and ended up dying horribly anyway, at an appallingly young age, just because she happened to be Jewish] and then laugh with her friend, at the comparison with having some summer fun. I'm quite certain no offence was ever intended, but still the comparison followed by the laughter could seem a trifle gratuitous to the more sensitive soul.

I too am not Jewish, and am one of the hardest people to offend on any personal level, so I don't know how the majority of Jewish readers would have responded, but I suppose it might depend on how carefully they read the surrounding context, to judge that no offence was intended and therefore none need be taken. Careless reading is no lesser or greater a fault than careless writing.

I couldn't help thinking of the GSG and the seemingly intentional association between Jews and blame. Some believe it was written by a Jew who was complaining about Jews being blamed, but if so the message was not worded carefully or precisely enough to be unambiguously inoffensive to Jews. Others feel it was intentionally offensive to Jews, while some suspect it was deliberately cryptic, to appeal to the sensitivities or bigotry of whoever happened to read it.

Talking of hiding in attics, I've been watching yet another gruesome documentary on Fred and Rose West, who forced teenage girls and young women into their cellar, where they were tortured and murdered. Race and religion don't come into it, but I do think I'd struggle with a similar passage involving a laughter inducing comparison between a child's innocent hiding game and the ghastly fate of one of the West's victims.

Am I alone in that? Or is it worse if the events happened more recently?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

so, you're basically getting annoyed because someone else is unable to take any kind of criticism (it doesn't actually matter if that criticism is warranted or not) and immediately caves in to the criticism. I think it's more indicative of her state of mind than anything else.

Also note, she wasn't censored. She caved in due to her lack of the smallest trace of a spine.

Yes, her reaction should have been ‘there’s nothing remotely anti-Semitic in what I’ve written so I’m not changing a word.’ As you say, it was down to her own mindset at the time but she’s far from alone in adopting that kind of mindset which is the worrying part.

I shouldn’t get too annoyed about I though because there’s certainly nothing I can do to change the way things are heading. Sadly the following generations are heading for an anaemic, joyless, fearful and repressive society.

[rjpalmer]

This is nothing new. The Puritans annoyed the hell out of people in the 17th Century.

Eventually they were reabsorbed back into society's 'middle,' and the middle absorbed many of their ideas, after first yelling and screaming about them.

This is how old moralities die, and how new moralities are formed: by people annoying the hell out of other people.

Sometimes it flies, and sometimes it crashes, but the center usually holds, and then the libertines take back power for brief time until their own boorish behavior engenders a new generation of Puritans, and around and around it goes, until the earth is no longer sustainable or the atom bombs send us back to the ice age.

Have a good afternoon.

[Svensson]

I take your point Yabs but like Miss D we can agree to disagree with no problem.

For me this one is black and white. There’s nothing remotely offensive or anti-Semitic.

I need to stop getting annoyed about this stuff. It’s been annoying me (and scaring me) for years but I’d always hoped for a kick back against it but we’re accepting it meekly. It’s sickening cowardice. The battle is lost. We are irrevocably heading toward a world where everything is censored. Who’d have thought that Big Brother would emerge from the Left?

so, you're basically getting annoyed because someone else is unable to take any kind of criticism (it doesn't actually matter if that criticism is warranted or not) and immediately caves in to the criticism. I think it's more indicative of her state of mind than anything else.

Also note, she wasn't censored. She caved in due to her lack of the smallest trace of a spine.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What seems to be lacking at present is that old time 'common sense'. Baint so common now as twas.
Today I learnt that I am cisgendered. It's a surprise after all these years thinking I was normal. But perish that adjective which might be offensive to some in the community.

I think Fantomas hit the nail on the head. While we are all taking offense at each other, cancelling people, removing accounts, pulling statues down, etc we are not looking at the true source of the world's ills, most of which begin with "big".

One of these is big tech, and I honestly believe that cancelling facebook, twitter, tik tok, and the rest would make the world a happier place. Oh, and Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia where anyone can rewrite history, if the Wikipedia elite allow them to. Oh and the BBC, where nation shall speak falsehood unto nation.

I also learnt today that Oxford Dons prefer their stipends and high life style to common sense. Since Ox and bridge are largely crammers for foreign students these days we wouldn't miss them either. They are on my Mikado list. The National Trust could preserve the lovelier buildings. Ironically Oriel isn't one of them.

That's what I think anyway, I do apologise if anyone is offended etc, in advance.
Dupin.

Couldn’t agree more Dupin. The problem is that it appears that there’s a section of society that’s taken it upon themselves to inform us of how we should think and what we should say and it’s all based on their own interpretations and agendas and, as you say, it lacks common sense, reason and fair-mindedness. They say “I don’t like this,” or “I think that this is unacceptable” and they then expect everyone to fall in line as if they have been elected as arbiters of everything. It’s bullying and people and institutions are cravenly knuckling under because they are petrified of being labelled or even worse, losing money. And they are right to be scared because this is exactly what happens. People say things that are ‘offensive’ to some. They write things that are ‘offensive’ to some. I’m sorry but freedom of speech is more important. If people are ‘offended’ then they need to learn to deal with it because we are seeing people over the last few years manufacturing ‘offence’ It’s way past time that there was a fight back. In many ways Lawrence Fox is a bit of a prat but I agree with his thoughts on Political Correctness. It’s all one way at the moment. I find that ‘offensive.’

[Dupin]

What seems to be lacking at present is that old time 'common sense'. Baint so common now as twas.
Today I learnt that I am cisgendered. It's a surprise after all these years thinking I was normal. But perish that adjective which might be offensive to some in the community.

I think Fantomas hit the nail on the head. While we are all taking offense at each other, cancelling people, removing accounts, pulling statues down, etc we are not looking at the true source of the world's ills, most of which begin with "big".

One of these is big tech, and I honestly believe that cancelling facebook, twitter, tik tok, and the rest would make the world a happier place. Oh, and Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia where anyone can rewrite history, if the Wikipedia elite allow them to. Oh and the BBC, where nation shall speak falsehood unto nation.

I also learnt today that Oxford Dons prefer their stipends and high life style to common sense. Since Ox and bridge are largely crammers for foreign students these days we wouldn't miss them either. They are on my Mikado list. The National Trust could preserve the lovelier buildings. Ironically Oriel isn't one of them.

That's what I think anyway, I do apologise if anyone is offended etc, in advance.
Dupin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I have difficulty with this example. I can see why the comparison might be considered offensive and how it trivialises the horrific experience of Anne Frank and her family which was rooted in prejudice and anti-semitism. I very much doubt the author intended to cause offense, but once pointed out to her, it's her decision whether she feels she should apologise.

But I also do not believe that people have a right not to be offended. Authors, journalists and others should not be censored, although they need to keep within the bounds of the law (eg not incite violence). I think the wider issue, about where we draw the line of what is generally acceptable, is part of a conversation society is currently having, which inevitably leads to some tension and anger as well as an over zealousness, which as you say can undermine an important issue.

Hi Eten,

I just don’t see it to be honest. She’s simply talking about hiding and uses an example of someone hiding. She’s not making any comment on Anne Frank in person or Jews in general. I know what you’re saying Eten but if authors have to analyse every single phrase to that length then the act of writing a book will become more trouble than it’s worth. I think that if we have a situation where we get a piece of writing where someone says that “well x might interpret that in this way and therefore be offended by that” then the response has to be “tough.” People aren’t just easily offended to the point of fragility these days they’re actively rooting around in the dusty archives to find things that they can become offended about. If something is to be considered genuinely racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic or misogynistic then it shouldn’t be via vague interpretation. Or by reading between the lines. If it were then we’ll be at a stage where anyone can ‘interpret’ anything in a way that allows them to assume offence. Actually I think that we’re already at that stage.

[Abby Normal]

right on herlock