Random Discussion - NO POLITICS, NO RELIGION

[Chief]

Continued here:

Play Nice - Random Discussion II - NO POLITICS, NO RELIGION

Continued from here :- https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/random-discussion-no-politics-no-religion.802609/

www.bigfooty.com

 

[goreds]

It's actually rather common these days to hear a comedian attempt social commentary as though they're an expert. I enjoy Steven Fry's content, and I certainly believe that comedy - like all art - should be allowed to stretch and even break some of the boundaries, but beyond a certain point you're not being risque, you're being a dick.

Gethelred

If he was just a comedian I would never have quoted it...

Did you know he is the president of ‘Mind’, a not for profit charity for the awareness of mental health, who would of thought!

He is also a fellow of the university of Cambridge, The Queens college and a few others!

He also suffers from bipolar...

Is considered one of the most learned people in the UK.

He’s also a happily married gay man, so if anyone has a right to be ‘offended’ by anyone, I think he would have most of not all covered!!

Goreds

 

[HARKER]

If he was just a comedian I would never have quoted it...

Did you know he is the president of ‘Mind’, a not for profit charity for the awareness of mental health, who would of thought!

He is also a fellow of the university of Cambridge, The Queens college and a few others!

He also suffers from bipolar...

Is considered one of the most learned people in the UK.

He’s also a happily married gay man, so if anyone has a right to be ‘offended’ by anyone, I think he would have most of not all covered!!

Goreds

Also had a very good mate in Christopher Hitchens.
Loved the way Hitchens spoke about Fry via the course of a debate.

Fry is much more than a 'simple' comedian, also. Has a good pulse on social matters for mine.



Here you go....Just a comedian?

 

[Stig O'Hara]

He’ll always be ‘Lord Snot.’

 

[Blue Flame]

If he was just a comedian I would never have quoted it...

Did you know he is the president of ‘Mind’, a not for profit charity for the awareness of mental health, who would of thought!

He is also a fellow of the university of Cambridge, The Queens college and a few others!

He also suffers from bipolar...

Is considered one of the most learned people in the UK.

He’s also a happily married gay man, so if anyone has a right to be ‘offended’ by anyone, I think he would have most of not all covered!!

Goreds

But that's just it. He does and he does.
When outlandish homophobic comments were made on TV, he didn't just go "oh well, that's their opinion." he seethed and raged about it publicly on camera, and he had every right to; it was offensive and he was personally offended by it. And we listened to him, because he was right.
So I absolutely love Stephen Fry, but we would have been wrong to respond to his offence with "so ******* what." And he is well and truly smart enough to know that.

 

[goreds]

But that's just it. He does and he does.
When outlandish homophobic comments were made on TV, he didn't just go "oh well, that's their opinion." he seethed and raged about it publicly on camera, and he had every right to; it was offensive and he was personally offended by it. And we listened to him, because he was right.
So I absolutely love Stephen Fry, but we would have been wrong to respond to his offence with "so ******* what." And he is well and truly smart enough to know that.

Spot on!

And that’s the whole point he is making in his comment ‘so ****ing what’...

The term ‘I’m offended’ is being used in everyday speech and is totally over used.

Sticks and stones.....

 

[Gethelred]

If he was just a comedian I would never have quoted it...

Did you know he is the president of ‘Mind’, a not for profit charity for the awareness of mental health, who would of thought!

He is also a fellow of the university of Cambridge, The Queens college and a few others!

He also suffers from bipolar...

Is considered one of the most learned people in the UK.

He’s also a happily married gay man, so if anyone has a right to be ‘offended’ by anyone, I think he would have most of not all covered!!

Goreds

... all of which I am very much aware. I like Stephen Fry's comedy, and the vast majority of what he says I don't disagree with.

However, the statement he made is a license to be a dick, to ignore anyone's feelings, and it was made as pertains to comedy, not simply social commentary. As it refers to comedy, I'm far more forgiving of the statement; it echos things said by other comedy greats, Ricky Gervais among them. As social commentary, it's short sighted and wrong.

Also had a very good mate in Christopher Hitchens.
Loved the way Hitchens spoke about Fry via the course of a debate.

Fry is much more than a 'simple' comedian, also. Has a good pulse on social matters for mine.



Here you go....Just a comedian?

Again, more than familiar, and with Hitchens as well. He was a brilliant debater in his youth, before falling to bitterness and impatience in his old age. Stephen Fry was never noticeably bitter in the same way, but the statement as quoted (however well intentioned) is not one of his better comments.

I've explained my stance fairly thoroughly, so I won't repeat myself further.

 

[Gethelred]

Spot on!

And that’s the whole point he is making in his comment ‘so ******* what’...

The term ‘I’m offended’ is being used in everyday speech and is totally over used.

Sticks and stones.....

...

People commit suicide over sticks and stones.

This is not a conversation to have in here, should you (or HARKER) wish to continue it quote me in the Blue room or on the SRP.

 

[thylacine60]

farewell and good luck, gatorade............pm me if you need any food or drink sent in.............

 

[HARKER]

...

People commit suicide over sticks and stones.

This is not a conversation to have in here, should you (or HARKER) wish to continue it quote me in the Blue room or on the SRP.

What's the topic though?
Just saying you were wrong about Fry.

Sticks and stones? Words hurt?
Some do and some don't but many just pretend they do because they want to be seen as being the good person.

 

[thylacine60]

who are the ones who pretend, harks? you seem to know - what if you were insulted, demeaned, wrongfully or otherwise humiliated and were told you were pretending to be hurt? what then? all ok? nowhere to go? think that's fair? amazing there are those who know when people are 'pretending' to be hurt - these are the people who need to be made judges and magistrates - or card players - they 'know' when people are pretendinhg........

 

[Gethelred]

What's the topic though?
Just saying you were wrong about Fry.

Okay, I'll define the argument.

Fry's comment, surrounding the prevalence of offense as part of the current status quo - which he made as something referring to people getting offended at comedy shows - when it is applied as social commentary leads to worse outcomes as it excuses antisocial and/or boorish behaviour.

As it pertains strictly to comedy, I don't disagree with him; not all comedy is to my taste, but I wouldn't for the life of me insist on someone cleaning something up just because I do not find it funny. As it pertains to society at large, he is excusing the behaviour of every bully and bigot in existence.

Sticks and stones? Words hurt?
Some do and some don't but many just pretend they do because they want to be seen as being the good person.

Here is my difficulty. You are arguing that because some people use social media to virtue signal as a component of outrage culture (using words to in equal amounts condemn the behaviour and to distance themselves from it) it should be okay to dismiss a person's offense at anything, which is what Fry's statement does.

Outrage culture and the mob mentality should be condemned for what it is, the same kind of behaviour that once lead to public lynchings. However, it has been demonstrated that homophobia and racism can and has lead to suicide, as has just general bullying. Do we then turn to those individuals and tell them to harden up? It's just sticks and stones?

 

[HARKER]

Okay, I'll define the argument.

Fry's comment, surrounding the prevalence of offense as part of the current status quo - which he made as something referring to people getting offended at comedy shows - when it is applied as social commentary leads to worse outcomes as it excuses antisocial and/or boorish behaviour.

As it pertains strictly to comedy, I don't disagree with him; not all comedy is to my taste, but I wouldn't for the life of me insist on someone cleaning something up just because I do not find it funny. As it pertains to society at large, he is excusing the behaviour of every bully and bigot in existence.

Here is my difficulty. You are arguing that because some people use social media to virtue signal as a component of outrage culture (using words to in equal amounts condemn the behaviour and to distance themselves from it) it should be okay to dismiss a person's offense at anything, which is what Fry's statement does.

Outrage culture and the mob mentality should be condemned for what it is, the same kind of behaviour that once lead to public lynchings. However, it has been demonstrated that homophobia and racism can and has lead to suicide, as has just general bullying. Do we then turn to those individuals and tell them to harden up? It's just sticks and stones?

There is no need for anyone to be defaming nor bullying another. Not at football grounds, not on social media, not in general life and not even here on this silly little football board. This should be common sense and common courtesy and really doesn't warrant a discussion anywhere.
Go hard at the discussion but don't go at the person and if you do - do something about it, because you really should be aware that you've ****ed up.

Makes for a different topic and one far more interesting to me, but to keep it brief -
I'm sorry for all the people that allow themselves to be blinkered from being what they truly are; Themselves. Siding with authority and being told what to say and how to think is not a good thing, but my observations somehow lead me to see this becoming the case more and more
There is though at least some that want to open up conversation around 'truths' (subjective, I know) and dialouge should be encouraged and not just shut down by authority because it's not in sync with agenda and 'what's best for the populace'
I don't even see many people as being people anymore. I see them as 'products' that simply parrot what they've been told to say by insidious means. Sad.

Yes, a topic for another forum maybe.

 

[Aphrodite]

There is no need for anyone to be defaming nor bullying another. Not at football grounds, not on social media, not in general life and not even here on this silly little football board. This should be common sense and common courtesy and really doesn't warrant a discussion anywhere.
Go hard at the discussion but don't go at the person and if you do - do something about it, because you really should be aware that you've ****** up.

Makes for a different topic and one far more interesting to me, but to keep it brief -
I'm sorry for all the people that allow themselves to be blinkered from being what they truly are; Themselves. Siding with authority and being told what to say and how to think is not a good thing, but my observations somehow lead me to see this becoming the case more and more
There is though at least some that want to open up conversation around 'truths' (subjective, I know) and dialouge should be encouraged and not just shut down by authority because it's not in sync with agenda and 'what's best for the populace'
I don't even see many people as being people anymore. I see them as 'products' that simply parrot what they've been told to say by insidious means. Sad.

Yes, a topic for another forum maybe.

You keep saying this.

YES belongs in SRP!

 

[HARKER]

who are the ones who pretend, harks? you seem to know - what if you were insulted, demeaned, wrongfully or otherwise humiliated and were told you were pretending to be hurt? what then? all ok? nowhere to go? think that's fair? amazing there are those who know when people are 'pretending' to be hurt - these are the people who need to be made judges and magistrates - or card players - they 'know' when people are pretendinhg........

I'm severely offended and outraged by your post. What now?

That's not the discussion, but come on; Surely you've come across many that have found reason for outrage and offence, but when you ask them why (please do ask them why...this is the important part), many can't really explain themselves all too well.

I have no issue asking people questions that may not have expected to hear and the results can be fascinating.
Ask an individual what he/she really thinks compared to what they say they think when asked in the wider forum.

Have you noticed how the media treats the words outrage, offence, disgust etc etc?
Bold them and they mean twice as much. Yell them out and they mean even more.
Of course some people have every right to be offended but it really should be viewed on a case to case basis and not simply by one that uses such words to wave their flag, for some sort of moral victory.

Surely we can all agree on that...if we think about it.?


EDIT:



Listen to Megan here and tell me what you think.
Don't listen to Shapiro. He's on the outer right now

 

[Gethelred]

I'm severely offended and outraged by your post. What now?

That's not the discussion, but come on; Surely you've come across many that have found reason for outrage and offence, but when you ask them why (please do ask them why...this is the important part), many can't really explain themselves all too well.

I have no issue asking people questions that may not have expected to hear and the results can be fascinating.
Ask an individual what he/she really thinks compared to what they say they think when asked in the wider forum.

Have you noticed how the media treats the words outrage, offence, disgust etc etc?
Bold them and they mean twice as much. Yell them out and they mean even more.
Of course some people have every right to be offended but it really should be viewed on a case to case basis and not simply by one that uses such words to wave their flag, for some sort of moral victory.

Surely we can all agree on that...if we think about it.?


EDIT:



Listen to Megan here and tell me what you think.
Don't listen to Shapiro. He's on the outer right now

My complaint isn't that the word 'offended' is being overused, as it clearly is. What I object to is the notion that people's offense should be ignored. You can argue with someone in good faith and with respect to them without being offensive (which is definitively not what Shapiro does at least some of the time) or you can bully them with your superior preparation/intellect/ability to insult.

Or you can be Paul Keating, and do all three.

You aren't that other person, you have no basis for why they would be offended. Is it down to Orazio Fantasia's (to bring it back to what originally brought this up) ability to outline why and how the refusal to say his name the way it should be pronounced is disrespectful to the other people from whom he is descended? This, when there is a clear imbalance in the relative 'voices' between him and Brian Taylor, a buffoon who has unfortunately been given a podium from which to shout his nonsense?

This will probably be the only time I fully support Dyson Heppell in anything, because his response to the Ch.7 interview where he corrected their pronunciation and asked politely and not forcefully that it be corrected. He knows the bloke, he has more to do with him than we do; he'd know if it annoys or irritates. Orazio would be the ideal person to come forward with what he wanted, but frequently with this kind of thing people - unless they're like my brother, who called a teacher a ****-wit for getting his name wrong the third time running - who are establishing themselves want to keep their head down and just get things underway quietly.

This is clearly not fair. You've got one bloke - an old, well established character with the license to have a personality and to be outrageous whilst live in front of the camera - and you've got another - a quiet football player with an ethnic name, who clearly wishes none of this got drummed up; you've got a clear power inbalance here, with one bloke wanting it away from the papers and for it to die off, and the other bloke - the cause of the issue - refusing to admit he was in the wrong. And then, you've got the Steven Fry commentary (being used outside of its original context) to blatantly excuse Taylor's comments or to dismiss other people's opinions. Who's shutting down debate again?

There is no need for anyone to be defaming nor bullying another. Not at football grounds, not on social media, not in general life and not even here on this silly little football board. This should be common sense and common courtesy and really doesn't warrant a discussion anywhere.
Go hard at the discussion but don't go at the person and if you do - do something about it, because you really should be aware that you've ****** up.

Hear hear.

Unless it's Paul Keating.

Makes for a different topic and one far more interesting to me, but to keep it brief -
I'm sorry for all the people that allow themselves to be blinkered from being what they truly are; Themselves. Siding with authority and being told what to say and how to think is not a good thing, but my observations somehow lead me to see this becoming the case more and more
There is though at least some that want to open up conversation around 'truths' (subjective, I know) and dialouge should be encouraged and not just shut down by authority because it's not in sync with agenda and 'what's best for the populace'
I don't even see many people as being people anymore. I see them as 'products' that simply parrot what they've been told to say by insidious means. Sad.

Yes, a topic for another forum maybe.

You're speaking somewhat obliquely here, do you think you could speak somewhat plainer?

Do you think that people are less their own opinions and more what they're told to think? Is that an accurate portrayal of what you think?

If it is, then it is nothing new at all; we're still taking Aristotelian and Plato-esque positions on things, millennia after the two philosophers supposedly lived. We discuss communism and liberalism like they're the newest ideas in existence. Our society is built as a democracy, which evolved from the ancient greek and roman ideas of a republic. People are still taken in by Ayn Rand and Nietzchki; this is nothing new, and nor is our attitude to outrage.

Secondly, does this render those whose opinions are not their own - although I'd argue that as a somewhat pessimistic position to take; plenty of people came by precisely the same ideas completely by themselves for their own reasons - but can argue their opinions well any less legitimate than those whose ideas are completely original? I've said this before - usually when talking about football, funnily enough - but provided someone can argue something soundly and/or refute the logic that might cause their argument to fail without resorting to ad hominem or like logical fallacies, what's the issue?

A good idea is a good idea for a reason, regardless of where it comes from or how original an idea it is.

 

[HARKER]

My complaint isn't that the word 'offended' is being overused, as it clearly is. 1. What I object to is the notion that people's offense should be ignored. You can argue with someone in good faith and with respect to them without being offensive (which is definitively not what Shapiro does at least some of the time) or you can bully them with your superior preparation/intellect/ability to insult.



You're speaking somewhat obliquely here, do you think you could speak somewhat plainer?

Do you think that people are less their own opinions and more what they're told to think? Is that an accurate portrayal of what you think?

If it is, then it is nothing new at all; we're still taking Aristotelian and Plato-esque positions on things, millennia after the two philosophers supposedly lived. We discuss communism and liberalism like they're the newest ideas in existence. Our society is built as a democracy, which evolved from the ancient greek and roman ideas of a republic. People are still taken in by Ayn Rand and Nietzchki; this is nothing new, and nor is our attitude to outrage.

Secondly, does this render those whose opinions are not their own - although I'd argue that as a somewhat pessimistic position to take; plenty of people came by precisely the same ideas completely by themselves for their own reasons - but can argue their opinions well any less legitimate than those whose ideas are completely original? I've said this before - usually when talking about football, funnily enough - but provided someone can argue something soundly and/or refute the logic that might cause their argument to fail without resorting to ad hominem or like logical fallacies, what's the issue?

A good idea is a good idea for a reason, regardless of where it comes from or how original an idea it is.

It shouldn't be. No argument at all.
Listen, discuss, understand and then act if it's true and warranted, but don't allow yourself to be mentally castrated just because someone has pulled out the 'outraged and offended' cared

Pick up on point 2 later.
Have to pick up someone important to me -

 

[norway blue]

It shouldn't be. No argument at all.
Listen, discuss, understand and then act if it's true and warranted, but don't allow yourself to be mentally castrated just because someone has pulled out the 'outraged and offended' cared

Pick up on point 2 later.
Have to pick up someone important to me -

Who you picking up Harks .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Coops93]

I do find it jarring when someone calls a woman mate. Though there's nothing wrong with it, as it isn't gender specific, it just doesn't feel right

 

[mediumsizered]

I do find it jarring when someone calls a woman mate. Though there's nothing wrong with it, as it isn't gender specific, it just doesn't feel right

It is particularly disappointing when the assumption is being made that because a poster is posting on BF about football, they must be a male.

 

[thylacine60]

I do find it jarring when someone calls a woman mate. Though there's nothing wrong with it, as it isn't gender specific, it just doesn't feel right

for some reason 'guys' seems to cover things better - although I've never really asked any of the women here if they are cool with it.........

 

[Neese]

I couldn't give a shit what people call me

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Me too. Age does that to you.

 

[Jabba73]

I couldn't give a **** what people call me

Except late for dinner ... that won’t do

 

[mediumsizered]

Hey you generally works for me.

 

[Weiterbot23]

for some reason 'guys' seems to cover things better - although I've never really asked any of the women here if they are cool with it.........

I used to say "morning guys" to my team at work. 6 men 2 women. I was told this was inappropriate by the head of admin even though the 2 women didnt care and are very laid back.

Then I went with "morning ladies and gentlemen", which a couple of months later I was told I now can't say as there is a trans person in another team on the floor and they would feel excluded even though I wasn't even talking to them.

So I tried "good morning everyone" but felt like a school teacher talking to adults and drew giggles from my team as they knew I'd been spoken to about non inclusive pronouns, so now I just come in and sit down.