Categories
Minding Our Manners – politicalbetting.com
Minding Our Manners – politicalbetting.com
A man tries to murder a British writer for what he wrote in a novel published 34 years ago, 10 years before the would-be murderer was born. A Police Community Support Officer in Britain seeks to lecture a woman about changing her views on trans rights despite two police officers having previously visited and determined that the woman was committing no offence by displaying a sticker, expressing different views to that of the PCSO, in her window. A British university warns students that Hardy novels have scenes showing cruelty in nature which they might find upsetting, assuming that is that none of them have ever had a pet cat, in which case they would have been exposed to lots of natural feline cruelty from a very young age.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
oh, and THIRST!!!!
On topic, does this new zeitgest mean I can't call the DfE c***s any more? Because if so, it sucks harder than Carrie on being promised a bonus.
(In reality, of course, I agree wholeheartedy. Apart fom anything else, it would be a very dull world if everyone thought and spoke the same. If I wanted that I'd not be here, for starters.)
There was also comedian Jerry Sadowitz, who had his show at the Edinburgh Fringe cancelled, by a venue that laughingly described itself as supporters of freedom of speech. It seems they support free speech, so long as certain people don’t get offended.
People who have the privilege of not living under this kind of fear usually have little understanding of how debilitating it is. I think that lofty discussions of freedom of speech need to acknowledge this reality, otherwise they are really not engaging with the issue. FWIW I think that you should be able to freely insult people's beliefs but not insult them over a characteristic over which they have no control. The trans debate is probably where this distinction becomes murkiest, which is why it is so vitriolic on both sides.
The DVLA issues are interesting because large parts of it are functioning perfectly (pass your driving test and the new license arrives in days) but anything out of the ordinary or requires a human being and things fall apart.
If there is a god, and I strongly doubt it, then I would hope he/she/they is forgiving of people, unlike too many adherents of religions around the world.
So much can be achieved by using the creed of The Last Leg (a rabidly anti Tory programme, but that hits a chord very often) - "Don't be a dick".
Be nice to people. And you know what - most people ARE nice.
Last night my wife somehow blew two tyres on her car (massive pothole, flint or something). No phone signal. Found a phone box but only a £5, no change. Asked at a house if they had change - they invited her in to use their phone, happily looked after her until the AA arrived (2 hours) offered her food and if needed a bed for the night (not needed - I picked her up). But lovely people, being nice.
On Rushdie, his book was either rubbish or beyond my reading ability but we should all be Charlie and stand together.
If this is the issue you can see why the venue has done what it's done especially given how uncooperative I suspect Jerry would be.
Bring back the old playground saw
- thanks for the header Cyclefree
Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.
Given it takes a couple of years to really train a patent examiner (we weren't reckoned to be profitable until about two years in post) it never seemed the most efficient way of doing things.
Apparently the word, in her view, should be given to people like her, who supported ID cards and the massive databases behind them. Because thinking of the children is the truly libertarian position.
People Who Would Formerly Have Been Referred To As C***s
Incidentally, I am trying to work out how to monetise my idea that "Criminals" should be labelled as "Members Of The Legally Challenged Community".
Should be able to get a medium sized government funded charity out of that one. Which leaves the critical question - what kind of Range Rover should I drive as head of said charity?
Or, of course, Stephen Fry's rather pithier response.
Recording interactions with the police is a good idea.
Remember the Plebgate comedy? The chap went into a meeting with some police representatives. They came out and claimed X had been said. When he played the tape that proved they were being exceptionally economical with the truth, they tried claiming the recording meeting was illegal, unsporting and fattening.
I especially liked the reasoning, that since he had caught them telling pork pies, he had put at risk all the convictions of people whose cases they had been involved with.
So, sure, be Charley but be aware of where it is likely to get you, and a lot of innocent bystanders. You can dress up in a chicken suit and follow me round all you want, but I find it prudent to keep my thinking on the Prophet pbuh to myself.
It isnt a few bad apples, it is simply too widespread in so many different areas to not be fundamentally broken as a service.
While I'm largely in agreement with the points made in the header, it does rather gloss over the existence, and consequences of such abuse.
Then again, saying that government ought not to be criminalising public speech is not the same thing as saying that (for example) schools may not discipline pupils for such abuse.
Similarly the phrase "...we have meekly accepted that beliefs should be protected..." ignores the other side of the coin. Robust freedom of speech means that we do indeed protect the expression of those beliefs.
In answer to Onlylivingboy's reasonable point below about racist or sexist abuse - Cyclefree does not refer to physical characteristics. She deals with beliefs and opinions. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is unacceptable to attack or denigrate someone for something they have no control over - their sex and sexual orientation, age, skin colour or other physical characteristic or something like their place of birth. There should be some safeguards in place to protect people from abuse or discrimination in those cases. But it is entirely acceptable to scorn someone for their views and opinions - whether they are religious, social or political. Neither the state nor other organisations have any place in outlawing some opinions nor protecting others from criticism.
It was wrong to "protect" religion and belief when the law was changed and it is still wrong now, that is one of the first laws I would repeal if I was able to. Protecting hurt feelings shouldn't be the realm of the Police, or Employment Tribunals or anything else.
If your belief can not stand up to challenge its not a very good belief, that we are all on this site so willing to be challenged (and anyone who isn't wouldn't stick around for long) is part of what makes this such a good site for discussions.
Warnings ahead of books or whatever just saying "heads up, these sensitive topics are being discussed, if that's a specific issue for you, be aware" is not the same as "fatwa on the non-believer" is not the same as "these are legal but unsocial acts".
The first has been commonplace with films literally all my life and I think since the inception of films (you get the rating screen with descriptions of what takes place). This is less about "offence" or "censorship" and more about giving people the opportunity to prepare themselves in the face of things they may find difficult. For instance, as a depressive with self-harming tendencies, it is useful to know ahead of time if graphic descriptions of self harm are occurring so I can make sure I am in a good headspace to read it, or maybe not read it if I'm in a bad headspace and choose to read it later. This is what "trigger warnings" are - just warnings that stuff is being discussed that maybe shouldn't come as a surprise if you have trauma around those things that may trigger an unwanted response. Nothing about that is about offense, it is just the papers saying it is all about that sort of stuff.
I would argue the fatwa is also not about offense, in the typical sense, it is about an ideology that demands it be defended with violence. Whilst it has been carried out by a non state actor, it was officially backed by a state for a very long time, and backed unofficially by that state and members of it. That is more like the kind of thing the FBI did to MLK, or the CIA tried to do to Castro, or our own police force has done to protest movements here - a semi official use of force in furtherance of specific state ideological goals. Still reprehensible, but nowhere near on the scale of "offence".
On the topic of politeness / offense, in my youth I was very much a "will say what is true even if it upsets you" person - and looking back I just clearly wasn't a nice person. If you interact with others with empathy and attempts at understanding, even if you disagree with them, you shouldn't aim to hurt them. And much of the online discussions about things that do harm people are quite easily solvable - take misgendering and such, v few people find it an unforgivable sin if people occasionally accidentally misgender them; what they are against is purposeful and continuous misgendering even after it has been explained because that shows a level of contempt for them as a person. In the same way as someone with "William" on their birth certificate may prefer to go as "Bill" or, like my dad, prefer to go by their middle name - what's the issue with using someone's preferred name and pronouns, when it does no harm to you and is so immensely important to them?
So, I want to live in a society where people are free to cause offence, but where that freedom is exercised infrequently. This is a fine balancing act. If you don't exercise a freedom then, at some point, the freedom ceases to exist. And yet, needlessly causing offence reduces the sum total of human happiness. It is a clear social ill to be discouraged.
One of the social functions of a performer, such as Jerry Sadowitz, is to say and do things that wouldn't be socially acceptable at a wedding, or a night out. It's to be expected that we would generally disapprove of such things, but allow them to happen. I'm never likely to choose to go to see Jerry Sadowitz perform, but I hope just enough people will do so to prove that we remain a free society.
It's never in your interest to interact or engage with the police to any degree.
A feature of Sadowitz's comedy is that he tries to avoid much disclosure of what goes on in his performances, as he values the element of surprise (and has regularly stated as much).
It's perhaps then disingenuous to claim that everyone ought to have known what to expect.
In any event it's not an assault on freedom of speech for a venue to change its mind about hosting him. Rather, both sides need to look at the contract they signed.
His fellow comics claiming "this is a Spartacus moment" are still more ridiculous. Are they all going to be exposing themselves in sympathy ?
Is an Overfinch too much?
The avoidance of offence I am quite sure a lot of people think is a genuine, legal matter. So many people use a 'I believe in X, but you shouldn't be able to say Y' without even getting close to issues of discriminatory or inciting speech, or indeed issues of facing consequences for your words on a non legal basis.
As cyclefree notes the courts have, thankfully, rubbished the idea being approached by police over 'non crime hate incidents' is not a big deal, yet it is abundantly clear the police don't care, that's why it had to go to the court of appeal in the first place, as their attitude seems to be that their heart was in the right place, and who cares about what is either lawful or reasonable.
I think the point about politeness out of fear of the consequences is simply cowardice masquerading as etiquette is a very good one. I'm as guilty of it as anyone, as it is just easier and, on some issues, safer, and I think we will see more and more of it.
As to the question of whether religion or belief should be a protected characteristic or not, I confess I'm not really certain. I feel like removing it would not achieve anything or could have negative consequences. Certainly people and institutions act like things are protected characteristics which are not already, and if the zeitgeist is treating these things as inviolable, or emphasising as a matter of practicality best not to even risk it, what would really change? I feel like there are risks of not including religion or belief, even if at present we are giving too much deference.
There's any number of things you probably should not say or do to give offence, but we should feel able to offend. We should not be obliged to be deferential to the beliefs of others, yet this is not a recent thing, just look at Shirley Williams and the audience in that QT clip outraged at the idea someone caused offence to others, as if that offence is the person's fault rather than oversensitive believers.
I maintain, and I know people disagree with this conclusion, that if you cannot take mockery or comment of your faith without getting angry, then I feel like your faith is not actually that strong, because you act like a child and lash out rather than, I don't know, turning the other cheek or letting petty matters not affect your belief.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706
I don't think a link between DVLA pay and civil service pay absolves ministers of responsibility for making it work. Either set national civil service pay rates at a level that works, or change the system to allow more flexibility. Either are perfectly possible.
We don't know what actually happened.
And, btw, can you link to said advertising ?
This is what the ticket site said:
https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/jerry-sadowitz-not-for-anyone
Jerry Sadowitz returns with his whacky impressions of Greta Thunberg, Frankie Boyle and deep vein thrombosis. He also promises to do less hate-fuelled swearing and focus more on faux liberal pish in order to appeal to the middle class and their disposable income and personalities. 'Please note that I might just do card tricks and say nothing for a whole hour or I might just do the usual "screaming fascist" schtick. Or both. Patrons may wish to drink alcohol pre-show to avoid boredom, embarrassment and guilt.'
There seems to be a lot of commentary on this by people that weren’t there & didn’t see Jerry’s act. Has anyone who was there on the night said anything?
Meanwhile, I’m sure Jerry Sadowitz getting cancelled has sold several thousand tickets for his next tour, and the Pleasance in Edinburgh will be known as hosting the Mainstream rather than the Fringe next year.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11 Rishi Sunak 9%
Next Conservative leader
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11 Rishi Sunak 9%
In the same way we do call the Conservatives Tories, and the legacy of the Tories is relevant, but they are not formally Tories and cannot claim directly its achievements.
He got his dick out. As was forewarned. Some lady got offended. Exposing yourself *could* be seen as a sexual offence. The Pleasance got scared and cancelled him
Of course it is possible that a comic does commit a sexual assault during a show, but I do struggle to see accept that mere nakedness on its own from performer on stage could constitute that.
Its a bit like when a central bank tries to protect his currency, it always fails if traders smell blood.
She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
It was the modern art equivalent of Caravaggio scandalously portraying the apostles as dirty, sweat-stained common workmen
The standard expected of a random night in a comedy club is if anything a little higher, than a show for a named act known for his outrageous material. If it says Jerry Sadowitz (or Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr, Bernard Manning etc) on the ticket, then you know it’s not going to be an evening of PG-rated jokes you might otherwise hear on afternoon radio.
What penalty should we have for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area? What should it be for being in possession of an offensive wife?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oua0Puihrkc
As the great philosopher said about the invention of the wheel - "OK, Mr Smartypants, what colour should it be?"
Just pointing out that other than those who were actually there, and omniscient @Leon , we don't know for certain what happened.
The cancellation of further performances is a possibly related, but separate issue.
Is an ad like this likely to get the company talked about and therefore brought into public attention?
Jerry Sadowitz hits back after show cancelled: ‘My act is being cheapened’
Having a daughter made me realise it's entirely socially constructed rather than anything inherent (Even if it does go back thousands of years).
That doesn't make politeness undesirable.
Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words
https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/jerry-sadowitz-not-for-anyone
Jerry Sadowitz returns with his whacky impressions of Greta Thunberg, Frankie Boyle and deep vein thrombosis. He also promises to do less hate-fuelled swearing and focus more on faux liberal pish in order to appeal to the middle class and their disposable income and personalities. 'Please note that I might just do card tricks and say nothing for a whole hour or I might just do the usual "screaming fascist" schtick. Or both. Patrons may wish to drink alcohol pre-show to avoid boredom, embarrassment and guilt.'
I haven't come across any other adverts, FWIW.
And there is a genuine problem here. Taboo breaking is exciting and thrilling, and that's entertaining. Great- we all need a laugh these days. But the taboo line needs to keep moving to keep the thrill going. And eventually it can cross a line into things that are genuinely harmful. I don't know what the answer is, beyond Don't Be A Dick being a good maxim for life, and saving showing your dick for special friends being good advice.
On our last visit my stepmother caused my wife serious offence and excluded her from a day out, by refusing to use the bus instead of the train. As we were leaving she attempted a sort of smoothing over, with a sorry-not-sorry non-apology, which was a lot worse than saying nothing.
If you ignore that he was a murderous psycopath, the villain of Demolition Man had a good point.
Simon Phoenix: Look, you can't take away people's right to be assholes
https://unherd.com/2022/08/jerry-sadowitz-is-too-good-to-cancel/
“Anyone who has undertaken the least research into Sadowitz will know what they are in for. The Pleasance was certainly aware of his style and content (and his tendency to expose his penis) well in advance of the festival. Sadowitz had even posted a promo video in which he referred to himself in the third person, saying: “He’s gonna be funny. He’s gonna be rude. He’s gonna do magic tricks. He’s gonna do impressions. HE’S GONNA GET HIS DICK OUT. He’s gonna do every fucking
thing.”
Why do you have to be spoon fed this stuff?
Genuine questions - we are not going to agree on the issue of responsibility, which we've done to death, but I am very unclear what reaction you think there should be.
Labour still leads the Tories by 7%. SKS huge drag on Labour.
He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
He should be on telly.
Forensic.
And yes: fantastic magician
Interestingly he is one of the few comics I know who is apparently respected by ALL other comics, whatever their politics or genre or whatever
Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?
The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?