The Irony Thread

rick_chasey

I'm not familiar with his work outside of Lewis, but announcing in a Sunday paper that he'll never date "woke women" doesn't necessarily lend the idea that he's going to be progressive when it comes to race.

After all, woke means 'alert to the injustices in society'.

ballysmate

I was thinking purely about his exchange on QT this week.

rick_chasey

Nothing exists in a vacuum, Bally. Especially not QT.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Sure, but let's face it, if there really is no evidence then the label won't really stick will it?

Any other labels you are relaxed about being falsely attached on the grounds that it will not stick?
Thief? Wife beater? Paedo?
Where you you draw the line?

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Nothing exists in a vacuum, Bally. Especially not QT.

Quite so. But it was the QT appearance and exchange that appeared upthread and was being discussed. Not researched him so can't comment on his other utterances.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, but let's face it, if there really is no evidence then the label won't really stick will it?

Any other labels you are relaxed about being falsely attached on the grounds that it will not stick?
Thief? Wife beater? Paedo?
Where you you draw the line?

Call me whatever you want.

I'm not a 'no smoke without fire' type, so.

Then again, I don't invite that kind of chat on national television by saying provocative things in public.

ballysmate

You may not be nswf but there are plenty who think otherwise.
So why should it be OK for someone to be falsely labelled anything?
I assume you wouldn't be happy for someone to be so treated in your recruitment world, so why relaxed about it elsewhere?

rick_chasey

Ahaha You think people don't throw sh!t at recruiters?

All the time. It's about your behaviours, not the chat.

A good 40% of BD in recruitment is getting them over the prejudices of how appalling recruiters can be.

Don't be such a snowflake. If you're not whatever they're labelling you, that'll come out in the wash.

ballysmate

Snowflake? That'll be the day.
BTW I wasn't referring to you being labelled, more the people you deal with, as having such a label could dramatically affect them.
Just surprised thats all. You always came across as wanting to fight injustice, CS's very own SJW. So to see you so relaxed about people undeservingly getting the sh1t end of the stick is a surprise.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

It entirely depends on the context in which it occurs.

Context? The context is that the allegation has no evidence to support it or there is evidence to disprove it.

Those are two different contexts.

A specific example: a white man (A) is sat in the priority seat on the train. A black, pregnant woman (B) gets on and as there are no free seats stands in aisle, clearly visible to A. Four stops later an elderly white woman with a walking stick gets on and A straight away offers his seat to her.

So, the black woman complains to you.
Do you

1. Agree with her that is racism although you don't know the mindset of the seated man and that he may have felt the woman with the stick was more infirm than the pregnant woman.
2. Point out that you don't know the mindset of the seated white man, he may have felt that the woman with the stick was more infirm than the pregnant woman. The pregnant black woman then tells you to check your white privilege as that is the root of your racist views.

So now both the seated man (or now standing) and yourself are labelled racist.

Number 2 is saying you don't know. Although the woman with the stick wasn't even there when he decided to not give up his seat, he might himself have a valid reason for not getting up earlier. The point is that it's not unreasonable for B to complain. If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

As to whether B accused me of being racist, I'll get over it. I am white and to some extent privileged so what's to complain about there?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Snowflake? That'll be the day.
BTW I wasn't referring to you being labelled, more the people you deal with, as having such a label could dramatically affect them.
Just surprised thats all. You always came across as wanting to fight injustice, CS's very own SJW. So to see you so relaxed about people undeservingly getting the censored end of the stick is a surprise.

I'm not into censoring.

I am into calling out people (which isn't the same). Equally however, if you're calling people out, you should expect the same to happen to you.

As a general rule, the structural inequalities mean that it is more beneficial the world to call out things like sexism and racism than it is to say, call out the challenges of being a Harrovian actor born into an acting family who has gone on QT, having spouted off deliberately provocative right wing statements in public.

ballysmate

Rjs It is not about whether you can get over it.
See my reply to Rick upthread. The point is if someone makes an allegation of racism there is no defence.
You either agree with the allegation or the fact that you disagree is taken as proof of your own racism for not being able to see it.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

rjsterry said:

As to whether B accused me of being racist, I'll get over it. I am white and to some extent privileged so what's to complain about there?

To what extent do you deserve to suffer for your privilege and race? Minor insults, big insults, couple of punches, full scale beating?

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Snowflake? That'll be the day.
BTW I wasn't referring to you being labelled, more the people you deal with, as having such a label could dramatically affect them.
Just surprised thats all. You always came across as wanting to fight injustice, CS's very own SJW. So to see you so relaxed about people undeservingly getting the censored end of the stick is a surprise.

I'm not into censoring.

I am into calling out people (which isn't the same). Equally however, if you're calling people out, you should expect the same to happen to you.

As a general rule, the structural inequalities mean that it is more beneficial the world to call out things like sexism and racism than it is to say, call out the challenges of being a Harrovian actor born into an acting family who has gone on QT, having spouted off deliberately provocative right wing statements in public.

I didnt write 'censored' the forum put that in for me.
Put Fox to one side, I am talking in general terms.

You are in favour of calling out racism sexism and every other ism, which is laudable.
But why are you comfortable with the scatter gun approach whereby the innocent get unjustly labelled?

ballysmate

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

rjsterry said:

As to whether B accused me of being racist, I'll get over it. I am white and to some extent privileged so what's to complain about there?

To what extent do you deserve to suffer for your privilege and race? Minor insults, big insults, couple of punches, full scale beating?

Would he have assumed the woman to be incapable on the grounds of gender or colour?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

Rjs It is not about whether you can get over it.
See my reply to Rick upthread. The point is if someone makes an allegation of racism there is no defence.
You either agree with the allegation or the fact that you disagree is taken as proof of your own racism for not being able to see it.

I think you are making a rather sweeping assumption on the behaviour of the woman making the complaint. I think it's possible to say that you can't be sure if A's action had a racist component or not without dismissing the accusation out of hand. It's difficult but so what. Undoubtedly some accusations will be unfair or mistaken, but that shouldn't be grounds to just ignore everything that isn't clear cut.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Rjs It is not about whether you can get over it.
See my reply to Rick upthread. The point is if someone makes an allegation of racism there is no defence.
You either agree with the allegation or the fact that you disagree is taken as proof of your own racism for not being able to see it.

I think you are making a rather sweeping assumption on the behaviour of the woman making the complaint. I think it's possible to say that you can't be sure if A's action had a racist component or not without dismissing the accusation out of hand. It's difficult but so what. Undoubtedly some accusations will be unfair or mistaken, but that shouldn't be grounds to just ignore everything that isn't clear cut.

Not about ignoring anything. You yourself have stated that you would be OK being labelled as racist as you would get over it.
Rick has stated that it's OK to be falsely labelled because if you are not, the label wouldn't stick.
As Bean asked, to what level are you willing to suffer for your white privilege?
And as I asked RC, what other labels would you wear so readily? Thief, wife beater paedo?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Rjs It is not about whether you can get over it.
See my reply to Rick upthread. The point is if someone makes an allegation of racism there is no defence.
You either agree with the allegation or the fact that you disagree is taken as proof of your own racism for not being able to see it.

I think you are making a rather sweeping assumption on the behaviour of the woman making the complaint. I think it's possible to say that you can't be sure if A's action had a racist component or not without dismissing the accusation out of hand. It's difficult but so what. Undoubtedly some accusations will be unfair or mistaken, but that shouldn't be grounds to just ignore everything that isn't clear cut.

Not about ignoring anything. You yourself have stated that you would be OK being labelled as racist as you would get over it.
Rick has stated that it's OK to be falsely labelled because if you are not, the label wouldn't stick.
As Bean asked, to what level are you willing to suffer for your white privilege?
And as I asked RC, what other labels would you wear so readily? Thief, wife beater paedo?

Fair question, although I would think all of those are a bit more categorical and involve a criminal act. Theft isn't usually a matter of interpretation.

There's no criminality in hogging the priority seat on the train when you don't need it - it just makes you a bit of a censored. If someone is alleging racist behaviour to a criminal extent then absolutely that should be backed up with hard evidence, and accusations shouldn't be made lightly. In the train scenario I don't think it would bother me that much as it's unlikely to have any long-term impact beyond that journey. If it's one of my work colleagues accusing another or me, then that's obviously more significant and deserves to be taken more seriously.

TheBigBean

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

rjsterry said:

As to whether B accused me of being racist, I'll get over it. I am white and to some extent privileged so what's to complain about there?

To what extent do you deserve to suffer for your privilege and race? Minor insults, big insults, couple of punches, full scale beating?

Would he have assumed the woman to be incapable on the grounds of gender or colour?

The question may go unanswered, but on the face of it, it seems like it deserves to be in the irony thread.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

rjsterry said:

As to whether B accused me of being racist, I'll get over it. I am white and to some extent privileged so what's to complain about there?

To what extent do you deserve to suffer for your privilege and race? Minor insults, big insults, couple of punches, full scale beating?

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

rjsterry said:

As to whether B accused me of being racist, I'll get over it. I am white and to some extent privileged so what's to complain about there?

To what extent do you deserve to suffer for your privilege and race? Minor insults, big insults, couple of punches, full scale beating?

We're in danger of torturing this scenario to death. Yes, I'm as guilty of making assumptions as the next person. Maybe B doesn't even want to sit down.

As for what I'm willing to suffer, other than listening to someone vent their frustration (which is pretty normal for London commuting) I don't think I've suffered anything in that scenario. Beyond that, who knows?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

But why are you comfortable with the scatter gun approach whereby the innocent get unjustly labelled?

I guess I don't see this is a problem. No-one has perfect knowledge but calling it out is better than not.

You could call it collateral.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

We're in danger of torturing this scenario to death. Yes, I'm as guilty of making assumptions as the next person. Maybe B doesn't even want to sit down.

You are dodging the question. Irrespective of whether the woman wants a seat, why do you assume she is not capable of speaking for herself? Why does she need you to advocate on her behalf?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

We're in danger of torturing this scenario to death. Yes, I'm as guilty of making assumptions as the next person. Maybe B doesn't even want to sit down.

You are dodging the question. Irrespective of whether the woman wants a seat, why do you assume she is not capable of speaking for herself? Why does she need you to advocate on her behalf?

Having spent a lot of time commuting by train I've noticed that pregnant women tend to be reluctant to ask people to give up their seat. The fact that TFL provides badges for women supports that. But as I admitted, it's an assumption. If it blows up in my face it'll serve me right for poking my nose in.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Rjs It is not about whether you can get over it.
See my reply to Rick upthread. The point is if someone makes an allegation of racism there is no defence.
You either agree with the allegation or the fact that you disagree is taken as proof of your own racism for not being able to see it.

I think you are making a rather sweeping assumption on the behaviour of the woman making the complaint. I think it's possible to say that you can't be sure if A's action had a racist component or not without dismissing the accusation out of hand. It's difficult but so what. Undoubtedly some accusations will be unfair or mistaken, but that shouldn't be grounds to just ignore everything that isn't clear cut.

Not about ignoring anything. You yourself have stated that you would be OK being labelled as racist as you would get over it.
Rick has stated that it's OK to be falsely labelled because if you are not, the label wouldn't stick.
As Bean asked, to what level are you willing to suffer for your white privilege?
And as I asked RC, what other labels would you wear so readily? Thief, wife beater paedo?

Fair question, although I would think all of those are a bit more categorical and involve a criminal act. Theft isn't usually a matter of interpretation.

There's no criminality in hogging the priority seat on the train when you don't need it - it just makes you a bit of a censored. If someone is alleging racist behaviour to a criminal extent then absolutely that should be backed up with hard evidence, and accusations shouldn't be made lightly. In the train scenario I don't think it would bother me that much as it's unlikely to have any long-term impact beyond that journey. If it's one of my work colleagues accusing another or me, then that's obviously more significant and deserves to be taken more seriously.

Just an aside, but I was in San Fran last week and on their trains its apparently Federal Law that you do have to give up a priority seat for disabled persons.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

We're in danger of torturing this scenario to death. Yes, I'm as guilty of making assumptions as the next person. Maybe B doesn't even want to sit down.

You are dodging the question. Irrespective of whether the woman wants a seat, why do you assume she is not capable of speaking for herself? Why does she need you to advocate on her behalf?

Having spent a lot of time commuting by train I've noticed that pregnant women tend to be reluctant to ask people to give up their seat. The fact that TFL provides badges for women supports that. But as I admitted, it's an assumption. If it blows up in my face it'll serve me right for poking my nose in.

this was certainly the case with my wife who was pregnant last year. Same for my colleague who sits next to me at work who is currently pregnant.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

If I was there from the start, I should have asked the guy to give up his seat in case he genuinely hadn't spotted her.

You would have assumed the woman was not capable of doing so herself, and asked on her behalf?

We're in danger of torturing this scenario to death. Yes, I'm as guilty of making assumptions as the next person. Maybe B doesn't even want to sit down.

You are dodging the question. Irrespective of whether the woman wants a seat, why do you assume she is not capable of speaking for herself? Why does she need you to advocate on her behalf?

Having spent a lot of time commuting by train I've noticed that pregnant women tend to be reluctant to ask people to give up their seat. The fact that TFL provides badges for women supports that. But as I admitted, it's an assumption. If it blows up in my face it'll serve me right for poking my nose in.

It's patronising and sexist, and if you are asking other people to consider these things, perhaps you should too.

rjsterry

I've already admitted as much three posts back. Pretty sure you still need a womb to become pregnant, but I could have rewritten the scenario with two men and the original point would remain the same.

rjsterry

Oops.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

I've already admitted as much three posts back. Pretty sure you still need a womb to become pregnant, but I could have rewritten the scenario with two men and the original point would remain the same.

Yes, you could have done, and if you are happy to patronise men and women in equal measure then I am happy to withdraw the accusation of sexism. I feel that I did give you a reasonable opportunity to make that point though.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

I've already admitted as much three posts back. Pretty sure you still need a womb to become pregnant, but I could have rewritten the scenario with two men and the original point would remain the same.

Yes, you could have done, and if you are happy to patronise men and women in equal measure then I am happy to withdraw the accusation of sexism. I feel that I did give you a reasonable opportunity to make that point though.

I make no claim to get this all right. I'd also suggest that there are a range of views. Some might find it patronising and others might find it helpful.