News0 min ago
Olympics Commentator Axed Over Sexist Remark
https:/
Is this more woke madness ?
Answers
Yes, woke madness. This is a bloke commentating
08:29 Mon 29th Jul 2024
A bit more 'wokery' this morning for those who are struggling to understand what it means in modern parlance:
Nigel Farage has blasted “woke” military chiefs for dropping the nickname of one of the Royal Air Force’s most decorated squadrons.
14 Squadron was popularly known as the “Crusaders” after its pilots flew sorties over Gaza and Palestine during the First World War.
However, crews have now been told to strip out any references to the word around their hangar after a senior officer upheld a single complaint from an RAF crew member who said the term was insulting.
"it's just elderly people moaning about the world changing"
I don't think it is. It is about some people (not all of them elderly) refusing to submit to the kind of "thought control" that others are seeking to impose on them.
This gentleman made a light-hearted remark about a group of women and, equally light-heartedly, also applied it to women in general. That's his view or opinion, probably not too seriously. It did nobody any harm and nobody was disadvantaged by it. Men speak of women in that way, women speak of men that way. It's what normal people do to lighten the day.
Unfortunately this individual made his remark on a very widely broadcast TV slot and inevitably the usual po-faced professional offence takers roared into action. Their agenda is all about control, dictating the way that people should think and act in an attempt to see compliance and conformity reign.
Life's not like that. We're all different; we all have different ways of approaching things and dealing with things; we all see things in a differnt light; we all have vastly different senses of humour. So long as no harm or disadvantage follows, that's really all that matters.
People need to lighten up. One day they will encounter something that really does affect them and they will be unable to deal with it because they will have become too fragile.
There is a worrying tendency for people to censor 'in case of offence' which clearly indicates that there may not be anyone who is offended, so there is no need for advance defence, which is what a lot of 'wokism' - in its broadest sense - seems to be.
In this instance, an assumption of earth-shattering offence being taken has led to this gentleman losing his job, and apparently no discernable response from the women at whom the remark was directed.
Assuming offence on behalf of others is arrogant and dangerous. It presumes an undeserved superior level of 'protection' for strangers who quite probably neither need or appreciate it.
In this individual situation, the gentleman should have been reminded of his manners, and offered an apology, and anyone offended should have accepted it for what it was - a thoughtless stupid remark, but hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
The defence of 'banter' and comparison with serious issues are both faulty debating.
The idea that someone who is hurt or offended should simply accept the additional character assassination of being labeled humourless is not helpful in increasing tolerance and care for others.
A little thought before a knee-jerk response would have seen this issue handled better for all concerned.
"The idea that someone who is hurt or offended should simply accept the additional character assassination of being labeled humourless is not helpful in increasing tolerance and care for others."
I agree, Andy. But the issue here is that the people who were the subject of his remarks were, seemingly, not hurt or offended.
What gets my goat are the professional "offence takers" who crawl from the woodwork any time anything like this arises. Viz:
"His co-commentator and British swimming champion Lizzie Simmonds had immediately branded his remark "outrageous",.."
Why is it "outrageous". The four women were dawdling. Women are often late because they take time over their appearance. There is nothing "outrageous" over conflating the two in a light-hearted way.
People who portray faux "outrage" on behalf of third parties (who are often not outraged themselves) at such innocent and innoffensive remarks have only one aim - to force concurrence and compliance with their point of view and their opinion, which (they believe) trumps all others.
It doesn't. They are arrogant and self-righteous to believe that it does. Most of the women I know, if on the end of such a remark, would come back with an eqully light-hearted and witty reposte to cut Mr Ballard down.
What is truly outrageous is the fact that Mr Ballard has been relieved of his duties and the organisation he was working for on this occasion has said they will never employ him again. They are simply fuelling the arrogance of the professional offendees and giving credence to the notion that their opinion is the only one which matters.
NJ - // But the issue here is that the people who were the subject of his remarks were, seemingly, not hurt or offended. //
Absolutely.
There is a section of sociey that has created its role in taking offence onb behalf of other people, which is arrogant, and pointless.
If I offend anyone it will almost always be unintentional, and if I observe offence taken, I am happy to apologise, although it is exceedingly rare, because I am an adult and I know my manners.
But the willingness of some to get het up on behalf of strangers who are capable of speaking for themselves, as in this case, is fueling this unpleasant trend.
The broadcaster's termination of a contract was ridiculously OTT, and makes them look the fools, rather than their employee, who will doubtless learn his lesson and move on.
O_G - // If once genuinely shows oneself to lack basic humour, then, even accepting tastes differ, the lack of acceptance/tolerance means that; if the cap fits... //
What is unacceptable, is making someone who has been verbally attacked, with varying degrees of damage, made to feel worse for the 'crime' of 'having no sense of humour'.
Humour is a personal trait, and it's no-one's right to dictate that other people should accept as 'banter' when it may be hurtful and offensive.
That's intolerence, and it should be jumped on on sight.
Latest Posts
Would You Get In One Of These?
Motoring3 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News10 mins ago
News13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.