Jump to content

Things You Don't "Get"


CrackpotForeigner

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Wasn't it?

I think you're splitting hairs.

There were thousands of people there who were passionate about the Royal family and would be very offended about protestors shouting and displaying negative things about the King, and some likely to react unfavourably.

You can't decide one thing is offensive because you are interested and agree it is, but say something else isn't offensive just because you're disinterested in it or somewhat agree with the message.

Surely offence is in the ear of the receiver?

I don't see much difference between the 97 t-shirt and ranting at the King amongst a royal crowd.  Both are designed to cause offence to those around you.

In my opinion you let the t-shirt stay if you let the royal protestors stay .

I think a more accurate comparison would be if anti-Royalists had turned up at the coronation chanting "Kill the King" or wearing a T-shirt with a picture of King Charles I being beheaded and the caption "Death to all Royals".  Shouting "Not My King" is more aligned to generic chanting at a football match (although some chants do tread very close to the line).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

They may struggle to get a Man United or Man City fan that was offended by the shirt. Bad taste, childish but offensive?

I think they would get plenty of fans offended by it.  I would be offended if a Villa fan turned up at a cup final with a Tracey Andrews T-shirt.  Not all football fans are rabid partisan obsessives with pure hate in their heart for rivals with no boundaries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bloke I worked with is a rabid man ure fan (from Coventry, but to be fair, he's had a season ticket for last 35 yrs)....anyway....when we worked in the office he had a tablet that also acted as a WiFi hotspot....he made it a public one so anyone in the office who searched for wifi would see his pop up as an option to connect. 

He called it "justice for heysel" 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I think they would get plenty of fans offended by it.  I would be offended if a Villa fan turned up at a cup final with a Tracey Andrews T-shirt.  Not all football fans are rabid partisan obsessives with pure hate in their heart for rivals with no boundaries.

Perhaps people are quick to be offended. That's the underlying problem, offense or fauxffense is rampant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Perhaps people are quick to be offended. That's the underlying problem, offense or fauxffense is rampant. 

Perhaps people are too insensitive to the feelings of people around them and need to think a bit before they do something dumb.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

But essentially you can't intentionally be a bellend or seek to upset people.

When it comes to speech or "speech acts," signs, etc,, it's such a remarkable and stark difference in UK law (specifically, the Public Order Act) and most American criminal codes working under the US Constitution. I should be used to it, but I'm not. In practical terms, I think British artists and writers and thinkers are often more willing to be intellectually and also culturally confrontational than their American counterparts, so it brings real irony to the comparison.

So it's strange to me, the 97 t-shirt thing. It's offensive -- so don't look at it is what I think. But to arrest someone? I don't understand.

What if I'm against some hypothetical political movement, and I seek to offend its supports -- to mock, denigrate, and upset them -- with the hopes of damaging their standing. Let''s say this hypothetical political movement is very well-behaved and peaceful, even reserved and retiring, but I still consider them politically dangerous to democracy. So I make a very offensive t-shirt. It's ridicules them. It tries to cause distress through satire. How can I be stopped in that in a self-respecting democracy? The 97 t-shirt is repugnant and callous satire. I don't like it. But maybe the awful person who wears it think they're making an important point that's part of a national conversation about an event from four decades ago?

Edited by Marka Ragnos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marka Ragnos said:

When it comes to speech or "speech acts," signs, etc,, it's such a remarkable and stark difference in UK law (specifically, the Public Order Act) and most American criminal codes working under the US Constitution. I should be used to it, but I'm not. In practical terms, I think British artists and writers and thinkers are often more willing to be intellectually and also culturally confrontational than their American counterparts, so it brings real irony to the comparison.

So it's strange to me, the 97 t-shirt thing. It's offensive -- so don't look at it is what I think. But to arrest someone? I don't understand.

What if I'm against some hypothetical political movement, and I seek to offend its supports -- to mock, denigrate, and upset them -- with the hopes of damaging their standing. Let''s say this hypothetical political movement is very well-behaved and peaceful, even reserved and retiring, but I still consider them politically dangerous to democracy. So I make a very offensive t-shirt. It's ridicules them. It tries to cause distress through satire. How can I be stopped in that in a self-respecting democracy? The 97 t-shirt is repugnant and callous satire. I don't like it. But maybe the awful person who wears it think they're making an important point that's part of a national conversation about an event from four decades ago?

If the shirt had been a picture of the twin towers and the words ‘not enough’?

No? Both just offensive but not worthy of an arrest? Fair enough.

What about a picture of Auschwitz?

It’s spectacularly complicated, I agree. Luckily all British police have to have a philosophy degree and be from a previously persecuted minority so they are universally respected as empaths.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If the shirt had been a picture of the twin towers and the words ‘not enough’?

No? Both just offensive but not worthy of an arrest? Fair enough.

What about a picture of Auschwitz?

It’s spectacularly complicated, I agree. Luckily all British police have to have a philosophy degree and be from a previously persecuted minority so they are universally respected as empaths.

 

That's a good comparison, I think. I'm honestly not sure I get just how actively discussed an issue it is in the UK. The last time I really heard about it before the t-shirt incident was with the British republican protests. But it's been an issue that's started to boil again recently in the States -- I'm not sure why, exactly, but I do think there are people on the left here who would support changes to our First Amendment, something I doubt will happen any time soon and which I'd oppose. We have challenges on public university campuses. My wife encountered this horrible man in NYC last year. He was eventually arrested, but not for hate speech. I think charges may have been dropped. I think they got him on noise ordinances or something eventually? He's be arrested in the UK, right?  

Quote

 

The man spotted spewing antisemitic and racist remarks through a bullhorn outside of Queens College last week has continued showing up to the college campus almost daily, despite being told by police multiple times to leave.

The unidentified man, who is not believed to be a Queens College student, was seen standing outside of the CUNY school on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, shouting antisemitic and racist tropes at students, faculty and staff and they walked to and from the school’s campus.

Though he hasn’t been arrested, the man has continued to rack up summonses for noise and parking violations. Queens College officials have additionally barred him from entering onto the Kew Gardens campus.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BOF said:

This also reminds me of a signature line or some kind of throwaway line in someone's bio somewhere recently that said "bigger burgers should be wider, not taller" and I completely agree with that. I can come at something (kw.gif) from the side no matter how big it is, but I'm sure there comes a point where a ridiculously tall burger either needs to be de-constructed or attacked from above :lol:

If only there was a thread for things like this...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

That's a good comparison, I think. I'm honestly not sure I get just how actively discussed an issue it is in the UK. The last time I really heard about it before the t-shirt incident was with the British republican protests. But it's been an issue that's started to boil again recently in the States -- I'm not sure why, exactly, but I do think there are people on the left here who would support changes to our First Amendment, something I doubt will happen any time soon and which I'd oppose. We have challenges on public university campuses. My wife encountered this horrible man in NYC last year. He was eventually arrested, but not for hate speech. I think charges may have been dropped. I think they got him on noise ordinances or something eventually? He's be arrested in the UK, right?  

 

Well,thats the difference between England and America.If this incident happened in America,there would be around 20/30 dead students by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PussEKatt said:

Well,thats the difference between England and America.If this incident happened in America,there would be around 20/30 dead students by now.

It did happen in AMerica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SHFiguarts, a line of fairly expensive but high quality 1/12 scale action figures produced by the Japanese giant corporation Bandai, makes some weird shit on occasion. But even I don't understand this one.

item_0000014496_3nyUscKM_03.jpg

item_0000014496_3nyUscKM_05.jpg

item_0000014496_3nyUscKM_09.jpg

Like... They've done Freddie Mercury before, and Michael Jackson, and while it's a bit weird to have them standing in a collection of figures that's usually more focused on movie characters and anime icons (and a million versions of every character that's ever been in an episode of Dragon Ball), I get it, they're iconic people, they're larger than life. But JK from Jamiroqui? As he looked in a video from 25 years ago? Why? Why?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Chindie said:

SHFiguarts, a line of fairly expensive but high quality 1/12 scale action figures produced by the Japanese giant corporation Bandai, makes some weird shit on occasion. But even I don't understand this one.

item_0000014496_3nyUscKM_03.jpg

item_0000014496_3nyUscKM_05.jpg

item_0000014496_3nyUscKM_09.jpg

Like... They've done Freddie Mercury before, and Michael Jackson, and while it's a bit weird to have them standing in a collection of figures that's usually more focused on movie characters and anime icons (and a million versions of every character that's ever been in an episode of Dragon Ball), I get it, they're iconic people, they're larger than life. But JK from Jamiroqui? As he looked in a video from 25 years ago? Why? Why?

Because they are/were quite popular in a surprising middle of the road way. According to wiki they were the 3rd biggest selling UK act of the 1990's. Either that or they like hats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s the Virtual Insanity video as much as JK that’s being commemorated there (if not more). 

I’m not a fan or massively knowledgeable on Jamiroquai, but my perception is that that video’s legacy outweighs the band itself.

Now whether the video warrants that affection so many years later is another matter…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/06/2023 at 14:19, Marka Ragnos said:

I don’t really understand British law. Why was this man arrested?

Causing “distress” is illegal? It just seems soooooo subjective and broad.

 

As a matter of interest, what happened to the charge of, 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace"?

This would certainly cover the wearing of a shirt likely to provoke violence.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/05/2023 at 16:05, Paddywhack said:

I would like to retract this statement, apologise to you all and confirm that I was talking bullshit.

After years only having Coke Zero, I've just had a can of diet coke and it just tastes like sparkling water.

Coke Zero is waaaay nicer than Diet Coke.

Coke Zero tastes like Coke, or at least close to it. 
 

Diet Coke has a totally different taste

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I think it’s the Virtual Insanity video as much as JK that’s being commemorated there (if not more). 

I’m not a fan or massively knowledgeable on Jamiroquai, but my perception is that that video’s legacy outweighs the band itself.

Now whether the video warrants that affection so many years later is another matter…

Yeah this. It was a pretty revolutionary video at the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â