| Author |
Message |
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 2:10 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:36:07 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | "Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 16:25:43 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:22:01 +0100, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
- Livingstone made a remark to the journalist likening him to a
concentration camp guard, the journalist pointed out that he was
Jewish, but Livingstone carried on with the insult and refused to
apologise. Livingstone ought to have backed down immediately,
recognising that likening a Jew to a concentration camp guard is a
much nastier insult than likening anyone else, and what was
excusable before he knew his victim was Jewish was inexcusable
afterwards.
I'm fairly sure that he knew beforehand that the reporter was
Jewish. At the very least the remark was extremely crass, and the
subsequent arrogant refusal to apologise was, well, arrogant.
See my reply to Katie -- his remark was not at all crass but very
well-judged, and he should be applauded rather than criticized for
making it.
I have to disagree with this, likening anyone to a concentration guard
in everyday life is crass.
This is the rough gist of it: Livingstone was annoyed by the reporter's
questioning, and complained to him about it. The reporter implied that
he didn't like what he was doing, but that he had been told to do it and
was therefore just folllowing orders. Livingstone pointed out that this
was the excuse trotted out by those accused of war crimes at Nuremburg,
and that the reporter was therefore acting just like a concentration
camp guard. I think that Livingstone deliberately chose this metaphor
because he knew the impact that it would have on this particular
reporter, and I really don't see how "crass" is an appropriate term for
it.
|
Because reporters, even when acting unreasonably, don't beat their
subjects, carry guns, or participate in rape or genocide. If he'd said it
on Usenet he'd have broken Godwin's Law, and I don't see that the same
standard shouldn't be applied to "real life".
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:35 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:36:07 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 16:25:43 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:22:01 +0100, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
- Livingstone made a remark to the journalist likening him to
a
concentration camp guard, the journalist pointed out that he
was
Jewish, but Livingstone carried on with the insult and refused
to
apologise. Livingstone ought to have backed down immediately,
recognising that likening a Jew to a concentration camp guard
is
a much nastier insult than likening anyone else, and what was
excusable before he knew his victim was Jewish was inexcusable
afterwards.
I'm fairly sure that he knew beforehand that the reporter was
Jewish. At the very least the remark was extremely crass, and
the
subsequent arrogant refusal to apologise was, well, arrogant.
See my reply to Katie -- his remark was not at all crass but
very
well-judged, and he should be applauded rather than criticized
for
making it.
I have to disagree with this, likening anyone to a concentration
guard in everyday life is crass.
This is the rough gist of it: Livingstone was annoyed by the
reporter's questioning, and complained to him about it. The
reporter implied that he didn't like what he was doing, but that
he
had been told to do it and was therefore just folllowing orders.
Livingstone pointed out that this was the excuse trotted out by
those accused of war crimes at Nuremburg, and that the reporter
was
therefore acting just like a concentration camp guard. I think
that
Livingstone deliberately chose this metaphor because he knew the
impact that it would have on this particular reporter, and I
really
don't see how "crass" is an appropriate term for it.
Because reporters, even when acting unreasonably, don't beat their
subjects, carry guns, or participate in rape or genocide. If he'd
said it on Usenet he'd have broken Godwin's Law, and I don't see
that
the same standard shouldn't be applied to "real life".
|
I sympathise with both parties here. But let's remember that the
journo _was_ working for the Daily Mail Group, which has specialised
in pushing the right-wing shit as moronically as its public will take
since the nineteen-thirties. "How do you confuse the editor of the
Daily Mail?" "Tell him asylum seekers are the natural prey of illegal
immigrants." They've been after Ken Livingstone for decades, no
matter what he does. He's got as much right to hit back as they have
to hound him; but perhaps he shouldn't have.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:58 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 22:35:18 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:36:07 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 16:25:43 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:22:01 +0100, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
- Livingstone made a remark to the journalist likening him to
a
concentration camp guard, the journalist pointed out that he
was
Jewish, but Livingstone carried on with the insult and refused
to
apologise. Livingstone ought to have backed down immediately,
recognising that likening a Jew to a concentration camp guard
is
a much nastier insult than likening anyone else, and what was
excusable before he knew his victim was Jewish was inexcusable
afterwards.
I'm fairly sure that he knew beforehand that the reporter was
Jewish. At the very least the remark was extremely crass, and
the
subsequent arrogant refusal to apologise was, well, arrogant.
See my reply to Katie -- his remark was not at all crass but
very
well-judged, and he should be applauded rather than criticized
for
making it.
I have to disagree with this, likening anyone to a concentration
guard in everyday life is crass.
This is the rough gist of it: Livingstone was annoyed by the
reporter's questioning, and complained to him about it. The
reporter implied that he didn't like what he was doing, but that
he
had been told to do it and was therefore just folllowing orders.
Livingstone pointed out that this was the excuse trotted out by
those accused of war crimes at Nuremburg, and that the reporter
was
therefore acting just like a concentration camp guard. I think
that
Livingstone deliberately chose this metaphor because he knew the
impact that it would have on this particular reporter, and I
really
don't see how "crass" is an appropriate term for it.
Because reporters, even when acting unreasonably, don't beat their
subjects, carry guns, or participate in rape or genocide. If he'd
said it on Usenet he'd have broken Godwin's Law, and I don't see
that
the same standard shouldn't be applied to "real life".
I sympathise with both parties here. But let's remember that the
journo _was_ working for the Daily Mail Group, which has specialised
in pushing the right-wing shit as moronically as its public will take
since the nineteen-thirties. "How do you confuse the editor of the
Daily Mail?" "Tell him asylum seekers are the natural prey of illegal
immigrants." They've been after Ken Livingstone for decades, no
matter what he does. He's got as much right to hit back as they have
to hound him; but perhaps he shouldn't have.
|
I'd have had no particular objection if he'd called the guy an arsewipe,
and not even really if he'd done a Prescott. Either would've been better,
but in any case he should've apologised. It's amazing the number of people
who fail to grasp the concept that they can do something for seemingly
justifiable reasons, but can still be in the wrong.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:18 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
| Quote: |
I'd have had no particular objection if he'd called the guy an
arsewipe, and not even really if he'd done a Prescott. Either
would've been better, but in any case he should've apologised.
It's amazing the number of people who fail to grasp the concept that
they can do something for seemingly justifiable reasons, but can still
be in the wrong.
|
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's not
just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 5:59 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's not
just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
|
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right to call
someone in public (particularly if you know him to be Jewish), a
concentration camp guard. Even if no offence had been intended, an apology
would have been courteous; it's not as if he couldn't have apologised for
the term and still called him a mindless wanker, or somesuch.
If I were faced with an officious council worker or bank teller I wouldn't
call him or her a concentration camp guard, it simply isn't appropriate.
It's not the most offensive (or potentially offensive) term, but it's out
of all proportion to the circumstances. I might have the sense not to call
a bank teller who happened to be black "a slave to his employer's rules".
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 2:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
in 1156022 20050521 005955 Andrew Gwilliam <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's not
just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right to call
someone in public (particularly if you know him to be Jewish), a
concentration camp guard. Even if no offence had been intended, an apology
would have been courteous; it's not as if he couldn't have apologised for
the term and still called him a mindless wanker, or somesuch.
|
Ken didn't say he WAS a concentration camp guard, but that he was acting
JUST LIKE a concentration camp guard in that he was blindly following
orders he disagreed with.
Big difference as far as I'm concerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 2:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's
not just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right to
call someone in public (particularly if you know him to be Jewish), a
concentration camp guard.
|
Ken didn't "call him a ccg"; he pointed out how the reporter's
behaviour could be likened to that of a ccg. Surely the -- crucial --
difference is obvious?
Matti
| Quote: | Even if no offence had been intended, an apology
would have been courteous; it's not as if he couldn't have apologised
for the term and still called him a mindless wanker, or somesuch.
If I were faced with an officious council worker or bank teller I
wouldn't call him or her a concentration camp guard, it simply isn't
appropriate. It's not the most offensive (or potentially offensive)
term, but it's out of all proportion to the circumstances. I might
have the sense not to call a bank teller who happened to be black
"a slave to his employer's rules". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 2:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:00:28 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
| Quote: | in 1156022 20050521 005955 Andrew Gwilliam <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's not
just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right to call
someone in public (particularly if you know him to be Jewish), a
concentration camp guard. Even if no offence had been intended, an apology
would have been courteous; it's not as if he couldn't have apologised for
the term and still called him a mindless wanker, or somesuch.
Ken didn't say he WAS a concentration camp guard, but that he was acting
JUST LIKE a concentration camp guard in that he was blindly following
orders he disagreed with.
Big difference as far as I'm concerned.
|
Hardly a difference of any signficance. He could've called him a jumped-up
little jobsworth, but instead he likened him to a concentration camp guard.
I cannot see how these can be considered to be of similar degree.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Malcolm
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:00:28 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1156022 20050521 005955 Andrew Gwilliam <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's not
just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right to call
someone in public (particularly if you know him to be Jewish), a
concentration camp guard. Even if no offence had been intended, an apology
would have been courteous; it's not as if he couldn't have apologised for
the term and still called him a mindless wanker, or somesuch.
Ken didn't say he WAS a concentration camp guard, but that he was acting
JUST LIKE a concentration camp guard in that he was blindly following
orders he disagreed with.
Big difference as far as I'm concerned.
Hardly a difference of any signficance. He could've called him a jumped-up
little jobsworth, but instead he likened him to a concentration camp guard.
I cannot see how these can be considered to be of similar degree.
|
But isn't that the whole point of the riposte? To raise the question
about where you draw the line?
"What do you mean I'm a thief? It's only a library book! It's not as
though I broke into your house and shat on the carpet, is it?"
I think there is an absurd fashion for carrying sensitivity to
people's feelings much too far. I will agree that it's arguably
insensitive and crass to make jokes about coffins to someone whose
mother has just died. But to argue that it's crass to use the
Nuremberg example to illustrate the point to a Jew who's admitted to
doing something distasteful and unethical "because I'm only following
orders" is on the same level as "They're Germans dear! Whatever you do
for God's sake don't mention the war!"
--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 1:56 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
In message <428e79fb$0$38041$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, Andrew
Gwilliam <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> writes
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's not
just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right to call
someone in public (particularly if you know him to be Jewish), a
concentration camp guard. Even if no offence had been intended, an apology
would have been courteous; it's not as if he couldn't have apologised for
the term and still called him a mindless wanker, or somesuch.
If I were faced with an officious council worker or bank teller I wouldn't
call him or her a concentration camp guard, it simply isn't appropriate.
It's not the most offensive (or potentially offensive) term, but it's out
of all proportion to the circumstances. I might have the sense not to call
a bank teller who happened to be black "a slave to his employer's rules".
As pointed out in another (probably) thread by M. Omrud, if you're going |
to insult someone deliberately, make sure they know it.
The idea that one should be obliged to apologise for insulting someone
that one wanted to insult seems odd to me. I wouldn't apologise unless
I'd had a change of heart, or (if I could be sufficiently unethical by
my own standards) saw that I could gain by being insincere. A forced
apology is a humiliation.
Now that people are being awarded sums of money as damages to make up
for their hurt feelings, and words are being bundled into the same
category as sticks and stones in spite of the old saw, the ice on which
freedom of speech skates is seen to be still melting.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 6:35 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | "Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:54 +0100, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
Whether he was in the wrong or not is a matter of opinion, and it's
not just Ken who thinks he wasn't.
Obviously so, on both points. But I cannot see how it can be right
to call someone in public (particularly if you know him to be
Jewish), a concentration camp guard.
Ken didn't "call him a ccg"; he pointed out how the reporter's
behaviour could be likened to that of a ccg. Surely the -- crucial --
difference is obvious?
|
Just for the record, according to the Telegraph website the following is
a transcript of the conversation as recorded by the reporter:
Oliver Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?
Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: How did tonight go?
Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm
actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Livingstone: Ah right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are
just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you
are paid to, aren't you?
Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?
Livingstone: It's nothing to do you with you because your paper is a
load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.
Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a
comment.
Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of
supporting facism.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in