On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 23:26 +0100, Rob Dixon wrote: > On 31/08/2013 22:09, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 20:46 +0100, Rob Dixon wrote: > > > >> I'm sorry David, but I find this very offensive. > > > > Before we continue, I would ask you to watch this video: > > http://www.snotr.com/video/8285/Steve_Hughes_-_Offended > > > > Watch it from 3:20 to 5:45. Before reading any further, please. > > I would much rather you explained to me directly what you wanted to say > by linking this clip. I know Steve Hughes is a stand-up comedian; if you > are having trouble explaining yourself then perhaps it would be better > to cite a more authoritative source.
I have no trouble explaining myself, thank you. But Steve Hughes has done such a good job of it that it seems redundant to reinvent the wheel. I appreciate that video (well, audio in particular) is a pain in the arse a lot of the time. But the written version is far too bland, and loses much of its effect. Here it is anyway: http://antitheist-atheist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/steve-hughes-offended-transcript.html > > You seem to think that I was impugning Mable Syrup's intelligence when I > > said it was simple. You're wrong; I wasn't. > > I don't think you mean "impugning". It doesn't make sense in that context. You made me go and look it up now... the dictionaries say that it means 'to call into question', or 'cast doubt upon'. Which is fairly much how I intended it. Why does that not make sense? I'll try again: "You seem to think that I was calling Mable Syrup's intelligence into question when I said it was simple. You're wrong. I wasn't." Is that clearer for you now? > But really? You think you can say without any implication that a thing > someone doesn't understand is "simple"? Yes. I know for *certain* that I said it without that implication. You've made that *inference*, and wrongly so. There are *lots* of "simple" things that I don't understand. There's no shame in that. Especially when it comes to things which are actually quite simple underneath, but which appear complex at first glance because there is a lot of misinformation or gratuitous complexity surrounding them, as I is the case here. It is *completely* inappropriate for an adult to take offence just because something they don't understand is referred to as 'simple'. It is *doubly* inappropriate for you to take it upon yourself to claim offence on behalf of a third party, just in *case* they suffer that kind of childish attitude. That behaviour has no place on this list. This is not a kindergarten; this is a technical mailing list. > This is the get_iplayer list. It is appropriate here to be as bland as > possible, No. That is never something I have set out as a requirement or even *desirable* on any of the mailing lists I provide. The purpose of this list, as I stated, is to be *helpful*. Or failing that, to amuse and enlighten. It is absolutely *not* to be 'bland'. Since you are so keen that I put it into my own words... I *abhor* the culture of political correctness and which increasingly blights our society. We live in a New Salem, where accusations of witchcraft have been replaced with cries of "I am offended!" — and like in the original Salem there is no viable defence. By attempting to explain the accuser's mistakes you only make things worse. So like an accused witch, they get you either way. You either drown or burn; there is no escape. This desire for "blandness", in case some muppet misinterprets something and wrongly takes offence, is a direct result of that. And it is one which I wholeheartedly reject. It is *counterproductive* — pandering to it just encourages people to think they were right to claim "offence" in the first place, and thus makes the *real* problem worse. I would like to make sure that you are in no doubt that your behaviour was inappropriate. I've already explained technically why your inference was wrong, and now I hope I have sufficiently explained why your response was inappropriate and unacceptable even if you'd been right and I *had* caused Mable Syrup to go crying to his/her mummy. Which I'm fairly sure I didn't. Please do *not* do it again. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ get_iplayer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
