Thread: Jolly Jape or Deep Offence? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020420

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
If this (*) is a correct record of the event, is any action required?


(*) https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/duke-of-edinburgh-‘asked-if-bearded-man-was-terrorist-while-joking-with-crowds’/ar-BBHz Q2H?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
I would think the best thing to do is not report it (too late, I know). After all this old man saying silly things is not new.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
"Reported by the Sun and the Mail" - so not any reputable news outlets then.

If he said it, it was a joke in poor taste. If he had believed there was a terrorists, he would have done something rather more significant, I think. I don't think it is really offensive, just tasteless.

I am of the view that it is probably made up. Putting offensive jokes into his mouth is an easy trick.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
What action would be required, if it were true? He's hardly likely to go to a social acceptability class.

He does like a(n ill-considered) joke it seems. He won't be around long. Won't change. I'm not sure why we need to hear about these.

[ 01. January 2018, 08:22: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps he was referring to this chap?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
It seems that a joke was intended.

Humour depends on tone of voice and timing that don't come across in newspaper reports.

It may or may not have been funny to those who were there and heard it first hand. The fact that it doesn't seem funny to us who weren't there doesn't mean that action is required.

Hope I'm able to crack a joke when I get to that age.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It seems that a joke was intended.

Humour depends on tone of voice and timing that don't come across in newspaper reports.

It may or may not have been funny to those who were there and heard it first hand. The fact that it doesn't seem funny to us who weren't there doesn't mean that action is required.

Hope I'm able to crack a joke when I get to that age.

So racism is ok if it is trying to be funny and is perpetrated by the husband of a reigning monarch??
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
"Reported by the Sun and the Mail" - so not any reputable news outlets then.

If he said it, it was a joke in poor taste. If he had believed there was a terrorists, he would have done something rather more significant, I think. I don't think it is really offensive, just tasteless.

I am of the view that it is probably made up. Putting offensive jokes into his mouth is an easy trick.


 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
"Reported by the Sun and the Mail" - so not any reputable news outlets then.

If he said it, it was a joke in poor taste. If he had believed there was a terrorists, he would have done something rather more significant, I think. I don't think it is really offensive, just tasteless.

I am of the view that it is probably made up. Putting offensive jokes into his mouth is an easy trick.

If he did say it and nothing is done, then does this open the door again to "I was only joking" types of excuses?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, racism is not OK, even if said 'jokingly' (and who is to say whether it is meant that way, or not?), and by a prominent public personage.

Philip's age, sadly, means that he comes from a generally racist and bigoted generation, which will soon be gone, but he's also old enough to Know Better.

The problem here seems to be a lack of concrete evidence as to what was said, to whom, and in what manner. The Tits and the Heil are hardly reliable sources of Real News....

IJ
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
There's no single race that's shackled to terrorism, so racism doesn't seem to be the issue. (But we all know Prince Philip probably is a bit racist, though. That's not news!)

If anything, it's more like Islamophobia. Fortunately, though, the guy in question doesn't seem to be a Muslim, and wasn't offended by the bad joke.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
He's on my list of Public Figures Who Should Just Shut Up. (I probably needn't say who heads that list.)
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
No, it is not acceptable, whoever it is done by. I was trying to point out that it may have been said as a joke. It is a bad joke, and not acceptable.

I don't think it was intended as offence. That is important, actually. There are such a lot of racist and sexist and ablist comments made by people who mean them, and who act on them. That is far worse.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
According to the Guardian, the bearded man thought that it was funny.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
According to the Guardian, the bearded man thought that it was funny.

That's because he wasn't the target of the joke.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
According to the Guardian, the bearded man thought that it was funny.

That's because he wasn't the target of the joke.
I'm not so sure.

As a bearded person myself, I have twice been at the receiving end of terrorist jokes. In once case, I saw it as weak attempt at humorous badinage, and returned it with an equally weak smile. In the other, it was a passive aggressive response to the presence of someone from outside that social circle. In my experience, these things tend to come from people of a certain generation. In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
According to the Guardian, the bearded man thought that it was funny.

That's because he wasn't the target of the joke.
Yes. If I see a guy with a big nose, and say, "Hey, you must be a bloodsucking banker!", it doesn't really matter if the guy himself is cool with the joke. Because the joke depends on "Big nose = Jewish = bloodsucking banker", which is offenisive to Jews, even if the guy I'm talking to isn't Jewish.

[ 02. January 2018, 13:49: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
I save that response for the 18-30 age range. While old enough to know better, they are more likely to be able to change. 90+ and moderately functioning is a triumph, and WWII veterans get a fair bit of flexibility with me. YKMV.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
No, as that generation has been brought up for the first 50 years of their life being told it is OK.

Old dogs, new tricks.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
I save that response for the 18-30 age range. While old enough to know better, they are more likely to be able to change. 90+ and moderately functioning is a triumph, and WWII veterans get a fair bit of flexibility with me. YKMV.
So, how much flexibility would you give this WWII veteran for some of his statements? Born earlier than the prince, so with even more of an excuse not to know any better.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
No, as that generation has been brought up for the first 50 years of their life being told it is OK. Old dogs, new tricks.
That's always assuming they don't know better -- the 50 year thing can serve as a convenient smokescreen IME
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
I save that response for the 18-30 age range. While old enough to know better, they are more likely to be able to change. 90+ and moderately functioning is a triumph, and WWII veterans get a fair bit of flexibility with me. YKMV.
So, how much flexibility would you give this WWII veteran for some of his statements? Born earlier than the prince, so with even more of an excuse not to know any better.
None - unless he's proven not to be of sound mind. Racism, sexism, ageism, mindless so called banter are wrong irrespective of speaker, context or intent.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
I save that response for the 18-30 age range. While old enough to know better, they are more likely to be able to change. 90+ and moderately functioning is a triumph, and WWII veterans get a fair bit of flexibility with me. YKMV.
So, how much flexibility would you give this WWII veteran for some of his statements? Born earlier than the prince, so with even more of an excuse not to know any better.
I think I used the phrase "benefit of the doubt." With Governor Wallace, there was no doubt.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So racism is ok if it is trying to be funny and is perpetrated by the husband of a reigning monarch??

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but men with beards aren't actually a different race...

HRH lost an uncle to terrorism. If he can't joke about it, who can ?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
One is reminded me of the "Muslims aren't a race so it's OK to hate them" defence. Beards, Islam, they're just signifiers of "you are other, you are lesser, you are threat, you are not a proper person like me"
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I took it differently, a go at those ready to see a nest of terrorists in every mosque as once there were Reds under the bed. Here's a man of Arabic origin with a beard, fits the stereotype of a terrorist, and the jibe is not at the man but the stereotyping.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One is reminded me of the "Muslims aren't a race so it's OK to hate them" defence.

Hating people is not OK. Hating Islam for what it does to people seems perfectly reasonable.

But the word "racism" specifically refers to race, and is thus inapplicable here.

quote:

Beards, Islam, they're just signifiers of "you are other, you are lesser, you are threat, you are not a proper person like me"

Having noted the difficulty in not having reliable witness of what was said or the tone of voice in which it was said, it's not clear that HRH's joke was putting anyone down as not a proper person. Except perhaps terrorists, who deserve to be put down...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So racism is ok if it is trying to be funny and is perpetrated by the husband of a reigning monarch??

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but men with beards aren't actually a different race...

HRH lost an uncle to terrorism. If he can't joke about it, who can ?

No one can. It's not a laugh.

It's nothing to do with beards but with someone's feeble attempt at a joke which actually correlates beards with terrorism.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One is reminded me of the "Muslims aren't a race so it's OK to hate them" defence.

Hating people is not OK. Hating Islam for what it does to people seems perfectly reasonable.

But the word "racism" specifically refers to race, and is thus inapplicable here.

quote:

Beards, Islam, they're just signifiers of "you are other, you are lesser, you are threat, you are not a proper person like me"

Having noted the difficulty in not having reliable witness of what was said or the tone of voice in which it was said, it's not clear that HRH's joke was putting anyone down as not a proper person. Except perhaps terrorists, who deserve to be put down...

The tone is totally immaterial. It's the content which would have every police force in the UK arresting the perpetrator if he wasn't the Queen's husband.

In any event, even if we don't know precisely the tone. we are aware of numerous issues from the past.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I am of the view that it is probably made up. Putting offensive jokes into his mouth is an easy trick.
PROBABLY? The Sun and Daily Mail have proved by their other fascist style ult/right headlines recently that they are propaganda rags of the first order. If anyone should be prosecuted it is the editors of these obscene publications.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
I am of the view that it is probably made up. Putting offensive jokes into his mouth is an easy trick.
PROBABLY? The Sun and Daily Mail have proved by their other fascist style ult/right headlines recently that they are propaganda rags of the first order. If anyone should be prosecuted it is the editors of these obscene publications.
Wouldn't the typical Sun/Mail schtick not be to make up a story about someone being racist, but to make up(or at least ridiculously exaggerate) a story about someone over-reacting to racism?

"Students in schools run by Labour-councils are being given extra credit for burning effigies of Prince Philip as protest against his light-hearted joke about beards." That sort of thing.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Exclamation Mark wrote:

quote:
The tone is totally immaterial. It's the content which would have every police force in the UK arresting the perpetrator if he wasn't the Queen's husband.
Yes. As in...

"Do you realise your horse is gay?"

The kid didn't even have to say anything negative about homosexuals to get himself arrested there.
 
Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :
 
Whatever it may be, it's clearly not a police matter. I'd say it was dry observational wit. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to sulk.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Exclamation Mark wrote:

quote:
The tone is totally immaterial. It's the content which would have every police force in the UK arresting the perpetrator if he wasn't the Queen's husband.
Yes. As in...

"Do you realise your horse is gay?"

The kid didn't even have to say anything negative about homosexuals to get himself arrested there.

Arrested for simply making either of those comments? You'd have to be pretty sensitive to see a breach of the peace in either of them.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I rather think the police horse incident has little to do with the homophobia or otherwise of the remarks and a lot to do with a policeman trying to pin something on an irritatingly drunk student. It's not exactly uncommon for the police to decide something's a crime and then try and work out which crime later if the perpetrator pisses them off enough.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
With all due respect, it's not as though Oxford hasn't had badly-behaved students even further back in time (the horse incident seems to have occurred in 2006)...

IJ
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the case of a 90+ veteran, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

So you cut more slack on the basis of age? Shouldn't they be old enough to know better?
Age related brain changes to the frontal lobe mean that the very elderly start to lose the inbitary control they originally gained in their teens. So I do think there is an extent to which great age is a mitigating factor.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I rather think the police horse incident has little to do with the homophobia or otherwise of the remarks and a lot to do with a policeman trying to pin something on an irritatingly drunk student. It's not exactly uncommon for the police to decide something's a crime and then try and work out which crime later if the perpetrator pisses them off enough.

It's also a characteristic failing of organisations that place a high value on loyalty to the organisation to be amazingly thick-headedly reluctant to admit that they've made a mistake, to go on making excuses for themselves, to carry on digging themselves into a hole, even when it's objectively blatantly obvious they are wrong.

Possibly, a charge of being drunk and disorderly might have stuck. But that wasn't the charge they'd chosen. It should have been obvious that there's no basis for saying a horse might be gay was either homophobic or was going to cause harassment, alarm or distress to anybody.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It should have been obvious that there's no basis for saying a horse might be gay was either homophobic or was going to cause harassment, alarm or distress to anybody.

It might not harass anyone, but the clear implication of "do you know your horse is gay" in this context is that being gay is undesirable and inferior. IOW, pretty much exactly evidence of homophobia. It's low-grade homophibic twaddle from a drunk idiot.

But I agree that he was really charged with "acting like a dick to a policeman."
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I rather think the police horse incident has little to do with the homophobia or otherwise of the remarks and a lot to do with a policeman trying to pin something on an irritatingly drunk student. It's not exactly uncommon for the police to decide something's a crime and then try and work out which crime later if the perpetrator pisses them off enough.

Depending on how much thought the cops put into a disguised lese-majeste charge, our equestrian guardian of the public safety might have calculated that accusing the guy of homophobia would come off as more high-minded than just drunk'n'disorderly.

I guarantee you that there were at least a few gays and gay-allies who were cheering on the cop, oblivious to the fact that he was likely just throwing his weight around. (No slight against gays, most communities contain people who can be duped into supporting any act of authoritarianism done ostensibly on their behalf.)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by decampagne:
Whatever it may be, it's clearly not a police matter. I'd say it was dry observational wit.

In that case Donald Trump is the driest, most on the ball person I've ever heard of
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by decampagne:
Whatever it may be, it's clearly not a police matter. I'd say it was dry observational wit.

In that case Donald Trump is the driest, most on the ball person I've ever heard of
Except for behind the ears.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
I'm a bit puzzled. The article linked to in the OP states that the man concerned has a ginger beard. So, it could not be a case of "that man looks like a muslim, is he a terrorist?"

Are Scottish people likely to be terrorists?

It seems to me to be more pogonophobic than islamophobic.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Only if confined to the debatable lands, with bonuses including whisky and cattle. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by decampagne:
Whatever it may be, it's clearly not a police matter. I'd say it was dry observational wit.

In that case Donald Trump is the driest, most on the ball person I've ever heard of
One might even say he was a stable genius.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I'm a bit puzzled. The article linked to in the OP states that the man concerned has a ginger beard. So, it could not be a case of "that man looks like a muslim, is he a terrorist?"

Are Scottish people likely to be terrorists?

It seems to me to be more pogonophobic than islamophobic.

Thanks for my word of the week!

Though I did think there existed the occasional Middle Easterner with red hair.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
<snip>The tone is totally immaterial. It's the content which would have every police force in the UK arresting the perpetrator if he wasn't the Queen's husband.<snip>

Content isn't everything - context is also important, and the news story has completely shorn the remark of any context.

I think Gee D's suggestion is equally plausible:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I took it differently, a go at those ready to see a nest of terrorists in every mosque as once there were Reds under the bed. Here's a man of Arabic origin with a beard, fits the stereotype of a terrorist, and the jibe is not at the man but the stereotyping.

It's easy to imagine HRH getting irritated with the concerns of (say) a personal protection officer worrying (unduly from HRH's POV) about terrorists, and taking a pop at those concerns with that remark by picking out an unlikely person from the crowd.

The story tells us that the man was bearded, but they don't offer any hint as to whether the fact that he was bearded was why he was pointed out - maybe it was just because he stood out because he was tall or red-headed. The story and headlines are written to highlight the beard, but that might tell us more about the preconceptions of the teller than those of the Duke of Edinburgh (preconceptions either about the Duke of Edinburgh or about bearded terrorists).

Finally, every story of the remark is hedged around with "reportedly" or "it is claimed" which are indicators of editorial uncertainty about the accuracy of the report.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Clearly one rule for Philip, another for us. Find every excuse to let him off the hook and any opportunity to pillory anyone else.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
No. I would cut you (or anyone else) exactly the same amount of slack if there was a story in The Sun or The Mail reporting, on the basis of anonymous sources, an unwise but newsworthy remark you were alleged to have made.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0