When is banter actually intimidation?

[EM2]

Ahh yes, those good old hate speech laws I reckon, where it is okay for certain people to criticise other certain people and certain religions, but where other certain people can't criticise certain people and certain religions, and also where perception is pretty much the only thing needed to consider something malicious.

Such as?

 

[xc170]

Am I being sensitive?

In a word, yes.

That's the problem these days, people are too sensitive and over-react to the smallest things, this is not how we won two world wars!

 

[AlterEgo]

In the context of an argument or debate, I would agree with you

So you don’t think that being upset and upsetting others is simply part of the tapestry of life then?

Because that would be an argument or debate.

It’s not. It’s someone giving their opinion back to someone. And it may well upset them.

Never? You've never thought another man was handsome?

Nope. Guys can look attractive, sure, “handsome” or “sexy” wouldn’t really register much with me. The dynamic of male to male compliments is a lot different which I hopefully don’t need to elaborate on.

Not what I said. I am suggesting that complete strangers shouldn't pass comment on how a woman looks. Would it have been acceptable for the Train Manager to say 'Blimey, you look a right old bag in that photo'?

No, that’d be rude. I don’t think passing a simple, non-sexualised comment is rude.

And again, you only know who finds it offensive once you've said it. There's no need to say it and you have no idea what effect it will have on someone.

There are many things which don’t need to be said but which could trigger offence in someone. When I get out of bed and go out of the house, I know I don’t have a right to go through that day without being offended, creeped out, or anything else.

Ultimately, we’re really just discussing a guard saying a woman looked nice in her railcard photo. That’s it!

The navel-gazing about harm and offence, and everything else is quite overblown. Ultimately, we should understand that all women are different, and quite a lot of them think all this posturing about male conduct (especially men white-knighting, which is often sexist in itself) is rather silly.

 

[Bantamzen]

***Disclaimer - This post may contain content that upsets or offends***

Well this subject certainly has galvanised opinion. However it has also revealed a depressing, and slightly worrying trend in modern society which is just how easily people become upset and offended. We don't know exactly how the member of staff in the OP addressed his comment, but it may have just been in a cheerful and friendly manner, not some perverted fiendish way as suggested by some. It has been articulated previously by others, but none everyone gets offended by a comment like that, indeed many women (and indeed many men too) would be flattered by it. Men and women, or at least many seek validation pretty much all the time, be it a compliment about their dress sense, their hair, a nice photo (just look at social media for goodness sake) and so on. And sometimes in some places, some people consider passing on a comment like this a friendly and nice thing to do. (Goodness help some here if they ever went to some pub in the heart of Barnsley where a strapping 6" brick outhouse of a barman might address you as "Love", "Cock" or "Duck" when ordering a beer!)

Of course increasingly there are some people that do not take such comments in the manner they were intended, and these people are increasingly driving how society operates. For now it might be comments or gestures that they want to interpret as sexual or derogatory, but how long before people take offence to a simple friendly smile or hello from a stranger? These people do not wish to be made uncomfortable by anyone at any time, but by doing so make others less inclined to be offended uncomfortable themselves. And so slowly everyone is placed into the same uncomfortable cycle, where increasingly any social interaction is deemed somehow unacceptable.

I am all for equality, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, creed or hat size. But equality does not necessarily mean protection from everything that might potentially upset or offend. Men and woman should not leer over someone or make unwanted physical or psychological advances on people who do not wish it, and society in general places accepted social barriers in place to stop the majority of people doing as such. But to create a society where even a simple, friendly comment to try and make someone's day, or just make them feel a bit happier is frowned upon, possibly even acted against is quite simply wrong in my opinion. Sorry ladies and gentlemen, but this is the real world, and we are but human, there is no perfect society where everyone interacts and never offends or upsets. Most people know where the barriers lie, but some it seems want ever more to the point where you need a clipboard and checklist just to interact with the rest of society. Madness, pure, pure madness (all in my humble opinion of course). I would say to those ever more offended to step outside their comfort zones for a while and observe the rest of society, on the train, in the workplace, in the pubs and clubs. Men and women constantly use forms of flattery, it is human nature not only to offer it, but to receive it too. Go out there and watch, it is way more common than you might realise. And I'm not talking about people staring or leering at people, just subtle looks, gestures and comments. And most people don't go off on one about it, but accept it as part of life. Some dare I say may even be flattered by it, men and women.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's the problem these days, people are too sensitive and over-react to the smallest things, this is not how we won two world wars!

To be fair, it's been quite a few decades since we've been in a state of total war. Gender and sexual harassment issues are probably pushed down the list of priorities when you have to deal with a real possibility of being blown up by Luftwaffe.

 

[cuccir]

Someone being offended because of a innocent compliment is ridiculous, a third party being offended is ludicrous.

There is no right not to feel uncomfortable, and no right not to feel offended

So don’t say something nice in case there is one person who chooses to get offended by it?

slightly worrying trend in modern society which is just how easily people become upset and offended

It's interesting to note that these are the only uses of the word 'offended/offensive' in this thread. No one has said 'this is offensive' or 'I am offended'.

I think some of the people objecting to the objections to the original event are presuming a higher level of outrage, anger and hurt from the objectors than there is. It is possible to not find something 'offensive' but to still say that it shouldn't be done or was misguided.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's interesting to note that these are the only uses of the word 'offended/offensive' in this thread. No one has said 'this is offensive' or 'I am offended'.

I think some of the people objecting to the objections to the original event are presuming a higher level of outrage, anger and hurt from the objectors than there is. It is possible to not find something 'offensive' but to still say that it shouldn't be done or was misguided.

I think it is clear that from some of the responses some of the social interactions discussed do result in people feeling offended, so the use of the word(s) are entirely appropriate in this instance.

 

[richw]

Why do people get offended by stuff that is nothing to do with them? Don’t get involved it doesn’t concern you. If that lady was distressed, or upset enough she can make her own complaint.

 

[Bromley boy]

It's interesting to note that these are the only uses of the word 'offended/offensive' in this thread. No one has said 'this is offensive' or 'I am offended'.

I think some of the people objecting to the objections to the original event are presuming a higher level of outrage, anger and hurt from the objectors than there is. It is possible to not find something 'offensive' but to still say that it shouldn't be done or was misguided.

The comment was made earlier that unsolicited comments on appearance are "low level sexual abuse". Another poster has commented that the only difference between men and women is that women have breasts.

I think this is the kind of nonsense (dangerous nonsense in the former case) that has prompted the responses.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it is clear that from some of the responses some of the social interactions discussed do result in people feeling offended, so the use of the word(s) are entirely appropriate in this instance.

Indeed.

 

[AlterEgo]

The comment was made earlier that unsolicited comments on appearance are "low level sexual abuse". Another poster has commented that the only difference between men and women is that women have breasts.

I think this is the kind of nonsense (dangerous nonsense in the former case) that has prompted the responses.

There is a whole lot of balderdash on this thread.

It’s fairly self evident that there are quite a lot of differences between men and women. There is a good reason why armed forces entrance tests, save for the front line infantry, demand a lower standard from women. There is a good reason why there are more nurses who are women than men. Some people would love to see a genderless society where gender is an irrelevance. I would not like to see this.

Where I am in agreement with modern feminists is that women should be empowered to make choices about their lives.

Instead of people driving for unattainable and undesirable 50/50 splits across all professions, what would be much more desirable in my opinion is for society to place greater value and respect on professions which women dominate.

Patriarchy is like a lot of other things. It’s a natural occurrence and part of our nature as human beings in a Western civilisation. A bit like capitalism - simply the progression from hunter-gathering ad feathering one’s nest. That doesn’t mean patriarchy is a necessarily good or bad thing. It just *is*. We should all be aware of it and seek to temper it in cases where it’s clearly harmful, but equally where people advocate its destruction, this should be opposed strongly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

AlterEgo - I couldn't agree more.

Don't drive for mindless stats. Instead, celebrate the differences[1] and ensure nobody lacks the opportunities they seek.

[1] They go both ways at times. You have separate male-female stats as well as overall stats for running races, for example, because higher testosterone predisposes you to be a faster runner - this is a physical difference. Therefore if a man and a woman both run a race in time X, the woman *has* done better.

 

[whhistle]

A sexual advance is when a 442 pulls out of a station isn’t it...?

So much rep for this :P
Cheers for the chuckle!

But sadly, not as much as this:

It's actually an HST power car with the coupling rod extended. Apparently.

Now... where's that American video on YouTubers...

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is a good reason why there are more nurses who are women than men.

What is that good reason?

 

[EM2]

Another poster has commented that the only difference between men and women is that women have breasts.

That isn't what I said. I said that the only reason women have the role of nursing children is that they have breasts.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Such as?

Such as Sarah Champion worrying about backlash and later resigning from her position after stating that British Pakistanis were raping young girls in Newcastle, and also stating that people seem to be more afraid of being called racist than dealing with the issue. I don't think she was suggesting that they were doing it because of their ethnicity, she was saying that's what was happening. Nevertheless, she said she hadn't slept over all of the criticism she could face from the far-right and far-left because of her remarks, and though I don't like how she took the opinion to the Sun newspaper (us Liverpudlians especially hate that rag), she didn't do much wrong.

Meanwhile, Diane Abbott is still Shadow Home Secretary and serving on Jeremy Corbyn's shadow front bench despite making blatantly racist and xenophobic remarks in her career, such as claiming that white people love to play "divide and rule" and also saying that blonde-haired blue-eyed Finnish girls are unsuitable as nurses in Hackney because they apparently never met a black person before (even though it doesn't matter), and yet she still cries and plays the victim whenever she gets a taste of her own medicine or faces backlash over these remarks. I don't like people abusing someone on Twitter, but she's no better than these people, yet look where she is?

Just imagine if Donald Trump said "black people love to kill each other" on Twitter. There would be total outrage, there would be calls for impeachment, there would be all sorts of anger from nearly everyone. Hate speech laws often contain double standards because of the people who write them. Maybe under Trump hate speech would only be acceptable if done by Christians, but the point still stands that hate speech has to be defined by those who wrote the laws against it, and laws can be changed by different people at different times, and these different people have different perceptions on what constitutes hate speech.

Racism and xenophobia isn't acceptable by today's standards, but banning such views and classing them as hate speech isn't going to make them go away. If you ask me, the best chance of eliminating them (which I don't believe will be truly done) is by respectfully engaging with those who hold such views and maybe enlightening them. The guy who converted over 200 people from the KKK didn't do it by banning their views, he befriended them and gave them a new view on the subject, and they might have just suddenly realised that white supremacy is total rubbish. But banning views hasn't stopped extremist movements, if anything it's strengthened them.

There is a whole lot of balderdash on this thread.

It’s fairly self evident that there are quite a lot of differences between men and women. There is a good reason why armed forces entrance tests, save for the front line infantry, demand a lower standard from women. There is a good reason why there are more nurses who are women than men. Some people would love to see a genderless society where gender is an irrelevance. I would not like to see this.

Where I am in agreement with modern feminists is that women should be empowered to make choices about their lives.

Instead of people driving for unattainable and undesirable 50/50 splits across all professions, what would be much more desirable in my opinion is for society to place greater value and respect on professions which women dominate.

Patriarchy is like a lot of other things. It’s a natural occurrence and part of our nature as human beings in a Western civilisation. A bit like capitalism - simply the progression from hunter-gathering ad feathering one’s nest. That doesn’t mean patriarchy is a necessarily good or bad thing. It just *is*. We should all be aware of it and seek to temper it in cases where it’s clearly harmful, but equally where people advocate its destruction, this should be opposed strongly.

You know mate, I would've said that despite some of our strong disagreements on certain threads, you ultimately seem to have a pretty sound head on your shoulders. But then I don't know you very well and am unsure of our acceptable interaction boundaries, so maybe I should exercise caution and say nothing, just in case you might get uncomfortable or even greatly offended, right? (See what I did there? ).

 

[EM2]

So you don’t think that being upset and upsetting others is simply part of the tapestry of life then?

It shouldn't be. People should be more considered about what they say, what they do and how it affects other people.

It’s not. It’s someone giving their opinion back to someone. And it may well upset them.

That's an argument.

No, that’d be rude. I don’t think passing a simple, non-sexualised comment is rude.

Ah, so you can comment on a stranger's appearance, but not negatively. So, what reason might you have for commenting otherwise?

There are many things which don’t need to be said but which could trigger offence in someone. When I get out of bed and go out of the house, I know I don’t have a right to go through that day without being offended, creeped out, or anything else.

Ultimately, we’re really just discussing a guard saying a woman looked nice in her railcard photo. That’s it!

The navel-gazing about harm and offence, and everything else is quite overblown. Ultimately, we should understand that all women are different, and quite a lot of them think all this posturing about male conduct (especially men white-knighting, which is often sexist in itself) is rather silly.

You are a man. The chances are that if a comment made to you does offend you or upset you, you would feel able to articulate that without fearing any consequences.
Many women do not have that luxury. Men can get aggressive when their comments are rebuffed, even when met with a polite Thank You. This leads to women fearing more verbal abuse, physical abuse, rape and murder.

 

[EM2]

Such as Sarah Champion...

Meanwhile, Diane Abbott is still Shadow Home Secretary and serving on Jeremy Corbyn's shadow front bench...

If you feel that these examples are hate speech, then you are welcome to bring a prosecution. No-one has, so far. That doesn't mean those laws are only open 'for certain people to criticise other certain people and certain religions'.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

If you feel that these examples are hate speech, then you are welcome to bring a prosecution. No-one has, so far. That doesn't mean those laws are only open 'for certain people to criticise other certain people and certain religions'.

These are examples of hate speech, but I don't believe in prosecuting someone for holding certain views, and most other people probably don't. But the fact of the matter is, if what Diane Abbott said was said by a white man against black people, he would be persecuted for it. A university professor in the US who tweeted that all he wanted for Christmas is white genocide is still walking free, while a man who tweeted about refugees in Scotland was arrested for hate speech. If that doesn't tell you that some groups benefit more from these laws than others, then I'm not sure what will.

You are a man. The chances are that if a comment made to you does offend you or upset you, you would feel able to articulate that without fearing any consequences.
Many women do not have that luxury. Men can get aggressive when their comments are rebuffed, even when met with a polite Thank You. This leads to women fearing more verbal abuse, physical abuse, rape and murder.

So because he is a man he would feel able to articulate what someone said without consequences if something offends or upsets him, but women can't do the same because they're not men? That sounds like a judgement of AlterEgo based on his sex, which, believe it or not, is sexism. Men can get aggressive when their comments are rebuffed? So can women!

 

[EM2]

If that doesn't tell you that some groups benefit more from these laws than others, then I'm not sure what will.

The laws are there for anyone to use. You are also comparing laws in two different jurisdictions. Has anyone tried to have the professor charged?

So because he is a man he would feel able to articulate what someone said without consequences if something offends or upsets him, but women can't do the same because they're not men? That sounds like a judgement of AlterEgo based on his sex, which, believe it or not, is sexism. Men can get aggressive when their comments are rebuffed? So can women!

You missed a vital word there, which was 'fearing'.

 

[AlterEgo]

It shouldn't be. People should be more considered about what they say, what they do and how it affects other people.

People should, but it doesn’t actually matter what progress you think you’re making, discomfort and offence will remain part of life for ever.

I’m amazed you appear to be wishing away human nature.

Yes, we should all try and be considerate and nice, but no, you’re never going to stop people from feeling uncomfortable about a vast array of things that might happen to them on a daily basis.

Would I go around a train passing comment on passengers? No. Never.

Was the guard wrong to do it? He’s on shaky ground, but only because the position of some people on the matter has changed.

Is the guard a bad person? No.

Is the guard guilty of “low level sexual abuse”, as another poster lectured? Don’t even get me started.

That's an argument.

No it isn’t. Someone saying they don’t appreciate a gesture or a compliment is neither an argument nor a debate.

In any case, in everyday life, even at work, you might offend people unknowingly. Or, you might find something offensive or inappropriate. We all do this. It might be a tactless but innocent comment, or something you forgot to do, or a tasteless gesture.

Every day, I see things I don’t like, and I see things which annoy me or make me uncomfortable. I don’t require anyone to speak on my behalf and I don’t have any reasonable expectation to have an offence-free, discomfort-free day in my bubble.

Ah, so you can comment on a stranger's appearance, but not negatively. So, what reason might you have for commenting otherwise?

Because it’s good to be nice, isn’t it? I mean, nobody wants to outright offend someone by insulting them. And if they did, they’d be a pretty mean person. Why, what reason were you thinking of?

If someone does something which they believe is nice but the recipient doesn’t like, then this is simply part of life.

You are a man. The chances are that if a comment made to you does offend you or upset you, you would feel able to articulate that without fearing any consequences.
Many women do not have that luxury.

Women are no less capable of speaking out against things that offend them than men. To suggest otherwise is really to suggest that women need the help of men here, which rather undermines the whole gender equality thing.

Men can get aggressive when their comments are rebuffed, even when met with a polite Thank You. This leads to women fearing more verbal abuse, physical abuse, rape and murder.

That’s not a reason not to give a basic, non-sexualised compliment.

Women can get aggressive, possessive, violent, and all sorts of unpleasant things against men, too. I don’t think either gender has the moral high ground.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The laws are there for anyone to use. You are also comparing laws in two different jurisdictions. Has anyone tried to have the professor charged?

Nobody has because a lot of people don't care enough to think it's worth a prosecution. But why didn't the Twitter police try to arrest him for it they'd do it for another man? Could it be because the only ones who think it's worth reporting don't think white people can be victims of racism? Could it be because some of these people are even in the courts? Or could be it because of this...

Going back to Diane Abbot, since you'd rather I compared similar jurisdictions, the police didn't think she committed any criminal offences with her remark about white people playing divide and rule. Yet they arrested a man who made a comment about refugees, yet interestingly no news source has been able to reveal what this tweet was. The police on Twitter are always warning people against "Islamophobic" tweets, but they don't seem concerned about white victims.

You missed a vital word there, which was 'fearing'.

As if men can't fear verbal, physical and sexual abuse, rape and murder?

 

[NSEFAN]

A university professor in the US who tweeted that all he wanted for Christmas is white genocide is still walking free, while a man who tweeted about refugees in Scotland was arrested for hate speech. If that doesn't tell you that some groups benefit more from these laws than others, then I'm not sure what will.

I don't think you can show a systemic problem from those two anecdotes. Also, the attitudes to freedom of speech between the US and UK are quite different.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I don't think you can show a systemic problem from those two anecdotes. Also, the attitudes to freedom of speech between the US and UK are quite different.

For a better comparison I have mentioned the response to Diane Abbot's tweets about white people and compared it to the man in Scotland who was arrested over a tweet about refugees. As below...

Going back to Diane Abbot, since you'd rather I compared similar jurisdictions, the police didn't think she committed any criminal offences with her remark about white people playing divide and rule. Yet they arrested a man who made a comment about refugees, yet interestingly no news source has been able to reveal what this tweet was. The police on Twitter are always warning people against "Islamophobic" tweets, but they don't seem concerned about white victims.

 

[AlterEgo]

As if men can't fear verbal, physical and sexual abuse, rape and murder?

On this:

Women are far more at risk of sexual crime, but men are far more likely to be murdered or violently assaulted.

I’m on a train right now and I can guarantee you if a bloke lit up a cigarette and I told him to stop, I’d be at a greater risk of getting smacked, stabbed, or worse than a woman telling him to stop.

Women are not the weaker sex. They are certainly more at risk of certain crimes but the majority of crime victims - particularly murder and serious assault - are, and always have been, men. And always will be!

That’s life.

If people here think society ought to be genderless, consider how you’d feel if conscription was brought back. Ignoring physical requirements, should women make up half the conscripts for the front line? Would you conscript women?

It’s just an interesting question to get people thinking about what the roles of men and women are, not a serious proposition.

 

[EM2]

I haven't got the time or the energy to reply to individual quotes, so I will just say this.
If you can't understand why women would fear stronger, more physical, generally more aggressive men when they rebuff those men, then nothing that I say will change your mind.

 

[NSEFAN]

For a better comparison I have mentioned the response to Diane Abbot's tweets about white people and compared it to the man in Scotland who was arrested over a tweet about refugees. As below...

So we don't even have the tweets to compare them; perhaps one was considerably more aggressive? In any case it's still anecdotal to the point that there is a wider problem, at best it tells us that Diane Abbot and a man from Scotland aren't very nice people.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So we don't even have the tweets to compare them; perhaps one was considerably more aggressive? In any case it's still anecdotal to the point that there is a wider problem, at best it tells us that Diane Abbot and a man from Scotland aren't very nice people.

No, they most certainly don't seem like nice people at all. Hence why I'd rather punishments weren't cherry-picked. I'm sure we agree on that one.

On this:

Women are far more at risk of sexual crime, but men are far more likely to be murdered or violently assaulted.

I’m on a train right now and I can guarantee you if a bloke lit up a cigarette and I told him to stop, I’d be at a greater risk of getting smacked, stabbed, or worse than a woman telling him to stop.

Women are not the weaker sex. They are certainly more at risk of certain crimes but the majority of crime victims - particularly murder and serious assault - are, and always have been, men. And always will be!

That’s life.

If people here think society ought to be genderless, consider how you’d feel if conscription was brought back. Ignoring physical requirements, should women make up half the conscripts for the front line? Would you conscript women?

It’s just an interesting question to get people thinking about what the roles of men and women are, not a serious proposition.

The only thing I would question is the idea of women not being the weaker sex. On average without any environmental factors such as lifting weights, biology has made men somewhat stronger, hence why some thought it was wrong for a man to hit a woman. However, in a first world society, it doesn't matter, because as long as someone meets requirements for needs such as military or firefighting, I don't care who does it. That's kind of why I am against lower requirements for women. They might be weaker on average without environmental factors (and also, weaker doesn't necessarily mean weak), but if an individual can do the job, then good enough.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only thing I would question is the idea of women not being the weaker sex. On average without any environmental factors such as lifting weights, biology has made men somewhat stronger, hence why some thought it was wrong for a man to hit a woman. However, in a first world society, it doesn't matter, because as long as someone meets requirements for needs such as military or firefighting, I don't care who does it. That's kind of why I am against lower requirements for women. They might be weaker on average without environmental factors (and also, weaker doesn't necessarily mean weak), but if an individual can do the job, then good enough.

Physically, women are on average weaker. For sure.

But they possess better emotional intelligence, for example. There are a number of traits where men and women differ and they basically all cancel each other out with neither sex being at an overall disadvantage.

 

[fowler9]

compliment her dress and shoes

DarloRich is Manolo Blahnik and I claim my £5.