[Politics] A manager uses an inappopriate adjective. Thoughts?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There is an obvious tendency to latch on to and interpret the words and deeds of those we despise in as negative and condemnatory a way as possible, whereas if those same words and deeds were attributed to someone for whom we felt no animosity our attitude would be far less prejudicial.

A prime example of this is the manner in which Trump supporters, and Donald Jnr in particular, have pounced on the tragic shooting accident involving Alec Balwin. Because of Baldwin's past history of mocking Trump Snr, Trump Jnr is literally revelling in the circumstances of the woman's death at Baldwin's expense. Jnr is so lacking in self awareness that he does not realise that it is his response to the accident that is most worthy of condemnation.

I also remember a time when an acquaintance of mine (not a friend I hasten to add) was convicted of offences against children, much to everyone who knew him's shock and surprise. At the time of this revelation I was talking with another mutual acquaintance of the offender and I became aware of how anything that was previously known of the man was now being retrospectively interpreted in a completely negative light. As the mutual acquaintance was justifiably condemning this man's actions and hidden character he added "and he even used to go down the nudist beach".. I resisted offering my own observation that the man also used to commit the unpardonable sin of wearing black lace up shoes with blue jeans, the filthy nonce!

Precisely! You have summed up an aspect of human behaviour that we all seem to actively disregard! Aftertiming on steroids? I have posted in the past about the human ability to recognise patterns that don't exists, and find it intriguing since, because it is so common, it must confer an advantage, or we would have bred the tendency out of the gene pool, like we have tended to do for palpably unsociable/disadvantageous human characteristics. My theory? It is safer for the population to recognise and isolate a serial wrong-un like Barton than consider his 'offences' on a case by case basis. That is probably rational and protects the interests of the whole. So 'Burn him' is a rational response.

And then there is a subgroup of humans who find this uncomfortable. And so we have turbulence over the issue, which is creative and helps propel society forward. Sometimes the item of contention is not really contentious at all, but is made contentious by perverse agendas. This is where Trump fits in. And yet even he can raise tropes that chime with the prejudices of many - hence his 'popularity'. I, of course, find him disgusting.

I would add that just because Barton is being unfairly vilified on this occasion it does not mean that when he got pelters for other offences that was unfair too. I am not inclined to get into the wider life and times of Barton because they are not relevant to what he did on his occasion. Which is part of the reason for the thread.

I try to be objective. I fail, of course I do, repeatedly. Unconscious bias is, by definition, a little bugger that is hard to identify. But it is by trying to objective that one encounters push back and can trigger turbulence. In my case I have been accused of being biased towards the Saudis on NSC by a couple of people, while one of my brothers accuses me of being in thrall to Israel (although he doesn't refer to Israel but instead refers to the majority tribe who live there). They can't both be right. Confirmation bias?

Oh well. Interesting exercise.

 

[Swansman]

Not despicable. Most are decent. They're working in a declining industry and that comes with pressures. Pressure for clicks and to write what their bosses want them to, but we're all targeted to some degree at work

They have not always been working in a declining industry but they have always been horrific: lies, chasing people to their death, harrasing friends and family of recently deceased to get a nice headline comment and so forth.

 

[Algernon]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Isn't this fair enough though?

If someone who has previously had an impeccable character says something which is offensive, but there is a possible benefit of the doubt, you'll give it to them that benefit rather than someone with a record such as Barton's. Is there something wrong with reaching that judgement?

Yes. See my post above where I address this.

 

[brightn'ove]

He was a **** as a player, and now proving to be the same as a manager.

LOL why did this description tell me exactly who it was

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

In my case I have been accused of being biased towards the Saudis on NSC by a couple of people, while one of my brothers accuses me of being in thrall to Israel (although he doesn't refer to Israel but instead refers to the majority tribe who live there). They can't both be right. Confirmation bias?

Not saying this is the case, but you could be biased towards the Saudis as a counterweight against Iran, due to your being in thrall to Israel.

Anyway, I'll step daintly out of that particular beartrap and leave it there.

Precisely! You have summed up an aspect of human behaviour that we all seem to actively disregard! Aftertiming on steroids? I have posted in the past about the human ability to recognise patterns that don't exists, and find it intriguing since, because it is so common, it must confer an advantage, or we would have bred the tendency out of the gene pool, like we have tended to do for palpably unsociable/disadvantageous human characteristics. My theory? It is safer for the population to recognise and isolate a serial wrong-un like Barton than consider his 'offences' on a case by case basis. That is probably rational and protects the interests of the whole.

I'd think it goes even deeper than that, animals must need to have pattern recognition to be able to identify signs of water or food, or to identify a diseased animal (e.g. stay away from the obviously rabid dog) without the advantages humans have in terms of reasoning etc. It'll be useful for humans as well in various situations but clearly trips us up occasionally as all instincts do. I'd assume that, in its own way, a dog can be as guilty of picking what seems like a "more likely" set of lottery numbers as a human.

 

[marlowe]

...... As an aside, the BBC report looks like a lazy Daily Mail effort, with the glib misrepresentation to map to the trope. Freddie Starr ate my Hamster. Freddie Starr the vegetarian did not eat a hamster. The story was invented by Max Clifford. And so it goes.

And even Max Clifford has been a victim of this of sorts. Because of alleged comments he had made to various women and how those comments were interpreted and reported it is generally now assumed that Max Clifford had a micro, or at best very small penis. Because of his crimes or perhaps simply because it was Max Clifford, this is the image we would all prefer to have of him for our own amusement.

In fact it was independently medically established that Clifford had a very respectable flaccid length of 5 and a quarter inches. (I have no idea if he was a grower or a shower as this aspect was not revealed during the trial). But even if it only grew an inch when erect he was not within the range of what is considered "small".

It became obvious to me that Clifford's self derision of the size of his own genetalia to these various women was merely an excercise by Clifford in fishing for compliments, as his hoped for response was most likely an approving contradiction by these women of his own miserly self-assessment.

That context of his words however explodes the myth that Clifford had a micro penis which is how we prefer to imagine him purely because of who he was and what he did.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'd think it goes even deeper than that, animals must need to have pattern recognition to be able to identify signs of water or food, or to identify a diseased animal (e.g. stay away from the obviously rabid dog) without the advantages humans have in terms of reasoning etc. It'll be useful for humans as well in various situations but clearly trips us up occasionally as all instincts do. I'd assume that, in its own way, a dog can be as guilty of picking what seems like a "more likely" set of lottery numbers as a human.

I agree.

And part of evolution includes the proliferation of weird traits that give reproductive advantage; stinky plants that trick flies into thinking they have found a turd, then the plant eats the fly; being soft and introspective and thereby attracting the attention of certain types of female ; etc.

Responding in a simple way to entrenched simple pattern cues must lend advantage - you always know where you are and can navigate life safely.

Except, of course, some humans have evolved the ability to use trickery to act almost parasitically with other humans, and those who rely on simple pattern recognition are the most at risk.

I think I need to do some proper work now and the only way I can do that is switch NSC off for a bit.

Jolly chat

 

[Billy the Fish]

Obviously you're a highly distinguished wordsmith

But 99.9% use that word and the one used by Barton to mean a very specific and highly despicable event.

Hiding behind a presumably outdated use of a word which you may still find reference to in a dictionary is pathetic. Using either word to describe football belittles the crime involved

I qualified this in my OP.

 

[keaton]

We can never know what was going through Barton's mind at the time but I am 99.9% confident it was not a planned attempt to be offensive or provocative. Barton is not hiding behind anything as far as I am aware, and so you are accusing an NSC poster of being pathetic. That is quite unfair!

I am not in any way suggesting that his use of the word was appropriate. If someone had said 'did you really mean to say that, son?' I expect he would have sheepishly rephrased his comment rather than defend Das Reich (which is an actual thing, not just a racist poster on NSC). However the BBC presentation misrepresents what he said as noted above, and the outrage of course hit faux levels immediately.

From comments on this thread it is clear that, when the poster knows that it is Barton, his motive and intent are assumed, based on his history and the widespread loathing for the man, to be malign. That was what I wanted to find out.

As an aside, the BBC report looks like a lazy Daily Mail effort, with the glib misrepresentation to map to the trope. Freddie Starr ate my Hamster. Freddie Starr the vegetarian did not eat a hamster. The story was invented by Max Clifford. And so it goes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59037474.amp

This story by the BBc? Have they edited it? Doesn't really scream Daily Mailish or invented story to me

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And even Max Clifford has been a victim of this of sorts. Because of alleged comments he had made to various women and how those comments were interpreted and reported it is generally now assumed that Max Clifford had a micro, or at best very small penis. Because of his crimes or perhaps simply because it was Max Clifford, this is the image we would all prefer to have of him for our own amusement.

In fact it was independently medically established that Clifford had a very respectable flaccid length of 5 and a quarter inches. (I have no idea if he was a grower or a shower as this aspect was not revealed during the trial). But even if it only grew an inch when erect he was not within the range of what is considered "small".

It became obvious to me that Clifford's self derision of the size of his own genetalia to these various women was merely an excercise by Clifford in fishing for compliments, as his hoped for response was most likely an approving contradiction by these women of his own miserly self-assessment.

That context of his words however explodes the myth that Clifford had a micro penis which is how we prefer to imagine him purely because of who he was and what he did.

I was unaware of any of that.

I must confess that I find all these abuse cases quite distressing so I note nothing more than whether there has been a conviction. I seem to be extremely good at disavowing prurience.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59037474.amp

This story by the BBc? Have they edited it? Doesn't really scream Daily Mailish or invented story to me

It is the spin:

This was discussed earlier in the thread. Barton said 'a holocaust'. The BBC wrote what he said with a capital letter as 'a Holocaust'. It then helpfully explained to he reader that "The Holocaust, carried out by the Nazis during World War Two, claimed the lives about an estimated six million Jews"

That's not sloppy journalism, it is mendacious and manipulative. The helpful explanation of what The Holocaust was is actually breathtaking. It implies that people generally don't know what The Holocaust is and need it explained. If that is the BBC's journalistc position then surely Barton is likely to fall into the same category of ignorance, in which case the article should have defended him!

 

[keaton]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/one-in-20-britons-does-not-believe-holocaust-happened

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...england-lack-knowedge-holocaust-b1919286.html

Those are two easy to find but there's been lots of reporting in the last few years that this is a bit of an issue.
I think you're making a bit of a big deal of one capital letter and a explainer note. Can't think of example of a newspaper that would seize on minor things and blow them out of proportion!

(I mean this on jest HWT)( but maybe only because I'm judging you in your previous posts)

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/one-in-20-britons-does-not-believe-holocaust-happened

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...england-lack-knowedge-holocaust-b1919286.html

Those are two easy to find but there's been lots of reporting in the last few years that this is a bit of an issue.
I think you're making a bit of a big deal of one capital letter and a explainer note. Can't think of example of a newspaper that would seize on minor things and blow them out of proportion!

(I mean this on jest HWT)( but maybe only because I'm judging you in your previous posts)

Re. the Guardian article there, without disputing that more people should know more about the Holocaust, I suspect that the list of obvious things that any given 5% of people don't know about would be staggeringly long.

And actually, re-reading the article, it appears the "one in 20" who don't believe it happened refers to the number who are completely ignorant, rather than people who actively dispute it, so it's either misleading or unclear.

 

[Sirnormangall]

Here is the quote:

During a post-match press conference on Saturday, Mr X told reporters:

"I said to the lads during the week, 'the team's almost like musical chairs'.

"Someone gets in and does well but then gets suspended or injured.

"Someone gets in for a game, does well but then has a holocaust, a nightmare, an absolute disaster."

The BBC web page then helpfully points out that

"The Holocaust, carried out by the Nazis during World War Two, claimed the lives about an estimated six million Jews."

In the tackle houshold, Mrs T and I think the manager should be reminded that some people may be upset by the use of a holocaust, which could be confused with The Holocaust, as an analogy for something, and would be advised to choose his words more carefully in future.

Apparently there have been some calls from some quarters that the manager be sacked.

Without looking up the case and the identity of the manager, what are your immediate thoughts?

PS PLEASE DON'T REVEAL THE NAME OF THE MANAGER OR COMMENT IN A WAY THAT REVEALS THE NAME OF THE MANAGER. WE CAN DO THAT LATER.

Instant reaction is that I agree with you and Mrs T. I don’t know the identity of the manager but suspect he was appointed primarily for his knowledge of football rather than his grammatical or language skills.

 

[Weststander]

Is the right answer. Graeme Le Saux excepted of course. And Big and Little Bamber.

Frank Lampard heads MENSA, apparently.

 

[McTavish]

They have not always been working in a declining industry but they have always been horrific: lies, chasing people to their death, harrasing friends and family of recently deceased to get a nice headline comment and so forth.

They?

Like the thousands of journalists struggling to hold powerful people and interests to account?

Like Jamal Khashoggi ?

Like Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov who won the Nobel Peace Prize this year?

Didn't think you were one for careless stereotypes Swanny...

 

[Swansman]

They?

Like the thousands of journalists struggling to hold powerful people and interests to account?

Like Jamal Khashoggi ?

Like Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov who won the Nobel Peace Prize this year?

Didn't think you were one for careless stereotypes Swanny...

As I said, "plenty of good exceptions". The average journalist however would sell his grandma for some info on what David Beckham ate for breakfast.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Hmmm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59077231