[Other Sport] Lewis Hamilton apologising for remark to nephew

[Herr Tubthumper]

That is the incident I'm just after but I need the race details.

It was Monoco 1950. The race details are on Wiki

Sorry that's not the race I'm after.

http://f1.wikia.com/wiki/1950_Monaco_Grand_Prix

Are you being race-ist?

 

[Dr. No]

Are you being race-ist?

No.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

quite funny though that a comment to cunning led to your ban here, considering you were quite high horsed and instrumental in getting him banned from the brexit thread.
1-1.....let the games begin.

Nonsense. I asked for @Two Professors to be banned but this was for his relentless and endless seemingly pathological spamming with inane and childish drivel and not his actual views on anything. This is all.

 

[The Clamp]

Now where was I?

Ah, glad to see you back. A silly ban by a silly mod. The same ban-happy mod that banned me for calling the poster formerly known as DAS REICH racist when he posted a poem about bulldozing all the mosques. But I'm not bitter. At all.
Anyway, welcome back. It's been a dark time.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

But what if people didn’t know the background of the person presenting? Here are many students who disagree with you, who think it’s unacceptable It seems though you are ok on free speech on certain self defined boundaries and a family video by Hamilton overstepped your sensitivities.

I am still struggling to see the connection between this case and no platforming. Hamilton went online to get cheap laughs at the expense of someone who cannot defend themselves; a child having some totally inoffensive fun who was unaware that he had broken some alpha-male code. He behaved like a cxxt and he is being rightly being given grief. Bizarrely this has been turned into a battle for Lewis’ right to free speech.

You raised a question regarding my self-defined boundaries on free speech. My default position would be to defend free speech and that would include any forum, like a lecture, in which people are offered the opportunity to present their views. If I found the views of someone like Germaine Greer offensive I could choose not to attend a talk by them and if someone I didn’t know said things I had not expected to hear in such a forum I could leave or challenge them. In neither case do I believe that I have the right to deny others the right to hear those views and, if I happened to hear them by accident, I would probably not suffer long-term psychological damage.

You are right in saying that I view there as being some boundaries, maybe even the dreaded term ‘safe spaces’. For example, I am an atheist but others in my office are practising Christians and Muslims. I don’t believe that I have the right to rant at them in the office in the same way that they should not be able to preach at me; we both have the right to come to work without having someone else’s views thrust at us. Outside the workplace I can rant and they can preach all they like.

But I think that another boundary, or condition, is relevant in this case. That is that if comments are directed at an individual they should have the ability to respond. How could a child do this?

 

[ewe2]

We expect people that are good at what they do , to be good at everything........!

 

[dingodan]

I don't understand the whole "gender stereotypes" concept. Men are men and women are women, they are different, in complimentary ways. The "way boys are" and the "way girls are" are generalisations, they are not absolutes, but they are pretty strong tendencies, and entirely natural ones.

Are we now supposed to pretend that there are not differences between the genders? There are, and we should be honest about that.

 

[Hastings gull]

I don't understand the whole "gender stereotypes" concept. Men are men and women are women, they are different, in complimentary ways. The "way boys are" and the "way girls are" are generalisations, they are not absolutes, but they are pretty strong tendencies, and entirely natural ones.

Are we now supposed to pretend that there are not differences between the genders? There are, and we should be honest about that.

Will you stop posting such common sense on here!

 

[Hampster Gull]

I am still struggling to see the connection between this case and no platforming. Hamilton went online to get cheap laughs at the expense of someone who cannot defend themselves; a child having some totally inoffensive fun who was unaware that he had broken some alpha-male code. He behaved like a cxxt and he is being rightly being given grief. Bizarrely this has been turned into a battle for Lewis’ right to free speech.

You raised a question regarding my self-defined boundaries on free speech. My default position would be to defend free speech and that would include any forum, like a lecture, in which people are offered the opportunity to present their views. If I found the views of someone like Germaine Greer offensive I could choose not to attend a talk by them and if someone I didn’t know said things I had not expected to hear in such a forum I could leave or challenge them. In neither case do I believe that I have the right to deny others the right to hear those views and, if I happened to hear them by accident, I would probably not suffer long-term psychological damage.

You are right in saying that I view there as being some boundaries, maybe even the dreaded term ‘safe spaces’. For example, I am an atheist but others in my office are practising Christians and Muslims. I don’t believe that I have the right to rant at them in the office in the same way that they should not be able to preach at me; we both have the right to come to work without having someone else’s views thrust at us. Outside the workplace I can rant and they can preach all they like.

But I think that another boundary, or condition, is relevant in this case. That is that if comments are directed at an individual they should have the ability to respond. How could a child do this?

Fair post. The link is who makes the judgement what’s right and wrong. The law steps in as it sees fit, fine, not sure in this case we need others to do so when there is no legal issue.

On the out of workplace comments and they can rant as much as they like, it seems they can unless it is about boys wearing dresses.

Hamilton is not a politician, he seeks no public office. For me he can have a view that boys shouldn’t were dresses if he wants, I don’t agree with that view and it seems a bit old fashioned but who am I to judge him. Why is my perception better than his? A few years ago it would have been the other way round, who knows where the future goes. But it is fairly obvious this was family banter, nothing to do with the hangers on who want to criticise.

 

[BN41Albion]

I don't understand the whole "gender stereotypes" concept. Men are men and women are women, they are different, in complimentary ways. The "way boys are" and the "way girls are" are generalisations, they are not absolutes, but they are pretty strong tendencies, and entirely natural ones.

Are we now supposed to pretend that there are not differences between the genders? There are, and we should be honest about that.

You're completely right of course. But what Ive been meaning is that boys and girls should also be free to be/act who they want to be without fear of being ridiculed (as Hamilton did, joking or not) or builled, being told 'boys/girls can't do/wear that'.

 

[Algernon]

He behaved like a cxxt

Really?
You honestly believe that he behaved like a cxxt?

If so then I'd suggest you don't really understand the weight that word carries
or
you have led a very sheltered life and need to get out a bit more and meet some real cxxts.

 

[spring hall convert]

But it is fairly obvious this was family banter, nothing to do with the hangers on who want to criticise.

It's obviously exacerbated by him having 5m+ followers granted but if my brother did the same thing to my child on social media I'd be furious. By posting it online, he made the decision to take it outside family.

But look, he apologised swiftly, fair enough. It's actually provoked a bit of useful debate as well.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Really?
You honestly believe that he behaved like a cxxt?

If so then I'd suggest you don't really understand the weight that word carries
or
you have led a very sheltered life and need to get out a bit more and meet some real cxxts.

Agreed, not a good choice of word by me. Still think he deserved to be criticised for it though.

 

[GT49er]

I don't understand the whole "gender stereotypes" concept. Men are men and women are women, they are different, in complimentary ways. The "way boys are" and the "way girls are" are generalisations, they are not absolutes, but they are pretty strong tendencies, and entirely natural ones.

Exactly. Good point, well made.

 

[Eeyore]

Really?
You honestly believe that he behaved like a cxxt?

If so then I'd suggest you don't really understand the weight that word carries
or
you have led a very sheltered life and need to get out a bit more and meet some real cxxts.

He did.

In fact it was a dreadful thing to do. Why ? Simply because, whatever his or anyone's belief about gender roles, he had publicly shamed the boy inviting derision and potentially bullying for some considerable time to come. This will always be with that lad in one way or another- and there will always be difficult moments.

So yes- he is a c**t of the highest order.

 

[Buzzer]

He did.

In fact it was a dreadful thing to do. Why ? Simply because, whatever his or anyone's belief about gender roles, he had publicly shamed the boy inviting derision and potentially bullying for some considerable time to come. This will always be with that lad in one way or another- and there will always be difficult moments.

So yes- he is a c**t of the highest order.

Agree completely.

 

[BLOCK F]

Surely, only on NSC could this topic generate 15 pages on a football forum.

 

[Eeyore]

We expect people that are good at what they do , to be good at everything........!

I rather expect that if someone without such profile did the same thing the result would be the same. Just not such a grand scale.

 

[melias shoes]

Here’s hoping.

Wishing someone dead. Hmmm. A thumbs up too. Astounding.

 

[Hampster Gull]

He did.

In fact it was a dreadful thing to do. Why ? Simply because, whatever his or anyone's belief about gender roles, he had publicly shamed the boy inviting derision and potentially bullying for some considerable time to come. This will always be with that lad in one way or another- and there will always be difficult moments.

So yes- he is a c**t of the highest order.

No he’s not, he’s a young man having some banter with his nephew, who may or may not think he’s his uncle is a knob as he grows up. That’s their business. As far as I am aware what he did is not against the law. He is not in public office, he has no higher standards to uphold. Long may Hamilton continue to be himself