Swing low, should it go?

[Mellsblue]

Never mind dog crap. Last weekend, in the dead of night, some twat crept into my back garden, took a shiit in my vegetable patch, wiped his arse with a pair of white tube socks, which he then left draped over a tomato plant, business side up, for us to find next morning.
I felt somewhat violated, yet at the same time saw some element of humour in the incident.

Sorry about that. It was quite the evening.

White tube sock!!! I thought better if you

I took them off the washing like. I can only assume they are Spiffy’s.

[Digby]

I think if we were to see the use of native clothing cease outside the native communities and that would ensure all native people then felt they were being treated with respect and felt significantly more valued then that's something I could get behind. But the idea it'd do anything like that seems bonkers when they'd still have all the actual serious problems ranging across addiction, healthcare, education, suicide, violence, crime more generally, employment, agriculture/husbandry, land rights.....

The point is it's a lot easier to ignore the serious problems, when you think of them as little more than scalp taking savages who wonder around the woods chanting. Little more than cartoon characters etc. When a group is dehumanised, it's a lot easier to allow inhuman things happen to them.

No, I'm pretty sure I can discern a difference between dressing in fancy dress and singing some songs Vs kidnap, killing and raping, theft of property...

And anyway I don't accept the premise that dressing up whether to celebrate or mock speaks to a dehumanisation of a group. I've never for instance heard the Catholic Church put forward the excuse they've covered up, lied about and perpetrated in child abuse to the extent they have on the back of some vicar and nuns fancy dress parties, they've come out with some whoppers and even they're not going the ridicule of those sexy nun getups made us do it.

I realise we're just coming at this from a substantially different line in thinking, I reject the notion it's intended as offence and then even if someone is offended don't care, others take a view ceasing fancy dress or say certain styles of haircut, cooking certain foods..., is a reasonable response to historical mistreatment of some communities which will aid in now empowering those communities.

And the liberal in me wonders how one prevents an idea crossing societies, why you'd want to, and where the idea of trying to prevent ideas being exchanged leads. People aren't always going to do things you like with those ideas, but on the face of it that seems far less oppressive than trying to control the exchange of ideas and how people think of them

[Digby]

Sorry about that. It was quite the evening.

White tube sock!!! I thought better if you

I took them off the washing like. I can only assume they are Spiffy’s.

Are white tube socks actually just white socks? or are there in fact sock shapes other than tubular one can acquire?

[Which Tyler]

[Oakboy]

According to Baxter, in Saturday's pre-match interview, changes need to be on the club's agenda for their AGM. If voted through changes will happen, otherwise they won't. That's their system. Simple!

[Digby]

I think, though could be wrong, the Iroquois tribes aren't traditionally wearers of such an item, for them it's more a leather cap or strap with different feathers adorned certainly depending on tribe, whether also role within a tribe I don't know. Later such items were more commonly made of cloth rather than leather, once they were able to cruelly appropriate the use cloth from other peoples. And like many Native American tribes they've also appropriated the headress more commonly associated with attendees of music festivals or indeed Exeter rugby games.

For shame

[morepork]

I think, though could be wrong, the Iroquois tribes aren't traditionally wearers of such an item, for them it's more a leather cap or strap with different feathers adorned certainly depending on tribe, whether also role within a tribe I don't know. Later such items were more commonly made of cloth rather than leather, once they were able to cruelly appropriate the use cloth from other peoples. And like many Native American tribes they've also appropriated the headress more commonly associated with attendees of music festivals or indeed Exeter rugby games.

For shame

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[Doorzetbornandbred]

I think, though could be wrong, the Iroquois tribes aren't traditionally wearers of such an item, for them it's more a leather cap or strap with different feathers adorned certainly depending on tribe, whether also role within a tribe I don't know. Later such items were more commonly made of cloth rather than leather, once they were able to cruelly appropriate the use cloth from other peoples. And like many Native American tribes they've also appropriated the headress more commonly associated with attendees of music festivals or indeed Exeter rugby games.

For shame

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I had a "healthy" discussion with a fella in the pub Saturday who said if Exeter Chiefs are in the wrong what about the Chiefs in NZ? They should be stopped from using all the Maori imagery etc...

[Digby]

I think, though could be wrong, the Iroquois tribes aren't traditionally wearers of such an item, for them it's more a leather cap or strap with different feathers adorned certainly depending on tribe, whether also role within a tribe I don't know. Later such items were more commonly made of cloth rather than leather, once they were able to cruelly appropriate the use cloth from other peoples. And like many Native American tribes they've also appropriated the headress more commonly associated with attendees of music festivals or indeed Exeter rugby games.

For shame

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I note again you're in favour of being offensive about not being offensive, which if nothing else amuses me

[Spiffy]

I think, though could be wrong, the Iroquois tribes aren't traditionally wearers of such an item, for them it's more a leather cap or strap with different feathers adorned certainly depending on tribe, whether also role within a tribe I don't know. Later such items were more commonly made of cloth rather than leather, once they were able to cruelly appropriate the use cloth from other peoples. And like many Native American tribes they've also appropriated the headress more commonly associated with attendees of music festivals or indeed Exeter rugby games.

For shame

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I had a "healthy" discussion with a fella in the pub Saturday who said if Exeter Chiefs are in the wrong what about the Chiefs in NZ? They should be stopped from using all the Maori imagery etc...

If Exeter were to change their name to the much more appropriate "Wurzels", all this nonsense would instantly disappear. You know it makes sense.

[Which Tyler]

I had a "healthy" discussion with a fella in the pub Saturday who said if Exeter Chiefs are in the wrong what about the Chiefs in NZ? They should be stopped from using all the Maori imagery etc...

Sounds like the "bloke in the pub" doesn't understand the difference between "offensive" and "respectful"

As you personally well know, the issue of cultural appropriation in NZ is a very well publicised, and very thorny one. A 5 minute google can't find any reference to controversy over the Chiefs' imagery - only really throwing up issues around Exeter's racism in the NZ press (which mention Crusaders, Washington and Cleveland, but not Waikato). I can guarantee that if there was even a hint of inappropriateness, it would be easy to find.

[Mikey Brown]

I think, though could be wrong, the Iroquois tribes aren't traditionally wearers of such an item, for them it's more a leather cap or strap with different feathers adorned certainly depending on tribe, whether also role within a tribe I don't know. Later such items were more commonly made of cloth rather than leather, once they were able to cruelly appropriate the use cloth from other peoples. And like many Native American tribes they've also appropriated the headress more commonly associated with attendees of music festivals or indeed Exeter rugby games.

For shame

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I note again you're in favour of being offensive about not being offensive, which if nothing else amuses me

I do actually get where you're coming from with a lot of your arguments here, but why do you keep going back to this concept? I find it really curious.

Putting aside whether native Americans do take issue with the head-dresses, bows & arrows etc. Do you genuinely feel that being offensive towards an individual is just the same as being offensive in a way that affects an entire group of (often marginalised) people?

I'm not saying Morepork would be right if he were to insult you personally for your opinions, but I'd see that as very different to insulting you for being black or gay or whatever it might be. I assume you'll just say "well I'm not black or gay so it doesn't bother me, and if I was it still wouldn't bother me" so we'll probably be back at square one, but this feels like one of those rhetorical tricks that doesn't really stack up in reality. Much like cases of over-sensitivity towards cultural appropriation doesn't actually diminish from the bad that it can do.

[morepork]

I had a "healthy" discussion with a fella in the pub Saturday who said if Exeter Chiefs are in the wrong what about the Chiefs in NZ? They should be stopped from using all the Maori imagery etc...

Sounds like the "bloke in the pub" doesn't understand the difference between "offensive" and "respectful"

As you personally well know, the issue of cultural appropriation in NZ is a very well publicised, and very thorny one. A 5 minute google can't find any reference to controversy over the Chiefs' imagery - only really throwing up issues around Exeter's racism in the NZ press (which mention Crusaders, Washington and Cleveland, but not Waikato). I can guarantee that if there was even a hint of inappropriateness, it would be easy to find.

All the Chiefs name, logos, etc are the product of vigorous consultation with local Iwi and the team interacts with locals in cultural matters. It is as far away from the Exeter cringe-fest as you can get.

[Which Tyler]

I had a "healthy" discussion with a fella in the pub Saturday who said if Exeter Chiefs are in the wrong what about the Chiefs in NZ? They should be stopped from using all the Maori imagery etc...

Sounds like the "bloke in the pub" doesn't understand the difference between "offensive" and "respectful"

As you personally well know, the issue of cultural appropriation in NZ is a very well publicised, and very thorny one. A 5 minute google can't find any reference to controversy over the Chiefs' imagery - only really throwing up issues around Exeter's racism in the NZ press (which mention Crusaders, Washington and Cleveland, but not Waikato). I can guarantee that if there was even a hint of inappropriateness, it would be easy to find.

All the Chiefs name, logos, etc are the product of vigorous consultation with local Iwi and the team interacts with locals in cultural matters. It is as far away from the Exeter cringe-fest as you can get.

I was confident that would have been the case

[Digby]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I note again you're in favour of being offensive about not being offensive, which if nothing else amuses me

I do actually get where you're coming from with a lot of your arguments here, but why do you keep going back to this concept? I find it really curious.

Putting aside whether native Americans do take issue with the head-dresses, bows & arrows etc. Do you genuinely feel that being offensive towards an individual is just the same as being offensive in a way that affects an entire group of (often marginalised) people?

I'm not saying Morepork would be right if he were to insult you personally for your opinions, but I'd see that as very different to insulting you for being black or gay or whatever it might be. I assume you'll just say "well I'm not black or gay so it doesn't bother me, and if I was it still wouldn't bother me" so we'll probably be back at square one, but this feels like one of those rhetorical tricks that doesn't really stack up in reality. Much like cases of over-sensitivity towards cultural appropriation doesn't actually diminish from the bad that it can do.

I do wonder if the thinking goes down the line of thought that either fancy dress equates to hate speech, or we need some positive discrimination towards the treatment of some people?

I don't really mind offending a group or individuals, or at least I don't mind the idea one could. And I don't like the idea where does that line of thinking end, that notion that you cannot say/do something if someone else finds it offensive. Suppose we say we need to respect the cultural traditions of minority groups that date back x number of years, does that mean if they're against sex outside of marriage we structure our societies in a manner that ensures they're not offended, or do we just carry on and if they're offended just tell them don't live your life that way.

I'm not saying there's no limit to free speech, I know nobody who'd argue against limits on hate speech that incite violence, I know nobody who'd argue child porn is art and people should be free to produce and distribute it on the grounds of free speech. I'm just not remotely sold fancy dress gets anywhere near needing to be a restriction, and if someone is offended so be it, I don't for instance mind when people who are against homosexuality being normal are offended, and being a liberal I want to avoid lines being drawn and someone deciding they can discern good from bad offence.

Or another example, MMA is weirdly popular (it takes all sorts), and in that I know (and not just because I grew up reading about Bruce Lee) many people in those cultures we've taken/learned martial arts from were and still are in some instances aghast their culture was shared with outsiders, but we just skip over that offence and have assimilated aspects of those cultures into our own melting pot. But if we are obliged to consider offence and then limit out involvement in something some find offensive do we actually say we need to stop our involvement in such practices?

Mainly I'd want to see much more on how and why lines are going to be drawn, why society should limit freedoms, and who'll be in charge of deciding what is offensive and what actions they can determine. I'm not going to protest if Exeter do something else instead, I'm sure their fans can determine new costumes and tunes to sing, but I'm also loathe to support the idea that ideas are bad and we should end/burn them if some people don't like them.

[morepork]

You sound like a suburban church goer from Oklahoma struggling to shoe horn parable into the observable universe. I'm truly baffled by your obstinate obtusity.

[Puja]

Someone who has decided where the end result of his opinion is going to be and then backfilling in with logical fallacies until there's a chain that looks like it might approach plausibility.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Odd that diplomatic channels are reportedly in full operation as NZ try to protect the Haka as something singularly virtuous and reverent. I don't see it as anything other than a marketing gimmick in the pro game. To me, like the Lions concept, it was a wonderful part of the amateur game but it should have no place in the modern professional environment.

[Digby]

You sound like a suburban church goer from Oklahoma struggling to shoe horn parable into the observable universe. I'm truly baffled by your obstinate obtusity.

Which is interesting , because the we must respect the culture in place mantra sounds very akin to those marching the streets chanting jews will not replace us. And a number of those would be church goers

[Danno]

You sound like a suburban church goer from Oklahoma struggling to shoe horn parable into the observable universe. I'm truly baffled by your obstinate obtusity.

Which is interesting , because the we must respect the culture in place mantra sounds very akin to those marching the streets chanting jews will not replace us. And a number of those would be church goers

I don't know why you persist. It's very strange.

[Digby]

You sound like a suburban church goer from Oklahoma struggling to shoe horn parable into the observable universe. I'm truly baffled by your obstinate obtusity.

Which is interesting , because the we must respect the culture in place mantra sounds very akin to those marching the streets chanting jews will not replace us. And a number of those would be church goers

I don't know why you persist. It's very strange.

Maybe one day their book burning tendencies will lessen, and the world would be a better place for it

[Danno]

Which is interesting , because the we must respect the culture in place mantra sounds very akin to those marching the streets chanting jews will not replace us. And a number of those would be church goers

I don't know why you persist. It's very strange.

Maybe one day their book burning tendencies will lessen, and the world would be a better place for it

Perhaps they're trying to amend a text to better reflect the horrific reality

[I R Geech]

I had a "healthy" discussion with a fella in the pub Saturday who said if Exeter Chiefs are in the wrong what about the Chiefs in NZ? They should be stopped from using all the Maori imagery etc...

Sounds like the "bloke in the pub" doesn't understand the difference between "offensive" and "respectful"

As you personally well know, the issue of cultural appropriation in NZ is a very well publicised, and very thorny one. A 5 minute google can't find any reference to controversy over the Chiefs' imagery - only really throwing up issues around Exeter's racism in the NZ press (which mention Crusaders, Washington and Cleveland, but not Waikato). I can guarantee that if there was even a hint of inappropriateness, it would be easy to find.

All the Chiefs name, logos, etc are the product of vigorous consultation with local Iwi and the team interacts with locals in cultural matters. It is as far away from the Exeter cringe-fest as you can get.

As a flag waving Sweaty, I’m still waiting for the Highlanders to check if I’m fine with their use of the term and their logo. Bit cheeky of them not ask first, but to save them the bother, I am completely fine with it as a) it’s a positive association, and b) I’m a grown up.

[morepork]

Sounds like the "bloke in the pub" doesn't understand the difference between "offensive" and "respectful"

As you personally well know, the issue of cultural appropriation in NZ is a very well publicised, and very thorny one. A 5 minute google can't find any reference to controversy over the Chiefs' imagery - only really throwing up issues around Exeter's racism in the NZ press (which mention Crusaders, Washington and Cleveland, but not Waikato). I can guarantee that if there was even a hint of inappropriateness, it would be easy to find.

All the Chiefs name, logos, etc are the product of vigorous consultation with local Iwi and the team interacts with locals in cultural matters. It is as far away from the Exeter cringe-fest as you can get.

As a flag waving Sweaty, I’m still waiting for the Highlanders to check if I’m fine with their use of the term and their logo. Bit cheeky of them not ask first, but to save them the bother, I am completely fine with it as a) it’s a positive association, and b) I’m a grown up.

That Southland Scottish thing is a bit too much. I have bigger issues with the Crusaders brand but.

[Puja]

Sounds like the "bloke in the pub" doesn't understand the difference between "offensive" and "respectful"

As you personally well know, the issue of cultural appropriation in NZ is a very well publicised, and very thorny one. A 5 minute google can't find any reference to controversy over the Chiefs' imagery - only really throwing up issues around Exeter's racism in the NZ press (which mention Crusaders, Washington and Cleveland, but not Waikato). I can guarantee that if there was even a hint of inappropriateness, it would be easy to find.

All the Chiefs name, logos, etc are the product of vigorous consultation with local Iwi and the team interacts with locals in cultural matters. It is as far away from the Exeter cringe-fest as you can get.

As a flag waving Sweaty, I’m still waiting for the Highlanders to check if I’m fine with their use of the term and their logo. Bit cheeky of them not ask first, but to save them the bother, I am completely fine with it as a) it’s a positive association, and b) I’m a grown up.

Glad to hear that you're a grown up, although not keen on the implication that anyone who has a problem with a team using a stereotype of their culture isn't, because there's a massive false equivalence there between the effect that Highlanders have on the way Scots are treated in the UK, and the effect that the "Indian" stereotype has on the way Native Americans are treated in the US.

Puja