Swing low, should it go?

[Cameo]

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.

I am not as dismissive of the point you are making as most on here and would agree with most it if we were talking about criminalising dressing up as "Indians" but we are not so I don't.

Just as people don't have a complete right not to be offended, Exeter don't have a right not to be criticised for being offensive. I would draw the line at sanctions from governing bodies, but I don't see why other clubs can't say "don't be offensive in our stadium".

[Digby]

being critical I don't mind, telling them they can't do it does seem overly instructional. somehow the push for respect is all too often conflated with cancellation

[Mikey Brown]

But aren't you the one doing that?

I've sort of lost track of what measures are actually being proposed here. Is it a matter of Exeter being legally forced to make a change or just a load of statements saying 'hey, look how many people think this gimmick is quite poorly judged'?

Is Wasps asking them not to do this stuff in their stadium 'cancellation' in your view?

[Digby]

There's lots in this because it's not just a discussion about what goes at Wasps, beyond a celebration of gambling ruining lives at the entrance to the Ricoh. Ideas around who owns ideas and whether ideas can even be owned, about appropriation, ideas about offence

If Wasps want to ban fancy dress they can, similar to (night) clubs saying no to scruffily attired types, if Wasps want to ban just one sort of fancy dress that's rather different. In isolation it'd be almost meaningless I suppose, and not just because hardly anyone goes to watch Wasps anyway (actually crowds across the board are rather depressed still, understandably so), but still it'd be a win for the book burners

[Puja]

but still it'd be a win for the book burners

All ideas are equal - the cancellation of fascism, apartheid, radical Islamic screeds are all victories for the book burners because any censorship is evil and everything is functionally equivalent.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Ah now we're finally getting somewhere.

[morepork]

Ah now we're finally getting somewhere.

The fuck we are

[morepork]

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.

Kapa Haka extends way beyond the all blacks chief (!). Way beyond sport in fact. It is a cultural expression that has nurtured Te Reo in generations of young people. The persistence of the language is in no small part due to its prominence. This is hard to convey to those on the outside but it is part of our Tikanga.

[Digby]

but still it'd be a win for the book burners

All ideas are equal - the cancellation of fascism, apartheid, radical Islamic screeds are all victories for the book burners because any censorship is evil and everything is functionally equivalent.

Puja

a little appropriation of iconography is a little different, it happens all the time.

and anyway we're not that different in our thought process on this, as noted somewhere above I'm not for free speech without limits and I know nobody who is. we just don't draw the line in the same place

[Stom]

but still it'd be a win for the book burners

All ideas are equal - the cancellation of fascism, apartheid, radical Islamic screeds are all victories for the book burners because any censorship is evil and everything is functionally equivalent.

Puja

a little appropriation of iconography is a little different, it happens all the time.

and anyway we're not that different in our thought process on this, as noted somewhere above I'm not for free speech without limits and I know nobody who is. we just don't draw the line in the same place

Plus you’re an obtuse bustard.

[Digby]

All ideas are equal - the cancellation of fascism, apartheid, radical Islamic screeds are all victories for the book burners because any censorship is evil and everything is functionally equivalent.

Puja

a little appropriation of iconography is a little different, it happens all the time.

and anyway we're not that different in our thought process on this, as noted somewhere above I'm not for free speech without limits and I know nobody who is. we just don't draw the line in the same place

Plus you’re an obtuse bustard.

Well yes, but I can't be the only person not perturbed by cultural appropriation when what's being discussed is already something appropriated over and over, or is in the realms of fashion or haircuts, dance, fighting styles, food....

I realise not everyone who's against the headress as fancy dress and chanting will be worried by what hairstyles some people choose, or by whether someone wears a sari, or a kimono when it's not 'their' culture, because people will have different trigger points. And I remain ill inclined to support restrictions on liberty, even when I've never had a headdress, never worn one, and wouldn't wear it if given one for free, my point of offence in this is the notion we need to respond because someone is offended

[Stom]

a little appropriation of iconography is a little different, it happens all the time.

and anyway we're not that different in our thought process on this, as noted somewhere above I'm not for free speech without limits and I know nobody who is. we just don't draw the line in the same place

Plus you’re an obtuse bustard.

Well yes, but I can't be the only person not perturbed by cultural appropriation when what's being discussed is already something appropriated over and over, or is in the realms of fashion or haircuts, dance, fighting styles, food....

I realise not everyone who's against the headress as fancy dress and chanting will be worried by what hairstyles some people choose, or by whether someone wears a sari, or a kimono when it's not 'their' culture, because people will have different trigger points. And I remain ill inclined to support restrictions on liberty, even when I've never had a headdress, never worn one, and wouldn't wear it if given one for free, my point of offence in this is the notion we need to respond because someone is offended

A good starting point is: are the people potentially offended actually offended?

An Indian is going to be delighted you’re wearing a sari, but the native Americans are not happy about the chiefs branding. So yeah, I’d say that deserves a conversation, therefore.

Exeter have not had this conversation, though, at least not openly, and they continue their quest to make people forget how horrible Saracens have been… so because of all the things there are to dislike about Exeter at the moment, this is going to blow up even more.

Understandably.

[Puja]

a little appropriation of iconography is a little different, it happens all the time.

and anyway we're not that different in our thought process on this, as noted somewhere above I'm not for free speech without limits and I know nobody who is. we just don't draw the line in the same place

Plus you’re an obtuse bustard.

Well yes, but I can't be the only person not perturbed by cultural appropriation when what's being discussed is already something appropriated over and over, or is in the realms of fashion or haircuts, dance, fighting styles, food....

I realise not everyone who's against the headress as fancy dress and chanting will be worried by what hairstyles some people choose, or by whether someone wears a sari, or a kimono when it's not 'their' culture, because people will have different trigger points. And I remain ill inclined to support restrictions on liberty, even when I've never had a headdress, never worn one, and wouldn't wear it if given one for free, my point of offence in this is the notion we need to respond because someone is offended

As it turns out, whether it's an issue or not isn't really determined by whether you are perturbed by it, given that you're not in the slightest bit affected by it.

Puja

[Puja]

Exeter have not had this conversation, though, at least not openly, and they continue their quest to make people forget how horrible Saracens have been… so because of all the things there are to dislike about Exeter at the moment, this is going to blow up even more.

Understandably.

Uh-uh-uh - Exeter have had a "full review of their branding" last year, with the conclusion being drawn that "the board took the view that [the branding] was in fact highly respectful". They asked "players, coaches or their families" and not a one of them "said anything but positive comments about the branding or culture that exists at the club."

So, they've had a full and honest conversation, with themselves, and have come to the conclusion that they wanted to, which has clearly solved the problem. How dare you imply that they've buried their heads in the sand!?

Puja

[Mr Mwenda]

Would it be helpful if we stopped talking in terms of offence caused and instead used words like "cultural violence"?The peace studies researcher Galtung defined cultural violence as something like discourses, narratives or symbols employed to justify structural or direct violence against a particular group of people. Thus for example harmful anti-Jewish stereotypes and narratives are employed to encourage and legitimise antisemitic legal measures and violence at various times and places throughout history. Seeing things as part of wider cultural violence against American Indians makes complaints against Exeter clearer for me at least.

Galtung's solution is a bit vague but I think was something along the lines of cultural peace. Which in the case of Exeter would be meaningful interaction with American Indian groups and adapting to their concerns.

[badback]

If we’re going to cancel the chiefs, shouldn’t we cancel Saracens too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

[Which Tyler]

If we’re going to cancel the chiefs, shouldn’t we cancel Saracens too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

Been covered already (I think - it's easy to lose track when having the same conversation and the same logical fallacies in half a dozen different places)

[Puja]

Would it be helpful if we stopped talking in terms of offence caused and instead used words like "cultural violence"?The peace studies researcher Galtung defined cultural violence as something like discourses, narratives or symbols employed to justify structural or direct violence against a particular group of people. Thus for example harmful anti-Jewish stereotypes and narratives are employed to encourage and legitimise antisemitic legal measures and violence at various times and places throughout history. Seeing things as part of wider cultural violence against American Indians makes complaints against Exeter clearer for me at least.

Galtung's solution is a bit vague but I think was something along the lines of cultural peace. Which in the case of Exeter would be meaningful interaction with American Indian groups and adapting to their concerns.

Puja

[badback]

If we’re going to cancel the chiefs, shouldn’t we cancel Saracens too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

Been covered already (I think - it's easy to lose track when having the same conversation and the same logical fallacies in half a dozen different places)

Why is it a logical fallacy?

[Puja]

If we’re going to cancel the chiefs, shouldn’t we cancel Saracens too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

Been covered already (I think - it's easy to lose track when having the same conversation and the same logical fallacies in half a dozen different places)

Why is it a logical fallacy?

In short, because no-one is currently complaining that they are getting racially abused or discriminated against for their racial identity being a Saracen. While anti-arabic bigotry is rife, no-one is suggesting that it is amplified by white North London men wearing fezzes and wiggling their fingers. No-one has identified any harm coming from it. Thus, it's a false equivalence between Saracen's fans' fezzes and logo and the real cultural violence that Native Americans suffer by being reduced to a caricature of violent uncivilized tomahawk-waving facepaint-wearing savages.

Puja

[badback]

Been covered already (I think - it's easy to lose track when having the same conversation and the same logical fallacies in half a dozen different places)

Why is it a logical fallacy?

In short, because no-one is currently complaining that they are getting racially abused or discriminated against for their racial identity being a Saracen. While anti-arabic bigotry is rife, no-one is suggesting that it is amplified by white North London men wearing fezzes and wiggling their fingers. No-one has identified any harm coming from it. Thus, it's a false equivalence between Saracen's fans' fezzes and logo and the real cultural violence that Native Americans suffer by being reduced to a caricature of violent uncivilized tomahawk-waving facepaint-wearing savages.

Puja

Really, so there’s no violence taking place either currently or historically between Moslems and the cultures that dubbed them as Saracens?

[Puja]

Why is it a logical fallacy?

In short, because no-one is currently complaining that they are getting racially abused or discriminated against for their racial identity being a Saracen. While anti-arabic bigotry is rife, no-one is suggesting that it is amplified by white North London men wearing fezzes and wiggling their fingers. No-one has identified any harm coming from it. Thus, it's a false equivalence between Saracen's fans' fezzes and logo and the real cultural violence that Native Americans suffer by being reduced to a caricature of violent uncivilized tomahawk-waving facepaint-wearing savages.

Puja

Really, so there’s no violence taking place either currently or historically between Moslems and the cultures that dubbed them as Saracens?

That's in any way affected by Saracens rugby club? Not that I'm aware of. If you're able to give me some concrete examples of how Muslims are saying that Saracens' branding is affecting them, I'd be interested in learning and potentially changing my mind.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Why is it a logical fallacy?

WhatAboutism
False Equivalence

Both are logical fallacies - there's also a bit of Strawman in there.

Beyond that, of course, nobody's "cancelling" anything.

If you want to talk about how culturally offensive Saracens are - give us something to feed off. As it is, you've left it as "WhatAbout Saracens".

So then - let's indulge you, in good faith...
What About Saracens?
What are Saracens doing that is culturally offensive?
Why do you think we should talk about them? and What about them do you think we should talk about?

[badback]

In short, because no-one is currently complaining that they are getting racially abused or discriminated against for their racial identity being a Saracen. While anti-arabic bigotry is rife, no-one is suggesting that it is amplified by white North London men wearing fezzes and wiggling their fingers. No-one has identified any harm coming from it. Thus, it's a false equivalence between Saracen's fans' fezzes and logo and the real cultural violence that Native Americans suffer by being reduced to a caricature of violent uncivilized tomahawk-waving facepaint-wearing savages.

Puja

Really, so there’s no violence taking place either currently or historically between Moslems and the cultures that dubbed them as Saracens?

That's in any way affected by Saracens rugby club? Not that I'm aware of. If you're able to give me some concrete examples of how Muslims are saying that Saracens' branding is affecting them, I'd be interested in learning and potentially changing my mind.

Puja

That’s helpful and reasonable. Thanks. What I hear you saying is that what matters is the pragmatic power imbalance that impacts individuals as attested by real life current victims. Is that correct?

[Puja]

Really, so there’s no violence taking place either currently or historically between Moslems and the cultures that dubbed them as Saracens?

That's in any way affected by Saracens rugby club? Not that I'm aware of. If you're able to give me some concrete examples of how Muslims are saying that Saracens' branding is affecting them, I'd be interested in learning and potentially changing my mind.

Puja

That’s helpful and reasonable. Thanks. What I hear you saying is that what matters is the pragmatic power imbalance that impacts individuals as attested by real life current victims. Is that correct?

While I would hardly claim to be the sole arbiter of such things (being white, cis, male, married to a woman, and middle class doesn't give me a massive amount of personal experience), I'd say that yeah, harm to real life current people is probably the most important bit to me. It's not the only consideration and not a universal tenet, but I'd say it's generally what I'd base my opinions on.

Puja