'Stupid Woman'

[CharonY]

50 minutes ago, DrP said:

Is this sexist too now?

I think it is less about it becoming sexist now, rather that traditionally the addition of "woman" to insults was, as Hyper mentioned, borne from a gendered view where women were viewed as inferior. That is where much of the criticism comes from, whether justified or not.

I think accusations of PC are too easily dragged into these kind of issues, where folks are simply unaware (or uncaring) about historic connotations. There is a reason why folks are more upset when someone calls a black person an ape rather than a white person, for instance. That is not PC, that is awareness of history. Of course, there are also folks who are just in for a screaming match in order to make everyone look bad. However, that is another issue entirely.

[DrP]

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

traditionally the addition of "woman" to insults was, as Hyper mentioned, borne from a gendered view where women were viewed as inferior.

For insults - maybe.   But stating to your friend that the pm is stupid is not a direct insult directed to or at the pm and was a comment about her stubborness in the argument (maybe he does think she is stupid - IDK, but he did not direct it at her as an insult)..  Heck - they had to use lip readers to catch the phrase....  even then they are torn between those that say he said woman and those that say he said people. He claims people - but who cares!? It is a blatant attempt by his opposition to try to swing some of his supporters against him as they know all of his supporters are left wingers. Every day I bet you could find a real quote from a member of the tory party that is far worse.  It makes me very cynical.

 

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think accusations of PC are too easily dragged into these kind of issues, where folks are simply unaware (or uncaring) about historic connotations.

From Jeremy Corbin who has campaigned for minority rights for many decades?

36 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think it is less about it becoming sexist now, rather that traditionally the addition of "woman" to insults was, as Hyper mentioned, borne from a gendered view where women were viewed as inferior.

About 60 years ago.   Do you really think Jeremy Corbin views women as inferior?

 

 

Right - I'm off   -  I might be able to log on over Christmas...  if not then Merry Christmas to all.x

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, DrP said:

From Jeremy Corbin who has campaigned for minority rights for many decades?

I do not know him personally but campaigning for a cause does not mean that one is immune from ignorance or bad behaviour in that respect. Asia Argento has been a champion of the metoo movement, yet there are accusations of at least sexual misconduct if not worse. Add that to the fact that he is older and grew up in a time where that was not an uncommon thing to state it may have just slipped out under stress and/or anger.

You will note that even if we really want to be fair, each and everyone of us has ingrained prejudices. We may be able to maneuver around them when we are aware of them and use sufficient brainpower to address them, but it may not be the case if we are not fully focused. Regardless of what happened, I do not think that such slip ups are newsworthy or need to be vigorously defended or attacked.

The more important bit is whether these occasions lead to more  introspection and behavioural correction when a similar situation arises.

2 hours ago, DrP said:

About 60 years ago. 

Really, you think that in the 60s women were fully accepted as equals to men..? Really, don't make drag out data over Christmas... and happy holidays to you, too.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, DrP said:

Jeremy Corbin's latest trouble has been caused by some lip readers claiming he called the prime minister a 'stupid woman' under his breath to the person sitting next to him during the PM question time after she failed to answer his questions adequately.  He claims he was talking about the whole front bench and said that they were stupid people. There has been outrage about it with claims of hypocrisy and sexism and arguments between differing lip readers as to if he said 'people' or 'woman'. The venomous fake moral outrage has been nauseating....  Putting aside the childishness of calling someone stupid just because they cannot or will not see your side of an argument, they were not complaining that he called her stupid, but that he said that she was a woman.  I don't get the fake outrage at all unless it is just a distraction from the rest of the debacle that has been going on over the last couple of years.

 

...although it leads me to question:-    When did it become sexist to call a woman.....  a woman?  Also - do any of the public really care or is it just his political enemies jumping in to try to discredit him as a hypocrite? 

 

How people speak says a lot about them. Whether it is comedians complaining about certain audiences not getting their jokes or politicians claiming to be misunderstood I am tired of arguments against the importance of language. The reality is language does reflect attitude, culture, worldview, education level, age, and etc. Linguistic analyse is a real field of study. There are various words and phrases that are more common among individuals of certain beliefs.

Since Radio and Television people have been able to hear and see politicians in real time. In previous eras a politician's words would filter through many editors before being seen and heard by general audiences. Today politicians no longer have such luxuries. That said I think with each passing decade public figures have increasing amounts of freedom. Just 50yrs ago sweating on TV or being overheard cursing would destroy a career. People today complain about being accused of 'isms but I think the bar is far lower today than it once was. Public figures once had to have nearly perfect posture, dress, enunciation, etc. Today politicians are often free to ditch formal clothes, speak loosely, and make a few grammatical errors. 

In politics there is always opposition. Corbin has detractors. All politician's do. Of course those who Corbin called stupid are upset about it. Of course those who oppose Corbin attack him for it. It's the nature of the beast. Next time Corbin might be more careful or if he feels such language motivates his supporters he might double down on it. 

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

I think that is a little different in the way it’s used, though. In that case it is simply an identifier, and I would class it as generally innocuous. You aren’t using identifiers to add to the insult, you are just identifying them. I don’t think the same is true here, but perhaps I am wrong. 

I'm not sure. I agree it's rather childish, but then again, assuming he says that what is really the alternative?

He leans over and says "Stupid." It's confusing.

He leans over and says "Stupid Prime Minister." It seems odd to identify who he's talking about like that.

He leans over and says "Stupid Theresa." It seems odd to identify who he's talking about like that.

He leans over and says "Stupid May." It seems odd to identify who he's talking about like that.

He leans over and says "Stupid woman." It makes a lot more sense, albeit it seems rather sexist.

 

Basic grammar indicates you should identify someone when you say a non-personified adjective. Stupid is one of those. 

For example, if he would have leaned over and said "Idiot." it wouldn't seem out of place because Idiot automatically denotes a person.

Stupid, on the other hand, doesn't.

 

I don't know either way. I'm not a big fan of the guy, feel free to say he's a sexist. Just my two cents here.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[MigL]

When people interpret what others say, it also says a lot about them...

Isn't that the bigger issue. These types of actions or words, are 'perceived 'wrongs', not intended wrongs.
In this very discussion we have no idea as to the intent of the speaker, yet we have widely varying opinions by others ( including forum members ) as to what he meant, or they perceived him to mean.
This perception may have nothing to do with any actual wrong, or intent, on the part of the speaker, but may be due to the 'baggage' we all carry with us that colors our perspective. 

If its good practice ( or behavior, or manners ) not to call someone stupid in public, isn't it also good practice not to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst about a person based on your interpretation of what he said.
( or even to get a lip reader to decode what he said privately, and expose it in the news )

[Raider5678]

Just now, MigL said:

When people interpret what others say, it also says a lot about them...

Isn't that the bigger issue. These types of actions or words, are 'perceived 'wrongs', not intended wrongs.
In this very discussion we have no idea as to the intent of the speaker, yet we have widely varying opinions by others ( including forum members ) as to what he meant, or they perceived him to mean.
This perception may have nothing to do with any actual wrong, or intent, on the part of the speaker, but may be due to the 'baggage' we all carry with us that colors our perspective. 

If its good practice ( or behavior, or manners ) not to call someone stupid in public, isn't it also good practice not to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst about a person based on your interpretation of what he said.
( or even to get a lip reader to decode what he said privately, and expose it in the news )

In modern society, we've thrown out the idea of intentions, and have instead decided to jump on the bandwagon of judging people based off of our own perceptions. The only thing that's going to reverse this is when it happens to them. People are willfully ignorant when it comes to learning from other people's experiences.

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Isn't that the bigger issue. These types of actions or words, are 'perceived 'wrongs', not intended wrongs.
In this very discussion we have no idea as to the intent of the speaker, yet we have widely varying opinions by others ( including forum members ) as to what he meant, or they perceived him to mean.

While I do not necessarily disagree, the issue with intention is, of course, that folks generally do not consider their own intentions are bad. There is always some kind of justification in ones mind, otherwise one would not have engaged in the actions in the first place. In other words, behaviour in a society, since the beginning of apes gathering in one spot, actions will be judged internally as well as externally.

To take a historic example, folks that were all for segregation were also often folks considering racism a bad thing. Thus, their actions and support for segregation were in their mind not driven by racism. Yet the outcome is clearly one of oppression and denied economic growth (and worse), which we see until now. 

So while it is well-meant that one should not preconceive someones deeper intentions, we cannot solely judge it by this measure. And just to make it clear, the call not to judge folks by their actions is the new thing. It is not that we only recently started doing so. Rather, many, if not most societies has been traditionally far more harsher in punishing non-conformism. It is really that we are exploring new degrees of freedom (plus the impact of social media) that it appears that the game has changed. 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

While I do not necessarily disagree, the issue with intention is, of course, that folks generally do not consider their own intentions are bad. There is always some kind of justification in ones mind, otherwise one would not have engaged in the actions in the first place. In other words, behaviour in a society, since the beginning of apes gathering in one spot, actions will be judged internally as well as externally.

To take a historic example, folks that were all for segregation were also often folks considering racism a bad thing. Thus, their actions and support for segregation were in their mind not driven by racism. Yet the outcome is clearly one of oppression and denied economic growth (and worse), which we see until now. 

If someone has the intention of murdering someone, regardless of whether they think it's bad or not, we can say it's wrong.

If this man's intention was to identify the speaker, that's a drastic difference from intending to demean women. There is a difference between your example and what we're talking about, that I feel should be pointed out.

[Prometheus]

Call my a cynic, but i doubt a single one of the accusing Tories genuinely believes they are championing women's views, but are rather inflaming the 'incident' to detract attention away from the daily Brexit headlines. And it has worked a treat.

[Raider5678]

Just now, Prometheus said:

Call my a cynic, but i doubt a single one of the accusing Tories genuinely believes they are championing women's views, but are rather inflaming the 'incident' to detract attention away from the daily Brexit headlines. And it has worked a treat.

Most certainly that's the case.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

If someone has the intention of murdering someone, regardless of whether they think it's bad or not, we can say it's wrong.

In which case you are ignoring the intention, but judging on the intended action.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

In which case you are ignoring the intention, but judging on the intended action.

I'm kinda confused about the distinction.

The intention to kill someone vs the intended action to kill someone is different?

[Ten oz]

@MigL language is meant to be interpreted. People use language to communicate to others. What people say is absolutely something often used to judge them. That is why employers interview applicants for example. The way people speak and what they say does say a lot about them. Use of language was how the FBI developed an accurate profile (race, age, education) of the Unabomber.

[MigL]

Sure.
If I interpreted your above post as offensive, would that make it actually offensive, or would it simply mean that I have a problem with you and your post because of 'baggage' carried over from previous discussions ?

Would that be right ?
If you're going to base 'offensive behavior' on your interpretation of what someone said, you'd better make sure everyone interprets it the same way.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

think accusations of PC are too easily dragged into these kind of issues, where folks are simply unaware (or uncaring) about historic connotations

Jumping off from this idea, whenever you hear someone complaining about something being PC, it almost always means they’re a sore loser who’s feeling disappointed about losing a previous position of entitlement and privilege. 

The basic structure is this:

“I used to be able to say this without repercussions. Now I cannot. Now when I say it, I lose social status. Whaaah. I’m tired of all this PC BS!”

When people bitch about something being too PC, we should tell them to quit being such a snowflake. Suck it up, buttercup.

 

[geordief]

I am interested in how many people see him mouthing "stupid woman" and  how many see him mouthing "stupid people"

 

I am no fan of Corbyn  and so perhaps that might explain in part why I "hear" "stupid woman" (wish fulfillment on my part , but that is what I hear)

 

How many people (who have a modicum of lip reading ability)  actually  "hear" him say "stupid people"?

 

For what it is worth I would forgive him saying "stupid woman" ** but only if he was  to admit it.

 

If he is only pretending to have said "stupid people" then he is (per my prejudice) a twofaced lowlife and a coward.

 

So who hears "stupid people" so that I can retract if  it becomes plausible that that is what he actually said.

 

I have said (much) worse in the heat of the moment (even in the cold light of day).

 

EDIT: It is 14 seconds into the clip

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1edfyaJ4YrA

 

Does hr mouth the first "p" in people or the first "w" in woman?

I still think it is "woman". 

Edited December 21, 2018 by geordief

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sure.
If I interpreted your above post as offensive, would that make it actually offensive, or would it simply mean that I have a problem with you and your post because of 'baggage' carried over from previous discussions ?

Would that be right ?
If you're going to base 'offensive behavior' on your interpretation of what someone said, you'd better make sure everyone interprets it the same way.

If you interpreted offense in my last post than I would guess we (you and I) view the world very differently. It wouldn't make you wrong. What offends you offends you. I have no right to say what you should or should not be offend by. That is why it is very important to know and understand ones audience when speaking. Different things upset different people. Very few things, perhaps nothing, in this world are interpreted the same way by everyone. 

[Raider5678]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If you interpreted offense in my last post than I would guess we (you and I) view the world very differently. It wouldn't make you wrong. What offends you offends you. I have no right to say what you should or should not be offend by. That is why it is very important to know and understand ones audience when speaking. Different things upset different people. Very few things, perhaps nothing, in this world are interpreted the same way by everyone. 

Building off of this, would it be okay for us to label you as an ignorant bigot because of it?

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Jumping off from this idea, whenever you hear someone complaining about something being PC, it almost always means they’re a sore loser who’s feeling disappointed about losing a previous position of entitlement and privilege. 

The basic structure is this:

“I used to be able to say this without repercussions. Now I cannot. Now when I say it, I lose social status. Whaaah. I’m tired of all this PC BS!”

When people bitch about something being too PC, we should tell them to quit being such a snowflake. Suck it up, buttercup.

Oh geeze, the ignorance in this post. It's palpable. 

But sure. Let's go with it.

I used to be able to say there is only one race, the human race, without someone calling me a racist. Now I cannot. Now when I say it, I lose social status. Whaaah. I'm tired of all this PC BS!

 

That's typically the type of political correctness crap that get's called out. I don't see scores of people suddenly jumping up "I should be able to call black people ni**ers. I'm tired of this political correct BS." I see scores of people jumping up and saying things like that. 

Or engineers being told they can't say "cat's eye"(those reflective things in the road that flash at night) because it supports animal cruelty. (Perhaps we should ban crowbar as well?)

Or maybe the NUSWC banning clapping at it's events because it might scare someone.

Or the word "genius" which "carries assumptions about gender."

Or the word "mother" because it can offend people. 

Or yoga being banned by the SFUO because it's cultural appropriation of Indians.

Or the phrase "Zero tolerance" because it implies that some things aren't tolerated when they're not that bad. Which is ironic, considering the people won't tolerate you saying "Zero Tolerance."

 

Do you clap at performances? How bigoted of you to ignore those with autism! Do you believe race doesn't matter? Why are you forcing your culture on me? You think race matters? Racist! You used the word genius? Well someone is showing off their male privilege. You used the word mother? What century do you live in? Medieval Europe? 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I used to be able to say there is only one race, the human race, without someone calling me a racist.

I’m genuinely curious. Who exactly has EVER responded this way to you in response to making that statement?

32 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't see scores of people suddenly jumping up "I should be able to call black people ni**ers. I'm tired of this political correct BS." I see scores of people jumping up and saying things like that. 

Will you please clairify... You DO or you do NOT see these people? I’m struggling to parse your sentence even after filtering out the snark. 

34 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Or the word "genius" which "carries assumptions about gender."

Whut the actual phuck 

 

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Building off of this, would it be okay for us to label you as an ignorant bigot because of it?

If you think I am an ignorant bigot there is nothing I can do about it. I have no control over your thoughts. 

[Raider5678]

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If you think I am an ignorant bigot there is nothing I can do about it. I have no control over your thoughts. 

You're right that you can't do anything about it.

But that doesn't mean that because of my assumptions, others should judge you the same way should they?

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m genuinely curious. Who exactly has EVER responded this way to you in response to making that statement?

A girl from Texas. 

On a more official note, the University of California is the one who labeled it racist.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please clairify... You DO or you do NOT see these people? I’m struggling to parse your sentence even after filtering out the snark. 

I do not see people jumping up and down claiming that.

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Whut the actual phuck 

The word genius carries assumptions about gender, according to the Cambridge University. 

Again, this is the type of political correctness that is ridiculed.

 

Additionally, the snark in my post was directly in response to yours.

Very simply, you classified that almost everyone who complained about political correctness was a sore loser who needed to suck it up. Which is quite arrogant to say.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

You're right that you can't do anything about it.

But that doesn't mean that because of my assumptions, others should judge you the same way should they?

Everyone makes their own judgements. People don't uniformly make the same judgements. Just because you judge me one way doesn't mean "others" will as well. If they do that is my cross to bare. Complaining won't change it. 

[Raider5678]

Just now, Ten oz said:

Everyone makes their own judgements. People don't uniformly make the same judgements. Just because you judge me one way doesn't mean "others" will as well. If they do that is my cross to bare. Complaining won't change it. 

But then let's say I leaked that to the news. Then, I took your words and I portrayed it in the worst possible context, and then organized protests to label you as an ignorant bigot.

At some point, wouldn't you say that what I'm doing is wrong?

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

A girl from Texas. 

On a more official note, the University of California is the one who labeled it racist.

Citation needed.

The person from TX was clearly mistaken to say you’re racist for saying there’s only one race, humans... but I’d like you to please share with all of us what UC ACTUALLY said... in context. 

Yiu said they labeled it racist. Elaborate. 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Very simply, you classified that almost everyone who complained about political correctness was a sore loser who needed to suck it up. Which is quite arrogant to say.

I’d be perfect if I weren’t so humble.