Bagpuss Had It Right

[Jody]

Pretty poor flounce then

.5 out of 10

 

[mudsticks]

Shouldn't we do that anyway? Posting on a public forum is not the same as chatting with friends where, due to knowing your audience, you can be fairly certain how a comment will be received. It's not PC gawn mad, it's just good etiquette.

Yup...

Not bothering to think about the effects of what you say..

It's often a sign of unconscious privilege, not being a member of one of the groups who often suffer being used as the butt of the 'punching down' 'joke'.

"I've always said what I like, when I like, to whomsoever I like, with nary a thought for the consequence, cos no one ever gives me any bad consequences"

Is the basic message..

Or else yr just a bit of a nobber, who giveth not a shoot, for anyone elses feelings..

Invoking the old 'freeze peach' as an excuse for being deliberately ignorant* or bullyingly rude..

Anyone who objects is 'over-sensitive' or 'cant take a joke'

*If you didn't mean to offend, but then find you really did .
All you need to do is to simply say sorry, and then learn a bit from that..

The Germans i've met or worked with have had a wicked sense of humour. Really enjoy the dry wit.

The German I work with, certainly has an excellent sense of humour...

I mean she must do right .??😊

 

[Dogtrousers]

To the tune of "Carmina Burana" aka the Old Spice advert.
Bagpuss! Bagpuss!
Bagpuss! Bagpuss!
Saggy old cloth catpuss!

 

[Andy in Germany]

Invoking the old 'freeze peach' as an excuse for being deliberately ignorant* or bullyingly rude..

Anyone who objects is 'over-sensitive' or 'cant take a joke'

*If you didn't mean to offend, but then find you really did .
All you need to do is to simply say sorry, and then learn a bit from that..

The problem is that implies the opinion, or even the feelings, of the person claiming offence are automatically more important than the freedom of the person who they claimed said something offensive. I'm not saying they aren't more important, it's the implied assumption that concerns me.

It's often a sign of unconscious privilege, not being a member of one of the groups who often suffer being used as the butt of the 'punching down' 'joke'.

That's a theoretical idea, which I agree has some evidence, but it's a big assumption to make, because it seems that the "offence" or lack thereof is based on the group the person speaking is from; if the person is assumed to have "privilege" then it's a problem. This concerns me because it could be used to silence people for being part of the "privileged" group, which is a pretty dark road to follow. You could in fact make a cohesive argument that it's a 'privilege' to be able to publicly claim offence regardless of intent, and expect people, employers, and civic authorities to act on your behalf.

 

[matticus]

one of the groups who often suffer being used as the butt of the 'punching down' 'joke

Yeah, must really suck having a language with no Q; imagine having a language that is different to your neighbour's language, people punching down on you all the time. All that effort writing the signs twice - not even the poor French have to do that! I feel terrible now ...

 

[BoldonLad]

Did someone mention sheep ?

Yes, and, in a thread mentioning Welsh

 

[Threevok]

If I didn't come here to be insulted, you'd all be wondering where I normally go

 

[mudsticks]

The problem is that implies the opinion, or even the feelings, of the person claiming offence are automatically more important than the freedom of the person who they claimed said something offensive. I'm not saying they aren't more important, it's the implied assumption that concerns me.

That's a theoretical idea, which I agree has some evidence, but it's a big assumption to make, because it seems that the "offence" or lack thereof is based on the group the person speaking is from; if the person is assumed to have "privilege" then it's a problem. This concerns me because it could be used to silence people for being part of the "priveliged" group, which is a pretty dark road to follow. Surely you could make a cohesive argument that it's a privilege to be able to publicly claim offence regardless of intent, and expect people to act on your behalf.

No it doesn't 'automatically' do that at all
Either implicitly, or explicitly.

What it does, is suggests that we should , pause think and engage in good faith.

Not immediately assume that someone must be trying to 'get one over' on the other person, if they claim to be upset

I think it comes down to bothering to understand how language is so often conciously or unconciously skewed in favour of already dominant groups .

As greater equality approaches, in language and elsewhere, those people hitherto enjoying unearned privilege, often start to cry foul, because they're no longer 'allowed' the 'freedom' to insult those, who previously had to just suck up whatever was thrown at them..

Such as using stereotypical racist , sexist, or 'othering' language.

Tbh i have no idea what @Chislenko was objecting to, and if it was a legitimate gripe.

It was more a general point agreeing with Julia..

That not bothering to moderate your own language, in a public place- such as on a public forum is a sign of ignorance at the very least, and often a sign of privilege too.

Yeah, must really suck having a language with no Q; imagine having a language that is different to your neighbour's language, people punching down on you all the time. All that effort writing the signs twice - not even the poor French have to do that! I feel terrible now ...

Je suis désolé, je ne vois pas de quoi tu parles...

 

[Andy in Germany]

No it doesn't 'automatically' do that at all
Either implicitly, or explicitly.

What it does, is suggests that we should , pause think and engage in good faith.

Not immediately assume that someone must be trying to 'get one over' on the other person, if they claim to be upset

I think it comes down to bothering to understand how language is so often conciously or unconciously skewed in favour of already dominant groups .

As greater equality approaches, in language and elsewhere, those people hitherto enjoying unearned privilege, often start to cry foul, because they're no longer 'allowed' the 'freedom' to insult those, who previously had to just suck up whatever was thrown at them..

Such as using stereotypical racist , sexist, or 'othering' language.

Tbh i have no idea what @Chislenko was objecting to, and if it was a legitimate gripe.

The argument is still based on the idea of "privilege" on the part of certain people, and that their opinions or what they say should be filtered through this assumption. If someone from a group less "privileged" then claims to have been offended, the implication is that the more "privileged" person should "learn" and change their opinion. In other words, the opinion of the less "privileged" should be listened to and given priority:

*If you didn't mean to offend, but then find you really did .
All you need to do is to simply say sorry, and then learn a bit from that..

So, for example, what if "someone" was offended by this:

You boyz - you'll start up a big ol' argument, or flouncathon, over anything wont'cha??

Does that still apply, or is it different because of the group the speaker and intended recipient are from?

 

[matticus]

Tbh i have no idea what @Chislenko was objecting to, and if it was a legitimate gripe.

Aha! Well in that case, do feel free to accuse people of:

using stereotypical racist , sexist, or 'othering' language.

Or else yr just a bit of a nobber, who giveth not a shoot, for anyone elses feelings..

 

[mudsticks]

The argument is still based on the idea of "privilege" on the part of certain people, and that their opinions or what they say should be filtered through this assumption. If someone from a group less "privileged" then claims to have been offended, the implication is that the more "privileged" person should "learn" and change their opinion. In other words, the opinion of the less "privileged" should be listened to and given priority:

Not 'should' learn , but might choose to, if they wish to be more considerate in future..

But generally yes, I think it's a good idea to consider possible power imbalances in any given situation, and act accordingly.

It's just a form of 'good manners' or even exersising empathy.

So, for example, what if "someone" was offended by this:



Does that still apply, or is it different because of the group the speaker and intended recipient are from?

If I offended you, or anyone else by saying this Andy I'm very very sorry.

The humour intended clearly didn't land,

Perhaps you would do me the honour of explaining which parts felt the most challenging for you 👍🏼

 

[newfhouse]

News just in - mystery solved. Bagpuss was kidnapped and account hacked by troll notorious for spreading dissent amongst the good British people.

View attachment 641249

He's just a saggy old cloth twcat.

 

[mudsticks]

Aha! Well in that case, do feel free to accuse people of:

Which people should I accuse of doing this please ??

I've not had any crimes (excepting mine own) drawn to my attention yet..

Rest assured I'm having a jolly good time self admonishing right now 👍🏼

 

[winjim]

He's just a saggy old cloth twcat.

Oliver Postgate was, how can I put it, not exactly a conservative.

 

[mudsticks]

He's just a saggy old cloth twcat.

Point of order..

Why do our magnificent lady parts, so often get used as a slur against people (often chaps) who really aren't very nice..

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twat

It seems a deeply unfair comparison ..🙄