tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post7082936934584646390..comments2024-03-28T21:38:39.311+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Stephen Daisley is getting dangerously close to losing the plot over online abuseJames Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-86700237754080783342015-07-09T00:19:16.286+01:002015-07-09T00:19:16.286+01:00That last comment was from James Coleman. I haven&...That last comment was from James Coleman. I haven't quite got the hang of the posting methodology! James Colemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-21359270413429274092015-07-09T00:16:47.797+01:002015-07-09T00:16:47.797+01:00And after that ridiculous rant I suppose you think...And after that ridiculous rant I suppose you think you are clever as opposed to just being a troll? I'm surprised you can read YOUR monitor since it won't just be flecked with spit it will be covered in bile. Go and read some of the vilest stuff on Twitter and you will find it under SNP out or some other BritNaz heading.jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-50584060431854902292015-07-09T00:07:02.214+01:002015-07-09T00:07:02.214+01:00Daisley's a fool. He tries to convince people ...Daisley's a fool. He tries to convince people he is even handed when it is obvious from his writing that he is anti-SNP and especially its supporters. And there might have been a (short) time when " Stu Campbell holds him in such high regard" but I doubt that applies now going by his recent critiques of Daisley. James Colemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-56500087892207270242015-07-08T09:56:26.756+01:002015-07-08T09:56:26.756+01:00Hahahaha, I remember when some idiot with a spittl...Hahahaha, I remember when some idiot with a spittle-flecked monitor accused moi of being sexist because my username only mentioned men and the rest of the brainwashed tied themselves in knots trying to justify the accusation. Of course when el porko says "wheesht, woman" to an individual it's not sexist at all oh no. Next week, another snp chancer says "quiet there, black man" but he's not being racist oh no.WeSaidNoToYesMennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-30546224343119407692015-07-08T09:42:18.555+01:002015-07-08T09:42:18.555+01:00Jen & Anonymous,
I do understand where you ar...Jen & Anonymous,<br /><br />I do understand where you are coming from, but here's the thing. To me, 'behave yourself, woman' and 'behave yourself, man' are equivalent. They may or may not be offensive (to me they are not), but they are equally (in)offensive to me, and it seems to many others here.<br /><br />I consider men and women to be equal and treat them so in, I hope, all respects. This includes the use of the terms 'woman' and 'man'.<br /><br />Now, assuming you are fighting for women and men to be treated equally, until you too can feel comfortable using and hearing these terms equally, I fear you have not yet achieved your goal.Wee Jock Elliothttps://twitter.com/WeeJockElliotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-65780318342018478122015-07-07T22:08:47.594+01:002015-07-07T22:08:47.594+01:00That's an utterly pathetic comment. I note yo...That's an utterly pathetic comment. I note you haven't been big enough to apologise for wrongly accusing me of insulting people, but instead have moved on to the more elastic complaint of "I find your tone offensive". I can't really argue with that one, because what an individual finds offensive is very much up to them.<br /><br />I'm not going to delete your comment, because this is an open forum. Do you understand what that means? It means other people don't get to tell you what you can and can't say, but by the same token you don't get to tell them what they can and can't say.<br /><br />By all means flounce off if you want to, but you're not going to bully me into changing my views, or my moderation policy. Sorry, but there it is.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-8699119724135298002015-07-07T21:45:02.286+01:002015-07-07T21:45:02.286+01:00So 'stop being such a girl', 'throws l...So 'stop being such a girl', 'throws like a girl', 'that's a girls drink', 'your being such an old woman' are in no way judgemental comments then? Sorry I'm not convinced by white middle class men telling me the patriarchy doesn't exist. James, I do in fact find your tone and comments frequently offensive along with those of some of your other commenters who you choose not to ask to moderate their language. I have watched the footage of Salmond, I consider he let himself down. As a politician he should consider what he says more carefully. I won't visit this blog again as I find the comments to inclined to become aggressive. You of course can delete what I've written if you don't care to see it, but you might consider that if we'd been better at listening to and accepting others points of view as valid last year we might have got that yes majority. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-47901664258792697562015-07-07T20:09:48.901+01:002015-07-07T20:09:48.901+01:00What do you mean close to losing the plot? He alre...What do you mean close to losing the plot? He already has! He is a Brit Nat. Oh and I don't remember Alex Salmond calling any woman a slut. Since slut seems to a word that just rolls of the acidic tongues of jealous Brit Nats.Iain Morenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-20602688238032141362015-07-07T18:50:42.310+01:002015-07-07T18:50:42.310+01:00Jen and Anonymous are looking for insult where the...Jen and Anonymous are looking for insult where there is none.<br /><br />If "woman" isn't okay what about "girl”? I know women in the office who say to their female friends, "How you doing, girl?" etc all the time, are Jen and Amonymous going to claim they're sexist for referring to their friend by a gender-specific noun? Because if it’s sexist to call a woman a woman, then surely every gender specific noun is sexist.<br /><br />Jen and co would be justified if it was a case where someone was calling a woman “woman” and refusing to use her name in an attempt to strip that individual of their individuality, but this is hardy an example of that.<br /><br />I know plenty of people who tag "man" and "woman" onto sentences, it’s just part of their dialect – not trying to invalid them as people. Would I use it myself? No, but then again I don’t call dinner “tea-time” either, it’s not part of my dialect. I knew a girl once who called everyone "pet" at the end of her sentence, not for a second did I read some hidden meaning into like she was saying she owned us.<br /><br />And the difference with the P-word, that Jen tries to link with the word “woman”, is that it does have insulting connotations. The two are not the same.<br /><br />By all means, Jen and co should complain about sexism, but direct their energies at actual sexism in modern western society, like the lack of female speaking roles in film and tv etc not quibble over grammar. Between “woman” and "slut", it’s the later that most women would take offense at being called and is arguably an actual sexist term due to its predominantly use against woman. What’s the difference? Because woman just means “adult human female” and doesn’t carry any negative connotations (certainly not to modern generations), slut means promiscuous and its use implies female sexuality is wrong or shameful.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-63986519359941113332015-07-07T18:40:48.124+01:002015-07-07T18:40:48.124+01:00"Your defence here is to point out that the w...<i>"Your defence here is to point out that the words "man" and "woman" are linguistically on the same level and therefore that in your view there's no qualitative difference between saying "behave yourself, man" and "behave yourself, woman"."</i><br /><br />No, that's not true, actually. "Man" and "woman" aren't just linguistically the same, they're used in the same way in the real world. "Woman" is not a derogatory, dismissive or offensive term, either in its literal or generally-understood meaning. The P-word plainly is. And it's odd that you said "your defence", because the idea that there's any difference between the words "man" and "woman" is so bizarre that I'd have thought the onus was on those who believe that to defend it.<br /><br /><i>"If you want to now argue that there is no contextual difference then I find it quite remarkable that anyone could fail to see the contextual difference given our long history of patriarchy."</i><br /><br />Really? You <i>really</i> think it is "remarkable" that I see no difference between the general usage of the words "man" and "woman"?<br /><br /><i>"If you want to deny patriarchy still exists then we're going off into entirely new (and vaguely unpleasant) territory"</i><br /><br />Vaguely unpleasant? Again, is the nature of the unpleasantness simply that I take a different view?James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-55664709283927686222015-07-07T17:52:16.777+01:002015-07-07T17:52:16.777+01:00Totally agree with your reasoning... and I've ...<i>Totally agree with your reasoning... and I've personally heard Alex say "man" in that context.</i><br /><br />He claims to have said "behave yourself, man" multiple times in the Scottish Parliament, but strangely it doesn't appear in the Official Report.<br /><br />It's fair to say that, regardless of whether BYW really has more of an edge to it than BYM, many believe that it does, and it was therefore careless of him to say it. We're fortunate that Sturgeon does not appear to share his tendency to engage mouth before brain.keatonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-68111047582908861142015-07-07T17:37:23.456+01:002015-07-07T17:37:23.456+01:00"No, I wouldn't. But what I do find extra..."No, I wouldn't. But what I do find extraordinarily contrived is that the very obvious equivalence between the words "man" and "woman" could be regarded as comparable to any equivalence someone might dubiously discern between "Weegie" and the P-word."<br /><br />Far from being contrived, it's basic logic. Your defence here is to point out that the words "man" and "woman" are linguistically on the same level and therefore that in your view there's no qualitative difference between saying "behave yourself, man" and "behave yourself, woman". It's precisely the same thing with "weegie" - linguistically there is no difference, at all, between the two terms. They both refer to the place where a person comes from and are contractions of a longer word.<br /><br />The difference, which you accept (as any reasonable person would), is entirely about context. If you accept that difference then you're also accepting that it is not sufficient as a defence to merely point at two words or phrases being equivalent on a linguistic level. They also have to have equivalence in terms of their context.<br /><br />So your original argument is either wrong or insufficient. Instead of discussing context (which, by your own admission, is what actually gives discriminatory language its power) you've used a linguistic justification, even when you acknowledge that such an argument can never be sufficient to prove what you're attempting to prove - if it were then simply noting the linguistic similarities of the term "weegie" and the Pakistan equivalent would be enough to prove that the P-word isn't offensive.<br /><br />If you want to now argue that there is no contextual difference then I find it quite remarkable that anyone could fail to see the contextual difference given our long history of patriarchy. We live in a society in which women were regularly told how to behave in public by male associates, in which they were prohibited from engaging in entire forms of behaviour deemed acceptable for men, and where men even had the right to vote in the place of all women less than a century ago.<br /><br />If you want to deny patriarchy still exists then we're going off into entirely new (and vaguely unpleasant) territory, but I'm sure you would agree that it did exist and that's the historical context discriminatory language takes its meaning from. And given the fact that merely arguing this point has resulted in numerous silly comments from other posters here - including the advice to "suck on that" above - I think it's pretty clear misogyny hasn't vanished from society yet. Fortunately there do seem to be a few more reasonable people below (Jamie and Niall).Jennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-59910058109937873512015-07-07T17:18:35.304+01:002015-07-07T17:18:35.304+01:00Incidentally, I'm getting the distinct impress...Incidentally, I'm getting the distinct impression from your comment that you haven't even seen the video of the incident. Salmond was not remotely riled when he said those words. Soubry was trying to disrupt his speech, and he was poking fun at those attempts with a huge smile on his face.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-44505938898926689132015-07-07T17:04:31.736+01:002015-07-07T17:04:31.736+01:00Now that is bang out of order. This is an open fo...Now that is bang out of order. This is an open forum, which is why there are so many views here that I disagree with, but you're not going to get away with accusing me of insulting people when you know damn well that I haven't. Withdraw that, please.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-90823224940532203592015-07-07T16:54:27.451+01:002015-07-07T16:54:27.451+01:00I'm agreeing with Jen here. Say 'behave yo...I'm agreeing with Jen here. Say 'behave yourself , woman' in a work setting and what's the subtext? Behave yourself woman and get back in the kitchen? Behave yourself woman and shut up, men are speaking? Behave yourself woman, your opinion doesn't matter? Because that's how it comes across to a lot of people, myself included. Salmond shouldn't have let himself get riled, should have chosen his words better, and should be thinking hard about what he actually did say. You may not agree with me, James and that's fine, but you should be able to accept that not everyone will agree with you without insulting them and perhaps try a little harder to understand different points of view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-38877718151375625202015-07-07T16:45:52.261+01:002015-07-07T16:45:52.261+01:00Nope, that's not what I meant at all, and I...Nope, that's not what I meant at all, and I'd have thought my actual meaning should be abundantly clear. I was saying that men are more likely to have suffered vexatious or malicious accusations of sexism than women.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-68590773328485036122015-07-07T16:37:56.732+01:002015-07-07T16:37:56.732+01:00"If you really can't see the difference t...<i>"If you really can't see the difference then that's worrying. I disagreed with your original justification in the article, but I can understand why people make that error."</i><br /><br />Oh, for heaven's sake, Jen, this is a matter of opinion, not fact, and therefore there is no question of "error", as you put it. If you're disputing my right to hold a view that diverges from the ideological position you're espousing, I'd suggest that's far more worrying than anything I've said. <br /><br />I don't accept your premise that we're still living in a patriarchal society, by the way. Maybe you mean that term to be interpreted in a narrow and conditional manner, but anyone who looks around them in a clear-sighted way will know it's a massive over-simplification.<br /><br /><i>"And I mentioned it above, but would you really find it "contrived" if someone argued that the term "weegie" is less offensive than the common term used about people from Pakistan?"</i><br /><br />No, I wouldn't. But what I do find extraordinarily contrived is that the very obvious equivalence between the words "man" and "woman" could be regarded as comparable to any equivalence someone might dubiously discern between "Weegie" and the P-word. <br /><br />If Salmond had said something like "behave yourself, dear", or "behave yourself, darling", you'd be on much stronger ground here - but he didn't. He said something that could have been said in directly equivalent form to a man.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-11500759661583192202015-07-07T16:30:32.042+01:002015-07-07T16:30:32.042+01:00" I could argue that men are more likely to h..." I could argue that men are more likely to have experienced vexatious or malicious accusations of sexism,"<br /><br />More likely than what? Are men more likely to have experienced malicious accusations of sexism than women are to have experienced sexism? I very much doubt you can back that one up.Niallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-77154471956541262552015-07-07T16:30:20.325+01:002015-07-07T16:30:20.325+01:00"Classic troll, makes controversial pronounce..."Classic troll, makes controversial pronouncements then sits back to see the reaction", cant remember who wrote this but I get the feeling it may apply in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-76047008262579566012015-07-07T15:06:00.444+01:002015-07-07T15:06:00.444+01:00As a glaswegian, i would suggest that you are bein...As a glaswegian, i would suggest that you are being offensive in using weegie. Suck on that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-45825824550484583132015-07-07T14:03:46.980+01:002015-07-07T14:03:46.980+01:00Except, he isn't a unionist.Except, he isn't a unionist.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-35279835266617615342015-07-07T13:37:26.799+01:002015-07-07T13:37:26.799+01:00James: "As I said in the post, there are all ...James: "As I said in the post, there are all sorts of contrived ways of trying to argue that "behave yourself, woman" is somehow radically different from "behave yourself, man", and I'm not remotely convinced by any of them."<br /><br />If you really can't see the difference then that's worrying. I disagreed with your original justification in the article, but I can understand why people make that error. The argument is completely wrong in my view and I explained why above, but I understand why people buy into that reasoning at first glance.<br /><br />But you've followed that up by citing the "women discriminating against men" double standard. The "double standard" is pretty much the single biggest defence used to justify actual discrimination. Try typing "anti-white racism" into Google and see what you find. False equivalences are designed to further actual discrimination. Instead of acknowledging the power structures that have been behind discrimination throughout history (and continue to operate) the implicit conclusion to be drawn from the double standard argument is that as discrimination doesn't just work in one direction on an individual level, there's no difference between the two modes of behaviour.<br /><br />Years of women being treated as second class citizens (and still, even today, being paid less for the same job) is a bad thing but hey, some women say nasty things about men too sometimes. It's that casual tolerance of gender-based discrimination that's at the heart of the problem. Until we address it we're going to continue to live in a patriarchal society.<br /><br />And I mentioned it above, but would you really find it "contrived" if someone argued that the term "weegie" is less offensive than the common term used about people from Pakistan? The fact that I'm not even using that term in this discussion should indicate why they're different and it's for precisely the same reasons that "behave yourself, man" and "behave yourself, woman" shouldn't be given a false equivalence.Jennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-75251565439240289412015-07-07T13:22:15.917+01:002015-07-07T13:22:15.917+01:00jill stephenson studied history..and couldnt do an...jill stephenson studied history..and couldnt do anything other than see nazi influences<br /><br />What irks her is that she can see that before she even got her degree, Mhairi Black made History.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-52150959835799324352015-07-07T12:31:20.895+01:002015-07-07T12:31:20.895+01:00The vast majority of what Stephen Daisley comes ou...The vast majority of what Stephen Daisley comes out with just makes me think of a wee boy that thinks he's awfy clever. As my old mum used to say "It's no big and it's no clever"!pictishbeastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732186968973388182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-58516083793969615712015-07-07T08:31:21.760+01:002015-07-07T08:31:21.760+01:00Subtle? He thinks he's being subtle, I suppose...Subtle? He thinks he's being subtle, I suppose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com