Mike Procter interview

[Cevno]

I wish I could comment on this but I frequently get called and call people a mother****er and it's sister equivalent in Hindi about a zillion times a day without it causing any special offense.

For instance, In traffic in India, one frequently hears the aforementioned expletives but if say, Someone calls another bloke on the road a dirty, thieving Bihari/Tamilian in that scenario, It'd certainly cause more offense and probably cause a fight than calling him a sister****er which would most likely fall on dead ears. I don't really understand the entire Indian culture angle tbh. In real life, amongst the thousands of people I've met, once you meet them once or twice, calling them a mofo is something most people don't particularly care about but abusing them on their religious/regional identity is something they care about much more.

Dunno where Cevno and hb are coming from. Do they live in an ashram in the Himalayas or something?

Really? Expletives about their family cause people to angry straightaway and is what leads to your arguments at the traffic signal. It's certainly not something you say without getting any reaction from anyone. While words like Madrasi, Chinky etc.. are less likely to cause a reaction, even if they are offensive.

I guess the expletives are particularly more common in North India, but people still take offence over their families getting involved into arguments and you'd see people telling the other guy to not bring their family in.

The sensibilites etc.. are ofcourse changing and india is hugely diverse in every respect. Their are some with westernised sensibilites like you and their are others who take offence to other things more. You have to take all these into account while deciding what to impose in a internationally governed sport and i wasn't even only talking about India alone earlier.

 

[Cevno]

The way I see it, it is highly unlikely that your opposition on a cricket field is to have had any actual dealings with your mother or sister, and therefore any insult relating to them specifically would therefore be completely disingenuous and transparent. A racist taunt is far more likely to be genuine and based on real prejudices than one based on the sledger's opinion of the character of woman he has never met. In fact, I would be tempted to go as far to say that anyone who took particular offence to that was either overly thin-skinned or looking for an excuse to get in a slanging match, however obviously this would not be true in your case as you have indicated you would not be affected by a racist taunt.

But then in some culture's honor of your family is very precious to people and when you abuse them or cast aspersions on their character without knowing them, it is a real offence. Won't go into whether it is right or wrong but that's the case. So when someone abuses your family then you are defending them alone, as compared to when someone abuses where you come from.

Plus then different words and actions are racist in different context's and culture and not in others. Depends on to whom and with what intent you are saying it. It's not like the intent behind every racist word would be a racial prejudice, while the intent behind abuse directed towards your family and defamation of character is the same. (Not referring to any particular incident here).

The point is both are equally offensive due to different reasons for different people. Yes, racism has a certain historical context to it and words with racial undertones may show racial prejudice as you are saying, which is reheprensible. But at the same time that doesn't mean that it would offend even everyone in the same community necessarily equally. While abuse targetted at someone who is related to you and can't even defend themselves may.

 

[CWB304]

Finally the penny drops.

Welcome back C_C.

As for the rest: nah, CBA really.

I could try to formulate a psuedo-intellectual argument (as you're clearly a paid up member of the club; autodidacts love their tupenny ha'penny words to demonstrate how desperately learned they are) & point out that racial abuse demeans (by definition) a whole race and abusing an individual demeans only them, but your mind is as closed as a steel bear trap.

This is just the latest of several attempts by you to discredit posters you disagree with, either by deliberately misrepresenting what they have written, or - in this case - by accusing them of fraud.

If you think people won't realise that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks to avoiding actually having to address the points which have been raised, you're wrong.

I don't know who this C_C you refer to is. Unlike you I am pretty straightforward and I can assure you that if I had been a former poster on here I would be happy to own up to it for the simple reason that I'm actually pretty comfortable both with my opinions and with the way I express them. FYI I only became aware that this site even existed a day or two before I joined.

 

[Spark]

For what has to be at least the third time, don't make this thread personal, please.

 

[Dan]

This thread is getting rather ridiculous, ITBT.

 

[Cevno]

Spark responding to himself?

 

[Spark]

There was a post which inadvertently made me look like a moron. It was deleted. Which made me look like even more of a moron.

(y)

 

[benchmark00]

It's good modding that non-offensive posts pointing out the obvious get deleted but personal attacks are left there.

 

[smash84]

My impression is that racist remarks are generally worse than compared to a simple 'See You Next Tuesday' - or insulting a person's mother - mostly because of the discriminatory aspect of the former, and the much larger scope of the slur.

While insulting a person's mother is completely offensive and unacceptable in any context, it is not a slur against an entire racial group. Obviously, the world has a rather significant history of racial discrimination, and unfortunately it still occurs today.

A slur against one's mother is between the two parties involved, and only effects them (and their mother, obviously), whereas a racial slur is abusive to an entire ethnic group. Similarly, caste-based slurs would be unacceptable, as it was a basis for discrimination in India. Ostensibly, a hyperbolic claim of the formation of an intimate relationship with a member of one's family is not as wide ranging in scope.

Interesting that we've got a psuedo-intellectual climate change sceptic on board - looks like someone wants to satisfy a superiority complex through his keyboard.

...and it seems Spark has basically already posted what I'm saying here.

This thread is getting rather ridiculous, ITBT.

Indeed

 

[CWB304]

Stepping aside from your (in my opinion anyway, somewhat reasonable) point about the rights of individuals to take different levels of offence to others at different insults, I have to admit that I find this very hard to reconcile. I am not questioning your honestly here of course, however I am interested in why this may be the case.

The way I see it, it is highly unlikely that your opposition on a cricket field is to have had any actual dealings with your mother or sister, and therefore any insult relating to them specifically would therefore be completely disingenuous and transparent. A racist taunt is far more likely to be genuine and based on real prejudices than one based on the sledger's opinion of the character of woman he has never met. In fact, I would be tempted to go as far to say that anyone who took particular offence to that was either overly thin-skinned or looking for an excuse to get in a slanging match, however obviously this would not be true in your case as you have indicated you would not be affected by a racist taunt.

While I realise that this is a bit besides the point and indeed in many ways a good example of precisely what you're saying (that people will have very differing ideas on what is offensive to them for varying reasons and that perhaps it is unfair to enforce mainstream cultural opinions in a factual way on a non-factual matter) I am interested in hearing the logic behind your personal stance on that.

I have to admit I have very rarely been on the receiving end of direct racist insults despite the colour of my skin. But on the rare occasions when something like that has happened I have not felt anything at all after the initial shock of the words, except a mixture of sympathy and contempt for a person so lazy and unimaginative as to resort to that kind of commonplace verbal assault.

You're quite right though: in most circumstances I would be equally immune to someone calling my mother or sister a whore. For instance walking past a building site if a bunch of builders I didn't know were to shout out those or similar words I would just laugh, or shout back: "and yours too!" However I had in mind hypothetical situations in which such taunts were coming from persons at least to a certain extent known to me. In which case the attempted personal insult would be something I would take far more seriously and deal with with extreme prejudice and the generalised racial slur would wash off me like water off a duck's back.

For me the big fallacy behind this whole racism thing is the attempt to project some sort of common feeling between diverse peoples in Africa, the subcontinent, the Caribbean, the Americas, Oceania etc on the basis of shared similar darker skin tones merely. Why focus on skin pigmentation and make that the be all and end all, when we know that people who might appear to be very different based merely on that paramameter might in fact be much more closely related than people who have similar levels of melanin in their skin? I just don't get it. And then to again arbitrarily project some sort of verboten outrage-offence from insulting them on that basis. Is that really worse than the way some 'high caste' people on the subcontinent have historically oppressed those they consider to be of 'lower caste'? Or the way some African elites embezzle billions from people who share the same skin pigmentation as them and allow them to wallow in misery while they park the funds in banks in countries where people with much lower levels of melanin in their skin live?

The fact that in many cases the discrimination within and amongst the protected groups which anti-racist crusaders like BB is seeking to protect, Galahad-like, is stronger than the discrimination which we are all supposed to be outraged about should indicate that we are at least partially on the wrong track in some respects with this racism obsession. I don't feel any closer to the hundreds of millions or billions of persons who share my skin tone than I do to other members of the human race. But I do acknowledge and honour special bonds with my family, and to a more limited extent to my clan and extended kinship networks like most (I presume) normal human beings.

 

[Dan]

Indeed

In hindsight, definitely shouldn't have posted that remark.

Comment stands though - just applies to myself as well

 

[Spark]

I have to admit I have very rarely been on the receiving end of direct racist insults despite the colour of my skin. But on the rare occasions when something like that has happened I have not felt anything at all after the initial shock of the words, except a mixture of sympathy and contempt for a person so lazy and unimaginative as to resort to that kind of commonplace verbal assault.

You're quite right though: in most circumstances I would be equally immune to someone calling my mother or sister a whore. For instance walking past a building site if a bunch of builders I didn't know were to shout out those or similar words I would just laugh, or shout back: "and yours too!" However I had in mind hypothetical situations in which such taunts were coming from persons at least to a certain extent known to me. In which case the attempted personal insult would be something I would take far more seriously and deal with with extreme prejudice and the generalised racial slur would wash off me like water off a duck's back.

For me the big fallacy behind this whole racism thing is the attempt to project some sort of common feeling between diverse peoples in Africa, the subcontinent, the Caribbean, the Americas, Oceania etc on the basis of shared similar darker skin tones merely. Why focus on skin pigmentation and make that the be all and end all, when we know that people who might appear to be very different based merely on that paramameter might in fact be much more closely related than people who have similar levels of melanin in their skin? I just don't get it. And then to again arbitrarily project some sort of verboten outrage-offence from insulting them on that basis. Is that really worse than the way some 'high caste' people on the subcontinent have historically oppressed those they consider to be of 'lower caste'? Or the way some African elites embezzle billions from people who share the same skin pigmentation as them and allow them to wallow in misery while they park the funds in banks in countries where people with much lower levels of melanin in their skin live?

The fact that in many cases the discrimination within and amongst the protected groups which anti-racist crusaders like BB is seeking to protect, Galahad-like, is stronger than the discrimination which we are all supposed to be outraged about should indicate that we are at least partially on the wrong track in some respects with this racism obsession. I don't feel any closer to the hundreds of millions or billions of persons who share my skin tone than I do to other members of the human race. But I do acknowledge and honour special bonds with my family, and to a more limited extent to my clan and extended kinship networks like most (I presume) normal human beings.

Hmm.

I found this rather interesting.

What you seem to be saying here, in brief, is that fundamental basis behind why racial discrimination is particularly abhorrent - namely, the idea that it is not just one person you insult, it's many - is flawed.

Sorry, can't agree.

In fact, personally, what you cite - the fact that people are not defined by their ethnicity or heritage is what makes it so offensive, the implication on one level that it at all matters. More broadly, however, it is the core concept behind racism - that one's ethnicity or heritage not just defines but demeans them - that distinguishes it from other forms of abuse, IMO. Again - you are not insulting one person, or one family. You are insulting everyone of that ethnicity.

Jono's point also stands. The social fracturing that occurs because of racism in all societies (and for the purposes of this, casteism etc. is racism because the logical justification for casteism is indistinguishable from that of racism) is staggering throughout human history, not to mention the colossal suffering due to it. It's difficult to make the same case for insulting someone's mother on a similar scale. It's because of this, because it is so insidious on a societal, not just a personal level, that it is given special treatment to some degree in the vast majority of jurisdictions and sensible ethical codes I'm aware of.

It's not about whether/how much you or I take offence to certain things.

 

[Furball]

I can't believe people are equating racist abuse with what is essentially a schoolyard level 'your mum' joke.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm.

Deliberate?

 

[Spark]

Deliberate?

You'll never know.

 

[social]

Stepping aside from your (in my opinion anyway, somewhat reasonable) point about the rights of individuals to take different levels of offence to others at different insults, I have to admit that I find this very hard to reconcile. I am not questioning your honestly here of course, however I am interested in why this may be the case.

The way I see it, it is highly unlikely that your opposition on a cricket field is to have had any actual dealings with your mother or sister, and therefore any insult relating to them specifically would therefore be completely disingenuous and transparent. A racist taunt is far more likely to be genuine and based on real prejudices than one based on the sledger's opinion of the character of woman he has never met. In fact, I would be tempted to go as far to say that anyone who took particular offence to that was either overly thin-skinned or looking for an excuse to get in a slanging match, however obviously this would not be true in your case as you have indicated you would not be affected by a racist taunt.

While I realise that this is a bit besides the point and indeed in many ways a good example of precisely what you're saying (that people will have very differing ideas on what is offensive to them for varying reasons and that perhaps it is unfair to enforce mainstream cultural opinions in a factual way on a non-factual matter) I am interested in hearing the logic behind your personal stance on that.

This

Literally the only way I would be offended by someone making a remark about my family would be if they actually knew them

 

[Spikey]

It strikes me as odd that every time we have this sorta conversation someone drags in your mum and makes a point about how dragging in your mum is sick and so forth. leave your mum out of it

 

[CWB304]

Hmm.

I found this rather interesting.

What you seem to be saying here, in brief, is that fundamental basis behind why racial discrimination is particularly abhorrent - namely, the idea that it is not just one person you insult, it's many - is flawed.

Sorry, can't agree.

In fact, personally, what you cite - the fact that people are not defined by their ethnicity or heritage is what makes it so offensive, the implication on one level that it at all matters. More broadly, however, it is the core concept behind racism - that one's ethnicity or heritage not just defines but demeans them - that distinguishes it from other forms of abuse, IMO. Again - you are not insulting one person, or one family. You are insulting everyone of that ethnicity.

Jono's point also stands. The social fracturing that occurs because of racism in all societies (and for the purposes of this, casteism etc. is racism because the logical justification for casteism is indistinguishable from that of racism) is staggering throughout human history, not to mention the colossal suffering due to it. It's difficult to make the same case for insulting someone's mother on a similar scale. It's because of this, because it is so insidious on a societal, not just a personal level, that it is given special treatment to some degree in the vast majority of jurisdictions and sensible ethical codes I'm aware of.

It's not about whether/how much you or I take offence to certain things.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read carefully what I said - about melanin; about arbitrarily choosing that (skin pigmentation) among many other genetic markers which could have been chosen as the be all and end all; about the fallacy of projecting some wider commonality between disparate groups which in many cases have nothing else socially, culturally or even anthropologically in common and using that as the basis for lumping them together; about the fact that there is just as much if not more intra-group discrimination within those groups which have been bandied together and protected under ant-racist measures as there is oppression of them by others with lower melanin levels; and the many other points which I have made and which you've signally failed either to comprehend or to address -, and then get back to me.

 

[benchmark00]

No one point out the obvious.

 

[Spark]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read carefully what I said - about melanin; about arbitrarily choosing that (skin pigmentation) among many other genetic markers which could have been chosen as the be all and end all; about the fallacy of projecting some wider commonality between disparate groups which in many cases have nothing else socially, culturally or even anthropologically in common and using that as the basis for lumping them together; about the fact that there is just as much if not more intra-group discrimination within those groups which have been bandied together and protected under ant-racist measures as there is oppression of them by others with lower melanin levels; and the many other points which I have made and which you've signally failed either to comprehend or to address -, and then get back to me.

You're assuming that the people decrying racism are the ones who have made skin colour an issue. No, not really - it's the racists who are the ones who made skin colour the issue.

In any case, if you'd read my post you'll note that racism is about heritage and ethnicity as a whole, not just skin colour. Some of the most insidious examples of racism have little to do with skin colour (and, again, if the logical justification is the same as racism, then the same things apply). For example, the overt racism by many Thais against Vietnamese refugees - no skin colour involved there, but anyone who studied the topic would be in absolutely no doubt that it's racism. ftr this is not a "personal" example before people ask. The Rwandan genocide (like most genocides) had fundamentally racist origins but it had nothing to do with skin colour.

And indeed it is an extreme fallacy to say that racism is an especially white phenomenon.

But even on the skin colour topic - you are making my point, in a very roundabout way, for me. The idea that racists - and again, it is the racist who makes these things an issue, not those who decry it - should choose to say that all these people who indeed may have little other commonality should be defined by their skin colour could easily be seen to be offensive. I personally would have a very dim opinion of someone who stereotyped me - without being overtly racist in the traditional form of the word - based on that.

edited to make it readable