Is Sir Michael Parkinson within his rights?

[flaviaritt]

Says men are funnier than women. He says, ‘It's a very contentious statement, but they're much better'.

My view is that, by the age of 85, if you think men are funnier than women, it’s just your opinion based on your experience and nobody should be getting riled up about it.

Reasonable?

Are you ok with any observations about any group based upon any characteristic?

It’s a really interesting (and difficult) question. I am not sure. You’d have to test me, and I would have to think hard about it.

@flaviaritt

And if he said English people are more intelligent than Spanish people? At what point are we allowed to get riled up, in your world?

In my world, you’re allowed to get riled up if you like. I wouldn’t call his opinion that English people (to him) appeared more intelligent than Spanish people racist. It might be xenophobic. But what if he was Spanish and saying the same thing? Sometimes, as I’ve been saying. if a comment is based on long observation, it’s not prejudice. It’s just your own experience.

It is still prejudiced. Of course it is.

It is still prejudiced. Of course it is.

No. That negates the definition of prejudice. I agree, if a person held that Spanish people were better than English people at... I don’t know... comedy... such that they were unwilling to reconsider that opinion, that would be prejudice. But holding such an opinion alongside an open mind for future experience isn’t.

@flaviaritt

It is still prejudiced. Of course it is.

No. That negates the definition of prejudice. I agree, if a person held that Spanish people were better than English people at... I don’t know... comedy... such that they were unwilling to reconsider that opinion, that would be prejudice. But holding such an opinion alongside an open mind for future experience isn’t.

That’s complete nonsense though. It’s still prejudice to say ‘characteristic X is better at unrelated thing than characteristic Y’ regardless if you change your mind later. It’s still racist to say ‘white people are better at comedy than black people’ even if you don’t agree with that statement (you made yourself) six years later. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a racist statement.

That’s complete nonsense though. It’s still prejudice to say ‘characteristic X is better at unrelated thing than characteristic Y’ regardless if you change your mind later

No, it isn’t. On the subjective level, it might well be true. Prejudice simply means RLB have decided aforethought (without any significant experience). So if you have significant experience, and you are open to changing your mind given more data, I can’t see how it is prejudice. You seem to conflate generalisation with prejudice here.

RLB? No idea. Should read ‘you’.

@flaviaritt

That’s complete nonsense though. It’s still prejudice to say ‘characteristic X is better at unrelated thing than characteristic Y’ regardless if you change your mind later

No, it isn’t. On the subjective level, it might well be true. Prejudice simply means RLB have decided aforethought (without any significant experience). So if you have significant experience, and you are open to changing your mind given more data, I can’t see how it is prejudice. You seem to conflate generalisation with prejudice here.

That’s absolutely not an accurate definition of prejudice, and I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make in relation to this thread anyway?

He made a sexist statement. Even if he from now on immerses himself in Ali Wong and Hannah Gadsby and changes his mind, he still made a sexist statement in a national newspaper (was it? Or a biography?) in 2020.

That’s absolutely not an accurate definition of prejudice, and I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make in relation to this thread anyway?

Hmm. Please give your definition of prejudice.

@flaviaritt

That’s absolutely not an accurate definition of prejudice, and I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make in relation to this thread anyway?

Hmm. Please give your definition of prejudice.

Why? How about you give where you got yours from, since you’re the one who brought it up.

Here, I googled it for you:

Prejudice is an unjustified or incorrect attitude (usually negative) towards an individual based solely on the individual's membership of a social group. For example, a person may hold prejudiced views towards a certain race or gender etc. (e.g. sexist).

Right. So - again, in my opinion - if a view is justified by a person’s experience, and that experience is reasonably extensive, or they are willing to change it if it becomes more extensive, it isn’t prejudice.

Prejudice means to pre judge. To judge before knowing.

@flaviaritt

Right. So - again, in my opinion - if a view is justified by a person’s experience, and that experience is reasonably extensive, or they are willing to change it if it becomes more extensive, it isn’t prejudice.

Prejudice means to pre judge. To judge before knowing.

But your opinion of a definition is irrelevant. You could just as easily say ‘my opinion is that prejudice means love or rainbows’. It’s meaningless to say your opinion changes a definition.

It’s still racist to say ‘black people are less funny than white people’ even if every single black comedian you’ve ever seen didn’t make you laugh, even if you change your mind a few months later. It doesn’t change the absolute fact that you once made a racist statement.

But your opinion of a definition is irrelevant.

No. You didn’t read the definition.

Anyway. We are never, ever going to agree. I respect you and your opinions, but it’s the end of the line for me!

@flaviaritt

But your opinion of a definition is irrelevant.

No. You didn’t read the definition.

Anyway. We are never, ever going to agree. I respect you and your opinions, but it’s the end of the line for me!

😂😂😂 I didn’t read the definition that I posted? Where does it say anything about timescale or changing your mind?

You’re a good flouncer, you’ve done it countless times on this thread when you’ve backed yourself into a corner.

I haven’t backed myself into anything. Our opinions are irreconcilable.

@flaviaritt

I haven’t backed myself into anything. Our opinions are irreconcilable.

Except you think your opinion changes what words actually mean. You also think free speech means something completely different. And censorship. And bias.

It’s a weird thing to champion liberty while at the same time refuting fact for opinion.

I don’t believe I do that. You do. That is the beauty of subjectivity:

Sorry: we all think different things.

It has truly clicked with me that this whole line of argument is just a way to justify any kind of racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it.

I’m nauseated by it.

@flaviaritt

I don’t believe I do that. You do. That is the beauty of subjectivity:

You clearly do though. That’s why you can’t answer any question put to you, like ‘where in that definition that I posted does it say anything about timescale or changing your mind?

@HannaYeah

It has truly clicked with me that this whole line of argument is just a way to justify any kind of racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it.

I’m nauseated by it.

That’s fair, it’s pretty sickening.

Sorry to make you all feel so ill on a Tuesday evening. The defence of free speech does that to fascists on any day of the week, I’ve found.

@flaviaritt

Sorry to make you all feel so ill on a Tuesday evening. The defence of free speech does that to fascists on any day of the week, I’ve found.

Sexist, racist and cuddling your own definition of free speech. And your own definition of prejudice. Must be a lonely Tuesday night for you.

He can say it. All my favorite comics are women and he's spouting a tired old sexist cliche. But yes, he can say it.

Well, sorry, Pumper: we appear to be estranged again, since you have just called me a sexist and a racist (I am neither). No more answers for you!