Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

I agree with everything Motorina has said and what everyone has said about Motorina.

What the hell is Harrop thinking posing for that picture with Prior, wearing that badge?

A doctor, in the middle of a misconduct tribunal, posting pics on social media wearing a badge advocating spraying chemicals at women who have different views to him? Wuh?!

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

What the hell is Harrop thinking posing for that picture with Prior, wearing that badge?

A doctor, in the middle of a misconduct tribunal, posting pics on social media wearing a badge advocating spraying chemicals at women who have different views to him? Wuh?!

It's egregious enough that it should be brought to the attention of the panel as indicative of his attitude to the gravity of the charges and his presence before a panel.

Depends whether you were tweeting about the specific row with Marcus Rashford or something else entirely.

Nobody uses that specific phrase any more, whereas people still commonly use faggots in other senses of the word and in the context of the sentence and bearing in mind E has used it In that context previously, there is room for doubt.

It might not have been the most advisable word, but that’s a very different thing from the claim accepted, namely that she hurled it as a direct insult at Adrian Harrop.

SoniaFouler I have never heard n....... to have a different meaning in common use. What is the meaning of the word in this context if not a derogatory term for a black person?

That's a ridiculous argument and an offensive post.

@SpindlesWhorl

That's a ridiculous argument and an offensive post.

I’m black, and used it specifically, uncensored, to make the point. Sorry if it offended you, but I kind of meant it to be offensive. I wish MN hadn’t deleted it, as I think it stands up, but understand why it was.

SoniaFouler Not quite the same as the treatment of women who don’t agree with the Trans ideology are often treated as modern day witches and being burnt as witches is a commonly used analogy.

That said I personally wouldn’t use the term, even before I knew it was used as a slur I didn’t like the way the word sounded and thought the meat product gross.

However from context of both that tweet (and previous tweets) from E it can’t be considered proven to be intended for the ‘good’ doctor (who freely throws around slurs for women). I initially typed another phrase about throwing something with abandon then realised the word had another meaning and you might think I’d done it deliberately but I hadn’t.

I should also add, It wasn’t a phrase that was common when I was young, or where I’m from, but if it was, then what is the difference between that and “faggot means something else entirely from my era/where I’m from”

Surely that phrase has a specific etymology rooted in racism?

www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/phrase-nr-woodpile-used-anne-393369

Guess that still is in use

@Terfasaurus

Surely that phrase has a specific etymology rooted in racism?

“** in the woodpile or ** in the fence is a figure of speech meaning "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong".

Etymology aside, if it’s a phrase you recognise in a context nothing to do with the racist explicitive then what’s the difference between using that and using faggot in a context nothing to do with the homophobic explicitive?

If it's pinned down, beyond all doubt that that particular word was used absolutely intentionally, with purpose to offend, with a whole lot of homophobia and other nasty intent.... what does this actually change and how is it relevant?

It doesn't any more excuse the behaviour of the GP in question. It's not ok to harass, intimidate and behave online in this way to others while openly using your job as a GP for public influence. Provocation isn't an excuse. Other people being wrong on the internet is not an excuse. A GC person behaving badly is not an excuse .

@Artichokeleaves

If it's pinned down, beyond all doubt that that particular word was used absolutely intentionally, with purpose to offend, with a whole lot of homophobia and other nasty intent.... what does this actually change and how is it relevant?

It doesn't any more excuse the behaviour of the GP in question. It's not ok to harass, intimidate and behave online in this way to others while openly using your job as a GP for public influence. Provocation isn't an excuse. Other people being wrong on the internet is not an excuse. A GC person behaving badly is not an excuse .

I've said this multiple times but there are still posters insisting someone they have never met definitely meant twigs or meatballs.

If it's pinned down, beyond all doubt that that particular word was used absolutely intentionally, with purpose to offend, with a whole lot of homophobia and other nasty intent.... what does this actually change and how is it relevant?

It changes nothing, and in regards to this case, isn’t relevant.

I made the point because I agreed with the posters who said it was disingenuous to completely disregard the use of the term as anything other than 100% innocent and not considering even 1% that it might not have been just because it was used from “our” side. And so used the example of the other phrase (which I’m not going to repeat for obvious reasons, mainly, the two deleted posts) and asked what the difference is, as it also too has another context.

I don't think any here would think E was referring meatballs

I agreed with the posters who said it was disingenuous to completely disregard the use of the term as anything other than 100% innocent and not considering even 1% that it might not have been just because it was used from “our” side.

That's not why I'm saying it's "innocent" as you put it. It's not about sides or some kind of purity claim. It's just about the logic of the sentence itself. It literally can't mean what AH claims it means, and therefore he is being dishonest in making that claim. That's all.

I think you’re comparing apples & oranges here, because an overwhelming majority of people just wouldn’t bring themselves to use the n-word even in the context of that phrase. Which is why a Tory MP had the whip withdrawn as it was a spectacular misjudgement.

Equally nobody is claiming that anyone on the GC or feminist side is saying it’s ok to use homophobic slurs.

The debate is about whether E used it intentionally or not.

There’s no way of knowing or proving and giving someone the benefit of the doubt is not a defence of using it in a pejorative sense.

It’s not even a defence of E and all she stands for.

Think everyone is getting a bit bogged down in purity spirals because of who E is.

That's not why I'm saying it's "innocent" as you put it. It's not about sides or some kind of purity claim. It's just about the logic of the sentence itself. It literally can't mean what AH claims it means, and therefore he is being dishonest in making that claim. That's all.

He claimed it to be a homophobic slur against him(?), didn’t he? If I was not black and used “my” deleted phrase and “my” example of Marcus Rashford said I had used it explicitly because he was black and knew that he would see it, and people said that he was just making a big deal out of it because I clearly used it in a context that had nothing to with his race, but simply because in the text of the conversation I was tweeting publicly, it made sense and should be seen as apparent in the sense I was using it, the same level of plausibility should apply, should it not? (Except not, because: deleted posts and “an offensive post” comment). I’m not defending the usage of either word or phrase but pointing out the double standards as others have raised.

@Terfasaurus

I think you’re comparing apples & oranges here, because an overwhelming majority of people just wouldn’t bring themselves to use the n-word even in the context of that phrase. Which is why a Tory MP had the whip withdrawn as it was a spectacular misjudgement.

Equally nobody is claiming that anyone on the GC or feminist side is saying it’s ok to use homophobic slurs.

The debate is about whether E used it intentionally or not.

There’s no way of knowing or proving and giving someone the benefit of the doubt is not a defence of using it in a pejorative sense.

It’s not even a defence of E and all she stands for.

Think everyone is getting a bit bogged down in purity spirals because of who E is.

Despite googling yesterday because I was curious to know who E is, I still have no idea and have refrained from asking 1: because I have read the whole thread and it’s been agreed she shouldn’t be named due to the nature of the case and 2: because it’s been agreed that if she was named the thread might be deleted. So I, personally, am not getting “bogged down in purity spirals” because I have no idea who she is at all, so 100% no past judgement or criticism from me. To reiterate, I was agreeing with the posters who claimed it was disingenuous to not consider the word might have been used inflammatory, even considering “context”. And despite the example of the Tory whip being removed, and your insistence that the majority of the people wouldn’t use that phrase anymore, nobody has pointed out how and why the two examples are different considering both have multiple meanings, offensive and innocent.

@SoniaFouler . Because of the subsequent link from Flying Oink and your * in the ** , everyone knows what term you used. Even if it was deleted. I don't think it has any current or recent uses. Readers may not know that you connected the phrase to a famous black person as an example of someone who might take umbrage to it. That artifice of doing that and use of a word that has no other current associations in English was very disingenuous.

Also, it is interesting you go straight to racism to compare the use of faggot. The use of bitch may be a better comparison. Female dog to refer to and dehumanise women. Actually, I think the use of queer may be even more similar. Like faggot, one meaning of this is as a homophobe slur, but there are other current and historic meanings. The use of queer would be a better equivalence for double meanings of which one is a homophobic slur. Other meaning being odd.

Open to correction but as I said, the etymology of the phrase is racist.

People might not intend racism when they use it, but it’s considered taboo for that reason.

I didn’t realise that it meant not disclosing something of great importance either, I actually thought it meant the equivalent of searching for a needle in a haystack, which is obviously blatantly racist.

I guess you could claim that E ought to have been aware, but having been to the fruit farms and found the context, even if E did take advantage of ambiguity, then it’s still not directed at Adrian Harrop, whom it has been established, she had on block. He sought it out, choose to take offence and is now using it to justify revenge porn and all sorts of other behaviours towards E that began a good year before E’s tweet.

Let’s hope the panel aren’t blinded to this.

Is it a good idea to keep forcing racism and a person who has no connection with anything into this?

A more equivalent example would be the use of words like bitch (female dog) or queer (odd) being used undercover as slurs.