gingerism

[ajva]

Here's a joke. "What's the difference between a terrorist and a redhead?"

Here's the punchline. "You can negotiate with a terrorist."

LOL!!!! What nonsense. :o)

God, people are always looking for something to get self-pitying about, aren't they? As if it kinda removes the obligation to go out and grasp the day. Grow the hell up and stop whining.

Comments

[kake]

I'm amazed by the commenter who's claiming that the term "ginger" is offensive.

Also, while bullying is a serious matter, the comparison to racism is ridiculous (and I found that quite offensive).

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Totally agree about the comparison to racism. Utter codswollop.

[babysimon]

I don't know if you watch The Daily Show, but they go round interviewing people like that - and always ask them if they feel like Rosa Parks.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Weird article. I mean yeah, bullying bad; yeah, people get bullied because they have ginger hair or anything else seen to be unusual. Is this a newsflash? Attacking people should be taken seriously, whatever reason.

*shrugs*

[djm4]

Interesting. I have an odd sort of doublethink on this. If we're comparing history, number of people affected, likelihood of the Police hassling you and so on, then I agree entirely. If we're talking levels of acceptability, I don't.

I think it's because 'discrimination on the grounds of hair colour is unacceptable' is, for me, an absolute statement. Such discrimination just as acceptable as discrimination on the grounds of race: its level of acceptability is zero. When considering levels of acceptability, it doesn't seem helpful to me to consider whether one is 'worse' than the other; they're both unacceptable, and that's all that needs to be said.

I realise that's a bit of an odd position for someone who doesn't believe in right and wrong to take (but then I'm a bit of an odd example of such a person). I may need to poke at it a bit more.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

I think there's a common belief that bullying bad, but bullying because of a 'wierd' physical characteristic is more bad than bullying because of a 'wierd' behaviour. So bullying redheads would be more bad than bullying goths, using that reasoning. Thus in that sense, gingerism is the same as racism.

Add that to the media's usual inability to distinguish between taking the piss and bullying, and you get articles like this.

[djm4]

Add that to the media's usual inability to distinguish between taking the piss and bullying, and you get articles like this.

I admit it's a distinction I struggle with at times.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Yes - something you can 'control' or something you 'choose' vs something you are born with. Taking the piss becomes bullying if you ask someone to stop and they carry on, I would think.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Would you agree with my definition below?

[kake]

I'm not sure this distinction really works, because you can control your hair colour. It's hassle, yes, and you obviously shouldn't have to if you don't want to, but it's something you can control. And which side of the divide does "being fat" fall on?

Agree with your definition of taking the piss vs. bullying.

[djm4]

I agree with it, but don't think it's all that useful in many real-life circumstances where the bully is playing on the general social unacceptability of being seen to be unable to take a 'gentle good-natured ribbing'. The problem is that much genuine gentle good-natured ribbing is indistinguishable from bullying, and the bullies know it. Often the exact same piss-taking from one individual would be nasty bullying from another.

[djm4]

(I am, however, acknowledged to be over-sensitive on the subject.)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Perhaps we need some kind of Godel's Diagonal Proof for non-countable unacceptability?

Forgive me - am in frivolous mood. :o)

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

I agree - I was meaning: 'this is what they're thinking', but it isn't what I believe.

I do agree with David though - it's unfortunately not as easily defined as that.

[kake]

Ah-ha, right, I see what you mean.

I also see what you and David are talking about regarding the social unacceptability of "being unable to take a good-hearted ribbing", but I do think there is some onus on people to speak up when this kind of thing bothers them. There may be a grey area between "bullying by pushing the line" and "accidental hurting of feelings", but there's also a grey area on the other side, between "accidental hurting of feelings" and "friendly joshing in order to emphasize the shared history between the josher and the joshee". Does that make sense? I'm certainly not saying that it should be necessary to mention the issue than once, but I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone around you to magically know the difference between things that you're sensitive about and things that you aren't.

(I also think there is some onus on people who feel they deserve a seat on the Tube due to e.g. nonobvious pregnancy/injury/illness/etc to ask for one rather than seething in silence.)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Is it good or bad that, while my alarm clock was having a real hard time of it getting me out of bed this morning, the sudden random realisation that I had written "Godel" instead of "Cantor" in this particular comment got me out of bed like a rocket and scurrying to the computer to correct myself? :o)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Hey, Godel's proof is also a diagonal proof so that's OK!

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Yes - people who martyr themselves because everyone around them isn't pyschic are frustrating!

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Phew! Thank goodness for that!

That's in the last unit of the course I was doing currently (in abeyance for obvious personal reasons atm) so I hadn't seen it yet. :o)

[jhg.livejournal.com]

I'm generally pretty immune to ribbing (having had such extreme and constant versions of it at school); however (for example) I would *always* speak up in the highly unlikely event I was uncomfortable with ribbing from you lot; not so sure in other social situations (e.g. work).

[djm4]

Possibly. ;-)

It strikes me that the proof that 1=2 is actually a spookily accurate analogy for this, involving as it does a sneaky multiplication of both sides by zero. That's not that dismilar to:

A is unacceptable. B is unacceptable. Therefore A and B are as bad as each other in all other respects.

...which seems to be how the argument in the article is running.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's kind of what I was aiming at. Your comprehension is much appreciated. :o)

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I disagree - I think that if I am going to do something which is distinguishable from bullying, racism, sexism etc only by the subjective reaction of the target, then the onus is on me to make very sure that it is acceptable and not on the target to tell me it's unacceptable. In other words, the default position is Don't Do It (unless the other person shows that it's okay, not Do It until the other person says stop. A comparison with cases of alleged rape is instructive, I think.

[kake]

My point is though that I don't think this is always possible. The set of things which are obviously acceptable is individual and cultural. There are certainly things which I feel I should always make sure to be on the safe side of, but I can't include every possible social interaction in that list, or I'd never be able to do anything. Hence, I should give people some leeway in my reading of their actions towards me, rather than assuming the worst straight off.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

True. I just don't think that ribbing someone is ever on the "obviously acceptable" side of the line, unless the recipient has said that it is for them. Without that, I think it's always either a "not acceptable" or a "maybe", so a person does it at their own risk.