Nick Clow wrote:Stephen, I am sorry you feel like that. You may have been reading my comments in a broader way than intended. My comments were in response to Denian. The contention that the UK has a monopoly on free speech is offensive. I also have a pet hate of someone doing or saying something offensive and then defending themselves by playing the free speech card, as if that makes it ok.
With apologies for dragging this back from the brink of oblivion, and thanks to those who have managed to make some jokes along the way. Meanwhile.
OK Nick, you're sorry I feel like that. I wonder if, given your understanding that there may be a problem with how your comments are understood you could do me the favour of confirming in clear terms that you were not stating the view that residents of the UK are more prone to bigotry than elsewhere, and specifically that you did not intend this to be understood to refer to those excercising their right under the terms of this forum to discuss a video performance (that is publicly viewable and which has comments enabled?)
I wonder if you could also acknowledge that you completely misunderstood Denian's veiled humour? Easily done, it was a bit subtle, but then, I think many people would say it was so obviously not intended to be taken seriously that anyone with pet hates about that area should have been able to tell it was not a serious claim?
I wonder if you could also explain your statement about somebody "doing or saying something offensive" - ? because on the face of it the clear implication is that you are accusing forum members of making offensive statements. Were you suggesting that?
It would certainly be appreciated, and help me understand where you are coming from, if you could explain and justify the statement "Freedom of speech has been defined as 'the right to be a bigot'." ... specifically, how you expect free speech to be exercised - including by yourself - in a forum with clear rules such as this one. In particular, I wonder if you could quote who exactly has defined freedom of speech in that way, and with what intent? And whether or not you were trying to imply that forum members discussing the video were in your view guilty of bigotry? All that without discussing politics of course.
Nick Clow wrote:Anyway it's up to you how you interpret things and I certainly don't apologise. If you do perceive my comments as criticism, it is somewhat ironic that it hurts.
No I don't think I perceive your comments as criticism, I think I perceive them as an attempt to stifle discussion and the expression of views which are perfectly legal under the terms of this forum. I think this is another example of your attempt to twist another forum member's views to fit your own world view. The irony question is particularly, well, ironic; the Oxford definition of 'bigot' of course is "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions" while perhaps rather more damagingly, the common wider definitions include references to racism, homophobia etc etc.
For the sake of clarity, the reason I say this is ironic is that it is yourself (and others, but it was yourself who raised bigotry) who have shown hostility to those holding different opinions. People on one 'side' of the debate have restricted their comments to the original post, people on the other 'side' have seen fit to try to close down the discussion, denigrate, distort and misrepresent the statements of, and sail very closely to outright pernicious insults towards the first. In doing so they have rarely even bothered to actually discuss the merits of the performance in question which, - did I mention? - is a publicly available video with comments enabled.
Nick Clow wrote:Despite Mark's and your contentions that people don't read things properly (something that does neither of you any favours), I have quite carefully read what you (both) have written and I do have some understanding of your (pl) points of view.
OK, good try with the condescending put-down, however to be honest I would say that if you have actually read what people such as Mark and I have said and you keep trying to stifle the discussion and (as others have) wilfully misinterpret people's motivations and twist their words, you are certainly not exactly demonstrating the slightest understanding or indeed respect for such points of view.
Nick Clow wrote:However, I genuinely think this thread is bad form, and I ask you to try and understand mine.
It may be, but who are you to legislate on it? That would actually be for the Moderators. Isn't the usual sensible approach to a thread one disapproves to, I don't know, not read it
? It would have disappeared off the radar days ago without people trying to say it was wrong to talk about the performance.
Nick Clow wrote:Let's say this is a rock-climbing internet forum.
Yes let's, but perhaps we could use examples that actually reflect what happened, rather than inventing a parallel universe that clearly implies more undiluted vitriol towards people you don't agree with.
Nick Clow wrote:An elite, professional rock-climber posts a Youtube video of another professional climber and makes highly critical and, what many perceive as, spiteful comments about the other climber's technique.
Mark is a fine fellow but I am confident would not describe himself as 'elite'. Why distort the situation? He made absolutely no 'highly critical' comments and expressly
stated that was not his purpose. You claimed to have read everything he wrote. What I wonder is your
purpose in all this? Next, I wonder if you could quote one of the comments on the video that you would describe as "spiteful"?
Nick Clow wrote:Some members of the forum are genuinely puzzled that a climber would victimise another climber in this way. They are really uncomfortable and concerned for the poor sod who is being picked on.
Victimise? You do realise do you that the video is publicly available and has comments enabled? You do realise that all the comments were intended to be respectful and aimed to understand the situation the player found himself in - and if, how and why there are problems with the performance? You do realise that the likelihood of any busy professional player having the slightest care for what a load of windbags on an internet forum say about his performance has to be vanishingly small?
Nick Clow wrote:One or two people chip in to register their discomfort. They are told (with more than a whiff of cultural/colonial superiority) that they can't read and they are ignoring the questions asked. They don't understand. It's all about sharing knowledge and experience, apparently. And it's ok to run someone down if they are a professional.
Do you really, really think you can be taken seriously with a statement like "with more than a whiff of cultural/colonial superiority"? Would you care to provide an example of anybody who implied that they are superior in their judgement because they live in your ex-colonial power? Would you care to provide an example of somebody running the player down, as distinct from, purely, discussing the performance? Do you understand that there might be a difference between discussing a performance and its merits, and the performer as a person?
Nick Clow wrote:The educational piece is that, whilst the original elite and professional rock-climber may be a good climber, he is not a particularly nice bloke.
What evidence do you have of this? You said you read the OP's posts. I would really like to understand, please, how you can loftily state that there is an 'educational piece' of the nature you describe.
Nick Clow wrote:In my experience, most elite participants in pastimes, sports and arts are welcoming, inclusive and respectful of their peers. Love of their activity, karma. As several people have said, it is surprising that in music, of all fields, it is not the case here.
We evidently have different experiences of the world - what a surprise. My final point to the rock climber - and this is one that actually pertains to the case ...
A student rock climber has a climbing teacher and has seen a video which he is worried about because it seems the climber is not using very safe techniques. He doesn't seem to be that happy on the mountain, and is perhaps making some unnecessary mistakes, damaging the rock as he goes, making life difficult for other climbers, and in the worse case, being a bad example for young climbers who might take that kind of approach and end up falling off the mountain. He asks his teacher for advice, who passes the question on to a forum, because he wants to know how does one politely explain something like this to an aspiring student
. Maybe its what folks do these days? And some people say, no that's not a good way to climb. I wouldn't do that.
And other people say, I'm really uncomfortable with you criticising that climber, he hasn't asked for your criticism, think of his feelings.
Not, its not possible; rock climbers would not be that plum daft.