Funny how this perception of wrongness seems to be so dependent on the melanin content of the person displaying the outrage…
Do I accept that it can happen? Sure, loads of things can happen. Another thing that can happen is that your initial assessment could be wrong. And in the course of the discussion you could realise that it was wrong and change your mind.
Does that happen often? If not, why is that, do you think?
As I said above, It is a matter of record that I hate Donald Trump. He is the worst kind of bullying, misogynistic, racist arsehole imaginable.
A long and incontrovertible record of appalling behaviour with little mitigation.
Even for him, if a claim was made that I thought was unfair and incorrect I would defend him. It’d be dishonest not to.
And yet here you are, defending this odious racist and misogynist where the accusation is clear and obvious.
It doesn’t happen often and I don’t really expect it to when the discussion is on matters of opinion, principles and belief rather than on matters of objective fact. People are wedded to their prior beliefs and motivations and that is difficult to shift.
I suspect that the same is true for those on the other side of the argument. If you are wondering why my position doesn’t often shift in these discussions I’d argue that it is also necessary to consider that.
How often are their minds changed? Rarely I suspect.
There is also the natural inbuilt aversion to be seen to be speaking up, in any way, on behalf of someone you actually don’t like or support. Even accepting that Clarkson’s apology could be genuine seems to be anathema to many people. I think that even those who dislike him could easily accept it as genuine and still hold the strong opinion that he’s not a great person. That’s certainly the position I hold.
As you may have noticed, I do my best to overcome that aversion but it isn’t welcomed.
We disagree on whether this article is clear and obvious evidence of Clarkson’s racism and misogyny.
How about in the context of a lifetime of on-the-record bigotry of basically every type?
The World vs Novelty Bobble, as usual.
Jeremy Clarkson isn’t a pig, he just plays one in public.
I’d be astonished if the majority of people agreed with me.
If that were ever true, what was once under the pig costume has long since rotted away.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
(not Aristotle)
You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do.
(Jung, not plagiarizing Aristotle)
I wouldn’t be astonished at all. Only a minority of people in the world are enlightened. Most are mired in tribalism and bigotry.
The Galileo Gambit of morality.
Throughout history, society has trended toward greater enlightenment in morality, toward increasing tolerance and respect for the rights of others. Unless you live in an enclave of exceptionally regressive people, the fact that everyone disagrees you is unlikely to be a sign that your morality is so enlightened that the rest of the world just cannot see it. It is far more likely to mean that you are a recalcitrant bigot who lacks insight into their own moral deficiencies.
No, I don’t think so. That’s not my experience at all in real life and never has been.
I suspect my point of view on equality, prejudice and bigotry and the outcomes we seek are highly likely to be in line with yours and all that differs is what methods we each consider are best to achieve those.
I don’t doubt which category you think you are in.
Why not? You are focused on intent. Isn’t that good evidence of his intent?
For this article? not necessarily no. I certainly put a lot more weight on the wording of his apology. I think what he says and how he explains the process ring true to me.
What this tells me is that you’re not someone worth talking to. You’re either willfully ignorant, or extremely motivated to excuse bigotry, for whatever reason. Probably both.
If that “rings true” to you, then I withdraw my previous characterization of you as a slightly less stupid Magiver.