Can someone explain...

[FoxEye]

...what's so wrong about this?

A "miner's strike"-themed fancy dress event has been cancelled by a university.

The attempted event has been called "disgraceful" and "disgusting" and the university is considering taken action against rugby club students who dreamed it up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-42128595

Which seems incredibly heavy handed. Another case of being terrified of causing offence and distress to people with nothing more important to care about?

Or is this something really awful that I'm just not understanding the significance of?

Does anyone remember Spitting Image on TV? I really don't think we'd get away with something like that in today's "take offence at everything" culture. It's mind-boggling to me.

Let some students dress like miners and pretend to be Maggie Thatcher. What the heck does it matter? Let some people be offended if they want to be. It won't kill them.

 

[FoxEye]

That argument only works if the university believes its students cannot differentiate between Maggie Thatcher, Bin Laden, and Hitler Hmm, thinking about it...

 

[FoxEye]

The Moors murderers only killed five children. Let’s have a Moors murderer themed party.

You can’t measure these things purely on death toll.

It's fairly obvious that the strike-themed event wasn't celebrating the fact that three people died. Nor should it be a taboo to parody because of a small number of deaths. Heck, people die in Disney Land occasionally. Whilst tragic, it is of little consequence to the way people view Disney Land. It doesn't warrant being compared to a WWII concentration camp over a couple unintended/accidental deaths.

 

[FoxEye]

It’s been said that comedy = tragedy + time. It’s a while since anyone was killed by a Roman soldier, but we have people alive today who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, or who still suffer the KKK today. The miner’s strike is equally fresh in some parts of the country.

Nazis, the KKK, and the minors strike aren't even on the same scale tho.

I remember hurting my thumb yesterday; I guess I've suffered the same as someone who remembers the holocaust...

Surely we can't put them all in the same pile; this all-encompassing "things people don't remember fondly" pile that we're not allowed to parody? Otherwise nobody is allowed to make fun of me hurting my thumb. It's tragic and I will be super offended if anyone takes it lightly.

 

[FoxEye]

No, and I’ve not said so. I have said it’s very crass, and I absolutely understand why it might offend ex miners in Durham, which was very much damaged by the loss of mining.

Parody of the Nazis has been done by many mainstream comedians, and you would not expect much/any outrage these days for making light-hearted Nazi jokes.

But you would expect outrage if the fancy dress theme was Nazis vs Jews, with some dressing as each. So quite clearly time is not the only factor either. Perhaps we're just innately hypocritical in that something is not offensive if its sufficiently funny. I suspect that might be the case.

I personally can't draw too many parallels between the extermination of the Jews and the miner's strike, but as you say, it's up to each person to draw the line, even if just subconsciously.

 

[FoxEye]

You can’t see the difference between historical re-enactment and a bunch of rugby players using a tragic event in living memory as an excuse for a ****-up?

Do you get offended every time a "Hitler reacts to..." video gets posted? Do you get offended when mainstream comedians use the Nazis in a sketch, purely for the sake of a few cheap laughs?

You do? Or probably you don't...

And I like the way people are prepared to use potential violence against the rugby club players as a good enough reason to curtail their freedom of speech/expression.

Just the same as they do with religious groups. "Oh you can't be free to mock this deity/person, it'll offend the Buddhists and they might start beheading people. But if they do, we'll blame the people who took their sacred icons in vain and not the people who reacted with the violence. Violence it totally OK when you're offended by something."

It's a common theme. Freedom of speech/expression gets shut down to stop potentially upset people from being violent. And people think that's fine.

 

[FoxEye]

So if this ends up with a punch-up and someone getting seriously hurt, then that is fine. Even though you foresaw the potential of this happening due to early signs such as locals getting annoyed and knowing full well what a group of lads on a rugby social is like, it is fine because at least the rugby lot had the freedom to express... what exactly?

If they were doing it to portray a message or something, then fair enough, you can argue that they should be free to express that message. If the reasons to do this was just because they know the locals would be sensitive to it or just because they considered it edgy, then it is not too much to ask they pick a different theme.

It is not an example of people taking away freedom of expression, it is simply the university limiting the amount of damage they could receive from this, be it due to sensitive grumpy locals or because they needlessly went out dressed in a way that may provoke a fight. The university simply sees no benefit to allowing them to do it and a few negatives.

Freedom of expression? Afaik they are not expressing any message and the university is simply protecting themselves as well as the blokes from any repercussions to this 'expression'

By this argument we should not be permitted to lampoon certain religions, as we know their adherents become angry to the point of violence.

In other words, the onus is always on us not to offend, thereby provoking violence (as you see it). And the potential for offence to be taken is reasonable grounds for banning certain kinds of expression.

You do know how easily people become offended these days... seems like we're making a rod for our own back here by pandering to it.

Also you note that the "expression" is essentially meaningless. Well that works both ways. Why should people get upset over something so utterly meaningless as a bit of dress up, given that there is nothing sinister going on here? Dressing up as Nazis could be sinister (in as much as we know Neo-Nazism exists). People dressing up as miners aren't expressing some kind of vile ideology. The act is meaningless and harmless, in every sense of the word, besides some ex-miners and their bitterness.

*****s really going to hit the fan when automating renders taxi and lorry drivers unemployed. Won't be able to make jokes about that for at least 200 years!

e: Also we should ban alcohol. It is known that intoxication can lead to violence and serious injury. We know this can happen, so letting it happen is wrong and alcohol should be banned.

 

[FoxEye]

It’s the usual situation, that those who whine the hardest about freedom of speech generally have nothing of merit to say.

And typically the lefties here want safe spaces for everyone, and the banning of everything that might hurt those feels.

 

[FoxEye]

Why does everyone think you can extend on argument in a different situation and apply it as a standard to everything.

People shouldn't get upset over it, but the fact is that people do. If it doesn't mean anything to the rugby guys to just do something else, why is it so bad?

This is not about giving into people who complain. Why is it okay to let them do it knowing that it will likely cause trouble for everyone involved?

This case is nothing to do with some drawing of Mohammad or whatever. Peoples sensitivity on that issue is a complete joke for both people offended because of the censorship and due to the censorship. If people were to just grow up a little, the situation would never arise. It is a lose,lose situation for the university but a student punch up, on a university social would cause a lot of trouble and should be avoided.

The argument you just used with the miners could be used with religious icons (I'm not being specific).

Why is it OK to let people say (or draw) something that you know will cause trouble for everyone involved?

It's the same argument. You say it doesn't apply to religious icons... but it's the same damn argument.

 

[FoxEye]

Firstly, you assumed that i am okay with censorship of religious icons. I don't care either way, i just think peoples delicate sensitivities on the matter is ridiculous.

Both sides looking to be offended and in some cases be offensive.

You want to offend someone? Do it, but accept the repercussions and don't expect everyone to give you the thumbs up if it will effect them too. People are annoyed at the university for trying to do damage control, that is what is ridiculous.

The university didn't just stop them, they used words like "deplorable" and "disgusting" in reference to the planned event.

Completely OTT. They fell over themselves to disown the rugby club students and placate the miners. Ex miners. Miners who haven't been miners for 30 odd years now.

It's not like once you're a miner you can't do any other kind of work...

 

[FoxEye]

It's not like the team can't have a bit of a giggle and get on with their lives, pleased that they kept up the tradition of skirting line... oh wait, they probably did do that.

Again you're just saying that we should all avoid saying or doing anything that will upset somebody. And if necessary be prevented from saying or doing anything that would upset anybody.

And then saying, "There are plenty of other things you could say or do that won't offend anybody; try doing that instead."

Which basically means, "You should only be free to act in a way which causes no offence".

And yes, plenty of us have a big problem with that thinking.

 

[FoxEye]

If you think A is OK would you defend a person doing B?

Well, are A and B significantly different? Is the miners strike similar to the 3rd Reich? You tell me.

 

[FoxEye]

Okay fine, if the company asked you to not go as a miner then, what would you do?

I personally would choose something else, because it is not worth the trouble and wouldn't matter to me. What about you, would you adhere to the rules or do it anyway in protest?

If the group voted to keep the miner's theme I'd have gone along with it.

The point is it should be their choice. Instead the university have threatened them with sanctions, denounced them in the media, and summoned them to "explain their actions".

I personally don't think they have anything to explain. It was a bit of fun, and you can't be responsible for other people taking offence.


Let me ask you... when is it acceptable to say, "Your having taken offence about this issue is not justified."

Is it ever acceptable to say that? Should we always live in fear of others taking offence at something we might do? Where do you draw the line, if somebody says "I'm offended", when do you just ignore them?

 

[FoxEye]

I still want to know when we’re having the Moors Murderer social.

There's a free spot in the OcUK calendar following the Nazi and KKK socials.

Out of interest foxeye would you take offence at an event with the theme 'tax-avoiding buy to let landlords and scummy pauper tenants'?

Actually I watch that show sometimes and cringe just as hard at the bad tenants as I do at the crappy landlords. I think it would make a pretty crappy dress up tho, as you really wouldn't be able to tell who was what.

 

[FoxEye]

We're having a themed night on 'Dead parents & family who have died a horrible death from cancer' and then a paedo themed night where we all dress as well known paedo's.
It's just bantz.

I think we established already that nobody is going to have a Nazi, KKK, Moors murder-themed event.

Some here thought a miner's strike event was every bit as serious as those three examples, and others thought it wasn't.

Tbh I'm a bit surprised that people would consider them in the same general ballpark. Some miners lost their jobs and had to rely on state hand-outs for a time. They lost their dignity but weren't in any mortal danger, as we have social safety nets in this country.

I'm not sure how that ranks equal to the systematic murder of Jews or black people in the US. But hey, what do I know.

 

[FoxEye]

I only brought up the Moors murderer idea because someone said that the miner’s strike had a low death toll, so it was apparently fair game. Never mind that I’d dispute the low death toll...

How about a James Bulger themed event? That’s only one death. Just one waffer thin toddler death! That’s definitely less than the miner’s strike.

We could do a rapist and rape victim themed party. I don’t think murder-rape is that common, so you’re definitely on safe ground there.

Why are you going off on this tangent?

The miners strike is not defined by the three people who died.

James Bulger is an event centered on a murder. A murder-rape party would be centered on/celebrating a murder-rape.

In the first case the deaths are incidental to the event.

In your examples the deaths *are* the event.

It's called context.

Here's another example of context... a construction worker might die during the construction of a bridge. Do you refuse to use the bridge because a man died? Do you refuse to talk about it/ celebrate its completion? Do you associate the bridge with death because a person died building it? Does the bridge become a memorial to death? If you use it do you celebrate the death of the worker?

Not as far as I'm concerned. The death, whilst tragic, is incidental to the bridge's construction, and the bridge is not defined by the death that occurred.

The miner's strike did result in the deaths of three people. But that is not what the strike revolved around. The deaths were an unintended consequence.

Like I said, people have heart attacks at DisneyLand. We don't suddenly look at DisnyeLand as a place where people die. It isn't defined by those events.

 

[FoxEye]

I thought that someone like you would have more sympathy for their plight.

I absolutely would have if it was happening today.

But this was 30 years ago. It has long since passed the point where people should have moved on.

 

[FoxEye]

Ok, so the miner’s strike is defined by the gutting of countless communities around the country with lasting effects decades after. Sounds like a rich comedy seam!

I'm sorry, but 30 years is plenty of time to re-skill.

It's not anyone's fault if these communities have spent the last 30 years mourning for the loss of the mining industry, and little else.

 

[FoxEye]

You've managed to make it to your 40's without reskilling tbh.

I haven't spent the last 30 years unemployed tho.

 

[FoxEye]

I assume you speak with regard to all miners with that blanket statement then?

Tell me, how do you explain a community being "devastated" by the closure of the mines... and 30 years later still not having recovered? If everybody had moved on and trained to do some other form of work those communities wouldn't be in a bad way today.

How do towns and cities with no mining industry manage to get by? They found other work to do, right? And some of these cities with no mining industry actually have a lot of people living and working in them.

Which suggests to me that the closure of the mines shouldn't still be cited as the cause of the ruination of these communities 30 years later. They should have been able to re-build by now.