‘Sexist’ message on Cross Country train screen

[satisnek]

Who is Southron?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/southron
It was, after all, between Basingstoke and Reading

 

[Dougal2345]

Welcome to 2018, where getting offended on other people's behalf is the done thing.

Quite a few times on this thread, people seem to have posted their disdain about the idea of 'getting offended on other people's behalf'.

When did this become a thing? I thought it was called 'empathy', and was once considered a positive trait... Has the Daily Mail been running a campaign against it?

So if, for example, a slightly drunk man boards a train, and starts addressing comments to the two women opposite him along the lines of 'You're a fit bird aren't you? I would! Not so keen on your friend there though, she's a bit of a minger, haha!", are the only people allowed to get offended the two women in question? Everyone else should just mind their own business, because he is, after all, just having a bit of a laugh?

 

[whhistle]

I wonder if something that is subjective can be sexist.

Some people who spend thousands of pounds to look "sexy", I find rather horiffic to look at.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When did this become a thing? I thought it was called 'empathy', and was once considered a positive trait... Has the Daily Mail been running a campaign against it?

So if, for example, a slightly drunk man boards a train, and starts addressing comments to the two women opposite him along the lines of 'You're a fit bird aren't you? I would! Not so keen on your friend there though, she's a bit of a minger, haha!", are the only people allowed to get offended the two women in question? Everyone else should just mind their own business, because he is, after all, just having a bit of a laugh?

The key difference is that empathy is about feeling (and getting involved in, potentially, as you say) the feelings that others are feeling, and that, assuming they want you involved, is definitely positive. The modern-day version seems to be a bit different, in that it seems to be about people deciding that someone who is the butt of a joke *should* be offended (or even more commonly, some theoretical person who may not even exist who is the butt of a joke) and taking action on that basis.

The former is commendable, the latter is rather silly. An example might be a situation where a woman on a train was being chatted up by a bloke who she actually did fancy and she was more than happy for this to be going on, and someone intervening to tell him to leave her alone *then*.

Or even slightly more controversially, a group of people of different races are sitting around a table on said train and are making racist jokes about one another to one another, clearly as a group of mates[1]. If someone else was *actually offended* by them they should ask them to stop and it would be right for someone else to get involved too if they didn't feel comfortable to do so, but not if they were not actually bothering anyone.

[1] British "lad culture" tends towards the idea that the better friends you are with someone, the more offensive you can be to them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if something that is subjective can be sexist.

Some people who spend thousands of pounds to look "sexy", I find rather horiffic to look at.

I agree, I am more attracted to people how they *actually* are, not with makeup etc all over them.

 

[theironroad]

The key difference is that empathy is about feeling (and getting involved in, potentially, as you say) the feelings that others are feeling, and that, assuming they want you involved, is definitely positive. The modern-day version seems to be a bit different, in that it seems to be about people deciding that someone who is the butt of a joke *should* be offended (or even more commonly, some theoretical person who may not even exist who is the butt of a joke) and taking action on that basis.

The former is commendable, the latter is rather silly. An example might be a situation where a woman on a train was being chatted up by a bloke who she actually did fancy and she was more than happy for this to be going on, and someone intervening to tell him to leave her alone *then*.

Or even slightly more controversially, a group of people of different races are sitting around a table on said train and are making racist jokes about one another to one another, clearly as a group of mates[1]. If someone else was *actually offended* by them they should ask them to stop and it would be right for someone else to get involved too if they didn't feel comfortable to do so, but not if they were not actually bothering anyone.

[1] British "lad culture" tends towards the idea that the better friends you are with someone, the more offensive you can be to them.

...and that same 'lad culture' has often found it acceptable to intimidate, bully and sometimes physically harm people they see as 'other' or easy targets for a 'bit of fun' cos it's 'only a joke'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

...and that same 'lad culture' has often found it acceptable to intimidate, bully and sometimes physically harm people they see as 'other' or easy targets for a 'bit of fun' cos it's 'only a joke'.

Indeed. But we shouldn't damn an entire culture, only specific bad actions.

If I am not offended by something someone is saying/doing to me, I do not want you involved, it is none of your business. Someone getting involved in something that is none of their business does offend me.

Of course, if something offends you say so and it is only right for it to stop. But don't go around taking offence on others' behalves; they don't need it and don't want it.

 

[theironroad]

Indeed. But we shouldn't damn an entire culture, only specific bad actions.

If I am not offended by something someone is saying/doing to me, I do not want you involved, it is none of your business. Someone getting involved in something that is none of their business does offend me.

Of course, if something offends you say so and it is only right for it to stop. But don't go around taking offence on others' behalves; they don't need it and don't want it.

Even if a remark or message is not directly aimed at a person, it is quite acceptable for that person to want to change a culture that feels that it is acceptable to make those sort of remarks or messages.

 

[cuccir]

I've been reading through the thread with interest and but have held off posting a little bit, partially because I find that posts on identity-related topics tend to go down rabbit-holes as people try and attach their own interpretations and agenda to them.

Just one thought then as I've not really seen it expressed: this word 'offence' and the presumption about an 'offense culture' is interesting. In the original article, one person described themselves as being 'upset' but the only use of the words 'offense/offensive' was by the newspaper itself. No-one on this thread has said that they found the message offensive, or has expressed offense. It strikes me that people presume that to object to this sort of language/'joke' etc is to be offended by it, but I don't see that as necessary. I think that the message was stupid and I hope that whoever entered it is told by a manager that this was the wrong medium for the joke (but not dealt with any more seriously than this, unless there is a wider history of issues) - but I find it hard to be offended by it: it's too silly to really be offended.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that to object to such wording and to say that a display on a train carriage is the wrong place for it, is not necessarily the same as being offended by the message. I think that those who presume some sort of culture of being offended are perhaps reading emotions and feelings into people's objections, which are not necessarily there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if a remark or message is not directly aimed at a person, it is quite acceptable for that person to want to change a culture that feels that it is acceptable to make those sort of remarks or messages.

In which case they personally are offended by them. Which is fine; they should then act.

But that's again different.

I still think this case is going to have been an errant passenger, though. I just can't see a member of staff doing it as it would near enough guarantee the sack.

 

[Dougal2345]

If I walk into a shop and the shopkeeper says 'you're too ugly to come in here - get out' I would be angry and personally offended (even though the shopkeeper might be correct ).

Even if he said it as a joke, I might try and laugh it off, but unless he was a friend I'd still not like it very much, and (call me oversensitive) would mull it over afterwards, wondering if there was some truth in it.

If I hear someone else get that treatment in a shop, I might not be personally "offended", but I'd certainly feel angry about it, and would feel it right to remonstrate with the shopkeeper, unless the victim assured me pretty convincingly that they weren't at all offended. Is that the crime of taking offence on behalf of others?

I'd hazard a guess that none of us who has posted on the thread so far is a woman, so we probably don't know exactly how it feels to have men assess us as 'fit' or 'ugly', but I can take a wild guess that it's not very nice and probably happens all the time in one way or another. I think one could probably say that women are more sensitive about their appearance than men, on the whole (hope that's not sexist!) so probably feel such insults more deeply.

Of course, going back to the shop analogy, what Cross Country did here was wait for the person to do their shopping (ie buy a ticket, probably at exorbitant cost), packed them in to a smelly full-and-standing train, then told them to get out as they were too ugly... adding insult to injury, I think that's called...

 

[GrimShady]

While I agree that police involvement is not needed, you're way off the mark about people getting help.

Thing is, the 'bit of a laugh' you're having is at someone else's expense. Banter in mess rooms that goes too far and 'is just a bit of a laugh' to you and your mates can be bullying and also hurtful to the person it is aimed at.

No police required, culprit doesn't need to be fired, but they do need someone to have a quiet chat and point out it is wrong and if it is repeated then some action will be taken.

First point, no I think I'm spot on. If someone is that fragile that an incident like this cause them to call for the police etc then to me it suggests either they are unstable or seriously lacking in life experience.

Secondly. Such is he nature of life I'm afraid. This is the real world. Also we're not talking about someone having to endure sustained abuse merely someone's idea of a prank.

Thirdly. Agreed

 

[Re 4/4]

No police required

I didn't ask because I was offended, and I meant text 61016 not call 999.

I asked because every half hour or so these days there's a message to report anything unusual, and while abandoned bags are probably someone being forgetful most of the time, they're also a prime example of the kind of thing you're told to report (it's also not up to me as a passenger to judge how HOT they are). The security posters give someone not in livery - and always wearing a hoodie - going through a "staff only" door as another example, along with taking photos of CCTV cameras. So I wondered whether "passenger has gained access to parts of the train they shouldn't have" is something they'd like to know about, because BTP are obviously on the lookout for specific things even if they're (understandably) not letting on exactly what.