Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Paul Cooksey

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:45 pm

I though I'd take my personal argument with Steve Giddins' blog to a separate thread, rather than inflict it on everyone interested in the ECF AGM. His latest entry is: A day that will live in infamy
John Philpott wrote:For some reason this brought to mind Kenneth Williams as Julius Caesar saying "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me", which many regard as the funniest film one-liner of all time.
(link added)
Ernie Lazenby wrote:I dont like the way Steve Giddins writes on his blog however his fundemental message has merit
I disagree with Ernie. We have already disagreed in principle on what level of responsibility CJ has for events. But I think we are agreed the the treatment of Lara by The Times and their correspondent was wrong. I think we have both wished Alex McFarlane success with the PCC.

Mr Giddins has not. He has written extensively without condemning The Times. He has barely mentioned The Times. I do not know if CJ "aided and abetted" press coverage which has distressed Alex and Lara. But even if he did, it is worth remembering the actual "crime" was committed by The Times.

Given Mr Giddins has not distanced himself from the actions of Mr Keene and The Times, it seems to me his support for Alex is an opportunist attack on the ECF. But opportunism and politics go hand in hand. If this was the only thing Steve Giddins was doing, I would assess him as a person who disagreed with me, and was prepared to fight dirty to get his point across, but I would not find him offensive.

The views expressed about CJ are what I find distasteful. I believe most intelligent people, when criticising a gay person in terms which are open to interpretation, are careful to clarify their issue is with the person and not homosexuality. It only takes a line to say "Not that there is anything wrong with that". But Mr Giddins tone is leaving considerable doubt as to the nature of his criticism. For example, describing Gay Times' nude calendar as a "Pornographic Magazine" or saying that a charity's anti-bullying slogan is "political lobbying" might be taken to imply there is something wrong with homosexuality itself.

I can't know Mr Giddins mind. Maybe he is simply trying to lay it on as thickly as possible and has unintentionally created an impression of homophobia. Since he reads this forum I'll invite him to:
1. Clarify that he does not believe it inappropriate in itself for a gay person to be ECF President.
2. Condemn the coverage of "T-shirtgate" by the Times, and condemn their correspondent Raymond Keene for his actions. (Or at least explain why such condemnation is not deserved)

Supporters of Alex and Lara who are critical of CJ can judge whether the enemy of their enemy is really their friend based on the response.

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Louise Sinclair » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:35 am

I might be in the politically incorrect minority here but I am not interested if a person is black, white, straight, gay, disabled, religious and I'm sick of people being put into categories depending on the above mentioned factors.
Surely it would be a good thing to do away with "minority" groups and treat everyone as humans and ignore other factors which effectively cause discord
" divide and rule" springs to mind.
louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

Paul Cooksey

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Paul Cooksey » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:22 pm

Martyn Jacobs wrote:Is there a word for 'Fear of Political Correctness' ?’
A deep thought. I had not considered the possibility Mr Giddins is deliberately causing offence, to avoid the appearance he might be trying to avoid causing offence. A point he could also clarify.

Political correctness implies attempting to avoid saying things which are subtly and unintentionally offensive. I doubt Mr Giddins can still see subtle offence with a telescope from the territory he is currently occupying.

User avatar
John Clarke
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by John Clarke » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:45 pm

Martyn Jacobs wrote:Is there a word for 'Fear of Political Correctness' ?
How about "politikakribeiaphobia" ?

(This appears to be a new coinage - can I claim copyright?) :D
Last edited by John Clarke on Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The chess-board is the world ..... the player on the other side is hidden from us ..... he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance."
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Louise Sinclair » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:07 am

I loathe political correctness because it is a form of censorship and if a person dislikes a group of people based on race, sexual orientation censorship is not going to alter the fact.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4666
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:05 pm

Louise Sinclair wrote:I loathe political correctness because it is a form of censorship and if a person dislikes a group of people based on race, sexual orientation censorship is not going to alter the fact.
Louise
It may not alter the person. But it might protect other people from being offended. Is that not a worthy aim?

To avoid misunderstanding, I can think of some examples, generally involving social workers, where political correctness and fear of silly accusations could arguably be said to have caused problems (e.g the scandal of our system for the (non-) adoption of parentless children).

But we are not talking about anything comparable here. People who criticise homosexual people over activities related to their sexuality can be expected to clarify their motives, in order to avoid unnecessary upset, and to take the small effort to amend their written views when it becomes obvious that they are regarded as offensive.

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Louise Sinclair » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:16 pm

Jonathon
I'm disabled and if someone makes an unpleasant comment because of my lack of mobility then I can shrug it off because it proves that the person is plain stupid and incapable of phrasing a decent insult. I would rather not be protected in this manner because it achieves little - it certainly won't make people like me and I won't be able to walk differently.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Carl Hibbard » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:08 pm

StevieG is off on one again if anyone wants to take a look...
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21339
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:43 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:StevieG is off on one again if anyone wants to take a look...
The current Marketing Director was recommended by his predecessor who appointed him as his alternate.

Paul Cooksey

Re: Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me

Post by Paul Cooksey » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:37 pm

Martyn Jacobs wrote:I don’t have that much interest in discussing homosexuality, but PC is all about imposing your views on others - trying to force them to have the same views as you. Not everyone has a PC view of homosexuality
I did not intend to start a debate on whether Steve Giddins has a right to a negative opinion about CJ because CJ is gay. I intended to point out that Ernie, Lara and Alex should not regard him as a supporter if holds such an opinion. Lara has gone to very considerable effort to reject an accusation she is homophobic.

Clearly I do find Steve Giddins' apparently negative opinions about homosexuality offensive, and I would prefer he did not publish them. But I regret making that central in my post, since it seems to be a distraction from the point I wanted to make.