Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 14:49:56 GMT
Currently the "Professionally offended on behalf of others" group are in full flow.
David Moyes essentially said to the female interviewer, off camera after an interview had finished and with laughter from all sides, something like "You'll get a slap for those questions next time, even if you are a woman" or something like that.
It should be said that Moyes has apologised to profusely to all those who were not there, who the comment was not aimed at, and who were not involved in any way, having apologised quietly to the BBC reporter who accepted said apology.
Had he said, "watch it or you'll get a slap" to a male interviewer then I'm sure that those of the twisted-panties would not even have raised an eyebrow. So how come is it that those who insist women must be treated with equality in the game of football have now got themselves all stirred up because it was said to a female.
Note that they are not saying that he should not have said it, they are saying he should not have said it to a woman.
When did not being offended become a human right, and when did being offended on behalf of people who are not actually offended themselves become a noble profession?
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Apr 4, 2017 14:58:50 GMT
...TBH, I have a slight streak of PC in me (though I like to think it is properly-tuned). I've seen the clip - it was self-evident that it was said in jest, with both of them laughing at each other, before, during and after. The reporter didn't (not surprisingly, given the context) complain. Storm in a tea-cup. Anyhow, since when was it acceptable to have girlies as football reporters.....
|
|
|
Post by commerdriver on Apr 4, 2017 15:33:49 GMT
We seem to have reached some stage in society where some things must not be said even in jest or somebody else who was not involved or spoken to will take offence on their behalf, out of context and way out of proportion.
We will only get past this stage if enough of the right people, ie not the Daily Mail etc, tell the "professionally offended" to get a grip and enough of those who have said these things, and their management agree and back them up.
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Apr 4, 2017 17:16:44 GMT
Even I, often labelled as part of the professionally offended, cannot see what the issue is.
They're both professionals doing their job and having what both seem to accept is a joke. Real banter.
|
|
|
Post by manatee on Apr 4, 2017 19:40:36 GMT
I'm sure I heard quite a long discussion on the wireless recently about "virtue signalling", of which this being vicariously offended was an example.
In other words, the complainants think it makes them look better in some way.
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Apr 4, 2017 20:12:43 GMT
Even I, often labelled as part of the professionally offended...... ...only by REAL men, Bromp; only by REAL men........
|
|
|
Post by Hofmeister on Apr 4, 2017 21:00:57 GMT
You need to see the "offence" in its entirety, It was, to those who recognised it, a compliment. Moyes way of telling her she had cleverly given him a hard time.
Its a load of bollox.
Rather like the Cadbury Egg hunt, The NT and Cadbury being accused, by the PM of all people, of "airbrushing out christianity" May should keep her gob shut and concentrate on the real bits of history she is currently grappling with.
My missus was doing her NT shift yesterday, and she was on the egg hunt team. She was delighted by how much fun the kids had and the fact they were not stuck at home in front of a screen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 21:34:08 GMT
>>the complainants think it makes them look better in some way.
Now you say it, it seems so obvious, that is of course absolutely spot on. Entirely self-serving.
|
|