You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
it seems the majority would say it’s acceptable in the context given.
It doesn’t matter what a handful of people on an internet forum think, what matters is what any HR department in any company would think, which is that it’s not an appropriate expression to use.
This sounds somewhat reasonable, but how does one know beforehand what HR determines as unacceptable? I wonder how much power should a company have over our everyday speech, since our thoughts and freedom to express ourselves are clearly linked to our language.
It was never about the phrase "jungle drums" or rules for "correct" language. It was about someone taking offence and (over)reacting, and getting verbally slapped down that set things in motion. My first post on page one:
Could it be the ‘apology’ that’s the issue? In inverted commas because it’s clear you don’t think you said anything offensive and don’t think this individual should have taken offence.
acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given
Apologising “if any offence was given” is not apologising. If what you’re saying is you didn’t give any offence (but sorry if you did, but you didn’t) then it’s really not an apology.
I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.
Me neither until now for what it’s worth, but one lives and learns.
He rejected my offering and left the premises.
If you’re going to apologise for something you’ve done (whether or not you are at fault) do it like you mean it or not at all.
(Editing to say that talk of jungle this that and the other have been tropes of racist language and white guys like presumably you and certainly I don’t get to decide who should be offended.)
tempting to edit with hindsight, but hey, I'll stand by that. Person of African descent objects to loud use of phrase "jungle drums" (OP being in a group of I'll assume blokes and sharing good news via a mobile on speaker, it's unlikely to have been said very quietly). And then doesn't hang about to be set straight on why the phrase and the OP is not racist.
I'm going to guess/assume again that the OP is older and more senior in the company, not used to being challenged (perceived challenge), and certainly as we see not used to backing off or backing down. (Not that you need to frame every disagreement in this way, but lots of blokes do including probably one who's typing this post.) It probably also says something about the culture of the place.
Outcome is the OP leaving what was at the start of the week a good job rather than own the fact that some offence was caused and swallow the perceived unfairness of having this investigated. We all have different gag reflexes I guess, but this needn't have escalated. Hey ho. Oh yeah - main point despite the name of the thread this all had nothing to do with whether or not the term "jungle drums" is racist.
Just get the government to ban the pales from uttering the word ‘jungle’?
This way everyone is on the same page. In black and white, so to speak. This way, if anyone uses any phrase with the word ‘jungle’ in it (regardless of context) then it will be known that it was likely meant to cause offence to any non-pale, either within or out of earshot. Harmony achieved 🤪
What a dense forest we weave.
That sounds racist to me, you should take offence and lodge a complaint with HR.
But seriously, “jungle drums” referring to a method of communication is career-ending, but saying “pale, male and stale” by the adjudicator is fine?
They’re essentially saying, “you have to understand that the people complaining are racist and you have to make allowances for that.” Wow.
As I noted on I think my only comment ... whitesplaining is fundamentally racist and mansplaining is fundamentally sexist.
"Jungle drums" is merely 2 words put together that someone can take offence at ... and by itself isn't racist. It could be used in a racist way in context but no more than almost any other words.
Just as an example I'd say there is no doubt that "you didn't read the email? can you only communicate through jungle drums" is racist whereas referring to news travelling by other means isn't.
The issue here is shutting down .... that the words "jungle drums" COULD be used in a racist way then saying "you're white" or “pale, male and stale” is not only overtly racist but being used to say "so your intention or actual words don't count".
... and whilst we are on genuine apologies vs genuine sounding.
Some people are simply not equipped to do that... indeed forcing/pressing them to do it makes them feel ill and/or actually ill.
I don't think the problem is the phrase. No one on here has said the OP is racist for using it (although some people have said that people have said he is racist for saying it which is different).
The problem is that he didn't apologise immediately, thus defusing the situation and allow him to explain himself. He, and from the sound of it his colleagues, decided to educate a black man on what is and isn't racist. He didn't feel like having a group of white people explain to him why something wasn't racist so he left and spoke to HR instead.
From the sound of it, when the OP went to the meeting, at no point did he say something along the lines of, 'I understand that it doesn't matter what the intention behind language is, the important thing is how it is received. I felt like I was being accused of racism and instead of apologising I panicked and tried to invalidate his experience. I feel terrible about this.'
Instead it sounds like he tried to explain to HR why what he said wasn't racist and it didn't go down well.
I'm still struggling to understand people's resistance to apologising. You are not admitting liability or giving up power. You unintentionally upset someone and when you unintentionally upset someone you just apologise. For some reason people feel it's different when it comes to potentially racist terms.
A while ago I was having a few drinks with a couple who I've known for years. I was talking about how nice it was to bed in the morning and started describing this Simpsons scene.
Things got awkward. They were looking at each other and she looked like she was about to burst into tears. Turns out she had been pregnant up until two days beforehand but had a miscarriage.
Should I have said, 'I'm sorry if you took offense but none was given' ?
You are not admitting liability if you apologise, you are just applying some societal lubrication to an awkward situation. I don't see why people have to be 'right' when it comes to racism.
I’m sorry if you took offense but none was given’ ?
But you didn’t offend her, you upset her.
You do raise an interesting point though, which I will need to think over. My initial reaction from the original post was if I had offended someone by using a phrase I had not intended to be racist/sexist/whatever.. and did not agree was racist/sexist/whatever... I too would be loathe to apologise. This might be as you say, the feeling that I’d be admitting to being racist, which like others I strive not to be. I cannot really get my head around the idea that it is up to the offended to decide what is offensive, surely there must be some reasoning behind it?
I don’t see why people have to be ‘right’ when it comes to racism.
Some people just have to be 'right', full stop. Or rather can't let what they see as a logical inconsistency go.
Internet arguing 101 innit.
See also the unfortunate previous thread (and horribly misjudged 'satire' within it) referenced above.
A cautionary tale. There but for the grace of God etc.
No one can say with any confidence that if only the apology had been more sincere, then it definitely wouldn't have escalated.
After having read this thread and seen the consequences I definitely won't be using the term any more, nor will I use any idiom which includes the word "jungle". I don't see that loss of linguistic expressiveness as a major problem.
The problem is that he didn’t apologise immediately
But he says that he did.
I acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given and I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.
‘I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase’ sounds to me like a surprised on the spot apology with an explanation as to why the surprise. To others it was a ‘nonpology’ or worse still an ‘attack apology’. I can’t really conceive of that, unless, of course, OP uttered an apology whilst also winking wryly and dogwhistle-y at his pale colleagues. So many assumptions can be made of both guilt and/or innocence for either party.
The grapevine is now bursting with fruit*
Again, one can insert (or remove) all kinds of scenarios and contextual markers in lieu of having been there when it happened, but my feeling is that it was never going to end well no matter what form the apology
Not so much because of the complainant, but because of the ‘r’ word being invoked. The power of the r word can evade any manner of apology. Is it assumed that the stale pales shall carry the sins of some of their fathers on their backs for all eternity? That their ‘on the spot’ apologies for unknowingly using ‘borderline’ words shall be impossibly impeccable, even in the heat of an unforeseen moment? Even as they are being summarily raked over someone else’s coals? I retroactively winced then when I typed ‘coals’, because it possibly maybe felt ’wrong’ and 1970s-ish in someone else’s mind.
A minefield. And what of the complainants. Are they too supposed to read minds and act impeccably when they may well have faced actual jibes laced with ‘words’ all of their life? A cluster-****, as someone rightly stated.
These are the challenging times in which we live. Self-evidently profitable (and instrumental) for the purposes of the Far*ges, B*rises and Y*xley-Len*ons of the world. A boon for the click-mongers of anti-social media content. Outrage-porn is a meme-mine. Not so good for the rest of us all.
*A future HR-meeting with some accused ‘homophobe’ who wasn’t sufficiently mindful of the LBGTQ contingent among herm colleagues in yesterday’s ‘diversity in the workforce’ meeting.
The Very Sad Thing is that everyday words and phrases once hijacked by old-time casual racists cannot now ever lose their power if they are never allowed to fall back into innocent usage.
I acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given and I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.
The term "none was given" pretty much nullifies any claim to having apologized. It's saying that the OP doesn't recognize that the complainant was offended because he didn't intend to offend. The issue isn't whether he intended to offend, it's that he did offend but refused to acknowledge that he did, which counts as a refusal to offer a genuine apology, which set in motion a train of events leading to unemployment. A proper apology acknowledging that offence had been caused, even if inadvertently, would have put an end to it.
So you are saying hols is that if you decide you are offended then you are always in the right.
A proper apology acknowledging that offence had been caused, even if inadvertently, would have put an end to it.
Mystic Meg, and I claim my fiver.
‘None was given’
‘None was offered’
‘None was intended’
Plenty of options, be sure to pick the correct one.
Not many (if any) of us are superhuman enough in the heat of a moment (imagine a moment of surprise accusation, public-scrutiny and immediate defence?) to be likely or able to construct a wonderfully-worded, universally-unambiguous, carefully-considered-yet-spontaneous multi-paragraphed profuse apology sufficient in and of itself to defuse the accusation/accuser. Comfort the complainant. Un-offend the offended. Pick one or many?
Surely you can see that? We are even reading into ‘sorry to offend but none was given’ as being somehow ‘aggressive‘ when we have no access to tone, context, facial expression etc.
This is also assuming that the OP has perfect verbatim recall of his own apology in the heat of the moment. Maybe he has. Who knows?
Anecdote. My wife repeats things I’ve said back to me in different form and structure mere seconds after I’ve said them, and vice-versa. We recently developed code-words (Like safe-words) to defuse and delay discussion when a misunderstanding is felt to be emerging. It’s taken decades to get to that point.
‘What do you mean, what do I mean?
‘I mean you know what you meant’
(rising tone)’You mean you THINK you know what I meant, which somehow magically coincides what I KNOW you want it to have meant’
‘how the **** dare you assume that...’
‘How the **** dare I? How the **** dare YOU’
‘ReeeeeeEEEEEEEEEE!
(Both): ‘Talk about it tomorrow’ (hugkiss)
Now ‘tomorrow’ comes and we invariably find that we forget not only to talk about ‘it’ but also what ‘it’ was 🤣
It’s saying that the OP doesn’t recognize that the complainant was offended because he didn’t intend to offend
No, it's saying 'I'm sorry, I really didn't mean any offence'.
He apologised. Whether is was his tone or not that prevented the offended to accept we don't know because on the number of occasions that the OP tried to diffuse the situation no explanation was given to why the offended was so upset. To escalate into a formal investigation as the first step is excessive.
@malvernrider yup.
I think too many people have read far too much into this and as a consequence have probably got inside the OPs head. Like I said to Cougar STW is not a place to have a balanced discussion, in another thread just a couple of days ago I was shot down for even suggesting someone with a workplace issue speak to a union rep for advice rather than someone else asking on here on their behalf.
People on here are not rational and by and large only see things either in very binary terms or as an opportunity for an argument. There is no objectivity or interest in seeing things from anothers perspective (ironically in this case), only the smug self satisfaction of their own woke virtue signalling or rebellious **** you to decent society (pick a side).
People on here are not rational
People full stop are not rational which is why it's good to try to be considerate.
So you are saying hols is that if you decide you are offended then you are always in the right.
No. I'm saying that when someone says they are offended, there is no way of proving that they aren't, so you can't say that no offense was given. The reason we have procedures to deal with these things is that sometimes people are offended by things that aren't really serious and we need a third party to decide what is reasonable. If the complainant says they were offended, the only thing you can do is take them at their word. The accused perpetrator may not have intended to offend, sometimes people say things without realizing what the effect on others will be (lets face it, we've all done this at some time).
So we have dispute procedures to decide whether the behaviour was legal/illegal/serious/trivial/etc. and how the situation can be resolved. If it's decided that the behaviour wasn't serious, that doesn't mean that the complainant wasn't offended, it means that the complainant was offended by something that they shouldn't have been offended by (i.e. they overreacted). However, the accused party does not get to make this determination, so saying that "no offense was given" is no defense. If there is a dispute, the complainant doesn't get to decide what a reasonable outcome is, but you still can't say they weren't offended even if the offensive behaviour is ruled as being acceptable. Christ, my grandma was horrified by young ladies wearing skirts that barely covered their bums. Her feeling of offence was genuine, even if the behaviour is considered unproblematic.
In this case, the OP seems to have been completely unwilling to acknowledge that he offended a co-worker and unwilling to recognize that the company had an obligation to investigate and resolve the dispute. If the OP had made a genuine acknowledgement that his co-worker was offended right at the start, then he would have had a very strong case to present showing that it was just an unfortunate mistake. Acknowledging offence doesn't mean confessing to being a racist, just that he should have acknowledged that his co-worker was genuinely offended instead of stating that no offence was given, which is something he cannot know or prove.
just that he should have acknowledged that his co-worker was genuinely offended instead of stating that no offence was given, which is something he cannot know or prove.
No offence intended, but it sounds like you are re-interpreting statement.
What OP was said:
I acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given and I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.
How you seem to interpret the above:
I refuse to acknowledge this, I won’t apologise, and I won’t acknowledge that any offence was taken
A case of give or take? (Again, assuming verbatim)
(Sorry for odd typos, multitasking fails)
apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given
The complainant said that offence was given but the OP refused to acknowledge that.
That turned it into a non-apology, which set the OP on the journey to unemployment.
The complainant said that offence was given but the OP refused to acknowledge that.
That turned it into a non-apology, which set the OP on the journey to unemployment.
I do find it quite amazing that semantics can be so sticky.
What was claimed was said
A young man has taken offence
What you claim was said
The (young man) said that offence was given
See?
’I take offence at that term’
‘Sorry, wasn’t aware it was offensive’
‘Oh OK, sorry’
The End.
How it could have been eh?
As said, none of know exactly what the actual words or context or tone or
inflection or body-language were.
We could argue semantics forever, but at least let’s do both complainant and accused the honour of *not* substituting their (quoted) words for some other words. Other words that curiously strengthen our bias?
Ever see ‘12 Angry Men’? Great, great film.
’I take offence at that term’
‘Sorry, wasn’t aware it was offensive’
‘Oh OK, sorry’
Why would the person who was offended apologize? They haven't done anything wrong.
What would be more convincing would be something like this:
"I take offence at that term"
"I'm sorry, I didn't really think about it, it's an expression I grew up with and never gave any thought to. Now that you point it out, I'll stop using it. Sorry about that, I really didn't mean to offend you."
"Ok, thank you."
Why would the person who was offended apologize? They haven’t done anything wrong.
Technically neither did the OP. I think it best that we all stop talking or making eye contact with each other. Just in case something we do might offend someone.
something like this:“I take offence at that term”
“I’m sorry, I didn’t really think about it, it’s an expression I grew up with and never gave any thought to.[s] Now that you point it out, I’ll stop using it. Sorry about that,[/s] I really didn’t mean to offend [s]you,[/s] anyone,[b] but can you explain why it is you find it offensive ? [/b]”
Makes a lot more sense.
Why would the person who was offended apologize? They haven’t done anything wrong.
Two people accidentally bump into each other in the street. Both say sorry. It’s one of those things which makes society run more smoothly.
One mistakenly taking offence. One mistakenly accused of offering offence.*
why apologise to each other in such an event? Well, One says sorry wasn’t aware. Other says sorry for assuming malice.
This is all assuming the interaction was exactly as described in the OP. We’ll probably never know that. But at least let’s (either until or except) more is known give both actors in this drama equal benefits of doubt?
*hols2 you never answered why you thought it somehow correct to exchange ‘taken’ for ‘given’ in the OP?
Shhhh, don't mention the "R" word. Race is social rather than a biological construct, in other words we just made it up to justify our power and prejudice. Structural racism is at the heart of our society as we have become so conditioned by it that we don't even see it. Racism is more than just hate, it's apathy, indifference, ignorance, power and privilege as all of these disadvantage people of colour; whether we intend to or not we have a responsibility to reduce the harm we cause.
This and other threads mentioned demonstrate white fragility, instead of accepting that POC have a different experience where micro-aggressions such as the incident the OP described occur daily, we become defensive saying that the complainant is the problem and is over sensitive to our jokes which reduce them to savages and animals. This pattern of discussion is so common it is predictable, the only way to diffuse the conversation is for the one calling racism to silence as the more they defend their position they become labeled as heretic; all debate usually does is re-enforce the racial hierarchy.
You may wonder what harm can be caused by using certain phrases, alluding to stereotypes or reclaiming words such as p*** because you used it without hate or malice but you people are colleagues, employers and friends who influence and make decisions that reflect and affect people negatively.
The comment the OP made may not have been intentionally offensive, but it may negatively influence their colleagues and may also infer indirectly that the person of colour is not competent or qualified to be in such a job.
It may seem a linguistic minefield where a misguided turn of phrase can cause offence but people of colour are used to this and admitting our ignorance opens up conversation and understanding.
but you people
Woah there, who are ’you people’? If ever there was a derogatory phrase...
Woah there, who are ’you people’?
why yes, yes I can answer this question: people whose privacy is if anything almost excessively valued, otherwise mainly bald, bearded, volvo-driving, wood burning, expensive watch-wearing, craft-ale consuming, middle aged white male IT workers, if you can call a business analyst an IT worker. Those guys wear suits.
In the words of George the Poet (sorry, omitted radio 4 or 6-listening) "I said I got too much love for these hood rats, Too much love for the mandem, I will never live life like them, But that's the my peoples, I understand them..."
Can someone translate faerie^^^ from psychobabble into standard english?
There is a fair bit of stretching and twisting going on here and it's probably past the stage now where there would be any point in me adding anything else.
I did start on a rebuttal to some of the posts above but in all honesty Malvern Rider has somehow managed to articulate my own thoughts better than I could myself.
Can someone translate faerie^^^ from psychobabble into standard english?
No. Except this bit, which translated means massive leap of non logic unsupported by any known facts or information.
The comment the OP made may not have been intentionally offensive, but it may negatively influence their colleagues and may also infer indirectly that the person of colour is not competent or qualified to be in such a job.
Pssst everyone are faerie and hols2 part of some weird cult? Ssshhh, I don't want them to hear in case they come after me with their ideological mind lasers. Whisper if you reply.
But Benv, wow, I am really sad to hear how this has all gone for you. It sounds really genuinely appalling and I am not sure how, in good faith, some of the posters can twist this into anything other than wrongdoing on the part of your colleague and your employer. At best they lack objective critical thinking at worst they are malign. I wish you all the best in your search for a new job. Please keep us posted on how it goes.
POC have a different experience where micro-aggressions
Is that where MIPS comes in?
seriously, if people really can't get the key point faerie's making then its through choice not misunderstanding.
White fragility and micro aggression WTF? Did you actually type that or just copy/paste from somewhere? I genuinely don’t care about colour and it’s not through apathy or social conditioning. I just take people as they come regardless of creed, colour, gender or anything else for that matter. I naively think most people do the same.
Whisper if you reply.
I think you’re right dogmatix.
seriously, if people really can’t get the key point faerie’s making then its through choice not misunderstanding.
Nope, it’s through an inability to understand what was written. It’s basically nonsensical. Be so good as to enlighten us as to what the key point is as you see it?
Faerie's post wouldn't win an award from The Plain English Campaign.
I don’t know you benv but I’m genuinely gutted for you.
I’d have probably done the same in your shoes and simply left. I don’t have the energy to waste even in pursuit of proving my innocence, and would rather focus on more positive ventures than let someone’s stupidity and rashness eat me up.
Good for you and, sincerely, the best of luck mate!
I'm pale, male, *sniffs* a bit stale, and very glad to be self employed.
I'm offended by all this offense.
The whole thing sounds bananas bonkers.
Prior to reading this post I'd have put the strike-through the other way round. What with increased mental health awareness I do now wince when I hear things described as "mad, mental, crazy, fruit-loop bonkers" etc.
However now you mention it, "bananas" is capable of being construed as racist rather than just purely "foolish" or "misguided".
Four very good reasons for taking this seriously and watching your toungue: 1) you're not sending a colleague home to their family in a state of distress, 2) you're not getting harassed out of your job as per the OP, 3) it's very easy to chop a few words out of your lexicon which as has previously been highlighted, you only use a few times a year anyway, 4) no matter how sincere you think you think you are you cannot count on being able to apologise your way out of the situation.
“No offence was given” is not an expression I’ve ever heard. It could be a regional thing.
When he said “no offence was given” I think he meant “no offence was intended”. Edit - if using the term I’m familiar with
I could be wrong but that is how it sounds to me.
to me " no offense was given" means - You are wrong to be offended.
Its certainly a bit of a put down and invalidates the apology
I would not have been bothered about the initial statement but the non apology would infuriate me
I find is astonishing how many folk - all pale and male still do not understand this situation. Intent is not needed to be offensive.
The OP was not disciplined - he was investigated and the investigation showed enough to go to a disciplinary. the investigation is not where you defend yourself, Its purely a fact finding exercise. did you say those words?
the second stage is the disciplinary where a defense can be made and in this case plenty of grounds for a good defense.
Benv - btw - I think in this debate which has got heated at times you have conducted yourself well and I commend you for that, the sort of member I would be happy to represent as a union rep. I do very much doubt anything significant would have come from the disciplinary
I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation. Intent is not needed to be offensive.
If that is directed at or includes me, I do understand this situation, but had made an assumption about given/intended.
edit, and only mentioned it in an attempt to defuse the situation.
Just a general point about folk not understanding - either the context of racism - understandably given the demographic and also not understand how investigation / disciplinary works
As an ex manager and ex shop steward and having been disciplined I see nothing wrong with the process and my bet remains there would have been no or minimal sanction
I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation
I'm surprised that you are still using that 'pale and male' phrase that many people find offensive*. I'm sure you don't intend it to be offensive, but intent is not needed.
*not me, but I do find it daft.
Edit: apologies, that did not come across as intended.
‘pale and male’
Hmmm...I'm rarely offended (having served an apprenticeship at 15 with a local authority & served 16 years in Her Maj's Prison Service) but I am 'pale and male'....
Careful what you say otherwise I'll give you some offence & not give a shite who I offend! 😉
to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.
And therein lies the problem.
The OP hasn't (that I recall) clarified the intent of this phrase. So it is entirely open to an individuals interpretation as to what it actually means. Personally I read it as 'I wasn't giving offence = I wasn't trying to be offensive'
apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given
As above, 'I'm sorry you took offence but it was not my intent to give it'.
It's a weird way to say it for sure and I know "sorry you're offended" isn't really the right way to apologise but I'm finding it hard to see genuine malice or heartfelt non-apology in there. On the other hand I can also see how if you've already got your back up about something it wouldn't help matters.
TBH the HR department in question sound like a bunch of roasters; there are better ways the issue could have been dealt with other than a full inquisition, they are now down an employee, have other potentially resentful employees and another employee who will probably be told no investigation because the at fault party has left.
I feel for the OP because I've been to a disciplinary and was thrown under the bus with no opportunity to defend myself leading to being passed over for promotion several times. Hopefully for you this has no longer impact than the time it takes to find another job, all the best.
squirrelking
Member
to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.And therein lies the problem.
The OP hasn’t (that I recall) clarified the intent of this phrase.
Why does Benv need to? As pointed out god knows how many times now, recall of exact words and how people use common terms can differ marginally and in the context of what else was said to appease the miserable sod, it should be take as nothing more than positive..
Out of all the posts, the only overtly racist comments have come from those accusing racism..
I agree with Benv as I do with malvernriders (who oddly sounds like he's living my home life) articulation of it all..
The overtly racist posts have been removed by moderators, and rightly so.
You started a thread to take the Micky out of a Dutch person's use of English, Sui. You know what that makes you.
I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation. Intent is not needed to be offensive
I think you're deliberately misrepresenting "folk" teej, and I don't think it helps your argument. I doubt whether anyone on here denies that offence can be CAUSED inadvertently - the question is how
- culpable
should someone be when that happens. I despise racists but I also am wary of the apparent expansion of that term. For someone to BE racist does require intent IMO and that's different to the OPs description of events. It's also in no way all about the words used: One of the most offensive things I've heard was 2 blokes discussing "brown sauce" in a chip shop and I bet there are still people alive who'd perfectly "innocently" use phrases that'd make your toes curl.
I don't think I've ever used the term "jungle drums" and probably haven't heard it spoken since I was a kid but I have never believed it to have been used in an overtly pejorative/condescending/whatever way. In my (prior) understanding it always meant the same as "rumour mill" (maybe those of vaguely pennine heritage take offence at that ?).
Sure, there's no acceptable modern use of things like the "n" word by a white person and that sort of shit should be called out EVERY time, just like chanting at footy matches etc. What about "denigrate"? How should we feel about "being on a mission" - what if that's perceived to be all about (religious) imperialism ? (note that the actual derivation would be unimportant here, right?)
I've never heard jungle drums used to describe soundz from a nasty hatchback or to refer to information from circulating any non-white community or group. If I did, I would take offence even as a "pale male" (incidentally I've never heard that before either; presumably more shit, lazy, derogatory-sounding memespeak bollocks intended to invalidate opinions without due consideration?. I actually do "respond" to that sort of behaviour and I suspect that "offence" is often intended by the users, too)
I think scaredypants has eloquently summed up what a few folk are trying to say.
OP started a thread; subject, as it directly impacts him, has been closed by him through his action of resigning at work.
That should be the end of the matter and result in thread being closed but....being STW, it's taken on a life of it's own and will be prolonged, personalised, a vehicle for noise - all while disappearing up it's own fundament.
Benv, all the best for the future and, same as you, I'm out of this one now.
Edukator
Member
The overtly racist posts have been removed by moderators, and rightly so.You started a thread to take the Micky out of a Dutch person’s use of English, Sui. You know what that makes you.
Eh, when, where?
You started a thread to take the Micky out of a Dutch person’s use of English, Sui. You know what that makes you.
Is it a 1970’s comedy sketch writer?
to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.
Its certainly a bit of a put down and invalidates the apology
So you claim. OTOH I didn't interpret it way. It’s a bit of an odd phrase, I find it at worse to be ambiguous here. Without access to the intonation, phrasing and facial expression it’s even more ambiguous. ie could’ve been as shirty and dismissive as ****. Could have been a poor word-choice, spoken with humility and shock, when he was trying to convey ‘none was offered/intended’.
Only the OP can tell us what he thinks it means/what he meant by it. This thread is creative, I’ll say that much. And that I shudder at the thought of ever being on trial by jury comprised of a cross-section of my supposed peers.
Likewise (and no-one seems to have picked up on this) but only the OP and those in earshot could say whether he
1. Spoke it directly to the complainant
and/or merely
2. Stated it in the OP of this thread?
This whole discussion could have been slightly yet tonally different again had OP only included speech “quotes” in the first post. And even then, could he be trusted to remember precisely (word for word) what it was that he said?
My memory banks (and those of my nearest and dearest) rarely if ever stretch to that. Not surprisingly. Especially in times of stress. See the yerkes Dodson curve:
In his famous study 'War of the Ghosts', Bartlett (1932) showed that memory is not just a factual recording of what has occurred, but that we make “effort after meaning”. By this, Bartlett meant that we try to fit what we remember with what we really know and understand about the world. As a result, we quite often change our memories so they become more sensible to us.
His participants heard a story and had to tell the story to another person and so on, like a game of “Chinese Whispers”.
The story was a North American folk tale called “The War of the Ghosts”. When asked to recount the detail of the story, each person seemed to recall it in their own individual way.
With repeating telling, the passages became shorter, puzzling ideas were rationalized or omitted altogether and details changed to become more familiar or conventional.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
*my bold
I took 'no offence given as the exact opposite of 'no offence taken..ie I didn't mean to cause offence
Sui^^^ you'll get used to his/her condescending, patronising comments; best to ignore as they never add anything to any thread - regard them as piss'n'wind.
Now, I'm definitely out of this one as it's dead.
I took ‘no offence given as the exact opposite of ‘no offence taken..ie I didn’t mean to cause offence
"No offence intended." means that the speaker didn't mean to offend, even if the other person was offended.
"No offence given." means that the speakers words did not give offence (i.e. that the audience was not offended). If the audience was offended, then offence was given. It may not have been intended, but it was given. To say that "no offence was given" when someone clearly did take offence is nonsensical and the sort of thing that will lead to disciplinary hearings and a search for a new job.
To say that “no offence was given” when someone clearly did take offence is nonsensical
‘Nonsensical’. Yes. Almost as if...
semantics[ si-man-tiks ]
noun (used with a singular verb)
Linguistics.
1. the study of meaning.
2. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
So, "that's just semantics", means that "your complaint is about the meaning of the words".
Exactly. We agree about that. The OP lost his job because he didn't think about the meaning of the words he uttered.
^ He/she is assuming pretty much everything That’s a large component of what I find so chilling, IMO. That, and the robotic repetition. Reminds me for some reason of the Stasi in that film ‘The Lives Of Others’. And of Orwell’s book entitled ‘1984.’
So, “that’s just semantics”, means that “your complaint is about the meaning of the words”.
Exactly. We agree about that. The OP lost his job because he didn’t think about the meaning of the words he uttered.
Now you are putting words and meaning in my mouth also. The cartoon was merely intended as a dryly humorous interlude.
The OP decided to leave his job because of a number of reasons and I don’t claim to know them. But, ultimately, he is no longer there because he left his job.
you are assuming that what you infer is what was implied.
Quite the opposite. You are talking about the difference between the intentionality of an utterance and its illocutionary force.
The speaker of an utterance has some intended meaning, that's the intentionality. The utterance is interpreted by the audience. That's the illocutionary force of the utterance. These can be quite different. In cases of irony or sarcasm, the literal meaning of the utterance is the opposite of the intentionality. When irony is misunderstood, the illocutional force is the opposite of the intentionality. Skilled speakers have a very good grasp of their audience (i.e. well developed theory-of-mind), so they can accurately predict the illocutional force of what they say. Less skilled speakers don't, so the audience may misunderstand the intentionality.
Racist dog whistles exploit this gap by using utterances that provide plausible deniability of intentionality. For example, terms such as "uppity" are commonly used as racist slurs and everyone knows what the intentionality is when white supremecists use them, but because there is a gap between the literal meaning and the illocutional force, racists can use these to signal their racism but still deny that they are actually racist. The claim that "I was just being ironic and you need to get a sense of humour" is another favourite of racists because it allows them to deny any responsibility for the illocutionary force of their utterances. Donald Trump is a master of the "I was only joking" defence.
The term "jungle drums" is the type of expression that could easily be used as a racist dog whistle. In this case, I'm sure the OP didn't intend it that way, but his intentionality was lost and the illocutional force of his utterance was quite problematic. The sensible thing for him to do would have been to immediately clarify what his intentions were and to assure his colleague that he wouldn't use the expression again because it is very likely to be mistaken as a racist dog whistle. That doesn't mean he's confessing to being a racist, just that he's acknowledging that he was misunderstood and he accepts that it's important to use language that won't be misunderstood. He didn't do this, and his subsequent behaviour indicates that he had no concern about the illocutional force of his utterance because his intentionality was not harmful.
And now he's unemployed.
And he's going to struggle answer truthfully in his next job interview when they ask him why he quit his last job.
Your first and third posts here, Sui:
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/we-will-reach-out-to-you-tomorrow/
Rather than being admirative of a non native speaker following language trends faster than yourself you take the Micky.
You demostrate the same refusal to move with the times on this thread, a refusal to adapt to how an expression is percieved.
The message of the thread is clear, use language appropriate to current values.
The message of the thread is clear, use language appropriate to current values.
Yet for some reason when growing and entering adulthood in the 1970s-late 1980’s, I didn’t like or care for the ‘values’ that I heard from our peers and our parents. A lot of ‘play the white man’, endless racial epithets and put-downs to just about every minority. So I didn't use that language. And so I reject your ‘message’, however ‘clear’ you claim it to be. It’s about as clear as mud. And yes ‘mud’ has been used extensively as a racial epithet that could probably land me in very hot water were I to be working in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only reason I know that ‘mud’ is a racial epithet is because I have studied the rise of the far right and have learned of many other innocent-sounding terms and words that make me similarly sick when given a different meaning/subtext/context. I had to quit reading that stuff at some point. As of now there is a seething mass of resurgent racism bubbling up from certain key places on the internet, and it’s disseminating out into wider ‘normie’ culture. It’s hard to keep abreast of ‘memes’ and recycled, mutating conspiracy theories. It’s often better not to, IME.
One phrase I never heard or was aware of when growing up in my town of Racistville, Xenophobia - was the phrase in the OP. The term ‘Jungle Drums’. Not during those years when casual racism was rife and the order of the day in the factories, schools and pubs, not until later in life, and then only as another variation of ‘on the grapevine’.
To date I’ve no way to hand of knowing whether it is widely considered to be ‘racist’ in the context/form of it’s origins other than conducting an internet search and even then it seems to have somewhat less evidence of being a common racial epithet than does the term ‘taking the Mick’. I certainly wouldn’t stop mid-sentence and Google it before continuing and neither, I wager, would you.
@Edukator - As an example I might easily employ your (what I see as grossly biased and ill-motivated) methodology against you - I could ‘call you out‘ for just now using the racist term ‘Taking the Mick’.
You may protest that you ‘weren’t aware’. Or you may be slick and claim that it was ‘just a joke’ or an ‘ironic example‘. But we know what you meant by it. And even if you didn’t ‘mean’ it, you will now apologise unreservedly and completely for having used it. Won’t you? Remember that funny feeling in you stomach when you typed it? You should really have acted on that and then you wouldn’t be here in this mess. Etc. You see how that works?
Edukator
Member
Your first and third posts here, Sui:https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/we-will-reach-out-to-you-tomorrow/
/blockquote>Well that goes to show how well you read what's in fron of you and Interprate it... Its akin to approaching trafficights and deciding that red for you today is actually going to be green.*
1. Americans are not Dutch.
2. I didn't even say they were Dutch or even American
3. I took the pee at a phrase that's frankly daft and not specifically linked to a race, colour, gender etc etc..*colourist need not respond..
“no offence was given”* when someone clearly did take offence is nonsensical
Furthermore, to assume and (repeatedly) assert that the accused literally uttered (to complainant) that “no offence was given” is still (ironically) both assumptive and irresponsible of us. To then build a pious lecture and ’guilty verdict’ entirely upon same assumption is something that I find disturbing/chilling.
I don’t think it serves anyone to tar either party with our own assumptions or paraphrases. Neither expansive or narrow. Irrespective of any of us believing such a phrase to be ‘nonsense’ or ‘ambiguous’ or whatever?
*No such speech marks exist in the OP. AFAIK we have no sure way of knowing exactly what the accused or complainant actually said to each other. Neither do we have any independent evidence (or any witness) to clarify what was uttered, to describe any body-language, tone, etc, etc. Not until further clarification from both OP and other witnesses. Again, we don’t even know for certain that he uttered it or something like it. Why does no-one care to see that as possibly important?
The OP lost his job because he didn’t think about the meaning of the words he uttered.
hols2:
Well that’s a rather simplistic interpretation. Also, clearly he did think about the meaning of the words he said, as they make sense; he didn’t however consider the words to have the meaning to which they were later ascribed. I have come around to your distinction between meaning to give offence and giving offence, but few people have given these issues the consideration you appear to have and I believe they need to be given more leeway. It’s far from ideal that someone should lose their job over an offhand remark, that many people (based on this thread, I was only vaguely aware of the expression before) would not initially regard as potentially offensive.
Similar to MalverRider I lived through a time when racist language could be heard frequently every day.
Then people would shout P at people clearly to cause offence, and I and others would admonish them for doing so. But other people would talk of going to ‘the P shop’, those people did not mean offence and I would try to explain that it was not an acceptable phrase. But to my mind they were not the same thing.
Apologies if my use of P*** breaks any rules, I could not think of how to get my meaning across otherwise.
Edukator
Member
Your first and third posts here, Sui:
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/we-will-reach-out-to-you-tomorrow/
Rather than being admirative of a non native speaker following language trends faster than yourself you take the Micky.
Wow! If you find those comments offensive you must exist in a constant state of high level agitation at the world.
JP
Your first and third posts here, Sui:
That post is over 3 years old, you know that's really creepy right? Do you have a list that you keep of every transgression, real or imagined that members make? And you're no enlightened soul yourself, you've made your own off colour remarks regarding women IIRC in the past, unfortunately I don't have my stalkers compendium to hand to reference them for you but you probably know what I'm talking about.
And x2 on "taking the m***", I'm sure there are Irish people potentially reading your comments who could be grossly offended. That's the kind of casual xenophobia that could get you in trouble.
I couldn't find the topic I was thinking of but I did find this belter:
I think that the court case itself, the verdict and the media coverage is already a significant punishment, and jail sentence both expensive and pointless. A suspended sentence seems a reasonable response unless you’re into “an eye for an eye…”.
Judging people for what they did back then by today’s standards is unfair.
For context the above comments were made regarding Rolf Harris' prosecution for historic sexual offences. Against children.
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/oh-rolf/page/4/
Kinda pales next to an innocent use of a common (for some) phrase doesn't it?
I'll let you ruminate on that.
There is a fair bit of stretching and twisting going on here and it’s probably past the stage now where there would be any point in me adding anything else
To be honest it was at that stage 10 pages ago! Every page since just seems like the same posts over and over again. There seems to be a lot of people on here who have a problem with people having an opinion other than theirs, and then they will keep on going until it descends into this 😮
Just give up, nobody is ever going to say "you know what I'm wrong and you've totally changed my mind on the subject" it'll never happen 😉
I don't blame you for leaving, sounds like you had no support from your manager or employer so you've saved yourself all the stress of having to go through it. I reckon reading all the posts on here made you think "my fate could be decided by somebody like one of these argumentative bellends, that's it I'm off" 😂
2. I didn’t even say they were Dutch or even American
You did,Sui:
nope dutch, which makes these even weirder..
Really creepy, or just being aware of which posters have a history of sexism and racism on this forum, Squirelking.
Judge 1950s acts by 1950 values and 2019 behaviour by 2019 values. It's a failure to do that that's got the OP into trouble.
I'm quite happy with what's in my posting history. I'll repeat it:
Edukator
Member
I post from a country where the per capita prison population is about half that of the UK. One of the main reasons is that sentencing is more based on protecting society and rehabilitation than revenge and making an example.
I think that the court case itself, the verdict and the media coverage is already a significant punishment, and jail sentence both expensive and pointless. A suspended sentence seems a reasonable response unless you’re into “an eye for an eye…”.
Posted 5 years ago
You'll note that throughout this thread I've encouraged the OP to make a sincere apology and save his job - rehabilitation not revenge. I've also suggested people change their language use and drop the JD expression rather than get all uppity about not being able to use an expression people increasingly see as racist
Enlighten me Malvern Rider, on this forum I use "taking the Micky" rather than "taking the piss" as it seems less offensive. "Micky (mouse)" rather than Mick, I guess you've misquoted me for a reason. If it's preferable I'll start using "take the piss".
I’ve also suggested people change their language use and drop the JD expression rather than get all uppity about not being able to use an expression people increasingly see as racist
Might I suggest using something less 1670s than the word up***ty? Since the 1870s it has had marked racist connotations. Best to be certain
The first recorded use of uppity, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, was in an Uncle Remus story about 7 years after Reconstruction ended (1873): "uppity (adj.) 1880, from up + -ity; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus"). The parallel British variant uppish (1670s) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734."
The standard collocation is "uppity [N-word]".
Also, I’m not aware that ‘taking the Mickey’ was ever commonly or differently derived from ‘Mickey Mouse’. it may not be true that you invented that one to sidestep the offence you gave, but your intention was and is irrelevant, it’s the effect that it has on any reader that counts. You may have used it to sneakily bypass these archaic STW swear filters, and you may not have. Again, it’s unimportant how you arrived at giving offence. Just apologise and state categorically that you'll cease using the phrase from here onwards. Don’t believe me?
Let’s use your preferred ‘look online’ method to see if modern usage is ‘problematic’ and therefore best avoid altogether? What was the source reference you used? Urban Dictionary, right?
Take the Mickey out of
This phrase is not new; the full phrase is "to take the Mickey (out of someone)"
Britons have been using this figure of speech for decades, if not centuries. A "Mickey" of course, is a "Mick": a pejorative, racist term for an Irishman (so nicknamed because so many Irish surnames begin with Mc- or Mac-) It is a common stereotype, in both the UK and USA, that Irish men have volatile tempers, like to brawl, and make good boxers. So, To "take the Mickey (out of someone)" means to take the fight, the vigor, the gravity, the self-importance out of them, by mocking them, usually in a very subtle way.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Take%20the%20Mickey%20out%20of
Of course I’m taking the piss. Hopefully showing how your ‘rule-book’ can be used for ill, from a horse that can be every bit as low as it can be high. Regardless of how the rider may feel about their position. Ba-dum.
I don’t blame you for leaving, sounds like you had no support from your manager or employer
It is not down to the manager or employer giving support. It is treating a claim correctly with nobody taking any sides.
This
The investigative stage is simply a fact finding opportunity
The manager or employer have to be impartial. Its when you get to the disciplinary stage that you can make a defense. this case never got to that
Once again I say - join a union. It would have made a big difference here
I reckon reading all the posts on here made you think “my fate could be decided by somebody like one of these argumentative bellends, that’s it I’m off"
That.
Good luck OP.
So taking the Micky or uppity could be contentious, Malvern rider. Now you need some proof that they are and at that point I'll stop using them. Like many others on this thread I quickly found that the JD expression was not just potentially contentious, it had already led to prolonged disputes in both the US and UK. But the UK example hadn't ultimately cost the person their place in society as the person had apologised, made it clear they wouldn't use it again and the expression isn't contentious enough for the matter to have gone further - at least not yet.
That's why TJ and I judged the OP's situation saveable, the OP chose not to try and save it, or his situtation was worse than he let on with previous incidents or a bad atmosphere he had previously created - not impossible if you read a few previous posts, but some of you would never do that would you, eh Squirelking and JP. 😉
Does anyone on this thread still think it's OK to use the JD expression?
Wow. Just wow.