Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Colemans Left Hook on November 30, 2023, 12:57:40 am
-
AS usual make your own decision - Mrs Coleman said "How does he manage when he is walking down the street ?"
"BBC Radio 5 Live presenter Nihal Arthanayake has said an “overwhelmingly white” working environment is affecting his mental health."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/bbc-presenter-says-overwhelmingly-white-workplace-affects-his-mental-health/ar-AA1kIVmj?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ACTS&cvid=5b5d001c673a4dc8acd7383b77c4fb72&ei=21
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter Nihal Arthanayake has said an “overwhelmingly white” working environment is affecting his mental health.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The presenter told a journalism diversity conference on Wednesday: “It’s really affecting me that I walk in and all I see is white people.”
His colleagues’ response when he told them this was to reply defensively that they were not being racist, he claimed as he said that was missing the point.
Speaking at the Journalism Diversity Fund (JDF) conference at BBC Media City in Salford, he said: “I’ve seen a lot of people leave this building because they couldn’t deal with the culture.”
He also said others found they had to try to be a certain type of person to progress with the broadcaster, adding: “If you want journalists to progress, they have to be who they are.”
“I don’t think there’s a single Muslim involved in the senior editorial processes” at BBC Radio 5 Live, he added.
He went on: “The hardest thing is to walk into a room, look around and nobody looks like you.”
The presenter made the comments in an on-stage interview with Jo Adetunji, editor of The Conversation, at the JDF’s annual equality, diversity and inclusion conference organised by the NCTJ, which trains new journalists.
The JDF awards bursaries to aspiring journalists from diverse backgrounds who do not have the financial means to support themselves through their training.
here's the punchline ..... Mr Arthanayake added that he has noticed a difference since moving north after living in London for 20 years.
He said: “Since moving up here, being called the P-word – that didn’t happen in London. You’d get a slap for that in London, not even from me.”
Following the interview, Cheryl Varley, a BBC Radio 5 Live producer, said the organisation is committed to tackling the lack of diversity in its newsrooms.
-
Generally speaking - I wish people would stop conflating negative emotions with mental health issues.
-
He's on 5live in the afternoons.
A more bland, tedious and sycophantic presenter you'd be hard pressed to find.
-
He's on 5live in the afternoons.
A more bland, tedious and sycophantic presenter you'd be hard pressed to find.
I completely agree. His ‘style’ results in the dullest radio presenter I have ever heard. He tries to sound like he cares about his interviewees, but his questioning skills are dreadful.
Now, how on earth does he have a prime time Radio 5 slot?
-
He's on 5live in the afternoons.
A more bland, tedious and sycophantic presenter you'd be hard pressed to find.
I completely agree. His ‘style’ results in the dullest radio presenter I have ever heard. He tries to sound like he cares about his interviewees, but his questioning skills are dreadful.
Now, how on earth does he have a prime time Radio 5 slot?
Totally agree Belton. I've had to switch him off several times and I just avoid listening to him now. Why the BBC allow him an interview show I really don't know.
-
One thing is for sure. Making views like that known in the media makes it hard to demote or remove him without him falling back on this story. I have never heard him so I can't comment on his interviews. Any job or position should be earned on merit in my eyes.
-
He's on 5live in the afternoons.
A more bland, tedious and sycophantic presenter you'd be hard pressed to find.
I completely agree. His ‘style’ results in the dullest radio presenter I have ever heard. He tries to sound like he cares about his interviewees, but his questioning skills are dreadful.
Now, how on earth does he have a prime time Radio 5 slot?
Totally agree Belton. I've had to switch him off several times and I just avoid listening to him now. Why the BBC allow him an interview show I really don't know.
And me, there's some great journalists on 5 live that I have on when working at home often, but he's terrible and dull.
-
Bring back Fi Glover please.
-
He's on 5live in the afternoons.
A more bland, tedious and sycophantic presenter you'd be hard pressed to find.
Got to agree - he was on Telly last night doing a "Winter Walk" on BBC Four last night , the one where one person does a walk with just a selfie stick and invites you to share the sights and sounds and people they meet
Mrs Wolfie said after 10 minutes , bloody hell hes a boring bugger , who is it ? I said I have no idea whatsoever despite him dropping hints about what he did etc
Now I know why and agree with what your post says
Have you seen any of these as usually they are quite entertaining , but he put a stop to that last night
-
Seen a few of them John and thoroughly enjoyed all I have seen. Reverend Richard Coles, Alistair Campbell, Adrian Chiles (another 5-Live presenter) and a couple of others I can't recall.
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
When I was working in a bar in Majorca around 1981 .
Seriously though , why would it matter ?
Would working with a few more brown people make the job better for Arthanayake ?
Is that what he saying ?
More people of the same colour skin makes the difference between a place he likes to work rather than one he doesn't when it's predominantly white .
What's that actually saying ?
Arthanayake was born 52 years ago in Essex .
-
I am certain that there many places in Britain where the workforce is multi raced, or predominantly non white.
-
As of March 2022, 16.4% of all BBC employees were BAME. The BBC aims to get this to 20%.
Leadership positions were 13.1% BAME. And the BBC also aims to get this to 20%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/equality-information-report-2022.pdf
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) based on population survey figures from 2019, people from ethnic minority backgrounds make up 14.4% of the United Kingdom population.
The institute for public policy research estimates that by 21% of the UK population will be BAME by 2030.
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
When I was working in a bar in Majorca around 1981 .
Seriously though , why would it matter ?
Would working with a few more brown people make the job better for Arthanayake ?
Is that what he saying ?
More people of the same colour skin makes the difference between a place he likes to work rather than one he doesn't when it's predominantly white .
What's that actually saying ?
Arthanayake was born 52 years ago in Essex .
If you genuinely don't get why there's a difference between this guy's ACTUAL experience and your imaginary, hypothetical experience then I'm not sure how to begin to explain it.
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
When I was working in a bar in Majorca around 1981 .
Seriously though , why would it matter ?
Would working with a few more brown people make the job better for Arthanayake ?
Is that what he saying ?
More people of the same colour skin makes the difference between a place he likes to work rather than one he doesn't when it's predominantly white .
What's that actually saying ?
Arthanayake was born 52 years ago in Essex .
If you genuinely don't get why there's a difference between this guy's ACTUAL experience and your imaginary, hypothetical experience then I'm not sure how to begin to explain it.
I don't have a problem working with people from overseas , I've worked with literally hundreds of them over the last 20 years .
So why would a 52 years old man born in Essex have his mental health challenged because he's working alongside predominantly white people ?
Now if he said he was challenged by the culture , he'd experienced racism and discrimination or was bullied then fair enough .
He didn't though did he , he said his poor mental health is down to the fact the colour of his colleagues skin is different to his own .
I believe there's a name for that .
Explain to me why you can't see that Billy ?
-
Tyke.
Where did Arthanayake say anything about "working with people from overseas"? I don't understand why you have brought that into the discussion. It's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
He's talking about living in a society where 10-20% of the population is from a BAME background, yet, he says, in his experience he rarely sees that reflected in the meetings he attend or in BBC management.
He's taking about people in Manchester calling him P***.
That's a point worth discussing if people are prepared to stop and think about it, rather than engage in the faux-offended shit-chucking going on in this thread.
-
Tyke.
Where did Arthanayake say anything about "working with people from overseas"? I don't understand why you have brought that into the discussion. It's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
He's talking about living in a society where 10-20% of the population is from a BAME background, yet, he says, in his experience he rarely sees that reflected in the meetings he attend or in BBC management.
He's taking about people in Manchester calling him P***.
That's a point worth discussing if people are prepared to stop and think about it, rather than engage in the faux-offended shit-chucking going on in this thread.
‘faux-offended shit chucking going on in this thread’
Can you be more specific about who you think is shit chucking?
-
Fascinating that a lot of white people have a problem with a black/brown person pointing out he is the only BAME person in his workplace and that people around him, in 2023, call him 'pa*i'.
And some of them think HE is a racist.
Funny old world.
-
Fascinating that a lot of white people have a problem with a black/brown person pointing out he is the only BAME person in his workplace and that people around him, in 2023, call him 'pa*i'.
And some of them think HE is a racist.
Funny old world.
Similar question to you Wilts: who is it on this thread who you think is guilty of racism?
-
I thought that the UK was populated by predominantly white people so why is it odd that workplaces have more white people than others.
-
Don't know the guy, don't listen to or watch him, but it seems as though he isn't that popular or gifted according to his audience on here, perhaps his insecurity is that he knows it, and he is just part of the numbers game played at the BBC over the last few years, where colour seems to matter more than skills especially in an archaic institution living on borrowed time where jobs are likely to be cut in the near future.
-
Tyke.
Where did Arthanayake say anything about "working with people from overseas"? I don't understand why you have brought that into the discussion. It's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
He's talking about living in a society where 10-20% of the population is from a BAME background, yet, he says, in his experience he rarely sees that reflected in the meetings he attend or in BBC management.
He's taking about people in Manchester calling him P***.
That's a point worth discussing if people are prepared to stop and think about it, rather than engage in the faux-offended shit-chucking going on in this thread.
If anyone's called him a p***, he should go to the police, because THAT's racism. If he thinks there is not enough diversity in his place of work, he should take it up with his employers, because THAT could be construed as institutional racism.
However, the way he put it sounded insulting to white people, and utterly racist, just like the guy who said the same thing about the England women's football team.
-
Mine, Belton's and Pancho's posts were clearly our opininion of him as a broadcaster, nothing else.
-
Fascinating that a lot of white people have a problem with a black/brown person pointing out he is the only BAME person in his workplace and that people around him, in 2023, call him 'pa*i'.
And some of them think HE is a racist.
Funny old world.
He’s not accusing anyone at his place of work of directing racial slurs at him is he?
The BBC is stringent on diversity. Its current and target employment demographics are in line with current and projected national population demographics, as I have pointed out above.
If there’s slightly more white people in his department, then so what? They probably just deserved the job. Their skin colour shouldn’t be his problem because they can’t help it.
-
Tyke.
Where did Arthanayake say anything about "working with people from overseas"? I don't understand why you have brought that into the discussion. It's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
He's talking about living in a society where 10-20% of the population is from a BAME background, yet, he says, in his experience he rarely sees that reflected in the meetings he attend or in BBC management.
He's taking about people in Manchester calling him P***.
That's a point worth discussing if people are prepared to stop and think about it, rather than engage in the faux-offended shit-chucking going on in this thread.
‘faux-offended shit chucking going on in this thread’
Can you be more specific about who you think is shit chucking?
Not aimed at you. Aimed at people who are ignoring the valid points he raises while suggesting he is driven by racism.
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
That question should be asked to people working in what we "loosely described as London" --- different world mate - i have quoted the 2011 census figures on here before but haven't got the time to find the old link on here - but the up to date 2021 census is out there ? --
which shows "where to go" to meet your "criteria"
-
No. My post has not got anything to do with London has it? It was a response to Tyke raising someone's hypothetical response to a hypothetical experience he's never going to have.
And doing so in response to Arthanayake responding to a real experience that he has had.
-
Well I'll go against the flow and say for a start I think he is an excellent interviewer and the BBC have done a good job in his selection for that programme slot. I certainly don't go with the sycophantic slur.
Having said that, I don't like his conflating northern culture with BBC culture. The discussion was about the lack of diversity as he sees it at his workplace and in that same discussion mentions the use of the P' word which can then be misconstrued to be relating to the culture at the BBC
.
His statement “It’s really affecting me that I walk in and all I see is white people.” shouts out to me that skin colour is at the forefront of his mindset and that a predominance of white skinned people is offensive to his sensibilities. That to me says he has racism in his being. He doesn't see those white people at his workplace for the people they are he just sees people he doesn't want to associate with.
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
-
Someone who shouts ‘Pa*i’ to another person in the street, then it is not merely a racist comment from an ignorant northerner. The person responsible is a scumbag, pure and simple, and probably has no qualms about using offensive, disgusting, abhorrent language to any person of any culture, in any situation. It is a million miles away from Arthanayake’s other concern about his workplace. It’s disappointing that he appears to have grouped the two things together as one problem.
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?
-
Someone who shouts ‘Pa*i’ to another person in the street, then it is not merely a racist comment from an ignorant northerner. The person responsible is a scumbag, pure and simple, and probably has no qualms about using offensive, disgusting, abhorrent language to any person of any culture, in any situation. It is a million miles away from Arthanayake’s other concern about his workplace. It’s disappointing that he appears to have grouped the two things together as one problem.
Do you know that Arthanayake "grouped the two things together as one problem"?
All you have to go on is a short media article, summarising what I assume was a much longer speech.
-
Someone who shouts ‘Pa*i’ to another person in the street, then it is not merely a racist comment from an ignorant northerner. The person responsible is a scumbag, pure and simple, and probably has no qualms about using offensive, disgusting, abhorrent language to any person of any culture, in any situation. It is a million miles away from Arthanayake’s other concern about his workplace. It’s disappointing that he appears to have grouped the two things together as one problem.
Do you know that Arthanayake "grouped the two things together as one problem"?
All you have to go on is a short media article, summarising what I assume was a much longer speech.
Which is why I said ‘appears to’. You, too, are making assumptions from the same short media article.
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?
What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.
-
I think Wilts was commenting on how strange a reaction it was, to suggest that Arthanayake was displaying racism. Having seen Wilts's posts over the years, I'm sure he wouldn't shy away from explicitly calling someone a racist if they were clearly acting like one.
Maybe you're interpreting his post in a way that confirms what you'd like to be the case? I dunno.
As for Arthanayake's speech and the media article, I'm concluding nothing from it, other than that, presumably, he said what the article says he said about management meetings and his shock at being called P*** in Manchester. I have absolutely no opinion on whether he linked the two issues, because I have no evidence that HE did. So I certainly wouldn't complain about him "appearing to" do so.
-
Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.
Read this out loud:
‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’
The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.
I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.
-
Anyway, I’m off to listen to Radio 5 - Arthanayake doesn’t work on Fridays.
-
Let’s start from scratch with a thought experiment:
Someone has a negative experience with someone of a certain race.
This someone works in an environment that is on the whole represented by that race.
Then, this someone comes out and says “I feel uncomfortable seeing so many people of X race at work”.
What would you call that person?
Yes this is hypothetical but sometimes it takes that to explain a principle.
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
That's going to be very difficult here isn't it? In Doncaster 93% of people are white, it's quite unlikely to find non white people in most places in the City. Even accross the Uk it's still 82% white and London heavily distorts that. Despite what some far right people say it's still quite unlikely to come accross non white persons in a lot of areas indeed if you're talking proportionately, Nihal as a non white person is likely that one person you'd expect proportionately to be non white in the workplace.
He said this phrase;
“The hardest thing is to walk into a room, look around and nobody looks like you.”
Well when you're from a minority that's quite likely isn't it?
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?
What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.
Well he wouldn't do as he has only just read the thread since posting. Unlike some other posters this forum occupies very little of my time or interest.
Wilts meant exactly what he said in his post. It's up to people reading it to interpretate it as they want too. If they want to read something into it that isn't there - then that's their problem. If they want to misrepresent what I wrote - then that's also their problem.
-
Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.
Read this out loud:
‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’
The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.
I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.
!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.
2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.
-
Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .
" it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "
If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .
Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .
Honest question.
When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?
That's going to be very difficult here isn't it? In Doncaster 93% of people are white, it's quite unlikely to find non white people in most places in the City. Even accross the Uk it's still 82% white and London heavily distorts that. Despite what some far right people say it's still quite unlikely to come accross non white persons in a lot of areas indeed if you're talking proportionately, Nihal as a non white person is likely that one person you'd expect proportionately to be non white in the workplace.
He said this phrase;
“The hardest thing is to walk into a room, look around and nobody looks like you.”
Well when you're from a minority that's quite likely isn't it?
Please read my post in the correct context - I was replying to what I thought was a rather silly post from Tyke.
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?
What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.
Well he wouldn't do as he has only just read the thread since posting. Unlike some other posters this forum occupies very little of my time or interest.
Wilts meant exactly what he said in his post. It's up to people reading it to interpretate it as they want too. If they want to read something into it that isn't there - then that's their problem. If they want to misrepresent what I wrote - then that's also their problem.
Wilts. I never said you had chosen not to answer, just that you hadn’t. You haven’t answered yet though, although that’s fine by me.
Let me try to explain where I’m coming from:
Phrase: and you think I’M stupid
Meaning: you’re the one who’s stupid, not me.
Phrase: And you think THEY’RE out of order
Meaning: It’s you who is out of order, not them.
Phrase: And Sunak thinks STARMER is a liar.
Meaning: it’s Sunak who is the liar, not Starmer.
Phrase: And some of them think HE is a racist.
Meaning: it’s them who are racist, not him.
If that isn’t what you meant, then perhaps you should consider how you word things and how you choose to use capital letters.
I don’t believe, judging by your historical posts, that you have any difficulty in understanding how to write with meaning.
-
Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.
Read this out loud:
‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’
The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.
I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.
!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.
2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.
1. I disagree with all of that.
2. That’s what opinions are all about.
And I never assumed the worst possible interpretation, which again was why I asked for clarification.
You are assuming that, not me.
-
Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.
Read this out loud:
‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’
The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.
I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.
!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.
2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.
“opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that”
Come on Billy, everybody obviously thinks calling someone that is racist.
2 wrongs don’t make a right.
-
Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.
Read this out loud:
‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’
The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.
I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.
!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.
2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.
1. I disagree with all of that.
2. That’s what opinions are all about.
And I never assumed the worst possible interpretation, which again was why I asked for clarification.
You are assuming that, not me.
Do you realise the scale of egotistical unpleasantness that your answer 1 implies?
You are determined, despite everything I've said for many years on the issue, to assume that I'm deliberately playing silly f**kers when I write. Quite something. It's precisely the reason I had you on ignore. Because you were so utterly convinced that you're right on this topic, that you laid into me for what you assumed was me berating a man for his response to his wife dying.
I genuinely cannot fathom the sort of thinking that insists on making that sort of conclusion. I thought we'd come to an understanding on this issue, but clearly I'm wrong. Might be best if I go back to putting you on ignore.
-
I disagree that your posts are never ambiguous.
There is not a whiff off egotistical unpleasantness coming from me.
That’s just your incorrect misinterpretation.
It works both ways, but you don’t see that, and I don’t turn it into something it isn’t.
Yes, sometimes I think you play ‘silly f**kers’.
Often, you don’t.
You do seem incapable of accepting that I could possibly disagree with you at times, as your last post shows.
THAT’S egotistical. But I accept that is how it is.
I have an awful lot of respect for you as a contributor on here, and I relish our debates, but I’m damned if I’m going to change my opinions because you don’t like them.
-
You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.
-
You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.
I believe that sometimes you are.
You say you never are or have been.
Surely all we can do is agree to disagree on that one.
-
Lad I worked with is 2nd generation from a windrush family. His wife's white and they went to where family was from , one of the smaller islands, not many tourists. After a few days of being one of few white people around his wife said " oh this is how you feel" . Noone had been rude or off off with her but she'd noticed how her being different made her stand out whenever she went in shop etc and how that made her feel. Been married to him for years and still didn't really really get it until it happened to her
-
You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.
I believe that sometimes you are.
And THAT is precisely the problem. You believe that I deliberately set out to deceive and mess people about. And that I lie when I say that I never, ever do that. And for that reason, you're going back on Ignore. I KNOW what the truth is here. If you're insistent that I'm lying, best if our paths don't cross.
-
Lad I worked with is 2nd generation from a windrush family. His wife's white and they went to where family was from , one of the smaller islands, not many tourists. After a few days of being one of few white people around his wife said " oh this is how you feel" . Noone had been rude or off off with her but she'd noticed how her being different made her stand out whenever she went in shop etc and how that made her feel. Been married to him for years and still didn't really really get it until it happened to her
But did she feel it was wrong for that small island not to have more white people?
-
You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.
I believe that sometimes you are.
And THAT is precisely the problem. You believe that I deliberately set out to deceive and mess people about. And that I lie when I say that I never, ever do that.
I think I have said you lied in the past, and I have apologised for that previously. I’m not calling you a liar now, I’m simply saying I disagree.
-
You're saying you disagree about my honesty!
-
You're saying you disagree about my honesty!
Billy. Where are you going with this?
You say you never say anything ambiguous. I think you do. ANYTHING that can can be interpreted in different ways is ambiguous. I’m sure I do it on occasion too.
Yet again, that’s why I asked you to clarify something earlier, which you did. The old Belton would probably have jumped in with an accusation which no doubt have turned the debate into an unpleasant mess.
Unfortunately, it seems, I haven’t yet worked out how to stop that happening.
-
It’s a shame about the ignore. Just have a think about how this conversation has gone before you do it.
The first time You put me on ignore, I questioned my role in it.
This time however, I have done nothing for you to warrant that decision.
And just to be clear. I have NOT called you a liar at any point during this exchange, or since I was unignored.
-
Belton
I've not put you on ignore yet, because I can't from a phone.
Your last two posts sum up the issue.
You accused me of posting "deliberately ambiguous comments". You said "You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged."
That is deeply offensive as well as being plain wrong.
When I forcefully pointed out that was wrong and that I do NOT do that, you have repeatedly refused to accept that. Which means beyond any shadow of doubt that you think I am lying when I refuse your accusation.
And once again, while making the case that you are right, you've now flipped onto talking about "ambiguity" without the "deliberate".
Of course everyone writes ambiguous things. Because none of us are perfect. That's a million miles from DELIBERATELY writing ambiguously in order to f**k about with people.
If you overstepped in your original post, that's fine. We all write things in haste. But if your original post really reflects how you think I behave, then I want absolutely nothing more to do with you.
-
Lad I worked with is 2nd generation from a windrush family. His wife's white and they went to where family was from , one of the smaller islands, not many tourists. After a few days of being one of few white people around his wife said " oh this is how you feel" . Noone had been rude or off off with her but she'd noticed how her being different made her stand out whenever she went in shop etc and how that made her feel. Been married to him for years and still didn't really really get it until it happened to her
But did she feel it was wrong for that small island not to have more white people?
I very much doubt it, but there again she was there for fortnight, not 50 yrs of feeling like she's not instantly comfortable in certain situations.. This from a woman about the bloke she loves,and lived with for 30 yrs and she'd never really understood how it was for him till she experienced it . IIf you haven't experienced it or even noticed it, you don't realise what it feels like
-
Belton
I've not put you on ignore yet, because I can't from a phone.
Your last two posts sum up the issue.
You accused me of posting "deliberately ambiguous comments". You said "You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged."
That is deeply offensive as well as being plain wrong.
When I forcefully pointed out that was wrong and that I do NOT do that, you have repeatedly refused to accept that. Which means beyond any shadow of doubt that you think I am lying when I refuse your accusation.
And once again, while making the case that you are right, you've now flipped onto talking about "ambiguity" without the "deliberate".
Of course everyone writes ambiguous things. Because none of us are perfect. That's a million miles from DELIBERATELY writing ambiguously in order to f**k about with people.
If you overstepped in your original post, that's fine. We all write things in haste. But if your original post really reflects how you think I behave, then I want absolutely nothing more to do with you.
I didn’t deliberately leave out the word ‘deliberately’. But now I’ve told you that, do you believe it to be true?
-
Billy. One final thing to say in the hope that you don’t put me on ignore.
I can’t suddenly say I now believe that you have never been deliberately ambiguous. I do regret, however, bringing up past posts.
I apologise for that.
The ridiculous thing is that this unfortunate exchange stemmed from something someone else wrote!
I know I still have to work on things.
Again, I apologise.
-
Lad I worked with is 2nd generation from a windrush family. His wife's white and they went to where family was from , one of the smaller islands, not many tourists. After a few days of being one of few white people around his wife said " oh this is how you feel" . Noone had been rude or off off with her but she'd noticed how her being different made her stand out whenever she went in shop etc and how that made her feel. Been married to him for years and still didn't really really get it until it happened to her
But did she feel it was wrong for that small island not to have more white people?
I very much doubt it, but there again she was there for fortnight, not 50 yrs of feeling like she's not instantly comfortable in certain situations.. This from a woman about the bloke she loves,and lived with for 30 yrs and she'd never really understood how it was for him till she experienced it . IIf you haven't experienced it or even noticed it, you don't realise what it feels like
To say the lived experience narrative has no merit what so ever would be totally wrong , for instance how could any one of us really know what it was like to have lived through the holocaust for instance , it doesn't stop us talking about it though and neither should it .
I don't like the lived experience narrative when it's used in a way that suggests " well you aren't black so what do you know " kind of way .
Does that mean only black people are allowed to talk about it ?
If so we would have to believe every word they said and whilst I'm not disputing what you've posted what so ever nobody can realistically expect the lived experience narrative to be the absolute truth 100% of the time .
My definition of racism is , using the colour of a person's skin colour against them in order to feel superior over them .
It could also be in lesser cases , using the colour of a person's skin against them because you feel inferior to them , otherwise known as resentment .
Now in the context of this debate and the person we are debating that might be why he made the comments , I do say might and it's only my opinion .
I don't have to live the life of a brown man to understand resentment given we are all capable of feeling resentful .
-
Someone calling him a p*** in the street has nothing to do with what he said. Someone not liking his show has nothing to do with what he said. What he said was that the colour of your skin gives him mental health issues. The coloir of your skin means he has nothing in common with you and CANT relate to you. What a disgusting thing to say. But naturally, barely an eyelid batted yet if it had been the other way outrage from the cancel mob
Why can someone of a different skin colour to you not be someone with whom you can confide in, talk to about issues, be a mentor, understand your problems in life. How dare you say that because your skin is a different pigment that we have nothing in common, can't talk, can't help each other through difficult times. The disgusting divisiveness that's happening in society these days never ceases to amaze
Oh and if we're talking about lived experience then apparently the colour of your skin dictates you're privileged because yes its socially acceptable for that simply because of the white pigment in your skin you're privileged (FYI Asians disprove this but never mind, pigment of skin divisions only become greater)
-
As of March 2022, 16.4% of all BBC employees were BAME. The BBC aims to get this to 20%.
Leadership positions were 13.1% BAME. And the BBC also aims to get this to 20%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/equality-information-report-2022.pdf
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) based on population survey figures from 2019, people from ethnic minority backgrounds make up 14.4% of the United Kingdom population.
The institute for public policy research estimates that by 21% of the UK population will be BAME by 2030.
So given that the population of UK is 14% BAME aka 86% white (let's assume England is roughly the same) the last England squad starting 11 was 45% white. How disgusting, how racist, there's obviously barriers to white people getting a chance and this must be addressed with quotas asap....disgusting isn't it to start dividing everyone by skin pigment, grouping, saying you don't look like me so I can't be inspired by you or you can't help me. Yet apparently if you're Nishad then your skin colour can give mental health issues, apparently if your white you can't inspire someone of a different colour as per the hooha recently about the arsenal women team being "too white" rrriiiggghhhttt because you could say Lewis Hamilton doesn't inspire me because he's not white
-
As of March 2022, 16.4% of all BBC employees were BAME. The BBC aims to get this to 20%.
Leadership positions were 13.1% BAME. And the BBC also aims to get this to 20%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/equality-information-report-2022.pdf
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) based on population survey figures from 2019, people from ethnic minority backgrounds make up 14.4% of the United Kingdom population.
The institute for public policy research estimates that by 21% of the UK population will be BAME by 2030.
So given that the population of UK is 14% BAME aka 86% white (let's assume England is roughly the same) the last England squad starting 11 was 45% white. How disgusting, how racist, there's obviously barriers to white people getting a chance and this must be addressed with quotas asap....disgusting isn't it to start dividing everyone by skin pigment, grouping, saying you don't look like me so I can't be inspired by you or you can't help me. Yet apparently if you're Nishad then your skin colour can give mental health issues, apparently if your white you can't inspire someone of a different colour as per the hooha recently about the arsenal women team being "too white" rrriiiggghhhttt because you could say Lewis Hamilton doesn't inspire me because he's not white
The so called progressive left do like their labels , everyone neatly arranged and a label stuck on their head .
Without labels you see they can't play identity politics .
They like to change them too from time to time or add bits to them when they realise there's a new group they've discovered but doesn't really qualify for it's own label .
It's fascinating stuff , there's all sorts of theories thrown around , Cultural Marxism seems to have some legs , the theory is that Marx failed on economics so let's bring capitalism down through culture instead .
Funnily enough Marx was a horrible racist , different times of course but none the less a racist .
It's a funny old world mate .
-
As of March 2022, 16.4% of all BBC employees were BAME. The BBC aims to get this to 20%.
Leadership positions were 13.1% BAME. And the BBC also aims to get this to 20%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/equality-information-report-2022.pdf
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) based on population survey figures from 2019, people from ethnic minority backgrounds make up 14.4% of the United Kingdom population.
The institute for public policy research estimates that by 21% of the UK population will be BAME by 2030.
So given that the population of UK is 14% BAME aka 86% white (let's assume England is roughly the same) the last England squad starting 11 was 45% white. How disgusting, how racist, there's obviously barriers to white people getting a chance and this must be addressed with quotas asap....disgusting isn't it to start dividing everyone by skin pigment, grouping, saying you don't look like me so I can't be inspired by you or you can't help me. Yet apparently if you're Nishad then your skin colour can give mental health issues, apparently if your white you can't inspire someone of a different colour as per the hooha recently about the arsenal women team being "too white" rrriiiggghhhttt because you could say Lewis Hamilton doesn't inspire me because he's not white
Someone calling him a p*** in the street has nothing to do with what he said. Someone not liking his show has nothing to do with what he said. What he said was that the colour of your skin gives him mental health issues. The coloir of your skin means he has nothing in common with you and CANT relate to you. What a disgusting thing to say. But naturally, barely an eyelid batted yet if it had been the other way outrage from the cancel mob
That's a superbly insightful and well argued paragraph.
Err.
Apart from the fact that he didn't say what you say he said. Why do you do this?
-
Billy. One final thing to say in the hope that you don’t put me on ignore.
I can’t suddenly say I now believe that you have never been deliberately ambiguous. I do regret, however, bringing up past posts.
I apologise for that.
The ridiculous thing is that this unfortunate exchange stemmed from something someone else wrote!
I know I still have to work on things.
Again, I apologise.
Belton.
We obviously knock sparks off each other, and I won't lie - I was and am genuinely insulted by the inference of your post. But ok, I'll not hit the ignore button. Here's to more cordial exchanges in future.
-
Tyke.
You use far-right Culture War terms like "Cultural Marxism".
And you claim to be a socialist?
I suspect you'd have been on Moseley's side in the 30s. Another so-called socialist who fell for the siren call of the far right.
-
Arthanayake ought to have been with me in the Broadway shopping centre in Bradford on Saturday 2 weeks ago.
90% of the shoppers were ‘his colour’ so presumably it would have done his mental health the world of good.
-
Cultural Marxism is a far right conspiracy theory pushed by white supremacists. It says that immigration, LGBT rights, and so on are actually the result of a secret Jewish plot to destroy the west. Always worth pointing that out.
-
Tyke.
You use far-right Culture War terms like "Cultural Marxism".
And you claim to be a socialist?
I suspect you'd have been on Moseley's side in the 30s. Another so-called socialist who fell for the siren call of the far right.
Your doing the labelling thing Billy , now I know you progressives have had the humour part of your brain removed but surely even you could detect I was laughing along with the idea of Cultural Marxism , clearly not .
I'm just wondering what other part of your brain you've had removed , here's me calling out racism on this thread and here's you calling me Oswald Moseley .
That's proper fuqued up shyte .
-
"Cultural Marxism seems to have some legs."
Forgive me for missing the bit I was supposed to laugh at.
-
"Cultural Marxism seems to have some legs."
Forgive me for missing the bit I was supposed to laugh at.
What I meant was legs as a theory some use , the same people who watch nobody's who create YouTube channels for click bait and algorithms .
I can't believe you'd think I'd find the Cultural Marxism even remotely believable .
I'd actually never heard of it until last year and saw it mentioned in an article I was reading so I looked it up .
I think you get too defensive about culture wars Billy I really do but sticking labels on people just plays in to their hands .
There wasn't the enemy out there many on the progressive left thought there was and pushing this , that and the other to obsessive levels at times can turn people against them .
-
It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.
It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.
Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?
What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.
Well he wouldn't do as he has only just read the thread since posting. Unlike some other posters this forum occupies very little of my time or interest.
Wilts meant exactly what he said in his post. It's up to people reading it to interpretate it as they want too. If they want to read something into it that isn't there - then that's their problem. If they want to misrepresent what I wrote - then that's also their problem.
Wilts. I never said you had chosen not to answer, just that you hadn’t. You haven’t answered yet though, although that’s fine by me.
Let me try to explain where I’m coming from:
Phrase: and you think I’M stupid
Meaning: you’re the one who’s stupid, not me.
Phrase: And you think THEY’RE out of order
Meaning: It’s you who is out of order, not them.
Phrase: And Sunak thinks STARMER is a liar.
Meaning: it’s Sunak who is the liar, not Starmer.
Phrase: And some of them think HE is a racist.
Meaning: it’s them who are racist, not him.
If that isn’t what you meant, then perhaps you should consider how you word things and how you choose to use capital letters.
I don’t believe, judging by your historical posts, that you have any difficulty in understanding how to write with meaning.
As I said Belton, if you want to interpret that into my post, then that's your problem.
Alhough as the title of this actual thread is '.... is he in fact being racist' I fail to see the relevance of you being stupid and what Sunak thinks of Starmer is to it?
But I agree with your surmise that words can take on different meanings to different readers. For instance, you wrote this:
What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.
Now that to me seems like a demand for me to respond. 'I asked him but he never responded'. Therefore you are expecting a response.
Yet, 'Wilts. I never said you had chosen not to answer'.
I never said you had. I gave an answer to why I had not responded earlier. Yet you have turned that into something else using words I have not used.
-
What's even worse is he's saying this at a forum for the next generation. If you walk into a room and nobody looks lime you then the default setting should be; be offended and assume nobody has anything in common with you, and it's their problem not on you to integrate in any way.
The world is getting more divisive due to things like this
BTW I'm driving to the match today and can offer a lift, but you must look like me because otherwise we'd having nothing in common and you'd give me mental health issues
-
I could respond with ‘I meant exactly what I said in my post. It's up to people reading it to interpretate it as they want too. If they want to read something into it that isn't there - then that's their problem. If they want to misrepresent what I wrote - then that's also their problem’
But that would be churlish.
You’re right about different interpretations found in words. But I think interpretations are often made because of who the author is rather than the words written.
Not everyone will admit to that, though.
-
Is the term ‘Tread gingerly’ still ‘acceptable’?
-
Probably not in the eyes of some people.