Sensitive climate

Steve Williams said “it was my aim to shove it up that black arsehole.”

People are upsetting themselves. This was tremendously rude, but they say it was outrageously racist. In my lexicon the rude part of it was “arsehole” (a word I never use), which is not being mentioned.

There were two parts to the comment and one was false. Tiger has an arsehole, so Williams was incorrect to say he is an arsehole, because if you are one you cannot have one.

Of course, our favourite system of criticising people is to name them with a part of our anatomy, from the nether regions. Only a few parts are suitable. It doesn’t work to call someone a chin or an elbow. Although it can enhance the epithet to add their skin colour, which is always suitable for criticism.

Woods is undeniably black. In every photograph of him that I’ve seen, he does not have white skin, he has black skin. But people are objecting to calling him black.

Which means that Williams is being excoriated for telling the truth. Why?

Because we demand truth to be varnished, to have some gloss and to sound softer to sensitive souls.

But if the skin is black, it’s black, and why can’t you say so?

Views: 17

One Thought on “Sensitive climate

  1. Jim McK on 15/11/2011 at 7:05 pm said:

    This seems like the politically incorrect slot and because there is not enough debate on the election happening I have chosen here for my revised view of the world.

    Having had the opportunity to talk with a couple of senior National politicians it is probably good to remind ourselves that if there is anything that characterises the National Party it is pragmatism. There is no underlying philosophical or rational base here, other than a vague notion against high tax regimes and over large government.

    Having tested a couple of poli’s on the hustings the party line is “Yes we believe the world is warming and potentially dangerously and yes we believe that mankind is at least partially to blame and yes we should do our bit in stopping the process”. Asked for evidence they will say “90% of scientists agree”.

    What in fact they are saying is “Most New Zealanders think that potentially dangerous global warming is taking place and that this is at least partially due to mankind’s activities”. In private they may even say “and if most NZers are right we have done the right thing and if they are wrong we will have transferred money from those who drive cars to those who want to invest in trees – not much damage there”.

    For a rationalists like myself that is a pretty sobering realisation, but perhaps it indicates the way forward. National Poli’s will lag public opinion on this issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation