(no subject)

I suppose, if I was linking to provocative newspaper articles, it was wrong of me to leave this one out, that I've seen several people mention: Tad Safran

I'm not sure I can manage to say anything *about* it, though. A quick google shows a large number of people eloquently describing all the ways its offensive. The guardian awarded him the "misogynist of the year award"

In brief:

* American women spend £500-£1000 a month on grooming (including cosmetics, tanning, fitness, etc), and British women are overweight, unwashed, and have no fashion sense.
* American women lack social grace and are more concerned with money
* Not spending £500-£1000 a month on grooming is evil, a personal attack on Tad Safran.

Also:

* Yes, the article is deliberately provocative.
* Whether that's a conscious decision, either to get readers, or (in theory) to provoke thought, or a natural result of the observation that writing in generalisations produces those results without trying, I don't think there's any doubt it's not supposed to be a carefully weighed analysis.

When I read it, it just seemed amazing that someone could say all that, so offensively. But was he actually saying anything, or just wrapping air in offensiveness? I assume I agree with people reading this, but I don't know what he (and people who empathise with the article) might think:

* For instance, *is* there a disparity in grooming across the Atlantic?
* If so, is it gender linked?
* If so, does it matter?
* For instance, if he grew up in England, and got a job in America, is it possible that the people he knows in America tend to be professional men and women, who have high pay and long hours, and those people are more likely to groom in the manner he describes?

Other points I notice:

Bridget Jones ... is a sad, lonely, overweight, posh-sounding chain-smoker in her thirties with a drinking problem and no dating prospects. She then, one day, goes to the gym for an hour or two, spends £200 at Topshop, reads a self-help book and, lo and behold,...

* I know people disagree about Bridget Jones, but that's not the impression I had
* Firstly, I thought the "Bridget Jones was too fat to be attractive" thing was a myth perpetuated by fashion magazines. Do we have a genuine man who, regardless of his right to decide, given the choice, actually thinks Bridget Jones (or rather, Renee Zelweiger) is too fat to be attractive? WTF?
* Secondly, my view of the film may be distorted because I'm able to read[1] and know the original, but that's not how I saw it.

Years of working around horses had given her the hands of an 80-year-old Siberian coalminer ... It was more shocking than the time I took a girl’s hand after chatting her up for an hour and discovered she was missing the two middle fingers on it.

* He doesn't explicitly criticize the girl who'd lost her fingers. But it feels like he does.
* He no doubt wouldn't advocate it if asked, but I just get the feeling next week's article will be "Why people with mild scarring should hide in cellars in case I accidentally mistake them for real people and am traumatized"[1]

Tad: I apologise if my response was over the top. I'd always rather be polite, even if I'm criticizing someone, but I got a bit carried away. I hope you see everyone else's point. (Hell, you've probably apologised for being offensive by now and I just didn't notice.)

[1] See, look, exaggerations can be funny when they're lambasting I object to.

(no subject)

In fact, I think possibly the question of being provocative and when its trolling is more interesting than the particular ramblings that inspired it, so I'm reposting that question here.

Lizzip asked, "was he trolling", and while I think it's clear what he's doing, I don't know if it's trolling, I think the definition is still filling in.

Making up deliberately offensive opinions, especially ones that are "supposed" to be so over the top they're obviously false, is unambiguously trolling.

Arguing in good faith, however insane a proposition, isn't trolling (though may seem like it).

But in real life, on the internet, and in newspapers, there's often an intermediate position. Someone has an opinion, and makes generalising, exaggerated comments based on that with a deliberate disregard for being clear or polite, in a forum where they know the views are provocative.

Children often work like this, either from a lack of imagination in coming up with provocative opinions, or as a natural way to tease people with opinions they disagree with, or as a devil's advocate technique in order to get responses and information. And then they go and do it online to strangers.

If you're running a forum (or a newspaper), you have to decide if someone's behaviour is *solely* calculated to offend, or if they're redeemable, and where you draw the line of what you're prepared to accept. It might be unclear whether it counts as "trolling" or not.