Transport in London is shit

i mean you contribute a lot to this board but i'll gladly do without all of it to not have you screaming "you are a retard!" at bb because you're a spoilt brat who thinks it will impress the zing crew you should have long grown out of.

and you're an utterly jejune pillock with a bent for hypocrisy, what of it? i'm not having BB making such appalling accusations. this said, I am henceforth going to avoid her and you as well, so you both have this boon

In the hope of intervening as someone you don't already hate... I don't believe that you would genuinely have said that, but it remains a shitty and ableist thing to have said. Jokes at the expense of the more marginalised which are indistinguishable from slurs except by relying on the position that the speaker couldn't possibly be racist/sexist/ableist are dud dud dud.

friends of yerwan applying the blinkers to everything but the reactions she goads are like idk what the fuck is that even about

point taken if but read sensibly that joke was definitely at the expense of whiny able-bodied ppl who get exasperated with their fellow commuters for no good reason, taken ad absurdum. no specifics regarding disability were luridly dissected; the wording was deliberately generic. it seems that one simply cannot even venture onto such turf, and i accept that doing so is liable to get you in trouble on ilx, cf mordy's links yesterday in 'when did ilx become so boring'

an ableist joke would begin something like 'how many people in wheelchairs does it take to change a lightbulb?' and end with a stony-faced audience mentally checking out. but this post is therefore an anti-ableist joke, despite containing the wording of an ableist joke, because of context my god

yer intentions and spirit as a good lad of the left aren't really in question here but i don't think that line of defence really works since however you soften that kind of quip and no matter how much you intend it to be at the expense of the whiny privileged it stands a high risk of making the other group feel awkward at best, who knows what at worst. maybe indicated by thinking about extending that joke format and thinking about whether it's still the kind of thing you'd drop in polite company, e.g. would you find it cool to make a quip about oppressing people of a racial minority while using some racial slur (noted but only partially accepted that 'disabled cunt' isn't directly a disabled slur) to amusingly take the absurd position of a racist person.

imago, your protestations might hold the slightest bit of water if you had responded to my queries with any kind of graciousness or recognition that what you said was indistinguishable from the slurs you were "parodying". Instead it was accompanied by "how could you possibly think I could be the person to say those kinds of things" followed, a moment later, by insulting me (using more ableist slurs, and these ones not used in jest at all) and then lashing out at Stevie by saying exactly those kinds of things.

How could I possibly think that there's no way you could be the kind of person who would resort to ableist slurs, when your response to being questioned on something you claim to have been a joke, has been to repeat the same things and the same behaviours in earnest this time.

This is a pattern with you. Do an ambiguous thing, get challenged on it, and then freak the fuck out at the person who challenged you using exactly the same problematic behaviour you were just challenged on.

This is childish bullshit, and I'm tired of being the butt of it, from you. If you want people to believe that you're "not like that" then stop acting like that.

I personally would like to apologise to Louis for the vociferousness with which I replied last night, as I've been feeling pretty awful about it since. By way of explanation, from my early teens I was my disabled dad's main carer, and I grew up on a south london council estate where every resident was either severely physically or mentally disabled. If I have buttons to be pushed, these are they.

I recognised that your joke about disabled ramps was a joke, a lampoon of vile anti-strike commenters and people who value their convenience over others' comfort. I mean, it wasn't actually funny, indeed it was clumsy enough that I could understand people thinking you weren't making some larger point. You're not the Chris Morris you think you are.

What vexed and still vexes me is the fact that, having made a "joke" that was in some semblance on the "side" of the disabled is that, when someone mistook the intention of your statement, you thought it fine to yell at them that they're a "retard". It should be so very obvious how not okay this is. Aero has written countless incisive paragraphs on this site on how this isn't okay. And for you to "go there" defending a joke about disabled people, well, there's a tone-deafness there, an absence of any sense of irony, that's stunning. It makes you something akin to the Michael Richards of "edgy" "racial" "comedy", and maybe you'd be better off listening when people say you've crossed a line, and not getting angry because they don't recognise your satire, because the fault is likely on what you're saying and how you're delivering it, than how they're receiving it.

But my larger point is, I'd have been better off responding with the above paragraph rather than debasing myself with a torrent of spite of my own. I think I'm reaching the end of my enchantment with ilx, or at least my presence here, as I keep finding myself typing in haste and repenting in displeasure. You're right, I was a hypocrite, and I'll try and take the high road in future.

Stevie, I would just like to say: you are not a hypocrite, you are one of the more measured, wise, intelligent yet impassioned posters I have known here, who lost his temper under conditions that would try the patience of a saint. I, for one, would miss you if you went. It says reams about your character that you are so concerned about YOUR actions that you would lose sleep over someone who has been acting in such a vile way itt. Please, take care of yourself and do what you need to restore equanimity, but please do not go. ILX would be seriously the less for it.

Well, my restraint isn't very strong so I'll doubtless be posting again soon, but I'll be trying not to snap like I did above and elsewhere, because it was unkind and unfair to Imago, but thank you BB.

hi all, i think when we all calm down and if ever bothering to read those series of posts again you will find that

1/ that post re: ramps was very clearly, 99% clear at least (from the posts leading up to it), that it is paraphrasing the very horrible things people say (in this instance, to disabled people), exposing how, when you change the terms from "bus driver" to "disabled people" suddenly you'll find throwing blame on an entire group of people suddenly doesn't sound so savoury.

2/ if somebody then singled out such a post, and having a go at it because.. then if i was me i would think either:
i) this person thinks so low of me that i'm not given the benefits of 99% doubt (see 1/) that i'm not some ableist bigot?
ii) this person is having it in for me and just waiting for a reason to have a go no matter what
iii) this person has not even read the context of the post and being VERY trigger happy in having a go (which makes me think ii/ would be at play)

any of which not really a nice thing. and would be tempted to not respond cordially, i mean, why would i if i/ ii/ or iii/ were true.

3/ probably none of you are bigots or retards, but emotion took hold. take a deep breath

e.g. consider the following passage

poster a: bus drivers are just fucking cunts
poster b: yeah, i fucking hate them
poster c: yeah fucking right, oh my god the black ones are the fucking worst

now, if the above happen anywhere from a BNP/KKK forum, would you seriously think poster c is genuinely making a racist remark?

now re-think if you have known poster c for several years and not a stranger.

that's how i read it, anyway, but then english is not my first language

iv) this person has personal experience or empathy which means the context of this "hilarious" and "obvious" post might read really rather differently. See Stevie's post, please.

This is toxicity in its purest form: someone asks you about something questionable that you said, and your response is to cast aspersions at THAT person and their motives, and proceed to make the entire thing ALL ABOUT YOU and how wounded you are by these terrible allegations that something you said might have been ableist, rather than just saying "OK, yeah, sorry I could see how that could read badly, I'll try to be more careful."

the above could apply both ways to be honest

e.g. consider the following passage

poster a: bus drivers are just fucking cunts
poster b: yeah, i fucking hate them
poster c: yeah fucking right, oh my god the black ones are the fucking worst

now, if the above happen anywhere from a BNP/KKK forum, would you seriously think poster c is genuinely making a racist remark?

now re-think if you have known poster c for several years and not a stranger.

The only conditions under which I could ever think that Poster C was not acting in a racist way would be if Poster C was actually black him/herself, (and had a history of using irony in order to make commentary on racism). If it is not your burden to bear, it is not your joke to make.

This kind of humour is incredibly difficult to pull off, even among people who know one another well. The internet is not your living room, and "OMG, my intent is MAGIC you should have just KNOWN that it was ~supposed to be funny~" is not some magic wand you can wave to cover your ass.

And as to context, this is not the first time that LJ has got into hot water over this kind of thing, and not the first time he has freaked out at people who called him on it. Context exists in more ways than just "Oh, x is my buddy, they're not a bigot" when they have form on this kind of thing. If you guys are thinking I'm just doing this because I don't like LJ, you might stop and consider *why* and how someone could have built up a long-term distrust of a person, instead of doing this handwaving "Calm down, dear" bullshit.

i) this person thinks so low of me that i'm not given the benefits of 99% doubt (see 1/) that i'm not some ableist bigot?

This. To not get a joke that obvious (and one obviously not at the expense of disabled people) you'd have to have a shockingly low opinion of LJ and a tin ear for sarcasm.

Wow, OK, the boys are going to pull together yet again and circle their wagons to defend their so right on he can just call people "retards" with a free pass "bantz, lads" buddy. Quelle surprise.

I'm done guys. Enjoy your LOLs.

It's pretty obvious here, who the "shockingly low opinion" is of, and it isn't Louis.

No, "retards" was unacceptable. You know that's not what I was referring to. Tbh I find LJ maddening more often than not.

who exactly are "the boys"? why is this now suddenly the boys?

anyway i was hoping for some understanding on both sides but clearly this was a futile exercise. i'm going to take my own advice. sorry for any inconvenience caused to all readers of this thread

Does anyone else find Branwell's posting style intimidating?

Don't think its nice to comment on someone elses posting style in third person on a thread that they read

Ok, I find her posting style intimidating. Branwell, I find you somewhat intimidating.

Ken OTM

ridic

Yo stevie, ty for gracious semi-climbdown and apologies if I caused you any distress with what I said before you posted (defend my right to call u names in the aftermath tho). I know you're probably not going to agree with this, but I would like to refute an absence of any sense of irony - I introduced, if you'd bear to revisit it, the word 'retard' with the phrase 'how's about this for some ableism' - I know it is a Bad And Ableist Word, and in any other circumstances would not use it (nowadays, at least) - you must trust me on this. However, I was moved to deconstruct the entire premise of BB's accusatory vitriol in that particularly graphic way - I know it was not big or clever of me, but this was not about being big or clever, it was about conveying frustration. Perhaps - indeed, probably - I should have chosen a less problematic method, but in this case I was done with the treading-on-eggshells self-justifying absurdity of the position I'd have been forced into otherwise. Going 'nuclear', they say - you want some ableism, well have some. Frightfully immature I'm sure we can all agree, and apologies again if my use of the word caused genuine offence.

Absolutely nothing to say to BB's latest screeds. You can all read what everyone wrote yourselves.

Stevie, fair play

lj- ^ genuinely, that was all that was called for

xxp yeah this thread took a funny turn.

Two 56s arrived at the same time this morning, meaning I was able to get a seat all to myself! Living the dream.

Did free Tube travel happen this morning?

hang on.. so freetube will only work where the stations are controlled by RMT staff then?

wasn't the case at archway or warren street :(

BB = not intimidating
LJ = a good lad

Revenue strike would presumably put everyone in breach of contract and therefore much more sackable, right?

matt i didn't understand how it works either - if you're paid to work that day don't know how it works with not performing certain duties are there union laws that cover it?

someone on londonist commented that even striking is a breach of contract and it's the union immunity that covers it, and it presumably also covers this? i know next to nothing about it

there's also lol this - don't know how robust is the source
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/06/tube-strike-boris-johnson-union-eu-law

I *think* the revenue strike would be official but unprotected action, so the employer either has to sack all or none of the participants. Proper strike is protected action so sacking a striker would be unlawful even tho it is legally a breach of contract.

(this might be bollocks tho so don't go relying on it)

is that how TFL are going to manage the change without voluntary redundancy?

without involuntary redundancy obvs

Every time I've been on strike the union ballot paper makes it clear that going on strike will breach your contract and could lead to dismissal.

Blimey, Bob Crow has died

blimey indeed

52, no age

Ken Livingstone on Bob Crow: "The only working-class people who still have well-paid jobs in London are his members.”

I stand by my post during the last strike. After spending most of that week having to go back and forth to the hospital and seeing what a strike does to people in a similar situation - fuck 'em
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
In response to plans to modernise and improve your Tube service, and despite us offering significant changes, the RMT union has called a further five days of strike action.

If the strikes go ahead, Tube services will be affected from:
• Around 21:00 on Monday 28 April until the morning of Thursday 1 May
• Around 21:00 on Monday 5 May until the morning of Friday 9 May

We will do everything we can to run as many trains as possible, but there will be significant disruption. Our Travel Ambassadors will be on hand to offer help. The DLR, London Overground, and other rail services will operate normally and we will enhance bus services on key routes. Please also consider cycling or walking if possible.

u madd?