(First published in The Dominion Post and on Stuff.co.nz, March 19.)
We’ve heard a lot in recent months about something called
unconscious bias. Apparently this is the bias you have when you don’t know you
have a bias. Perhaps we should call it the Claytons bias.
The genius of the concept is that people accused of having
an unconscious bias are in no position to deny it, for the obvious reason that
they weren’t aware of it. Thus they are held to be guilty by default, as it
were.
Personally, I see no point in agonising over my unconscious
biases when I don’t know what they are. In any case, I have plenty of conscious
ones to keep me occupied, and which I’m happy to declare. Here are some of the
things I have conscious biases about:
■ Sanctimonious vegans who aren’t content to quietly follow their
conscience when it comes to dietary choices, but must parade their virtue and
harangue those of us who enjoy meat and dairy products. I have an especially
acute bias against celebrities who take advantage of their high profile in the
media to push for a transition to a plant-based economy. I wouldn’t tell James Cameron
how to make movies and I’d rather he didn’t tell me what I should eat.
■ People who insist on inflicting their hideous musical
tastes on everyone within a 100-metre range, whether they’re having a barbecue
at the beach or driving down the street with the car windows wide open and the
stereo cranked up to 11. It goes without saying that their musical tastes are invariably
hideous because that’s the sort of people they are. But they apparently believe
that the only reason we don’t all love Led Zep is that we haven’t heard them
loud enough. Excessive noise is a pernicious invasion of privacy that should be
punishable by internment in a confined space where loudspeakers play It’s A Small World After All on endless
rotate.
■ Ageing, tough-talking politicians who address reporters as
“Sunshine”, channelling Inspector Jack Regan from The Sweeney and imagining that they sound menacing.
■ Australians who make jokes about the New Zealand accent. A
British-born Aussie columnist recently referred to Raelene Castle, the New
Zealander who runs the Australian Rugby Union, as the Vuccar of Dubbly, thereby
mocking her accent while simultaneously making a snide comment about her
looks. Apparently it didn’t occur to him
that no one born in England – a country where an East Ender struggles to
understand a Liverpudlian, and someone from the West Country might as well
speak in Swahili to a Geordie from Tyneside – is in any position to disparage
another country’s way of speaking; and still less so when that person has taken
up citizenship in Orstrylia, whose national accent, in its more extreme forms,
is about as euphonious as the screeching of a galah.
■ Shared plates in restaurants, which I suspect are a cunning
plot to make people pay more for less.
■ Freedom campers who treat the landscape with contempt,
transforming scenic spots into something resembling Sudanese refugee camps,
only with less exacting hygiene standards. It beggars belief that some councils
humour these spongers by making available an app that advises them on places
where they can set up camp and presumably defecate on any convenient patch of
ground. Most New Zealanders would be only too happy to tell freedom campers
where to go – preferably the nearest airport.
■ Tiresome left-wing moralists masquerading as stand-up
comedians, kidding themselves that they’re edgy when in fact they play it safe
by pandering to the smug, conformist group-think of their like-minded audiences.
■ Taxpayer-funded broadcasters using their privileged
position to promote their pet ideological agendas.
■ David Attenborough – not so much for his preaching about climate
change, although God knows that’s tedious enough, as for his habit of
manipulating viewers’ emotions by anthropomorphising the creatures in his
documentaries – in other words, encouraging us to think of them as behaving and
feeling like humans.
■ Transgender activists who aren’t content to quietly follow
their inclination without any fuss, as transgender people used to do (the
author Jan Morris, for example), but who demand to be noticed and paid homage
to as an oppressed minority.
■ Neo-Marxist ideologues who want to reconstruct the English
language by erasing all reference to biological sex. In one of the more bizarre
idiocies of 2019, a parliamentary select committee considering the abortion
bill was urged to replace the term “pregnant woman” with “pregnant person” – a
proposal that found favour with Green MP Jan Logie, who thought “pregnant
person” was more inclusive. Seriously. And to think they let these people out unaccompanied
in public.
Well hurrah !! Well done Karl.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely, and you have put it so well.
In fairness 'pregnant person' should be used as it's vitally important not to exclude 'pregnant men'!
ReplyDeleteGuilty as charged ...
ReplyDeleteMy experience of the "up to 11" syndrome is that the subject matter is more likely to be Rap of the worst kind, full of over-done bass and lots of 'f'ing going on. The only reason you hear Led Zep at 11 nowadays is that the aficionado concerned has been listening to it at high volume for too long and is now a wee bit deaf after 40 years of exposure.
At last - humour! I must take issue with the definition of Oz-speak, it's Ostraya , sometimes Ostraiya, no L in either. I cite as evidence the ghastly cricket commentators and commenters who butcher and mangle English like no other.
ReplyDeleteWas it not the Melbourne City Council that, decades ago, trialled playing Barry Manilow music loudly to disperse crowds of yobbo youths congregating in the city centre late at night and causing mayhem? Perhaps that could be used on those who rend the air with their obnoxious aural assaults.
ReplyDeleteWe have a new word in the English language. It is "vunlibrall". It has apparently replaced the real word vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteAs has "Nar" replaced "now".
But - this is how it happens here in New Zillid.
This opinion piece from Karl has made my day.
ReplyDeleteSorry to enlighten you granddad, but it is physiologically impossible for a man to be pregnant. So the correct term would be pregnant person, although this in fact, by definition means pregnant woman.
ReplyDeleteI too am heartily tired of hearing this ridiculous forced change to the English language to somehow require that we must address a transvestite male who wears woman's clothes by a feminine pronoun.
There are only two genders. Male and female. Locked into the DNA. Basic fifth form physiology. If a person decides to dress up in different clothing, take hormones, have surgery, it does NOT change their gender.
Climate catastrophists in all their myriad forms do it for me. Sadly it may take a real crisis like the pandemic we are now grappling with to put the hysteria and bunkum preached by Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and the UN (which has thoroughly discredited itself) into true perspective and expose it for the the nonsense it is.
ReplyDeleteIt is neither Ostraya nor Ostraiya, it is the more simple (obviously) and precise Straya (said quickly). Having lived there for some time, attended the MCG for AFL matches and listened to true Strayans around me, decked out in thongs and little more than a cozzie, barracking for their favourite Collingwood hoodlum, whose sleeveless gurnsey was augmented with two bewdifil inked sleeves and who, when they learned I wuz from cross thu deech, respectfully enquired of my favourite sheep breed for personal satisfaction purposes, I can attest to this truth.
ReplyDelete