Cycling UK Forum

I used to know a Barmaid who had "Mild" tattooed on one breast and "Bitter" on the other.

I'll get me coat

Jonty wrote:Having said that I try to take people as I find them and do my best to banish any preconceptions until proved otherwise.
jonty

Thank goodness for that

Jonty wrote:If when out cycling I'm approached by a large, heavily tattoed man festooned with multiple piercings, and he says "hello my good man, what a lovely bike, great day for a cycle ride, how far have you come?"
jonty

Only people in a P.G. Wodehouse story and posh idiots called Jonty speak like that

Jonty wrote:Apparently there's a high correlation between wearing tattoes, mental illness and criminality. That isn't to say of course that anyone with a tattoo has mental issues or has a tendancy towards criminal behaviour.
jonty

Apparently, everyone called Jonty is a posh idiot (if I type "apparently" before a statement, even without evidence, I am relinquished of all responsibility as to the truth of this statement)

PS
How I wish I was Hugh Grant.... just to be accepted . Actually all I want to do is ride my bike.

PPS
Don't be offended if I DON'T manage to wave a cheery "tally-ho" to you! I may be thinking of where to put my first tattoo

The problem is people want to be individuals - even when it means they move en mass to some stereotype. i.e punks, emos', skinheads etc etc. Even if like me you don't give a monkeys about what you wear and wouldn't consider wearing jewellery or tattoos or other adornments simply because it's too much trouble then you still project a stereotype that is picked up by other groups.

People are genetically programmed to be suspicious of anything "out of the ordinary" - where what is ordinary is a social construct usually reflecting your position in society and the people you hang around with.
Middle class folk would look suspiciously at (for example) a skin head walking down the street - but it's not just a one way thing, a middle class person walking past a group of skin heads would attract the same levels of suspicion.

Most peoples idea of dressing in a manner that makes them individual is nothing of the sort, it's usually just the choosing of a particular peer group, a group that attracts them usually because it has a stereotype they find appealing and as a result they'll 'act out' the stereotype. This has the effect of reinforcing others views of the stereotype and combined with the dress code the group uses allows other members of society to apply that stereotype to that person.

Summing up (imo - as always) people dress a certain way to project the stereotype that goes with their chosen peer group, so they can hardly complain that they're being stereotyped.
All groups are stereotyped by all other groups, it's a fact of life that is deeply ingrained into our DNA - however realising that fact should allow anyone with a modicum of intelligence to step back and look past.

However, come to me for a job interview looking like a skinhead and with 'HATE' tattooed across your knuckles and whilst I'd give you a fair crack of the whip I'm afraid you'll have a fair bit of lost ground to make up.

brother nathaneil wrote:

Jonty wrote:Having said that I try to take people as I find them and do my best to banish any preconceptions until proved otherwise.
jonty

Thank goodness for that

Jonty wrote:If when out cycling I'm approached by a large, heavily tattoed man festooned with multiple piercings, and he says "hello my good man, what a lovely bike, great day for a cycle ride, how far have you come?"
jonty

Only people in a P.G. Wodehouse story and posh idiots called Jonty speak like that

Jonty wrote:Apparently there's a high correlation between wearing tattoes, mental illness and criminality. That isn't to say of course that anyone with a tattoo has mental issues or has a tendancy towards criminal behaviour.
jonty

Apparently, everyone called Jonty is a posh idiot (if I type "apparently" before a statement, even without evidence, I am relinquished of all responsibility as to the truth of this statement)

Hi Brother
1) I'm pleased that you're relieved that I do my best to banish any preconceptions until proved otherwise.
2) I don't think I'm posh or an idiot. Can I suggest you don't form such views about people before meeting and talking to them. Perhaps you should try and be more open-minded like me and try to banish any preconceptions.
3) I used the word apparently because I didn't undertake the research. If you do a simple internet search I'm sure you'll find lots of information on tattooing, criminality and mental health. That isn't to say of course that a person with tattoos is a potential criminal or has mental health issues.
I've come to the provisional view that you jump to conclusions and you're either a trade union official or a monk but I'm willing to be proved wrong.
jonty

I was being ironic with my preconceived idea of the name Jonty as indeed you have been with my username

Brilliant. I've been proved wrong!
jonty

Doug Deep wrote:[I take issue with your statement.
I understand precisely what you are driving at, but I do NOT judge people by the way they look. I may be surprised by someone's appearance, but judge them, never.I love diversity and individualism.
What people do with/to themselves is absolutely no-one elses business, not even yours. Not everyone wants to look/be like you.
We will have to agree to differ.

I fear your reply here confirms to me that you do not see what I'm saying which is that making assumptions - judgments - about others we meet is innate in us all. We could not live without it. The important thing then is that we appreciate what we are doing and make proper allowances. In particular, in dealing with people we need to appreciate which of our judgments is appropriate, and which is not. One bit of evidence for what I'm saying is that your employers - quite reasonably - seem to have rules against any negative results of it happening. Perhaps, like many of us you have been on a course or even several to help prevent that happening.

Let's imagine I meet a stranger with a white stick. I think it's normal, rational and reasonable for me to assume - make a judgment - that the other person is blind or has a substantial shortage of sight. So far so good? Nothing dastardly there, I think. It would be absurd and unhelpful to behave as though they could see me. OTOH it would be quite wrong of me to to go on to assume that the person was helpless in public. So, it might be appropriate, depending on circumstances to alert them to my presence. If they were standing at the kerb, it might be reasonable to offer to cross together and so on.

IMO We all have our own separate internalised reference system, built up through what we have been taught, plus our personal experiences and so on. I can't imagine that if somebody walks into your office - I'm making an assumption that you meet the public from what you have said - and they are built like a brick outhouse, apparently in drink, accompanied by a snarling mutt and shouting incoherently about some grievance that you don't reach some judgmental conclusions pdq. Doing so might save you and others from injury. Looking at it the other way round, were I to walk into a public inquiry office, I'd not walk up to everybody in the place in turn, assuming they could deal with me. I'd jump to a conclusion that the person behind the counter was the one for me.

And I don't think that loving diversity and individualism has much to do with the point I am making, unless it implies you come over all judgmental about people who conform to norms, but I'd be the last person to suggest that, based on such flimsy evidence.

(And while I've been waffling away with this, kwackers has made a pretty good post about this.)

Incidentally, hands up everybody who'd be genuinely relaxed if they went to see a brain surgeon, solicitor, children's teacher, (insert any professional person) and a Vyvyan Basterd tribute act pranced in.

I take issue with your statement.
I understand precisely what you are driving at, but I do NOT judge people by the way they look. I may be surprised by someone's appearance, but judge them, never.I love diversity and individualism.
What people do with/to themselves is absolutely no-one elses business, not even yours. Not everyone wants to look/be like you.
We will have to agree to differ.[/quote]

Surely many people judge other people by the way they look and sound all the time, whether rightly or wrongly? (often wrongly IMHO). The media even tries to influence people's perceptions of politicians and other people by referring to where they were born, their religion or class.
Do you remember the Press used to report "Irishman of no fixed abode" when referring to an incident involving an Irish person. I never saw a reference to "Englishman of no fixed abode".
I suspect one of the main reasons why Tony Blair and David Cameron both became PM was because both are tall, quite good-looking in a conventional sense, slim, have their own hair and speak grammatically correct English with a received pronounciation accent.
I suspect that their chances of becoming PM would have been quite slim if they had sported tattoos, paunches and ear metal and spoke ungrammatical English. I suspect people would have judged that these characteristics made them unsuitable and not voted for them.
" Apparently" there's quite a bit of research which demonstrates that taller people who are conventionally good-looking are likely to earn much more than their shorter, uglier counterparts. There's always exceptions of course like that ugly little devil who does the Apprentice on TV.
I suspect one of the reasons why Neil Kinnock didn't become PM was because he was only of average height and balding. Being labelled a "Welsh windbag" by some of the media probably didn't help either. Quenton Letts - sketch writer of the Daily Mail and an English ex-public school boy - ridiculed Speaker Martin by calling him Gorbals Mick, thereby casting aspirations on his class, religion and even country of origin.
Yes, many people cast judgement on others all the time by the way they look, sound and where they come from.
jonty

Good use of "Apparently" there

DD

I can only repeat what I said earlier:-

... I fear your reply here confirms to me that you do not see what I'm saying ...

hubgearfreak wrote:

Doug Deep wrote: <comments removed>.

i was enjoying this debate. then you type this. how sad.

Yes it's good fun though

Regarding the skinhead with hate on the knuckles. If it walks like a duck and quacks it's probably a duck.

Ash28 wrote: ... If it walks like a duck and quacks it's probably a duck.

And if it doesn't quack, it's probably a racing cyclist.

thirdcrank wrote:

Ash28 wrote: ... If it walks like a duck and quacks it's probably a duck.

And if it doesn't quack, it's probably a racing cyclist.

This thread seems to be turning into a bit of a spat. It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone without being offensive ('tolerance'). TBH, the opening comments were a little needlessly provocative, but the majority of posters seemed to be able to rise above this to turn the thread into something worthwhile. However, there was some uncalled for heated reaction which has now been trimmed to prevent further spoiling of the thread.

Jst switching on "notify". Cheers