Perhaps the only way we can rise to it is by strengthening the bonds of trust we have with anyone around us, being honest about our limitations, being very conscious of how this atomisation has become so prevalent. Included in this is a consciousness of how beholden we have become to the financial system, particularly our mindset of constant lack and scarcity. "Cost Of Living Crisis!!!" It leads us sociopathically to attempt to screw over others and forget that we are all in this together. Just to feel we have enough money not to go under at some point. Add to that how the education system encourages us to compete with our peers just to find a place in life, and the countless TV shows reinforcing this mindset...
With the Race Relations Act an injured person could sue for racism with no need for a witness. Before the RR Act, racist behaviour always needed a witness to be successful. I don't know what the situation is for sexist behaviour (words and actions.)
What J said to N was definitely sexist. Racist and sexist behaviour have always succeeded (racists and misogynists have always got away with their behaviour) due to 1) lack of witnesses, and 2) the claim that what was said was 'just banter' or 'just a joke' or 'just something between us', 'something cultural which she didn't get' etc. Any changes in the law which make racist and sexist behaviour punishable are a good idea.
People will use the law to get justice and money. Perhaps one cannot always describe what happens as the fault of governments and bureaucrats wanting to govern making us all siblings. The more aware and educated people become, the more assertive they will be (hhopefully) and use facilities for their own advantage. And quite right too that this should happen since such assertiveness is necessary to challenge a system which continues to be hierarchical and exploitative.
Compensation culture -payouts galore-as grievances , disputes and hurty feelings result in the litigious sagas of the kind described here.
In th People's Republic of Scotland, the great gagging order has achieved a stupendously silly waste of police time ,as ancient enmities are dug up, dusted off and reported, while shoplifting, bad behaviour and general nuisance are enjoying a free pass.
The First Minister is habitually outraged and furious and is now presiding over the predictably disastrous consequences of the Hate Crime Act; no doubt utterly spurious compensation claims will clog up the courts.
Separate, but related ... In the 90s me then wife wanted to go part-time after the birth of our child. This was refused. Her union took it to industrial tribunal, where she won the 'right' to go part-time. This was on the basis of an anti-discrimation ruling that a man would not have made the request under identical circumstances, so the issue wouldn't have come up for a man. Therefore she was being discriminated against. I was delighted, of course, but also failed to understand how this was even rational, let alone possible.
Your excellent yet depressing vignette put me in mind of the case of that man name of Rex, who, though deficient in sex, was accused for exposure. His judge, with composure, ruled "de minimis not curat lex".
Perhaps the only way we can rise to it is by strengthening the bonds of trust we have with anyone around us, being honest about our limitations, being very conscious of how this atomisation has become so prevalent. Included in this is a consciousness of how beholden we have become to the financial system, particularly our mindset of constant lack and scarcity. "Cost Of Living Crisis!!!" It leads us sociopathically to attempt to screw over others and forget that we are all in this together. Just to feel we have enough money not to go under at some point. Add to that how the education system encourages us to compete with our peers just to find a place in life, and the countless TV shows reinforcing this mindset...
With the Race Relations Act an injured person could sue for racism with no need for a witness. Before the RR Act, racist behaviour always needed a witness to be successful. I don't know what the situation is for sexist behaviour (words and actions.)
What J said to N was definitely sexist. Racist and sexist behaviour have always succeeded (racists and misogynists have always got away with their behaviour) due to 1) lack of witnesses, and 2) the claim that what was said was 'just banter' or 'just a joke' or 'just something between us', 'something cultural which she didn't get' etc. Any changes in the law which make racist and sexist behaviour punishable are a good idea.
People will use the law to get justice and money. Perhaps one cannot always describe what happens as the fault of governments and bureaucrats wanting to govern making us all siblings. The more aware and educated people become, the more assertive they will be (hhopefully) and use facilities for their own advantage. And quite right too that this should happen since such assertiveness is necessary to challenge a system which continues to be hierarchical and exploitative.
Compensation culture -payouts galore-as grievances , disputes and hurty feelings result in the litigious sagas of the kind described here.
In th People's Republic of Scotland, the great gagging order has achieved a stupendously silly waste of police time ,as ancient enmities are dug up, dusted off and reported, while shoplifting, bad behaviour and general nuisance are enjoying a free pass.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/21/trans-rapist-isla-bryson-claims-hate-crime-victim/
Isla Bryson/Adam Graham is now claiming to be a hate crime victim ,even receiving an apology from the prison governor.
Finally, Holyrood's Primus inter Pares is 'utterly angry' about the Horizon Post Office software, but, unfortunately, got his facts wrong:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/humiliation-humza-yousaf-post-office-32657520
The First Minister is habitually outraged and furious and is now presiding over the predictably disastrous consequences of the Hate Crime Act; no doubt utterly spurious compensation claims will clog up the courts.
Separate, but related ... In the 90s me then wife wanted to go part-time after the birth of our child. This was refused. Her union took it to industrial tribunal, where she won the 'right' to go part-time. This was on the basis of an anti-discrimation ruling that a man would not have made the request under identical circumstances, so the issue wouldn't have come up for a man. Therefore she was being discriminated against. I was delighted, of course, but also failed to understand how this was even rational, let alone possible.
Your excellent yet depressing vignette put me in mind of the case of that man name of Rex, who, though deficient in sex, was accused for exposure. His judge, with composure, ruled "de minimis not curat lex".