h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This has all the hallmarks of another continuing thread

http://twitter.com/joehullait/status/466208844675547136
Someone finds a banknote with a racist comment written on it and posts a picture to Twitter.

First point: Was it really necessary to name the bank? It could have come from any ATM.

Second point: It seems to me that some of the people leaving comments underneath the original tweet... you know what, I really don't like that word when used in that context, I'll just call them posts. It looks like some of the people leaving comments underneath the original post are under the impression that banks still count all their money by hand, and are able to visually inspect each one of the millions of notes that pass through their hands.

Well, no. Even if they were counting notes the old fashioned way - by hand with a rubber thimble on the index finger, it's doubtful that what was written on that note wouldn't be seen, and yet some of the Twitterati in that conversation can't see beyond their dogma and assumptions to make that common sense connection.

Ignorance and prejudice isn't unique to the right wing

And, of course, someone from the bank has to come in and do some damage limitation. Even though there's no damage.

The worst bill I ever got in change, I did go back to the business that passed it to me and demanded they exchange it. The reason was, I strongly suspected that no other business would want to accept it. Why? It was covered in dried blood.

Makes a bit of racist doodling seem a bit more acceptable, at least as far as the value of the currency.

*N.B. I'm using the word "acceptable" in the sense that I would be more willing to accept the bill, not that I find racism acceptable.

Just wanted to clear that up.

But given the context of the "written note" on the bank note it could have referred to any small black fatherless life form, E:G Rattus rattus, iTS joehullait that should be vilified for putting the idea out there for others to copy/comment on and come to the wrong conclusion had he kept his trap shut and just presented the note to be changed all would be well..

Yeah, the original twit did say that he spent it on a croissant.

and put on my mental list not to watch "Creator and voice of new BBC sitcom Scot Squad. Series coming this year." as is bound to be pure unadulterated "fertilizer" given the tweets from its author...

I agree, logicus, that the original post was pretty pointless, and a red rag to all the left-wing, right-on, holier-than-thou twits who condemn anything they don't like with barely a moment's consideration and make ridiculous comments, assertions and comparisons, jumping to conclusions faster than the speed of light and generalising everything, but that seems to be the way things are

I follow a few people who are supposedly intelligent and... what's the word? Oh Bob, this happens more and more often these days. Let's go with discerning. I don't think it's the exact word I was looking for but it'll do. Anyway. These people (I'm not talking about Dawkins btw), despite their reputation for being on the ball, aren't always clever or in possession of the daily requirement of common sense, and will post something that makes me because all it's doing is reinforcing prejudice and... is there a word for a propensity for jumping to conclusions and making wild assumptions?

A proper word, I mean, not 'pillock'

This piece, from The Observer, is currently being re-posted all over Twitter by the usual suspects http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/why-is-ukip-scared-of-a-good-argument

A lot of it is very worthy and I'm in agreement with most of what it has to say, but if you hadn't first read Michael Abberton's version of the police visit http://axeofreason.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/you-are-not-allowed-to-read-this-blog.html you'd have a twisted idea of what happened, a version that can only generate incorrect assumptions.

Compare this:
"The police explained that I hadn't broken any law - there was no charge to answer and it really wasn't a police matter.

They asked me to 'take it down' but I said I couldn't do that as it had already been retweeted and appropriated, copied, many times and I no longer had any control of it (I had to explain to one of the officers what Twitter was and how it worked). They said that they couldn't force me to take it down anyway.

I asked if I could tweet about the visit. The straight answer was 'no', as this might appear prejudicial in light of the upcoming election and the police must appear to remain neutral. But they couldn't stop me from doing so, as I had Freedom of Speech. Incredulously, I said, "...but you must realise how this looks!" One shrugged, the other looked embarrassed.

As they were getting up to leave I asked for clarification - was this in relation to possible copyright infringement - and they were very clear on that point. It wasn't, and they didn't see how it could be. And even if it were, again it would not be a police but a civil matter.

I'd like to be absolutely clear - the police officers were extremely professional and polite and I couldn't fault their behaviour in any way."

With this:
"The officers told him to take the tweet down, he said, and to make sure he told no one about their sinister visit either."

See what I mean? If you hadn't first read Abberton's blog, what sort of an impression would you now be forming about the visit, about the role of the police in this matter? Abberton is falling himself to make it clear the two officers who visited him didn't feel comfortable with what they'd been ordered to do. The piece by Nick Cohen omits that completely.

But, naturally, under each repost of the Observer piece by all those you'd expect to repost it, there are plenty of 'Yeah, right on!' type comments that tell me those people have probably let their prejudice (all coppers are pigs/tools of the government/vote Tory) get in the way of their reason.

Oh Twitter.

Excuse me while I try something.

Bastard.

So we can post 'bastard', but not the multiple of the word?

On reflection, given that a large part of that piece by Nick Cohen is about political correctness and how it can stifle argument and discourse, the irony of why we can't post words like the plural of bastard - 'some people' (who?) 'might' find it offensive (but we don't know for sure).

...is not lost on me.

I have often thought that you should be able to use any word as defined in the greater OED, that should solve all our problems.

In the interests of balance (oh, BBC), a very fine use of Twitter
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bn4T-CgCEAAZcvy.jpg:large

What a good idea.

For the lazy...

http://bit.ly/morganfire for the images. The view above is under #morganfire2

AAAAaaand, that didn't take long.

https://twitter.com/futuredave/status/469103272012566528/photo/1


(There are also reports of rampant selfies and penii appearing with that hashtag.)

http://twitter.com/futuredave/status/469103272012566528/photo/1

You might also have seen this earlier today
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoF_zqWIEAE0sTO.jpg:large

Not today, but it looks familiar.


OH, NO! There goes a Peugot!

Well, if you haven't seen it today, you will when you check any reposts on Twitter from me