- Messages
- 17,352
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok, so it's not banned, but the fact they've motioned to replace clapping is bad enough.
and the site receives a small commission
Cure for the clap.
- Thread starter nilagin
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Exactly. Snowflake bull***t
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Can't have that, it would get banned for being racist. We need an alternative. I know, how about clapping.Will standing ovations bebannedreplaced next, because some people will not be able to stand?
kneeling ovation + Jazz hands = Al Jolson singing mammy
sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s all a bit daft really. it seems they are saying BSL clapping is permitted/encouraged but are not banning ‘audible clapping’, which is just clapping really. You have to remember they are only kids even though some of them will never grow up and then become Prime Minister — I mean a PM that hasn’t grown up, difficult to express that.
For years I’ve had difficulty clapping with both hands so I’ve banged the table or whatever, never occurred to me I should have got permission first!
I remember as a student at Southampton that there was outrage and a packed Student Union meeting over a jokey headline in the student rag about public urination that read “Soton man slashed in New Forest”. AFAIRecall the censure motion failed but some were really worked up about it and wanted the paper closed down. Hard to understand now, it was around 1960.
For years I’ve had difficulty clapping with both hands so I’ve banged the table or whatever, never occurred to me I should have got permission first!
I remember as a student at Southampton that there was outrage and a packed Student Union meeting over a jokey headline in the student rag about public urination that read “Soton man slashed in New Forest”. AFAIRecall the censure motion failed but some were really worked up about it and wanted the paper closed down. Hard to understand now, it was around 1960
.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I think this should be carried over to Parliament, no clapping, no banging of tables.. Can you just imagine all the MP's sitting there doing jazz hands?
It's make live coverage a bit more entertaining at least
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Where does it say that clapping is banned at Oxford?
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
look at the quotes and you will see no mention of any ban.
That's because there isn't one....
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What about Manchester University passing a motion to ban clapping in 2018.
Regardless of which, the article mentions the students still had a mandate to encourage silent clapping, because it is more inclusive. Snowflake bull***t.
- Messages
- 23,525
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Isn't use of 'jazz hands' cultural appropriation?
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
Why is it bad if it does make people hearing impaired, anxious, or suffer from anything which might make loud noises uncomfortable at the event feel more included?
Last edited by a moderator:
sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes & no. This link https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/oxford-university-clapping-ban-jazz-hands/ has the headline “Clapping banned at Oxford University and replaced with jazz hands” which is clear enough and there are no funny “quotes” in it, but the story below says “discouraged” and is very unclear.
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
The headline does.
The article says:
"The motion to ‘mandate the encouragement of silent clapping’ was successfully passed by the university’s student union officers, following their first meeting of the year on Tuesday.
It will come apply at student union events, and if successful, rolled out to other societies and events.
Oxford students had argued that alternatives to clapping already existed in some organisations and institutions and that they should follow suit.
It comes after the University of Manchester passed a similar motion in September last year."
No mention of banning other than in the headline and the Snowflakes original post complaining about something which doesn't affect him at all in the slightest.
sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Because I find jazz hands “triggering”?
Edit: to add smiley as apparently some think I was being factual rather than illustrational (made up word!)
Last edited:
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
Don't be such a snowflake then.
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
Let's face it. It's a pointless motion, most people are probably going to clap anyway. It doesn't actually affect anyone on this forum.
But it does highlight how quickly some people are to take offense at things which don't affect them, in so much that they don't even get past the clickbait headline before they decide it must definitely be true, and ironically accuse people of being snowflakes.
But it does highlight how quickly some people are to take offense at things which don't affect them, in so much that they don't even get past the clickbait headline before they decide it must definitely be true, and ironically accuse people of being snowflakes.
- Messages
- 17,352
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Only 3 people have mentioned snowflakes, and you were one of them.
- Messages
- 17,352
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok, it's not bad, it's a brilliant idea.
I Hope it really catches on. I would hate to cause unnecessary suffering to anyone.
Perhaps they'll propose silent cheering at football matches etc next.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And yet you are the one that is really getting your knickers in a twist about it all.
You just naturally assume any articles disagreeing with it are truth.
Could it be that it has all struck a raw note with you and too close to home?
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Can you give the referee a silent whistle while you are at it?
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
And yet everyone carries on as though it were true, despite this being pointed out. Critical thinking is a skill sorely missed in many angry people...
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
The article you posted, says it wasn't banned. Did you even bother to read it?
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
I was referring to the OP, who was triggered enough by a headline, to come on here posting about it calling those who "banned clapping" snowflakes, without even reading the article he was posting himself, which says it wasn't banned if you read any further than the headline.
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
It might be a stupid idea to encourage silent clapping.
They still didn't ban clapping though did they?
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The NUS banned it at one of their meetings in 2017. Recent events is just jumping on the bandwagon.
What makes it even worse and as previously mentioned, they are encouraging the use of Jazz Hands instead, this originates from Al Jolson blacking up to sing in the Jazz Singer, later emulated in the black and white minstrel show which is now considered to be racist.
It is all still indicative of the snowflake society. Just like students being told they can leave the class room if they find certain material upsetting to their sensibility.
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ban applause? What utter claptrap! Professor lashes out as Oxford becomes latest university to insist on 'jazz hands' at student events three years after he warned it was a threat to academic freedom
[QUOTE Frank Furedi ]
Exactly three years ago, I wrote in a newspaper that extreme sensitivity towards students was threatening the integrity and freedom of academic life across the Anglo-American world.
My article was prompted by the growing fashion for universities to introduce so-called ‘safe spaces’ and ‘trigger warnings’ in a misguided effort to protect students from any challenging material or experiences.
One prime example was the decision by University College, London telling those on its ‘archaeology of modern conflict’ course that they would be allowed to leave class if they found the discussion of historical events ‘disturbing’ or ‘traumatising’.
I expressed the concern that such policies, far from reassuring students, were helping to fuel a mood of institutionalised anxiety.
Censorship, meanwhile, was eroding the scope for study.
At the time, I was told I was exaggerating the phenomenon. It was said trigger warnings were just a passing fad, there was nothing to worry about.
But this complacency was misplaced. The habit of treating students as fragile ‘snowflakes’ has accelerated, reaching into every part of the university sector.
A new nadir was reached last week with reports that Oxford University Students Union is to replace clapping with ‘jazz hands’, where participants signal approval by silently waving both hands at the sides of their bodies, palms facing outwards.
The purported justification for this is to avoid offending those who are upset by loud noise.
In the words of the student union’s welfare and equal opportunities officer: ‘The policy was proposed to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping to make events more accessible and inclusive for all, including people who suffer from anxiety.’
Oxford is not the first students’ union to indulge in this kind of grotesque gesture politics. A ban on clapping was imposed by the National Union of Students at its conference in 2017, while last year Manchester University’s union adopted the same approach at its meetings.
But it is a tragedy that Oxford, one of the most revered academic institutions in the world, should have succumbed to this dangerous nonsense.
Some might dismiss ‘jazz hands’ as nothing more than the kind of frivolous, attention-seeking behaviour to which student unions have always resorted.
But the situation is far worse.
The Oxford policy is important because it symbolises our culture’s slide into infantalised decadence, where enfeeblement is celebrated and learned helplessness indulged.
In the current climate of invented grievance, victimhood — no matter how spurious — is a passport to special status on campus.
Students are encouraged to cultivate their vulnerabilities, rather than emphasise their strengths.
By promoting the belief their students cannot cope, universities are robbing undergraduates of their resilience and leaving them ill-prepared for the real world. There is much talk today about mental health, but our campuses are creating emotional minefields with their relentless focus on the potential for distress — even at the sound of clapping hands.
In the words of the student union’s welfare and equal opportunities officer: ‘The policy was proposed to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping to make events more accessible and inclusive for all, including people who suffer from anxiety’ (stock image)
In the words of the student union’s welfare and equal opportunities officer: ‘The policy was proposed to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping to make events more accessible and inclusive for all, including people who suffer from anxiety’ (stock image)
One study in 2015 by the National Union of Students claimed 80 per cent of students had had ‘mental health issues in the previous year’. At exam time in my own university in Kent, there are always long queues to see the team of counsellors, something that did not happen when mental health was less of an obsession.
The ‘jazz hands’ policy is absurd on several other levels.
The tremendous irony, in all this worship of political correctness, is that the origins of ‘jazz hands’ could hardly be less progressive.
The name comes from the 1927 Hollywood movie The Jazz Singer — the first major film with sound — in which renowned white actor Al Jolson appeared ‘blacked-up’ and waving his hands in the manner now approved by Oxford Students Union. The same mix of blackface and jazz hands was later used in the BBC’s The Black And White Minstrel Show, which is today notorious for its racism.
Outside a student union, who could possibly claim any genuine offence at clapping?
Applauding in gratitude, approval or celebration is a basic human instinct that should be cherished rather than banned.
It has been echoed everywhere, from Ancient Rome to the Islamic world. As academics Gary Lupyan and Ilya Rifkin put it: ‘Applause seems to be a remarkably stable facet of human culture’ and ‘has been in existence for millennia’.
It is also an impulse found in people at any age.
One key milestone in the development of babies is their ability to clap their hands.
‘Jazz hands’ are dressed up in the language of tolerance, but it is the refusal to allow applause that is far more likely to cause offence.
Performers — including sports stars, actors, musicians and politicians — rely on the response of their audiences to be at the best.
They are hardly likely to draw inspiration from the damp squib of a show of waggling hands. Indeed, if the Oxford decision were copied in other arenas, much of the theatrical excitement of events would disappear.
What football fans would want to fork out for live games if they were banned from clapping? Theatres would lie empty, the BBC Question Time studio would resemble a morgue.
In truth, there is nothing compassionate about jazz hands.
On the contrary, it is a denial of humanity. The university sector’s willingness to collude with this clapping ban illustrates how far liberties have been eroded in the name of respecting the vulnerable.
An increasingly authoritarian spirit now prevails on campuses.
As the progressive orthodoxy is ruthlessly enforced in an Orwellian manner, debate is suppressed, controversial opinions are left unheard, freedom of speech is eroded and maverick speakers no-platformed.
It is a tragedy that Oxford, one of the most revered academic institutions in the world, should have succumbed to this dangerous nonsense.
Universities should be arenas for lively discussion. Instead they are becoming citadels of conformity.
Last month, in another triumph for dogma, Cambridge University announced it has removed red meat from its cafes and canteens to reduce its ‘carbon footprint’.
Despite Oxford’s blather about social inclusion, jazz hands carry the danger of marginalising the visually impaired, who may welcome loud applause so they can gauge the mood at certain meetings.
For them, silence could be oppressive. But such contradictions are inherent in the tyranny of political correctness.
A victory for the transgender lobby over self-identification can also be seen, from another angle, as a threat to women’s rights and autonomy.
Similarly, respect for religious faith can sometimes descend into theocratic censorship.
The logic of the jazz-hands culture is that almost any activity could potentially be excluded because it might give offence to someone, somewhere.
Anyone who values the traditional liberties of our civilisation should take a stand against this nonsense. Jazz hands deserve derision, not applause.
[QUOTE Frank Furedi ]
Exactly three years ago, I wrote in a newspaper that extreme sensitivity towards students was threatening the integrity and freedom of academic life across the Anglo-American world.
My article was prompted by the growing fashion for universities to introduce so-called ‘safe spaces’ and ‘trigger warnings’ in a misguided effort to protect students from any challenging material or experiences.
One prime example was the decision by University College, London telling those on its ‘archaeology of modern conflict’ course that they would be allowed to leave class if they found the discussion of historical events ‘disturbing’ or ‘traumatising’.
I expressed the concern that such policies, far from reassuring students, were helping to fuel a mood of institutionalised anxiety.
Censorship, meanwhile, was eroding the scope for study.
At the time, I was told I was exaggerating the phenomenon. It was said trigger warnings were just a passing fad, there was nothing to worry about.
But this complacency was misplaced. The habit of treating students as fragile ‘snowflakes’ has accelerated, reaching into every part of the university sector.
A new nadir was reached last week with reports that Oxford University Students Union is to replace clapping with ‘jazz hands’, where participants signal approval by silently waving both hands at the sides of their bodies, palms facing outwards.
The purported justification for this is to avoid offending those who are upset by loud noise.
In the words of the student union’s welfare and equal opportunities officer: ‘The policy was proposed to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping to make events more accessible and inclusive for all, including people who suffer from anxiety.’
Oxford is not the first students’ union to indulge in this kind of grotesque gesture politics. A ban on clapping was imposed by the National Union of Students at its conference in 2017, while last year Manchester University’s union adopted the same approach at its meetings.
But it is a tragedy that Oxford, one of the most revered academic institutions in the world, should have succumbed to this dangerous nonsense.
Some might dismiss ‘jazz hands’ as nothing more than the kind of frivolous, attention-seeking behaviour to which student unions have always resorted.
But the situation is far worse.
The Oxford policy is important because it symbolises our culture’s slide into infantalised decadence, where enfeeblement is celebrated and learned helplessness indulged.
In the current climate of invented grievance, victimhood — no matter how spurious — is a passport to special status on campus.
Students are encouraged to cultivate their vulnerabilities, rather than emphasise their strengths.
By promoting the belief their students cannot cope, universities are robbing undergraduates of their resilience and leaving them ill-prepared for the real world. There is much talk today about mental health, but our campuses are creating emotional minefields with their relentless focus on the potential for distress — even at the sound of clapping hands.
In the words of the student union’s welfare and equal opportunities officer: ‘The policy was proposed to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping to make events more accessible and inclusive for all, including people who suffer from anxiety’ (stock image)
In the words of the student union’s welfare and equal opportunities officer: ‘The policy was proposed to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping to make events more accessible and inclusive for all, including people who suffer from anxiety’ (stock image)
One study in 2015 by the National Union of Students claimed 80 per cent of students had had ‘mental health issues in the previous year’. At exam time in my own university in Kent, there are always long queues to see the team of counsellors, something that did not happen when mental health was less of an obsession.
The ‘jazz hands’ policy is absurd on several other levels.
The tremendous irony, in all this worship of political correctness, is that the origins of ‘jazz hands’ could hardly be less progressive.
The name comes from the 1927 Hollywood movie The Jazz Singer — the first major film with sound — in which renowned white actor Al Jolson appeared ‘blacked-up’ and waving his hands in the manner now approved by Oxford Students Union. The same mix of blackface and jazz hands was later used in the BBC’s The Black And White Minstrel Show, which is today notorious for its racism.
Outside a student union, who could possibly claim any genuine offence at clapping?
Applauding in gratitude, approval or celebration is a basic human instinct that should be cherished rather than banned.
It has been echoed everywhere, from Ancient Rome to the Islamic world. As academics Gary Lupyan and Ilya Rifkin put it: ‘Applause seems to be a remarkably stable facet of human culture’ and ‘has been in existence for millennia’.
It is also an impulse found in people at any age.
One key milestone in the development of babies is their ability to clap their hands.
‘Jazz hands’ are dressed up in the language of tolerance, but it is the refusal to allow applause that is far more likely to cause offence.
Performers — including sports stars, actors, musicians and politicians — rely on the response of their audiences to be at the best.
They are hardly likely to draw inspiration from the damp squib of a show of waggling hands. Indeed, if the Oxford decision were copied in other arenas, much of the theatrical excitement of events would disappear.
What football fans would want to fork out for live games if they were banned from clapping? Theatres would lie empty, the BBC Question Time studio would resemble a morgue.
In truth, there is nothing compassionate about jazz hands.
On the contrary, it is a denial of humanity. The university sector’s willingness to collude with this clapping ban illustrates how far liberties have been eroded in the name of respecting the vulnerable.
An increasingly authoritarian spirit now prevails on campuses.
As the progressive orthodoxy is ruthlessly enforced in an Orwellian manner, debate is suppressed, controversial opinions are left unheard, freedom of speech is eroded and maverick speakers no-platformed.
It is a tragedy that Oxford, one of the most revered academic institutions in the world, should have succumbed to this dangerous nonsense.
Universities should be arenas for lively discussion. Instead they are becoming citadels of conformity.
Last month, in another triumph for dogma, Cambridge University announced it has removed red meat from its cafes and canteens to reduce its ‘carbon footprint’.
Despite Oxford’s blather about social inclusion, jazz hands carry the danger of marginalising the visually impaired, who may welcome loud applause so they can gauge the mood at certain meetings.
For them, silence could be oppressive. But such contradictions are inherent in the tyranny of political correctness.
A victory for the transgender lobby over self-identification can also be seen, from another angle, as a threat to women’s rights and autonomy.
Similarly, respect for religious faith can sometimes descend into theocratic censorship.
The logic of the jazz-hands culture is that almost any activity could potentially be excluded because it might give offence to someone, somewhere.
Anyone who values the traditional liberties of our civilisation should take a stand against this nonsense. Jazz hands deserve derision, not applause.
- Messages
- 17,352
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I posted previously, although not banned, the very idea of replacing clapping with silent applause is ridiculous.
I'm not angry about it. I just don't agree with it.
I should be able to disagree without being considered angry, brainless and lacking in critical thinking.
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
See my edit
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
You certainly can, but the original post that this discussion stems from is nonsense. Nobody is banning anything. The OP got annoyed about a ban (first word in the first post 'Banned') and fails too see that he is the intolerant 'snowflake' that gets 'triggered' by fake news.
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did I say I was annoyed?
No, i actually thought it pathetic. Just like your equally pathetic accusation. And as has been pointed out, in at least one incident it has been banned, elsewhere, the details in the heading of the article were just wrong as to who had actually banned it.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Blimey is this still running? it doesn't take much to trigger some people to take an opposite stance does it? It must be a slow work day !
What about all that canned clapping? can we ban that, or at the very least ban him,
and do us all a favour
However, I accidentally caught the first 10 mins of Steve wright
What about all that canned clapping? can we ban that, or at the very least ban him,
and do us all a favour
DK602
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 550
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hehe:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...KT_cVXEG9xkyrXaDVlLAidjosaPt-qoe6zgK0IN2_pf_0
I wonder if Bose noise cancelling headphones will be available on the NHS soon?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...KT_cVXEG9xkyrXaDVlLAidjosaPt-qoe6zgK0IN2_pf_0
I wonder if Bose noise cancelling headphones will be available on the NHS soon?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,362
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I remember back in primary school ~30 years ago our teachers (who back then were no spring chickens) would request two finger clapping.
I guess the dislike of loud clapping isn't something that is unique to just the "snowflake generation".
I guess the dislike of loud clapping isn't something that is unique to just the "snowflake generation".
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
No it hasn't. A similar misleading report has been linked to. The facts of that "ban" were the same as the one you linked to. In other words, it wasn't a ban, just an encouragement to use a quieter show of appreciation.
I just find it amusing more than anything. Not the so called ban, but the fact you clearly failed to read the article you were linking to, before you posted it here. Since it's only the 4th line in that says it's not a ban of anything.
OP
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You obviously never read my post quoting a professor of sociology, which mentioned an actual ban.
This article which mentions the same professor, mentions two bans.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ace-clapping-with-silent-jazz-hands-w25dsspd0