Siobhán Sarelle 🏳️‍⚧️

Uh oh, you wrote ‘managed’.

The end is nigh.

It's like Labour have decided to become the Tories of 30 years ago with.

Or maybe just Tories.

Looks like somebody on Labour’s marketing team has been injecting marijuana again

I know you’ve said bye, but I want to clarify something:

The ethics I’m concerned with here, are about people having more control over how they are portrayed, seen, and heard in public (including on social media), rather than just understanding public opinion.

I am merely asking for better.

Laters!

In this particular case, if my aim is to promote The Green Party, or ‘The Left’, and mitigate risk there, and I view a risk that the result of the video would be to not be worthy of those aims, and instead cause an unnecessary, divisive social media argument, I would not publish the video.

Now, it does then depend on context. I would weight up the need to publish the video, against the lack of explicit consent, and the risks of publishing the video.

If I feel there’s not enough benefit to go ahead, I don’t publish the video.

I may walk away from the situation without giving the other person to ask me from final consent.

Here’s where it perhaps diverges, because the default in no consent is given. Therefore as the interviewer, I would not assume consent is given.

Maybe your opinion of what consent is, and what is best, is just different to mine.

Mine is that I could consent to being filmed, I might not be happy with the result, but I would like to have final consent on whether it’s made public.

I find the use of “near’ in “near irrelevant”, interesting.

You think I am embarrassing myself. I am not in fact embarrassing myself.

Maybe you’re embarrassed on my behalf, that is entirely up to you, but I’m not sure why that might be.

Owen isn’t stupid, he’s intelligent.

He’s also fallible, and I observe that attitudes around consent and ethics, are often somewhat lacking, including among people on the left.

I recognise though, that I cannot have complete empathy with someone I assume is a white working class cis woman.

Well, I can empathise with white working class and cis.

And with white working class and trans woman. Since that’s me.

Yes, I was applying how I might feel.

I see nothing wrong with this as such. I am simply using the empathy skills I have, to try to understand how it might feel, plus I’m considering the general ethics of interviewing the public.

Either way, I think we both have an assumption, which at present, cannot be checked.

My assumption is that it is plausible that Owen Jones did not seek consent to publish the video, perhaps only to film it, and possibly did not consider the consequences of doing so either.

In possibly the worst case scenario, there’s a war, millions are dead, and the victor, rather than showing the gravity, and seriousness this deserves, acts without humility, which I think undermines everyone and perpetuates the conditions in which war arises.

A word that comes to mind here, is the word, “humility”.

I have people who present themselves in such a way that causes conflict with me. Sometimes I can see reasonable, or at least valid points.

But then sometimes they perceive that they have ‘won’ a fight, then act without humility about it.

Some politicians though, seem to have a model based on creating a situation where there are so many points of failure, they cannot fail to fail.

Perhaps interestingly, I see some connection between Owen’s behaviour, responses to it, and the subject of how political candidates can be held to certain standards that are at some point, likely to not meet. Such as always being considerate to the point they can’t leave a door open without backlash

Yeah, I think it’s one of the primary reasons I’ve been critical of Owen Jones before, and also relates to why I consciously detach myself from a position which can lead to me placing them on a pedestal.

Collectively that can lead to building a person into a myth that can be shattered.

Yes I agree, in this context, I think it’s reasonable and healthy to ‘call it out’.

While I don’t blame Owen as such, I see that he has particular responsibilities and boundaries, based on the context of his position, and it’s right to hold people to account for this.

In a way, I think I may be warming to Owen Jones more, as a result of this.

I think somewhat safer seeing that a person is fallible, can make silly mistakes, than someone who is fallible, makes mistakes, and acts like they are infallible. Which I think is common in politics.

If Owen had given his choice more consideration, and considered risk management, then he may not have posted the video at all. Maybe he would have though.

It looks to me like the risks have turned into issues that outweigh the benefit.

I am of the opinion, that Owen Jones is a normal, fallible person, and that he may have just reacted to something, not given it enough consideration, then gone ahead and did the thing out of a mixture of frustration (body language suggests this to me), and that it subjectively funny.

Thank you. I am aware of this.

It is though, definitely also about how people communicate and the effect of that on me.

It is also driven by the thing that probably drives a lot of people in politics, and that is the need to be heard and not invalidated.

Some people are likely to react in one way, some in another.

I think there’s an assumption that the point of all this is to change people’s minds too, and I don’t think that’s a safe assumption.

What you have here, is a valid opinion, not a fact, but I think the language you’ve used, sounds like it’s a fact.

I disagree. I didn’t make a conscious choice to interpret your words that way.

I reacted, due to who am I.

Does this make me ‘wrong’?

No. I feel wrong now though (but that’s not rational, though it’s valid).

Thank you for your words.

Yes, I agree, and on that, every argument I have, is done without the expectation of changing anyone’s mind.

Sometimes what I’m doing is just learning, and actually, I may change my mind having done so.