[Official] Singapore Grand Prix 2023: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 16 of 23

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Indeed, If you don't plan to (or find you can't) make the corner, you can pass lots of people. However I don't think that was Hamilton's intention, you yourself asked whether he did it on purpose and said no. I also don't think the pass was earned unfairly either, instead Hamilton was being over ambitious.

I've watched the start again, this includes the aerial shot of the grid and Martin Brundle says he thought Hamilton was under control but had nowhere to go, as Russell had claimed the apex.

I think we are saying the same thing here? The only part that I am unsure about is the "earned unfairly" part. To be clear, I don't think the pass should have stood for the reasons I mentioned. I also don't think Lewis planned this in advance. As I said he made an attempt, did manage to get ahead, but in a way that would not have been successful. So the pass was rightly determined to not have been executed to the required standards.

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Perez does seem to be chief whinger amongst a whole gridful of wingers at the moment. And really Markogate was blown out of all proportion. If Marko had ascribed the same characteristic to (say) George Russell "because he is English", would there have been the same fuss?

It's a good point to make. There is somewhat of a double standard going on, but I don't think it is fully a double standard as it is a complex topic.

There seems to be rules as who you can punch at and if it is OK or not. If your target is in a position of power (i.e. economically, militarily, etc.), then punching up at them seems to be socially acceptable. If if someone is on the other end of that scale, then punching down is not OK.

So for example, if some feel the USA is in a position of power then you can make comments such as "Americans are lazy and have short attention spans" and generally get away with it. Not that I agree with that generalization and I am offended when I hear it (as an American).

But lets say that some South American countries (or the entire region as a whole) may be further down on this scale. So comments like what Marko did (even if he got the geography wrong) is not acceptable. It's punching down.

Even putting countries or regions on this scale is probably not appropriate. It is just another way to rank "good vs. bad" and allow for the punch up vs. down logic.

So a comment about George being "English" may not be viewed as hurtful as that might be punching up or maybe sideways? (Marko might still think he is punching down )

And we here will commonly call out Ferrari for being a trainwreck as they are "Italian". Is that OK? We act like it is (and I expect I can find an example of me being guilty of this if I look for it). But in the end, none of these derogatory generalizations are healthy or should be acceptable. But at the same time the world is not a homogenous place. There are real differences that can be affixed to cultural and/or geography. And to apply those pros/cons in discussions without seeming to be a bigot is very hard to do.

A good example of cultural differences having real world impacts is the relationship between a superior and subordinate in commercial aircraft cockpits. This is a real issue that has been studied. In short, cultures that make it hard for a subordinate (co-pilot) to express disagreement with a superior (pilot) results in accidents that could be avoided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact...viation_safety

So as we circle back around, does that mean it is OK for someone like Marko to say what he said? Is what he was saying accurate? I think for most, we realize that it is likely that Marko was saying what he was saying with malicious intent. It's like the quote about pornography. It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. His comments was meant to be derogatory.

But lets say he didn't mean it to be derogatory. Lets pretend there was some data to back up his assertions. Then it falls into the next trap that you just don't talk about some things due to the larger social contract reasons. In short, don't say it as there is no way to say it without looking like an idiot.

I don't know what the right answer is here. What I do feel relatively confident on (even if it's just a personal opinion) is that Marko is an idiot, likely a bigot and what he said regarding Perez deserved the level of outrage it received.

Richard