30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
The problem is, it isn't.
Boy bands offended me.
I'll call the police, that's right five of them on tv.
I'll be out the front door traumatised.
We all have subjectivity but that does not in anyway reduce the capacity for offense and he should have calmed his offered views down. Call me whatever but it's not particularly good humour that I think has place on tea time TV regardless of the audience.
You just said its subjective, so of course everything can be offensive as its subjective.
Have you read the transcript yet. Obviously not.
Offence when it causes offence to such small numbers needs to be ignore.
Or do you want it legislate against.
Do I need to post Steve Hughes video clip again. It's probably been posted more than any other video on this site over the last few years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
What, the Steve Hughes clip that he basically stole from Stephen Fry?
Either way I've never seen a news report saying bankers want apologies from those that have suggested/stated they should be shot/executed/murdered etc that are regularly written and stated by the media etc.
No, I cannot empathise with stupidity.
Taking offence at extreme language is not stupid.
Stick it over any other group and you would probably achieve the same thing.
I'm describing your list what offends you, and pointing out that what offends you is probably irrelevent to others. People are different, that aspect alone as you describes does not remove the perception of others.
Yes I have read it, how is it obvious I have not? Hence my comment on 'BBC News doesn't like him'; because they seem to be fudging the "context" also by cutting the sequence short.
He can offer them as third person arguments if he likes he is still responsible for his language, which there have been apologies for.
Why should an individual lose that right?
What? Legislate against what? I don't really want anything, I've already said he's a tube and what he said was wrong. As long as there is an apology for the behavour which there has been then that's it closed as far as I'm concerned.
Not got a clue, but post away by all means..
I've seen them on air where they complain about their vilification...
No but watching him change spark plugs... I think he'd be a bit ham fisted at it..
I did not hear any extreme language.....you really need to watch it tbh.
If people take offense to that, then people should take a look at themselves and stop taking everything so seriously.
If you want to be offended then by all means be so...that doesn't mean it was actually offensive though.
Shooting people infront of their families isn't normal language to me for teatime telly. I have watched it on the BBC earlier.
To you it wasn't, I think we've established that. I'm not offended, but I realise others are.
Difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Now you're whining about the sentiment of it? Oh diddums.
No I think that was covered before, it's not sentiment in that statement but suitability. Appropriateness.
There is a huge chasm between being inappropiate and being intentionally offensive.
Jeremy Clarkson is inappropiate all the time...to take offence at it is just daft.
lolclarkson........
That is pretty much the only sensible response.
I realise others are also.....I also realise they ate either offended because they are too daft to know better or are offended because it suits their poliitcal leaning...
If offence is subjective and you don't want legislation. Then what exactly do you want to happen?
Other than minority groups being ignored what can happen.
He apologised that people got offended. See what he did there.
Steve Hughes is a stand up comedian. Shame it cuts the first bit of about collective groups.
Other than minority groups being ignored what can happen.
He apologised that people got offended. See what he did there.
Steve Hughes is a stand up comedian. Shame it cuts the first bit of about collective groups.
I thought no swearing!!clarckson and little more of it.
If others are upset at it then I can understand given there are already moral problems because of common perception in places like the public sector.
I think political leaning covers this whole discussion right now. Regardless, if it is a political bent why did the BBC of all people succumb?
Funny chap.
Although I didn't realise he was the moral philosopher of our time.
All I said was not much other than his language was stupid and unacceptable, I don't think the comedian refutes that in itself.
The BBC obviously give their viewers too much credit to know the difference between satire and offence.