You sure pulled that out of your arse. I don't like him, get over it.
jeremy clarkson v the mail and mirror
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
You sure pulled that out of your arse. I don't like him, get over it.
Top Gear is sold all over the world for a massive profit, can we quit with the funded by the tax payer garbage? The show pays for itself many times over, many countries pay a large premium to air it at a similar time to the UK. New Zealand gets it within a week or so of us for instance.
I'm confused, should I be offended or not?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,598
- Location
- La France
Can you actually hear him say the name of Guy Gibson's dog?
This for me!
I've heard the rhyme with all sorts of lyrics and fail to see why it should offend anyone, unless it was specifically directed at them! As has been said above, there are far worse lyrics in music all over the world!
Intent is everything with regard to racism and how it is used commonly, so both terms you mention are rightly regarded today as pejorative and racist in common usage. Calling someone British is clearly not the same as calling someone a ****.
Misconception, it's the BBC's most popular show (hell it's Britain's most popular show) and is shown worldwide along with other licensed spin offs and merchandising, it makes a massive profit, it's been self funding for years and it's profits fund other BBC endeavours.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
You're right, intent is everything. If there is no racist intent, then using the word itself does not make one racist. Even if it's said in anger, it doesn't necessarily mean the person is racist. People say all sorts of things in anger which may not represent their views.
I see no difference between the term '****' and 'Brit'. Both words can be used in various contexts, some offensive and some not.
This (un)concious move by the 'progressives' to control language by declaring certain words and phrases to be off-limits is very 1984.
I wish Piers Morgan would shut the **** up. The guy is a complete idiot. It is hardly like he has the rosiest of histories. Clarkson may go too far sometimes but I can't remember him ever have threatened people and their families or put the lives of servicemen at risk.
Unfortunately the prevailing use of the word **** has racist intent and therefore unlike the word Brit, which doesn't, has a different level of acceptance in society. This is true of the word under discussion also, at one time it had little or no racist intent or meaning attached to it, but today the prevailing usage does therefore it can be construed in the vast majority of cases to be unacceptable. It doesn't necessary have to mean the person using the term is ostensibly a racist, the term itself is seen as racist as that is the most common use of the term...it is passive racism, whereby the term is racist albeit the person using it is not a racist by intent.
It's not 1984 or a thoughtcrime, it simply good manners and not being offensive, even if it is through the thoughtless use of such terminology.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,086
- Location
- Nottingham
Overblown nonsense, tbh. It is not clear what he intended to say. Even if he was hinting at the n word, it remains a possibility that he was merely messing around on a take that he knew would not make it to air. Judging by other out takes releases, actors and presenters do this sometimes. The use or implication of a word people find offensive does not in itself prove malice. To hear my dad talk at times, you'd think he is pretty much anti everything but his actions suggest otherwise. Perhaps it is better to judge Clarkson on his actions towards others, rather than a mumbled rhyme that may or may not have contained an offensive word?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Im struggling to think how to fit gook into a sentence and for it not to be racist due to the intent of the sentence.
Basically loaded words we use to describe other races = racist. Words used to describe us = not racist?
The term Brit is the opposite of N*****...whereas one has become a pejorative over time the other has moved away from being a pejorative over time. You even used the word Brit to describe The British in the BNP thread just now, so clearly you don't think it is racist either.
There are plenty of offensive words for the British that are unacceptable, you simply don't hear them very often in this country and most people don't find it necessary to feel offended as they have not been subject to or a victim of the kind of racism either personally or historically that other groups have.
An example of a term now commonly deemed to be racist toward us (and pretty much anyone not Japanese) is Gaijin, which is now seen as unacceptable in Japanese culture but once had no more meaning than being 'Not Japanese'. The intent changed in its common usage therefore the acceptance of the word changed also. This can work both ways.
Last edited:
While I'm a firm believing in the importance of the context used, in the case of Clarkson he hasn't done himself any favours from his previous comments (I actually don't think he did mean it in a racist way in this case).
I can't really give an informed view as to if it is offensive, being a while straight male I've never experienced the usage of any derogatory terms in popular culture aimed against me - really I don't think I'm in a position to say what is 'offensive' or able to say if other have the right or not to be in this case.
One thing which does seem the case, it's much easier to ignore racial slurs if you are never on the receiving end of them.
I can't really give an informed view as to if it is offensive, being a while straight male I've never experienced the usage of any derogatory terms in popular culture aimed against me - really I don't think I'm in a position to say what is 'offensive' or able to say if other have the right or not to be in this case.
One thing which does seem the case, it's much easier to ignore racial slurs if you are never on the receiving end of them.
Looking at the Mirror's front page today just makes me sick. Don't get me wrong any paper should be able to say what they think, but the way they do it makes it looks like it's fact, and will turn the x million people without an opinion on the subject again Clarkson.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,478
Or perhaps it is easier to ignore them when you are on the receiving end repeatedly?
It does seem like a lot of the 'anti racist' fight in the media is from white people being offended on behalf of non white people.
Most non-white people I am friends with just laugh at people for being pathetic if they are on the receiving end of a racial slur.
It does appear to be a very British thing to be so offended at the possible offense a person whom you do not know may have caused to someone else whom you do not know.
Being offended is very kitsch these days.
Rightly if he is making obvious racist comments he should be dealt with. But the premise of this case seems to be that he was reciting a rhyme with a historical racist slur, and whilst trying not to say it, said it. Seems more like a Freudian slip than racism to me, particularly considering the context of it's use.
But the media being the media I can see how it will be misrepresented by their agenda. I think it is a damning indictment of the British public if these kinds of non-stories sell newspapers though.
Nothing to do with being offended, I'm simply stating that I'm not in a position to say if another has the right to be offended or not for something I've never had the misfortune to experience.
A few friends of yours?, if I could name 4 friends of mine who have been offended does that over-ride your view?.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,086
- Location
- Nottingham
I agree. Dishonest reporting at its worst really. I mean, they blatantly misrepresent what he is apologising for and suggest that he admitted to saying it. They even describe it as a u-turn from previously denying it, when listening to the video makes it clear that the apology (right or wrong) is for failing in his efforts to avoid offence. Whether or not you believe him, the Mirror are basically lying.
Edit: Even their poll is dishonest as it uses a leading question, on the basis that the word was actually used. Still, the response was at least resoundingly negative.
Last edited:
No, the premise is that he was reciting a rhyme with a historical racist slur, and decided to replace it so not to cause offence, he did three takes, two where he mumbled another word instead and one where he said "teacher" instead. Upon watching the clips back he realised that on one of the mumbling takes it turned out that the non racist word he mumbled actually sounded sort of like the racist one they were avoiding using, so to avoid any chance of causing offence for certain he decided (as it is actually his show) to use the "teacher" take and instructed the production team as such.
Then the media got a hold of the take where the non-racist replacement for the racist word sounds "sort of maybe possibly similar" to the real word and have caused a massive hoo-ha about it in order to sell papers.
