Clarkson: Racist

Author
Discussion

EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

134 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
fido said:
Erm, no according to my Thai friends - it just means Europeans - hence Farang Bars are where white people hang out. It's not meant to be offensive. Though like everything else it's all about the context.


Edited by fido on Thursday 24th April 11:45
Indeed, 'gaijin' in Japan is mostly used without insult, although when a elderly chap refered to me as such while talking to someone else at a polite lunch, he caught himself and apologised. It's a bit like 'foreigner' - unloaded in ordinary use until a hateful context loads it up with negative meaning.

'Slope' is very different though - I've always assumed it's a reference to eye shape (c.f. the infamous gaffe by that other famous non-racist, the Duke of Edinburgh), and a way of dehumanising the 'enemy'.

DonkeyApple

54,917 posts

168 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
Perhaps they should have stood by it and taken their chances under the equality act? wink


'It wasn't because he isn't' - what does that even mean?
It means that to actually be racist it has to be issued with the intent of being racist.

It's why an identical sentence said by Joanna Lumley and Nick Griffin could have two totally different contexts.
You know his intentions?
And you do?

Met him enough times to certainly know that he isn't a racist.

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
Perhaps they should have stood by it and taken their chances under the equality act? wink


'It wasn't because he isn't' - what does that even mean?
It means that to actually be racist it has to be issued with the intent of being racist.

It's why an identical sentence said by Joanna Lumley and Nick Griffin could have two totally different contexts.
You know his intentions?
And you do?

Met him enough times to certainly know that he isn't a racist.
You said it needed intent which it doesn't, but you don't know what his intent was anyway (the apology accepts he was referring to the guy) and yet you claim to certainly know he is not a racist.

Regardless of 'him not being like that' (oft used and meaningless) if not a racist is what he said racist?




mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
God, this is tedious. So much guff over a non event.

rohrl

8,711 posts

144 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
God, this is tedious. So much guff over a non event.
As you keep telling us. Goodness knows why you keep clicking on a thread which bores you so much.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
rohrl said:
mybrainhurts said:
God, this is tedious. So much guff over a non event.
As you keep telling us. Goodness knows why you keep clicking on a thread which bores you so much.
It's like picking scabs and worth a peep for the odd bit of sanctimonious crap that sometimes emerges to trigger a right good chuckle. Nursey tells me right good chuckles are good for one's constitution...

I await the Pointy Fingers of Condemnation for the use of the term nursey next. First to say misogynist wins a night out with a sweaty feminist wrestler...

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
First to say misogynist wins a night out with a sweaty feminist wrestler...
Pics, or no deal.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Sorry, she crushed the camera with her thunder thighs....hehe

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Misogynist.

What do I win?

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Misogynist.

What do I win?
A night out with mattnunn.

DonkeyApple

54,917 posts

168 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
You said it needed intent which it doesn't, but you don't know what his intent was anyway (the apology accepts he was referring to the guy) and yet you claim to certainly know he is not a racist.

Regardless of 'him not being like that' (oft used and meaningless) if not a racist is what he said racist?
Of course it needs intent, just as much as it needs context.

So, what was the intent?

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
WinstonWolf said:
Misogynist.

What do I win?
A night out with mattnunn.
It's worse than I feared biggrin

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
crap that sometimes emerges to trigger a right good chuckle.
The word is 'tregro'!

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
You said it needed intent which it doesn't, but you don't know what his intent was anyway (the apology accepts he was referring to the guy) and yet you claim to certainly know he is not a racist.

Regardless of 'him not being like that' (oft used and meaningless) if not a racist is what he said racist?
Of course it needs intent, just as much as it needs context.

So, what was the intent?
the apology makes clear he was not (as some would have it here) only referring to the bridge,
that's all the intent and context that's relevant


intent to be racist or something else is entirely irrelevant other than to scale


Would he, you or I call someone that in the street?
That its a broadcast reference is even worse.


Claiming he, the producers or the BBC shouldn't have been aware before broadcast that it's an offensive term is absolute bks.

DonkeyApple

54,917 posts

168 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
You said it needed intent which it doesn't, but you don't know what his intent was anyway (the apology accepts he was referring to the guy) and yet you claim to certainly know he is not a racist.

Regardless of 'him not being like that' (oft used and meaningless) if not a racist is what he said racist?
Of course it needs intent, just as much as it needs context.

So, what was the intent?
the apology makes clear he was not (as some would have it here) only referring to the bridge,
that's all the intent and context that's relevant


intent to be racist or something else is entirely irrelevant other than to scale


Would he, you or I call someone that in the street?
That its a broadcast reference is even worse.


Claiming he, the producers or the BBC shouldn't have been aware before broadcast that it's an offensive term is absolute bks.
Right. Firstly, please find where I have ever argued that it was accidental. You can't because from the outset I have said it was obviously deliberate.

Secondly, please find where I have said it was acceptable. You can't because from the outset I have not.

Now bugger off.

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
You said it needed intent which it doesn't, but you don't know what his intent was anyway (the apology accepts he was referring to the guy) and yet you claim to certainly know he is not a racist.

Regardless of 'him not being like that' (oft used and meaningless) if not a racist is what he said racist?
Of course it needs intent, just as much as it needs context.

So, what was the intent?
the apology makes clear he was not (as some would have it here) only referring to the bridge,
that's all the intent and context that's relevant


intent to be racist or something else is entirely irrelevant other than to scale


Would he, you or I call someone that in the street?
That its a broadcast reference is even worse.


Claiming he, the producers or the BBC shouldn't have been aware before broadcast that it's an offensive term is absolute bks.
Right. Firstly, please find where I have ever argued that it was accidental. You can't because from the outset I have said it was obviously deliberate.

Secondly, please find where I have said it was acceptable. You can't because from the outset I have not.

Now bugger off.
deliberate and unacceptable but somehow some other intent you wish for there to have been makes what difference?

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
deliberate and unacceptable but somehow some other intent you wish for there to have been makes what difference?
Because JC is most likely on the whole of it not racist. What he did was incredibly stupid and pathetic, but the need to force that in the show comes (I think) from some bizarre attempt at 1970's comedy. Not from some malignant bigotry from within where he places other 'races' on a lower level. He made a really st joke, he tried to worm away from it, but in the end they have owned up (sort of). If he has any sense he won't do it again.
Some might reckon it helps feed into a passive racism, but I reckon the backlash that has been (justifiably) created has let everyone know (apart from a few dinosaurs) that slurs of that kind aren't really wanted in prime-time telly. It's a storm in a teacup that JC (and others) will hopefully have learned from.

DonkeyApple

54,917 posts

168 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
You said it needed intent which it doesn't, but you don't know what his intent was anyway (the apology accepts he was referring to the guy) and yet you claim to certainly know he is not a racist.

Regardless of 'him not being like that' (oft used and meaningless) if not a racist is what he said racist?
Of course it needs intent, just as much as it needs context.

So, what was the intent?
the apology makes clear he was not (as some would have it here) only referring to the bridge,
that's all the intent and context that's relevant


intent to be racist or something else is entirely irrelevant other than to scale


Would he, you or I call someone that in the street?
That its a broadcast reference is even worse.


Claiming he, the producers or the BBC shouldn't have been aware before broadcast that it's an offensive term is absolute bks.
Right. Firstly, please find where I have ever argued that it was accidental. You can't because from the outset I have said it was obviously deliberate.

Secondly, please find where I have said it was acceptable. You can't because from the outset I have not.

Now bugger off.
deliberate and unacceptable but somehow some other intent you wish for there to have been makes what difference?
Just what on earth are you whittering on about?

You have gotten yourself very confused.

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Halb said:
pork911 said:
deliberate and unacceptable but somehow some other intent you wish for there to have been makes what difference?
Because JC is most likely on the whole of it not racist. What he did was incredibly stupid and pathetic, but the need to force that in the show comes (I think) from some bizarre attempt at 1970's comedy. Not from some malignant bigotry from within where he places other 'races' on a lower level. He made a really st joke, he tried to worm away from it, but in the end they have owned up (sort of). If he has any sense he won't do it again.
Some might reckon it helps feed into a passive racism, but I reckon the backlash that has been (justifiably) created has let everyone know (apart from a few dinosaurs) that slurs of that kind aren't really wanted in prime-time telly. It's a storm in a teacup that JC (and others) will hopefully have learned from.
if they and the BBC staff who signed off on its broadcast didn't realise, i'm surprised it and similar are not heard more often on other programs.

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Just what on earth are you whittering on about?

You have gotten yourself very confused.
a dog doesn't care why its getting kicked wink