Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[DanceswithUnix]

I agree. And if it was said, by Clarkson, while making a programme about offensive language looking at the change of it's meaning and usage, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. But he said it while making a car programme.

A car programme? Are we watching the same show? It is essentially a "men behaving badly" style entertainment show with a bit of driving. It is all about things appearing to go wrong when it is all highly scripted and intentional, and blowing up caravans. It is a good formula, but let's face it the cars are just a prop for the hi-jinx.

So as I see it, the show decided to push the boundary, they realised they went too far, they cut the scene, it still blew up in their face. Just seems to be a product of what the show is, I don't get how people can be shocked or surprised. If they aired it, that would be very different. I shudder to think what the script writers must throw out before filming even starts, perhaps we should haul Clarkson up for that as well...

[opel80uk]

So we are all just suckers? Jeez

I never said that. If people infer that, after listening to his apology, that he's not apologising for saying it but apologising for saying something that sounds like it, or whatever it is they think he's apologising for, then that's their prerogative. Perhaps I’m just a cynic.


Could you provide a souce link please. Not that im disputing, I would just be interested to read it as I couldn't see where this was on their site.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...c/128/128i.pdf

And with regards to me saying that regardless of its official standing that it was effectively a tax, it was referred to as such by a number of MP's as recent as 2013 according to wiki:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...#1310215000001

So if you understood the true level to which I intended my statement to be, as I'm sure most did, I'm confused as to the real intention of highlighting its shortfalls?
I'll admit I didn't quantify my statement as best as I could, but I figured that would be assumed given I had just mentioned Hitchens and Fry.

Agreeing with your sentiment of wanting to stop people being intentional offensive for no other reason than to offend people, but disagreeing with how you do that, by telling people that are offended that it's their problem, are 2 completely compatible viewpoints. The intention of me highlighting it is because I profoundly disagree that it's only ever the person offended's issue, and I don't think that, in every case, they should be made to feel that.

[Biscuit]

Agreeing with your sentiment of wanting to stop people being intentional offensive for no other reason than to offend people, but disagreeing with how you do that, by telling people that are offended that it's their problem, are 2 completely compatible viewpoints. The intention of me highlighting it is because I profoundly disagree that it's only ever the person offended's issue, and I don't think that, in every case, they should be made to feel that.

I never suggested we should tell people they are at fault for being offended... I never even specifically said its their fault every time, you just inserted that assumption into my statement and threw an out of context example at me as a scenario then later said you understood the original point of what I was saying....
I said that i felt its the people who are 'offended' that have the problem.
In the context of the thread, and the post, you basically did to me what the tabloid press does to Jezzer

[opel80uk]

I never suggested we should tell people they are at fault for being offended... I never even specifically said its their fault every time, you just inserted that assumption into my statement and threw an out of context example at me as a scenario.
I said that i felt its the people who are 'offended' that have the problem.
In the context of the thread, and the post, you basically did to me what the tabloid press does to Jezzer

I never said 'at fault', I said 'their problem'. Fault was never mentioned. If you are going to accuse me of mis-quoting you, it's probably best to not directly mis-quote me.

Here's what you actually said, copied & pasted from your earlier post: 'I don't really care if people find spoken, written or drawn things offensive. In my opinion the person who is offended is the person with the real problem.'.

I'm simply saying that I disagree with that particular sentiment and there are, IMO, instances when the person who is offended by something said or written, is not the one with the problem.

[Biscuit]

I never said 'at fault', I said 'their problem'. Fault was never mentioned. If you are going to accuse me of mis-quoting you, it's probably best to not directly mis-quote me.

I'm simply saying that I disagree with that particular sentiment and there are, IMO, instances when the person who is offended by something said or written, is not the one with the problem.

Ok but what I said is more of a change of semantics than a change of the meaning, surely we don't have to have a significant debate on the differences between:
"I never suggested we should tell people they are at fault for being offended... I never even specifically said its their fault every time"
and
"I never suggested we should tell people its their problem for being offended... I never even specifically said its their problem every time"

Do we?

Here's what you actually said, copied & pasted from your earlier post: 'I don't really care if people find spoken, written or drawn things offensive. In my opinion the person who is offended is the person with the real problem.'.

So help me out, where exactly did I infer we should tell people its their problem?

Regardless, once again, the snippet is taken out of context, here it is in full context:

Dooms: Sigh. There is far worse offending things going on in the world. Why the hell is everyone so sensitive these days? If you don't like what someone says go "man I don't like that guy" and be done with it.

I would hate to work in proximity to the people that moan every day to the BBC, I probably would of been fired for miss using a word that in another country, in another language means "you are a fat wart".

Me: I agree, I have no idea why it seems to be so acceptable to whinge and whine about things instead of ignoring them and moving on. If things have zero impact on people then they tend not to continue being used in offensive ways.
Christopher Hitchen and Stephen Fry have discussed this at length on various podcasts, and I am actually 100% behind them. I don't really care if people find spoken, written or drawn things offensive. In my opinion the person who is offended is the person with the real problem.

I actually think, in context, it comes across more to the idea that we shouldn't say anything to these people.... But anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I didn't quantify the statement as well as I could. I missed one word:
In my opinion the person who is offended is the generally person with the real problem.

Are we happy, now that this has been specifically and correctly quantified?

[TheAnimus]

So the other day, valentines in fact, a friend and I both found ourselves single this year. In a drunken moment of stupidity we decide to book eurotunnel tickets. Obviously sober the next day, we are off on our road trip. We listened to a lot of music, helps the hours fly by, more so when you consider my friend has more chance to ride my sister, than he does to drive my car, it's a long drive. Some rap music comes on, it features a certain N word, we know the lyrics, we sing along. (Yes we are as pathetic as that opening scene in office space)

Are we now racist? No, of course we are not. It doesn't matter what colour we are at all, the context is harmless.

This is the issue, some people really do try to take things too far in terms of that could cause offense, this music was something we all grew up with, it's part of our culture, our heritage, it doesn't mean anything negative (ironically this is outside of the artists control).

If someone uses a nursery rhyme, the context is that the two cars are so alike, you might as well use such a childish device to delineate them, it's not about classifying some humans as 'sub'.

That negative context has to be put on it by the professional victim brigade.

[opel80uk]

Ok but what I said is more of a change of semantics than a change of the meaning, surely we don't have to have a significant debate on the differences between:
"I never suggested we should tell people they are at fault for being offended... I never even specifically said its their fault every time"
and
"I never suggested we should tell people its their problem for being offended... I never even specifically said its their problem every time"

Do we?

Unless you quantify the statement, like you did at the end of this last post, then an unequivocal statement such as 'I don't really care if people find spoken, written or drawn things offensive. In my opinion the person who is offended is the person with the real problem.' will be taken at face value. But yes you have quantified it, and I still disagree with it. I find it interesting that many people on here sticking up for Clarkson are the people who in the same breath appear to be implying they know what people should and shouldn't be offended by.

So the other day, valentines in fact, a friend and I both found ourselves single this year. In a drunken moment of stupidity we decide to book eurotunnel tickets. Obviously sober the next day, we are off on our road trip. We listened to a lot of music, helps the hours fly by, more so when you consider my friend has more chance to ride my sister, than he does to drive my car, it's a long drive. Some rap music comes on, it features a certain N word, we know the lyrics, we sing along. (Yes we are as pathetic as that opening scene in office space)

Are we now racist? No, of course we are not. It doesn't matter what colour we are at all, the context is harmless.

This is the issue, some people really do try to take things too far in terms of that could cause offense, this music was something we all grew up with, it's part of our culture, our heritage, it doesn't mean anything negative (ironically this is outside of the artists control).

If someone uses a nursery rhyme, the context is that the two cars are so alike, you might as well use such a childish device to delineate them, it's not about classifying some humans as 'sub'.

That negative context has to be put on it by the professional victim brigade.

You are conflating 2 issues. No one can possibly know, apart from Clarkson himself, whether he is racist or not. The issue is whether it appropriate for a BBC presenter to be using that type language (assuming he did say it) whilst at work. It's clearly not, IMO, precisely because it's the sort of language where there can be ambiguity about someones motives for using it. You may well not be a racist, but that fact alone doesn't mean that a black person listening to you, a white person, sing that song for example shouldn't take offence, or should be automatically labelled a member of the professional victim brigade.

[Saracen]

I understand that context is important, such as in V&A exhibitions. Explain to me, if you will, in what context a grown man uses a nursery rhyme to decide which car to pick, whilst using probably the singularly most offensive term to describe black people, all the while presenting a car show? What is the context I am missing?


.....

The context is that that nursery rhyme was used to pick an item from a set of items at pseudo random, from a group of apparently indistinguishable items, or where you couldn't make up your mind. And it was used in a time, and in situations, that had zero racial connotations, unlike today.

It is perhaps the singular most offensive term to describe a black person these days, but it didn't used to be. It was just a stupid rhyme, and whether it was the n-word, or tigger, tiger, or any other number of words subsequently used, was utterly immaterial to the subject being decided, which might be which shirt to wear today, or what meal to have for dinner.

That's the point. Using it these days would be very likely to offend, because the connotations of the word have changed. It's a bit like calling someone "gay". At one point, it mean joyous, full of gaiety, and nobody thought anything more of it. Then, it got hijacked as a derogatory term of homosexuals, and calling the wrong person "gay" at the wrong time was a fast and effective way to start a fight. Now, it's kinda morphed again, into a term gays have co-opted for themselves, the emotional loading of it has disappeared, and most people (perhaps except the highly insecure) give a damn if they're called gay.

The ability of a word to offend, be it the n-word or "gay", or many other terms, depends entirely on the perceived intent. After all, if the person being called .... whatever .... isn't insulted by it, then they probably don't care if it's used about them. Which seems to be why at least some parts of the black community, particularly in the US, xan use the n-word with impunity, but woe betide any white person that uses it regardless of intent.

Some years (well, decades) ago, I was working in a support role for a computer manufacturer and as a kind-of internal joke, we took to referring to the tilt-and-swivel mechanism just appearing on monitors as swilt-and-tivel. It was just a daft habit, but it got to be a habit. I had to stop doing it, because I started to find it hard to not use it when doing, for instance, a customer presentation .... like to a bank's board about a multi-million pound potential sale. We all just got into the habit of swilt-and-tivel, and it was sort-of like muscle memory ... part of a saying that just tripped of the tongue.

And, in my childhood, that daft rhyme was similar. It was used a lot, just to indicate trying to choose one item or choice from a selection of several. Nothing more, nothing less. And even now, just like swilt-and-tivel (and yes, even now, 30+ years later, I STILL find myself using that without thinking) I could just use eeny, meeny, etc, entirely because it's a meaningless, harmless childhood phrase. In the meantime, however, one word in it has become highly loaded.

That's the context.

[Saracen]

....

And with regards to me saying that regardless of its official standing that it was effectively a tax, it was referred to as such by a number of MP's as recent as 2013 according to wiki:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...#1310215000001


...

You will also hear lots of MPs, coincidentally Labour ones, referring to the Spare Room Subsidy (that's the official name) as a "bedroom tax". Yet, it isn't a tax. What about "cost of living crisis"? What crisis? Are many people worse off? Yup. Are some much worse off, and struggling? Yup. But "crisis"? Not for the vast majority.

MPs love phrasing things either in highly positive terms, or highly negative terms, because they have an agenda. It doesn't make it technically or officially correct. Nor does Hansard, that being simply a slightly cleaned up version of words MPs used in the House.

[Saracen]

... You may well not be a racist, but that fact alone doesn't mean that a black person listening to you, a white person, sing that song for example shouldn't take offence, or should be automatically labelled a member of the professional victim brigade.

And if a black person takes offence at a white person simply singing along with the lyrics to a well-known song, because they're white, then that black person is being racist.

It's a song, for pities sake. If you can sing it when you're black, but not if you're white, THAT is racist.

[Biscuit]

Unless you quantify the statement, like you did at the end of this last post, then an unequivocal statement such as 'I don't really care if people find spoken, written or drawn things offensive. In my opinion the person who is offended is the person with the real problem.' will be taken at face value.

Ok fine, I have admitted mistake and issued an amendment for those with an even more cynical disposition than I, but explain, where did I say we should tell people they have the problem? Where is the face value for this? Or it is just me that has to make sure every single statement if taken out of context remains utterly clear and consistent?
I put it to you that you have not taken my entire comment at face value, you have taken a snippet of it at face value which is why you keep plucking that specific bit out. Once left in its original state, including the comment it was responding too, Its really pretty clear what's inferred.

You are conflating 2 issues. No one can possibly know, apart from Clarkson himself, whether he is racist or not. The issue is whether it appropriate for a BBC presenter to be using that type language (assuming he did say it) whilst at work. It's clearly not, IMO, precisely because it's the sort of language where there can be ambiguity about someones motives for using it. You may well not be a racist, but that fact alone doesn't mean that a black person listening to you, a white person, sing that song for example shouldn't take offence, or should be automatically labelled a member of the professional victim brigade.

Depends on the reaction. If you, to quote Dooms, say "'man I don't like that guy' and be done with it", then alls good.
If you go to the press and social media and make it the biggest most important issue of the century (yes this is deliberate hyperbole) just to get clicks/likes/subscriptions/views/shares/sales etc etc then its a different story.
To quote dooms again, "There is far worse offending things going on in the world"

[Splash]

Am I missing something? The OP linked to a story about a fracas with a producer, seemingly while he was on a final warning, but the rest of the thread seems to have been about an entirely different incident.

[Biscuit]

Am I missing something? The OP linked to a story about a fracas with a producer, seemingly while he was on a final warning, but the rest of the thread seems to have been about an entirely different incident.

Not missing anything, but we don't have much in the way of evidence about the current Clarksongate, so I guess there isn't much to talk about at the moment.

[Gerrard]

Am I missing something? The OP linked to a story about a fracas with a producer, seemingly while he was on a final warning, but the rest of the thread seems to have been about an entirely different incident.

I was flying to the US yesterday, so missed most of this thread after I posted; does seem to have gone slightly off-topic.

Regarding the whole Clarkson leaving Top Gear and what would happen, history would suggest it wouldn't be good; but at the same time, the times have changed. He left at the end of the 90's IIRC, and it wasn't until he came back 2004ish that it started to take off again. Back then, you still had a couple of decent co-presenters (Tiff and Quentin) but I seem to remember only one carried on. Then you had Fifth Gear, who sensibly took a different approach to the motorshow, but I don't remember seeing that on for a couple of years now. And now you currently have the Classic Car show with Quentin and Jodie Kidd, but I can't see that lasting too long, even if it's just because of the nature of the subject. Whether the format is the important thing rather than Clarkson now would be interesting to see.

And regarding nursery rhyme's, one of my friends told me their kid had to learn "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep" to which I said that was ridiculous; it has one too many syllables!

[TheAnimus]

It's a song, for pities sake. If you can sing it when you're black, but not if you're white, THAT is racist.

I always find it funny, when those crying racist, are the ones who are racist themselves.

Context, is everything.

[opel80uk]

Ok fine, I have admitted mistake and issued an amendment for those with an even more cynical disposition than I, but explain, where did I say we should tell people they have the problem?

You're right, you didn't say that. I wrongly, for which I apologise for, assumed that this was the preferred method of helping people develop thicker skin, as opposed to just pretending it doesn't happen, and hoping the person who is being offended doesn't think you don't give a toss when you ignore it.

Depends on the reaction. If you, to quote Dooms, say "'man I don't like that guy' and be done with it", then alls good.
If you go to the press and social media and make it the biggest most important issue of the century (yes this is deliberate hyperbole) just to get clicks/likes/subscriptions/views/shares/sales etc etc then its a different story.
To quote dooms again, "There is far worse offending things going on in the world"

That you are bemoaning the out of proportion response to any given issue, on a thread started about what is essentially a TV presenter on his 4th final warning being suspended, is not lost on me. Apart from perhaps the environment, global food shortage and nuclear disarmament, you could say 'There is far worse offending things going on in the world" about almost everything anyone got annoyed about, ever.



This place makes me laugh. Not that long ago, on the thread about Suarez and his bite, I was told by people on here who are now saying that context is everything that, regardless of context, if he broke his terms of employment, then he should face the same disciplinary action that anyone else would and not play for the club again, and furthermore, if it was assault he should be faced with the same criminal proceedings that anyone else would. When I said that I didn't think that should necessarily be the case, for example a rugby player punching a player on the field is not necessarily the same as someone punching someone in the street, I was told no, context didn't matter, it was black and white, they should be treated the same as anyone else in employment or in society.
Those same people are now saying that, in the case of someone who had been repeatedly been warned about his inappropriate behaviour which has included, but wasn't limited to, other racial slurs and stereo types in the past, that the context in which he said the word should be taken into account. That context is, seemingly, that it was previously an accepted nursery rhyme, used in the UK which was ignorant of it's offensiveness to some, which was the norm for middle aged men to have learned, as if somehow we have no responsibility to adapt our behaviour at all, ever. Or if we do do 'everything in our power' to not not use the word, and fail, allowances should be made, reasoning that most wouldn't accept from a child. Presumably the BBC, like most places, have a policy of not using any derogatory racial slurs whilst at work (except in clearly defined and narrow exceptions) precisely because it is difficult to always appreciate context, never mind motive. I'm guessing that’s why this forum starred out the offending word when I typed it out earlier. But no, in the case of Clarkson, we have either rushed to judgement, overreacted or are fully paid up members of the offended brigade. Those accusations miss the point, as does analogies of sad white men singing ****** in rap songs, claiming it to be part of their culture and heritage; would this discussion be had if it were a muslim presenter on the BBC caught singing at work a song that he grew up with that described persecuting Jews, with his defence being that everyone he knew used it when he was growing up without knowing it's true meaning, even if that were believed to be true? Of course we wouldn't. Or if I sang Horst-Wessel-Lied, simply because I liked the tune, does the fact that I am singing it only in the context of liking it's musical qualities mean that anyone offended by that is the one with the issue? Only if you live in an entirely self absorbed world where what only you think is acceptable goes. This notion that Clarkson is being persecuted is utterly false – he had already got away with far more than the likes of us would had we done the same. This painting of Clarkson as a modern day Thomas More is absurd.

The real context here is, because lots of middle aged posters on here grew up singing a rhyme that discusses hanging a black person up by his toes and seeing if he squeals, ignorant about what the wording (and perhaps the rhyme in general) meant, they think it's ok to continue to use it in that context, despite knowing full well what it means now.