Forum menu
Well when your first example is so dumb…
Edit. Tbh, Ali G is the only one I found funny and watched. The rest I’m not familiar with so not qualified to comment.
Cougar, I was joking.
"And there was me thinking that I was being a bit mean to Jim Davidson.'
You can't be too mean to Jim Davidson.
"Well when your first example is so dumb…"
What about the other examples then?
I’m not familiar with the others inkster.
For those that think the thread has gone off track, remember that GL, a sports presenter, was punished for holding truth to power perhaps in part because the news department fails to do so.
"Edit. Tbh, Ali G is the only one I found funny and watched. The rest I’m not familiar with so not qualified to comment."
But you did anyhow!
Cougar, I was joking.
Were you using Stoic Epictetus's maxim?
I also missed the hilarity.
For those that think the thread has gone off track, remember that GL, a sports presenter, was punished for holding truth to power perhaps in part because the news department fails to do so.
@jambourgie is active on the thread - off course it's off track. The ill-informed troll be trolling hard on this one
"This thread has gone a bit Private Eye"
Hislop would be delighted!
Cougar, I was joking.
Ah, apologies. It can be hard to tell in text.
(Frankly, it can be hard to tell face-to-face)
Edit. Tbh, Ali G is the only one I found funny and watched. The rest I’m not familiar with so not qualified to comment.”
But you did anyhow
Que? On the others man! I’m not qualified to comment on the others because I’m not familiar with them. I commented on Ali G because I’m familiar with that. Though I did assume that if your very first example was so daft then there wouldn’t be much hope for the others…
"Were you using Stoic Epictetus’s maxim?
I also missed the hilarity."
No. I was thinking of his cousin, Bigus Dickus.
Meanwhile, from elsewhere on the Internet:
***
I see you, Gary Lineker.
Well… kind of. I see the void where you used to be; a gaping hole in the BBC’s sports coverage, stretched to the point of total prolapse by the display of solidarity from your peers. All that fuss over Qatar and it turns out all we ever needed to do to get a Walkers-out over human rights abuses was suspend you for a bit for gobbing off at the Tories. Who knew?
Putting aside that rather massive ethical inconsistency for now, this really is a spectacular own goal by the BBC. You’ve made it very clear for ages now that you wouldn’t be censoring your political opinions on your own Twitter account, and that commitment clearly made your bosses nervous. Knowing full well that their political links expose them to accusations of rampant hypocrisy, the Tory higher-ups like Davie and Gibb have spent the last few years limping around the threat of outright censorship by mumbling vague threats about your duty to ‘impartiality.’
You’re even a ‘special case,’ apparently, due to your popularity. They said that out loud, the last time you pissed the Tories off. Good to know, isn’t it? Our state broadcaster has stricter rules for those who are famous enough for their criticisms of the government to gain actual traction. Turns out it’s not just refugees in the Channel who are desperate to not rock the boat.
It all feels a bit inevitable, Gary Lineker, given that you’ve always stood up for refugees and the government have clearly decided they’d rather fight them at the next election over Keir Starmer. Surely Richard Sharp, at least, could have seen this coming? He should have known full well that the government he supports would be doing something else to disgust you as they got progressively more desperate. What a shame Boris didn’t impartially give him a polite heads up over the Huit Cent Mille en Papillote at their last dinner date.
The inevitably hasn’t stopped the Conservatives feigning their moral outrage, of course. The party of free speech, usually so ardently committed to goose-stamping out cancel culture wherever they imagine it, now performing the most absurd of theatrical hysterics in the mirror you’ve held up to their burgeoning fascism. The hypocrisy is more predictable than Arsenal finishing fourth.
In any argument about impartiality, the most unimpeachable defence of any commentator’s words should always be their factual accuracy. There’s not a word in your supposedly offensive tweet that rings hollow, and methinks those Tories now clutching their pearl-inlaid lightning bolts at the thought of being labelled Nazis doth protest too much. Ironic, given they’ve spent the last four years desperately trying to ban protests of any sort. Best not point out the times in history that sort of thing has happened before though, Gary Lineker. That probably won’t help your case.
To anyone sane or not frothing with partisan outrage, it’s clear that you couched your language very carefully, focusing on the wording of the government’s recent propaganda and pointing out a perfectly accurate historical parallel. You’re not Peter Beardsley, after all - you’re more than capable of avoiding the direct use of an N word when you need to.
It’s farcical that we’re even debating your use of language in the first place, rather than the vile and deliberately false nonsense our Home Secretary spouts on a regular basis. If we all need to temper our rhetoric, maybe we could start with her outright lies and the succour she offers to far-right agitators burning police vans outside the hotels her utter incompetence has seen stuffed with those waiting years to have their claims processed.
Most importantly of all, though, before we start policing anyone’s choice of language, we have to be able to tell the ****ing truth. Particularly when that truth involves pointing out that our government are gleefully walking the early steps of the very clearly defined path towards the most unthinkable of historical atrocities. The rhetoric, the lies, the deliberate attempts to shift the blame for their own failures onto a minority group - all of it is disgustingly authoritarian, and the words Braverman chooses are as deliberate as the ones you picked to criticise her with.
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Unless, of course, you’re a freelance football pundit who happens to be vaguely leftwing. If you present the Apprentice, you can photoshop whoever you like next to Hitler and nobody in the boardroom bats an eyelid.
What a shame for Richard Sharp, then, that the current Prime Minister is rich enough to afford his own gold wallpaper. He’s going to find it much harder to bung his way out of the next round of job cuts at the BBC.
I see you, Gary Lineker. I ****ing see you.
Fair play for going in two-footed for once.
(Enjoying the page? Don't forget to check out the I See News podcast! Just follow the link below for the latest episode.)
https://www.buzzsprout.com/634036/12419474
Were you using Stoic Epictetus’s maxim?
I also missed the hilarity.
No. I was thinking of his cousin, Bigus Dickus.
Well that explains why it fell flat. Biggus Dickus also didn't understand why they tittered so.
You are using all the wrong comedy role models, I'm afraid.
Ali G
Which wasn't blackface but nice try.
Never watched the rest.
I find funny comedians funny.
It's lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny.
"Hislop speaking truth to power is very healthy, even if you don’t agree with him"
What I find unhealthy is that a comedy programme has a better take on the truth than the news.
You can choose to infer from that what you want and I see that you have but following your logic, because I am dissatisfied with the integrity of news programming I find it unhealthy that Hislop talks truth to power and that I might disagree with him?
Is that what you took from my comment?
"I find funny comedians funny."
"It’s lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny."
Ransos, you are confusing what other people find funny with them instructing you what to find funny.
Which is quite funny in itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/11/race.janinegibson
Here you go cougar, jambo, ransos etc.
A Guardian article from 2000 when the weekly New Nation newspaper asked seven of the biggest stars on the black comedy circuit about the character, after he delivered the alternative Queen's speech on Channel 4 on Christmas Day.
The TLDR version?....
6 out of the 7 cats asked thought the Ali G character was peddling racist stereotypes. They aren't trying to tell you what to find funny ransos but they are telling you that they found the Ali G character deeply troubling.
You've all been quite quick to tear me down a peg or two for mentioning similar, I wonder if any of you would have the "brass balls" to say the same to any of those black comedians in the unlikely event you would ever get to meet them?
I’m almost 40 years old and have no memory of ever seeing blackface.
Yep last Black and white minstrels show was ‘78 so you were lucky to miss out on that gem.
And there was me thinking that I was being a bit mean to Jim Davidson.
I’m really not sure what he’s transformed into as some sort of bitter and twisted OAP , seems a sad end to career.
It’s lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny
It's more like some people need telling who not to laugh at.
Not saying that's anyone here, but historically this has been the case.
And there was me thinking that I was being a bit mean to Jim Davidson.
Performing at a working mens club near you soon!
https://www.ents24.com/uk/tour-dates/jim-davidson
Is the character racist or the way people interacted with him?
Take that up a notch, was Borat more shocking or the people he interacted with? Would they have been comfortable acting the way they did around someone more PC?
You still haven't really explained where you've been watching blackface on TV though or was that just ridiculous hyperbole? (tell a lie, just remembered I watched Tropic Thunder, what grade of racist does that make me now?)
"what grade of racist does that make me now?"
Dunno, I'll show my partner your posts later on and she'll mark you out of 10.
I volunteered for sanger duty rather than be made to watch ol Jimbo in Afghanistan. Staring into the desert was far more entertaining.
“I find funny comedians funny.”
“It’s lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny.”
Ransos, you are confusing what other people find funny with them instructing you what to find funny.
Which is quite funny in itself.
I'm not confused in the slightest. You however seem unable to distinguish between your opinion and fact. I do find your arrogance a touch amusing.
Staring into the desert was far more entertaining.
I'd imagine shitting in your hands and clapping would still be ahead.
I’d imagine shitting in your hands and clapping would still be ahead.
It's up there for sure.
The whole point of the Ali G character was to lampoon and ridicule people who believed that stereotype, it was intended to illicit a response. The butt of the joke was always the people interviewing him.
See also, Borat. SBC isn't racist, he was trolling racists.
I don't think that article says what you think it says. And even if it does then, well done, you found an opinion piece from 23 years ago.
They aren’t trying to tell you what to find funny ransos but they are telling you that they found the Ali G character deeply troubling.
I haven't offered an opinion on Ali G, so it's not at all clear why you're telling me about this recent opinion piece.
Honestly, I think lumping you, me and Jambo in the same sentence is likely to offend all three of us. 😁
I decided to have a quick look at your link Inkster, I get the impression that my quick glance might be a bit more than what you managed to do.
Your link includes this observation:
Michael Eboda, editor of New Nation, conducted a poll of readers to accompany the comedians' comments. The paper found that more than 80% were fans of Ali G and concluded that his critics were "taking themselves too seriously".
So the editor of a newspaper published in the UK for the Black British community concludes that the critics were taking themselves too seriously, and points out that more than 80% of his readers are Ali G fans.
That isn't exactly damning, is it?
Sandwich called me out saying 100% of boat people were legally looking for asylum.
False. I called you for classifying desperate people as illegal, they are as illegal as you or I. No doubt a proportion of those arriving are not entitled to asylum nor immigration but without a properly funded system we won't know.
I also asked that we (as a forum) no longer refer to those crossing The Channel on rubber boats as illegal but my use of language was pulled by the mods as derogatory (as I used some words that we regarded as normal for the disabled many moons ago and the point could not be properly made without using those words). It's Mark's playground and his rules so no worries on my part.
Cougar,
It wasn't an opinion piece it was a piece canvassing opinions, there's a difference.
Furthermore, the opinions canvassed were from black comedians, who by race and profession are surely more qualified to comment than you or I.
The article clearly states that 6 out of 7 comedians spoken to had a negative view of the character, that's what it said in the article and that's what I understood it to be saying. If it doesn't say what I think it says [and what it actually says] then what is it saying that I'm not getting?
And what did it matter that it was 23 years ago? All those comedians never got the opportunities their talent deserved and are still pissed off about it [as are Lenny Henry and Mo Gilligan] to this day. Thats why the last two made recent documentaries about it, rather than dismiss it as being old news and irrelevant, as you have done.
Intentions and outcomes are different things. Does it matter what "the point os the character" is if it ends up causing an opposite effect to that which is intended?
Still.....I'll ask you again, would you have the brass balls to explain to all those comedians how wrong they are?
then what it is saying that I’m not getting?
That over 80% of the readers were Ali G fans and that the editor thought the critics were taking themselves too seriously?
Bo Selecta FFS we all saw that (Lee Francis on inkster's list)
Can I get a reeeewind!
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Still…..I’ll ask you again, would you have the brass balls to explain to all those comedians how wrong they are?</span>
How big are these grumpy comedians?
Honestly, I think lumping you, me and Jambo in the same sentence is likely to offend all three of us. 😁
Yeah, I don't think it's terribly difficult to tell us apart!
Ernie, just because over 80& of their readers enjoyed the show doesn't necessarily equate to them all not seeing issues in the character.
I was citing the opinions of the comedians, not the editor. I never commented on the editorial stance. Has it occurred to you that when 80& of the readers enjoy Ali G then the editor might be quite keen to keep them happy so might take a more sympathetic stance, softening the evidence provided by those canvassed in order to keep readers onside?
Yeah, I don’t think it’s terribly difficult to tell us apart!
We need pictures to be sure!
just because over 80& of their readers enjoyed the show doesn’t necessarily equate to them all not seeing issues in the character.show
You are not reading your own link inkster, the article doesn't claim that over 80% of readers enjoyed the show.
It very clearly states that over 80% of the readers were Ali G fans. And yes, it very much suggests that they don't have a problem with the character.
Why would they have a problem with a character that they are fans of?
And I don't know why you want to dismiss the opinions of the readers of a newspaper published in the UK for the Black British community.
Especially as it was you who brought the New Nation newspaper onto this thread.