Forum menu
This turd is only still rolling because you lot like to have a cloaked pop at eachother.
Like I said on page whatever. The guy's a polariser.
No, he's a peddler of constant low level bigotry that appeals to simple-minded fools.
sometimes I wish they'd just turn off all the televisions
Whenever something like this comes out I always have a laugh at the "professional" offendees, desperate to find the latest thing to be offended about
That's not how it works, don't be thick.
He was being controversial for the sake of it
He was being a ****, not being controversial!
Mol, Ernie, I think your posts sort of prove my point
Hang on a minute now. You think I should laugh at everything, no matter how stupid, just to make you think I'm ok?
Right, good one!
He was [s]being a ****[/s] selling dvds, not being controversial!
The guy's a polariser
He makes us all Polish?
. Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended, in which case it is fault of the person who took offence, and the speaker is not involved at all.
Other wise known as the Bernard Manning / Jim Davidson defence.
Sorry it won't wash. For example a racist joke may be intended to be funny but still remains offensive. My only ban from here was for telling a joke - I intended no offence but by heck I caused some. My fault for being offensive not the readers for being offended. it was funny as well
[sidetrack for junky(ard)]
Tbh a quick google did not help me understand your point as specification error seems to be a stats term
You may need to explain further
Sorry, a bit pompous of me to use the expression. Mucho vino.
In statistics (specifically "regression") if you mis-define the hypothetical model you are using to illustrate a relationship you are said to have created a specification error.
In your example, you defined an example that relied upon the offence being created by abusing a single person directly related to the (for want of a better word) "offendee". That is not a relevant example when talking about generalised targets of abuse and the taking of offence on their behalf.
i.e. it's eminently provable that you [i]will[/i] offend someone when you abuse a named, close relation, of theirs: Because for them not to take offence is ludicrous.
However, the proper hypothetical construction is "is it reasonable for someone with no relationship to the "offendee" to be offended on their behalf just because the abuse could be reduced to a personal offence by extrapolation even though it was never said?"
[/sidetrack]
The guy's a polariser
He makes us all Polish?
Polarisationerer. I like it. I'm going with this. You know what I mean tho (probably)
Should have just stuck to curly haired Marmite
Other wise known as the Bernard Manning / Jim Davidson defence.
Sorry it won't wash. For example a racist joke may be intended to be funny but still remains offensive. My only ban from here was for telling a joke - I intended no offence but by heck I caused some. My fault for being offensive not the readers for being offended. it was funny as well
Your previous form has led me to believe that this discussion is not worth entering into.
nighty night.
Its just your analysis is to simplistic. Of course you can be offensive without any intent.
just saw it for the first time on news at ten.
chimp verdict - it was just clarkson doing what he does and the professionally offended doing what they do. a bit of a giggle that made me s**** followed by a complete over reaction
fwiw, i support the strikes 100%
Its just your analysis is to simplistic
And no-one is being over-analytical either, are they?
Tehre certainly is little point in complaining about Clarkson being offensive. he does it deliberately, its what defines him and he is very careful not to push it too far.
don't stop him being a twerp tho
TandemJeremy - Member
Its just your analysis is to simplistic. Of course you can be offensive without any intent.
Not my analysis......
it was from a article I read online called "[b]Nothing Happens[/b] when you are offended"
See, Junky, your new, complete quote totally changes the sense of what was said. "Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended" is central and you didn't mention it, just pretended that the person was saying only "taken and not given"
the two quotes are the same and included the bit you quoted.
I did not mention it because i agree with it yes sometime offence is taken when it is not meant My issue is with whether offence cannot be given..it can easily.
I thought if I just included
[b]It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given[/b]
I would be accused of cherry picking - there is no caveat to that statement - do you think iffence can be given can I convey meaning with words [ or someone more skilled than I?].
It is probably a fair point to say I should have commented on the second part of the quote though.
And you'd be a complete and utter prat for thinking anyone would go to the effort of discreetly embedding some form of "offence" into something so simple as abbreviating your STW user name, when they would just as happily call you a knob openly
It is possible some people are ever so slightly more subtle than your good self 😉
Apparently they cant embed any offence at all they cannot offend me by their choice or use of words I can only be offended apparently. the words they use dont matter/are not casual.
nealglover
so you think Bernard Manning telling racist jokes is not offensive because he does not mean to offend?
Bit late to this having just seen it on the news but wasn't it clear that the comment that's caused all the fuss was intended to be a counter to his previous and arguably equally stupid (and IMO quite clearly deliberately so) comment as a joke about BBC balance.
A bit stupid to think it woildnt cause a fuss (though I suspect he'll do well out of it so continuing this is only going to benefit him) but if anything wasn't it clear that it was opposite to his supposed real view?
Or have I completely missed something?
Or have I completely missed something?
I think you're bang on except where you seem to think that someone was being stupid thinking it wouldn't cause a fuss, maybe the level was misjudged though...
Stoner, as I pointed out earlier, it's possible to point out that someone is being offensive without personally bring offended. I think that's a bit of a problem in this thread and why it's still droning on.
(the following not @ Stoner)
Clarkson came on tv and acted just how he is - a cock. A lot of people (rightfully) hate him - and are very quick to point out that he was being a cock. It doesn't mean that everybody who feels the need (me included) to point out how much of a cock he is (a massive one) is outraged and offended.
It's sort of annoying here sometimes to be labelled (or certainly made to feel as if one is) a professional [i]offendee[/i] just because one gives an opinion on how much of a cock (really really big) Clarkson is.
TandemJeremy - Member
nealglover
so you think Bernard Manning telling racist jokes is not offensive because he does not mean to offend?
🙄
Find the article, Read it, and email the Author if you don't like it.
I'm not going to flog a dead horse with someone who seems to enjoy spending all their time disagreeing with people on the Internet.
As I said before.
Nighty night.
That's not how it works, don't be thick.
I'm actually pretty bright, even if I do say so myself. My comment about professional offendees was prompted by the fact that there seems to be a growing section of the population desperate to take offence at anything, because being the victim of an so-called offensive remark is very much the trendy thing to be these days.
I've never really understood why people get so worked up about being offended anyway. Is it a physical reaction? Does it make you ill? What is this "offence" actually doing to you?
This thing about people choosing to be offended - rubbish. Otherwise it would mean no-one had any responsibility for what they might say.
It's exactly the same as letting your dog sh*t all over the trails and saying it's our fault for being disgusted.
I'm actually pretty bright, even if I do say so myself.
All the more reason not to type daft things on here then. Although I must say I'm a little sceptical if you don't understand empathy.
The definition of 'offence' in this instance is something that upsets somebody else. That could be anything, and it could upset someone for reasons of which we are not aware. Since being upset is pretty personal, we can't be expected to know exactly when we offend everyone, but as we grow up we should at least get a general idea of what would be considered upsetting to others. It's called being nice, and it stems from a sense of empathy.
Now - re the actual comments, a lot of people are really struggling to make ends meet, which is not a nice thing to have to do, and to have someone rubbish your problems on telly for a cheap joke could very easily be upsetting. An intelligent person ought to be able to figure this out surely?
It's sort of annoying here sometimes to be labelled (or certainly made to feel as if one is) a professional offendee just because one gives an opinion on how much of a cock (really really big) Clarkson is.
Two different things. Hating (or loving) Clarkson is just a matter of personal taste. Personally with me I'm not bothered either way. He's not daft though. He knows exactly how to keep his profile, and therefore his income, very high. The length of this thread is proof of that. If nobody bothered about the remarks Clarkson makes then he'd soon stop making them.
My issue with people taking offence (or rather claiming to take offence) at the slightest thing is that it ultimately inhibits free speech.
what DD said and a professional offendee is generally only saying lets be a bit nicer to each other or dont offend just for the sake of it ..I can see why this offends some people enough to get upset on a forum though 😛
Neal, Where are you from?
My issue with people taking offence (or rather claiming to take offence) at the slightest thing
If people take serious offence at something then [b]by definition[/b] it's not the slightest thing, is it? Anyone's idea of 'slight' is obviously not the same as the next man's.
Offense can mean many things. a comment can be offensive but not cause offense.
The standard British anti-French comments are offensive and deliberately so in the main. I choose not to take offense on the basis that I can see them as either a joke that's not intended seriously or as a comment from an idiot whose views I have no problem ignoring. Either way I am choosing not to be offended though I could arguably quite legitimately be.
I can also see that for some people it may well be much harder to choose not to take offense - racism for instance.
It's exactly the same as letting your dog sh*t all over the trails and saying it's our fault for being disgusted.
No it's not. That's an act that can cause illness. Telling a joke can't.
This thing about people choosing to be offended - rubbish. Otherwise it would mean no-one had any responsibility for what they might say.
Again, not true. There has to be a middle ground. One shouldn't be banned from expressing an opinion because other people claim to be offended by it. Instead of claiming offence, why not present a counter-argument to something you disagree with? Or in the case of jokes like Clarkson's, just ignore them?
Just listened to the whole piece..I can't believe some of you lot are taking his comments so seriously - a more tongue in cheek comment I have yet to hear.
What a lot of you are getting upset about is what he represents & who he is friends with.
Anti-French comments offend me even though I am not French. The fact that the people making them think it's perfectly fine to be so brainlessly moronically and casually racist for the sake of a pathetically cheap laugh, that upsets and depresses me.
Overdid the adjectives a bit there, sorry if that causes offence.
PS I was not offended by Clarkson's comments, just embarassed. However I am offended by the people on here who are saying offending others is something we don't need to care about.
It's exactly the same as letting your dog sh*t all over the trails and saying it's our fault for being disgusted.
ROFL! Get a grip. Seems to me some folk are mistaking humanity with fragility. What will they react like when something [b]really[/b] bad happens...
Teasel - wot?
You miss my point.
and a professional offendee is generally only saying lets be a bit nicer to each other or dont offend just for the sake of it
I agree a bit with that. Some are saying that, and fair enough. Equally though, some are saying it because they want an opinion they disagree with not to be aired. And it's easier to claim to be offended by something than to present an argument against it.
As for offending just for the sake of it, I agree it's not a nice thing to do. However Clarkson wasn't doing it for that reason. He was doing it because he knows how the tabloid press works. Love him or hate him, he's no fool.
Equally though, some are saying it because they want an opinion they disagree with not to be aired
Hmm not sure I share that assessment.
thanks for getting offended on my behalf molgrips 😉
Mostly I see it as piss taking which is a very human way of interacting and has no intent or conviction. I'd hate to see that stopped. The problem really comes about when the intent isn't clear. As in this thread I reckon.
Anti-French comments offend me even though I am not French.
I'm Scottish, and anti-Scottish jokes or comments don't offend me one bit. In fact I often make them myself.
CharlieMungus - Member
Neal, Where are you from?
Why do you ask ?
I'm Scottish, and anti-Scottish jokes or comments don't offend me one bit. In fact I often make them myself.
A female family member accepts and asserts that women are worse drivers/aren't funny/can't read maps. Does that make her right?
my wife's N.Irish, my brother-in-law's a Scot and my family are English/French. There are countless jokes about it. No one takes offense but the comments taken alone definitely could cause offense to people we don't know or if seen out of context.
Which again is what seems to have hapoened with Clarkson's comments.
A female family member accepts and asserts that women are worse drivers/aren't funny/can't read maps. Does that make her right?
Some women are funny. Other than that she's spot on. 🙂
I think the thing that you notice most on this thread, is that so many of the people who don't find something, or someone "funny" think that they are somehow superior...
that someone who finds something funny that they don't must be thick, idiotic or stupid to do so...
Personally, I think that its exactly that type of ivory tower superiority complex that Clarkson sets out to prick the bubble of, and long may he continue to do so 😉
For anyone on here who's been "offended" by anything ever.
[URL]
It's about 4 minutes in.
I think the thing that you notice most on this thread, is that so many of the people who don't find something, or someone "funny" think that they are somehow superior..
Isn't that what you're doing? You think you're superior because you DO find it funny, and are slagging us off for being humourless?
Pricking bubbles is one thing - cleverly outwitting people and showing up their silliness or pretence, I'm all for that. However Clarkson and his comments on that occasion were a very long way from that ideal.
Erm, well, I [b]really[/b] can't take the claim for Shakespeare's work Molgrips 😉
or did you not recognise the characterisation of the puritanical streak and quotation from Twelfth Night as somewhat predating the one show by a few hundred years....