Jeremy Clarkson on the One Show

Zulu-Eleven – Member

All the left has done reinforce their own caricature as humourless, puritanical prigs, removed from the common man and unable to remove the stick from their arses.

Do you know what, I’ve always wondered why there aren’t any left-wing comedians. But now I know why …… it’s because the left are humourless puritanical prigs, and removed from the common man. Well observed Zulu-Eleven.

Thank **** for right-wing comedians keeping everyone laughing, eh ?

A bit like yourself Zulu-Eleven …… you’re a bundle of laughs a minute aincha mate ?

Mol, Ernie, I think your posts sort of prove my point 😉

Have you both got a hat like this?

There’s a huge portion of this great country enjoy nothing better than a little bit of shit stirring,

…again, this is something to celebrate? This is something to take comfort and pleasure from?

Excellent, lets all act like stupids, lets really get down there and wallow in the mud.

Sad, limited, dull little people.

Oh don’t be so frigging stupid!

+100

But then again, it is Labby, so the order is going to fall on two very deaf ears.

When i strarted this last night , i nver thought it would reach 6 pages of 40 posts, and ebven have dave the cameroon and the labour one arguinmg about him, and now its on chanel 4 news.

Now whats Jeremey ney book called.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Mol, Ernie, I think your posts sort of prove my point

And so do your posts prove your point……..you’re **** ing hilarious mate.

nealglover & flow seem not to understand what a discussion forum is about.

So people are puritanical prigs if they don’t think Daily Mail meets pub bore guff is funny?

Not finding something funny is a long way from being all uptight and outraged about it. It’s just a bit sad the way people go “Yeah, but it’s Clarkson, innit?” as if that makes it something less, well, limp.

Hahahahahha

You see – Lefties, all the same – its like pokin’ em with a stick 😆

I think I know how to make someone LOL with this, I have an idea.

How do we email a link to this thread to Clarkson? I reckon he’d ROFFL, and a few people here might even get a guest spot on the TG sofa.

Hahahahahha

Laughing at your own jokes is bad form Zulu-Eleven.

Let us laugh at your jokes.

Maybe a bit after the fact here, but that Stewart Lee does have some decent material, which means it must be doubly hard to kill it so completely with his delivery. Credit where it’s due.

DezB – Member
nealglover & flow seem not to understand what a discussion forum is about.

I’m “discussing” aren’t I ??

Like I said, my posts are aimed at the “outraged” the people who complain to the BBC

Or the dumbass Unison woman on the news who compared Clarkson to Gadaffi.

Laughing at your own jokes is bad form Zulu-Eleven.

Let’s face it. Someone has to.

I’m “discussing” aren’t I ??

Beg your pardon sir. Thought your comments were aimed at the forum.

It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given. 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.

so if i make some unfavourable remark comparing someone female you love to a lady of the night and resembling the back end of a farmyard animal I can defend it by saying its all down to you the hearer…..have you tested this in court by say racially abusing and swearing at a copper from an ethinic minority…let me know ho wit works

Whilst free speech may on occasions offend people it is some way from this to claiming that it is not possible to be deliberately offensive and if I tried it would all be down to the hearer. Test it out in a pub with strangers let me know how it works out when you explain they have no right and its their fault anyway. I rather felt i was able to convey my thoughts and meanings with my words and that other people were able to as well.
Offensive for the sake of being offensive is hardly a right and if exercised you can hardly protest that some folk were offended by clarkson being deliberately provocative/offensive – if it did not work [offend folk] he would not to do it like the trolls bascially

sorry junky, but you went in two footed with a specification error:

someone female you love to a lady

“you” being the operative word.

That is specific offence being given.

There is admittedly, a broad line at which a specific becomes a generalism. The offence that is often taken too quickly comes when people extrapolate a generalism to a specific too readily.

It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given. 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.

so if i make some unfavourable remark comparing someone female you love to a lady of the night and resembling the back end of a farmyard animal I can defend it by saying its all down to you the hearer…..have you tested this in court by say racially abusing and swearing at a copper from an ethinic minority…let me know ho wit works

Your first example – No, it would be a deliberate insult, and so that would be a totally different situation.

Your second example – That would be illegal, so again, totally different situation.

That is specific offence being given.

yes and it counters this claim

It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given

So someone can give offence we agree.

I do agree sometimes it is taken when none is meant. I could have done this over the junky abbreviation for example which sometimes is meant sometimes it is not. If you dont meant it then I take the offence if you do mean it then you give it. My only point is that it is not as simple as saying offence can never be given an only taken.

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

EDIT:
Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended
which suggest sometimes offence is taken when it is intended as well – my point is you cannot say it is all down to the person receiving the message [ taken not given] as obviously people can convey meaning with words including meaning to be offensive.
How would i insult someone if they choose what I mean and they take the offence just out of interest?

An insult (also called a slur, scoff, slight or putdown) is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is considered degrading and offensive

I assume I could do this if I wanted to do so why can I not be offensive if i try?

Junkyard, you’re selectively quoting. And I think you know it.

I think Clarkson was extreme in what he said.
Shooting every 10th striker would be enough.
Maybe some of the strikers are nurses and could treat the wounds afterwards (unpaid of course)?

???

One quote I read today seems to sum this up quite well …..

“It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given. 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.

It is someone else quoting someone else. I am not sure why you think this is selective

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-clarkson-on-the-one-show/page/6#post-3232193

I am not responding to their post but to that quote so what else should I post up?
I did not massively disagree with their post but i do disagree with the view that offence is not given and only taken hence why I took issue with it and offered a counter view

I don’t think it is always necessary to refer to a specific individual for a comment to be offensive . In fact it is easy to think of many comments which are even more likely to cause offence because they are directed at groups of people en masse

Offensive for the sake of being offensive is hardly a right

Being offended for the sake of being offended is hardly a right either.

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.

Clarkson knew what he was doing. He was being controversial for the sake of it, and sure enough the usual suspects have jumped on the offended bandwagon, just as he’d intended.

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”

I could have done this over the junky abbreviation for example which sometimes is meant sometimes it is not. If you dont meant it then I take the offence if you do mean it then you give it.

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 🙄

Shooting every 10th striker would be enough.

Well, we were told that the Tories would decimate the public services 😆

I don’t know whether anyone has quoted it because I got bored with all the over-sensitive types comments – forgive me for not giving a ****.

Charlie Brooker on the mass weeping and gnashing of teeth over-reaction to Clarkson’s comment:-

It’s a bit like opening the door, looking up and saying ‘oh look, the sky’s blue’…

Whatever you think about the comments, it is a pretty cynical way to sell stuff.

Its just a joke,like on top gear.

Shooting every 10th striker would be enough.
Well, we were told that the Tories would decimate the public services

Sounds like it could solve 2 problems with one solution that one… Bring public service wages in under budget, and act as a deterrent to the remaining 9 out 10 public sector workers left to not go on strike again for fear of their life!

Genius…

I’ll go get my gun…

😀

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 being a **** 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 will 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.