Clarkson. Finished?

[meltonblue]

So lets try and put things in perspective:

Lefty 'Lord' Tom Watson wrongly smears Tory politician with vile child abuser accusations that cause very serious distress to him and his wife and family for many years (using parliamentary privilege to do so) and after seven years he eventually apologises. Not a mention of it on here. Not a solitary word.

Right wing 'celebrity' makes a few jokes in a newspaper article about an American 'actress' who married into the royal family for money then single handedly vilifies it and tries to destroy it from within and 20,000 people make a formal complaint and it gets its own 25 page thread on BlueLoon.

What a fucked up sense of priorities this place has...

That might be because his speech in the lords wasn’t the first time he’d apologised for it, so I’m not sure it’s as big a story as you think it should be (whether he should be in the lords at all, then I’d agree with, but I’d say that about 90% of them).

That you frame Clarksons comments in the way you do and are able to definitively state Markles motivations for joining the royal family in the first place suggests your sense of priorities might be more than a little disingenuous too though.

 

[inchy14]

And todays whataboutary award goes to….

 

[Nethermoor]

Clarkson is Clarkson. I like his shows, as a person I think he says stuff to be edgy and get publicity and it works. Like Michael O'Leary always says, any publicity is good publicity.

FWIW i chuckled at his comment as I'm a game of thrones fan and it was obviously satire. That admittedly went too far.

I actually like Meghan Markle too.

 

[Blue and true]

So lets try and put things in perspective:

Lefty 'Lord' Tom Watson wrongly smears Tory politician with vile child abuser accusations that cause very serious distress to him and his wife and family for many years (using parliamentary privilege to do so) and after seven years he eventually apologises. Not a mention of it on here. Not a solitary word.

Right wing 'celebrity' makes a few jokes in a newspaper article about an American 'actress' who married into the royal family for money then single handedly vilifies it and tries to destroy it from within and 20,000 people make a formal complaint and it gets its own 25 page thread on BlueLoon.

What a fucked up sense of priorities this place has...

Remind me again of the thread title?

 

[meltonblue]

Clarkson is Clarkson. I like his shows, as a person I think he says stuff to be edgy and get publicity and it works. Like Michael O'Leary always says, any publicity is good publicity.

FWIW i chuckled at his comment as I'm a game of thrones fan and it was obviously satire. That admittedly went too far.

I actually like Meghan Markle too.

I got the reference but I really couldn’t work out who he was trying to be satirical of given the whole piece.

 

[Phil1]

So lets try and put things in perspective:

Lefty 'Lord' Tom Watson wrongly smears Tory politician with vile child abuser accusations that cause very serious distress to him and his wife and family for many years (using parliamentary privilege to do so) and after seven years he eventually apologises. Not a mention of it on here. Not a solitary word.

Right wing 'celebrity' makes a few jokes in a newspaper article about an American 'actress' who married into the royal family for money then single handedly vilifies it and tries to destroy it from within and 20,000 people make a formal complaint and it gets its own 25 page thread on BlueLoon.

What a fucked up sense of priorities this place has...

That's not perspective. That's just a whinge from somebody who doesn't like the fact that a **** like Clarkson is being called out for being a **** due to the fact you probably like and agree with him.
Make a thread on the other subject if it worries you so much.

 

[oldius]

There is a whole lot of whataboutism going around today. The fact is that Clarkson wrote an article that appeared in one national newspaper, and was reprinted in another, that went on to receive the greatest number of complaints in the history of the Press Complaints Commission. His post was misogynistic, and advocated the shaming of a woman and the parading of her naked while excrement was thrown at her. He deserves all he gets, and if people wish to complain about other examples of such articles, they are, or were, welcome to.

 

[Phil1]

There is a whole lot of whataboutism going around today. The fact is that Clarkson wrote an article that appeared in one national newspaper, and was reprinted in another, that went on to receive the greatest number of complaints in the history of the Press Complaints Commission. His post was misogynistic, and advocated the shaming of a woman and the parading of her naked while excrement was thrown at her. He deserves all he gets, and if people wish to complain about other examples of such articles, they are, or were, welcome to.

Whataboutism is the go to defence of the right. You see it on many threads.

 

[domalino]

Clarkson is Clarkson. I like his shows, as a person I think he says stuff to be edgy and get publicity and it works. Like Michael O'Leary always says, any publicity is good publicity.

FWIW i chuckled at his comment as I'm a game of thrones fan and it was obviously satire. That admittedly went too far.

I actually like Meghan Markle too.

I got the reference but I really couldn’t work out who he was trying to be satirical of given the whole piece.

That's because it's not satire. Satire by definition has an ulterior meaning, it's doing one thing to draw attention to another.

Clarkson doesn't do that, his brand of comedy is probably best described as farce, where the exaggeration, hyperbole and outlandishness is the whole thing. There's no deeper meaning.

The video of Stewart Lee posted in this thread is satire, he's exaggerating the comedy of Top Gear to draw the audience's attention to how cowardly a brand of humour it is to say something as offensive as you dare and then say "just kidding!".

Clarkson's commentary has no secondary layer, it's just exaggerating things to the point of them being funny. "I don't like caravans" isn't funny, but "caravans are the worst thing ever invented, anyone who owns them is worse than a war criminal and if I had the choice between world peace and destroying all caravans I'd choose the latter" is comedic because of the level of exaggeration.

The problems arise because Clarkson so often punches down on targets where that level of hated isn't an exaggeration.

Hating caravans that much is funny because they're just caravans, no one really feels that strongly about them.

However when he does it against a woman who's had huge amounts of racist and sexist abuse directed at her for years just said negative press almost drove her to suicide, or when he goes after gypsies or mexicans...then all he's doing is amplifying or giving the weight of his national platform to a level of hatred that already exists.

That's not funny, and it quite possibly makes people who do have that level of hatred towards Meghan Markle (or muslims or polish people or any of his other controverisal targets) feel vindicated in feeling they have the right to give out similar abuse when they see a national celebrity is being paid £1m+ a year to do it in the country's most read newspaper.

 

[Blue and true]

That's because it's not satire. Satire by definition has an ulterior meaning, it's doing one thing to draw attention to another.

Clarkson doesn't do that, his brand of comedy is probably best described as farce, where the exaggeration, hyperbole and outlandishness is the whole thing. There's no deeper meaning.

The video of Stewart Lee posted in this thread is satire, he's exaggerating the comedy of Top Gear to draw the audience's attention to how cowardly a brand of humour it is to say something as offensive as you dare and then say "just kidding!".

Clarkson's commentary has no secondary layer, it's just exaggerating things to the point of them being funny. "I don't like caravans" isn't funny, but "caravans are the worst thing ever invented, anyone who owns them is worse than a war criminal and if I had the choice between world peace and destroying all caravans I'd choose the latter" is comedic because of the level of exaggeration.

The problems arise because Clarkson so often punches down on targets where that level of hated isn't an exaggeration.

Hating caravans that much is funny because they're just caravans, no one really feels that strongly about them.

However when he does it against a woman who's had huge amounts of racist and sexist abuse directed at her for years just said negative press almost drove her to suicide, or when he goes after gypsies or mexicans...then all he's doing is amplifying or giving the weight of his national platform to a level of hatred that already exists.

That's not funny, and it quite possibly makes people who do have that level of hatred towards Meghan Markle (or muslims or polish people or any of his other controverisal targets) feel vindicated in feeling they have the right to give out similar abuse when they see a national celebrity is being paid £1m+ a year to do it in the country's most read newspaper.

Nail. On. Head.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

That's because it's not satire. Satire by definition has an ulterior meaning, it's doing one thing to draw attention to another.

Clarkson doesn't do that, his brand of comedy is probably best described as farce, where the exaggeration, hyperbole and outlandishness is the whole thing. There's no deeper meaning.

The video of Stewart Lee posted in this thread is satire, he's exaggerating the comedy of Top Gear to draw the audience's attention to how cowardly a brand of humour it is to say something as offensive as you dare and then say "just kidding!".

Clarkson's commentary has no secondary layer, it's just exaggerating things to the point of them being funny. "I don't like caravans" isn't funny, but "caravans are the worst thing ever invented, anyone who owns them is worse than a war criminal and if I had the choice between world peace and destroying all caravans I'd choose the latter" is comedic because of the level of exaggeration.

The problems arise because Clarkson so often punches down on targets where that level of hated isn't an exaggeration.

Hating caravans that much is funny because they're just caravans, no one really feels that strongly about them.

However when he does it against a woman who's had huge amounts of racist and sexist abuse directed at her for years just said negative press almost drove her to suicide, or when he goes after gypsies or mexicans...then all he's doing is amplifying or giving the weight of his national platform to a level of hatred that already exists.

That's not funny, and it quite possibly makes people who do have that level of hatred towards Meghan Markle (or muslims or polish people or any of his other controverisal targets) feel vindicated in feeling they have the right to give out similar abuse when they see a national celebrity is being paid £1m+ a year to do it in the country's most read newspaper.

Great post

 

[Phil1]

That's because it's not satire. Satire by definition has an ulterior meaning, it's doing one thing to draw attention to another.

Clarkson doesn't do that, his brand of comedy is probably best described as farce, where the exaggeration, hyperbole and outlandishness is the whole thing. There's no deeper meaning.

The video of Stewart Lee posted in this thread is satire, he's exaggerating the comedy of Top Gear to draw the audience's attention to how cowardly a brand of humour it is to say something as offensive as you dare and then say "just kidding!".

Clarkson's commentary has no secondary layer, it's just exaggerating things to the point of them being funny. "I don't like caravans" isn't funny, but "caravans are the worst thing ever invented, anyone who owns them is worse than a war criminal and if I had the choice between world peace and destroying all caravans I'd choose the latter" is comedic because of the level of exaggeration.

The problems arise because Clarkson so often punches down on targets where that level of hated isn't an exaggeration.

Hating caravans that much is funny because they're just caravans, no one really feels that strongly about them.

However when he does it against a woman who's had huge amounts of racist and sexist abuse directed at her for years just said negative press almost drove her to suicide, or when he goes after gypsies or mexicans...then all he's doing is amplifying or giving the weight of his national platform to a level of hatred that already exists.

That's not funny, and it quite possibly makes people who do have that level of hatred towards Meghan Markle (or muslims or polish people or any of his other controverisal targets) feel vindicated in feeling they have the right to give out similar abuse when they see a national celebrity is being paid £1m+ a year to do it in the country's most read newspaper.

Clarkson serves just to embolden other sad sacks to rise above the parapet with their shitty little views of the world. They hide behind the excuse that its all just a bit of fun and bemoan the left for not taking a joke when the reality is cunts will always gravitate towards cunts. Pretty much to a poster on this thread the ones liking what he's said have the same views on other threads be it Brexit, immigration, the monarchy, the shit show of a government etc.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

Total wanker. Sadly won't be finished

 

[journolud]

So lets try and put things in perspective:

Lefty 'Lord' Tom Watson wrongly smears Tory politician with vile child abuser accusations that cause very serious distress to him and his wife and family for many years (using parliamentary privilege to do so) and after seven years he eventually apologises. Not a mention of it on here. Not a solitary word.

Right wing 'celebrity' makes a few jokes in a newspaper article about an American 'actress' who married into the royal family for money then single handedly vilifies it and tries to destroy it from within and 20,000 people make a formal complaint and it gets its own 25 page thread on BlueLoon.

What a fucked up sense of priorities this place has...

Do you know how to use the search function? Plenty of comments about Tom Watson, not all related to what you mention but enough to make your comment invalid. Not that it’s got anything to do with this thread anyway

 

[Nethermoor]

Clarkson serves just to embolden other sad sacks to rise above the parapet with their shitty little views of the world. They hide behind the excuse that its all just a bit of fun and bemoan the left for not taking a joke when the reality is cunts will always gravitate towards cunts. Pretty much to a poster on this thread the ones liking what he's said have the same views on other threads be it Brexit, immigration, the monarchy, the shit show of a government etc.

Going to blow your mind here so try and unpick this.

I like clarkson, but don’t agree with his views. I’m not right wing, I didn’t vote Brexit, I hate those cunts that moan about “boat people” etc.

What I am is an adult who can like someone who has different views than my own. I’ll happily call someone a wanker if they do something stupid or say something that’s racist/homophobic/mysoginistic.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Going to blow your mind here so try and unpick this.

I like clarkson, but don’t agree with his views. I’m not right wing, I didn’t vote Brexit, I hate those cunts that moan about “boat people” etc.

What I am is an adult who can like someone who has different views than my own. I’ll happily call someone a wanker if they do something stupid or say something that’s racist/homophobic/mysoginistic.

Are you saying that Clarkson is a wanker?

 

[cheekybids]

So lets try and put things in perspective:

Lefty 'Lord' Tom Watson wrongly smears Tory politician with vile child abuser accusations that cause very serious distress to him and his wife and family for many years (using parliamentary privilege to do so) and after seven years he eventually apologises. Not a mention of it on here. Not a solitary word.

Right wing 'celebrity' makes a few jokes in a newspaper article about an American 'actress' who married into the royal family for money then single handedly vilifies it and tries to destroy it from within and 20,000 people make a formal complaint and it gets its own 25 page thread on BlueLoon.

What a fucked up sense of priorities this place has...

Start a thread & provide background to people like me who haven’t seen the Netflix documentary on lefty lord Tom & I’ll join in and call him a ****. He certainly sounds like one.

 

[blueinsa]

And todays whataboutary award goes to….

It’s not whataboutery to point out some incredible displays of hypocrisy seen on these forums.

We have one poster involved in here showing their disgust at Clarkson on another thread gleefully saying they would love to see Sunak and Braverman hung by their necks until they are dead!

Not a peep from anyone, not a single accusation of racism, nothing as usual.

 

[Nethermoor]

Are you saying that Clarkson is a wanker?

He is a wanker. But I like his shows… and I’m sure he doesn’t actually want what he says in the papers to happen. He does it to get a reaction. I wouldn’t do it, but it works for him. Look at the huge thread here.

 

[City Hobgoblin]

He should have stuck to talking about cars.
It was clear he was a wanker from the point he said, on prime time BBC TV, that striking public sector workers should be shot in front of their families.