Clarkson. Finished?

Really_here said:
Free speech isn't an "argument", it's a right and if you speak hatred then so be it, as long as you stand behind it and don't hide behind aliases so people know how hateful your thoughts. Banning it just gives it a meaning beyond it's true worth. It should be called out as hatred by those who disagree and/or ignored. I'm all for people saying what they thought of what Clarkson said and they strongly disagree but I do think he has the right to say it. If people disagree with the Sun publishing it then don't read the Sun anymore if you feel that strongly and don't click on the myriad "links" that generate cash for the authors. Prescribing what people can and can't say is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
I think there are commentators with powerful platforms in the UK, Morgan, Farage, Clarkson, Katie Hopkins and probably others I've not heard off. They are all heavily right wing and pretty goddamn racist.
IMO what these people do with their articles/opinions is promote division within society, just read this thread for proof.

Farage creating hate for immigrants is a typical example. Unbending love/support for the Royal family from Piers Morgan and all the other far right drivel he spouts.
These commentators do what Trump did in America, get the support of the far right and promote a sort of neo fascism. They create hate in society, usually against the less privileged. They are the enemy of peaceful harmony.

I think if it was up to them Britain would still have the Empire.

And now it's come to advocating marching a young woman (who has committed no crimes) naked through towns and cities in the UK whilst having insults and (presumably human) shit thrown at her. Just because he doesn't like her.
I think to these commentators some people in society are actually sub-human.

How would Clarkson feel if someone with a huge platform wrote that article about his own daughter or wife?
 
Last edited:
Bill Walker said:
I think there are commentators with powerful platforms in the UK, Morgan, Farage, Clarkson, Katie Hopkins and probably others I've not heard off. They are all heavily right wing and pretty goddamn racist.
IMO what these people do with their articles/opinions is promote division within society, just read this thread for proof.

Farage creating hate for immigrants is a typical example. Unbending love/support for the Royal family from Piers Morgan and all the other far right drivel he spouts.
These commentators do what Trump did in America, get the support of the far right and promote a sort of neo fascism. They create hate in society, usually against the less privileged. They are the enemy of peaceful harmony.

I think if it was up to them Britain would still have the Empire.

And now it's come to advocating marching a young woman (who has committed no crimes) naked through towns and cities in the UK whilst having insults and (presumably human) shit thrown at her. Just because he doesn't like her.
I think to these commentators some people in society are actually sub-human.

How would Clarkson feel if someone with a huge platform wrote that article about his own daughter or wife?
Click to expand...
The saddest thing of all is how easily they can whip people into a frenzy of hate, and that points to something much more sinister in our society. Hopefully, young people (who tend to draw their news from different sources) are much more aware of what people like this are doing and are therefore calling it out - it's probably why those 'journalists' are the also the keenest to label young people as woke, snowflakes, lefties, radicals, Corbynistas, or other such nonsense.
 
blueinsa said:
He has managed it going off this thread…
Click to expand...
It is right that people are angry when a woman is the target of misogyny, advocating public shaming and attacks. As I am sure you are aware, I am talking of the kind of incessant targeting that sees elements of society talking of hating someone and wishing them harm, even though they have never met that person and their 'crimes' are unclear. What people like Piers and Clarkson consistently do is target young women, from Raducanu to Markle to Thunberg, et al. and I often wonder why so many seem so keen to jump onto the hate bandwagon. What is it about young women with a voice that these men hate so much?
 
Bill Walker said:
I think there are commentators with powerful platforms in the UK, Morgan, Farage, Clarkson, Katie Hopkins and probably others I've not heard off. They are all heavily right wing and pretty goddamn racist.
IMO what these people do with their articles/opinions is promote division within society, just read this thread for proof.

Farage creating hate for immigrants is a typical example. Unbending love/support for the Royal family from Piers Morgan and all the other far right drivel he spouts.
These commentators do what Trump did in America, get the support of the far right and promote a sort of neo fascism. They create hate in society, usually against the less privileged. They are the enemy of peaceful harmony.

I think if it was up to them Britain would still have the Empire.

And now it's come to advocating marching a young woman (who has committed no crimes) naked through towns and cities in the UK whilst having insults and (presumably human) shit thrown at her. Just because he doesn't like her.
I think to these commentators some people in society are actually sub-human.

How would Clarkson feel if someone with a huge platform wrote that article about his own daughter or wife?
Click to expand...
Always animal shit. No one in their right mind would throw human shit. That's just gross.
 
Sorry if someone has already posted this. It was tweeted shortly after the Sun’s apology was published.

 
This has probably already been mentioned but there are problems with asserting that free speech should be an exceptionless moral principle or right.

First of all, an unlikely but hypothetical case: suppose that I am a chemist who inadvertently discovers a simple way to manufacture a highly lethal nerve gas from readily available kitchen products. Would it be acceptable for me to publicise the recipe online in a manner that might attract attention from terrorist organisations?

If that example sounds contrived, then what about Rex Feral's Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors ? It was published in the USA and came to wider public attention when a real hit man followed instructions in the book to carry out an actual contract. That's an interesting example to research online, starting with the Wikipedia entry.

200px-Hit_mancons.jpg



When it comes to the limits of free speech and a consideration of what it is appropriate or inappropriate to state in public, the most obvious line to be drawn is one described by the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill contrasts a newspaper article in which the author claims that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, and the same view spoken (or communicated via a placard) right outside a corn dealer’s house. The first is, for Mill, a controversial opinion that should be allowed to enter the public debate, even if the view is false or immoral; the second is, in those circumstances, an act of incitement to violence and unacceptable.

Interestingly, Trump arguably crossed that line during his presidential campaign. At Wilmington, North Carolina on August 9th 2016, he said this about Hillary Clinton: 'If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.'

Mill was probably thinking about incitement to physical violence. But what of speech that amounts to relentless, psychological bullying? That often happens in schools. And what if the recipient of the bullying has a high physical pain threshold but is more sensitive to verbal assaults?

Cases of undeserved media witch hunts like the one against Markle and the activities of online trolls also spring to mind, especially, in the latter instance, when they emanate from the darker corners of cyberspace.

My personal view is that there is probably no unambiguous or entirely satisfactory way to balance off the interests of those who are concerned about free expression and the right to offend, and those who might be on the receiving end of the worst examples of this.

Maybe it's a case of deploying Mill's principle as an initial yardstick or signpost and then coming to a more specific judgement about each case individually.
 
Meh. I remember when Danny Baker did a bit about the chimp's tea party in relation to harry and megan's wedding. It's standard poke-the-rich stuff as far as I am concerned. William and Charles as monkeys in suits going silly when Philip Arrives tickles me just right. BUT It obviously wasn't taken that way.

The Clarkson thing, I thought it was a bit rich. I'm not a huge fan. But I've heard that reference to GOT being used for a laugh loads. That's what he meant, as far as I can tell - "listen to the braying crowds and their stupid obsession and tell me it's not like that bit in GOT... I'm practically one of them!". BUT it's not always what you mean that counts.

It meant something different to the audience. His daughter will have educated him. I think that might be because he wasn't very careful with how he worded it. He does ride that edge of 'being innocently misunderstood' a lot - so he can't complain in my book. And his daughter will have destroyed him.
 
FantasyIreland said:
Free speech is fine....until it upsets the individual complaining.

If you dont like it,dont put yourself in a place you will encounter it......very easy really.
Click to expand...
Not sure this argument really holds up.

Let's say, hypothetically, someone is exercising their right to 'free speech' on Market Street. This someone is using inflammatory and offensive language. Are all the people who may be offended supposed to just drop what they're doing and go home?

It's an extreme example, admittedly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
 
Roy Munson said:
Not sure this argument really holds up.

Let's say, hypothetically, someone is exercising their right to 'free speech' on Market Street. This someone is using inflammatory and offensive language. Are all the people who may be offended supposed to just drop what they're doing and go home?

It's an extreme example, admittedly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...
Yes,ignore it and go about your own business.

Too many busy fuckers in this world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top