I think that’s a very good one-line summary, yes. All the evidence points to that. Maybe he would have learned how not to be this way, had he faced material consequences from his repeated poor behaviour. Instead, he has essentially been rewarded for it.
I very much doubt that you read it in an open-minded way and your paraphrase confirms it.
It is fine to be honest about this, you don’t like him, was there ever any apology that he could have made that would have been enough for you?
I have to ask the same question that @Stanislaus is asking: What is the joke?
This is what he is saying: “I hate this person so much that it pleases me to imagine that she is publicly humiliated in the same way that this TV character was publicly humiliated.” That’s not a joke. It might be hyperbolic, but it’s not a joke. It’s a description of his feelings.
And that is the difference between this column, and (according to the current issue of Private Eye) one he published 4 years ago, in which he made the same GoT reference in relation to Markle - but said he couldn’t understand why people hated her that much, and that it should stop. Funnily enough, that earlier one got zero complaints - because it wasn’t promoting hatred, it was countering it.
The joke is of course, that he doesn’t hate her that much, just like he doesn’t think she is a worse person than a serial killer. Just like he doesn’t mean 99% of the hyperbolic statements he makes.
Again, you may not like it and may not think it is funny. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t joking.
He’s just a washed up edgelord. What’s even sadder are the downgrades who run full speed to defend him.
I don’t mind offensive jokes at my expense but as I mentioned before, intent is the main criteria by which I judge things. If you made a joke that inadvertently offended me, on whatever subject, that is one thing.
If you purposefully set out to target me with offensive jokes and try to encourage everyone else to do so…well, OK I guess, but it doesn’t put you in a very good light.
That’s not a joke.
It could possibly be a joke if he doesn’t actually hate her and he was mocking people who hate her at all. But it’s clear that it’s not the case.
Even his apology makes that clear. He’s not apologizing for hating her; he’s apologizing for the shocking violent misogyny of the way he expressed his hate.
Actually, I’m not even sure he is doing that. It isn’t clear to me that he understands how shocking, violent, and misogynistic his words were. He’s just apologizing because he was surprised by people’s reaction.
If you think it’s an unfair summary, let’s hear what inconsistency you think there is between what I said and what he said.
More assumptions about my thoughts and motivations. Please tell me more about myself, since you’re such an expert.
But in fact, I’m a fan of Clarkson and have probably watched every episode of top gear. I’ve also enjoyed his appearances on shows like HIGNFY and QI. However, being a fan of someone doesn’t mean excusing everything they do or say. I think his newspaper columns are usually bilge and this episode is, as I say, disgusting.
In terms of your rhetorical question, his apology should be addressed to Meghan and include some degree of sorrow for causing upset to her, and encouraging others to behave equally and unnecessarily hateful towards her.
The closest he got to any of that, was saying that the email was addressed to both Harry and Meghan, though even on that, Harry and Meghan have said actually it was just addressed to Harry.
The rest of it was just sorry that he was being misconstrued, which is the classic non-apology apology. His preamble of suggesting that some people are not satisfied by an apology was very obviously to head off the fact that this isn’t a real apology, and most of us were able to see that.
This, basically.
Clarkson rarely means any actual malice in the things he says or does. What makes him a dick is the failure to acknowledge that not meaning any genuine malice doesn’t magically make the things he says or does okay.
Woke up this morning to see this thread has blown up, and . . . wow N_B, this is an interesting take on racism. But okay, let’s say, just for the moment, that offensive speech should only be judged on the speakers intent, which is terrifying in implications. I mean right now, that is the current Republican dodge on advocating the hunting and murder of their opponents, but it’s fine because it’s a joke.
You can advocate for insurrection, defame and libel corporations and individuals to the point they’re getting death threats, being kidnapped and beaten, or having their homes shot up, but that’s okay, because no ‘reasonable person’ would have considered these statements ‘factual’, they’re just for entertainment purposes, not ‘News’.
But okay, let’s take this back to the (relatively) small stakes of this thread. All of your points come back to defining Clarkson’s intent. But, as we discussed in detail before you bombed your way into the thread, that’s one of the things we have done, and to save myself a bunch of typing when I could be getting caffeine, I’ll just quote myself from upthread:
(Note, the apology I mention is his first effort, as the situation blew up rather than the more involved one later on).
So yeah, we already discussed in detail both his style and his prior body of work, none of which support your indications of intent. The best defense one could muster in light of it all is that Clarkson doesn’t try to be a pig, but since he’s a big by nature it just slips out. There, you’ve cleared the intent, but it doesn’t change the underlying person. ETA - @gyrate just made a similar point as I was typing this, so points to them!
Which brings us back to you N_B. You keep defending Clarkson, and taking him at his word for his sincerity, when decades of evidence and the testimony of the closest to him speak against such sincerity. It makes YOU at best a credulous fool, and at worst, well, most people who want their own speech to ONLY be defined by themselves are the ones who want to be able to say anything they want about other people, but demand they never be judged for what they say. Elon Musk as a very prominent example. I have no problems in light of YOUR body of work saying you fit this category.
Which as you yourself said in a slightly different context upthread, it doesn’t put you in a very good light.
Do you laugh at the image of Meghan Markle being marched naked in the street and pelted with excrement?
Slightly unfair - the hyperbolic ridiculousness of it is the intended joke, not the actual thought of it happening.
The problem, of course, is that there are lots and lots of people saying things that are just as bad or worse about MM, and they aren’t joking. Which undermines the entire premise of the joke, and makes Clarkson look like one of the genuinely virulent haters.
And mind you: had Diana lived, there would sooner or later have ensued a conflict in the court of public opinion about how much this now-outsider who dates people of Egyptian descent should influence the shaping of the princes including a future king.
The tabs and the general royal-watcher public don’t help as they keep alternatingly pushing the narratives of wanting both “people’s beloved” royals AND “proper regal held-in-awe” royals.
As was mentioned, you often get the “Yoko effect”. Never mind if the institution is internally dysfunctional, the fans want to believe they would get over it if it weren’t for the interloping outsider. Diana avoided it because she had charisma, and was seen as this innocent girl who was dragged into this world where the Windsors were so transparently the ones being dicks.
But is there any amount of information that will ever change your mind? There’s a difference between a brave independent thinker and someone with limited insight who forms an opinion and then stubbornly refuses ever to shift a millimeter, even when everyone else is telling him that he is wrong. And I’m starting to think the latter is what you are. You are certainly correct that it annoys people.
I recall this other thread, where we were discussing science, psychology, statistics. Even on matters that were objective questions of science and math, despite careful explanations from people who clearly understand the field better than you, you were never willing to shift one iota from your initial position on any issue throughout that entire thread. The irony that the subject matter of the thread was a similar type of cognitive defect was apparently lost on you.
I said nothing about inconsistency but I certainly think it is unfair to summarise when there is no need to.
OK, if I’m wrong about that and you do actually like him then I stand corrected. But of course assuming thoughts and motivations seems to be a very common path to take when it comes to Clarkson himself.
Is that what I actually said?
And do you think they intend it purely as a joke?
I was in the thread before you were.
Sure, that’s a valid question to ask.
Show me credible evidence that every incidence of claimed prejudicial words or actions is true and should be automatically assumed as such. That would change my mind.
I’ll turn that back on you. What evidence would it take to convince you that not every incidence of claimed prejudicial words or actions is true and should be automatically assumed as such?
I’m struggling to parse this gibberish.
You would not change your mind about a specific accusation of prejudice unless I could provide evidence that every such accusation should be assumed to be true?
Well, that bizarre position is consistent with your behavior.
Well it was your question that I was responding to.
I hold the following position, which I stated and which you specifically quoted.
And you asked me what evidence would change my mind on that, to which I replied.
So I’m not sure which part you are struggling with. You never asked about what would change my mind on a specific incident.