Yes, if it walks like a duck, shits like a duck, it’s a duck. This guy spews misogynistic shit, thus he’s a misogynist, up and until he meaningfully apologizes and never repeats the behavior. I won’t hold my breath, considering his apparent history.
This bit is interesting:
fine.” The BBC was forced to apologise to the Mexican ambassador but also defended the show’s presenters, saying national stereotyping was part of British humour.
So refreshing that they admit that racism is a fundamental part of British national culture. That’s the first step.
Being a celebrity asshole would not sell if only the audience wasn’t composed largely of nobody assholes. Since it does sell we therefore know a lot about the composition of the audience.
Human nature; it’s why we can’t have nice things.
Actually I think your totalitarian approach is the true modern sickness and readily exacerbated by social media. By your standard everything uttered by anyone, whether in jest, by accident or in complete innocence becomes an accurate and unshifting depiction of real views and intent.
That has the benefit of simplicity certainly, but I also think that is harmful nonsense and clearly wrong, as anyone who has ever interacted with a real person who has said the wrong thing would know.
Intent matters massively, to think it doesn’t is willfull idiocy and doesn’t stand up to the firsts interaction with the real world and real people.
To be 100% sure of intent is not possible, but people are able to explain their intent in words and I’m happy to take them at their word until shown otherwise. What other choice is there until an offline interaction is possible? This is why quoting people accurately and checking you are understanding them correctly is important.
I think it was clear what your intent was in calling for people to purposefully create “horrible” or “awful” jokes about me. You seemed to explain it quite fully, but I can’t be completely sure, was it sarcasm? was it a joke itself? Or was it what it appeared to be on the surface? a mean-spirited and ill-intended call for people to flood my posts with jokes that you hope are deeply offensive to me?
It was that, because you’re an asshole and you’ve been one for a long time. And you love to defend other assholes.
so not impossible to divine intent on the internet at all then?
And yes, I’ll defend arseholes when they are not being arseholes and happily condemn them when they are.
I know that many people can’t, or don’t want to make that distinction but I think treating people fairly on the things that they say and the views that they hold is quite important.
Not past what they write. I made my intentions pretty clear. You see a misogynist shitbag and think, “That’s my guy!”
I mean, you’re probably right about that, but we’re sure going to judge you on it.
Yes, sometimes intent is clear from the words used. It’s right that we pay attention to them. Like Clarkson’s apology. I find it completely sincere and believeable. I suspect you don’t.
Absolutely not, I wouldn’t want to spend any time with Clarkson at all, he’s not “my guy”.
Defending someone in a specific situation is not the same as supporting them. Though I’m sure your black and white thinking dictates that it must be.
I despise Trump with the power of a thousand suns yet if he were misquoted or misrepresented I’d defend him. Go figure.
Why? I mean, he has to make one of the things every few months. What makes this one sincere and believable?
Because it is longer, detailed and more personal than any I’ve heard from him previously. It reads to me like “off screen” Jeremy and not sarcastic “on screen” Jeremy.
A moment ago, you said “I very much doubt that you read it in an open-minded way and your paraphrase confirms it”. When I ask you what I got wrong in my paraphrase, nothing apparently comes to mind, and it’s just the fact that I summarized at all that’s the problem.
Thank you for admitting that you got that guess about my motivations wrong.
But, FTR, I have only judged Clarkson on his words. I have not tried to read beyond them. His “apology” is just a “sorry you misunderstood me” rather than any actual contrition, it’s right there in black and white.
Sure, but this is just about being mistaken about an objective fact. That’s not really the point at issue here.
The point at issue is that there’s an observable pattern that, when you are engaged in a discussion about whether a statement or person is racist or sexist, typically you are found arguing that it is not, and typically there are a lot of people arguing against you. There are various outcomes of these discussions but one that does not seem to crop up very often is you thinking or saying:
“Maybe I’m not so good at detecting sexism as I think; maybe the fact that so many other people see something I do not is evidence that my tools for deciding whether a statement is sexist aren’t as accurate as other people’s; maybe I have something to learn here.”
And it may indeed be the case that all those other people are wrong and you are right! Every time. But there is a very definite pattern here.
What disingenuous bullshit. Just how long a litany of appalling comments followed by insincere notpologies does a racist and misogynist have to be guilty of before you’d stop trying to excuse their behavior?
Intent isn’t a factor in establishing whether the objective semantic content of a person’s words is racist or misogynist. But judging intent certainly matters in how harshly we should condemn them. And how could it be clearer that there is deliberate intent in Clarkson’s consistent schtick over many years of making deliberately racist and misogynist comments over and over again for shock value, to up his ratings with people like you?
If it’s all about intent, what information do we have to assess yours? Your pattern of behavior is becoming equally apparent. You don’t care at all about the specific facts. You clearly have an agenda to defend every racist and misogynist that hits the headlines because the world has become “too politically correct” for your liking.
I think your paraphrase casts the apology in the worst possible light. I read it more charitably than you do and if I had to paraphrase it I’d do so differently.
but as a preference I’d avoid doing so at all and point people to the whole thing.
More like “finally brought to heel by his publicists and lawyers” Clarkson, but you do you.
Me, I just remind myself that it’s offscreen Clarkson that beats up producers, and thinks-he’s-inaudible-onscreen Clarkson that uses the word nigger.
I argue that it is wrong to automatically assume that it must be and I stand by that.
Built into this is an assumption that the people who do think a given statement is sexist are merely automatically assuming it without having put the thought in and only you have the insight and intellectual fortitude to really engage with the complexities of the matter.
Another option is that the people who identify the statement as sexist aren’t automatically assuming anything and are just better than you at recognising sexism.
Is that an option you’ve ever given serious consideration?
Not at all. I don’t jump into every thread on related subjects in order to defend the people accused. That much is readily provable by looking at all the relevant threads. Your perception here is wrong.
I pretty much never post in threads where I consider the accusation is clear and obvious. that doesn’t interest me an I have nothing to add to the rightful condemnation that others voice.
I do concentrate on those cases where I think the outrage is misplaced, unhelpful, just plain wrong or the other side of the case needs to be made. So if I am taking part in discussions on those subjects then it is pretty much certain I’ll be taking the opposite view to the majority. I’m perfectly comfortable with that.
Yes that does sometimes mean defending people I don’t like or views I don’t care for. Again, I’m perfectly comfortable with that.
Yes, those are the threads that I typically engage with. Do you accept that that can happen?
Of course that’s a possibility. It is also a possibility that the definition of those terms expands beyond what is reasonable and sensible. Again, I’m unlikely to be visible in threads where the former is valid.