I can see why you would need us to believe that, give your performance in online interaction.
I’ve no interest in having you believe anything. Your opinion is of no consequence to me. Real people, colleagues, friends and family in the real world are the only people that matter.
You keep saying this and then post hundreds of messages defending yourself for an audience that despised you.
Are you under the impression that there are teeming millions reading these exchanges and thinking, “what a fine gent Novelty is, valiantly beating back the barbarian hordes, day after day?”
Eh, if you really thought that, you wouldn’t be here. Online discussants are of course real people (unless the chatbots have got really good recently), and online discussion is a real activity that is part of people’s lives, not an extradimensional phenomenon that takes place in some alternate universe.
It is true that online discussants seldom directly influence one another’s meatspace lives and social circles (except for taking time away from them, of course), but that doesn’t mean that only meatspace “matters”.
Hey, guys, hold up! It is clear now that you are all of you dog piling someone who hopelessly outclasses of us intellectually! A true scholar and gentleman of exquisite taste and intellectual rigor! Apologize AT ONCE !!!
Right? I mean, what does that even mean?
I guess the point is supposed to be that readers of Private Eye get a lot of exposure to politicians being mocked for doing typical politician stuff?
Although I’m not sure how photo features comparing Rishi Sunak’s personal appearance to that of Mr Potato Head (not AT ALL racist, of course) are supposed to hone one’s skills in apology insincerity detection.
I don’t consider you the audience but if people purposefully lie and misrepresent what I say then yes, I’ll often defend myself. It amuses me to predict the circumstances and form of the lies and misrepresentations. Sometimes they are inventive and surprising, mostly not. The people who do it and the subject matter involved are entirely predictable.
Weird that you would post that specific quote of mine and then ask that specific question.
Don’t take the “real” part literally. The people are of course human and the words really do exist.
But actually I’d say that online discussion, and specifically for me this board, does take place in a form of alternative universe. In my experience the discussions I get involved with here are conducted very differently to the ones I have in real life.
I find it interesting, amusing, informative and sometimes frustrating to take part.
No need to guess the point, that’s exactly the point.
The “lookalikes” is a regular section that cruelly takes the piss out of the appearance of various powerful people, race is not a factor. Boringly predictable that you would think it is.
That part of the magazine is irrelevant to my point, as I’m sure you know. The regular dissection of political double-speak, weasel words and non-apologies however is a really good preparation for detecting it elsewhere.
I suspect you aren’t a regular reader?
Laughable that you’d think Private Eye is an indicator of “exquisite taste and intellectual rigour”. It does however shine a light on the shady side of politics and the way it operates and speaks. That’s the relevance of mentioning it in relation to assessing the sincerity of an apology.
I also regularly read The Guardian, The New Statesman, The Spectator and Viz. Make of that mixed bag what you will but it is fairly run-of-the-mill.
More laughable that your sarcasm detector is this broken.
It’s true what they say, no-one’s 100% a dick.
No sarcasm detector is so broken that it cannot detect that sledgehammer-subtle sarcastic tone. Mine was pegged in the red and I just ignored it and corrected them on their underlying assumption.
Reading Viz is not a guarantee that someone isn’t a dick.
…that they clearly didn’t suffer from in the first place.
Well, if you insist…dick.
I don’t think there’s much room for interpretation here though.
Clarkson’s apology includes the name “Meghan” 3 times.
2 of those times are just to refer to the article (e.g. “the piece about Meghan”). And then one is where he says he sent an emailed apology to Harry and Meghan, and I guess we’re supposed to infer he gave a genuine apology in that.
How can you take that to be a real, contrite apology to the subject of his original article? It just isn’t.
I don’t actually like pile-ons, so that’s not what I am doing in this thread.
I might agree, for example, with your earlier point that the walk of shame may not be, in itself, misogynist. Because I have heard people suggest men or even objects or abstract things should do the walk of shame. I can believe that he wasn’t trying to be misogynist.
My position is simply that it was unnecessarily hateful, against a woman who has already received far too much of it, and his apology was a “sorry you got offended” non-apology.
He should apologize. For reals.
ah, that one was a little too subtle for you. I’m dissappointed.
I think there is room for interpretation and everyone’s will vary I’m sure.
I think it is genuine and sincere and I don’t think it has to conform to our individual ideal wording to be considered as such.
Ah, are you under the mistaken impression that I read Viz? Not since the 90s, mate, because I grew up, past finding Fat Slags and double entendres funny.
But I did still have some warm memories of the people I shared those times with. So there was some residual second-hand good will going there. Of course, you had to piss it away. That is indeed what dicks do.
I’ve never heard that particular form of it suggested for men, and the historical antecedents are similarly gendered.
Agree to disagree is a complete cop-out here. This is a discussion forum.
So instead of just asserting your position, how about trying to point to things in his statement that support what you’re saying, as I have been doing for multiple posts now?