In my country, politicians need to apologize a lot.
The most common apology, is “Im sorry YOU took offence of my remark” So, the usual method amongst my people is that YOU are responsible for the reaction to MY offence. Its never possible that the offender is guilty of any thing.
Dude stop. When SDMB folks take their torches and pitchforks and play follow the leader into the Pit to attack you, it’s done. Nothing you can say will turn back the horde.
You apologized? That’s just giving them more words to twist into unrecognizable shapes. Your words no longer belong to you.
It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.
Persecution complex - RationalWiki
The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true desserts.
but unfortunately for you Reimann, those so motivated and open-minded enough to actually read what I say, then compare it with what I’m accused of saying, will see that I am right and you are wrong.
It is in black and white and it ain’t going anywhere.
I posted the whole apology, (which was more than anyone else did). I note the tone, length and explanatory depth of what he did, what he felt and the fact that he is sorry for doing so.
Knowing something of the off-screen and on-screen persona this reads to me as honest and sincere.
It is a qualitative assessment. You aren’t going to get a definitive analysis of true/false here. As such we absolutely can agree to disagree, in fact I don’t think there is any other option.
Disagreeing is absolutely fine.
What can I say? it is a hobby and it amuses me.
The last part is accurate though, as Clarkson himself found out. An honest apology is never enough and often just feeds the beast.
If only we could find a True Open-Minded Scotsman.
It’s your refuge from living in a real world where you can’t express your racist, misogynistic views like you desperately need to.
Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies.
As always.
I don’t express such views because I don’t hold such views. Never have.
It is a paradox of your own construction. It is easy enough for to break it though if you so wish.
Next time you want to argue against a point of view I hold, quote the actual text of the words I used and comment on them.
I would applaud your open-mindedness and honesty if you did so. It’d be a refreshing change
There is nothing paradoxical about your refusal to ever listen and learn; your psychology of digging in deeper the more facts and information are presented that contradict your position; you as the personification of the Galileo Gambit, perversely interpreting the fact that others disagree with you in itself as a validation of your intellectual superiority.
And the more you refuse to swallow your pride and actually quote the actual words you have a problem with the more you prove my point for me.
I’ve never claimed any intellectual superiority, that was an accusation made on my behalf by someone else but I don’t expect you to acknowledge it. Just like I would not expect you to acknowledge that in the description of my job that you weirdly pulled into this thread I state that the others in the room with me are smarter than me. Wouldn’t fit your pre-determined opinion so it’ll be quietly ignored.
Have you anything new to say? You are a broken record so unless you’ve got a new point I’m just going stop responding. At some point it stops being interesting.
Take it as a win if it makes you happy, you could do with it.
You think “race is not a factor” in somebody’s suggesting that Rishi Sunak “looks like” Mr Potato Head?? That’s “I don’t see color”-level of willful obliviousness.
You also appear to have jumped to the conclusion that I assumed that only brown politicians like Sunak would be subjects of mockery in Private Eye “lookalikes”, which I did not assume and did not imply. But I think your blanket assertion that the specific ways that politicians are mocked for their looks has nothing to do with race is completely unsupported and smacks of wishful thinking.
Yes, I would hope it would be “boringly predictable” of me to be aware that a UK satire mag making fun of how a brown politician looks might plausibly be influenced by racist stereotypes. Any non-bigot who’s not incredibly naive and/or stupid would be “boringly predictable” in that awareness.
I came to the (probably inevitable) conclusion that N_B is doing low level trolling and/or is so fixated on his own POV to the point of excluding all other points to the degree it’s indistinguishable from low level trolling. But that’s their bag, so I figured I’d spare them and myself and threw down an ignore. And it improved this thread by over 80%+. 
Because right now it’s all N_B wailing, gnashing their teeth, and crying “Oh woe is me!” (based on the replies at least).
One day we’ll get back to the point of the thread, rather than a pathetic apologist exposing his privilege for all the world to see (oh wait, that’s both N_B AND the target of the thread, perhaps there’s a connection?).
We could just rename the thread “Jeremy Clarkson and Novelty_Bubble are pigs” but those sorts of titles are no longer allowed in the Pit.
For that matter, has anyone ever seen N_B and Clarkson in the same room at the same time? It would explain a few things.
So still nothing comes to mind.
You are unable to point to any specifics of what he said that supports your position, nor can you show anything wrong in my actual analysis of what he said, and how it is a non-apology.
Hmm - Clarkson grew up in Yorkshire, and spends much of his working life surrounded by people smarter than him (Hammond and May, for a start)…
Correct, I don’t think race played any part in that comparison. I think it is blindingly obvious that the stylised hair and glasses on the potato and on the PM, plus the overall shape of Sunaks head are what make it a good piss-take. None of those have anything to do with Sunak’s race.
I’m not in the least bit surprised that you’d make that assumption. I made a point earlier that people are prone to assuming that every accusation of wrongdoing is true when it accords with their prior beliefs.
You make my point for me, what would convince you that the lookalike isn’t motivated by racism?
ah yes, you were the one who either deliberately or carelessly misrepresented my claim, then completely invented a position I didn’t hold, were called out on it and then decided the most honorable thing to do was completely ignore their error hoping people wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care.
Well, half right I suppose, well done you.