Not racist? Sure.
Not misogynist? Are you fucking kidding? He’s referencing a very misogynist punishment scene (literal slut-shaming) and wishing it on Markle.
He expressed dislike of a woman, I’m not aware of that dislike having anything to do specifically with her sex.
Yeah, I’m sure he wishes everyone he dislikes is paraded naked, regardless of their gender… there aren’t enough 
in the world, for that amount of bullshit.
Do you think he is seriously wishing for that to happen?
Is it really your argument that if a grotesque gender-based humiliation fantasy is not intended as a serious real-world proposal that it cannot be sexist or misogynistic?
What the fuck does that have to do with whether it’s misogynistic or not?
No, that isn’t my argument.
I don’t think Clarkson referencing the scene is misogynistic.
You are implying that he wishes for it to happen.
No, I’m not.
The imagery used is grossly misogynistic itself, regardless of the potential of the scenario to ever actually happen.
And yes, referencing that scene is inherently misogynistic. Because the scene is a depiction of an inherently misogynistic punishment.
But I’m really not interested in whatever idiotic fuckwittery you’re clearly about to perpetrate. Just fuck off with your truly monumentally stupid “imagining a woman paraded in a naked slutwalk is not misogynistic” defence of the indefensible, and leave it at that, yeah?
So you agree his words were clearly not meant in any serious way at all then?
Then perhaps more outrage should be directed at the makers of Game of Thrones?
You are totally free to have lots of interest, a little interest, or none at all.
Yes, well, considering your record here shows a consistent refusal to recognize racism or to concede that racist words and actions are actually racist, I suppose I should be unsurprised that you show a similar weaselly blindness when transparently obvious misogyny is waved about for the appreciation of the guffawing gammons.
Where (in my view) Clarkson crossed the line was invoking a fantasy scene and applying it to a real person. Thereby explicitly suggesting Markle deserves such treatment, and implying (or at least, it could be inferred) that she is a slut. That is on him, not on the producers of GoT. Plus there is the fact that plenty of people (me included) have never read or seen GoT, and therefore wouldn’t have got the reference - making it look like straightforward hate (albeit in that case also losing the ‘slut’ aspect of it, and therefore perhaps not being misogynistic but probably more reprehensible - it would have been equally unacceptable had Clarkson said such a thing about a man).
I wrote something similar to you recently (to which you said you didn’t care, so I doubt this will make any difference) and this will be the last time I bother: for someone who claims not to be misogynistic or racist, you spend a lot of time posting in a manner that is very difficult to distinguish from someone who is. On that basis, as with Clarkson, although I’ve enjoyed much of your content in the past I’m no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. At least insofar as although I still want to believe you are sincere, you are not helping the cause of equality by defending things like this, it gives cover to those who are racist and misogynistic even if you yourself are not.
Not in the slightest bit true. People can read that total pile of bullshit misrepresentation if they like and they will see that you further misrepresentation above is a lie. One stated either in malice or in ignorance.
The problem people have with what I say is that I don’t automatically agree that every incidence of claimed prejudicial words or actions is automatically true. This annoys people.
Same in this case.
No, I do not agree to your dumb fucking reframing. “Not able to actually happen” and “not in a serious way” are not synonymous.
False dilemma.
And you are free to get fucked by a cactus, I’m sure.
I’m not aware of the exchange you are mentioning, could you link to it?
I don’t ever post to agree with all the many cases of prejudicial words and actions listed on these boards because they don’t interest me. I only post in relation to those cases when I don’t think the accusations are warranted.
That necessarily skews the superficial perception of my position but that perception is incorrect. Accusations made against me are never substantiated by actually quoting the bad things I’ve said and mostly are outright lies or misrepresentations.
I disagree, the watering-down of terms and unthinking acceptance of all claims is ultimately harmful to the pursuit of equality. It is far easier to avoid pushing back at all and not question. Certainly it is easier to take that road when the price of pushing back is personal attacks lies and misrepresentation.
Never said they were, He was clearly joking. You clearly also think he was.
“He was only joking” is an absolute non-defence of a defence that excuses absolutely zero of his woman-hating bilious spew…
I don’t believe that he hates women and don’t think that this article is evidence that he does.
He thought he went too far in the joke, has apologised and that should be the end of it.
I can easily believe he does. I mean, he’s a vile racist pig on open mikes, what makes you think anyone would seriously believe misogyny would be a bridge too far for him? Especially since this is hardly the first misogynist thing he’s said out loud.
Not as long as you’re here defending his misogyny, it won’t.
Yes, here: Is it racist to use the term 'Master Bedroom' - #278 by Dead_Cat
I think it’s fair to question these things, but in this thread you:
- Began by quoting a post which (I thought) was pretty clearly saying Markle has been a victim of racism in general and asking if that applied to Clarkson’s comment, which was a (quickly refuted) strawman.
- Have had it explained by several posters why his remarks were unacceptable, but your conclusion is that it’s OK because he’s only joking.
My point is not just that it’s hard to distinguish your position from that of a racist/misogynist. It’s fine if you don’t care about that perception, but if you really want to pursue equality, you may want to consider that taking such positions might make it easier for insidious racism and misogyny to flourish.
I don’t think that’s really the point - the point is that he made an unacceptable remark that could well incite (further) hatred against someone, which had misogynistic overtones. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t actually hate women and it doesn’t matter that he was joking.
Well, it is - I don’t think anyone is suggesting responding in kind by literally throwing shit at him, just that a lot of people have concluded he is an arse who should shut up and go away. He has such a long record for this sort of thing that even if his apology was sincere, it’s not enough. He is a classic recidivist. And his publishers at the Sun and The Sunday Times are almost equally culpable both in allowing this and continuing to pay him for it over the years.