BBC Expert: Strikers Should Be Executed In Front Of Their Families

[Rapscallion]

Plus he is a public sector employee isn't he? =p

Not having a TV means I'm badly out of date on this, but the last I heard he bought out Top Gear and made it into the popular programme it is, and effectively is now a producer selling a programme to the BBC.

Things may have changed since I last heard, but I think he's self employed.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

First he laughs about how it's been so easy to get things done with the strike going on, then he goes on to say "Of course I don't [know] anyone in public service," as if the idea of him knowing anyone who would be striking is laughable. He finally goes on to say that the BBC has to be impartial and balanced and then goes on the tear about shooting the striking workers. Why would it be that everybody would take the first three comments for the comedy they are, and then throw that out the window for the fourth?

This YouTube video has the entire exchange.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Should I start another thread to ask why watermelon and fried chicken are black stereotypes at all, much less negative ones, or would it fit in here well enough? I've never met anyone who didn't like watermelon (except Dad, and only because it gives him indigestion) nor fried chicken (except vegetarians).

[Gravekeeper]

Clarkson is an upper-class Brit who's absolutely loaded with white privilege.

....uh. His family was firmly middle class far as I see. He dropped out of school and his first job was as a travelling salesmen selling teddy bears for his dad. He worked as a writer for 4 or 5 years before making it onto TV. I'm not sure how or why you're trying to fit white privilege into this either.

Such a viewpoint IS typical of the elite class of Western nations, who do view the "inferior classes" as people that it would be nice to shoot if they're not obedient to upper-class dictates. Having grown up in upper-class society, I've had a front-row seat to such shenanigans. Yes, it is reasonable for him to express such an opinion; it's a common one amongst the Western elite.

Except he grew up middle class.

Again, we're back to "It's A Joke, So It's All Good."
It being a joke does not give it a pass. Just as Carlos Mencia making racist jokes about Hispanics does not give him a pass.

No one's saying its all good because it was a joke. We're just saying it is a joke. A politically incorrect one in horrible taste, which is his whole persona, but a joke none the less. Criticize him for making an offensive, tasteless joke. But don't think he seriously meant it.

And people will listen to Clarkson and nod their heads in agreement and it's all OK because it's a joke. Except it's not OK. It's never OK.

And just as many if not more people will do the opposite, as is evidenced by this entire news story. Because he is a public figure and thus fair game for criticism and condemnation. Hence this entire story is about him being a douche bag, not about him being right. The BBC received thousands of complaints over this, not thousands of "Yeah, you tell em!"'s. Oddly enough, people have their own opinions and everyone on the planet doesn't slavishly follow the opinion of one douche bag on TV as their moral compass.

No, I just think you're uneducated on social justice theory, like most people in this forum. And I don't have a lot of hope for people here learning either. Still, change has to be implemented somewhere.

Excuse us for not living up to your lofty expectations. Are there any more leaps, assumptions or snide remarks you'd like to get off your chest about the rest of us while you're on a roll?

[draco664]

Yay! Let's all just jump to conclusions based on a single article written by a Clarkson hater.

Or better yet, have a look at the transcript for the show and see if just maybe there is another explanation for the 'hate-speech'

One Show presenter Matt Baker (MB): Now, at the end of a day where Britain has seen some of its biggest strikes, what we need is someone calm and level-headed.
One Show presenter Alex Jones (AJ): Yes, a guest with balanced, uncontroversial opinions, who makes great effort not to offend.
MB: And we have got Jeremy Clarkson.
Jeremy Clarkson: Thank you very much.
MB: So Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests have been affected. Do you the strikes are a good idea?
Jeremy Clarkson: I think they have been fantastic. Seriously … London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty.
AJ: The traffic actually has been very good today.
Jeremy Clarkson: Very light. Now airports, you know, people streaming through with no problems at all and it is also like being back in the 70s, it makes me feel at home somehow.
MB: Do you know anybody who has been on strike today?
Jeremy Clarkson: What, in public service? Of course I do not. No, absolutely. We have to balance it though, because this is the BBC.
MB: Yes. Exactly.
Jeremy Clarkson: Frankly, I would have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean how dare they go on strike when they have got these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?
MB: Well, on that note of balancing an opinion of course those are Jeremy's views.
AJ: Only Jeremy's views.
Jeremy Clarkson: They are not. I was just giving two views for you.

So there you go. What do you think of the strikes? It's great, but this is the BBC, so we need to give two views. Here's a completely absurd one.

So for all this absolute wank about someone with white collars spouting hate speech, it turns out that yes, funnily enough, he was making a joke, but the joke was at the freaking BBC's inane requirement for two views on every stupid thing.

Nah, bugger it, let's all just get worked up. That's much more productive.

[Gravekeeper]

Yay! Let's all just jump to conclusions based on a single article written by a Clarkson hater.

Or better yet, have a look at the transcript for the show and see if just maybe there is another explanation for the 'hate-speech'

Yeaaaah, ok, the full transcript makes the "OMFG THIS IS AN OUTRAGE" even more ridiculous. Why are we even talking about this again? Oh right. Because, racism(?). >.>

[FArchivist]

Should I start another thread to ask why watermelon and fried chicken are black stereotypes at all, much less negative ones, or would it fit in here well enough? I've never met anyone who didn't like watermelon (except Dad, and only because it gives him indigestion) nor fried chicken (except vegetarians).

Traditional slave foods. Used time out of mind to characterize African-Americans as subhuman and stupid; see minstrel shows and blackface, as well as elements like "Little Black Sambo". There are those who like to claim to be unaware of the racial connotations.

....uh. His family was firmly middle class far as I see.
[snip]
Except he grew up middle class.

Started out in middle class with white privilege and now is rich and upper-class with white privilege. Whole load of white privilege there. And he's assimilated those upper-class viewpoints quite well. So I'm not quite seeing your point.

No one's saying its all good because it was a joke. We're just saying it is a joke. A politically incorrect one in horrible taste, which is his whole persona, but a joke none the less. Criticize him for making an offensive, tasteless joke. But don't think he seriously meant it.

It's funny how people like to think that when a person makes an offensive, tasteless joke, they don't seriously mean it. Y'know, even though my grandfather would make constant offensive, tasteless jokes about der schwarzes untermensch and die Juden, I'm sure he didn't mean it.

Oh, wait...except for his very proud service for the Fatherland. Never mind!

I quote, with added emphasis: There is a false perception that changing an audience changes whether it is offensive or not. Guessing as to who might be offended is circumventing what actually should be done: questioning why something is funny in the first place. This consideration takes a lot more effort, and can be unpleasant. After some thought, a link sent to a friend might become something different than it is on the surface. Thinking yourself a racist, sexist or other offender is discomforting.

There's a reason why people make the jokes they do. Most people don't want to admit to themselves that they slut-shame, that they hold other races or nationalities in contempt (see Carlos Mencia for self-race-hatred in action by his promotion of incorrect Hispanic stereotypes through humor), or engage in other isms. And very, very, VERY rarely is it just because "it's only a joke!".

Because he is a public figure and thus fair game for criticism and condemnation. Hence this entire story is about him being a douche bag, not about him being right.

As a public figure of influence and power, he needs to be held to a higher standard. And certainly not forgive him.

The BBC received thousands of complaints over this, not thousands of "Yeah, you tell em!"'s.

Nope, only some hundreds.

Oddly enough, people have their own opinions and everyone on the planet doesn't slavishly follow the opinion of one douche bag on TV as their moral compass.

People with power and influence need to be aware of the possible negative effects of their power and influence. Until everyone is educated, there will always be people who follow the herd.

[B]

Excuse us for not living up to your lofty expectations.

You're excused. No, wait, you're not. No one ever is.

Are there any more leaps, assumptions or snide remarks you'd like to get off your chest about the rest of us while you're on a roll?

Previous experience shows this forum is not terribly interested in social justice. Still, the Social Justice Warrior must continue and perhaps there will be progress. The cause of Social Justice demands it.

So there you go. What do you think of the strikes? It's great, but this is the BBC, so we need to give two views. Here's a completely absurd one. So for all this absolute wank about someone with white collars spouting hate speech, it turns out that yes, funnily enough, he was making a joke, but the joke was at the freaking BBC's inane requirement for two views on every stupid thing. Nah, bugger it, let's all just get worked up. That's much more productive.

Seriously ask yourself this question: Why Is This Funny?

Is having labor union members executed in front of their families just that hilarious? No, really - is it funny? Humorous? Make you full of the chuckles?

How about the Thibodaux Massacre? The Lattimer Massacre? How about the Ludlow Massacre? Do they strike your funny bone? Maybe it would have been even more hilarious if Clarkson had thrown up pictures of these events throughout his little spiel. Emphasized the humor, you know, give it some visual clarity. Surely that would have given him a few more chucks, right?

Perhaps you should keep those in events in your head when you think about how funny it was. Perhaps the victims might have found it just as amusing.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

[Gravekeeper]

Started out in middle class with white privilege and now is rich and upper-class with white privilege. Whole load of white privilege there. And he's assimilated those upper-class viewpoints quite well. So I'm not quite seeing your point.

Nor I yours. Unless its "If you're white and become successful you're automatically a dick."? I fail to see what him being white has to do with any of this or why you keep trying to shoehorn in the term white priviledge. Are you saying he got to where he is entirely because he's white? Or that he's somehow getting off the hook here because he's white? He doesn't appear to be getting off the hook at all. Though I'm not sure how big a hook you want to cram up his ass at this point.

It's funny how people like to think that when a person makes an offensive, tasteless joke, they don't seriously mean it. Y'know, even though my grandfather would make constant offensive, tasteless jokes about der schwarzes untermensch and die Juden, I'm sure he didn't mean it.

Did you read the transcript at all? -.- Also, did you just Godwin us? Seriously?

As a public figure of influence and power, he needs to be held to a higher standard. And certainly not forgive him.

He's a dick in a show about cars. I think you're giving him a bit too much credit here. Or giving the people of the UK too little. If you seriously think celebrities need to be held to that high a moral standard, there's a laundry list of dipshittery that needs to be address far ahead of this guy.

People with power and influence need to be aware of the possible negative effects of their power and influence. Until everyone is educated, there will always be people who follow the herd.

Yes, there will always be stupid people. Always. That will not change short of the end of our species. But a dipshit in a position of power or influence, especially a celebrity, is the result of us, not the other way around. Yes, people in a position of power and influence should be aware of negative affects of said influence. Buuut this guy is a dickhead that hosts a show about cars. This is not a lofty position of power and influence to any but the dullest farkwits the species has to offer. Short of genetic culling you're not going to rid us of them. -.-

Previous experience shows this forum is not terribly interested in social justice.

.....Seriously? >.>

Seriously ask yourself this question: Why Is This Funny?

Is having labor union members executed in front of their families just that hilarious? No, really - is it funny? Humorous? Make you full of the chuckles?

A) No one here said it was. B) The joke is that in order to balance out the BBC's impartiality policies, he has to come up with a competely absurd counter position to his first position. That seems to be sailing over your head.

Perhaps you should keep those in events in your head when you think about how funny it was. Perhaps the victims might have found it just as amusing.

Perhaps you should stop making sweeping assumptions about people on the board and arguing against viewpoints no one present is even taking. You might find people more receptive to your position then. ;p

[Rapscallion]

Started out in middle class with white privilege and now is rich and upper-class with white privilege. Whole load of white privilege there. And he's assimilated those upper-class viewpoints quite well. So I'm not quite seeing your point.

White and therefore guilty, noted. I consider that to be a racist attitude,

Actually, the UK has a different class system to the US. There's no bugger in the US that will admit to being below middle class as I understnad it. We start at working class, then we have the highly paid professional regions as middle class, and then there's the undeserving for the most part in the upper class. We have homeless and the like, but they're not really considered a class in that sense.

Not sure about Canadalandians.

It's funny how people like to think that when a person makes an offensive, tasteless joke, they don't seriously mean it.

If you read the transcript provided, he was deliberately taking the piss, mostly because the BBC was required to show two views.

Y'know, even though my grandfather would make constant offensive, tasteless jokes about der schwarzes untermensch and die Juden, I'm sure he didn't mean it.

Not something I would have admitted in public, but your choice.

As a public figure of influence and power, he needs to be held to a higher standard. And certainly not forgive him.

Influence? Clarkson? You're shitting me.

He drives cars that are out of the incomes of over ninety percent of his audience. Very few people could afford the cars or to rent the tracks he does. Those who can are usually the sort of people who are too sensible to take him seriously. He is a self-made millionaire, from what I understand. He's a businessman.

Don't like his views? Don't watch his programme or financially support him. As far as UK law goes, as long as he hasn't incited race speech or similar, then he's free to say what he wants. Why should he be held to a different standard by the law because he worked hard, took risks, and made his money?

All equal before the law and all that.

There's me thinking you believed in freedom of speech.

Nope, only some hundreds.

Actually, for the BBC that's quite a few, and probably the majority of them Daily Mail readers reading a selective account the day after.

People with power and influence need to be aware of the possible negative effects of their power and influence. Until everyone is educated, there will always be people who follow the herd.

Could you provide a scale of fame and influence where people are required to nto say certain things, please? You seem to have strong views on it.

Seriously ask yourself this question: Why Is This Funny?

Because he was parodying the requirement of the BBC to have two viewpoints. Read the transcript. He wasn't being serious about it, and anyone that thinks he was needs an upgrade to their sense of humour.

Rapscallion

[protege]

White and therefore guilty, noted. I consider that to be a racist attitude,

Yep, that goes right to the idea that only white people can be racist. A stupid idea in itself

If you read the transcript provided, he was deliberately taking the piss, mostly because the BBC was required to show two views.

That's what I got out of it as well. He was deliberately commenting on the BBC's stupid policy. "Taking the piss," as you put it

Don't like his views? Don't watch his programme or financially support him.

That would be the easy solution. But, his detractors insist that the "authorities" do something about his comments. That is, they have a problem with what he says, they don't want him to say it at all. They want to "protect" viewers. Much like wanting to "protect the children" from supposedly "vulgar" language in this country. You can show a flick of someone getting shot in the face, blood splattering all over the wall...yet God forbid someone says "fuck" while doing it

There's me thinking you believed in freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful concept. However, it also applies to speech that *you* find offensive as well. It runs both ways--to squelch "offensive" speech would violate *their* rights as well.

[Zod]

Of course. Advocating that strikers be shot in front of their families is in no way equivalent to racism. Not even when people were hung in front of their families for the 'crime' of their skin color.

Try as I can, I just can't see a connection between America's history of racial intolerance, and a guy in the UK making fun of the BBC's policy of impartiality.

And why refer to him as a "BBC Expert?" You make him sound like a political commentator, when in reality, he's just a guy who does a show about cars.

[Andara Bledin]

And why refer to him as a "BBC Expert?" You make him sound like a political commentator, when in reality, he's just a guy who does a show about cars.

Actually, he can't be faulted for this one thing. The rest of the post is complete and utter rubbish, but the "BBC Expert" is stripped straight out of the same stupid headlines that strip the context from his comments.

Anybody who believes that he was serious is lacking in the ability to parse context and the ability to understand British sarcasm, which usually comes so dry, you could package it and use it for desiccant.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

I fail to see what him being white has to do with any of this or why you keep trying to shoehorn in the term white priviledge.

It's less white privilege than it is kyriarchical privilege, though the two are pretty much indivisible in most of Western society. I'm saying that people are willing to forgive Clarkson more readily due to his privilege.

Did you read the transcript at all? -.- Also, did you just Godwin us? Seriously?

Yes, I read the transcript. No, the context does not make his "joke" any less tasteless or offensive. No, I'm providing a personal analogy. You can cry Godwin if you like, but not all the Germans who felt that way about blacks and Jews were Nazis - the antipathy is far older.

If you seriously think celebrities need to be held to that high a moral standard, there's a laundry list of dipshittery that needs to be address far ahead of this guy.

Instead of trying to rank in order of "most oppressive" to "least oppressive", I prefer to do justice and rank them all equally. That's part of social justice intersectionality. Just because there are worse oppressions elsewhere doesn't make this or any other oppression "less important".

But a dipshit in a position of power or influence, especially a celebrity, is the result of us, not the other way around.

Yes, we are ALL agents of the kyriarchy.

.....Seriously? >.>

Yes.

A) No one here said it was. B) The joke is that in order to balance out the BBC's impartiality policies, he has to come up with a competely absurd counter position to his first position. That seems to be sailing over your head.

No, I understand it quite well. What seems to be sailing over everyone else's head is that said completely absurd counter position should not be one that shows an ism of any type, and that usage of ism perpetuates the themes of the ism and continues to reinforce the kyriarchy, preventing furtherance of social justice. Or if you prefer in short, He Should Not Be A Dick About It.

Perhaps you should stop making sweeping assumptions about people on the board and arguing against viewpoints no one present is even taking. You might find people more receptive to your position then. ;p

I call it as I see it. People who are receptive to social justice will see the truth of social justice without prompting; most people are inured to it by adherence to memes of the kyriarchy.

White and therefore guilty, noted. I consider that to be a racist attitude,

It is not racist; see the power + prejudice paradigm. It is not racist to criticize people in a position of privilege. As a white person myself (and male, and heterosexual, and upper-middle class), I have privilege and so must be aware of my failings in regards social justice. There is no possible way to shed my privilege and therefore it must be atoned for.

If you read the transcript provided, he was deliberately taking the piss, mostly because the BBC was required to show two views.

Again, deliberately taking the piss is not an excuse.

Don't like his views? Don't watch his programme or financially support him. As far as UK law goes, as long as he hasn't incited race speech or similar, then he's free to say what he wants. Why should he be held to a different standard by the law because he worked hard, took risks, and made his money? All equal before the law and all that. There's me thinking you believed in freedom of speech.

Who said anything about the law? I certainly didn't. I'm talking about a moral standard, a standard of social justice. The law is not the end-all, be-all of social justice. Equal before the law is not actual equality - or even close to it. Institutional isms prevail, especially in the UK.

And certainly I believe in freedom of speech. Clarkson is free to speak as he chooses. That does not free him from the consequences of that speech, from holding him accountable for his assertion of privilege and furtherance of classism.

Could you provide a scale of fame and influence where people are required to nto say certain things, please? You seem to have strong views on it.

There is no scale in intersectionality. Introduction of scales leads to Oppression Olympics, which is counter-productive.

Because he was parodying the requirement of the BBC to have two viewpoints. Read the transcript. He wasn't being serious about it, and anyone that thinks he was needs an upgrade to their sense of humour

Once again, I have read the transcript and his "not being serious about it" does not excuse him from saying it in the first place. Once again, offensive humor is not given a pass. It is just as reprehensible as being said in serious fact.

Yep, that goes right to the idea that only white people can be racist. A stupid idea in itself

It's not that only white people can be racist. It's that racism is only the result of prejudice plus power, therefore racism is only truly practiced by the prevailing power structure of the area in question. In the USA, that's white people. In other countries, it can be different. Without power, it's not racism, only prejudice. See your local Sociology class for details.

Try as I can, I just can't see a connection between America's history of racial intolerance, and a guy in the UK making fun of the BBC's policy of impartiality.

All isms are interconnected and, while differing from each other, indivisible. See intersectionality.

And why refer to him as a "BBC Expert?" You make him sound like a political commentator, when in reality, he's just a guy who does a show about cars.

Popular media and politics are inseparable. In fact, everything is politics, as everything is a result of political process of one sort of another.

[Greenday]

Personally, I find this hilarious. I also find racist jokes, sexist jokes, blonde jokes, religious jokes, nationality jokes, etc. funny as long as the intent is a joke and not to be offensive. It's a joke and it's intended as a joke. Don't like it? Ignore it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Popular media and politics are inseparable. In fact, everything is politics, as everything is a result of political process of one sort of another.

So... Any celebrity should be considered an expert?

What seems to be sailing over everyone else's head is that said completely absurd counter position should not be one that shows an ism of any type, and that usage of ism perpetuates the themes of the ism and continues to reinforce the kyriarchy, preventing furtherance of social justice.

So it was wrong of him to say, even though the point of him saying it comes down to "Its ridiculous that anyone would believe this, and further ridiculous that you have to give airtime to people who think like this"?