Am I “a gay”, “a black”, or “a woman”?Pstotto wrote:I suggest greenmile is part of the elite rulers, quite clearly trying to denigrate sound logic.
I was just making a similar point, I have been writing about an imperialist agent who was one of the first translators into Persia. Today we see all kinds of charges of hypocrisy, but the political ideology of the Whig is now extinct. We simply cannot judge what we can no longer understand. Our brains just work differently.houseboy wrote:1: as soon as I saw the thread title I knew who started it without needing to look.
2: totally agree with this - the 'offended' minority are indeed calling the shots in order to change people's ways of thinking and behaving - not necessarily for the better. Already we are seeing the effects on comedy, the arts and freedom of speech and expression.
3: I await the tirade of indignance from the 'offended' with interest.
Can you give any examples of the effects on comedy? I’m not well up on the arts, and “freedom of speech and expression” is a bit woolly, but I know a bit about comedy.houseboy wrote:1: as soon as I saw the thread title I knew who started it without needing to look.
2: totally agree with this - the 'offended' minority are indeed calling the shots in order to change people's ways of thinking and behaving - not necessarily for the better. Already we are seeing the effects on comedy, the arts and freedom of speech and expression.
3: I await the tirade of indignance from the 'offended' with interest.
Hey! Speak for yourself!ClaretAndJew wrote:I don't think anyone on this message board is part of the "elite".
It comes at us in various forms mate. Criticise Israel and you are anti-Semitic (despite many Jews criticising them). Criticise someone (anyone) for almost anything and if they are black, disabled, Muslim, Jewish, lesbian/gay or even female and someone somewhere will bring it down to an -ism. If we carry on this way the 'offended' will become untouchable and beyond criticism, which is sad because no-one wants the days of racism/sexism etc back, but there will be a kick-back at some point I think. I think we are seeing the rise of the far right and racism as a result of political correctness tipping the balance too far. Moderation in all things I believe but sections of the political correct wing seem to be just as rabid as that which they aspire to erase.elwaclaret wrote:I was just making a similar point, I have been writing about an imperialist agent who was one of the first translators into Persia. Today we see all kinds of charges of hypocrisy, but the political ideology of the Whig is now extinct. We simply cannot judge what we can no longer understand. Our brains just work differently.
Just think with all the historical stuff being dragged up In rapidly changing sociology. How many of us can really see us not falling foul of using inappropriate terminology, when judged in 200 years or even ten. This digging dirt on the past, often ill thought out and in important at the time.... we are setting a freight ending precedent.
We believe our society to be liberal.... it not only isn’t it is getting increasingly less so.
I'm not into 'proofs' on a football discussion forum but there are certain forms of comedy that are now all but dead and despite what people may think about them they were actually funny. Manning is an example - couldn't stand the man personally but he was funny. Davison is another very funny guy but his type of comedy is all but dead now. Even Billy Connolly was criticised as a racist for one comment he made during a show. And wasn't it George Burns who was criticised for telling Jewish jokes despite being himself Jewish?Greenmile wrote:Can you give any examples of the effects on comedy? I’m not well up on the arts, and “freedom of speech and expression” is a bit woolly, but I know a bit about comedy.
Are you just upset that they cancelled “love your neighbour”?
People have a right to be whatever they want and making racist comments, for example, gives those who are opposed to racism a chance to reply and therefore potentially change the mind of the person making them. If we gag them we will never know what they think and their ignorance will go unchecked and perhaps even spread. This is what many people fail to see when gagging the so-called offensive. How can anything change for the better if we gag those whose thinking is perhaps not quite right in social terms? People should be allowed to air their views however bad they may be seen to be because they can then be told how their thinking may cause harm or upset. It doesn't always work, maybe not even most of the time but sometimes it may do and even if it doesn't the person making the statement is exposed for what they are.ClaretAndJew wrote:People are confusing freedom of speech with being racist, misogynistic, sexist, xenophobic etc.
houseboy wrote:I'm not into 'proofs' on a football discussion forum but there are certain forms of comedy that are now all but dead and despite what people may think about them they were actually funny. Manning is an example - couldn't stand the man personally but he was funny. Davison is another very funny guy but his type of comedy is all but dead now. Even Billy Connolly was criticised as a racist for one comment he made during a show. And wasn't it George Burns who was criticised for telling Jewish jokes despite being himself Jewish?
I believe personally in total freedom of speech, even if it's 'offensive' because if someone says something that is genuinely offensive or even dangerous then it is out in the open and we can have the argument but if you gag people it won't change their view it will just fester and go underground where it can become more dangerous than if it were not said.
It was Love THY neighbour I believe and no, I couldn't' stand that programme.
We have freedom of speech, houseboy, it hasn't gone away. It's just, we've realised that some things are now out of order.houseboy wrote:People have a right to be whatever they want and making racist comments, for example, gives those who are opposed to racism a chance to reply and therefore potentially change the mind of the person making them. If we gag them we will never know what they think and their ignorance will go unchecked and perhaps even spread. This is what many people fail to see when gagging the so-called offensive. How can anything change for the better if we gag those whose thinking is perhaps not quite right in social terms? People should be allowed to air their views however bad they may be seen to be because they can then be told how their thinking may cause harm or upset. It doesn't always work, maybe not even most of the time but sometimes it may do and even if it doesn't the person making the statement is exposed for what they are.
I hope I've explained myself okay because it is a very sensitive area and it is difficult to defend total freedom of speech without seeming to be oneself 'offensive', which of course I do not intend to be.
Of course there is a difference between total freedom of speech and incitement to violence, which is a whole other thing.
Comedy is what it is mate, like music - totally subjective. If I hear something funny I'll laugh, whatever the material content, and if it's not funny I won't. Jimmy Carr is incredibly 'offensive' at times but even though I don't think I'd like him if I met him I do laugh when he is funny. Jo Brand has made a living out of taking the p!ss out of men and I have never been offended by it.Greenmile wrote:There’s loads of “offensive” comedy out there if that’s what you’re into. It’s just usually a bit better thought-through than the sort of tripe Jim Davidson used to come out with.
Jim Davidson is touring next year, so I’m not sure of the effects of the “offended minority” on his freedom of speech. I suspect the reason you don’t see him on tv etc any more is that he isn’t very good.
Bernard Manning (who was quite good at what he did) has had his free speech curtailed rather more permanently, but I’m not sure you can blame the “offended minority” for that.
You do realise that criticising people for being racist etc is as much an expression of the free speech you hold so dear as being racist etc is in the first place, don’t you?
Jim Davidson is objectively a terrible comedian - the musical equivalent would be something like the Venga Boys or Aqua.houseboy wrote:Comedy is what it is mate like music - totally subjective.
Yes I do realise that in your last sentence - I have said so often (on here as well) that NOBODY should be silenced. The best phrase I have ever heard and one that I live by is 'I disagree with everything that man says but I would die fighting for his right to say it'. That includes those who would silence the silencers.
1. Your dislike of Davison is subjective - there is no yardstick about what is good or bad comedy to the best of my knowledge. There is no such thing as an 'objectively bad comedian'.Greenmile wrote:Jim Davidson is objectively a terrible comedian - the musical equivalent would be something like the Venga Boys or Aqua.
My last sentence was aimed at your complaints about Billy Connolly and George Burns being criticised.
1 - there is a level of subjectivity in comedy, like music. However, as it’s fair to say that the Beatles were objectively better than a 5 year old with a recorder, it’s also fair to say that Jim Davidson was a terrible comedian.houseboy wrote:1. Your dislike of Davison is subjective - there is no yardstick about what is good or bad comedy to the best of my knowledge. There is no such thing as an 'objectively bad comedian'.
2. My mention of Burns and Connolly was an observation, not a complaint.
If you start believing shite like that then you'll soon find yourself on a "Free Tommy Robinson" march.houseboy wrote:Criticise someone (anyone) for almost anything and if they are black, disabled, Muslim, Jewish, lesbian/gay or even female and someone somewhere will bring it down to an -ism.
Very inventive. Take a quote from a longer post and try to use it to reinforce your own argument. And then dare to suggest someone who has opposed racism all their adult life is some kind of racist. Read the whole post again and try, if you can, to understand what I’m saying in it. You obviously haven’t grasped it or you wouldn’t be making inane comments like this.TheFamilyCat wrote:If you start believing shite like that then you'll soon find yourself on a "Free Tommy Robinson" march.
Because the police dont knock on your door, arrest you and put you infront of a court for calling someone a racist, like they do for teaching a dog to do a nazi salute, for exampleGreenmile wrote:Why is it that so called free speech advocates only care about the free speech of racists / misogynists / bigots, and not the free speech of the folk who complain about racism / misogyny / bigotry?
If you can find Alexei Sayles “Sandwich Bar” on BBC Sounds, he does a piece on comedy in which he takes you through the history as he sees it. It won’t for House oy’s agenda though.Greenmile wrote:Can you give any examples of the effects on comedy? I’m not well up on the arts, and “freedom of speech and expression” is a bit woolly, but I know a bit about comedy.
Are you just upset that they cancelled “love your neighbour”?
You can teach your dog all manner of racist things, but if you put it out on social media (where millions of people can see it), then it could become a hate crime. That’s not too hard to work out.Damo wrote:Because the police dont knock on your door, arrest you and put you infront of a court for calling someone a racist, like they do for teaching a dog to do a nazi salute, for example
I'm glad you worked it out. It saved everyone else having toAndrewJB wrote:You can teach your dog all manner of racist things, but if you put it out on social media (where millions of people can see it), then it could become a hate crime. That’s not too hard to work out.