Jeremy Clarkson's "The World According To Clarkson" is one of Penguin's "best books of its kind to be published in recent years"

ok, let's try to take emotion out of it. how many racial epithets do you think a TV broadcaster should be allowed to use before they are not allowed on TV anymore?

I am 100% for Donald Sterling getting punished and losing his NBA franchise for making despicable outright nasty racist statements during a private conversation. I am against Clarkson losing his job for this, though I guess sure fine him to "send a message".

also think that calling for sacking of someone for having an "unreconstructed old white man pose" is also harmful

oh really? what if we add "unrepentant" to that for the fact he's been called out on this shit for years?

I am 100% for someone using a time travel machine to go back in time and slap the shit out of the NBA officials who did nothing when Donald Sterling was guilty of being racist as fuck with housing practices and his business deals

if you fine him the message is "it's cool to be racist if you're rich"

it's like a swear jar you put pennies in

I don't think it's fair to boil this down to "broadcaster uses racial epithet". Viewing this identically to someone just randomly calling someone or some group the n-word isn't the right thing to do imo.

you are literally the only one attempting to boil it down to that

except I was responding to NV who just had done that?

everyone else in the thread is saying it's typical coming from a guy who uses language and attitudes in a way that upholds institutional racism, and that people in England (which I do not believe is where you are) are negatively affected by having someone acting this way on their /state-funded/ media, and that he's been given a number of opportunities to change his behavior and they're tired of it

I mean, brits, let me know if I am at all in the wrong, here

I assume you're either straight trolling or being obtuse because you want to give this guy a big high-five for his car bantz, in either case, adios.

i think white TV broadcasters joking about "not being allowed" to use the n-word are making a racist point, especially if they have a history of making racist points. i don't think there's a generally accepted rule that it's okay for white people to throw the word around as long as they don't mean to be nasty about it. especially when you're "throwing it around" in two separate takes as part of your job.

that sounds about right, mh

the BBC is held to a higher standard because everyone pays for it, so we all feel like stakeholders in a way. the question of whether or not somebody should be fired from, say, channel 5, doesn't have the same currency or bite

but hey, it happens, guys, am i right? sometimes the n-word just slips out - WHOOPS! now here come the haters

there is no accident, there is no lack of intention to offend, all there is, is a bloke who makes a living from baiting anybody who isn't a white middle class conservative male misjudging the line and finally finding he can't bully his way out of the overdue reprimand

the BBC is held to a higher standard because everyone pays for it, so we all feel like stakeholders in a way.

I see this point. Ok call for him to be removed from BBC.

sometimes the n-word just slips out

when you're 60 yrs old and reciting a nursery rhyme that had the n-word in it. Quit trying to take the context out of what he did just to make it look worse.

yes it's one of the hazards of being a white man, the n-word could just pop out at any time, at the most inconvenient moment. even when you're concentrating super-hard on not saying it

and i can't help but think that anybody who didn't believe this shit wd've quietly dropped it from their act years ago - he could still've played the challenging-opinions-about-cars-and-politics bro without any damage to his image at all

incidentally, like everybody else who grew up using that iteration of the rhyme, i haven't accidentally let it slip out since i grew the fuck up

Quit taking the context out of it (old white dude who has a history of saying racist things, invoking stereotypes) to make him look _better_

there is no accident, there is no lack of intention to offend,

multiple takes, he realized he accidentally mumbled it in one, and asked for a different take to be used, this one with a totally different word used in n-word's place? how is that not "lack of intention to offend"?

when you're 60 yrs old and reciting a nursery rhyme that had the n-word in it

for the umpteenth time, this was being filmed AS A BIT. the ENTIRE JOKE was "ohmygod he's gonna say the n-word what a bad boy". he didn't get recorded by an undercover journo during a game of hide and seek that got heated ffs

he recorded it twice with the n-word mumbled, realised he wdn't get away with it, recorded it a third time with a mumble intended to not sound like the word - altho the point of the joke was the same

ahhhhh Dainger are you saying it's only a problem if clarkson was thinking "i hope this hurts someone's feelings" when filming the bit?

I don't care about making him look better. Just think this particular thing isn't terribly egregious on its own. If you want to tie it into his past, go ahead. Outsider looking in, it seems silly for this to get as much outrage as it has. Public funding of BBC and his past...yes I can see why people who already disliked him would try to snatch upon this as the final straw.

"BBC broadcaster thinks better of using the n-word on his TV show after trying it out a couple of times" - maybe you're right, that doesn't really sound like a bad thing

Granny, have you considered using arguments that a single person on the thread might find convincing, or addressing anyone's actual points?

As an outsider, you are basically saying you have no idea what this guy's pattern of behavior is, but you're willing to defend him all over the place.

like, give us a single point here as to your interest in the matter other than trolling, because you're not having a reasonable conversation

It's not reasonable because you have all made up your minds and anyone who disagrees with you is a racist or racist apologist. Long live ILX "debate".

what I am getting from this is: Granny Dainger is the guy who is willing to defend a pathologically old racist white British man based on a single case, knowing nothing of the guy's history, because old rich white guy really needs it?

Everyone said it was about a pattern of behavior and you cherry-picked NV's post saying this single incident would get him in trouble. NV also said this was based on the context and prior behavior in response.

So what. is. your. point?

you are basically saying you have no idea what this guy's pattern of behavior is,

No, I am aware of most of it, I think. I happen to think this particular incident isn't anything to cause an outrage(as a "last straw", I can see how it's a perfect thing to latch onto). You and everyone else here disagrees. Fine.

No, I disagree with that. I think the last straw probably came years ago.

you are getting the wrong things from this then. But it is the things that allow you to paint me in the most negative light possible, so I'm hardly surprised.

t's not reasonable because you have all made up your minds and anyone who disagrees with you is a racist or racist apologist. Long live ILX "debate".

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Sunday, May 4, 2014 10:19 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what I am getting from this is: Granny Dainger is the guy who is willing to defend a pathologically old racist white British man based on a single case, knowing nothing of the guy's history, because old rich white guy really needs it?

― a strange man (mh), Sunday, May 4, 2014 10:19 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink.

Love how these posts are backtoback

do you not think it's an outrage because you don't think racist language shd be thought of as racist unless it's in a context directed very explicitly at a person or group? trying to fully understand your argument here

Clarkson's shtick isn't 'i'm a big racist', it's 'i'm a normal bloke who likes a bit of racist / sexist / homophobic bantz, just like you, and i'm going to constantly try to get away with as much as i can, on our collective behalf, to stick it to the PC Nazis'.

In this case, the joke was 'we both know i am deliberately saying the version of the rhyme with the n-word in but i'll get in trouble if i just come out and say it so i am going to mumble or cough at the key point'. It assumes the audience is in on the joke. It's the same with most of his 'racial humour' - unambiguously racist (or at least anti anti-racist) in intent but skirting the boundary with his phrasing so he doesn't get taken off air.

That's fundamentally different from someone in the public eye who uses the word accidentally or absent-mindedly, as Germaine Greer did a couple of years ago.

The only other British broadcaster that I can remember using that word when thought he was off camera pretty much got thrown out of his job within the space of a few days iirc. He was a football commentator of a generation older than clarkson and got the boot despite several black footballers stepping up to defend him (which was based on his previous standing of being pretty much the first football manager in the english football league to field black players). Not sure he's ever worked much since and i think that's definitely the right call even though i confess i really liked the guy beforehand. given that precedent, why that arsehole clarkson is being given the benefit of doubt after mutiple previous incidents sure the heck beats the shit out of me.

Honestly I am puzzled by why Hammond in particular wasn't fired for the Mexican stuff.

I think it's convenient, but really the wrong message, to fire people for saying things in plain language that we've deemed as shibboleths when it's only the tiniest indicator of the monstrously horrible behavior they've participated in, in the past.

Your comment about the NBA owner, Sterling, indicates you agree with this convenience, to me. Because that guy had _legal judgments_ against him for discrimination under the law, but somehow that wasn't enough until he was caught muttering what people suspected he thought.

Hammond wasn't fired for the Mexican stuff because there is no shibboleth in British culture against slurring the Mexican people.

because, like Clarkson, he has been placed on a pedestal of virtual untouchability within the BBC which allows him to continually push the line SV talks about up there

and Granny, I felt that you weren't taking the guy's history into account, either! If this childhood rhyme thing happened in a vacuum it wouldn't be that newsworthy. I don't think anyone here is contesting that, but you kept acting like it had to be looked at in seclusion.

Hammond nearly won a Darwin Award while working for the BBC so they may feel guiltily in his debt.

I can see why people who already disliked

And I don't get why you're trying to make this personal. People don't want racist, colonialist, retrograde attitudes seen as funny or fine for television coming from people seen in a positive light. Making it about Clarkson personally is kind of disingenuous.

Hammond, Clarkson & May's function as the id of the BBC works fine as long as you assume the BBC's audience is entirely made up of people like them, or if the part of the audience that isn't like them is of no concern to the organization. also have to remember there are sections of the BBC that genuinely worry that they don't represent the views of the bigot on the street often enough

agree w/all that (and most of what you've said actually), mh

xxp

This stuff is actively harmful. The attempt to swing the pendulum back to "it's just a bit of fun" wrt regressive, offensive behaviour is played out all across the country every day. Clarkson is the most visible example of the anti-PC / "banter" culture that sees you as the problem if you object to someone else making a racist / sexist / homophobic joke about you if the person making the joke isn't a card-carrying neo-Fascist.

If this childhood rhyme thing happened in a vacuum it wouldn't be that newsworthy. I don't think anyone here is contesting that, but you kept acting like it had to be looked at in seclusion.

If I "kept acting like it had to be looked at in seclusion" it was because I felt that people were making it to be far worse than I thought it was. It's enough of a case to go "look this is relatively minor as far as racist statements or actions go, but it is one in a long line of them from Clarkson, and as a Britain I don't think he should be employed by the BBC any longer. I'm tired of it" that I don't think any one needs to go to things like "yes it's one of the hazards of being a white man, the n-word could just pop out at any time, at the most inconvenient moment. even when you're concentrating super-hard on not saying it" and paint this act in specific as being horribly horribly racist.

People keep saying super hard on.

I think one of the main problems, and not just w/the Clarkson situation, is that in the absence of an obvious, wrapped-up package of a racist statement or action with a bow on top, there's a willingness to sweep smaller infractions under the rug. I mean, maybe someone in the BBC is waiting for Clarkson to do something over the top, but in doing so, there are years of incidents of passive racism or bias that happen.

It's a different situation than the Sterling one in the US, but in that case there are actual, legally-documented lives that the guy has fucked with but the one time he's recorded, complaining about his girlfriend/assistant/whoever hanging around with _affluent_ people of color, he loses his NBA franchise. In absence of a smoking gun (which let's get real, the guy has had smoking guns, just not what people cared about) they've ignored all kinds of passive acts that are many times worse than an offhand racial slur or comment.

So yeah, painting this one act by Clarkson as ridiculously bad is a bit disingenuous, but defending his job or reputation on that basis is not something I'd be willing to do.

"He shouldn't get in trouble for this slip-up" in the grand scheme of things is kind of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" when it comes to possibilities to indict this behavior, long-term.

Clarkson is the most visible example of the anti-PC / "banter" culture

I think overreacting to things like Clarkson did here only fuels these people's notions, unfortunately. How to show that this sort of thing isn't acceptable, this pattern of "soft" racism from someone like Clarkson, while also not giving the anti-PC folks affirmation that "see, they're all just too sensitive and looking for a reason to be offended" is prob next to impossible tho.

It's also worth noting (via thread history) that Clarkson repeatedly sets up was-he-or-wasn't-he situations in order to exploit the divide between what behavior is acceptable in his role as television personality and what behavior isn't. Is Jeremy Clarkson trustworthy when he said that his words slipped out? Given past history, probably norm, but sure, give him the benefit of the doubt and kick the can down the road another half-dozen years.

I think one of the main problems, and not just w/the Clarkson situation, is that in the absence of an obvious, wrapped-up package of a racist statement or action with a bow on top, there's a willingness to sweep smaller infractions under the rug

yes this. but things do not disappear when they get swept under the rug, no? if there's a lot of little things that have been swept under there, you can't ignore the bulge they create. iow little things prob should be "swept under the rug", but they shouldn't be forgotten.