Clarkson in Trouble Again - Has The World Gone Mad?

[Lonan3]

 

 

 

I live in Essex and there are a lot of people that are so blatently stupid.

 

Could someone just remind me where Barrie Stevens lives?

[Bananaman]

Could someone just remind me where Barrie Stevens lives?

 

 

11 miles west of me.

[Declan]

Just like the poem, Baa, baa, black sheep that's supposedly was stopped in schools as it was racist.

For me, it's just a poem that was sung at school with no thought at all to peoples alternative meaning.

 

Why do people have to take something from innocence?

 

Except it wasn't, the first time this popped up the teachers were suggesting they sing another colour, as well as black, to broaden the kids' vocabulary. The Daily Mail got wind of it, rang the local council spokesman, asked him about the council banning Baa Baa Blacksheep because it was racist and instead of checking his facts tried to bluff his way through justifying "the policy".

 

Then a child was stopped at another nursery from singing it by a member of staff, who'd read that it was council policy in the Daily Mail. Strangely, the same thing happened in Australia a few years later the staff wanted to broaden the vocabulary got them to sing other words to the rhyme, the local press got hold of it, dug up the old UK Press stories and concoted a "political correctness gone mad" story.

 

This episode was in an interesting book I read lately - "On Offence" by Richard King. Whilst critical of political correctness, and people who take relegious offence (like the Danish cartoons), but also of the way the conservative elements "take offence" at affronts to freedom of speech because they can no longer ask for a certain shade of brown shoe polish. For example, it seems as if there's more offence taken that Clarkson's right to possibly mumble racial insults has been infringed than the original possibly offensive mumble caused. But really, offence is a pretty stupid thing to base an argument on (certainly to convict them of a crime) when its just an emotional response.

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

 

Who cares?

 

Niggers allegedly.

 

I bet it isn't. It's probably idiotic white people thinking that they are standing up for oppressed peoples rights. It's all a total fucking nonsense.

 

"Total fucking nonsense" belongs in the dictionary next to postmodernist cultural marxism which is what this is. The people behind this agenda --- and it's an agenda which extends well beyond just constantly changing politically correct terminology -- don't care about black people, they just want to limit free speech, create an environment of offense and stir up race divisions. It's classic divide and conquer. As soon as any leader has started to see beyond race differences and speak up for the poor of all races, they mysteriously end up shot. Hmmmmmmmmm. I wonder why that is.

[Thomas Jefferson]

For example, it seems as if there's more offence taken that Clarkson's right to possibly mumble racial insults has been infringed than the original possibly offensive mumble caused.

 

Next time a Chinese restaurant offers me crackers, I guess I should sue them.

 

It does infringe on freedom of speech and that's a greater threat to society than some professional whinger being offended because someone says something they don't like.

[Truth Seeker]

Thoughtcrime.

 

"A thoughtcrime is an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. The term is also used to describe some theological concepts such as disbelief or idolatry, or a rejection of strong social or philosophical principles. The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thought is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

[Vulgarian]

In the almighty shitstorm that the press and other interested parties are trying to conjure up over the use (or non-use) of the word 'nigger' another more important word seems to have become lost at sea, viz 'context'. Have we forsaken it entirely? Is our reception of language now unfiltered by context, critical thinking, discernment, or judgement so that every utterance of a word with the potential to carry abuse now automatically hits the 'take offence' button? Only sometimes, when it suits.

 

In the context of the deliberately avoided use of the word in a semi-fossilised childrens' rhyme used to choose between two cars, I defy anyone to claim any offensive content in the use of the word 'nigger'. It was directed at no-one, it did not refer to any racist stereotypes, nor was it intended to oppress or cause any offence; it is semantically almost empty in that context, and really you could replace it with almost any other two-syllable word with little effect.

 

Does 'nigger' necessarily carry offensive connotations? From the way it has been appropriated by black people themselves, and through use in comedy and other arts this cannot possibly be the case. We readily accept in those cases the context in which the word is used. So why are many people so ready ignore it in this case?

 

Because clearly many people have a rather selective 'offence' filter which they apply when they feel like it. Some are desperate to be seen to be sensitive to racist language in the belief that it makes them appear a more enlightened, intelligent, and civilised person. Maybe this is how it comes across to to their intended audience of fellow empty-headed narcissists craving a fix of affirmation from their peers as they bleat about it on twitter, but it really shows their own bias, and their ignorance of how human language works.

 

Clarkson is also an easy target. He has fallen foul in his use of politically 'incorrect' language before. He is a powerful symbol of the conservative right; he is popularist as well as popular. There are also press-politics involved here, I think.

[doc.fixit]

maybe he was speaking in one of the other European tongues?

[Declan]

 

For example, it seems as if there's more offence taken that Clarkson's right to possibly mumble racial insults has been infringed than the original possibly offensive mumble caused.

 

Next time a Chinese restaurant offers me crackers, I guess I should sue them.

 

It does infringe on freedom of speech and that's a greater threat to society than some professional whinger being offended because someone says something they don't like.

 

Yeah stand up for all the crackers people in the world!

 

You've rather missed the point of my post, which was that offence at other's offence is really the other side of the same coin, it's substituting "how I feel" instead of "what is right". In the Clarkson case the suggestion that his freedom of speech has been infringed, is nonsense, he wasn't attempting to convey an idea that he wasn't when he said teacher instead. He was arbitrarily choosing between two things, something he could do using a variety of methods or by simply amending the rhyme (which of course was what he says he did in the first take and did in the last).

 

Where the danger lies is if people are prevented from expressing an idea because of the fear causing offence. For example, Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech caused offence but banning it would repress an idea simply because of how it makes people feel , but also leave the ideas behind it unchallenged. But the right are as guilty as the left of playing the offence card - "it's political correctness gone mad!" is often said in a shocked offended tone, it's an emotional reaction rather than intellectual.

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

But the right are as guilty as the left of playing the offence card - "it's political correctness gone mad!" is often said in a shocked offended tone, it's an emotional reaction rather than intellectual.

 

What does the left-right political paradigm have to do with anything? Thank you for confirming political correctness is a marxist / Neo-Trotskyite agenda. Why you characterise opposition to this agenda as emotional rather than intellectual is beyond me. Political correctness is mad.

[Lonan3]

What I can't understand is if the word 'Nigger' is offensive, then why aren't black people prosecuted or whatever for calling each other 'Nigger'?

Surely if it's offensive, then no-one, regardless of their colour should use it or does equality in this case just work one way?

A long-ish article, but one that helps to explain the complications involved in using the word

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-40-fall-2011/feature/straight-talk-about-n-word

 

Starting from:

"We know, at least in the history I’ve looked at, that the word started off as just a descriptor, “negro,” with no value attached to it. … We know that as early as the 17th century, “negro” evolved to “nigger” as intentionally derogatory, and it has never been able to shed that baggage since then—even when black people talk about appropriating and reappropriating it. The poison is still there. The word is inextricably linked with violence and brutality on black psyches and derogatory aspersions cast on black bodies. No degree of appropriating can rid it of that bloodsoaked history."

 

To:

"There’s no way to know all of its nuances because it’s such a complicated word, a word with a particular racialized American history. But one way of getting at it is to have some critical and historical discussions about it and not pretend that it doesn’t exist. We also cannot pretend that there is not a double standard—that blacks can say it without much social consequence but whites cannot."

 

And:

"At some level, there has to be some self-critique and critical awareness and sensitivity to difference. Just because someone else is doing it doesn’t mean that I do it even if and when I surely can."

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My point was that it was originally a neutral term...

It never has been. If you don't understand that then your understanding of the whole issue of racism is ignorant at best.

 

The use of the term nigger (and similar terms) to define people principally (and solely) by a reference (which isn't often accurate) to a skin colour has been used much earlier than the twentieth century to set the 'white' man apart from the 'black' based on firmly entrenched ideas of superiority of the former coupled with all sorts of misrepresentations and lies surrouding this reified being - the nigger.

 

It may very well have been used initially as simply a designator based on natural discrimination to distinguish people with a darker skin. But thinking that the use of the word (and other words) had no more meaning than black is to not take into account the oppressive understandings underlying how white people see (and still do see) black people and non-white people.

...and it is only because of media propaganda during the 20th century that the term began to be regarded as offensive.

Aside from probably chopping in some Chomsky into your argument, I think you seem unable to differentiate between the oppressive and the offensive.

Hypothetically, say it was media propaganda that led to people take offence (i.e. be offended or be vicariously offended) by the word.

It doesn't matter. The issue is about the use of the word and the meaning behind the word. It's about whether it has oppressive content or not.

Nobody on the planet may be offended by something but it could still be oppressive.

Why are you interested in the subject of offence?

It used to be a perfectly legitimate and non-offensive term.

No, not legitimate. Referring to people principally based on the colour of their skin, which naturally carries with it understandings of people erroneously centred on skin colour or aids in the creation of new understandings, is not a legitimate way of referring to people - not if you don't want to be racist and want to live in a society that seeks to remove racism.

So did negro. Now we're told "black" is the right word to use, even though it means exactly the same thing.

Yeah, you've been told that many people who are non-white would prefer to not be called certain words and would ask to be called something different. What's the problem?

 

And no, it doesn't mean the same thing at all. For starters, how do you use the word black? I hope it is not to refer to black people as 'a black', or 'the black', etc.

You use the term as an adjective to describe a person. But nigger is a noun, to refer to another human beings based on their race. Big difference there in the use of language and the meaning conveyed.

 

And the word Black is free from the historic, negative beliefs and understandings that span centuries of its use. Black does carry plenty of additional understanding though they are more modern.

 

 

Already, in America, "black" is starting to be treated the same way as negro and nigger, and now "African American" is being propagated as the politically correct term there.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that there is change. In almost all cases, the issue is about referring to people as they prefer to be referred to.

How do we know that the next generation, if they're sad enough to read this thread 20 yrs from now, won't be thinking we're a bunch of racist rednecks for using the word "black" because some new politically correct word has replaced it? I suspect this constant messing around with the language is a deliberate attempt on the part of the ruling elite to perpetuate racism.

This is sheer idiocy. If the ruling elite wanting to perpetuate racism then there wouldn't be any PC and there wouldn't be a whole panoply of laws surrounding race which would otherwise ensure widespread institutional and social discrimination.

If you ever watch the US media, particularly CNN and MSNBC, they're constantly race-baiting, turning every story into some racial thing. They want poor blacks and poor whites to hate and blame each other, to stop them banding together to fight for liberty. That being said, I do take your point and basically agree with the general gist of it.

But the problem with the US is that it is a very racist society. Lots of issues come up. But I agree, the media there would use any chance to sensationalise and exploit news items. But this is more of a broader issue of sensationalising everything rather than a particular desire to foment racism itself.

I agree that nigger has become an oppressive term; however, I think the way they've made us all pussy foot around such terms and got us all paranoid of being called racist for saying anything is far more oppressive. Freedom of speech is more important than big brother protecting people being offended.

What you're saying doesn't make sense.

 

For the word or similar terms to be oppressive then it involves the use of a term by those with power using it against those who are weaker. That's how language comes to have oppressive power. It oppressive to stop people with the power from using that power to oppress others.

 

And in your last sentence you are again getting offence and oppression mixed up. Freedom of speech would be more people than considerations of offence.

But this is an issue of oppression and freedom of speech.

 

Though you are making the mistake of thinking that without PC there is freedom of speech. But that's incorrect. Language is a system of communication which involves maintaining power and re-ordering systems of power in society. People on the receiving end of oppressive speech don't have the freedom you seem to think they would otherwise have.

Well, no, I was talking about when it originally started to be called racist. Of course it's become racist now, thanks to media propaganda. But originally, the replacement of the term nigger and negro with black was completely stupid since, as I showed, the etymology of negro and nigger does basically just mean black. I'm differentiating between now and when the manufactured offensiveness of the term (for political reasons) was in its infancy.

I think I covered this mistaken idea of nigger just meaning black. Etymologies do not tell us anymore more than how and maybe why the word was created. It says nothing of additional meanings, understandings, and uses of the word throughout history, which is the relevant issue when considering oppressive content.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And you as an alleged anarchist cracker are in favour of political correctness, even though it's a form of authoritarian censorship?

I don't think you know what an anarchist is, which is amply demonstrated by your confusion in calling yourself one every other week and something else another week

 

As an anarchist, there needn't be any issue with a particular use of State power in particular instances.

 

Anarchists wish to maximise freedom and equality in society. Part of this is by evaluating the power in society and claims to authority and determining whether they are just or not. The State is an example of one entity that claims authority and has been determined to have no legitimate claim. Replacement of the State is seen to the principle cause giving its power is so all-encompassing.

 

But if we live in a society where there is inequality and a distinct lack of many freedoms (that we should have) then in the here-and-now the issue is about how to deal with the problem. If the State's power can be used to provide a better result then there is nothing wrong in approving of this.

One example is the welfare state and social care. No anarchist, would (or should) for example disagree with the State providing social care in this current society. And in this instance, it is the aid of the State in re-ordering the effects of particular forms of language that rests on unequal power relationships that have the impact of oppressing and marginalising people.

 

Worth bearing in mind again that language isn't some neutral, non-authoritarian tool of communication. Language orders and re-orders our understanding of others, the society, and world we live in and that language forms from different sources that have differing degrees of power in society. Getting in a flap owing to the mere fact that the State blatantly uses its power is to ignore the subtle processes by which other entities influence our language. Some aren't so subtle and people care little - consider the use of language used by private power in advertising and in the work place.

 

I think the problem people have is one of ignorance in only responding to one of the obvious forms of power influencing language and one of not understanding racism and other forms of oppression.

[The Border Terrier]

Clarkson is also an easy target. He has fallen foul in his use of politically 'incorrect' language before.

 

But as a professional journalist (he writes for The Sunday Times), privately educated etc. you'd think he'd know better.

 

Should have done it 'in camera' rather than 'on camera'.

 

Unless of course he needs the publicity; like a lot of journos, their ego needs constant reassurance.

 

And I'm with Stu on this one...he got 'dobbed in' by one of his own. So perhaps he's not so popular after all.

 

TBT.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If you use a word such as slope and it is taken as racist even if you had no idea that it was classed as a racist word, (I didn't), or if it's use was not intended to be racist could you be deemed to be abusive or offensive ???

Serious question.

Well, firstly...is the word being used in a racist sense? If you are referring to people as a group based on their skin colour or common aspect of appearance then you are being racist, regardless of whether that is known or not to the person saying it or not. It's about the understanding that the word is trying to convey and not necessarily about the purpose of its use.

 

It might not be offensive though. If you have a bunch of people who also use the term then they have no issue at all. But it takes someone with some understanding of its negative impact (which is often the target) who objects to it.