Generation 'Snowflake'

[Whiskey]

7 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I wouldn't agree with that. Maybe not really homophobic but it was more acceptable. If you look at shows from the 80s andnthe 70s there is clear racism. In faulty towers black people are referred to as nigers and del used the term paki in only fools and horses.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Guest]

@Whiskey in faulty towers black people were referred to as nigers. I've seen the episode. Racism was clearly excepted years ago 

[nudge]

6 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Whiskey in faulty towers black people were referred to as nigers. I've seen the episode. Racism was clearly excepted years ago 

I assume you mean the Major's rant in the cricket scene? The whole thing is a joke meant to show how stupid and ridiculous racists are. It's a shame that things like that are banned for containing offensive language because some people don't understand who the target of the joke is. It was never the Germans, the West Indians, the black doctor, etc who were being ridiculed in Fawlty Towers. It was always Fawlty himself and his elitist snobery. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, nudge said:

I assume you mean the Major's rant in the cricket scene? The whole thing is a joke meant to show how stupid and ridiculous racists are. It's a shame that things like that are banned for containing offensive language because some people don't understand who the target of the joke is. It was never the Germans, the West Indians, the black doctor, etc who were being ridiculed in Fawlty Towers. It was always Fawlty himself and his elitist snobery. 

Fair enough but in only fools and horses del did say "there is always a paki shop open somewhere"  I think it's fairly obvious though racism was more excepted years ago. I dont think many people would debate that.  My point is that ideas do change. And I'm sure in 20 years time there will be things we do now which arent acceptable 

[Spike]

29 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I wouldn't agree with that. Maybe not really homophobic but it was more acceptable. If you look at shows from the 80s andnthe 70s there is clear racism. In faulty towers black people are referred to as nigers and del used the term paki in only fools and horses.

That is comedy. Those words are used commonly in entertainment even today.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

That is comedy. Those words are used commonly in entertainment even today.

It's the context though. In only fools and horses he said it in the context of it being ok to say it. That wouldn't be acceptable today. If a character is presented as homophobic or racist and they say things like that it is excepted then because they are portrayed as bad characters so arent saying its ok

[Whiskey]

So basically because you've totally missed the point, these things should be banned? Riiiiiight. 

One of the most stupid set of posts I've seen for a long time.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

So basically because you've totally missed the point, these things should be banned? Riiiiiight. 

One of the most stupid set of posts I've seen for a long time.

How did I miss the point on the only fools and horses one and when did I say it should be banned ? I'm just pointing out that things that were acceptable before aren't today. Even without the tv programmes to use as evidence it's very clear peoples attitudes have changed.

[Spike]

59 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

It's the context though. In only fools and horses he said it in the context of it being ok to say it. That wouldn't be acceptable today. If a character is presented as homophobic or racist and they say things like that it is excepted then because they are portrayed as bad characters so arent saying its ok

What? They are obviously presented as homophobic or racist if they do homophobic/racist things. A tv program or whatever doesn't have to explicitly state they are that way. The implication is there, they don't have a swastika on their forehead

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Spike said:

What? They are obviously presented as homophobic or racist if they do homophobic/racist things. A tv program or whatever doesn't have to explicitly state they are that way. The implication is there, they don't have a swastika on their forehead

I dont believe that mate. When the main character of a show says racist or homophobic things and that character is presented as a good character it is clearly saying it's at least reasonably ok to say it. Del was presented as a bit of a dodgy sailsman but not a terrible person. For me him saying "there is always a paki shop open somewhere "  says it was acceptable at the time. Say only fools and horses was made today do you really think they would let del say that?

[Spike]

14 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I dont believe that mate. When the main character of a show says racist or homophobic things and that character is presented as a good character it is clearly saying it's at least reasonably ok to say it. Del was presented as a bit of a dodgy sailsman but not a terrible person. For me him saying "there is always a paki shop open somewhere "  says it was acceptable at the time. Say only fools and horses was made today do you really think they would let del say that?

Maybe it is saying that prejudice can come from unexpected sources, even people you think are of good character? People are more complex than just biases and prejudices defining their character. Abraham Lincoln thought very little of Black people but still emancipated them from slavery.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

Maybe it is saying that prejudice can come from unexpected sources, even people you think are of good character? People are more complex than just biases and prejudices defining their character. Abraham Lincoln thought very little of Black people but still emancipated them from slavery.

I dont think it was saying that. Its an interpretation but I dont think it's one many would believe. There are other things as well. E.g. in 1996 england fans were singing I'd rather be a paki than a Scot at Wembley. Nothing was done.  I think its fairly clear attitudes have changed. Imagine that happening now ! Do you really think attitudes haven't changed towards racism?

[Spike]

15 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I dont think it was saying that. Its an interpretation but I dont think it's one many would believe. There are other things as well. E.g. in 1996 england fans were singing I'd rather be a paki than a Scot at Wembley. Nothing was done.  I think its fairly clear attitudes have changed. Imagine that happening now ! Do you really think attitudes haven't changed towards racism?

Well, no I don't think it has. I think racism has been considered bad  for quite some time what constitutes racism has changed. I bet if you asked those same England fans if they were racist they'd say they weren't, some would but I think many would say 'oi I'm not racist is just a bit of fun, I gots me a good mate that's a Paki'. Quite often there is a disconnect between what people say and how people feel, a lot of people are very unaware of their own biases and prejudices

[Spike]

I think people are more acutely aware nowadays of how racism can manifest, rather then the perception of racism.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Spike said:

Well, no I don't think it has. I think racism has been considered bad  for quite some time what constitutes racism has changed. I bet if you asked those same England fans if they were racist they'd say they weren't, some would but I think many would say 'oi I'm not racist is just a bit of fun, I gots me a good mate that's a Paki'. Quite often there is a disconnect between what people say and how people feel, a lot of people are very unaware of their own biases and prejudices

I think that is definitely true. However at the same time I think is is seen as less acceptable to be racist. And as you said as we realise that some things could be considered racist. We reconsider what is acceptable. I dont think you are a snowflake because you dont want to be called a paki. And I also dont think people who haven't experienced racism get to decide what is racist and what isnt. The asian community have never liked some of the things they were called they just weren't listened to before. A lot of them have made that very clear. For me the issue is people have said certain things for years and they dont want to stop saying or acting in a certain way. But you should adapt. I found out an expression I used could be considered racist and I haven't used it since 

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 06/02/2022 at 01:56, Khan of TF365 said:

Wasn't that just a US thing? 

Yeah but that was the relatively early days of culture being exported and consumed by international markets. And the Beatles (and shitloads of other bands like them) were the product of being influenced by US culture being exported...

...fast forward several decades and the world seems a lot smaller. A good example of that is this forum - in one thread you can have people in 3/4/5 continents talking to each other at once. Things that were once commonly exclusive to just one country are sort of more popular than they were "back in the day" - look at how much of international news mimics US style news now. It's pretty common to see more people around the world have adopted a mindset that's probably been exported culturally through media, particularly US media which is popular pretty much everywhere.

And we're all influenced by the media we consume. It'll impact how we think in some way.

[Bluewolf]

It would be nice if people could stop being offended on my behalf then trying to dictate what it is I can hear, see or read... 

Censorship is like telling a man he can't have Steak because a baby can't chew it.... 

[RandoEFC+]

The censorship debate is a bit of a joke to be honest. All these people who get censored or "cancelled" for crossing a line one too many times instantly get offered countless opportunities to bleat about it on national radio (Jeremy Kyle) or in national newspapers (Piers Morgan), etc. so that they can continue to bore us to death by crying about how silenced and prosecuted they are, usually speaking from their multi-million pound homes which they paid for through their lucrative careers in television and media.

I personally don't agree with censoring comedy or anything actually. There's been a big stink about this Jimmy Carr joke about Gypsies in the Holocaust. I've heard the joke and it was very, very bad. I think he should apologise for the offence he has caused to that community, but I don't think every trace of him should be removed from every platform he's ever performed on. But expecting people to apologise for being offensive isn't censorship, it's just being a decent human being. The Gypsy thing has actually been good as now people are talking about why it isn't okay to make that joke. If he made that joke about Jews or black people, he would be crucified for it. Why should it be okay to target Gypsies if not those groups? It isn't okay.

There are practical concerns as well. See the Joe Rogan/Spotify thing. If he was spouting conspiracy theories about the moon landing or something then nobody would care and nobody would be boycotting that platform. But people spreading disinformation about vaccines poses a tangible threat to some peoples' health. I get that there are many examples of people getting overly offended when it isn't required, but this idea that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without being challenged or without consequence is an outdated and impractical ideology. There's a reason why the illegality of hate speech has ended up being put into law. Because our standards as a society have improved and a tiny minority of people say things that cause offence and hurt, which isn't alright. We were brought up on "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me", but there are different types of hurt from physical pain. People get prosecuted and have their liberties removed when they deliberately cause physical pain or damage to other people. The pain and damage caused by what people say sometimes is definitely very different, but we can't pretend that there's no overlap. Also words can sometimes lead to physical actions in some cases. Why should we wait that long to intervene? I'm probably way off-topic now but I don't think it's totally irrelevant to the wider debate. My point is, it's not as simple as people sometimes make out.

In theory, it shouldn't be up to anyone to draw the line between what is okay and what isn't, but we can't have 100% freedom of speech because a small number of people are just too nasty and hate-filled to be allowed to say whatever they want, because they end up hurting individuals or groups of people. Let's be honest, in the Western world we pretty much have 99.9% free speech. There is a real problem in countries like Russia, China, North Korea, but I don't think that's the debate we're having in this thread. Don't blame the "snowflakes" or the "woke brigade" for arguing about where we should draw the aforementioned line (a tiresome, tiresome debate from both sides for the most part). Blame the horrible pieces of work who can't be trusted not to spout hateful, offensive opinions and make it necessary for a line to be drawn somewhere in the first place.

Basically, don't be a massive twat and then you won't have to worry about being "cancelled" or "censored".

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, RondónEFC said:

I personally don't agree with censoring comedy or anything actually. There's been a big stink about this Jimmy Carr joke about Gypsies in the Holocaust. I've heard the joke and it was very, very bad. I think he should apologise for the offence he has caused to that community, but I don't think every trace of him should be removed from every platform he's ever performed on. But expecting people to apologise for being offensive isn't censorship, it's just being a decent human being. The Gypsy thing has actually been good as now people are talking about why it isn't okay to make that joke.

This I agree with, Not keen on censoring myself but yea, if a joke you tell or a comment you make causes massive offence then apologise and we can all move on.. Jimmy Carr is notorious for that edgy/offensive humour it's what he does.. Roy Chubby Brown is the same so anyone that goes to those stand up shows knows exactly what they are going to get... It's a bit much for me that people that wouldn't normally go to them then get to dictate to others what they can and can't listen too... This was is what Nadine Doris had to say.. 

On Saturday, the culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, suggested new legislation could prevent the broadcast of such comments, telling BBC One Breakfast that they were “abhorrent and they just shouldn’t be on television”.

She said: “We are looking at legislation via the media bill, which would bring into scope those comments from other video-on-demand streaming outlets like Netflix.”

So we start with that and where does it end?? 

Jimmy Carr had this to say.. 

In the special, Carr sought to explain what he said was the context of the joke, saying it was “edgy as hell” and had an educational value.

“It’s a joke about the worst thing that’s ever happened in human history, and people say ‘never forget’, well this is how I remember,” he said.

“There is an educational quality. Like everyone in the room knows, 6 million Jewish people lost their lives to the Nazis during the second world war. But a lot of people don’t know, because it’s not really taught in our schools, that the Nazis also killed, in their thousands, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

 

[RandoEFC+]

The thing is with edgy comedians, the clue is in the name, "edgy". A lot of people like edgy humour, myself included, but you don't get to have edgy comedians who don't sometimes go over the edge with a joke or a comment. They're only human. They need to hold their hands up and apologise if they cause hurt, and we need to accept that they've made a human misjudgement and not condemn an entire human being based on a simple mistake. In this case, a mistake that is invited by the work they do.

[JoshBRFC+]

I remember when comedians were allowed to be comedians. 

[6666]

If you get offended by a joke, just call that comedian a prick and move on with your life. The government adjusting legislation to censor comedy on streaming platforms is not a path I'm in favour of.

[Stan]

6 hours ago, RondónEFC said:

If he made that joke about Jews or black people, he would be crucified for it

He wouldn't, because he has made those jokes. 

'Safety in numbers. Tell that to 6 million Jews'. 

He didn't get crucified for it. Because people saw it was a joke about the phrase 'safety in numbers'. It wasn't about offending the Jewish people. 

Seen Gervais speaks about how people take offence - 'people get offending when they mistake the subject of a joke for a target' 

 It's also about picking offence on behalf of people, thinking they may be offended. 

7 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

It would be nice if people could stop being offended on my behalf then trying to dictate what it is I can hear, see or read... 

This. Are Gypsies actually offended by the joke? 

[Cicero]

I think people who get offended by these jokes don't understand the concept of humor. 

Lots of jokes have their genesis in very dark stuff. Laughter is a transcended tool we can use to take something that's bitter and difficult to comprehend and make it something funny. Humor doesn't make light of these dark serious issues.  Humor allows us to transcend from the subject matter for a moment and view the absurdity of our circumstance. 

[RandoEFC+]

6 minutes ago, Stan said:

He wouldn't, because he has made those jokes

No he hasn't. Have you heard the joke I'm talking about? He referred to the thousands of Gypsies who got killed in the Holocaust as "nobody wants to talk about the positives". He would never have made that joke about Jewish (or black or Asian or disabled) people and you and I both know it, because in this particular joke, the Gypsy community was made the butt of it.

This wasn't a clever or satirical joke, he wasn't taking the piss out of the Nazis or Hitler while referring to Gypsies, and he wasn't making a playful jibe about a particular Gypsy stereotype, all of which I think is fair game. It was just a bit of a cheap shot.

Don't get me wrong, if I was there in the crowd I'd probably have laughed and not thought twice about it. I'm not claiming some moral high ground here but now that it has been debated and I've heard a few different takes on it, I can see why it has caused a stink whereas I didn't originally.

20 minutes ago, Stan said:

Are Gypsies actually offended by the joke? 

I can't find the clip I heard from the guy who came on LBC the other day to talk about it who was from the Gypsy community. There are others if you search for it on Twitter that I haven't listened to if you're interested in what some of them have had to say.