Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 17, 2022, 09:19:30 PM
-
This is from Clarkson's column in the Sun. Bad enough that he as a gibbering fuckwit would write it. I wish I could be surprised that the Sun would print it.
-
I wonder if he realises that many people think exactly the same way about him?
-
I wonder if he realises that many people think exactly the same way about him?
Then they would be as unhinged as he is. I pity him. The Sun is a worthless rag.
-
I've never read anything by Jeremy Clarkson before. I Googled it rather than log in to read the attachment in the OP. I didn't find his article on Meghan but I came across his Sun article about being mistaken for Piers Morgan:
I WAS stopped in the street this week by a Qatari gentleman who thanked me profusely for the speech I’d made defending his country and its right to hold the World Cup.
Naturally, I was very flattered but as he went on and on about how kind I’d been, I was racking my brains and couldn’t remember ever having made a speech about Qatar or the World Cup or what I thought about either.
And then, suddenly, it dawned on me.
He’d mistaken me for Piers Morgan.
The poor man’s probably at home now wondering why, as he showered me with praise, I started to try to cut my own head off.
I skimmed the rest of Clarkson's Sun column that the above was in and it was all similarly daft in terms of humour attempting to be biting I guess. I did smile at the line "I started to try to cut my own head off". I don't think his statements are meant to be taken seriously - he seems to write columns to make himself sound stupid based on what I just read.
But agree that it's not funny when the violent images are directed at someone else rather than at himself. Obviously, he knew he would get a backlash for his comparison of Meghan Markle to Cersei Lannister in GoT. It was shocking enough when it was in GoT.
That's the nature of the game though. Clarkson and Markle are both in it for the publicity, faking outrage or publicly mocking sensibilities that they know will hit a nerve, presumably in the hope of generating column inches. Both acting their little socks off as they have overheads and mortgages to pay. Both playing personas to generate much-needed income to fund their lifestyles in the public eye.
Ok Meghan's act is to beat your brains out by staring into the camera with the doe eyes, the quavering voice, the pauses, the tears, the fake giggles, the hints at racism, the make stuff up as you go along because it makes a good story for TV, which may be more appealing to some than Jeremy's oaf act.
-
HAhaha - I just found the article https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20782114/harry-meghan-netflix-series-truth/
Jeremy's oaf act is pretty funny in certain places in the article:
WE all know in our heart of hearts that Harold Markle is a slightly dim but fun-loving chin who flew Apache helicopter gunships in Afghanistan and cavorted around Las Vegas hotel rooms with naked hookers.
But then along came Meghan, who obviously used some vivid bedroom promises to turn him into a warrior of woke.
And now it seems that she has her arm so far up his bottom, she can use her fingers to alter his facial expressions.
-
This is from Clarkson's column in the Sun. Bad enough that he as a gibbering fuckwit would write it. I wish I could be surprised that the Sun would print it.
It’s obviously hyperbole.
-
It’s obviously hyperbole.
It may be.
Does his target audience recognise hyperbole?
Or even know what it means?
And before you point out the obvious, yes, I am being patronising about Sun readers.
They deserve it.
PS There are various rumours circulating about the closeness of Camilla and Jeremy and that they met at some dinner/function just before he published his "article". I love a conspiracy theory.
-
It’s obviously hyperbole.
yYes, it is. That doesn't stop it being unhinged.
-
It may be.
Does his target audience recognise hyperbole?
Or even know what it means?
And before you point out the obvious, yes, I am being patronising about Sun readers.
They deserve it.
PS There are various rumours circulating about the closeness of Camilla and Jeremy and that they met at some dinner/function just before he published his "article". I love a conspiracy theory.
I'm with you on the conspiracy. I reckon Camilla is secretly running MI6 and Jeremy is one of her agents. Charles has no idea. Jeremy was driving the Fiat Uno that murdered Diana to clear the way for Camilla to become Queen.
'Clarkson's Farm' is just a cover that Jeremy is using to learn to train hens. I reckon before the coronation Meghan will be fleeing paps in the grounds of her mansion in Montecito and mysteriously fall into her hen-house and be pecked to death.
-
It may be.
Does his target audience recognise hyperbole?
Or even know what it means?
And before you point out the obvious, yes, I am being patronising about Sun readers.
They deserve it.
PS There are various rumours circulating about the closeness of Camilla and Jeremy and that they met at some dinner/function just before he published his "article". I love a conspiracy theory.
It's a nothing burger. Clarkson writes in his usual over the top style and people get outraged. Maybe it's therapeutic.
-
...
Maybe it's therapeutic.
For Clarkson himself maybe ... but why subject Times/Sun readers to his rubbish? I notice that Laura /kuensberg had the Sun editor, Victoria Newton, on her show yesterday morning but absolutely no mention of Clarkson's (imo fake) tirade.
-
It's a nothing burger. Clarkson writes in his usual over the top style and people get outraged. Maybe it's therapeutic.
I really don't think it is a "nothing burger".
We live in a country with significant levels of domestic violence against women.
Now is language like this A) More likely to encourage men to use violence, or
B) more likely to stop them using violence?
I know it is challenging to prove a direct correlation between speech & violence, but you really have to ask what the purpose of this article was.
Clarkson and his editor need to reflect on this episode and ask themselves what effect they were trying to achieve. From the "nothing burger" response I'm assuming you think they weren't really trying to achieve anything other than possibly winding people like me and others up.
And yet we should really place that writing in the context of these figures:
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data-on-violence-against-women-and-girls/
It's not a nothing burger - it's a burger that's full of maggots that Clarkson is trying to force down our necks.
-
For Clarkson himself maybe ... but why subject Times/Sun readers to his rubbish?
Presumably, the editor of the Sun thinks he will entertain their readership and perhaps attract more.
I notice that Laura /kuensberg had the Sun editor, Victoria Newton, on her show yesterday morning but absolutely no mention of Clarkson's (imo fake) tirade.
Of course it was fake.
-
I really don't think it is a "nothing burger".
We live in a country with significant levels of domestic violence against women.
Now is language like this A) More likely to encourage men to use violence, or
B) more likely to stop them using violence?
I know it is challenging to prove a direct correlation between speech & violence, but you really have to ask what the purpose of this article was.
Clarkson and his editor need to reflect on this episode and ask themselves what effect they were trying to achieve. From the "nothing burger" response I'm assuming you think they weren't really trying to achieve anything other than possibly winding people like me and others up.
And yet we should really place that writing in the context of these figures:
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data-on-violence-against-women-and-girls/
It's not a nothing burger - it's a burger that's full of maggots that Clarkson is trying to force down our necks.
The bit about parading through the streets naked was a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where exactly that happened to one of the major characters.
If you are concerned about how such scenes encourage domestic violence, you should first take your complaint to the makers of the TV series.
More food for thought: what if the same article had been written about Katie Hopkins? Would we be seeing all this manufactured outrage?
It was just a silly crappy article and it really deserved to be just forgotten about. Instead, we have massive manufactured outrage and many more people have read it than would otherwise. I think we've been trolled.
-
The bit about parading through the streets naked was a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where exactly that happened to one of the major characters.
If you are concerned about how such scenes encourage domestic violence, you should first take your complaint to the makers of the TV series.
More food for thought: what if the same article had been written about Katie Hopkins? Would we be seeing all this manufactured outrage?
It was just a silly crappy article and it really deserved to be just forgotten about. Instead, we have massive manufactured outrage and many more people have read it than would otherwise. I think we've been trolled.
I know lots of women who are outraged by this and it's not manufactured.
And they would have said the same if it had been Katie Hopkins.
-
I'm one of the few not to have seen GoT, so I know nothing of it, although I understand it is fiction with fictional characters.
Yes if it was Katie Hopkins I would hope so. I would be just as concerned. I hold little or no sympathy for Markle but this is just unacceptable, to say it is a silly crappy article is correct but missing the point. Clarkson and his editor are not stupid people. They wanted a response that would draw attention to the article. They made this happen. They are responsible.
-
I haven't watched GoT either. I think you're both right, in a way. Clarckson is a dick and deliberately tries to be outrageous and thus deserves little attention but then we also have to take responsibility for our words. The dick defence isn't always acceptable. Where the line between the two is to be drawn is a bit more difficult to define.
-
From Clarkson's daughter
-
From Clarkson's daughter
👍
-
And a classic non apology apology
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64029690
-
And a classic non apology apology
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64029690
Why are you calling it a non apology apology? It's not even an attempt to apologise.
-
The bit about parading through the streets naked was a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where exactly that happened to one of the major characters.
If you are concerned about how such scenes encourage domestic violence, you should first take your complaint to the makers of the TV series.
I think the reference to GoT is cleverer than I first thought. It satirises the plotting and machinations in the Palace against the Netflix duo as claimed by them in their 'documentary' or as some like to call it - the Netflix work of fictional drama to entertain the public (bit like The Crown and GoT). The Harry and Meghan brand needs the oxygen of publicity to pay their overheads. As does Jeremy, Netflix, the Sun, public figures commenting etc etc. Jeremy, with his article, has given Meghan and Harry, Netflix, himself and the Sun publicity. The public continue to lap it up and are entertained - they seem to get some satisfaction out of being outraged.
If you think about it, within GoT you have multiple warring courts competing and hatching plots to claim the Iron Throne and Cersei Lannister plotting to be Queen and retain power and using different men to do her bidding. You have the manipulation of the citizens of Kings Landing to jeer and throw things at Cersei. Her downfall after she made the mistake of giving too much power to the High Sparrow in trying to defeat her enemies and ultimately the High Sparrow turned on her. Comparing the current, manufactured, media-hyped war between the Montecito pair and the British monarchy to GoT is kind of funny, now I think about it.
More food for thought: what if the same article had been written about Katie Hopkins? Would we be seeing all this manufactured outrage?
The GoT reference wouldn't work if it was about Katie Hopkins rather than about the monarchy.
It was just a silly crappy article and it really deserved to be just forgotten about. Instead, we have massive manufactured outrage and many more people have read it than would otherwise. I think we've been trolled.
Yes - the Sun knew what the reaction was going to be and that was their intention. I took Jeremy's "hate" to be hyperbole and tongue in cheek - I doubt he is sad and mindless enough to actually hate Meghan. He may hate what she represents. But you never know I suppose. I don't know much about the guy, other than seeing him on Top Gear.
I think the world is a more interesting place with this kind of material in it, that shocks us and provokes thought and debate. But yes I see the point of the people speaking out because of violence against women. Yes there will be lots of people who won't think and will be encouraged by this article to hate others and just continue with their mindless misogyny and glorification of violence against women.
-
.... The public continue to lap it up and are entertained - they seem to get some satisfaction out of being outraged.
... But yes I see the point of the people speaking out because of violence against women. Yes there will be lots of people who won't think and will be encouraged by this article to hate others and just continue with their mindless misogyny and glorification of violence against women.
Not sure how you reconcile these 2 parts of your post?
-
Not sure how you reconcile these 2 parts of your post?
Ah - I should have said that some of the public lap it up and are entertained. Others are not entertained and are commenting on valid social issues. Different sections of the public are reacting for different reasons.
It would be difficult for a piece of writing to meet everyone's needs as different sections of the public want different things from 'news' articles. Some people don't care about facts or whether a story is true - they just want their beliefs reinforced or to be entertained, which is the segment the Sun appeals to.
-
Ah - I should have said that some of the public lap it up and are entertained. Others are not entertained and are commenting on valid social issues. Different sections of the public are reacting for different reasons.
It would be difficult for a piece of writing to meet everyone's needs as different sections of the public want different things from 'news' articles. Some people don't care about facts or whether a story is true - they just want their beliefs reinforced or to be entertained, which is the segment the Sun appeals to.
Thanks for the clarification. Surely though that just underlines that the people who were actually outraged by the writing are correct in your view.
-
Thanks for the clarification. Surely though that just underlines that the people who were actually outraged by the writing are correct in your view.
Yes I think it is correct to be outraged, point out the problems with the article because of the issue of violence against women. I think I was both - I felt it was pretty outrageous hyperbole as some people would take it as encouragement to hate. I also saw that it is what Clarkson is paid for presumably and what some people expect and want and are entertained by, and Clarkson needs to pay his overheads by giving the public what they want as much as the Sussexes, with their hyperbole about racism. It's not exactly surprising to the Sussexes presumably, that like Princess Diana and other public figures, if you try to use the media you make yourself a target in the process. Hence, probably why people like Charles and William are trying not to give the media what they want by getting into a public tit for tat.
So if we have the article, plus the outrage, and the conversation about violence and the non-apology apology, it seems to meet the needs of lots of different sections of society, including the economic needs of the media and Harry, Meghan and Jeremy.
-
Yes I think it is correct to be outraged, point out the problems with the article because of the issue of violence against women. I think I was both - I felt it was pretty outrageous hyperbole as some people would take it as encouragement to hate. I also saw that it is what Clarkson is paid for presumably and what some people expect and want and are entertained by, and Clarkson needs to pay his overheads by giving the public what they want as much as the Sussexes, with their hyperbole about racism. It's not exactly surprising to the Sussexes presumably, that like Princess Diana and other public figures, if you try to use the media you make yourself a target in the process. Hence, probably why people like Charles and William are trying not to give the media what they want by getting into a public tit for tat.
So if we have the article, plus the outrage, and the conversation about violence and the non-apology apology, it seems to meet the needs of lots of different sections of society, including the economic needs of the media and Harry, Meghan and Jeremy.
That seems to be saying 'isn't it great that Jeremy Clarkson wrote a dangerous piece of misogyny that may encourage some people to violently attack women because it creates conversation about violence against women'?
-
That seems to be saying 'isn't it great that Jeremy Clarkson wrote a dangerous piece of misogyny that may encourage some people to violently attack women because it creates conversation about violence against women'?
I'm neither saying it's great or bad that he wrote it. I am saying it is good that there are people pointing out what articles like this might lead to and why the article is problematic. And I think it's good that we don't have censorship preventing articles like this being written.
I'm saying people will write stuff like this because there is still an appetite for it - it's a form of satire that some people appreciate. Lots of people were outraged by some of the sexist violence in Spitting Image but it was also a very popular show. And there are still people today who will appreciate it, despite the lunatic humour that would be considered by many sections of society as unacceptable. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/oct/01/spitting-image-satire-ian-hislop-roy-hattersley
-
I'm neither saying it's great or bad that he wrote it. I am saying it is good that there are people pointing out what articles like this might lead to and why the article is problematic. And I think it's good that we don't have censorship preventing articles like this being written.
I'm saying people will write stuff like this because there is still an appetite for it - it's a form of satire that some people appreciate. Lots of people were outraged by some of the sexist violence in Spitting Image but it was also a very popular show. And there are still people today who will appreciate it, despite the lunatic humour that would be considered by many sections of society as unacceptable. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/oct/01/spitting-image-satire-ian-hislop-roy-hattersley
If the article is in your view 'problematic' then you are saying it is bad.
-
If the article is in your view 'probelematic' then you are saying it is bad.
I found parts of it bad and parts of it funny. I wouldn't say the whole article was bad. And even though I think the GoT reference was problematic, my view of how problematic it was changed once I had read the rest of the article and one of his other articles and realised this hyperbole was part of his USP and why he gets paid by the Sun to write.
I can think of plenty of criticisms I would make about Meghan and Harry but I wouldn't use the Walk of Shame reference to do it because I didn't enjoy the scene in GoT and think a lot of scenes in GoT are exploitative of women.
-
I found parts of it bad and parts of it funny. I wouldn't say the whole article was bad. And even though I think the GoT reference was problematic, my view of how problematic it was changed once I had read the rest of the article and one of his other articles and realised this hyperbole was part of his USP and why he gets paid by the Sun to write.
I can think of plenty of criticisms I would make about Meghan and Harry but I wouldn't use the Walk of Shame reference to do it because I didn't enjoy the scene in GoT and think a lot of scenes in GoT are exploitative of women.
You said the article was problematic
-
https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1604913142810771471?t=bCABJhF6E9EhysEtlkc_gQ&s=19
-
I suspect that Clarkson has long since worked out that for him noteriety = dosh, and behaves accordingly.
-
I suspect that Clarkson has long since worked out that for him noteriety = dosh, and behaves accordingly.
Oh indeed. He doesn't care about the impact beyond his wallet, and knows that The Sun will pay him for misogyny.
-
You said the article was problematic
Yes - by which I meant that I can see problems with some of things the article said.
It's just an observation that parts of the article troubled me. I am glad I felt uncomfortable with parts of it. And on an intellectual level I am glad I can recognise the problem the article presents in the context of misogyny.
I am also glad that I felt uncomfortable by many of the scenes in GoT, which seemed to exploit women or were particularly gratuitously violent towards men, while also finding myself drawn into the story and characters to the extent that I watched the whole series and fast forwarded the bits that grossed me out.
I like myself better for feeling troubled by the article and GoT, and am a bit worried by those who don't feel a bit uncomfortable, while also feeling glad there are people who feel less of the yuck factor or are less sensitive than I am. I find such less sensitive people suddenly become very useful to me when I am grossed out by situations in real life and can't do something and they seem unfazed or able to tolerate the grossness better. So if some people are not troubled by Jeremy's article and just find it funny, I am ok with that so long as they don't go around physically hurting women.
I am guessing if I read some more of Jeremy's articles, which is unlikely, I would find he has said a lot of problematic things on all kinds of topics. His act seems to be to come across as unhinged. I read he repeatedly punched Piers Morgan and on another occasion dropped water into Piers' lap on a flight they were both on, so it looked like Piers had wet himself. Not really coming across as the actions of a mature, well-balanced person.
ETA - So for example, the whole Meghan being paraded around naked with excrement thrown at her was gross and problematic because I found it gross and problematic when I saw it on GoT, though I understood that it was depicting something that might have happened in the time GoT was set as it's apparently based on Medieval history, when people were more vile and cruel to each other. Whereas the idea of Jeremy unable to sleep and grinding his teeth because he hates Meghan was not problematic as I find it very unlikely that Jeremy can't sleep at night and grinds his teeth because he hates Meghan so much, so I didn't take it seriously.
Nor did I take seriously that he hates Meghan more than Rose West. I wonder how many names and edits of his article he went through before he settled on Rose West for maximum shock value.
-
Yes - by which I meant that I can see problems with some of things the article said.
It's just an observation that parts of the article troubled me. I am glad I felt uncomfortable with parts of it. And on an intellectual level I am glad I can recognise the problem the article presents in the context of misogyny.
I am also glad that I felt uncomfortable by many of the scenes in GoT, which seemed to exploit women or were particularly gratuitously violent towards men, while also finding myself drawn into the story and characters to the extent that I watched the whole series and fast forwarded the bits that grossed me out.
I like myself better for feeling troubled by the article and GoT, and am a bit worried by those who don't feel a bit uncomfortable, while also feeling glad there are people who feel less of the yuck factor or are less sensitive than I am. I find such less sensitive people suddenly become very useful to me when I am grossed out by situations in real life and can't do something and they seem unfazed or able to tolerate the grossness better. So if some people are not troubled by Jeremy's article and just find it funny, I am ok with that so long as they don't go around physically hurting women.
I am guessing if I read some more of Jeremy's articles, which is unlikely, I would find he has said a lot of problematic things on all kinds of topics. His act seems to be to come across as unhinged. I read he repeatedly punched Piers Morgan and on another occasion dropped water into Piers' lap on a flight they were both on, so it looked like Piers had wet himself. Not really coming across as the actions of a mature, well-balanced person.
ETA - So for example, the whole Meghan being paraded around naked with excrement thrown at Meghan was gross and problematic because I found it gross and problematic when I saw it on GoT, though I understood that it was depicting something that might have happened in the time GoT was set as it's apparently based on Medieval history, when people were more vile and cruel to each other. Whereas the idea of Jeremy unable to sleep and grinding his teeth because he hates Meghan was not problematic as I find it very unlikely that Jeremy can't sleep at night and grinds his teeth because he hates Meghan so much, so I didn't take it seriously.
So you're glad of misogyny because it makes you think of misogyny...
-
So you're glad of misogyny because it makes you think of misogyny...
Wouldn't say I'm glad of it. How long do you want to keep going with this because we both know I don't think like you, am not going to agree with your conclusions and don't want to? But we can just keep going round and round if you're enjoying yourself here.
-
Wouldn't say I'm glad of it. How long do you want to keep going with this because we both know I don't think like you, am not going to agree with your conclusions and don't want to? But we can just keep going round and round if you're enjoying yourself here.
And yet I only pointed out what you said
-
And yet I only pointed out what you said
Providing evidence of your assertions is useful if you want them taken seriously. Please quote where I said I was glad of misogyny.