TV Shows So Clarkson has shot himself in the foot again

TBH I think Clarkson is a smeg end. I also think Hammond is a smeg end, and I don't like Harry or Meghan either. I do like James May, but the other two just get on my tits. I've never liked Top Gear, neither before, after, or with them in it. It just all seems really silly to me. Just my opinion on that part.

As for "cancel culture". TBH no matter what you call it from what period it has always been the same. If you are popular people will want to see you, if you are not they will not. So to me? cancel culture seems to just be people voting with their wallets. Because, once again it all comes down to money. If someone is popular then usually as long as they bring in the money it doesn't really matter how much of an asshole they are they will just continue on.

IMO Clarkson is coming to the end of his run. His audience is shrinking, and his ideology is dated. TBH by now he should just consider cashing in and disappearing.

As for freedom of speech? I am all for it. Let people say whatever they want to say. At which point people will then make their own minds up. However, there is such a thing as going too far. That said with the punishment being shunned and offed to the annals of history? that more than makes up for it.

However once again I feel that people are incredibly judgmental and seem to make their minds up about someone over one sentence. Which again IMO is a bit extreme. Just because someone says something daft and or shitty at some point doesn't mean they are devoid of any goodness or good things.

Personally I am not a fan of any majorly famous people. They all act the same, and it's all stupid and all about money.

 

"Cancel Culture", another pointless name for something that never needed a name, like the tabloids calling a chilly easterly, "The Beast From The East."

 

It would be a double standard if that was my stance, but it's not - I already said that Clarkson's words were harmful, likewise what's said about JK and indeed by JK in some instances. But are all harmful words untrue? Therein lies the crux of the matter. If we reach a point where speaking truth is deemed hate speech (which we arguably have), we really are in a terrible place as a society.

 

I don't think his words were harmful. Words are not harmful IMO, and they are a great way to find out who you shouldn't like. It's just him being a dick. Jumping on the Piers hype train.

The problem these days as has been said is - "There is a difference between a hate speech, and speech that you hate".

As skins grow thinner than ever and aggressiveness toward quite silly things it won't get better.

That said I should point out that in the UK there is no such thing as free speech any way. There is in the U.S constitution, and as such I used to have to drive through rallys of skinheads in WV preaching racism and hate, but in the UK there never was a thing called free speech. There are absolutely tons of things here that can get you arrested if they come out of your mouth. So fighting for free speech is daft any way, considering it pretty much never existed in the UK any way. I think with the internet and TV making the world smaller a lot of people listen to something said in the US and then think it applies worldwide. It doesn't.

BTW I should point out that as a child I was bullied pretty horribly. And things were said to me that tbh? no human should ever say to another human. Things about my dad dying and so on. However, as I pointed out above it gave me a really good idea of who was a dick, and beyond that a c**t, and who I should have absolutely no time for whatsoever. And sitting back and watching karma take hold over the years has been enormously satisfying, so there is that.

 

I've stayed out of this because I really don't give a hoot about celebs getting their nose bent out of shape, however..

Nope, not I.

 

"People who freely express themselves in a way that isn't harmful to others absolutely should be protected from certain "consequences" - for example, unfair dismissal. And I'm not just talking about Clarkson here, but I'd argue that his situation fits the bill."
This made it sound like you didn't think what he said was harmful?

Why can't words be harmful?

 

Because you should have been taught to ignore helmets, and spot a dick a mile off the starboard bow.

It's where sticks and stones comes from.

 

I get the point you're making: most people's idea of "free speech" comes from the US 1st Amendment. Even then that's wholly misunderstood, even in America, because it doesn't mean "freedom from consequences". There's nothing to stop an employer from firing you if you're spouting off on social media and bringing the company into disrepute.

But UK law does provide protection for freedom of expression, I mentioned it on the last page:

That part I highlighted does a lot of heavy lifting though. The way I understand it, that's the part which basically says "Yeah you have freedom of expression, but not if you're breaking any other laws".

 

Probably one of the "EU nonsense laws" the current bunch of grifters want to abolish.

 

You are right, and it was a poor choice of words on my part - it's easy for the line to become blurred when we talk about speech in terms of how "harmful" it is because that's subjective. If somebody loses their livelihood because of hurt feelings, I think that's a bit extreme to say the least, which is why I made the point about protection from such consequences.

I'm sure you would, but IMO it would be utterly fruitless to discuss these things here because we'll just go round in circles and probably end up offending people. Like I said in a previous post, best to leave such matters at "agree to disagree" and move on.

 

I think it's difficult since where should that line be drawn? Someone gets punched on the arm, it could stop hurting fairly quickly but would that be enough, is the principle of causing 'physical harm' more important?