Off Topic His Supreme Clarksonship

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Canary Rob said:
I don't think my post disagreed with you? Yes, you can't cater for all tastes, but if you think what you are saying is not likely to offend, then you cannot really be guilty of being offensive notwithstanding that someone might be oddly offended. I think that's what you're saying and I'm agreeing?

Although I would say that there has been plenty of talk about the Aussie attitude being OTT. It arguably is racist.
Click to expand...
It arguably is racist. Hmmmm. And this is where the real problem lies in my opinion. To relabel banter as racism is a terrible thing. What next? Football fans being banned for ribbing the rival fans? Being unable to talk in a southern accent lest a northerner finds it offensive? Prison sentences for farting because women find it offensive?
I'm all for individuals being protected from abuse, vitriol, assault, persecution etc, but once we start preventing free speech then I'm afraid we are in a very dark place.
 
NCFC Dorset Branch said:
It arguably is racist. Hmmmm. And this is where the real problem lies in my opinion. To relabel banter as racism is a terrible thing. What next? Football fans being banned for ribbing the rival fans? Being unable to talk in a southern accent lest a northerner finds it offensive? Prison sentences for farting because women find it offensive?
I'm all for individuals being protected from abuse, vitriol, assault, persecution etc, but once we start preventing free speech then I'm afraid we are in a very dark place.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. Though obviously your point gets dangerously close to being a "slippery slope" fallacy.

I'm comfortable with "Pom bashing" as banter. But it's clear, to me, that the line to draw is not far more than that, with a grey area covering that sort of "banter" so that people are conscious of when it's appropriate. But you've definitely got to live a little and enjoy it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFC Dorset Branch
Canary Rob said:
But did he think someone who might be offended by it who is not black might hear it? And did he think, given that it was videoed and he quite clearly muttered it, that there was a chance that a black person might hear it, even if it was relatively unlikely?

If the answer to the second question is yes, which I cannot see how anyone can reasonably deny given that it was always likely to be uploaded to youtube or something like that and he knew he was saying something wrong in the way he muttered it, means that you move into a lower level of mens rea (admittedly simplified) which is basically that he was reckless. It's what manslaughter is to murder. You are reckless about the consequences of your actions. Even if Clarkson didn't believe it was likely a black person would hear it, he must have it least thought it was possible. In which case he has the necessary mens rea - reckless intention. It's also known as criminal negligence (although I'm not suggesting he is actually guilty of a crime, I purely mean on intention).
Click to expand...

Well, you actually seem to be in agreement. Your saying you don't know whether he meant it to be heard by black people. I'm saying I don't think he did.

In that instance I don't classify him as deliberately trying to offend black people.
 
Put it this way, if no black person heard about it, then no offense to them would have been caused.

If Clarkson knew they would, I don't believe he would deliberately say it to cause them offence.
 
carrabuh said:
Put it this way, if no black person heard about it, then no offense to them would have been caused.

If Clarkson knew they would, I don't believe he would deliberately say it to cause them offence.
Click to expand...
carrabuh said:
Well, you actually seem to be in agreement. Your saying you don't know whether he meant it to be heard by black people. I'm saying I don't think he did.

In that instance I don't classify him as deliberately trying to offend black people.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I know he didn't mean it to be heard by black people. I'm saying I'm pretty certain he knew it might be heard by black people.

Let me out it simply for you - if intentionally offending black people were a crime, then Clarkson would be almost certainly guilty of it. Albeit recklessly (which isn't as bad as oblique intention or direct intention).

He is almost certainly guilty because he almost certainly knew that black people might hear him say it and he also knew black people were likely to be offended by it. That's as simple as it gets.

So your assertion that he did not intend to offend black people just does not stand up to proper scrutiny. He did, because he was reckless.
 
On that particular matter, I think his sole intention was to play to his audience, his audience being predominantly white men. And many of those people will have found what he did amusing. It's supply and demand.
Whether any of us as individuals like or don't like what he did is an entirely personal opinion.
Whether using potentially offensive language in a passive way constitutes racism, I very much doubt, but happy to be corrected by the lawyers.
 
Canary Rob said:
No, I'm not. I know he didn't mean it to be heard by black people. I'm saying I'm pretty certain he knew it might be heard by black people.

Let me out it simply for you - if intentionally offending black people were a crime, then Clarkson would be almost certainly guilty of it. Albeit recklessly (which isn't as bad as oblique intention or direct intention).

He is almost certainly guilty because he almost certainly knew that black people might hear him say it and he also knew black people were likely to be offended by it. That's as simple as it gets.

So your assertion that he did not intend to offend black people just does not stand up to proper scrutiny. He did, because he was reckless.
Click to expand...

Reckless is not deliberate. Deliberate is the important point here.

You don't know he almost certainly knew black people might hear. He may have been saying this stuff for years with nobody posting it on youtube.
 
carrabuh said:
Reckless is not deliberate. Deliberate is the important point here.

You don't know he almost certainly knew black people might hear. He may have been saying this stuff for years with nobody posting it on youtube.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, it is. Reckless intention is the phrase used, but it's the same thing. It's a level of deliberateness. You can be directly deliberate, obliquely deliberate, or reckless deliberate. That's the point I've repeated several times. The mens rea. I appreciate it's tedious legal terminology that doesn't suit you, but it is as I've said it - look at the case about the boy pushed in the river posted by SN earlier.

I've already accepted I don't know that he knew black people might hear. However, I think we can be almost certain because: (a) he was videoed; and (b) listen to the video and how he says it - it's pretty clear he's conscious that it might not be wise to say it on camera!

Honestly Carrabuh, you're just going to have to accept you're wrong on this one because we have now gone right back to the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back