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!
NCFC Dorset Branch said:
Yes, I get the point, but you can only be guilty of something if there is something to be guilty of.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. I thought it was pretty clear that we were considering whether Clarkson was guilty or not guilty of being intentionally offensive. Albeit, that's not necessarily a crime, but then I can be guilty or not guilty of failing to wish my missus good luck for her interview. And trust me I was definitely guilty...
 
Canary Rob said:
Yep. It hinged on the fact that he told them he couldn't swim. Given that he told them he couldn't swim, and they pushed him into water, would you say they had the foresight that he would be likely to drown?

More theoretically, if he hadn't told them, would they have had it?
Click to expand...

To clarify - three of them were actually found guilty of murder as a result, instead of manslaughter. Because they had the necessary foresight.
 
SUPERNORWICH 23 said:
So you get to decide if black people are allowed to be offended and I sensationalised being called a thick **** by a keyboard warrior on the internet.
There are rules on 606 on tv and in society Carabuh.
Click to expand...

That's not in the slightest what I said.
 
carrabuh said:
You perhaps need to go back and read what the point was being discussed.
Click to expand...

Why? You said that you didn't believe Clarkson was intentionally offensive.

Since then you've acknowledged that what he said could be offensive to many people (not just the subject of his offensive language). We've also considered what is necessary to establish intention.

I think the only thing we haven't established is whether Clarkson actually knew what he said was offensive, but given his apology I think it's pretty obvious he did.

So he clearly intended to be offensive. Which means your post was wrong:

carrabuh said:
You don't.
The point was made that he said it to deliberately offend black people. I don't think he did.
Click to expand...

He did intentionally offend black people. In fact he intentionally offended anyone who finds that language offensive. I accept that that may or may not include you. I don't know.
 
Canary Rob said:
I'm not sure I follow. I thought it was pretty clear that we were considering whether Clarkson was guilty or not guilty of being intentionally offensive. Albeit, that's not necessarily a crime, but then I can be guilty or not guilty of failing to wish my missus good luck for her interview. And trust me I was definitely guilty...
Click to expand...
Well, my point is that being deliberately offensive in a general way but done for effect and even to entertain is a far cry from being guilty of racism which some people have been very quick to level at Clarkson.
 
Ok, Carrabuh, I can see exactly where this is going... you're probably dreaming up some argument where you will redefine the words again, as usual, but the fact is at some point you are going to have to accept that you have been wrong. It's ok. It happens.
 
NCFC Dorset Branch said:
Well, my point is that being deliberately offensive in a general way but done for effect and even to entertain is a far cry from being guilty of racism which some people have been very quick to level at Clarkson.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't entirely disagree with that. There are different types of offensiveness. However, I think you're moving into an entirely different question with this - Clarkson said something which is acknowledged to be racist, and he almost certainly intended to be offensive (for the mens rea reason I set out above). Does saying something racist and offensive make you guilty of racism? Well as I say, a whole new step. It depends what definition you use. And undoubtedly if you're Carrabuh racism means a strong dislike of asparagus when it suits you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColkOfTheBarclay and NCFC Dorset Branch
Canary Rob said:
Why? You said that you didn't believe Clarkson was intentionally offensive.

Since then you've acknowledged that what he said could be offensive to many people (not just the subject of his offensive language). We've also considered what is necessary to establish intention.

I think the only thing we haven't established is whether Clarkson actually knew what he said was offensive, but given his apology I think it's pretty obvious he did.

So he clearly intended to be offensive. Which means your post was wrong:



He did intentionally offend black people. In fact he intentionally offended anyone who finds that language offensive. I accept that that may or may not include you. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there will always be someone who takes offence at almost anything that anyone says.....as we see on here all the time. I'm not sure how some people find time to live their lives, the amount of time they use up being offended.
 
Canary Rob said:
Ok, Carrabuh, I can see exactly where this is going... you're probably dreaming up some argument where you will redefine the words again, as usual, but the fact is at some point you are going to have to accept that you have been wrong. It's ok. It happens.
Click to expand...

Surely not!!!
 
NCFC Dorset Branch said:
Yes, but there will always be someone who takes offence at almost anything that anyone says.....as we see on here all the time. I'm not sure how some people find time to live their lives, the amount of time they use up being offended.
Click to expand...

True. But that still boils down to mens rea - if people are getting offended by something that is ridiculous to be offended by, the person that wrote it cannot have been offensive, because they will not have been contemplating that someone would be offended!
 
My view of it is. He said it thinking no black person would hear it. I doubt he would of if he thought they would.

I'm certainly not agreeing with him saying it and he may well be racist. I don't think this instance proves he is.
 
Tony_Munky_Canary said:
Surely not!!!
Click to expand...

The proof sir, is up above. He probably won't reply because he's very proud. Or he'll use a semantic argument again. But I think his single-minded certainty in his own absolute rightness on all counts is probably partly why we are so fond of him. Amongst all the wacky nonsense, he comes out with some very interesting and alternative POVs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony_Munky_Canary and SUPERNORWICH 23
carrabuh said:
My view of it is. He said it thinking no black person would hear it. I doubt he would of if he thought they would.

I'm certainly not agreeing with him saying it and he may well be racist. I don't think this instance proves he is.
Click to expand...

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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUPERNORWICH 23
Canary Rob said:
True. But that still boils down to mens rea - if people are getting offended by something that is ridiculous to be offended by, the person that wrote it cannot have been offensive, because they will not have been contemplating that someone would be offended!
Click to expand...
Yes, but there is an element of you can't cater for all tastes. There will always be a minority of people offended at the slightest thing - Points of View territory.
Are we saying that every Australian cricketer that has ever donned the baggy green cap is a racist because they refer to us as Poms and make no secret of their hatred of us? Am I entitled to be offended and call for them to be sacked and deported?
 
NCFC Dorset Branch said:
Yes, but there is an element of you can't cater for all tastes. There will always be a minority of people offended at the slightest thing - Points of View territory.
Are we saying that every Australian cricketer that has ever donned the baggy green cap is a racist because they refer to us as Poms and make no secret of their hatred of us? Am I entitled to be offended and call for them to be sacked and deported?
Click to expand...

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 at all 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? And then of course I think there are some topics where it is, to a limited extent, "ok" to be offensive. If you're strongly disagreeing with someone or just taking the piss and they get offended, even though you probably thought it was likely they would be, I don't think you can necessarily do much about it (other than maybe not take the piss, but as long as you're not racist, etc, where's the fun in not taking the piss?) Whereas being racist or otherwise, is on the black list (hoho) of things you just shouldn't do

Although I would say that there has been plenty of talk about the Aussie attitude being OTT. It arguably is racist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back