|
Post by millar70 on Jan 7, 2020 19:48:18 GMT
I love that the right wingers loved it. If only they realised how left wing he is. Just loves taking the piss out of everything and everyone, a pretty normal British trait, including ourselves. If you think this is a right-wing/left-wing thing, you are missing the point. It is about intolerant people, and Ricky Gervais was poking fun at them. It can be either left wing or right wing. Remember how George Carlin used to poke fun at the intolerant right. It was funny. Now we got the intolerant left. People like Ricky Gervais, Dave Chappelle, and Piers Morgan realized this and don't want to be part of it. You got the #Walkaway movement to get away from the intolerant people. There are good right and good left. It is the the intolerant on both sides making issues out of everything and gets offended by small and weird stuff, like an old man can be offended by people putting milk on his coffee without asking him. Exactly. Listen, I'm a Trump guy, but I'm under no delusion that Ricky Gervais is about to start wearing MAGA hats and going to Trump rallies. I know where he stands politically, which is probably a bit different from where I stand. But then again maybe not, I was a liberal for a long time, at least I thought I was. Then liberals started to censor, label, and insult not just those fully on the right, but also those of us in the middle who see life from both sides of the clouds, which is where they truly lost me. Just look at this thread. Who is saying the nastier stuff? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of which political side you are on. And that's what Gervais was laying into Hollywood for. Interesting that at no point during his opening monologue was Trump's name mentioned. Yet a thread about it is started and you hear the word Deplorable and the same tired Trump bashing. Why?
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jan 7, 2020 22:44:48 GMT
What I find really funny is that to my ears, nothing he said was even approaching offensive. At All. I don’t get what the controversy is about. What is offensive is very subjective. What is not offensive to you and me doesn't me not offensive to others. Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite and listen to Ricky Gervais through their ears. Those were very offensive stuff to them. Like Ricky Gervais said that many of them are friends of Jeffery Epstein. Their reaction can be very funny if you think these Hollywood Elite have been too arrogant. No, it’s not. And this is why the PC Police, SJW’s and the “Phobe-labellers” get away with all the bullshit that they do - they disguise their offence taking as empathy. “Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite.......Very offensive stuff to them.” So what ? I take the position that NOTHING is above reproach, discussion, argument, criticism nor in this case mockery and/or derision. This idea that you cannot make jokes about things that are true because it might be offensive is so patently stupid it actually annoys me. That offence shouldn’t be taken against multimillionaires sitting in a room figuratively fellating themselves on how good they are at pretending is complete and utter lunacy. That it is newsworthy is even more insane. Seriously - why do normal everyday people - like 95% of us on here are - give a flying fuck if a Hollywood actor is a bit miffed a comedian made a joke about them ? Really ?
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jan 7, 2020 22:58:38 GMT
What is offensive is very subjective. What is not offensive to you and me doesn't me not offensive to others. Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite and listen to Ricky Gervais through their ears. Those were very offensive stuff to them. Like Ricky Gervais said that many of them are friends of Jeffery Epstein. Their reaction can be very funny if you think these Hollywood Elite have been too arrogant. No, it’s not. And this is why the PC Police, SJW’s and the “Phobe-labellers” get away with all the bullshit that they do - they disguise their offence taking as empathy. “Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite.......Very offensive stuff to them.” So what ? I take the position that NOTHING is above reproach, discussion, argument, criticism nor in this case mockery and/or derision. This idea that you cannot make jokes about things that are true because it might be offensive is so patently stupid it actually annoys me. That offence shouldn’t be taken against multimillionaires sitting in a room figuratively fellating themselves on how good they are at pretending is complete and utter lunacy. That it is newsworthy is even more insane. Seriously - why do normal everyday people - like 95% of us on here are - give a flying fuck if a Hollywood actor is a bit miffed a comedian made a joke about them ? Really ? I thought it might make an interesting topic to discuss, sorry for not running it by you first. And seeing how this thread is now on its 3rd page, obviously some other folks here found it an interesting subject. And the fact that you've made at least 3 posts telling us that we shouldn't care kind of tells me that you might care a little bit as well.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 7, 2020 23:35:53 GMT
What is offensive is very subjective. What is not offensive to you and me doesn't me not offensive to others. Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite and listen to Ricky Gervais through their ears. Those were very offensive stuff to them. Like Ricky Gervais said that many of them are friends of Jeffery Epstein. Their reaction can be very funny if you think these Hollywood Elite have been too arrogant. No, it’s not. And this is why the PC Police, SJW’s and the “Phobe-labellers” get away with all the bullshit that they do - they disguise their offence taking as empathy. “Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite.......Very offensive stuff to them.” So what ? I take the position that NOTHING is above reproach, discussion, argument, criticism nor in this case mockery and/or derision. This idea that you cannot make jokes about things that are true because it might be offensive is so patently stupid it actually annoys me. That offence shouldn’t be taken against multimillionaires sitting in a room figuratively fellating themselves on how good they are at pretending is complete and utter lunacy. That it is newsworthy is even more insane. Seriously - why do normal everyday people - like 95% of us on here are - give a flying fuck if a Hollywood actor is a bit miffed a comedian made a joke about them ? Really ? Isn't it just as childish to be happy that he made fun of these people? I enjoyed the jokes, but I also enjoyed hearing the groans, as you (presumably) did. But I dont think it's any more enlightened. Also, I think you're just arguing semantics here. Just because he said offensiveness is subjective doesn't mean he's defending 'SJWs' (uuughhh...cant believe I just typed that stupid fucking term). Also, it is something people are talking about, and maybe this is just because I'm not on Twitter, but has this been controversial? I haven't seen any of this supposed 'outrage' in any real form.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2020 23:51:24 GMT
You seem to miss the point that the beauty of it was that it was a leftie ripping other lefties. Watching the left eat their own is always amusing ... plus it illustrated how far off the rails and out of touch liberalism and it's "elites" have become. 'Off the rails' would be a party that once ran on 'family values' blindly following a guy paying a porn star for sex while his wife is at home with the kid. 'Off the rails' would be a party that touts its fiscal responsibility while electing a guy who has routinely declared bankruptcy as a business tactic. And don't even get me going on evangelists who somehow support Trump. The left may be eating their own, but the right burned their own party to the ground-- and now the entire country is choking. I think most Republicans recognize that Trump is an imperfect agent. A necessary lesser "evil" against the cultural armageddon the liberals are willfully steering us toward. And don't pretend you're not. Virtually everything a liberal stands for these days is anti-traditional-American. Marriage = man & woman. Capitalism. Pride in American history. The right to defend oneself. American exceptionalism. Killing the unborn is bad. Secure boarders. The electoral college. Accepting the loss of an election gracefully. Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Taxes are not an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Success is a virtue. A strong America. Americans are the good guys. There are three branches of US government for a reason. Men in drag do not belong in girls bathrooms. You can not punish someone for the misdeeds of their forbearers. The founding fathers accomplished something exceptional.
Did I miss anyhing?
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Jan 7, 2020 23:58:32 GMT
I'm not a huge fan of him, but what can you say against honest words?!
Especially about the lecturing of other people.
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Jan 8, 2020 0:01:03 GMT
'Off the rails' would be a party that once ran on 'family values' blindly following a guy paying a porn star for sex while his wife is at home with the kid. 'Off the rails' would be a party that touts its fiscal responsibility while electing a guy who has routinely declared bankruptcy as a business tactic. And don't even get me going on evangelists who somehow support Trump. The left may be eating their own, but the right burned their own party to the ground-- and now the entire country is choking. I think most Republicans recognize that Trump is an imperfect agent. A necessary lesser "evil" against the cultural armageddon the liberals are willfully steering us toward. And don't pretend you're not. Virtually everything a liberal stands for these days is anti-traditional-American. Marriage = man & woman. Capitalism. Pride in American history. The right to defend oneself. American exceptionalism. Killing the unborn is bad. Secure boarders. The electoral college. Accepting the loss of an election gracefully. Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Taxes are not an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Success is a virtue. A strong America. Americans are the good guys. There are three branches of US government for a reason. Men in drag do not belong in girls bathrooms. You can not punish someone for the misdeeds of their forbearers. The founding fathers accomplished something exceptional.
Did I miss anyhing? Freedom of Speech => Cancelling culture etc. pp.
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Jan 8, 2020 0:24:52 GMT
'Off the rails' would be a party that once ran on 'family values' blindly following a guy paying a porn star for sex while his wife is at home with the kid. 'Off the rails' would be a party that touts its fiscal responsibility while electing a guy who has routinely declared bankruptcy as a business tactic. And don't even get me going on evangelists who somehow support Trump. The left may be eating their own, but the right burned their own party to the ground-- and now the entire country is choking. I think most Republicans recognize that Trump is an imperfect agent. A necessary lesser "evil" against the cultural armageddon the liberals are willfully steering us toward. And don't pretend you're not. Virtually everything a liberal stands for these days is anti-traditional-American. Marriage = man & woman. Capitalism. Pride in American history. The right to defend oneself. American exceptionalism. Killing the unborn is bad. Secure boarders. The electoral college. Accepting the loss of an election gracefully. Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Taxes are not an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Success is a virtue. A strong America. Americans are the good guys. There are three branches of US government for a reason. Men in drag do not belong in girls bathrooms. You can not punish someone for the misdeeds of their forbearers. The founding fathers accomplished something exceptional.
Did I miss anyhing? You're joking, right?
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jan 8, 2020 1:52:29 GMT
No, it’s not. And this is why the PC Police, SJW’s and the “Phobe-labellers” get away with all the bullshit that they do - they disguise their offence taking as empathy. “Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite.......Very offensive stuff to them.” So what ? I take the position that NOTHING is above reproach, discussion, argument, criticism nor in this case mockery and/or derision. This idea that you cannot make jokes about things that are true because it might be offensive is so patently stupid it actually annoys me. That offence shouldn’t be taken against multimillionaires sitting in a room figuratively fellating themselves on how good they are at pretending is complete and utter lunacy. That it is newsworthy is even more insane. Seriously - why do normal everyday people - like 95% of us on here are - give a flying fuck if a Hollywood actor is a bit miffed a comedian made a joke about them ? Really ? I thought it might make an interesting topic to discuss, sorry for not running it by you first. And seeing how this thread is now on its 3rd page, obviously some other folks here found it an interesting subject. And the fact that you've made at least 3 posts telling us that we shouldn't care kind of tells me that you might care a little bit as well. I’ll re-direct. Why do you care if they have suffered offence at a few barbs directed at them ? Why do you care they have such thin skins ? Why do you believe Gervais should not have said those things to protect the feelings of very well off people in a very well off society ? A comedian tells a few jokes, there is some uncomfortable murmurs and laughter and the immediate reaction of some people is “He shouldn’t have done that, it’s offensive” ? Why do ordinary people care about the feelings of rich and famous people who frankly, couldn’t give a fuck about the existence of said ordinary people ? It’s so asinine
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jan 8, 2020 2:02:22 GMT
I thought it might make an interesting topic to discuss, sorry for not running it by you first. And seeing how this thread is now on its 3rd page, obviously some other folks here found it an interesting subject. And the fact that you've made at least 3 posts telling us that we shouldn't care kind of tells me that you might care a little bit as well. I’ll re-direct. Why do you care if they have suffered offence at a few barbs directed at them ? Why do you care they have such thin skins ? Why do you believe Gervais should not have said those things to protect the feelings of very well off people in a very well off society ? A comedian tells a few jokes, there is some uncomfortable murmurs and laughter and the immediate reaction of some people is “He shouldn’t have done that, it’s offensive” ? Why do ordinary people care about the feelings of rich and famous people who frankly, couldn’t give a fuck about the existence of said ordinary people ? It’s so asinine Because I get a kick out of it, that's why. Do I think that Hollywood elitists are gonna suddenly change their way of thinking because of Ricky Gervais? Of course not. But it was sure as shit fun watching them squirm in their seats for a little while.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jan 8, 2020 2:18:43 GMT
No, it’s not. And this is why the PC Police, SJW’s and the “Phobe-labellers” get away with all the bullshit that they do - they disguise their offence taking as empathy. “Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite.......Very offensive stuff to them.” So what ? I take the position that NOTHING is above reproach, discussion, argument, criticism nor in this case mockery and/or derision. This idea that you cannot make jokes about things that are true because it might be offensive is so patently stupid it actually annoys me. That offence shouldn’t be taken against multimillionaires sitting in a room figuratively fellating themselves on how good they are at pretending is complete and utter lunacy. That it is newsworthy is even more insane. Seriously - why do normal everyday people - like 95% of us on here are - give a flying fuck if a Hollywood actor is a bit miffed a comedian made a joke about them ? Really ? Isn't it just as childish to be happy that he made fun of these people? I enjoyed the jokes, but I also enjoyed hearing the groans, as you (presumably) did. But I dont think it's any more enlightened. Also, I think you're just arguing semantics here. Just because he said offensiveness is subjective doesn't mean he's defending 'SJWs' (uuughhh...cant believe I just typed that stupid fucking term). Also, it is something people are talking about, and maybe this is just because I'm not on Twitter, but has this been controversial? I haven't seen any of this supposed 'outrage' in any real form. Being childish is saying that no one should say or do anything ‘offensive’, and including in that assumed third person offence. I’m not an actor, but that’s offensive to actors. That is as subjective as it gets. You and I don’t aren’t , but that guy over there might be offended. That’s exactly what SJW’s do. They take offence at things on behalf of others without even knowing if the others find it offensive or if what was said or done was even offensive to begin with. Taking offence on behalf of Leonardo Di Caprio, Epstein, Corden or the CEO of Apple is completely insane. Especially when it’s a joke based upon truths. If someone says something ‘offensive’ to anyone, you have a right of reply to criticise that statement, but saying ‘that’s offensive’ isn’t a criticism of anything, nor should it be allowed to be seen as one which stifles all forms of free speech, of which comedy is such speech. As an example, on this very thread someone said that Gervais said a joke about Apple and Sweatshops “and the CEO of Apple was there” ! So the implication is that because the CEO is there you Can’t make jokes about Apple ? Really ? Why ? It’s offensive ? So ? I don’t understand this rationale. As for the ‘has this been controversial ?’ - it was on the news and it was labelled outrageous and offensive. In Australia. It just shits me no end that as a society (talking about western democratic society) we are going down this road of endless offence and hyperbolic controversy.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jan 8, 2020 2:22:15 GMT
I’ll re-direct. Why do you care if they have suffered offence at a few barbs directed at them ? Why do you care they have such thin skins ? Why do you believe Gervais should not have said those things to protect the feelings of very well off people in a very well off society ? A comedian tells a few jokes, there is some uncomfortable murmurs and laughter and the immediate reaction of some people is “He shouldn’t have done that, it’s offensive” ? Why do ordinary people care about the feelings of rich and famous people who frankly, couldn’t give a fuck about the existence of said ordinary people ? It’s so asinine Because I get a kick out of it, that's why. Do I think that Hollywood elitists are gonna suddenly change their way of thinking because of Ricky Gervais? Of course not. But it was sure as shit fun watching them squirm in their seats for a little while. Good. My point is Gervais should be allowed to say whatever the fuck he likes. Not be shut down by third parties taking offence on behalf of people who have enough of a platform to stand up for themselves. Why people are offended on behalf of “Hollywood Elitists” I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jan 8, 2020 2:26:38 GMT
Isn't it just as childish to be happy that he made fun of these people? I enjoyed the jokes, but I also enjoyed hearing the groans, as you (presumably) did. But I dont think it's any more enlightened. Also, I think you're just arguing semantics here. Just because he said offensiveness is subjective doesn't mean he's defending 'SJWs' (uuughhh...cant believe I just typed that stupid fucking term). Also, it is something people are talking about, and maybe this is just because I'm not on Twitter, but has this been controversial? I haven't seen any of this supposed 'outrage' in any real form. Being childish is saying that no one should say or do anything ‘offensive’, and including in that assumed third person offence. I’m not an actor, but that’s offensive to actors. That is as subjective as it gets. You and I don’t aren’t , but that guy over there might be offended. That’s exactly what SJW’s do. They take offence at things on behalf of others without even knowing if the others find it offensive or if what was said or done was even offensive to begin with. Taking offence on behalf of Leonardo Di Caprio, Epstein, Corden or the CEO of Apple is completely insane. Especially when it’s a joke based upon truths. If someone says something ‘offensive’ to anyone, you have a right of reply to criticise that statement, but saying ‘that’s offensive’ isn’t a criticism of anything, nor should it be allowed to be seen as one which stifles all forms of free speech, of which comedy is such speech. As an example, on this very thread someone said that Gervais said a joke about Apple and Sweatshops “and the CEO of Apple was there” ! So the implication is that because the CEO is there you Can’t make jokes about Apple ? Really ? Why ? It’s offensive ? So ? I don’t understand this rationale. As for the ‘has this been controversial ?’ - it was on the news and it was labelled outrageous and offensive. In Australia. It just shits me no end that as a society (talking about western democratic society) we are going down this road of endless offence and hyperbolic controversy. I was the one that brought up the Apple joke in front of the CEO. No where in this thread have I said that Gervais shouldn't make fun of Apple because the CEO happened to be in the crowd. Quite the opposite, I like the fact that Gervais made the comment in that setting, with that guy sitting there. The only reason I brought up the Apple joke was because you had asked what was so controversial about what Gervais did, and I used that as an example. Oddly enough, I think you and I are on the same page here, yet I think you're taking this a lot more seriously than it really should be taken.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Jan 8, 2020 2:32:35 GMT
If you think this is a right-wing/left-wing thing, you are missing the point. It is about intolerant people, and Ricky Gervais was poking fun at them. It can be either left wing or right wing. Remember how George Carlin used to poke fun at the intolerant right. It was funny. Now we got the intolerant left. People like Ricky Gervais, Dave Chappelle, and Piers Morgan realized this and don't want to be part of it. You got the #Walkaway movement to get away from the intolerant people. There are good right and good left. It is the the intolerant on both sides making issues out of everything and gets offended by small and weird stuff, like an old man can be offended by people putting milk on his coffee without asking him. Exactly. Listen, I'm a Trump guy, but I'm under no delusion that Ricky Gervais is about to start wearing MAGA hats and going to Trump rallies. I know where he stands politically, which is probably a bit different from where I stand. But then again maybe not, I was a liberal for a long time, at least I thought I was. Then liberals started to censor, label, and insult not just those fully on the right, but also those of us in the middle who see life from both sides of the clouds, which is where they truly lost me. Just look at this thread. Who is saying the nastier stuff? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of which political side you are on. And that's what Gervais was laying into Hollywood for. Interesting that at no point during his opening monologue was Trump's name mentioned. Yet a thread about it is started and you hear the word Deplorable and the same tired Trump bashing. Why? How refreshing it is no mention of Trump in an award show.
Thanks to Trump, I gotten more interest in learning more about politics in the past few years than all my previous years combined. You know, Liberal & Conservative have more common than people think. Both love American as much. Both believe in life, liberty, and pursue of happiness. Many of us has a bit of both Liberalism and Conservatism in us. So one is Liberal doesn't have to hate Trump or vice versa for Conservatives.
Also, I always thought Liberalism and Leftist are the same. Not so. Liberal may be leaning left, but they are not the authoritarian Leftist. The authoritarian Leftist infiltrate into the culture and demand equality of outcome, which means to control our lives and taking away our liberty and make us disrespect the Western culture. People start see through that, even Liberals like Ricky Gervais.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jan 8, 2020 2:35:16 GMT
'Off the rails' would be a party that once ran on 'family values' blindly following a guy paying a porn star for sex while his wife is at home with the kid. 'Off the rails' would be a party that touts its fiscal responsibility while electing a guy who has routinely declared bankruptcy as a business tactic. And don't even get me going on evangelists who somehow support Trump. The left may be eating their own, but the right burned their own party to the ground-- and now the entire country is choking. I think most Republicans recognize that Trump is an imperfect agent. A necessary lesser "evil" against the cultural armageddon the liberals are willfully steering us toward. And don't pretend you're not. Virtually everything a liberal stands for these days is anti-traditional-American. Marriage = man & woman. Capitalism. Pride in American history. The right to defend oneself. American exceptionalism. Killing the unborn is bad. Secure boarders. The electoral college. Accepting the loss of an election gracefully. Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Taxes are not an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Success is a virtue. A strong America. Americans are the good guys. There are three branches of US government for a reason. Men in drag do not belong in girls bathrooms. You can not punish someone for the misdeeds of their forbearers. The founding fathers accomplished something exceptional.
Did I miss anyhing? This is DC Fan level stupidity. Cultural Armageddon ? Really ? Cultural correction is more the point. once upon a time in the good ol’ US of A, it was perfectly legal to own slaves and black people were not seen as equals to white people. Now, was that American Exceptionalism or Judging a person by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin or Pride in American History or Americans are the good guys ? Which cultural Armageddon did changing this cause ? Much like Trump - America isn’t perfect. But it never was either. And gaslighting the past as better and masking change as anti-traditional-American is plain stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Jan 8, 2020 2:40:24 GMT
What is offensive is very subjective. What is not offensive to you and me doesn't me not offensive to others. Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite and listen to Ricky Gervais through their ears. Those were very offensive stuff to them. Like Ricky Gervais said that many of them are friends of Jeffery Epstein. Their reaction can be very funny if you think these Hollywood Elite have been too arrogant. No, it’s not. And this is why the PC Police, SJW’s and the “Phobe-labellers” get away with all the bullshit that they do - they disguise their offence taking as empathy. “Put yourself in the shoes of the PC Hollywood Elite.......Very offensive stuff to them.” So what ? I take the position that NOTHING is above reproach, discussion, argument, criticism nor in this case mockery and/or derision. This idea that you cannot make jokes about things that are true because it might be offensive is so patently stupid it actually annoys me. That offence shouldn’t be taken against multimillionaires sitting in a room figuratively fellating themselves on how good they are at pretending is complete and utter lunacy. That it is newsworthy is even more insane. Seriously - why do normal everyday people - like 95% of us on here are - give a flying fuck if a Hollywood actor is a bit miffed a comedian made a joke about them ? Really ? Well, from your original comment, I thought you don't get why those Hollywood Elite are offended. So, it is that you don't think they should be offended, which I would agree with you. Those group you mentioned made people too sensitive. Hollywood used to fight for freedom of speech by getting rid of the Hays Code. Now they want to shut people up??? Here is a very funny clip poking fun of people easily offended
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 8, 2020 2:50:52 GMT
Isn't it just as childish to be happy that he made fun of these people? I enjoyed the jokes, but I also enjoyed hearing the groans, as you (presumably) did. But I dont think it's any more enlightened. Also, I think you're just arguing semantics here. Just because he said offensiveness is subjective doesn't mean he's defending 'SJWs' (uuughhh...cant believe I just typed that stupid fucking term). Also, it is something people are talking about, and maybe this is just because I'm not on Twitter, but has this been controversial? I haven't seen any of this supposed 'outrage' in any real form. Being childish is saying that no one should say or do anything ‘offensive’, and including in that assumed third person offence. I’m not an actor, but that’s offensive to actors. That is as subjective as it gets. You and I don’t aren’t , but that guy over there might be offended. That’s exactly what SJW’s do. They take offence at things on behalf of others without even knowing if the others find it offensive or if what was said or done was even offensive to begin with. Taking offence on behalf of Leonardo Di Caprio, Epstein, Corden or the CEO of Apple is completely insane. Especially when it’s a joke based upon truths. If someone says something ‘offensive’ to anyone, you have a right of reply to criticise that statement, but saying ‘that’s offensive’ isn’t a criticism of anything, nor should it be allowed to be seen as one which stifles all forms of free speech, of which comedy is such speech. As an example, on this very thread someone said that Gervais said a joke about Apple and Sweatshops “and the CEO of Apple was there” ! So the implication is that because the CEO is there you Can’t make jokes about Apple ? Really ? Why ? It’s offensive ? So ? I don’t understand this rationale. As for the ‘has this been controversial ?’ - it was on the news and it was labelled outrageous and offensive. In Australia. It just shits me no end that as a society (talking about western democratic society) we are going down this road of endless offence and hyperbolic controversy. Again, not sure who you're arguing with. As I understood it the guy you quoted originally didn't say anyone can't make a joke about anyone or anything, just that someone might find it offensive, and he didn't say that was any reason not to say or do anything. You seem to just want to argue even though nobody is opposing you, and if anyone is, they are not the people you seem think they are. I know that people have gotten pissy about jokes, but thos thread has been overwhelmingly in support of Gervais' monologue, he's done this 5 fucking times now, and nobody on this thread has any ability to 'stifle all forms of free speech.' I know you want to rail against 'SJWs' (ugh.. cant believe I wrote that absurd bullshit again...) but you're going beyond building a straw man and just directly misrepresenting people to do it.
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Jan 8, 2020 3:01:15 GMT
I guess some people were butt hurt after all.
It was available earlier this day.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 8, 2020 3:01:22 GMT
I think most Republicans recognize that Trump is an imperfect agent. A necessary lesser "evil" against the cultural armageddon the liberals are willfully steering us toward. And don't pretend you're not. Virtually everything a liberal stands for these days is anti-traditional-American. Marriage = man & woman. Capitalism. Pride in American history. The right to defend oneself. American exceptionalism. Killing the unborn is bad. Secure boarders. The electoral college. Accepting the loss of an election gracefully. Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Taxes are not an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Success is a virtue. A strong America. Americans are the good guys. There are three branches of US government for a reason. Men in drag do not belong in girls bathrooms. You can not punish someone for the misdeeds of their forbearers. The founding fathers accomplished something exceptional.
Did I miss anything? Cultural Armageddon ? Really ? Cultural correction is more the point. All I had to do was wait, and a lib would step up and prove my point. It was inevitable. Congrats! Liberals want to paint the entire history of the USA through a racist prism and leverage the animosity they create to keep the country divided and further their agenda. I wish it wasn't true. I wish I was just speaking hyperbole. All you have to do is read the NYT. It's no secret. It's similar to this climate change hysteria. It's not really about averting a rise in global temperature. (If it was, they would be pro-nuclear, 100%) All you have to do is let them talk long enough and they reveal their true intentions. It's a fight against capitalism, individualism, "injustice", "inequality", "the patriarchy", christ, they even manage to jam racism into the mix because, hey, why not! And those of us who resist this vision of a brave new world, with the farm animals in control, well, there is always the wall to line the dissenters up against. Exaggeration? Not one bit. Just listen to that Swedish kid mouthpiece ogle at the prospect of eliminating all those who stand in her way. (She later apologized for revealing the plan.) And you wonder why we will never let you take our scary looking "assault rifles" under the guise of "common sense gun control". Another case where you let 'em talk long enough and they reveal the plan to confiscate all the guns. Gee, I wonder why they would want to do that?
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jan 8, 2020 3:11:52 GMT
Being childish is saying that no one should say or do anything ‘offensive’, and including in that assumed third person offence. I’m not an actor, but that’s offensive to actors. That is as subjective as it gets. You and I don’t aren’t , but that guy over there might be offended. That’s exactly what SJW’s do. They take offence at things on behalf of others without even knowing if the others find it offensive or if what was said or done was even offensive to begin with. Taking offence on behalf of Leonardo Di Caprio, Epstein, Corden or the CEO of Apple is completely insane. Especially when it’s a joke based upon truths. If someone says something ‘offensive’ to anyone, you have a right of reply to criticise that statement, but saying ‘that’s offensive’ isn’t a criticism of anything, nor should it be allowed to be seen as one which stifles all forms of free speech, of which comedy is such speech. As an example, on this very thread someone said that Gervais said a joke about Apple and Sweatshops “and the CEO of Apple was there” ! So the implication is that because the CEO is there you Can’t make jokes about Apple ? Really ? Why ? It’s offensive ? So ? I don’t understand this rationale. As for the ‘has this been controversial ?’ - it was on the news and it was labelled outrageous and offensive. In Australia. It just shits me no end that as a society (talking about western democratic society) we are going down this road of endless offence and hyperbolic controversy. Again, not sure who you're arguing with. As I understood it the guy you quoted originally didn't say anyone can't make a joke about anyone or anything, just that someone might find it offensive, and he didn't say that was any reason not to say or do anything. You seem to just want to argue even though nobody is opposing you, and if anyone is, they are not the people you seem think they are. I know that people have gotten pissy about jokes, but thos thread has been overwhelmingly in support of Gervais' monologue, he's done this 5 fucking times now, and nobody on this thread has any ability to 'stifle all forms of free speech.' I know you want to rail against 'SJWs' (ugh.. cant believe I wrote that absurd bullshit again...) but you're going beyond building a straw man and just directly misrepresenting people to do it. None of Gervais's previous 4 monologues had this kind of venom. Nor did any of his previous turns as host cause this much dialogue. He definitely touched a nerve the other night. I've talked to many folks today at work who wanted to discuss it. Some people liked it, some people thought it was too much, but it's definitely got people talking about it.
|
|