It was..... It's clearly a new marketing approach.... make an ad that is bound to get banned, coupled with attempts to make it go viral.
...or is it new. Every record that Mike Read wouldn't play on R1 when I was a kid, instantly went to No. 1. Still not sure whether he was an innocent bystander or party or not.
The problem with Jim's "insert [prejudicial race term of choice] into that quote. Now is it funny?" approach is that you can use it whenever anything negative is said about anything.
So, if I say "I don't like Hoovers, I much prefer Dysons" it's an innocent remark, but substitute 'Asians' for 'Hoovers' and 'Brits' for 'Dysons' and, hey presto! instant offensive remark.
It's a knee-jerk response. Sometimes, a comment is just a comment, not a racist/sexist/ageist jibe in disguise.
Gerard Clarke wrote:.. (there are some slightly subtle exceptions: - I am allowed to tell Irish jokes; Timothy is allowed to tell Jewish jokes, but not vice versa, and so on). ...
one of my university friends was a Dublin Jew: he was constantly hilarious ..
My disquiet persists and is based on the visual image of a man shooting people on the basis of a judgement he has made of their appearance or behaviour.
Holding a view is one thing. Acting on it, even with tranquilliser dart is another.
(you are of course aware of the danger an unconscious person is in, however briefly.
Steve D wrote:The problem with Jim's "insert [prejudicial race term of choice] into that quote. Now is it funny?" approach is that you can use it whenever anything negative is said about anything.
So, if I say "I don't like Hoovers, I much prefer Dysons" it's an innocent remark, but substitute 'Asians' for 'Hoovers' and 'Brits' for 'Dysons' and, hey presto! instant offensive remark.
It's a knee-jerk response. Sometimes, a comment is just a comment, not a racist/sexist/ageist jibe in disguise.
Steve, that has just made me spit fish finger and salad cream sandwich all over my kitchen island