People have been bullied for hundreds of stupid reasons, long before Ms. Tate came along.
Gingerism
- Thread starter maxwell silver
- Start date
People have been bullied for hundreds of stupid reasons, long before Ms. Tate came along.
Or for satirical humour, by the looks of it and that's a shame. Perhaps it's an internet thing?
OK, I'll try again - words on a page with accompanying smilies do not indicate to everyone the exact nuances you feel you indicated when you were writing it. I.E. this could be interpreted that pale skinned people with freckles deserve ridicule more than ginger haired people and that you are laughing at pale skinned people with freckles OR it could mean that you are laughing at the idea of people laughing at pale skinned people with freckles.
People regard the humour of TV shows such as "Love Thy Neighbour" as racist now whereas they were poking fun at the bigotted hypocrisy of the Jack Smethurst character not poking fun at the racial or ethnic origin of his neighbours. If it is so difficult for people to understand that when they6 have all the additional assistance of facial expressions and tone of voice how much more difficult must it be to interpret the written word on a message board.
Beautifully illustrated by your response to my post.
Whether in type form or in pictorial form, the message was obvious. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would think that I was being serious in saying that being ginger wasn't enough to attract derision, but adding pale skin and freckles would make that derision justified. It is ridiculous beyond belief!
I also take issue with your comparison to Love Thy Neighbour. The issue isn't that the sitcom promoted racist attitudes in audiences, but that it reinforced existing stereotypes. I think you do audiences an injustice by assuming that they are too stupid to realise that Eddie Booth was the butt of the humour and if you were to watch it again now, you would realise that the majority of the jokes were at Eddie's bigotted expense. Audiences got that, mainly because it was made obvious.
The issue today with Love Thy Neighbour lies more in the negative stereotypes it reinforced. For example, Bill Reynolds is better than white people at limbo dancing in one episode, which in turn reinforces the stereotype that black people are better at physical 'past-times' than 'academic' ones (the primitive man vs the sophisticated being).
The language used in the sitcom is also not acceptable in 21st Century Britain, which is another reason for it not being repeated on TV today.
Using stereotypes in humour is nothing new and I would think that they form the basis of 99.9% of comedy produced today. Just look at Little Britain, a programme based on nothing but stereotypes. On another thread a number of people expressed their support for Basil Fawlty and his encounter wth the Germans, as the most memorable thing on British TV. What's that about?
We are bombarded with stereotypes on a daily basis and I find it very difficult to believe that you, Willow, could not detect the satire in my original post. Perhaps we now live in an age where hyper-sensitivity has undermined the basis of satire and replaced it with a sanitised simulacrum where people are afraid to laugh, for fear of how they will perceived by others?
As I said before, it's a shame.
I also take issue with your comparison to Love Thy Neighbour. The issue isn't that the sitcom promoted racist attitudes in audiences, but that it reinforced existing stereotypes. I think you do audiences an injustice by assuming that they are too stupid to realise that Eddie Booth was the butt of the humour and if you were to watch it again now, you would realise that the majority of the jokes were at Eddie's bigotted expense. Audiences got that, mainly because it was made obvious.
The issue today with Love Thy Neighbour lies more in the negative stereotypes it reinforced. For example, Bill Reynolds is better than white people at limbo dancing in one episode, which in turn reinforces the stereotype that black people are better at physical 'past-times' than 'academic' ones (the primitive man vs the sophisticated being).
The language used in the sitcom is also not acceptable in 21st Century Britain, which is another reason for it not being repeated on TV today.
Using stereotypes in humour is nothing new and I would think that they form the basis of 99.9% of comedy produced today. Just look at Little Britain, a programme based on nothing but stereotypes. On another thread a number of people expressed their support for Basil Fawlty and his encounter wth the Germans, as the most memorable thing on British TV. What's that about?
We are bombarded with stereotypes on a daily basis and I find it very difficult to believe that you, Willow, could not detect the satire in my original post. Perhaps we now live in an age where hyper-sensitivity has undermined the basis of satire and replaced it with a sanitised simulacrum where people are afraid to laugh, for fear of how they will perceived by others?
As I said before, it's a shame.
Fair enough,but are any of them ginger
You are actually illustrating my point!You are not reading my words in the same way you would hear them if I was saying them. If you were then you wouldn't have said all of that. Stereotyping of bigots is just as bad as stereotyping races. Like the idea that all Welshmen can sing. It's silly and of course people should know that it's silly. But silly should not automatically be offensive. When people do "Irish" humour I can choose to be offended or I can choose to be amused - the amusement comes on two levels, one at the joke itself and on a deeper level at the idea of the nonsensical stereotyping.
Do you see what I'm saying yet?
OK, I give up.
Note to willow:
We only just get Tin Monkey's humour in stanley forum...that took a while
We only just get Tin Monkey's humour in stanley forum...that took a while
Stereotyping is a natural, human response. We can never hope to know everyone we come across everyday, so by grouping them together it helps us to make sense of the world. The vast majority of people know that stereotypes aren't accurate depictions of whoever, but that doesn't stop them from being useful in many cases.
I actually agree that internet messageboards are prone to misunderstandings, as there is nothing but words on a screen to help us to understand how the message is being transmitted. However, things like 'winky smilies' do give us a clue when something is said in jest and I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that people would understand that.
Let's just agree that I'm right and leave it at that.
<--- winky smilie
I actually agree that internet messageboards are prone to misunderstandings, as there is nothing but words on a screen to help us to understand how the message is being transmitted. However, things like 'winky smilies' do give us a clue when something is said in jest and I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that people would understand that.
Let's just agree that I'm right and leave it at that.
<--- winky smilie
Note to willow:
We only just get Tin Monkey's humour in stanley forum...that took a while
That's why I had to move on here
You make it sound like I'm saying it's ALL of Catherine Tate's fault for the bullies... that's just silly.... I just mentioned it because she got mentioned in a previous post. And she makes fun of herself.... big deal... I do that all the time....
I've only watched a couple of the episodes.... didn't draw me in... maybe I should give it one more go....
Lea
xXx
I've only watched a couple of the episodes.... didn't draw me in... maybe I should give it one more go....
Lea
xXx
However, things like 'winky smilies' do give us a clue when something is said in jest and I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that people would understand that.
Let's just agree that I'm right and leave it at that.
Aaargh! See I said I had given up and here I am again!
Yes the smiley says it's a joke but what I am trying to say (as with my illustration re "Love Thy Neighbour" which you didn't like for different reasons.) is that the smiley
denotes that I am laughing but am I laughing at a person insulting someone (ie sharing in the insult) or laughing at a person insulting someone (ie laughing at the person who is doing the unsulting rather than at the insultee)Now do you understand?
Actually, as regards your point with "Love Thy Neighbour" and the stereotyping isn't that in itself a dig at the people who see others as stereotypes rather than as individuals? Let's consider Alf Garnett as another example. Did people laugh at those Alf Garnett poked fun at or did they laugh at the silly old fool who made himself look stupid by making fun of them?
Ahhhh... now that's a different matter altogether. How audiences decode meaning in texts is a complex debate and much depends on the hegemonic nature of the media itself.
Anyway, I thought we'd agreed that I was right??
Seems our discussion is a little unpopular with some. I've already had a couple of negative karma comments left.
Not with me, it isn't! Two of the "big beasts" (metaphorically speaking) of Accyweb lock horns...fascinating stuff!
Do you know if you get a book of different shades of colours as in a pantone book for mixing paint or inks there is not a pantone ginger.There's every other colour under the sun but no ginger.Is this a form of discrimination.It's not under red or ......it's just not there.
Do you realise also that what I see on my screen as 'darkorchid' (ie the colour of my text) may not be the same as the colour you see on your screen which is the techy version of the age-old question as to whether what you see as ginger is the same as what I see as ginger - or indeed any other colour. Our eyes could be as different as the monitor screens we use.
Now Mani thats quite offensive are you saying that brunettes and blondes aren't
And wonder how he came to this conclusion in the first place ..