Doesn’t regret what he said.
Three times in that small passage he used the word hate. There’s a difference between disliking and hating somebody, the implications are clearly much darker when you use terminology like that and one wonders what kind of reaction he’s trying to incite in people.
1 Like
I’m not disagreeing but I doubt he’d say the same about Moira Stewart who is a black woman. His rant betrays him as a pathetic weirdo, but that doesn’t mean this was an instance of racism or sexism. Misogyny perhaps, and there’s enough evidence from the past that he’s a repeat offender of casual racism.
When it comes to Meghan though, the narrative seems to always be that anyone who dislikes her is being racist, when that’s certainly not always the case and I’m not sure it’s the case here.
I’ve seen that narrative and I think it tends to lose a lot of the nuance. I don’t think “anyone who dislikes her is being racist”, but I do think that a lot of impressions have been undeniably influenced by the general racist discourse around her, particularly from those things that aren’t even suited to being called rags.
1 Like
Racism doesnt require you to dislike everyone of that race the same way, only that their race negatively influence how you react to them. I’m sure many of the people who have written mean spited attack pieces about Meghan have a “black friend”
The thing with Clarkson is that he freely admits that he doesn’t even believe most of the things he writes. He has a persona of an oafish, middle-aged, reactionary bore and writes accordingly. When he gets it right he can actually be quite amusing but I think this current case just comes across as hateful. Obviously he has written that piece to order and his editor has decided that it is perfectly acceptable to publish.
I’m more curious as to why someone would commission such a piece and why Clarkson would actually agree to it. It’s not as if he needs the money any more.
I suppose the other worrying thing is that some people do take him at face value (and agree with what he is saying). Some people did that with Alf Garnett and Al Murray’s Landlord as well but they do have the fallback that they were obviously parodies.
2 Likes
And reacting to someone negatively doesn’t mean that the race of that person was the reason why.
1 Like
Sure, but I think that’s a strawman though. I dont think anyone is seriously arguing anything as simplistic as that. Instead the judgement is made that the piece in question is not the result of a rational judgement on what she has done to justify criticism and so leaning on the obvious explanation for what is generating such vitriol.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you strawmanned first in your last reply 
Where are you seeing comments that make you think people are making that argument?
There is no doubt other isms driving this, most notably misogyny (ism) and probably even a strain of anti-americanism. But he is someone who at best can have his history of race described as as giving a nudge and a wink to racist tropes to raise chuckles among people who find alluding to the unsayable funny, the same way an 8 year old might wind up their parents by using words that sound like swear words. It’s understandable that people see racism underlying those words given who they come from, not because racism is the only explanation for criticizing a black person.
1 Like
You have a habit of joining a discourse midway and throwing in a strawman or misrepresenting someone’s position in a debate. I don’t really care enough about the issue to try and go back and explain it to you.
2 Likes
Could the mods please inform me next time a conversation has started so I can join in on time.
Cheers.
Or just try reading back so you have some context, and make sure your reply takes into account the whole post and not just part of it.
2 Likes
Let’s not get into arguing about arguing. @Limiescouse’s point is sound.
Clarkson’s vitriolic hatred of Meghan might be racist. It might not. The problem for Jeremy is that he has enough of a background of casual racism and xenophobia for the assumption to not be an unreasonable one to jump to.
Comes down to a simple question. Is he entitled to his opinion?
A point I discuss often with Mrs and Jnr, how can your opinion possibly offend me? It’s either true or it’s wrong. The truth can’t hurt and falsehood is exactly that. JC is a very talented journalist who knows exactly which buttons to press. Don’t let his buffoonery distract you. He’s Boris’s far more intelligent cousin.
Yeah, truth is that funny thing.
Of course he is. What he isn’t entitled to is protection from any of the consequences of airing his opinion in a public forum.
That’s the problem with these snowflakes. They want it to be like it was in the old days, where if you were in a privileged position you could say and do what you liked, bully any marginalised people, and you’d never feel any kick back.
The world doesn’t work like that any more, thank god.
1 Like
Which is why he’s on twitter where he does take the concequences.
I fucking HATE this guy. Just thought I’d point that out. He’s James O’Brian with less comedic talent. Who earns more, Clarkson or SL? God bless Capitalism argument justification.