/ The Grand Tour and 'gay 4x4 gate'

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 02 Feb 2019

I had the same thoughts as Will Young.

https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/jeremy-clarkson-responds-will-young-over-claims-the-grand-tour-homophobic-apology/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=ijp&fbclid=IwAR1MUxT7SVbtSH5WOfUBgi5mc1icjIQiFJ7aZ56MIqWdzvT3zzRrxYUE5zA

The humour is pretty much along the lines of 'Isn't that a gay 4x4?' - ' ha ha ha'.

I stumbled across it on youtube and wondered what adventure they'd gone on, and remembered why I wasn't fussed enough to watch it to do so 'officially' .

16
what the hex on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

The OP reminds me of when my brother was given detention by his teacher who said something like "whoever laughs gets 20 minutes detention"... everybody laughs "If you keep laughing you will get an additional 20 minutes of detention"...cue hysterics from the class. I think everyone ended up in detention for about 3 hours. I don't find Clarkson funny but is he really that offensive?

Post edited at 20:42
3
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

 Just wrote a reply  to your post and had a presumably automated  interjection warning me not to use inappropriate profanity in my posts.

Basically I was saying that Clarkson is a c*nt, always has been, always will be.

So, any tips about appropriate types of profanity with which to describe the cocksucker?

25
Minneconjou Sioux on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> Basically I was saying that Clarkson is a c*nt, always has been, always will be.

 

I find him quite funny.

 

12
Run_Ross_Run - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> I find him quite funny.

Yep agree. Entertainment on BBC when there wasn't much.

Not seen GT but would assume he's just as good  

10
tom_in_edinburgh - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

It looked totally stage managed to me, like they were deliberately doing it to wind people up and get a bit of publicity to bump up their viewing figures.

They don't seem to be trying this series, maybe they know its the last one before they get cancelled.  Don't see them on their own track, don't seem to have the celebrity interview section in the show like maybe their budget has been cut or the BBC's lawyers have clamped down on more stuff for being close to Top Gear.  Clarkson and May are getting really fat, like they can't even be bothered any more.   There's no interesting mechanical customisations like they used to do.   But tons of boring drag races on uninteresting vehicles.  It's like a program about trains that wants to talk about the latest steam locomotives.

5
Red Rover - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They haven't been cancelled they're retiring, and they cut the celebrity sections because people were skipping them.

1
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Well I've got to admit that I've laughed at Bernard Manning in my time so humour is a strange thing.

I don't dislike Clarkson because he gets at gays or foreigners or environmentalists. It's just that he's a c*nt.

Post edited at 21:36
7
Ushba - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

Maybe you will like these:

https://imgur.com/gallery/OMCvB

Tom V - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Ushba:

I don't get the gist of it really but the drawings are way too flattering.....

Andy Hardy on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> So, any tips about appropriate types of profanity with which to describe the cocksucker?

Mouldy knob cheese?

Bell end (full weight)?

1
FactorXXX - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> So, any tips about appropriate types of profanity with which to describe the cocksucker?

You appear to have used what is essentially a homophobic insult to criticise someone for making homophobic insults.

 

3
mountain.martin - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

Strange, he seems to induce a marmite reaction.

I also think he's an obnoxious prick and can't really see any redeming features, but some friends whose opinions I really respect do like his output.

Post edited at 22:58
Timmd on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It looked totally stage managed to me, like they were deliberately doing it to wind people up and get a bit of publicity to bump up their viewing figures.

I hadn't thought of that. It's chicken feed in the scheme of things, but if things were reversed, so that it was 'Isn't that 4x4 what straight people drive?' Or 'That outfit is a little bit straight', the humour rather vanishes....kind of - 'Oh, ha ha'. 

I'll carry on with more pressing stuff now I've raised this, like a cycle out in the snow in the Peak.  

 

Post edited at 23:18
Timmd on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to mountain.martin:

> Strange, he seems to induce a marmite reaction.

> I also think he's an obnoxious prick and can't really see any redeming features, but some friends whose opinions I really respect do like his output.

I've mixed feelings about him, sometimes he's funny, and sometimes he is obnoxious and opinionated and 'rather a twat'. When he was in a travel programme about Belgium, and asked a man in a chicken suit if he'd rather be a chicken than be from Belgium, and exclaimed 'Fantastic' when the man said yes, it was just funny, I'd have laughed had it been the UK and somebody from another country had done that too, I think, because it's an absurd scenario, but when it's laughing at a minority (or the marginalised), it's generally always going to be people who aren't from that group who talk about getting a grip or sense of humour (we are all allowed to find different things funny, of course). 

 

Post edited at 23:35
Blue Straggler - on 02 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> You appear to have used what is essentially a homophobic insult to criticise someone for making homophobic insults.

Nice work and a good point. I stopped using cockmonkey and cocksucker for this reason. And you can bet your bottom dollar that your dislike is from Tom V.

9
FactorXXX - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

>  And you can bet your bottom dollar that your dislike is from Tom V.

Haven't got a clue if he has, but he's always welcome to directly reply to my post if he's got issues with it... 

 

Blue Straggler - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

The dislike IS his direct reply.Notoce how one appeared on my post very shortly after I posted. Almost as if I’d orchestrated it. Which in a way, I did. He’s predictable enough to play like a fiddle. It’s a shame as I respect him otherwise.

Post edited at 01:04
17
Jon Stewart - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to what the hex:

> I don't find Clarkson funny but is he really that offensive?

No. But it depends what you mean by 'offensive'.

What he is is really f*cking shit. He makes money out of being a witless turd, and I find that 'offensive', in a way - although it's more accurate just to say that I find it really f*cking shit, because it's rewarding him for exploiting other people's lack of imagination.

I wish that it wasn't possible to make money out of grubby, lame humour that relies on stereotypes that a lot of 15 year old boys would consider dated and beneath them. But it is. And then complaining about how shit and witless this stuff is only serves to prop up the idea that it's "edgy" (there's a perverse logic that says that if loads of people who have professional jobs think it's shit, then it must be somehow good because it's upsetting the "liberal elite" - but more likely, it just means that people who are educated generally think it's shit). So it's a catch 22, from my perspective, really.

You can say seemingly 'offensive' stuff about gays, or whoever, with self-knowledge and wit, and be funny. This is perfectly possible - nothing as far as I'm concerned is 'out of bounds' for making jokes about. But you can also fall well, well short of that and be a witless turd, which JC is an expert at. But I suspect he knows all of this, and he's very good at judging the exact territory to operate in that allows him to exploit the "huh huh, gays!" market while remaining within the lucrative fold of mainstream TV, bringing him home a pretty pay packet but absolutely nothing in terms of comedic or journalistic integrity. 

I would bet my bottom dollar that JC has genuinely no idea what the concept of integrity means, as applies to his worthless output. It's just money, and it doesn't matter how you make it.

Post edited at 01:32
16
FactorXXX - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Have you actually seen the program in question?

1
Darren Jackson - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Clarkson's an utter tosser. The reason that the Cotswolds was invented was to contain the likes of him, and he shouldn't be permitted to venture beyond the boundary... That said, he's still infinitely preferable to Richard 'He's not even a real hamster' Hammond. 

7
wilkie14c - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

The thing with Clarkson is that he is consistent in that he doesn’t pick out an individual group to offend, he simply offends everybody.

The great thing about the television is that there is an off button we are free to use at any time. As many people forget that as there are as many people who look for offence in things. If genuine offence had been caused wouldn’t the victim had taken this up directly rather that expressing his offence on twitter? If the victim was genuinely ‘fed up’ of Clarksons’ offending comments, you have to ask why he kept watching it don’t you? 

Obviously I do not condone homophobic comments but come on

2
jezb1 - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Great irony of people moaning he’s offensive, by being offensive...

If you’re on Amazon and want an automotive show, check out Ken Block’s series about Gymkhana 10.

Stuart (aka brt) - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to wilkie14c:

> if genuine offence had been caused wouldn’t the victim had taken this up directly rather that expressing his offence on twitter?

I'd say Twitter is fairly direct. I haven't got Clarkson's home address or phone number but I bet I could find his Twitter account.

> If the victim was genuinely ‘fed up’ of Clarksons’ offending comments, you have to ask why he kept watching it don’t you? 

How do you know he did or didn't stop watching it? 

> Obviously I do not condone homophobic comments but come on

Sounds like you are condoning it. It's OK to make jokes about cars = a bit gay as long as the people offended by it aren't watching? Come on... 

 

14
wintertree - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> The humour is pretty much along the lines of 'Isn't that a gay 4x4?' - ' ha ha ha'.

Nobody called the car “gay” or used the term “gay” as a derogatory sense as in the American vernacular “oh man that car is so gay”.    

What they did do was suggest the car was popular in some gay communities, and then had some badly staged humour around JC’s sexuality “revelation”.

Several posters are following the finest traditions of commenting on what they’ve not apparently seen.

I have no idea if the car is popular in gay communities, and the “edgy” “humour” wasn’t very funny but - unless you hold strong views against the Wrangler - it wasn’t attacking people based on sexuality.  On the other hand it does propitiate the concepts of difference and segregation and I’m sure wil encourage idiots to continue being idiots.

Post edited at 08:34
3
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 03 Feb 2019

Does heIn reply to wilkie14c:

> The thing with Clarkson is that he is consistent in that he doesn’t pick out an individual group to offend, he simply offends everybody.

Does he? I’ve not watched since he moved from the BBC, so maybe heterosexual white middle aged English men are frequently the target of his humour now. 

Even if they are; he assaulted an employee because they didn’t carry out a task to his satisfaction. Up to that point I could sustain the belief that his screen persona was an act, and he was playing an exaggerated version of himself. Turns out that wasn’t the case; his screen persona isn’t a bully who uses physical aggression, so instead of being a knowing parody, it’s actually a toned down version of reality. The joke stopped being funny at that point.

 

Post edited at 08:35
3
Tom V - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Better pay up then. I am one of like/dislike button's biggest detractors and while I have actually used the like button a few times I can say with absolute honesty that I have NEVER pressed the dislike button and never will, for anyone, now matter how obnoxious or misguided their posts.

9
Neil Williams - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

May hasn't really got fat, Hammond has got more of a paunch.  Clarkson on the other hand is immense.  Though what is a bit bizarre about that is that he's got a beer belly the size of Western Europe but the rest of him is skinny...how does that work?  When I get fat, all of me gets fat.

Post edited at 09:37
Tom V - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

AS I said elsewhere I have never pressed a dislike button in all my time on UKC. Three people disliked you post at 22.28 but I'm not one of them. I have no problem at all with your reply and actually didn't think of my phrase in its literal sense, anymore than calling him a c*nt literally. It's probably been caused by watching too much Deadwood - if you've seen it you'll understand straight away.

Post edited at 09:53
3
Blue Straggler - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

My bottom dollar (the dollar at the bottom of my small collection of dollar bills) has gone to charity. Thanks.

3
abr1966 - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Does he

> Does he? I’ve not watched since he moved from the BBC, so maybe heterosexual white middle aged English men are frequently the target of his humour now. 

> Even if they are; he assaulted an employee because they didn’t carry out a task to his satisfaction. Up to that point I could sustain the belief that his screen persona was an act, and he was playing an exaggerated version of himself. Turns out that wasn’t the case; his screen persona isn’t a bully who uses physical aggression, so instead of being a knowing parody, it’s actually a toned down version of reality. The joke stopped being funny at that point.

+1

I couldn't agree more....

 

1
Tom V - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Not guilty!

1
Blue Straggler - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> Not guilty!

OK your point has been made and acknowledged! Glad that it has been clarified. Thanks 

Post edited at 11:04
5
FactorXXX - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I stumbled across it on youtube and wondered what adventure they'd gone on, and remembered why I wasn't fussed enough to watch it to do so 'officially' .

Have you got a link to 'The Grand Tour' on YouTube as I'm sure many would like to watch it without having to fork out for Amazon Prime.

 

Jon Stewart - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Have you actually seen the program in question?

Yes. Well obviously I didn't watch the whole thing, but it's cheekily uploaded on youtube and I found the segment after a bit of searching through it. It is what it is - really shit humour that's just "huh huh you're gay, like moisturiser and leather chaps huh huh".

What's your point?

5
Jon Stewart - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVNjWzneHF8

I'm afraid it's not quite the genuine article, but you get the script.

The Lemming - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

I saw the show, well both episodes really.

If something offends me then I switch the show off and watch something else.

However, I enjoyed watching the show.

BTW

Nobody offended by the bestiality but rather the gay Jeep?

Bit of perspective.

1
Jon Stewart - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> If something offends me then I switch the show off and watch something else.

With this, there's a bit more to it. The reason I bothered to find the clip was that I'm interested in what the general attitude is today towards "huh huh gays" humour. You're right that it absolutely does not matter at all to me personally what someone says on a TV show I don't watch. But when I watched it, I thought, I wonder if kids are watching this with their dads, and their dads are laughing...as a TV producer, you can either make a small contribution to people's alienation and despair, or you can avoid that with about 2 seconds thought. It's no different to the environment I grew up in in the 90s, which is depressing.

Well, OK, it's slightly different. When I was a kid I'd turn Radio 1 on to hear Buju Banton promoting the murder of gay men and then hear it all again in the playground. That was offensive, i.e. worth censoring, but JC isn't - it's just shit.

 

eroica64 - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

Gawd, but I start to hate this forum when it gets all censorious and loses its sense of humour. Lighten up you bunch of w*nkers

 

8
FactorXXX - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to eroica64:

> Gawd, but I start to hate this forum when it gets all censorious and loses its sense of humour. Lighten up you bunch of w*nkers

Thought my comment might make people think that I disapprove of the insult 'Cocksucker'.
I actually think that it's such a generic insult that it's true meaning has all but been lost and that someone that uses it isn't being homophobic, etc.
However, if someone like TomV gets all indignant about Clarkson being homophobic, etc. then he should be squeaky clean with any language he uses and not use words like 'Cocksucker'.

1
captain paranoia - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> and actually didn't think of my phrase in its literal sense

A bit like using 'gay' as an insult, without meaning it literally, perhaps...?

FactorXXX - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> With this, there's a bit more to it. The reason I bothered to find the clip was that I'm interested in what the general attitude is today towards "huh huh gays" humour. You're right that it absolutely does not matter at all to me personally what someone says on a TV show I don't watch. But when I watched it, I thought, I wonder if kids are watching this with their dads, and their dads are laughing...as a TV producer, you can either make a small contribution to people's alienation and despair, or you can avoid that with about 2 seconds thought. It's no different to the environment I grew up in in the 90s, which is depressing.

Is it any different to the stereotyping/attacking of people on UKC that have different political views to yourself?
Some are harmless fun, but there is little doubt that there are others that are fuelled by hate and are posted for no other reason than that the poster wants to convey that hate to the UKC masses.
Now, to be perfectly honest, you're not exactly innocent when it comes to the above are you?  So, I'll say the same to you as I've said about TomV, if you expect/demand good behaviour from the likes of Clarkson, then you should really behave in an exemplary way when posting on UKC.   
It will obviously be up to each individual to judge where Clarkson lies on the harmless fun/hate spectrum... 

 

4
Jon Stewart - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Is it any different to the stereotyping/attacking of people on UKC that have different political views to yourself?

Yes it's different. The specific problem I outlined with stereotyping gays is that gay kids go through a process of discovering their sexuality - which might be fine if the environment they're in is fine. Or it might be absolutely terrible, particularly if they're alienated from their parents and peers. Now JC isn't going to be the make or break of this, as I've said, it's just a small negative contribution, and one that I dislike rather a lot.

This isn't the case for people with a different political view. A political view is something that you can defend, justify or change if it is under attack. Political views are fair game for attack, we don't need to be 'respectful' of others' politics if we don't like them. This doesn't apply to traits such as skin colour or sexuality that are part of who you are and you can't do anything about.

> Some are harmless fun, but there is little doubt that there are others that are fuelled by hate and are posted for no other reason than that the poster wants to convey that hate to the UKC masses.

> Now, to be perfectly honest, you're not exactly innocent when it comes to the above are you? 

What's your specific allegation? You're insinuating that I'm "guilty" of some transgression, but I don't even know what it is. Furthermore, I don't sign up to your idea that I shouldn't stereotype, slag off, or insult people for their political views. I like doing it, and I think it's fun and fair and a valuable part of social discourse. Whoever I'm being unkind to is perfectly placed to defend themselves (unlike the butt of huh-huh-gays humour), and if they weren't up for getting something other than praise and sympathy back then they shouldn't have posted their views on an internet forum.

I agree that throwing personal insults about is bad form and degrades discussion. But I don't think you're accusing me of that - or are you?

> So, I'll say the same to you as I've said about TomV, if you expect/demand good behaviour from the likes of Clarkson, then you should really behave in an exemplary way when posting on UKC.   

I don't see any reason why I should do or say anything differently in response to your comments because I don't know what you're accusing me of, and I don't see how anything I might have done relates to my dislike of Clarkson's huh-huh-gays humour. Particularly since I've explained (twice now) precisely why I don't like said humour; and also been clear that I don't expect anything better from that genre of TV, or wish to see it censored or anything like that. I've expressed the opinion that I think it's shit, and I've explained why. But according to you, I'm transgressing some kind of moral boundary. I remain deeply unconvinced.

> It will obviously be up to each individual to judge where Clarkson lies on the harmless fun/hate spectrum... 

No disagreement there.

Post edited at 18:36
2
Tom V - on 03 Feb 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

I'll rephrase my post of 21.31. yesterday.

The reason I don't like Clarkson is not because he gets at gay people , foreigners and environmentalists;

I dislike him simply because he is a c*nt.

If there was a non-profane noun in the English language which when used could encapsulate my complete abhorrence of the man, I would use it. Until then, c*nt will have to do.

Post edited at 20:25
7
Siward on 04 Feb 2019
In reply to Tom V:

Clarkson makes money from being, supposedly, a controversialist. Nothing new there. 

But everyone has missed another disgraceful piece of language in this affair, namely Will Young's 'reaching out' to twitter.

Unacceptable. 

Paul King - on 08 Feb 2019
In reply to Timmd:

They are hilarious, and can play liberal bigots like a violin.

10
Oceanrower - on 08 Feb 2019
In reply to Darren Jackson:

>  That said, he's still infinitely preferable to Richard 'He's not even a real hamster' Hammond. 

I defy you to watch the Jim Clarke tribute in the latest episode, by Hammond, with a dry eye.

My only criticism is, it should have been a stand alone documentary rather than a segment.

NaCl - on 09 Feb 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

This. I watched this last night and thought it was excellent. They may be marmite but to say there's no talent at all in the show would be incorrect.

malk - on 09 Feb 2019
In reply to Paul King:

> They are hilarious

you may like this -  jokes like on top gear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc

mountainbagger - on 09 Feb 2019
In reply to malk:

> you may like this -  jokes like on top gear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc

Brilliant! I can't get enough of Stewart Lee


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.