The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, trollops, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, trollops, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
Page:
All I am saying about Kilroy is that he should not be penalised for expressing his own thoughts regardless of which group they happen to enrage. I feel any retraction of sorts by him does not reflect his views and is simply pandering to the PC crowd.
Same for the Liberal Democrat woman, she said what she thought and was crucified for it.
In many ways both are only voicing what others feel abd won't say.
Same for the Liberal Democrat woman, she said what she thought and was crucified for it.
In many ways both are only voicing what others feel abd won't say.
Belldandy wrote:
> Ha, still on about IB? Hell even he doesn't say anything about it
> anymore. In fact only you and Goatboy seem to still care. You have
> noticed that the SR Rules changed regarding using usernames and such?
> What are you two? IB's personal cheerleaders? I think he's more than
> capable of speaking for himself about it rather than you two doing it
> for him...
You're an expert at deliberately missing the point aren't you dear boy?
Okay, from the top....
1. I point out what a whining, gutless, cowardly little assmunch you are.
2. You use your standard response of "I know you are, but what am I?"
3. I point out that your response to IB's joke was an epic and bitter wail of impotent rage.
4. Therefore, you accusing someone of wailing and whining is hypocrisy of the highest order.
D'you see? Nothing to do with defending IB. Everything to do with pointing out what a stupid hypocrite you are. So in that respect, mission accomplished.
Now, back to the original point (for someone who complains in every other thread about "going off topic", you don't half change the subject a lot...); are you gonna address what I said about your response to the Kilroy argument? Or are you going to avoid it?
> Ha, still on about IB? Hell even he doesn't say anything about it
> anymore. In fact only you and Goatboy seem to still care. You have
> noticed that the SR Rules changed regarding using usernames and such?
> What are you two? IB's personal cheerleaders? I think he's more than
> capable of speaking for himself about it rather than you two doing it
> for him...
You're an expert at deliberately missing the point aren't you dear boy?
Okay, from the top....
1. I point out what a whining, gutless, cowardly little assmunch you are.
2. You use your standard response of "I know you are, but what am I?"
3. I point out that your response to IB's joke was an epic and bitter wail of impotent rage.
4. Therefore, you accusing someone of wailing and whining is hypocrisy of the highest order.
D'you see? Nothing to do with defending IB. Everything to do with pointing out what a stupid hypocrite you are. So in that respect, mission accomplished.
Now, back to the original point (for someone who complains in every other thread about "going off topic", you don't half change the subject a lot...); are you gonna address what I said about your response to the Kilroy argument? Or are you going to avoid it?
Ha, still on about IB? Hell even he doesn't say anything about it anymore. In fact only you and Goatboy seem to still care. You have noticed that the SR Rules changed regarding using usernames and such? What are you two? IB's personal cheerleaders? I think he's more than capable of speaking for himself about it rather than you two doing it for him...
Belldandy wrote:
> You? Complaining about whining? Nice one. What was it someone said
> last week? "Pot calling the kettle black" ?
Uh-uh Bell; you're not getting away with avoiding the questions for the millionth time.
As for "Waah! You whine more than me!!"...well, who out of the two of us posted a diatribe about how nasty IB had impersonated you? And who spent the afternoon spamming "IB is Guilty!". Was it me, or you? Hmm...yeah, it was you wasn't it?
So, your increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the subject aside, have you got anything else you'd like to throw up to avoid answering the queries whilst making yourself look stupid? I mean, I don't much mind; I find it great fun watching you ensure that no-one will take you seriously.
> You? Complaining about whining? Nice one. What was it someone said
> last week? "Pot calling the kettle black" ?
Uh-uh Bell; you're not getting away with avoiding the questions for the millionth time.
As for "Waah! You whine more than me!!"...well, who out of the two of us posted a diatribe about how nasty IB had impersonated you? And who spent the afternoon spamming "IB is Guilty!". Was it me, or you? Hmm...yeah, it was you wasn't it?
So, your increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the subject aside, have you got anything else you'd like to throw up to avoid answering the queries whilst making yourself look stupid? I mean, I don't much mind; I find it great fun watching you ensure that no-one will take you seriously.
You? Complaining about whining? Nice one. What was it someone said last week? "Pot calling the kettle black" ?
Belldandy wrote:
> Bwah ha ha haaaaa! What a stunning piece of hypocrisy. Oh, but I
> forgot; the rules you demand get imposed on others don't apply to
> you, do they?
>
> So, are you gonna keep avoiding addressing the points I made and
> come
> up with spurious excuses for doing so? C'mon coward; lets hear your
> latest excuse. I could do with a laugh...
>
> So you agree with Flockhart? Christ, didn't you read it either...
Heheheheheheheh....yup, I was right; the spurious excuse this time was "Ah, so you agree with him!"
No Bell, I don't. I was merely pointing out your immense hypocrisy in whining about people being all nasty to poor ickle you.
So will you now answer the points made? Or will you avoid 'em yet again and make yourself look dumber?
> Bwah ha ha haaaaa! What a stunning piece of hypocrisy. Oh, but I
> forgot; the rules you demand get imposed on others don't apply to
> you, do they?
>
> So, are you gonna keep avoiding addressing the points I made and
> come
> up with spurious excuses for doing so? C'mon coward; lets hear your
> latest excuse. I could do with a laugh...
>
> So you agree with Flockhart? Christ, didn't you read it either...
Heheheheheheheh....yup, I was right; the spurious excuse this time was "Ah, so you agree with him!"
No Bell, I don't. I was merely pointing out your immense hypocrisy in whining about people being all nasty to poor ickle you.
So will you now answer the points made? Or will you avoid 'em yet again and make yourself look dumber?
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
>
>
> Now you see this is the best way to put a question, Light. Notice
> how
> what he is asking is clear, unobstructed by ranting, name calling
> etc?
>
> What, you mean like you did here;
>
> Belldandy wrote:
> My god Flockhart, you are truly an idiot if that is the best you can
> do. Face it you wouldn't know the report in any way even if I were
> to
> whack you over the head with it.
>
> Bwah ha ha haaaaa! What a stunning piece of hypocrisy. Oh, but I
> forgot; the rules you demand get imposed on others don't apply to
> you, do they?
>
> So, are you gonna keep avoiding addressing the points I made and come
> up with spurious excuses for doing so? C'mon coward; lets hear your
> latest excuse. I could do with a laugh...
So you agree with Flockhart? Christ, didn't you read it either...
> Belldandy wrote:
>
>
> Now you see this is the best way to put a question, Light. Notice
> how
> what he is asking is clear, unobstructed by ranting, name calling
> etc?
>
> What, you mean like you did here;
>
> Belldandy wrote:
> My god Flockhart, you are truly an idiot if that is the best you can
> do. Face it you wouldn't know the report in any way even if I were
> to
> whack you over the head with it.
>
> Bwah ha ha haaaaa! What a stunning piece of hypocrisy. Oh, but I
> forgot; the rules you demand get imposed on others don't apply to
> you, do they?
>
> So, are you gonna keep avoiding addressing the points I made and come
> up with spurious excuses for doing so? C'mon coward; lets hear your
> latest excuse. I could do with a laugh...
So you agree with Flockhart? Christ, didn't you read it either...
Hello Bell. A while ago now, I posted this;
>Okay, my bad; once again, I've underestimated Bells capacity for >ignorance and stupidity, so I'll take this really slowly just especially >for him.
>1. To brand all supporters of Kilroy as racists is a foolish and unjust >oversimplification.
>2. Therefore, I did so in order to provide a parallel with Kilroys own >foolish oversimplification.
>3. I used the same defence as he did, freedom of speech, to see what any >of Kilroys apologists would try and say
>4. Bell has now began saying that calling all Kilroy supporters racist is >wrong, and implied that the defence of freedom of speech doesn't apply.
>5. Therefore, if that defence does not apply to my argument, it cannot >possibly apply to Kilroys argument.
>6. In other words, I've gone some way to proving my point; that >Kilroy's 'freedom of speech' argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
>Do you see Bell? Or would you like to make several more posts trying to >avoid that point altogether whilst trying to defend opinions that you >have held for anything up to the last 20 minutes?
I was wondering whether you'd like to try addressing the argument I've raised, or whether you'd like to continue avoiding the topic using a series of spurious, totally false justifications for doing so.
>Okay, my bad; once again, I've underestimated Bells capacity for >ignorance and stupidity, so I'll take this really slowly just especially >for him.
>1. To brand all supporters of Kilroy as racists is a foolish and unjust >oversimplification.
>2. Therefore, I did so in order to provide a parallel with Kilroys own >foolish oversimplification.
>3. I used the same defence as he did, freedom of speech, to see what any >of Kilroys apologists would try and say
>4. Bell has now began saying that calling all Kilroy supporters racist is >wrong, and implied that the defence of freedom of speech doesn't apply.
>5. Therefore, if that defence does not apply to my argument, it cannot >possibly apply to Kilroys argument.
>6. In other words, I've gone some way to proving my point; that >Kilroy's 'freedom of speech' argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
>Do you see Bell? Or would you like to make several more posts trying to >avoid that point altogether whilst trying to defend opinions that you >have held for anything up to the last 20 minutes?
I was wondering whether you'd like to try addressing the argument I've raised, or whether you'd like to continue avoiding the topic using a series of spurious, totally false justifications for doing so.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Now you see this is the best way to put a question, Light. Notice how
> what he is asking is clear, unobstructed by ranting, name calling
> etc?
What, you mean like you did here;
Belldandy wrote:
> My god Flockhart, you are truly an idiot if that is the best you can
> do. Face it you wouldn't know the report in any way even if I were to
> whack you over the head with it.
Bwah ha ha haaaaa! What a stunning piece of hypocrisy. Oh, but I forgot; the rules you demand get imposed on others don't apply to you, do they?
So, are you gonna keep avoiding addressing the points I made and come up with spurious excuses for doing so? C'mon coward; lets hear your latest excuse. I could do with a laugh...
>
> Now you see this is the best way to put a question, Light. Notice how
> what he is asking is clear, unobstructed by ranting, name calling
> etc?
What, you mean like you did here;
Belldandy wrote:
> My god Flockhart, you are truly an idiot if that is the best you can
> do. Face it you wouldn't know the report in any way even if I were to
> whack you over the head with it.
Bwah ha ha haaaaa! What a stunning piece of hypocrisy. Oh, but I forgot; the rules you demand get imposed on others don't apply to you, do they?
So, are you gonna keep avoiding addressing the points I made and come up with spurious excuses for doing so? C'mon coward; lets hear your latest excuse. I could do with a laugh...
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> She's the victim, right. So you don't think that empathising with
> suicide bombers, who murder innocent civilians, is perhaps a bit...
> well, off? Understanding why is one thing, suggesting she'd agree
> with it is another.
Now you see this is the best way to put a question, Light. Notice how what he is asking is clear, unobstructed by ranting, name calling etc?
I believe that Liberal Democrat woman was not agreeing with suicide bombers, but simply saying she understood what drove them to do it, and that she'd possibly do the same given the situation. Now that is not, to me, agreeing, but understanding. Well, I suppose it is agreeing in the sense that she seems to be saying "they only do it because of this" but it seems stupid to criticise her for that.
By the same logic a historian who writes about why Hitler persecuted the Jews could be accused of agreeing with the idea simply because he/she forms a chain of logic to explain events.
Israel's government continues to build fences, checkpoints, bulldoze etc but even today a suicide bomber got through all that, and killed himself and others onboad a bus.
> She's the victim, right. So you don't think that empathising with
> suicide bombers, who murder innocent civilians, is perhaps a bit...
> well, off? Understanding why is one thing, suggesting she'd agree
> with it is another.
Now you see this is the best way to put a question, Light. Notice how what he is asking is clear, unobstructed by ranting, name calling etc?
I believe that Liberal Democrat woman was not agreeing with suicide bombers, but simply saying she understood what drove them to do it, and that she'd possibly do the same given the situation. Now that is not, to me, agreeing, but understanding. Well, I suppose it is agreeing in the sense that she seems to be saying "they only do it because of this" but it seems stupid to criticise her for that.
By the same logic a historian who writes about why Hitler persecuted the Jews could be accused of agreeing with the idea simply because he/she forms a chain of logic to explain events.
Israel's government continues to build fences, checkpoints, bulldoze etc but even today a suicide bomber got through all that, and killed himself and others onboad a bus.
Page: