The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Wow, 3 days to reply?
You can shift your forehead from the "A" key now.
You can shift your forehead from the "A" key now.
And, getting back to the actual topic rather than having a hissy fit like Light, how many people heard about that Liberal Democrat MP who has now also become a victim of media idiocy?
She gave an interview where she said she understood how people became suicide bombers and that in the same circumstances she would probably be a suicide bomber.
She gave an interview where she said she understood how people became suicide bombers and that in the same circumstances she would probably be a suicide bomber.
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.
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.
No I don't. I mean which is it to be? Bush is criticised for simplifying the plight of the Palestinians and reducing the terrorists to abstract groups, Kilroy gets blasted for saying it's potentially all arabs, this woman gets blasted for saying she think she understands why and that in those circumstances she would do the same potentially.
I mean it is generally agreed that if a person commits suicide in this country then, at least from their own point of view, life is worthless and will never improve. Suicide bombers kill themselves and others, imagine how much hatred and the kind of life that must generate that feeling in a person. I don't agree in any way with what suicide bombers do but I would of thought it was pretty easy to understand why they do it in the first place and if others were in that situation who is to say they would not do likewise?
None of us will hopefully ever know what that situation is like but if you look at the history of the Second World War during the final days there is plenty of examples of germans (civilians and soldiers) being the equivalent of suicide bombers, and everyone knows about the Kamikaze pilots. Even in recent times American and the UK have sent men on suicide missions, the morality of these may be different but only because it is our morality. The end result is the same once you remove the morality.
> 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.
No I don't. I mean which is it to be? Bush is criticised for simplifying the plight of the Palestinians and reducing the terrorists to abstract groups, Kilroy gets blasted for saying it's potentially all arabs, this woman gets blasted for saying she think she understands why and that in those circumstances she would do the same potentially.
I mean it is generally agreed that if a person commits suicide in this country then, at least from their own point of view, life is worthless and will never improve. Suicide bombers kill themselves and others, imagine how much hatred and the kind of life that must generate that feeling in a person. I don't agree in any way with what suicide bombers do but I would of thought it was pretty easy to understand why they do it in the first place and if others were in that situation who is to say they would not do likewise?
None of us will hopefully ever know what that situation is like but if you look at the history of the Second World War during the final days there is plenty of examples of germans (civilians and soldiers) being the equivalent of suicide bombers, and everyone knows about the Kamikaze pilots. Even in recent times American and the UK have sent men on suicide missions, the morality of these may be different but only because it is our morality. The end result is the same once you remove the morality.
Yukikaze wrote:
> And, getting back to the actual topic rather than having a hissy fit
> like Light,
----
???????????
IBi s guilty
IBi s guilty
IBi s guilty
Waaah waaah waaah "I'm leaving. For another 2 weeks, then I shall return and post until I get pointed at and laughed at by a commie smoker!!!!"
Jesus christ Tubs, get a girlfriend, stop watching cartoons and stop violently whacking off to Fux News and laminates of Dubya.
> And, getting back to the actual topic rather than having a hissy fit
> like Light,
----
???????????
IBi s guilty
IBi s guilty
IBi s guilty
Waaah waaah waaah "I'm leaving. For another 2 weeks, then I shall return and post until I get pointed at and laughed at by a commie smoker!!!!"
Jesus christ Tubs, get a girlfriend, stop watching cartoons and stop violently whacking off to Fux News and laminates of Dubya.
Goatboy wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> And, getting back to the actual topic rather than having a hissy fit
> like Light,
> ----
> ???????????
>
> IBi s guilty
> IBi s guilty
> IBi s guilty
>
> Waaah waaah waaah "I'm leaving. For another 2 weeks, then I
> shall return and post until I get pointed at and laughed at by a
> commie smoker!!!!"
>
> Jesus christ Tubs, get a girlfriend, stop watching cartoons and stop
> violently whacking off to Fux News and laminates of Dubya.
Correction, "rather than having a hissy obsessing fit like Light and Goatboy"
Who has once again made a fuxing pointless post.
> Yukikaze wrote:
> And, getting back to the actual topic rather than having a hissy fit
> like Light,
> ----
> ???????????
>
> IBi s guilty
> IBi s guilty
> IBi s guilty
>
> Waaah waaah waaah "I'm leaving. For another 2 weeks, then I
> shall return and post until I get pointed at and laughed at by a
> commie smoker!!!!"
>
> Jesus christ Tubs, get a girlfriend, stop watching cartoons and stop
> violently whacking off to Fux News and laminates of Dubya.
Correction, "rather than having a hissy obsessing fit like Light and Goatboy"
Who has once again made a fuxing pointless post.
"I'm leaving this forum, it's full of pointless arguments and irritating people"
"I only go into Life to bait certain users"
"IBi s guilty!"
"Possibly slanderous"
You don't have anything else and that makes me pity you, I'll stop mocking because it's unpleasant to laugh at somebody as desolately alone as your good self.
Enjoy your round and round and round and round arguments, picking apart posts you think can "win" at but running away when you get proven wrong.
Again.
*looks at calender*
So you'll be leaving again in about 15 days after saying how much you don't care, only to return and repeat the cycle again.
And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but please try and use your own put-downs, otherwise you look a teensy bit silly berating me but then using the same slang/colloquilisms.
*shrugs*
Whatever gets you through the night.
"I only go into Life to bait certain users"
"IBi s guilty!"
"Possibly slanderous"
You don't have anything else and that makes me pity you, I'll stop mocking because it's unpleasant to laugh at somebody as desolately alone as your good self.
Enjoy your round and round and round and round arguments, picking apart posts you think can "win" at but running away when you get proven wrong.
Again.
*looks at calender*
So you'll be leaving again in about 15 days after saying how much you don't care, only to return and repeat the cycle again.
And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but please try and use your own put-downs, otherwise you look a teensy bit silly berating me but then using the same slang/colloquilisms.
*shrugs*
Whatever gets you through the night.
Goatboy wrote:
> "I'm leaving this forum, it's full of pointless arguments and
> irritating people"
> "I only go into Life to bait certain users"
> "IBi s guilty!"
> "Possibly slanderous"
>
> You don't have anything else and that makes me pity you, I'll stop
> mocking because it's unpleasant to laugh at somebody as desolately
> alone as your good self.
> Enjoy your round and round and round and round arguments, picking
> apart posts you think can "win" at but running away when
> you get proven wrong.
> Again.
> *looks at calender*
> So you'll be leaving again in about 15 days after saying how much you
> don't care, only to return and repeat the cycle again.
>
> And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but please try and
> use your own put-downs, otherwise you look a teensy bit silly
> berating me but then using the same slang/colloquilisms.
> *shrugs*
> Whatever gets you through the night.
And your poinit? Other then self indulgent ranting which you I guess only you read. Because don't think I'm reading what you are typing, it's just jot the quote button and bang away with the forehead each time. esxrgdsxgzvfdh gdsgfdsgdz f, see?
> "I'm leaving this forum, it's full of pointless arguments and
> irritating people"
> "I only go into Life to bait certain users"
> "IBi s guilty!"
> "Possibly slanderous"
>
> You don't have anything else and that makes me pity you, I'll stop
> mocking because it's unpleasant to laugh at somebody as desolately
> alone as your good self.
> Enjoy your round and round and round and round arguments, picking
> apart posts you think can "win" at but running away when
> you get proven wrong.
> Again.
> *looks at calender*
> So you'll be leaving again in about 15 days after saying how much you
> don't care, only to return and repeat the cycle again.
>
> And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but please try and
> use your own put-downs, otherwise you look a teensy bit silly
> berating me but then using the same slang/colloquilisms.
> *shrugs*
> Whatever gets you through the night.
And your poinit? Other then self indulgent ranting which you I guess only you read. Because don't think I'm reading what you are typing, it's just jot the quote button and bang away with the forehead each time. esxrgdsxgzvfdh gdsgfdsgdz f, see?
Belldandy wrote:
> And your poinit?
> Because don't think I'm reading what you are typing, it's just jot the > quote button and bang away with the forehead each time.
Belldandy, I respect you so much, you do know that?
> And your poinit?
> Because don't think I'm reading what you are typing, it's just jot the > quote button and bang away with the forehead each time.
Belldandy, I respect you so much, you do know that?
Yes my typing rocks. I think that actually has to be my worst typing yet but it's so hard to be accurate when you're just mashing the keyboard aimlessly.
Page: