The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
So you've adopted the "forehead rod" and "mashing the keys" mantra.
Fair enough, but like I said (and you obviously didn't read), in order to insult or at least elicit more than a pitying sigh, try and be original in your put downs.
Oh, and considering you "only come into life to bait certain users", you're pretty easy to land yourself.
*shooty finger wink*
Fair enough, but like I said (and you obviously didn't read), in order to insult or at least elicit more than a pitying sigh, try and be original in your put downs.
Oh, and considering you "only come into life to bait certain users", you're pretty easy to land yourself.
*shooty finger wink*
*Puts on thick rimmed glasses and grows sympathetic goatee beard*
Ok, there is a lot of animosity between you. Now here’s what I suggest. Let’s all sit down, drink some tea, maybe dunk a digestive or two and talk about our feelings.
No? Ok, you can keep bitching if you wish.
Ok, there is a lot of animosity between you. Now here’s what I suggest. Let’s all sit down, drink some tea, maybe dunk a digestive or two and talk about our feelings.
No? Ok, you can keep bitching if you wish.
Up yours Coppa! Don't oppress me maaaaan
Yukikaze wrote:
> Wow, 3 days to reply?
>
> You can shift your forehead from the "A" key now.
Actually, I replied the following day. But you ran and hid, so I thought I'd post a supplementary point to draw you back in. Which it did. Cos I was in a bad mood, and I wanted to make someone suffer.
Looking at the threads you've posting in through, everyone else has beaten me to it.
> Wow, 3 days to reply?
>
> You can shift your forehead from the "A" key now.
Actually, I replied the following day. But you ran and hid, so I thought I'd post a supplementary point to draw you back in. Which it did. Cos I was in a bad mood, and I wanted to make someone suffer.
Looking at the threads you've posting in through, everyone else has beaten me to it.
Light wrote:
.
>
>
> 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?
Looks like you chose the latter option then Bell? Funny...not like you to go into a red faced fury and avoid addressing the point that made you look like an idiot...
.
>
>
> 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?
Looks like you chose the latter option then Bell? Funny...not like you to go into a red faced fury and avoid addressing the point that made you look like an idiot...
So not like you in the Bush thread? Touche...minus the fancy bit..
Has anyone read the latest Private Eye? There's an excellent feature about Kilroy's previous columns and his 'I'm no racist' claims. Hilarious stuff.
Belldandy wrote:
> So not like you in the Bush thread? Touche...minus the fancy bit..
Not really Bell; that thread revolves around you avoiding 2 questions, and then running away and hiding from them. So I suppose this is like that in that I'm trying to pin you down to give an answer. Oh, and it also see's you lying through your teeth in a vague effort to avoid answering the questions. But aside from that...
> So not like you in the Bush thread? Touche...minus the fancy bit..
Not really Bell; that thread revolves around you avoiding 2 questions, and then running away and hiding from them. So I suppose this is like that in that I'm trying to pin you down to give an answer. Oh, and it also see's you lying through your teeth in a vague effort to avoid answering the questions. But aside from that...
Well you'd be quite good at lying Light, judging from what your career is you've probably spent at least half a lifetime lying...
Belldandy wrote:
> Well you'd be quite good at lying Light, judging from what your career
> is you've probably spent at least half a lifetime lying...
Bell, Bell, Bell... what are we to do with you; in one thread you try to have a go cos I was kicked out of the Law Society, yet in this one you seem to have forgotten that in order to make a pretty poor gag about Lawyers and lying. I mean, the set up was clumsy, the language you've used doesn't flow...all in all, it's not really the best comeback, is it?
But lets move on from that; who, out of the two of us, has been caught out lying through his teeth in a thread? And who, out of the two of us, responding to being caught out with "You're so naive; everyone lies."?
Hmmm....both of 'em were you, weren't they? So that would make you...a lying coward, wouldn't it Bell?
So...you've definitely gone for the "Make loads of posts and hope no-one notices the bleeding from my rectum after the quite horrendous bully-ramming I've just received" option then?
> Well you'd be quite good at lying Light, judging from what your career
> is you've probably spent at least half a lifetime lying...
Bell, Bell, Bell... what are we to do with you; in one thread you try to have a go cos I was kicked out of the Law Society, yet in this one you seem to have forgotten that in order to make a pretty poor gag about Lawyers and lying. I mean, the set up was clumsy, the language you've used doesn't flow...all in all, it's not really the best comeback, is it?
But lets move on from that; who, out of the two of us, has been caught out lying through his teeth in a thread? And who, out of the two of us, responding to being caught out with "You're so naive; everyone lies."?
Hmmm....both of 'em were you, weren't they? So that would make you...a lying coward, wouldn't it Bell?
So...you've definitely gone for the "Make loads of posts and hope no-one notices the bleeding from my rectum after the quite horrendous bully-ramming I've just received" option then?
Page: