Racism On Celebrity Big Brother?
Posted by: Analogue on 17 January 2007
What are your views of the racist remarks/ actions against the Indian film star Shilpa?
Posted on: 22 January 2007 by Steve Toy
Labour voters comprise in general of half-witted racists and middle class apologists who support anti-racist witch hunts.
Thus Labour governments inevitably fall into the role of manipulators playing with two sets of scumbags as well as the core Scottish vote.
When you think about it, the Labour party represents the very worst in our society coupled with those who require an entirely different government to that in England.
Thus Labour governments inevitably fall into the role of manipulators playing with two sets of scumbags as well as the core Scottish vote.
When you think about it, the Labour party represents the very worst in our society coupled with those who require an entirely different government to that in England.
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by Fisbey
ALL Labour voters Steve?
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by scipio2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by munch:
Since you have been on this forum you have had 2 posts about speakers ,the rest is your shit view on politics.
Just the sort of BB yobbo reply one would expect from a Labour football fan.
Since you have been on this forum you have had 2 posts about speakers ,the rest is your shit view on politics.
Just the sort of BB yobbo reply one would expect from a Labour football fan.
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by Malky
quote:Originally posted by munch:
.since you have been on this forum you have had 2 posts about speakers ,the rest is your shit view on politics .munch
Yes, he really does come across as a unpleasant little specimen. Perhaps he could find another platform to air his bigotries. At least Parry's black and white, cartoon view of the world could be quite amusing.
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by Rasher
quote:
You obviously cant read, so i will say again
Yeah, that's going to help then
The bottom line is that in reality (ho ho), all we really want is for Channel 4 to get clobbered by their advertisers and drop cheap TV to make some decent programmes for a change. If we can expose "celebrity" with it's gossip mags and tabloid trappings for the empty morons that they are, including EVERY BB housemate, then better still. This is just a great opportunity to throw the whole pile of shite out and tell Channel 4 where to stick it. Only the advertisers can do that, so we should all lobby the Carphone Warehouse. It looks as if Jade Goody will be hung out to dry.
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by Analogue
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:quote:
You obviously cant read, so i will say again
Yeah, that's going to help then
The bottom line is that in reality (ho ho), all we really want is for Channel 4 to get clobbered by their advertisers and drop cheap TV to make some decent programmes for a change. If we can expose "celebrity" with it's gossip mags and tabloid trappings for the empty morons that they are, including EVERY BB housemate, then better still. This is just a great opportunity to throw the whole pile of shite out and tell Channel 4 where to stick it. Only the advertisers can do that, so we should all lobby the Carphone Warehouse. It looks as if Jade Goody will be hung out to dry.
Carphone Warehouse withdrew their sponsorship when it came apparent that racism was happening.
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by Bob McC
Carphone Warehouse withdrew their sponsorship when they thought continuing it would damage their revenue that's all, no other reason.
Posted on: 23 January 2007 by Rasher
quote:
Carphone Warehouse withdrew their sponsorship when it came apparent that racism was happening.
Oh, goody.
I hear that Jade Goody is now being made a scapegoat for Channel 4's misjudgement. She is after all not very bright and her mother is apparently mentally sub-normal so the whole responsibility lies with C4. C4 are now using her children for further mileage on this and JG is going along with it to save her "celebrity status" (ha ha). This whole episode is disgusting and I hope C4 pay dearly for their manipulation of the weak-minded. I am told that now Dirk whatsitsface is being lampooned for his American accent, but I guess no-one will acknowledge that as racist.
Forget the personalities, this is entirely C4. C4 only make tabloid TV crap and there should be a huge shake-up from this, especially as BBC seem to be making quality programmes again after so long lost in the wilderness of dross.
Posted on: 24 January 2007 by rackkit
I can see JG making a Kate Moss out of all this. KM went on to make even more money after she pictured dusting her nose.
Sure, Kate lost most of her contracts at first, then they all crawled back to her, paying her even money than they were before, just because she was never out of the newspapers because of the 'scandal'.
If the media ignore JG, then it really is the end for her but it wont happen.
She's done more media interviews in the last few days than she's probably done in the last year. The was even a flimsy claim about security, of her not being able to see her kids since she was booted out. More likely it was all those interviews she to get through first.
Her people will be making a note of her airtime/column inches etc and watching her 'value' go through the roof.
She stands to make a lot more money out of this as the media will turn (more of the blame turning towards the C4 bosses) and JG will be painted as the victim in the end.
It's pathetic really.
Sure, Kate lost most of her contracts at first, then they all crawled back to her, paying her even money than they were before, just because she was never out of the newspapers because of the 'scandal'.
If the media ignore JG, then it really is the end for her but it wont happen.
She's done more media interviews in the last few days than she's probably done in the last year. The was even a flimsy claim about security, of her not being able to see her kids since she was booted out. More likely it was all those interviews she to get through first.
Her people will be making a note of her airtime/column inches etc and watching her 'value' go through the roof.
She stands to make a lot more money out of this as the media will turn (more of the blame turning towards the C4 bosses) and JG will be painted as the victim in the end.
It's pathetic really.
Posted on: 26 January 2007 by JeremyD
Don,
Sorry I took so long to reply - I wasn't planning on coming back to this thread. I probably won't be back but having seen your reply I thought I should comment.
There have been tens of thousands of complaints and sponsors have withdrawn support from Big Brother. I do not consider such acts to be 'emotional appeals to people's better nature' and I do not believe Channel 4 is immune to either influence. I therefore think it is realistic to hope that Channel 4 will change its views on the legitimacy of encouraging bullying on Big Brother and of failing to intervene in a timely manner when things get out of hand.
On the in-between part the quotation above:
Again, I am not sure what you mean when you say racism is 'part of the survival instinct' or that it might be 'in our genes'. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I see no reason to suppose that racism is either more natural than or different from bigotry against people who look different in other ways e.g. through deformity, disability or ugliness. Yet, in spite of the presumed genetic basis for the ability of people within a given society to agree (to a degree) on who is ugly and who is not etc., the latter bigotries appear to pose less of a problem than with racism. I hypothesise that this is because these bigotries are accepted within all sections of society as being wrong. A combination of genetic and cultural factors may influence our perception of others as attractive or repulsive but I do not find particularly plausible the supposition that hatred and irrational prejudice is a natural consequence of this. For example, the BNP's recent conversion from Jew-haters to Jew-lovers, if taken at face value, is hard to explain in terms of genetic/instinctive factors rather than sociological ones.
There are perhaps more barriers to the wrongness of racism being equally widely accepted; racially correlated cultural differences and the existence of racially segregated areas being two obvious ones. Nevertheless, I think the main problem is that of impressionable young children learning racist attitudes from others, not having those attitudes challenged and debunked, and growing up to be adults who may have difficulty in changing (or even recognising the absurdity of) ingrained patterns of thought and behaviour.
Either way, I think you are right that education and time are the key factors in bringing about change.
Sorry I took so long to reply - I wasn't planning on coming back to this thread. I probably won't be back but having seen your reply I thought I should comment.
quote:Originally posted by JeremyD:
The first is the difficulty that some people seem to have in recognising racial prejudice in the absence of direct racial insults.
The second is the importance that has been attached to the issue of whether or not the abuse was racist. If one thinks such behaviour is vile and unacceptable then what difference does it make whether it is racist? The implication seems to be that mindless bullying is fine as long as there is no cast iron proof that it is racist.
A more important question, IMO, is that of whether a show that repeatedly creates conditions that allow brutish bullying to thrive is a legitimate form of entertainment - particularly when the bully, as in this case, appears to be an easily manipulated woman of limited intellect and self-awareness.
I am not certain I understand what you mean by "nice sentiment, but unrealistic". Many people may enjoy "watching natural insticts take over" and there may be no law forbidding the broadcast of such programmes but it does not therefore follow that Channel 4 must never change its policy on this.quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Nice sentiment, but unrealistic, i'm afraid...
...Mindless bullying in our everyday life is probably considered unacceptable by most Europeans, including Brits. BB seems to be an artifical environment, specifically designed to see what happens when such behaviour is actually encouraged. I don't think its worthwhile entertainment and I would prefer that it didn't find air-time. But it seems like a lot of people enjoy what they perceive as "watching natural insticts take over" from a relatively safe position in an armchair.
The best we can do, given the basic instincts that we are dealing with, is apply the law as it stands, revise the law if this would help, and increase the education effort.
Emotional appeals to peoples' better-nature will only be effective with the converted.
There have been tens of thousands of complaints and sponsors have withdrawn support from Big Brother. I do not consider such acts to be 'emotional appeals to people's better nature' and I do not believe Channel 4 is immune to either influence. I therefore think it is realistic to hope that Channel 4 will change its views on the legitimacy of encouraging bullying on Big Brother and of failing to intervene in a timely manner when things get out of hand.
On the in-between part the quotation above:
Racism is certainly widespread but if you mean something other than that when you say 'mankind is racist' then I disagree.quote:Mankind is racist. Its part of the survival instinct. It might even be in our genes. It isn't confined to middle-aged white men harbouring racist attitudes and behavious towards aboriginal people from Africa, Asia, Australia or America. Its wide-spread. Its probably existed from our emergence from Africa 75,000 years ago and might even have been the cause of that exodus. Its been freely practised since then, until about 50 years ago and only been actively discouraged here in the UK for about 25 years (general time-scales). You ain't gona change human nature like this in a single generation. Yes, you can introduce laws, and education etc and start the change process. But natural instincts will test the legal boundaries for quite a long time - generations perhaps. Only time and education will change fundamental beliefs and nature
Again, I am not sure what you mean when you say racism is 'part of the survival instinct' or that it might be 'in our genes'. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I see no reason to suppose that racism is either more natural than or different from bigotry against people who look different in other ways e.g. through deformity, disability or ugliness. Yet, in spite of the presumed genetic basis for the ability of people within a given society to agree (to a degree) on who is ugly and who is not etc., the latter bigotries appear to pose less of a problem than with racism. I hypothesise that this is because these bigotries are accepted within all sections of society as being wrong. A combination of genetic and cultural factors may influence our perception of others as attractive or repulsive but I do not find particularly plausible the supposition that hatred and irrational prejudice is a natural consequence of this. For example, the BNP's recent conversion from Jew-haters to Jew-lovers, if taken at face value, is hard to explain in terms of genetic/instinctive factors rather than sociological ones.
There are perhaps more barriers to the wrongness of racism being equally widely accepted; racially correlated cultural differences and the existence of racially segregated areas being two obvious ones. Nevertheless, I think the main problem is that of impressionable young children learning racist attitudes from others, not having those attitudes challenged and debunked, and growing up to be adults who may have difficulty in changing (or even recognising the absurdity of) ingrained patterns of thought and behaviour.
Either way, I think you are right that education and time are the key factors in bringing about change.
Posted on: 26 January 2007 by Don Atkinson
Jeremy,
Many thanks for your reply.
My comments above came from my generalised point of view that it is only now, that mankind is emerging from an animal state of survival, (and only in a few affluent countries at that). Just read Dickens to see how utterly hard life was as little as 150 years ago and even I can recall post-war rationing. I was also posted to (and therefore lived and worked in) the Middle-East for about 5 years, watching a nation of nomads transform into modern-day Dubai and Muscat ie from survival to affluence.
Throughout natural history, particularly the history of man, survival has depended on group-action. Nation groups have usually been based on physical likeness or similarity which, by another name, could be called racism. Only the fittest could survive.
Until now (and I mean about the last 25 years) mankind has not been able to afford the luxury of anti-racism (or anti disability-ism etc).
I think that racism is a basic survival instinct. I presume this is where we differ, assuming that we do. We have started trying to overcome this trait. However, IMHO, overcomming any instinct, including racism, will take a lot longer than one generation.
What does success look like? well, for sure its a lot more that simply having laws which everybody complies with. But at least having the laws is a start.
Cheers
Don
Many thanks for your reply.
My comments above came from my generalised point of view that it is only now, that mankind is emerging from an animal state of survival, (and only in a few affluent countries at that). Just read Dickens to see how utterly hard life was as little as 150 years ago and even I can recall post-war rationing. I was also posted to (and therefore lived and worked in) the Middle-East for about 5 years, watching a nation of nomads transform into modern-day Dubai and Muscat ie from survival to affluence.
Throughout natural history, particularly the history of man, survival has depended on group-action. Nation groups have usually been based on physical likeness or similarity which, by another name, could be called racism. Only the fittest could survive.
Until now (and I mean about the last 25 years) mankind has not been able to afford the luxury of anti-racism (or anti disability-ism etc).
I think that racism is a basic survival instinct. I presume this is where we differ, assuming that we do. We have started trying to overcome this trait. However, IMHO, overcomming any instinct, including racism, will take a lot longer than one generation.
What does success look like? well, for sure its a lot more that simply having laws which everybody complies with. But at least having the laws is a start.
Cheers
Don