[Jarvio]

In no way am I commending the behaviour of the 'Dapper Laughs' character, but he is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.

So, I am quite confused why Daniel O'Reilley (the person) is hated so much due to the dapper laughs character.

I mean, if Trey Parker/Matt Stone (creators of south park) went in to the BB house, they would be seen as legends. Yet, these are the men that created fictional character Eric Cartman, who is an evil and racist person and offensive in every way.

Then there's Seth Mcfarlane, creator of Family Guy, a show known for being offensive in just about every way, even making fun of racism and alzheimers.

These are fictional shows. And fictional characters. But.... so is Dapper Laughs?

So why is he seen as worse than these other people, when he too, is just playing a fictional character?

And, to say, south park and Family Guy are actually funny and Dapper Laughs is not (a point that I too agree with), it is still an irrelevent point, because, on paper, they are ALL fictional characters. So what is the difference?

[MB.]

Because he's never differentiated between Daniel and Dapper Laughs other than the fact that the latter is supposedly a character... for all we know (and quite likely so), Dapper Laughs was just a stage name rather than an actual character

"He made a rape joke but it's fine, because he was using a different name then" doesn't quite cut it

[Withano]

Its difficult to believe that Dapper and Daniel are entirely disassociated with one another
Trey and Matt obviously are not Eric Cartman

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by MB.

Because he's never differentiated between Daniel and Dapper Laughs other than the fact that the latter is supposedly a character... for all we know (and quite likely so), Dapper Laughs was just a stage name rather than an actual character

"He made a rape joke but it's fine, because he was using a different name then" doesn't quite cut it

Pretty much, this isn't Keith Lemon we're talking about. He only started saying the 'oh Dapper Laughs is just a character' when he ****ed up and said what he did.

He isn't someone like Frankie Boyle who's act is based around shocking humour, he wasn't that kind of comedian. He embodies the worst of lad humour and tried to play it off when it backfired on him.

My opinion of him in the house is that he is desperate to court sympathy to revive his career rather than show any genuine remorse for what he did.

[bitontheslide]

how he explained it to Emma last night was that the rape material was a small proportion of his overall act. As I am not familiar with his material in entirety I wouldn't know.

I don't mind a bit of controversy, i don't mind a bit of borderline humour, but it has to be the exception rather than the rule. We will see soon enough where he sits. If he turns out to be genuinely funny without resorting to shocking tactics, then great.

[mr rochester]

Never heard of him and will have to look him up...

[point17]

Also he did a loy of other offensive things not just one joke.

He was constantly being rude about women and was quite bullyish to people in his videos

[Northern Monkey]

Because some people can’t seperate comedy from reality?

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Because some people can’t seperate comedy from reality?

Comedy is supposed to be funny

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jake.

Comedy is supposed to be funny

No comedy is funny to everyone.I find most comedy crap these days tbh.

[Gusto Brunt]

Originally Posted by MB.

Because he's never differentiated between Daniel and Dapper Laughs other than the fact that the latter is supposedly a character... for all we know (and quite likely so), Dapper Laughs was just a stage name rather than an actual character

"He made a rape joke but it's fine, because he was using a different name then" doesn't quite cut it

Good points.

[montblanc]

i didn't really know who he was prior to CBB but his VT and pre-season interview centered around his past seemed very false & transparent so he's definitely my least favorite

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Pretty much, this isn't Keith Lemon we're talking about. He only started saying the 'oh Dapper Laughs is just a character' when he ****ed up and said what he did.

He isn't someone like Frankie Boyle who's act is based around shocking humour, he wasn't that kind of comedian. He embodies the worst of lad humour and tried to play it off when it backfired on him.

My opinion of him in the house is that he is desperate to court sympathy to revive his career rather than show any genuine remorse for what he did.

Agree with this. He said as much going in, he hopes people will accept him again and he can get back on tv. When pushed he said that even if it didn't they were paying him **** loads of money so he's lost nothing. If he had been slightly more humble he would have stood more of a chance but I think he's pretty fake with the whole "just a character" stuff

[mr rochester]

It’s over for him ...

[Matthew.]

Can we please just refer to him as Bastard Laughs?

[Marsh.]

This makes no sense. Daniel is still coming up with the offensive material that Dapper Laughs is hated for? So when it comes to his actions and material then it makes no difference if he plays a fictional character or not. It's all him.

It's like if Catherine Tate came in as Nan and tells a really offensive racist joke and somebody defends that "The nan character isn't real". That's not the point.

[Jarvio]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

This makes no sense. Daniel is still coming up with the offensive material that Dapper Laughs is hated for? So when it comes to his actions and material then it makes no difference if he plays a fictional character or not. It's all him.

It's like if Catherine Tate came in as Nan and tells a really offensive racist joke and somebody defends that "The nan character isn't real". That's not the point.

But then by that logic, the creators of say, South Park, are horrible people

[Maxxie.]

Originally Posted by Jarvio

But then by that logic, the creators of say, South Park, are horrible people

Horrible how? There show is simply social and sometimes even moral commentary, with the latter making them good people imo.

[Jarvio]

Originally Posted by Maxxie-D

Horrible how? There show is simply social and sometimes even moral commentary, with the latter making them good people imo.

I was going by Marsh's logic. When he said the people write the offensive material, therefore they are offensive themselves, if that's what he even meant

[GoldHeart]

The guy comes across as a sleazebag in real life just saying .
And even when he's joking there's just something sly and slimy about him and Jonny gives off the same vibe .
And clearly the women feel the same way as that's why they've given them the bathroom jobs.

[JerseyWins]

I agree I see him as just joking around as a character really.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

The guy comes across as a sleazebag in real life just saying .
And even when he's joking there's just something sly and slimy about him and Jonny gives off the same vibe .

However, yes, he does come across sleazy/sly/slimy in his humor.

And clearly the women feel the same way as that's why they've given them the bathroom jobs.

I don't see how this reflects anything on them though and I DID like how Dapper & Jonny just took it in stride as a joke as being the bottom of the barrel.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by JerseyWins

I agree I see him as just joking around as a character really.


However, yes, he does come across sleazy/sly/slimy in his humor.


I don't see how this reflects anything on them though and I DID like how Dapper & Jonny just took it in stride as a joke as being the bottom of the barrel.

It's weird it's like they're trying too hard to prove they've "changed" but in the DR they showed their true colours if that makes sense.

I expected Dapper & Jonny to be mega sulky with the bathroom jobs , i still think they'll rub the other hm's up the wrong way and they'll be some confrontations to come .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jarvio

I was going by Marsh's logic. When he said the people write the offensive material, therefore they are offensive themselves, if that's what he even meant

If someone thinks the material is offensive then the person providing that material is offensive. Yes. Logic.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by MB.

Because he's never differentiated between Daniel and Dapper Laughs other than the fact that the latter is supposedly a character... for all we know (and quite likely so), Dapper Laughs was just a stage name rather than an actual character

"He made a rape joke but it's fine, because he was using a different name then" doesn't quite cut it

Tbf jokes aren't as offensive as meaning it, but then I have a sick sense of humour anyway so can kind of have sympathy with the attack here.

Btw I've not watched a single episode of this CBB so he might just be a dickhead, it's just on the basic stuff I'm reading here he just sounds like a controversial comedian with a controversial character that he plays, I'd rather that than some of the ****heads that Ch5 BB can attract.