Ricky Gervais satire or prejudice?

[Kizzy]

Ricky gervais new comedy airs on thursday on C4 'Derek' being the central character is meant to be 'satiring prejudice against the disabled'
But is it?....
From the man who labelled Susan Boyle a mong I'm not convinced it's not just hi getting away with abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/10/ricky-gervais-no-justification-lazy-cruelty

QUOTE:
''"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it''

His contradictory comments have not gone unnoticed....
QUOTE:
''Derek is an autograph hunter and this is Gervais on Derek, speaking to a journalist: "He's better than me. He's better than most people. He's kind, loving, funny, sweet, honest, open-minded, hard-working …"
This is Gervais on autograph hunters in his show:
QUOTE:
"They are the bane of my life. They're a mess. I don't mean their clothes. I mean their DNA."

[King Gizzard]

I don't think he's any of the things that get thrown at him. I just don't think he's funny

[GypsyGoth]

He pushes the boundaries of comedy, I think that's a good thing.

Maybe people who think they might be offended should skip the show.

[Jesus.]

Derek will be the sanest, most honest and most innocently pure character on the show. Gervais' comedy is more about the interactions of people, so it's more likely to be poking fun at people that continually undervalue real life versions of Derek.

[Kizzy]

Derek will be the sanest, most honest and most innocently pure character on the show. Gervais' comedy is more about the interactions of people, so it's more likely to be poking fun at people that continually undervalue real life versions of Derek.

Oh like he did with susan boyle you mean?....He was taking the piss.
And he is pushing boundaries yes, as he is getting away with it.

[Jesus.]

Oh like he did with susan boyle you mean?....He was taking the piss.
And he is pushing boundaries yes, as he is getting away with it.

That's a completely different scenario to a show he's written, produced and directed.

I have a nephew with cerebal palsy, but I use "mong" all the time. Probably a good idea not to confuse his work, with twitter.

[GypsyGoth]

And he is pushing boundaries yes, as he is getting away with it.

But isn't that one of the jobs of comedy?

[Mrluvaluva]

The meanings of words can, and do, sometimes adapt over time. I would say that many people use the word when referring to someone as an idiot.

reference (http://www.internetslang.com/MONG-meaning-definition.asp)

Gervais actually said when referring to Susan Boyle, and I quote, ""She would not be where she is today if it wasn't for the fact that she looked like such a ******* mong. When she first came on the telly, I went: 'Is that a mong'? I don't mean she has Down's Syndrome, by the way. No, no! That would be offensive. That word doesn't mean that any more."

As for "Derek", I shall watch on Thursday before forming any opinions on it.

[joeysteele]

I am not really keen on Ricky, I do find him fully at times but mostly I can just take or leave him.

[Me. I Am Salman]

I don't like anyone who get's his followers on me just cos I called him fat on Twitter :hmph:

[Jesus.]

I don't like anyone who get's his followers on me just cos I called him fat on Twitter :hmph:

You can't leave it at that.

Tell me more. Explain the story.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Well basically he tweeted a photo of his awards collection, bragging his success in response to an article which wrote something bad about him. I found it really big headed so I replied 'ur still fat tho' and then he retweeted me and asked his followers what they thought of my little insult, and all of a sudden I got like a hundred tweets every minute from angry Ricky Gervais fans, telling me I'm stupid because I can't spell 'though' and sarcastically telling me I should take up poetry and saying Ricky Gervais is far from fat, that he has worked so hard to shed his weight and now is sexy so I ended up logging out and started watching tv instead :joker: :joker:

[GypsyGoth]

Well basically he tweeted a photo of his awards collection, bragging his success in response to an article which wrote something bad about him. I found it really big headed so I replied 'ur still fat tho' and then he retweeted me and asked his followers what they thought of my little insult, and all of a sudden I got like a hundred tweets every minute from angry Ricky Gervais fans, telling me I'm stupid because I can't spell 'though' and sarcastically telling me I should take up poetry and saying Ricky Gervais is far from fat, that he has worked so hard to shed his weight and now is sexy so I ended up logging out and started watching tv instead :joker: :joker:

:laugh2:

[LaLaLand]

I'm only going to be watching because Karl's in it.

[Jesus.]

Well basically he tweeted a photo of his awards collection, bragging his success in response to an article which wrote something bad about him. I found it really big headed so I replied 'ur still fat tho' and then he retweeted me and asked his followers what they thought of my little insult, and all of a sudden I got like a hundred tweets every minute from angry Ricky Gervais fans, telling me I'm stupid because I can't spell 'though' and sarcastically telling me I should take up poetry and saying Ricky Gervais is far from fat, that he has worked so hard to shed his weight and now is sexy so I ended up logging out and started watching tv instead :joker: :joker:

Salman, we both each others heads in at times, but then I read things like this and I can't stop laughing.

I can't believe you trolled Ricky Gervais :joker: :joker:

[thesheriff443]

i think he is overated.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Salman, we both each others heads in at times, but then I read things like this and I can't stop laughing.

I can't believe you trolled Ricky Gervais :joker: :joker:

yeah I don't troll anymore I learnt that after my first twitter got suspended :|

[Kizzy]

That's a completely different scenario to a show he's written, produced and directed.

I have a nephew with cerebal palsy, but I use "mong" all the time. Probably a good idea not to confuse his work, with twitter.


Thats like saying #my best mate is black and I say the N word all the time'...

Who mentioned twitter?...
B0GpU37hxGA

[Kizzy]

Well basically he tweeted a photo of his awards collection, bragging his success in response to an article which wrote something bad about him. I found it really big headed so I replied 'ur still fat tho' and then he retweeted me and asked his followers what they thought of my little insult, and all of a sudden I got like a hundred tweets every minute from angry Ricky Gervais fans, telling me I'm stupid because I can't spell 'though' and sarcastically telling me I should take up poetry and saying Ricky Gervais is far from fat, that he has worked so hard to shed his weight and now is sexy so I ended up logging out and started watching tv instead :joker: :joker:

What a bliddy hypocrite eh?...He dosen't take kindly to being insulted doe's he?....

[Me. I Am Salman]

What a bliddy hypocrite eh?...He dosen't take kindly to being insulted doe's he?....

:worship:

[Livia]

I don't like Ricky Gervais. I liked The Office, but he generally doesn't make me laugh, I think he's a tool. However... No one's actually seen this programme yet and already some are starting to get outraged on other people's behalf. Wouldn't it be better to wait to actually see the show before deciding it should be censored?

[King Gizzard]

Autograph hunters are terrible though, whenever I go to football games there are a bunch of fully grown men with kid's football cards shouting for players to come and sign them

[Jesus.]

Thats like saying #my best mate is black and I say the N word all the time'...

Who mentioned twitter?...
B0GpU37hxGA

That's a complete false equivalence, and It's not the same thing at all. If you want to explain exactly why, just reply to this, and I'll explain it.

Apologies, for some reason I thought he'd called her that on twitter. I still don't understand what your outrage is. Is it this satire, is it the fact he makes personal jokes about people? Or is it that he used the word mong?

[Kizzy]

I don't like Ricky Gervais. I liked The Office, but he generally doesn't make me laugh, I think he's a tool. However... No one's actually seen this programme yet and already some are starting to get outraged on other people's behalf. Wouldn't it be better to wait to actually see the show before deciding it should be censored?

Who is suggesting a censor?...It's just the concept that is in discussion.

[Jack_]

Comedy doesn't and should never have any boundaries...because it's simply just that, comedy. There is a discernible between satire and jokes, and remarks made with malicious intent, and I find it odd how some people can so easily confuse the two.

Ricky's shows are about mocking stereotypes, tearing them apart and just being generally satirical. If you don't understand satire, then it's offensive, but if you do, it's not.

And this is coming from someone who is pretty indifferent towards him. I might give this show a chance though.

[Kizzy]

Comedy doesn't and should never have any boundaries...because it's simply just that, comedy. There is a discernible between satire and jokes, and remarks made with malicious intent, and I find it odd how some people can so easily confuse the two.

Ricky's shows are about mocking stereotypes, tearing them apart and just being generally satirical. If you don't understand satire, then it's offensive, but if you do, it's not.

And this is coming from someone who is pretty indifferent towards him. I might give this show a chance though.

There are lots of comedies that mock stereotypes...But the star is not so openly offensive to individuals in the name of 'comedy'.
That is simply called 'mocking' ...And is a form of bullying.
Nobody should have the right to abuse another and attempt to pass it off as 'entertainment'

[Boothy]

He pushes the boundries, yes, but he's funny.

I've never understood why people complain about comedians if they find them offensive or unfunny.

If you're offended, don't watch.

[Kizzy]

He pushes the boundries, yes, but he's funny.

I've never understood why people complain about comedians if they find them offensive or unfunny.

If you're offended, don't watch.

Thats not really the point is it?..
In this country we have hate laws, discrimination is not tolerated.
So why then is it acceptable when under the guise of 'humour'?

[GypsyGoth]

Thats not really the point is it?..
In this country we have hate laws, discrimination is not tolerated.
So why then is it acceptable when under the guise of 'humour'?

Who is Ricky discriminating against?

Also what hate crimes is he carrying out?

[Kizzy]

Who is Ricky discriminating against?

Also what hate crimes is he carrying out?

What is the topic of the thread gypsy?
And discriminating against disabled people is now a crime. Susan whilst being a lovely singer is also classed as having a disability.
She is not a 'mong' however anyone attempts to define the term...

[Me. I Am Salman]

What is the topic of the thread gypsy?
And discriminating against disabled people is now a crime. Susan whilst being a lovely singer is also classed as having a disability.
She is not a 'mong' however anyone attempts to define the term...

LOL obviously you didn't mean it that away but that sounded like you were insulting her :laugh:

[GypsyGoth]

What is the topic of the thread gypsy?
And discriminating against disabled people is now a crime. Susan whilst being a lovely singer is also classed as having a disability.
She is not a 'mong' however anyone attempts to define the term...

He plays a disabled person in a show, how is that discriminating against disabled people.

And did Susan mind when she was called a mong?

[GypsyGoth]

LOL obviously you didn't mean it that away but that sounded like you were insulting her :laugh:

:laugh:

[Mrluvaluva]

As previously stated: "Gervais was quick to acknowledge during the routine that the word was once a derogatory term for people with Down's Syndrome, but insisted he was using the modern interpretation.

'I don't mean she has Down's Syndrome, by the way. No, no! That would be offensive

That word doesn't mean that any more,' he said.


Read more: Ricky Gervais in the clear over Susan Boyle 'mong' comments (http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/888286-ricky-gervais-in-the-clear-over-susan-boyle-mong-comments)

[Tom4784]

I think anyone that takes any form of comedy seriously is fairly foolish. There's a lot more bigger problems in the world we should be concerned with, a TV show that MIGHT offend someone seems to be a pointless thing to get worked up over in the long run.

I just have nothing for disdain for people who complain about things on TV, if you have such a problem with something then do not watch it or pay any attention to it. By getting pissy you're only bringing attention to the show rather then the issue. All it succeeds in doing is limiting creative freedom.

[Kizzy]

He plays a disabled person in a show, how is that discriminating against disabled people.

And did Susan mind when she was called a mong?

He wrote the show.
Is that the issue.. Would you mind being insulted in front of millions of people?

[Kizzy]

LOL obviously you didn't mean it that away but that sounded like you were insulting her :laugh:

:joker:

[Tom4784]

This show hasn't aired yet right? It seems a bit pointless to say it's offensive when nobody's seen it yet.

[GypsyGoth]

He wrote the show.
Is that the issue.. Would you mind being insulted in front of millions of people?

Wouldn't he be more discriminating if he didn't write the show? Cause he writes shows about abled people, so what not disabled?


And I don't think I'd mind. Maybe Susan didn't mind either.

[Kizzy]

As previously stated: "Gervais was quick to acknowledge during the routine that the word was once a derogatory term for people with Down's Syndrome, but insisted he was using the modern interpretation.

'I don't mean she has Down's Syndrome, by the way. No, no! That would be offensive

That word doesn't mean that any more,' he said.


Read more: Ricky Gervais in the clear over Susan Boyle 'mong' comments (http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/888286-ricky-gervais-in-the-clear-over-susan-boyle-mong-comments)

So you keep saying...If it is so open to interpretation, and could mean a complete idiot he could apply it to himself then?...Imo

[Boothy]

Thats not really the point is it?..
In this country we have hate laws, discrimination is not tolerated.
So why then is it acceptable when under the guise of 'humour'?

Who is he discriminating against?

He's playing the part of a disabled person, shall we pretend disabled people don't act in a certain way in case we're 'discriminating' against them?

[Kizzy]

I think anyone that takes any form of comedy seriously is fairly foolish. There's a lot more bigger problems in the world we should be concerned with, a TV show that MIGHT offend someone seems to be a pointless thing to get worked up over in the long run.

I just have nothing for disdain for people who complain about things on TV, if you have such a problem with something then do not watch it or pay any attention to it. By getting pissy you're only bringing attention to the show rather then the issue. All it succeeds in doing is limiting creative freedom.

I disagree, and I feel your view is not taking into account the need for a positive attitude towards the disabled in this country.
As for your 'disdain' it is unfortuate you feel that way, anything for a laff eh?...

[Kizzy]

Wouldn't he be more discriminating if he didn't write the show? Cause he writes shows about abled people, so what not disabled?


And I don't think I'd mind. Maybe Susan didn't mind either.

No...
I'm sure she was thrilled.

[Kizzy]

Who is he discriminating against?

He's playing the part of a disabled person, shall we pretend disabled people don't act in a certain way in case we're 'discriminating' against them?

The disabled..
Not according to him he isn't...have you read the OP?

[GypsyGoth]

No...
I'm sure she was thrilled.

So you'd rather if no one sees the show he has written about disabled people?

[Boothy]

The disabled..
Not according to him he isn't...have you read the OP?

Well if he isn't trying to portray a disabled person what's the problem? I don't understand. Are you saying he's discriminating against disabled people by playing the part of a non-disabled person? How does that work then?

[Tom4784]

I disagree, and I feel your view is not taking into account the need for a positive attitude towards the disabled in this country.
As for your 'disdain' it is unfortuate you feel that way, anything for a laff eh?...

How do you know the show is offensive though if you haven't seen it?

[Mrluvaluva]

We haven't even seen the show yet but he's discriminating against the disabled? How so?

[Kizzy]

So you'd rather if no one sees the show he has written about disabled people?

I would rather him not claim it was satirical, and then backtrack and claim that the character is not disabled.

[Kizzy]

Well if he isn't trying to portray a disabled person what's the problem? I don't understand. Are you saying he's discriminating against disabled people by playing the part of a non-disabled person? How does that work then?

?...Just read the article.

[GypsyGoth]

I would rather him not claim it was satirical, and then backtrack and claim that the character is not disabled.

We haven't even seen the show yet but he's discriminating against the disabled? How so?

How do you know the show is offensive though if you haven't seen it?

.

[Kizzy]

We haven't even seen the show yet but he's discriminating against the disabled? How so?

Just read the article, I have said about all I can on the subject , untill it is shown I would just be repeating myself....

[GypsyGoth]

I really don't think you should watch the show Kizzy. I think it would do nothing but annoy you.

[Tom4784]

I read the 'article', extremely badly written and completely flammatory. I'm shocked it was written for the Guardian and not the Daily Mail as it's sole aim seems to be to stir people into a needless rage. The fact that the writer can't grasp the basics of Irony, Satire or sarcasm shows that he's a hack that's trying to make the show seem more controversial then it actually is in order to stir the foolish readers who can't think for themselves into complaining about it so that they can do a follow up article about the public opinion.

Pretty much the basic tools of a terrible tabloid 'journalist'. I've discarded it from my mind since it's a terrible excuse of an article and it should be taken seriously by no one.

[Mrluvaluva]

Just read the article, I have said about all I can on the subject , untill it is shown I would just be repeating myself....

I have thanks, and many other articles about the series too, and I will reserve any comments I may have about the context of the show until after I have watched it, and save the psychoanalysis until such a time I have more of the facts to hand.

[Boothy]

?...Just read the article.

I have, I still see no proof that he's discriminating against the disabled. The article's obviously biased.

Were Lucas and Walliams discriminating against the disabled too with Little Britain (Andy and Lou)? Where does it start and where does it stop?

That's the thing with comedy. It's to each individual's taste.

[Kizzy]

I read the 'article', extremely badly written and completely flammatory. I'm shocked it was written for the Guardian and not the Daily Mail as it's sole aim seems to be to stir people into a needless rage. The fact that the writer can't grasp the basics of Irony, Satire or sarcasm shows that he's a hack that's trying to make the show seem more controversial then it actually is in order to stir the foolish readers who can't think for themselves into complaining about it so that they can do a follow up article about the public opinion.

Pretty much the basic tools of a terrible tabloid 'journalist'. I've discarded it from my mind since it's a terrible excuse of an article and it should be taken seriously by no one.

She...

[Boothy]

She...

Clutching at straws, or what?

[Tom4784]

She...

I apologise, SHE'S a hack writer that's a disgrace to Journalism.

Is that better?

[Kizzy]

I have, I still see no proof that he's discriminating against the disabled. The article's obviously biased.

Were Lucas and Walliams discriminating against the disabled too with Little Britain (Andy and Lou)? Where does it start and where does it stop?

That's the thing with comedy. It's to each individual's taste.

How so?...
The 'Little Britain' depiction...I did not find this discriminatory, as andy is not actually disabled is he?
It is.....Not much to be said till thursday then.....

[Kizzy]

I apologise, SHE'S a hack writer that's a disgrace to Journalism.

Is that better?

No...I disagree she highlights his contradictory statements, It shows his 'satire ' argument for what it is....rubbish.

[Boothy]

How so?...

Are you really gonna try and argue that it's not biased..? Really?


The 'Little Britain' depiction...I did not find this discriminatory, as andy is not actually disabled is he?

Neither is Derek...

[Kizzy]

I have thanks, and many other articles about the series too, and I will reserve any comments I may have about the context of the show until after I have watched it, and save the psychoanalysis until such a time I have more of the facts to hand.

It's a deal :)

[Kizzy]

Clutching at straws, or what?

What?..

[Kizzy]

Are you really gonna try and argue that it's not biased..? Really?



Neither is Derek...

Yes really...
Have you seen it?...

[Tom4784]

Derek is a work of fiction is it not? It's not meant to be a statement so why treat it like it is?

The thing with fiction is that it allows for people to inhibit different perspectives, I could write a story from the point of view of a hack tabloid writer. Would that make me a hypocrite because I don't like them in real life? No it just means I'm writing from a perspective I've never explored before. Why does it make him a hypocrite? He's just writing from a different perspective. A writer's work doesn't have to embody their own beliefs.

That article is just a piece of **** that's intended to cause a reaction, it's points are forced, moronic and senseless and it's just fodder for the idiotic masses that can't think for themselves.

[Boothy]

Yes really...
Have you seen it?...

From the OP

"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it.

I can't be arsed with this anymore, it's going around in circles :joker:

[Kizzy]

Derek is a work of fiction is it not? It's not meant to be a statement so why treat it like it is?

The thing with fiction is that it allows for people to inhibit different perspectives, I could write a story from the point of view of a hack tabloid writer. Would that make me a hypocrite because I don't like them in real life? No it just means I'm writing from a perspective I've never explored before. Why does it make him a hypocrite? He's just writing from a different perspective. A writer's work doesn't have to embody their own beliefs.

That article is just a piece of **** that's intended to cause a reaction, it's points are forced, moronic and senseless and it's just fodder for the idiotic masses that can't think for themselves.

Exhibit.
Seeing as I quoted from what he actually said and not the article it's hard to discredit that....
It has caused quite a reaction in you...Maybe you have a point?...

[Kizzy]

From the OP



I can't be arsed with this anymore, it's going around in circles :joker:
Quote:
"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it.

Then why suggest it is a satirical look at disability?...If he is not in any way disabled?.....

[Tom4784]

Exhibit.
Seeing as I quoted from what he actually said and not the article it's hard to discredit that....
It has caused quite a reaction in you...Maybe you have a point?...

If you're more content with correcting my grammar rather then dealing with the points I've laid out then it just shows how weak your own stance is on the subject.

[Marsh.]

That's a completely different scenario to a show he's written, produced and directed.

I have a nephew with cerebal palsy, but I use "mong" all the time. Probably a good idea not to confuse his work, with twitter.


As the brother of someone with cerebral palsy, I find that disgusting.

[Kizzy]

If you're more content with correcting my grammar rather then dealing with the points I've laid out, it just shows how weak your own stance is on the subject.

No it doesen't...
Im perfectly happy with my stance thankyou. I don't feel it is weak.

[Kizzy]

As the brother of someone with cerebral palsy, I find that disgusting.

Agreed...But apparently theres a new meaning, that someone is just a 'complete idiot'....

[Marsh.]

Agreed...But apparently theres a new meaning, that someone is just a 'complete idiot'....

It just goes too far a lot of the time. I'm not the kind of person to complain about TV or comedy, I can enjoy "near the knuckle" jokes but there is a line where you can go too far. I don't agree with whichever poster said that there shouldn't be any boundaries.

Take Frankie Boyle's recent attention over his comment about Katie Price's son, can anyone actually defend what he said? Comedy stops being appropriate when it's making someone a complete laughing stock, when their not equipped to defend or stand up for themselves. He literally put Harvey up for ridicule.

As for Ricky Gervais, I enjoyed parts of the office but other than that I've never found him remotely funny. Like Russell Brand his relative success made his ego balloon out of proportion, which made him even less likeable. However, I won't comment on "Derek" until I've seen it.

[Ammi]

..I don't really find Ricky very funny anymore..I liked 'The Office' and 'Extras'..I don't know if it's me or whether his comedy has changed..
..I saw a trailer for this..and it didn't look anything special..I like Karl Pilkington so I'll give it a try
..I don't see the point in complaining about prejudice..when it hasn't been aired yet..when you think about it..disabilities are raised in lots of ways on TV..dramas..documentaries..etc..and comedy is just a different form..it all brings awareness and that's good..if it's not funny I wont watch..as to whether it offends..well I can't say without watching it
...After actually giving it a few weeks to see what it's like..maybe do a survey of disabled people..and ask them if they are offended..rather than assume things on their behalf

[Marsh.]

I don't think disabilities being portrayed on TV are what kizzy's problem is Ammi. It's the chances of them being put there for ridicule, to be laughed at.

Not saying this is true of Gervais, like I said earlier I'll watch before making comment.

[Locke.]

From the man who labelled Susan Boyle a mong

:joker::joker::joker:

He's a bit hit and miss for me, but that did get a laugh

[Ammi]

..yeah I see that..as you say..first thing to do is watch it..and then isn't it more up to the disabled to decide if they think they are being ridiculed..if a large number of disabled compained..were outraged..that's the time to address it

[Marsh.]

:joker::joker::joker:

He's a bit hit and miss for me, but that did get a laugh


:shocked:

[Marsh.]

..yeah I see that..as you say..first thing to do is watch it..and then isn't it more up to the disabled to decide if they think they are being ridiculed..if a large number of disabled compained..were outraged..that's the time to address it

I wouldn't think so. If someone is being ridiculed, and if Gervais does that in this show, then I would think it would be blatantly obvious to everyone that it is the case. You don't need someone disabled to say "I categorically deduce he is making fun of me and people like me".

Take Frankie Boyle's comments about Harvey, you don't need to have any of his conditions to know that he used the kid to get a laugh, and to ridicule him.

[Livia]

There are a lot of "ifs" in there.

Where are all the people bleating on about free speech? I hate that people think comedy should be censored. This programme hasn't even aired yet and already there are people worrying about it and feeling bad on other people's behalf! Most disabled people don't need someone else to do their thinking and their feeling.

[Niamh.]

Comedy doesn't and should never have any boundaries...because it's simply just that, comedy. There is a discernible between satire and jokes, and remarks made with malicious intent, and I find it odd how some people can so easily confuse the two.

Ricky's shows are about mocking stereotypes, tearing them apart and just being generally satirical. If you don't understand satire, then it's offensive, but if you do, it's not.

And this is coming from someone who is pretty indifferent towards him. I might give this show a chance though.

I agree with this.

[Kizzy]

..I don't really find Ricky very funny anymore..I liked 'The Office' and 'Extras'..I don't know if it's me or whether his comedy has changed..
..I saw a trailer for this..and it didn't look anything special..I like Karl Pilkington so I'll give it a try
..I don't see the point in complaining about prejudice..when it hasn't been aired yet..when you think about it..disabilities are raised in lots of ways on TV..dramas..documentaries..etc..and comedy is just a different form..it all brings awareness and that's good..if it's not funny I wont watch..as to whether it offends..well I can't say without watching it
...After actually giving it a few weeks to see what it's like..maybe do a survey of disabled people..and ask them if they are offended..rather than assume things on their behalf

I did not assume anything....
I only asked for opinions based on the concept of the show, and the comments made in the article in the OP.

[Kizzy]

..yeah I see that..as you say..first thing to do is watch it..and then isn't it more up to the disabled to decide if they think they are being ridiculed..if a large number of disabled compained..were outraged..that's the time to address it

No, It doesen't work like that.
As with all prejudice its not for the abused to speak out its for the rest of society to say 'that is unacceptable'.

[Jesus.]

What a mongy thread.

[Kizzy]

There are a lot of "ifs" in there.

Where are all the people bleating on about free speech? I hate that people think comedy should be censored. This programme hasn't even aired yet and already there are people worrying about it and feeling bad on other people's behalf! Most disabled people don't need someone else to do their thinking and their feeling.

Why?...If It is being used to ridicule a section of our 'civilised' society then it is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Who are these 'most' disabled people?

[Kizzy]

What a mongy thread.

You know for a clever person you can say some silly things....

[Marsh.]

I'll use the Frankie Boyle example again. Should he have been allowed to get away with his ridicule of Harvey? Because Harvey himself is most likely unaware of what was said and not really "affected" should Boyle have been allowed to make the "jokes" he did and make that child the centre of attention for being laughed at? I don't think so.

I compare that kind of thing to Jeremy Kyle, he acts high and mighty that he's doing a "service" and helping people through the problems yet all the guests he has on the show are just there to be laughed at, hissed at, screamed at and just treated like crap.

[Niamh.]

I'll use the Frankie Boyle example again. Should he have been allowed to get away with his ridicule of Harvey? Because Harvey himself is most likely unaware of what was said and not really "affected" should Boyle have been allowed to make the "jokes" he did and make that child the centre of attention for being laughed at? I don't think so.

I compare that kind of thing to Jeremy Kyle, he acts high and mighty that he's doing a "service" and helping people through the problems yet all the guests he has on the show are just there to be laughed at, hissed at, screamed at and just treated like crap.

I don't agree with what Frankie Boyle did to Harvey at all, and I don't think he should have gotten away with it. I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously as I haven't actually seen this show yet it's hard to comment on whether or not it crosses that line but by the sounds of it, it is more taking the piss out of people reacting to the main character rather than he himself

[Marsh.]

I don't agree with what Frankie Boyle did to Harvey at all, and I don't think he should have gotten away with it. I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously as I haven't actually seen this show yet it's hard to comment on whether or not it crosses that line but by the sounds of it, it is more taking the piss out of people reacting to the main character rather than he himself

Agreed. That was my point, I don't agree with all the people saying comedy shouldn't have boundaries. When, really, everything has a line you shouldn't cross.

I don't know whether to watch the show or not though because Gervais in general doesn't make me laugh.

[Niamh.]

Agreed. That was my point, I don't agree with all the people saying comedy shouldn't have boundaries. When, really, everything has a line you shouldn't cross.

I don't know whether to watch the show or not though because Gervais in general doesn't make me laugh.

I quite like him but I'll definitely have to give it a watch out of curiosity now!

[Tom4784]

I don't agree with what Frankie Boyle did to Harvey at all, and I don't think he should have gotten away with it. I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously as I haven't actually seen this show yet it's hard to comment on whether or not it crosses that line but by the sounds of it, it is more taking the piss out of people reacting to the main character rather than he himself

Then it's not free speech then isn't it? There's no half and half you either have the freedom of speech or you don't.

I couldn't give a **** about with Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais, I just feel that people who kick up such a fuss about such insignificant things are in desperate need of sorting out their priorities.

[Livia]

Why?...If It is being used to ridicule a section of our 'civilised' society then it is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Who are these 'most' disabled people?

It's a little rich you asking ME for evidence, when you're basing your whole opinion and your moral outrage on a show that hasn't even been aired yet.

[Jesus.]

You know for a clever person you can say some silly things....

Because there is a difference between being clever, and having a stick continually wedged up your arse about every little thing. An ability to poke fun at people and situations, doesn't detract from intelligence.

[Ammi]

I wouldn't think so. If someone is being ridiculed, and if Gervais does that in this show, then I would think it would be blatantly obvious to everyone that it is the case. You don't need someone disabled to say "I categorically deduce he is making fun of me and people like me".

Take Frankie Boyle's comments about Harvey, you don't need to have any of his conditions to know that he used the kid to get a laugh, and to ridicule him.

I can only speak for the disabled people I have spent time with..and none object or take offence at this type of humour in general..in fact they say much worse themselves..so I don't presume to decide for them.. Imo disabled people are much more qualified than anyone to say where the line..if there is one..has been crossed

Having said that..no one abled or disabled can say whether Ricky Gervais has crossed any lines or offended anyone until the programme has actually being aired..I wasn't actually going to watch it..I'm not a huge fan..I think I'll watch the first one though

[Marsh.]

Then it's not free speech then isn't it? There's no half and half you either have the freedom of speech or you don't.

I couldn't give a **** about with Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais, I just feel that people who kick up such a fuss about such insignificant things are in desperate need of sorting out their priorities.

The line has to be drawn between making a joke that certain people can laugh with together and singling people out to be laughed AT. It's a fine line but very different.
And when it comes to that there most certainly needs to be boundaries.

When a disabled child is laughed at, and people say he "****s his mother" then I say ******* "free" speech.

[Niamh.]

Then it's not free speech then isn't it? There's no half and half you either have the freedom of speech or you don't.

I couldn't give a **** about with Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais, I just feel that people who kick up such a fuss about such insignificant things are in desperate need of sorting out their priorities.

Well, the example Marsh gave about Harvey I think over steps a mark, it's become personal and taking the piss out of a disabled child personally is wrong and bang out of order imo. If that damages Frankie Boyles right to Free Speech then I couldn't care less to be quite honest, somethings are more important.

[Ammi]

Well, the example Marsh gave about Harvey I think over steps a mark, it's become personal and taking the piss out of a disabled child personally is wrong and bang out of order imo. If that damages Frankie Boyles right to Free Speech then I couldn't care less to be quite honest, somethings are more important.

I didn't actually see the Frankie Boyle thing..or know exactly what was said..but it seems that it was personal..a specific child..and also the fact that it was a child..who is classed as 'vulnerable'..I mean children in general are vulnerable

[Niamh.]

I didn't actually see the Frankie Boyle thing..or know exactly what was said..but it seems that it was personal..a specific child..and also the fact that it was a child..who is classed as 'vulnerable'..I mean children in general are vulnerable

I didn't see it either but it was something along the lines of him ****ing his mother

[Ammi]

I didn't see it either but it was something along the lines of him ****ing his mother

Hmmmmm..not really a lot I can say to that..I don't like Frankie Boyle anyway

[Livia]

I didn't get the full story of what Frankie Boyle said either. However, I'm not sure that flaunting her kids around in the public eye like fashion accessories and using them to get maximum publicity for her sorry self didn't help the cause of that "celebrity Mother of the Year". Not saying he was right in what he said... just saying, I didn't hear reports of him singling out any kid who's mother hadn't already thrust them into the public eye. Jordan herself must take a little of the responsibility.

[Niamh.]

I didn't get the full story of what Frankie Boyle said either. However, I'm not sure that flaunting her kids around in the public eye like fashion accessories and using them to get maximum publicity for her sorry self didn't help the cause of that "celebrity Mother of the Year". Not saying he was right in what he said... just saying, I didn't hear reports of him singling out any kid who's mother hadn't already thrust them into the public eye. Jordan herself must take a little of the responsibility.

I don't disagree with you, however I still believe him singling out a particular disabled child to mock, is not on.

[Livia]

I don't disagree with you, however I still believe him singling out a particular disabled child to mock, is not on.

I agree, it was a poor show on Frankie Boyle's behalf. But had Jordan not made sure we all know what Harvey looks like and who he is, I guess Frankie Boyle would never have heard of him either. I can picture all of Jordan's kids, but I can't picture many other celebrity kids.

[Niamh.]

I agree, it was a poor show on Frankie Boyle's behalf. But had Jordan not made sure we all know what Harvey looks like and who he is, I guess Frankie Boyle would never have heard of him either. I can picture all of Jordan's kids, but I can't picture many other celebrity kids.

I agree but then most actual celebrities are famous for music or film or TV or whatever, her whole "act" is being a camera ***** and having her life on display.

[Tom4784]

The line has to be drawn between making a joke that certain people can laugh with together and singling people out to be laughed AT. It's a fine line but very different.
And when it comes to that there most certainly needs to be boundaries.

When a disabled child is laughed at, and people say he "****s his mother" then I say ******* "free" speech.

You'd willingly give up your rights so that comedians can't make jokes that might offend someone?

Sorry but that's HILARIOUS, foolish but hilarious.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its good to laugh at people and if they are in no position to physically injure you then it becomes very funny.

This is why Ricky is not doing a skit on thick black bodybuilders or MMA stars

[Jesus.]

Its good to laugh at people and if they are in no position to physically injure you then it becomes very funny.

This is why Ricky is not doing a skit on thick black bodybuilders or MMA stars

Yeah, no comedian has ever gone after muscle heads or fighters, have they?


What?


Oh.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yeah, no comedian has ever gone after muscle heads or fighters, have they?


What?


Oh.

If there has been a bodybuilding or MMA sitcom I must have missed it?

maybe they show it in your wing but not on normal tv?

[Jesus.]

If there has been a bodybuilding or MMA sitcom I must have missed it?

maybe they show it in your wing but not on normal tv?

A skit, as you mentioned in your original post, is a sketch or a short piece, it's not a whole sitcom.

Jokes venture in to all aspects of life, and MMA, bodybuilders haven't been excluded from this for fear that comedians may get their heads kicked in.

It says more about your image of bodybuilders, as feared and respected members of society, rather than drugged up, self loathing vanity projects that I believe them to be.

[Marsh.]

I didn't get the full story of what Frankie Boyle said either. However, I'm not sure that flaunting her kids around in the public eye like fashion accessories and using them to get maximum publicity for her sorry self didn't help the cause of that "celebrity Mother of the Year". Not saying he was right in what he said... just saying, I didn't hear reports of him singling out any kid who's mother hadn't already thrust them into the public eye. Jordan herself must take a little of the responsibility.

I agree, it was a poor show on Frankie Boyle's behalf. But had Jordan not made sure we all know what Harvey looks like and who he is, I guess Frankie Boyle would never have heard of him either. I can picture all of Jordan's kids, but I can't picture many other celebrity kids.

I absolutely detest Katie Price and everything that she stands for but that's no excuse for comments to be made in a public arena claiming her disabled son has sex with her, in order to attract laughter and "favour".

In this case, why should the mother "take some of the responsibility"?
Yes, Katie Price has given her kids a level of fame at a very young age but that's pretty much irrelevant to what Boyle did.
That's like saying, you're a kid in the playground and therefore you must take some of the responsibility for being bullied by an older kid. Illogical.


I don't disagree with you, however I still believe him singling out a particular disabled child to mock, is not on.

Agreed.


You'd willingly give up your rights so that comedians can't make jokes that might offend someone?

Sorry but that's HILARIOUS, foolish but hilarious.

Did I say that? No.

You were talking about everyone having the right of "free speech" and there being no boundaries to comedy.
I suggested when comedy (ie. Comedians broadcasting to a larger arena, TV, radio and DVDs) crosses the line like the likes of Boyle's comments there is some kind of boundary needed. Which channel 4 thankfully (or was it BBC) understood and reprimanded the spineless twerp.

Yes, hilarious isn't it? :rolleyes:

[Tom4784]

I absolutely detest Katie Price and everything that she stands for but that's no excuse for comments to be made in a public arena claiming her disabled son has sex with her, in order to attract laughter and "favour".

In this case, why should the mother "take some of the responsibility"?
Yes, Katie Price has given her kids a level of fame at a very young age but that's pretty much irrelevant to what Boyle did.
That's like saying, you're a kid in the playground and therefore you must take some of the responsibility for being bullied by an older kid. Illogical.




Agreed.




Did I say that? No.

You were talking about everyone having the right of "free speech" and there being no boundaries to comedy.
I suggested when comedy (ie. Comedians broadcasting to a larger arena, TV, radio and DVDs) crosses the line like the likes of Boyle's comments there is some kind of boundary needed. Which channel 4 thankfully (or was it BBC) understood and reprimanded the spineless twerp.

Yes, hilarious isn't it? :rolleyes:

So you don't want Free Speech then, that is hilarious.

[Kizzy]

It's a little rich you asking ME for evidence, when you're basing your whole opinion and your moral outrage on a show that hasn't even been aired yet.

No I'm not, all I asked was for an opinion....If you don't have one fine.

[Kizzy]

Because there is a difference between being clever, and having a stick continually wedged up your arse about every little thing. An ability to poke fun at people and situations, doesn't detract from intelligence.

Are you suggesting my concern is unjustified?....

[Kizzy]

I didn't actually see the Frankie Boyle thing..or know exactly what was said..but it seems that it was personal..a specific child..and also the fact that it was a child..who is classed as 'vulnerable'..I mean children in general are vulnerable

The disabled are also classed as vulnerable, I thought you would know that ammi.

[Marsh.]

So you don't want Free Speech then, that is hilarious.

I believe TV and other broadcastable "comedy" akin to Frankie Boyles comment from above needs to be controlled.

But, you just put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. Whatever.

[Kizzy]

I didn't get the full story of what Frankie Boyle said either. However, I'm not sure that flaunting her kids around in the public eye like fashion accessories and using them to get maximum publicity for her sorry self didn't help the cause of that "celebrity Mother of the Year". Not saying he was right in what he said... just saying, I didn't hear reports of him singling out any kid who's mother hadn't already thrust them into the public eye. Jordan herself must take a little of the responsibility.

So you have no idea what was said by Frankie Boyle, and yet you seem to be suggesting that the comments he made regarding her disabled son she is somehow responsible for?.....
Is that what you are saying livia, or am I reading this wrong?

[Tom4784]

I believe TV and other broadcastable "comedy" akin to Frankie Boyles comment from above needs to be controlled.

But, you just put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. Whatever.

Why should it be controlled? Is simply not watching it not enough for you? Must you dictate what other people watch just because it offends your delicate sensibilities? What gives you that right?

I don't like either of them but there's no point in censoring them just because a bunch of busybodies want to control other people's viewing habbits. What you're proposing is quite simply limiting free speech at the end of the day and it's ridiculous considering why you want to do so, it's just so pointless to get worked up over it.

[Kizzy]

I agree, it was a poor show on Frankie Boyle's behalf. But had Jordan not made sure we all know what Harvey looks like and who he is, I guess Frankie Boyle would never have heard of him either. I can picture all of Jordan's kids, but I can't picture many other celebrity kids.

How about the beckhams...tom cruise... madonnas kids?....
Stop trying to justify it , it's pathetic.

[Kizzy]

So you don't want Free Speech then, that is hilarious.

Stop taking comments out of context. If you don't agree with the opinion fine don't misquote people its uncalled for.
Just be gracious enough to except some have their reasons for their view.

[Tom4784]

How about the beckhams...tom cruise... madonnas kids?....
Stop trying to justify it , it's pathetic.

She doesn't have to justify anything you're the one being self righteous and judging her for the HEINOUS crime of thinking differently to you.

[Marsh.]

Why should it be controlled? Is simply not watching it not enough for you? Must you dictate what other people watch just because it offends your delicate sensibilities? What gives you that right?

I don't like either of them but there's no point in censoring them just because a bunch of busybodies want to control other people's viewing habbits. What you're proposing is quite simply limiting free speech at the end of the day and it's ridiculous considering why you want to do so, it's just so pointless to get worked up over it.

Delicate sensibilities? I'm not going to be made to look strange by you because I don't like to vulnerable people (kids mainly) being ridiculed on TV for a cheap laugh.

Would you just shrug it off if he claimed your son shags his own mother?
Channel 4 agrees by reprimanding him and issuing apologies. They already don't allow a certain level of material onto TV anyway so I don't know what you're on about. Would you say it's acceptable for racist jokes to be thrown about without concern because it's free speech?
It's not about different tastes in viewing habits it's drawing a line between comedy and forms of bullying.

I'm not getting worked up, I've given my opinion and people like yourself are questioning it and so I've elaborated.

I've said my peace, and explained/repeated myself several times, I'm leaving it at that.

[Kizzy]

She doesn't have to justify anything you're the one being self righteous and judging her for the HEINOUS crime of thinking differently to you.

Don't exaggerate...
I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you. Difference is I'm not the one jumping to bizarre conclusions...

[Tom4784]

Stop taking comments out of context. If you don't agree with the opinion fine don't misquote people its uncalled for.
Just be gracious enough to except some have their reasons for their view.

I'm not taking it out of context, he said that comedy should be controlled right? Given that stand up comedy usually consists of view and opinions presented in a comedic fashion it would be a restriction of free speech to try and censor it no? He wants to have his cake and eat it and you can't do that with free speech it's either free or it isn't.

I'm going to challenge people's points Kizzy, especially when they're as...short sighted as some presented in this topic.

[Kizzy]

Delicate sensibilities? I'm not going to be made to look strange by you because I don't like to vulnerable people (kids mainly) being ridiculed on TV for a cheap laugh.

Would you just shrug it off if he claimed your son shags his own mother?
Channel 4 agrees by reprimanding him and issuing apologies. They already don't allow a certain level of material onto TV anyway so I don't know what you're on about. Would you say it's acceptable for racist jokes to be thrown about without concern because it's free speech?
It's not about different tastes in viewing habits it's drawing a line between comedy and forms of bullying.

I'm not getting worked up, I've given my opinion and people like yourself are questioning it and so I've elaborated.

I've said my peace, and explained/repeated myself several times, I'm leaving it at that.

Welcome to my world....;)

[Marsh.]

I'm not taking it out of context, he said that comedy should be controlled right? Given that stand up comedy usually consists of view and opinions presented in a comedic fashion it would be a restriction of free speech to try and censor it no? He wants to have his cake and eat it and you can't do that with free speech it's either free or it isn't.

I'm going to challenge people's points Kizzy, especially when they're as...short sighted as some presented in this topic.

I'm talking about television broadcasting, not people on the street, in comedy clubs as that can't be "controlled".

If the "control" manages to stop so called comedians using young defenceless kids as comic fodder by declaring they must shag their mothers then so be it.

Have my cake and eat it? What are you talking about?
You're taking an opinion I have about TV broadcasting, which seems to mostly already be in effect mostly and acting as though I'm in support of martial law or something.

[Kizzy]

I'm not taking it out of context, he said that comedy should be controlled right? Given that stand up comedy usually consists of view and opinions presented in a comedic fashion it would be a restriction of free speech to try and censor it no? He wants to have his cake and eat it and you can't do that with free speech it's either free or it isn't.

I'm going to challenge people's points Kizzy, especially when they're as...short sighted as some presented in this topic.

Yes It should..If he had made those comments on the street it would have been a very different story.

No it would not...You cannot be personally offensive and then cry 'It's OK I was only joking!'

Your attempt to justify this to me has failed....But I respect you and your right to your opinion.

[Marsh.]

Welcome to my world....;)

:hugesmile: I wouldn't mind, people have different opinions that's how the world works but when someone completely misunderstands what you're saying it gets frustrating. But I suppose that's to be expected when we only have the written word to communicate. lol

[Me. I Am Salman]

08marsh are you a chick or a bloke

[Marsh.]

08marsh are you a chick or a bloke

You've asked that 50 times in the last month. It stopped being funny before the first time. Either remember what I've told you each and every time or stop trolling.

[Tom4784]

Delicate sensibilities? I'm not going to be made to look strange by you because I don't like to vulnerable people (kids mainly) being ridiculed on TV for a cheap laugh.

Would you just shrug it off if he claimed your son shags his own mother?
Channel 4 agrees by reprimanding him and issuing apologies. They already don't allow a certain level of material onto TV anyway so I don't know what you're on about. Would you say it's acceptable for racist jokes to be thrown about without concern because it's free speech?
It's not about different tastes in viewing habits it's drawing a line between comedy and forms of bullying.

I'm not getting worked up, I've given my opinion and people like yourself are questioning it and so I've elaborated.

I've said my peace, and explained/repeated myself several times, I'm leaving it at that.

Freedom of speech is the right to tell someone something they don't want to hear, I obviously don't support racism but I wouldn't stop someone who was a racist from airing their views, because you can make them look foolish if they broadcast their opinion but you give them power by censoring it.

If it was my son I'd have the common sense to turn the other cheek and not give Frankie Boyle the attention he's after. Jordan only went after him because she saw the potential for a pay cheque and the chance to look sympathetic in the press for once. The show in which Frankie Boyle made those comments was failing and had a low viewership and there weren't any complaints made about it until Jordan made a fuss about it. Nobody cared about it until then and even then it was only the sheep that made the biggest noise. Also you can't take any apologies from a Media outlet seriously, they were just doing it for damage control and to appease the moronic masses rather then actually change anything about their content. If Jordan hadn't had seen pound signs then they'd have repeated that particular show with little incident, because nobody cared. Frankie Boyle has his niche audience and who are you to dictate to them what they can watch just because it offended you? What's so difficult about turning over the channel and not giving it the time of day?

Calling it bullying is nothing but an insult to victims of real bullying and I hate nothing more then when people try to use it to justify their views using it when it doesn't apply. It's a low move and I will reject anyone that thinks they can use it as a valid argument. You're just using the guise of bullying in order to force what you consider acceptable and unacceptable on others.

[Shaun]

It's satirical mostly. He makes fun of the awkward situations and stereotypes that a lot of the country hold and encounter, and makes them easier to talk about. A prime example was the casting of Francesca Martinez in the 'Kate Winslet' episode of Extras. The actress herself has cerebral palsy and obviously so does her character, and her disability, whilst initially unknown to Gervais' character and others, is dealt with lightly and she makes jokes that, if anything, break boundaries.

However, 'Life's too Short' was just too boring and predictable. I'm cautiously optimistic for 'Derek'.

[Livia]

I absolutely detest Katie Price and everything that she stands for but that's no excuse for comments to be made in a public arena claiming her disabled son has sex with her, in order to attract laughter and "favour".

In this case, why should the mother "take some of the responsibility"?
Yes, Katie Price has given her kids a level of fame at a very young age but that's pretty much irrelevant to what Boyle did.
That's like saying, you're a kid in the playground and therefore you must take some of the responsibility for being bullied by an older kid. Illogical.



I never said that Frankie Boyle was right, of course he wasn't. But yes, Katie Price has thrust her kids into the public eye in order to line her own pocket, and so she does have to take some responsibility. Kids, and especially vulnerable kids, have no place in the "celebrity" freak show.

Your final analogy, about the playground... makes no sense in this case. A kid in the playground isn't the same as a kid in Heat magazine.

[Me. I Am Salman]

You've asked that 50 times in the last month. It stopped being funny before the first time. Either remember what I've told you each and every time or stop trolling.

That's because you still haven't answered me :joker:

[Tom4784]

Yes It should..If he had made those comments on the street it would have been a very different story.

No it would not...You cannot be personally offensive and then cry 'It's OK I was only joking!'

Your attempt to justify this to me has failed....But I respect you and your right to your opinion.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that free speech didn't cover people who get miffed over being offended. Silly me.

[Kizzy]

Freedom of speech is the right to tell someone something they don't want to hear, I obviously don't support racism but I wouldn't stop someone who was a racist from airing their views, because you can make them look foolish if they broadcast their opinion but you give them power by censoring it.

If it was my son I'd have the common sense to turn the other cheek and not give Frankie Boyle the attention he's after. Jordan only went after him because she saw the potential for a pay cheque and the chance to look sympathetic in the press for once. The show in which Frankie Boyle made those comments was failing and had a low viewership and there weren't any complaints made about it until Jordan made a fuss about it. Nobody cared about it until then and even then it was only the sheep that made the biggest noise. Also you can't take any apologies from a Media outlet seriously, they were just doing it for damage control and to appease the moronic masses rather then actually change anything about their content. If Jordan hadn't had seen pound signs then they'd have repeated that particular show with little incident, because nobody cared. Frankie Boyle has his niche audience and who are you to dictate to them what they can watch just because it offended you? What's so difficult about turning over the channel and not giving it the time of day?

Calling it bullying is nothing but an insult to victims of real bullying and I hate nothing more then when people try to use it to justify their views using it when it doesn't apply. It's a low move and I will reject anyone that thinks they can use it as a valid argument. You're just using the guise of bullying in order to force what you consider acceptable and unacceptable on others.

Wrong...And in my opinion just keeps getting wronger....

[Marsh.]

Ridiculing people and making them a laughing stock is a form of bullying, so for you to try to distinguish between that and "real" bullying shows you don't really think before you type things like that. Bullying can go beyond physical beatings. Yet, I find it funny you proclaim it may be "offensive" to victims and yet parents of children being made fun of for adults to get their laughs from should just deal with it and change the channel in the name of "free speech", something which you don't seem to understand fully yourself.

I read the first sentence in your last post and I disagree again, so on that I'm not going to bother responding to all of your points as we'll go around in a circle again. We have very different views on it, and as I said I've already addressed all of my opinions and feelings on it in countless posts throughout the thread including what you are discussing in that last post. I've no desire to repeat myself endlessly so we'll just agree to disagree and move on.

[Ammi]

The disabled are also classed as vulnerable, I thought you would know that ammi.

..Please don't patronise me Kizzy..it's completely unnecessary...I think it's a good idea to allow disabled people to give their own views on whether Ricky Gervais' new show offends them or not..after it's been aired

[Livia]

Why?...If It is being used to ridicule a section of our 'civilised' society then it is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Who are these 'most' disabled people?

It's a little rich you asking ME for evidence, when you're basing your whole opinion and your moral outrage on a show that hasn't even been aired yet.

No I'm not, all I asked was for an opinion....If you don't have one fine.

So in your first post you ask for evidence... I say, that's a little rich etc. and then you say you didn't ask for evidence. I've already given you my opinion and I don't feel my opinion rises in value if I repeat it over and over and over again. However, just for your own clarity, my opinion is this: I don't think there's any point in getting all outraged over something you have not seen because it isn't even aired yet.

[Kizzy]

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that free speech didn't cover people who get miffed over being offended. Silly me.

Do a bit of research, find out what free speech actually means and we can discuss it.

[Tom4784]

I read the first sentence and I completely disagree again Dezzy, so on that I'm not going to bother responding to all of your points as we'll go around in a circle again. We have very different views on it, and as I said I've already addressed all of my opinions and feelings on it in countless posts throughout the thread including what you are discussing in that last post. I've no desire to repeat myself endlessly so we'll just agree to disagree and move on.

Ridiculing people and making them a laughing stock is a form of bullying, so for you to try to distinguish between that and "real" bullying shows you don't really think before you type things like that.

Oh so you're disregarding most of my post? Well in that case to hell your opinion then, I think it's short sighted, foolish, ridiculous and completely self righteous.

I think a lot about what I post and that's why I'm not moronic enough to use bullying as a way to make my points stick. It's completely disgusting that you throw around accusations like that in order to press your own opinion of what's decent and what isn't on others.

But fine, we'll agree to disagree. :xyxwave:

[Kizzy]

..Please don't patronise me Kizzy..it's completely unnecessary...I think it's a good idea to allow disabled people to give their own views on whether Ricky Gervais' new show offends them or not..after it's been aired

If you feel I did I apologise, you're right lets see after thurs.

[Livia]

So you have no idea what was said by Frankie Boyle, and yet you seem to be suggesting that the comments he made regarding her disabled son she is somehow responsible for?.....
Is that what you are saying livia, or am I reading this wrong?

Yes Kizzy, as usual you are reading it wrong.

I never said I had no idea what Frankie Boyle said. What I said was "I don't have the full story on what Frankie Boyle said" but I got the gist. That's not the same thing as having "no idea". Try reading what I actually write. She is not responsible for the comments, she is responsible for putting a vulnerable child into the Celebrity Freakshow. So, she is not responsible for the comments per se, but she has to take some responsibility.

[Marsh.]

Oh so you're disregard most of my post? Well in that case to hell your opinion then, I think it's short sighted, foolish, ridiculous and completely self righteous.

I think a lot about what I post and that's why I'm not moronic enough to use bullying as a way to make my points stick. It's completely disgusting that you throw around accusations like that in order to press your own opinion of what's decent and what isn't on others.

But fine, we'll agree to disagree. :xyxwave:

Good one, resort to childishness.

Again, If you'd bother to actually read my posts (by the way I've edited my original post) you'd know that I didn't want to respond to your points because I feel I've already addressed them several times in the thread previously. NOT because I'm disregarding your points but I don't want to be constantly typing the exact same things over and over. As I'm sure you don't either.

I was under the impression I brought our discussion to a polite impasse but your attitude in that last post has me baffled.

May I ask you what accusations I've made that you find disgusting?

[Kizzy]

So in your first post you ask for evidence... I say, that's a little rich etc. and then you say you didn't ask for evidence. I've already given you my opinion and I don't feel my opinion rises in value if I repeat it over and over and over again. However, just for your own clarity, my opinion is this: I don't think there's any point in getting all outraged over something you have not seen because it isn't even aired yet.

I asked for evidence to back up your point....You didn't provide any...
How many times are you going to repeat we have not seen the show....When all that is in discussion in the OP is the concept of the show?

[Kizzy]

Yes Kizzy, as usual you are reading it wrong.

I never said I had no idea what Frankie Boyle said. What I said was "I don't have the full story on what Frankie Boyle said" but I got the gist. That's not the same thing as having "no idea". Try reading what I actually write. She is not responsible for the comments, she is responsible for putting a vulnerable child into the Celebrity Freakshow. So, she is not responsible for the comments per se, but she has to take some responsibility.

Please don't patronise me.
No she doesen't...She did not put those words into his mouth, and it is disgusting in my opinion to suggest that she should accept that abuse.

[Livia]

I asked for evidence to back up your point....You didn't provide any...
How many times are you going to repeat we have not seen the show....When all that is in discussion in the OP is the concept of the show?

You want evidence of how many disabled people get annoyed at people being outraged on their behalf? Well, I can only speak from experience of chatting to the disabled people I know and interact with. I have a friend who has cerebal palsey, a brilliant career and a great sense of humour and she for one will make up her own mind what she can or can't laugh at.

How many times I'm going to repeat the fact that she show isn't aired yet is dependant on how many times you're going to ask me for my opinion. Hopefully you may have got it this time.

[Tom4784]

Good one, resort to childishness.

Again, If you'd bother to actually read my posts (by the way I've edited my original post) you'd know that I didn't want to respond to your points because I feel I've already addressed them several times in the thread previously. NOT because I'm disregarding your points but I don't want to be constantly typing the exact same things over and over. As I'm sure you don't either.

I was under the impression I brought our discussion to a polite impasse but your attitude in that last post has me baffled.

May I ask you what accusations I've made that you find disgusting?

I thought you didn't want to discuss this further? Make up your mind.

Of course I'm going to respond to that post in a hostile fashion, you threw most of it aside after only reading the first sentence. I'm not going to be respectful to someone who is so disrespectful to me. I despise your opinion but I respect your right to it so before I commented on the posts you've made in this topic I've read every single one through before tackling your points. You just threw my post aside because you didn't want to deal with it.

You know what you're doing on the bullying front, you're applying the bully label to people to give your own argument more weight which I find despicable. Is Frankie Boyle a bully? No he said one off colour joke that's never going to be repeated yet you're slinging mud like that just to get your point across. It's an insult to victims everywhere because you're trvialising it by flinging it around so easily.

[Mrluvaluva]

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/flogging_dead_horse_what.jpg

[Livia]

Please don't patronise me.
No she doesen't...She did not put those words into his mouth, and it is disgusting in my opinion to suggest that she should accept that abuse.

You asked me "or am I reading this wrong". It's a question you've asked me a few times before and you often misquote me. So yes, as usual, you are reading it wrong. I write in quite simple, plain English so the fact that you seem to miss my point regularly is not my fault. Do try to stop turning everything into a massive drama because I don't agree with you.

Once again, because you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.... I never said she should accept the abuse, I said she has to take some responsibility for thrusting a vulnerable child into the limelight in order to make a buck. That's what's disgusting.

[Marsh.]

I thought you didn't want to discuss this further? Make up your mind.

Of course I'm going to respond to that post in a hostile fashion, you threw most of it aside after only reading the first sentence. I'm not going to be respectful to someone who is so disrespectful to me. I despise your opinion but I respect your right to it so before I commented on the posts you've made in this topic I've read every single one through before tackling your points. You just threw my post aside because you didn't want to deal with it.

You know what you're doing on the bullying front, you're applying the bully label to people to give your own argument more weight which I find despicable. Is Frankie Boyle a bully? No he said one off colour joke that's never going to be repeated yet you're slinging mud like that just to get your point across. It's an insult to victims everywhere because you're trvialising it by flinging it around so easily.


I said ridiculing people is a "form of bullying" because you responded as though making someone a laughing stock couldn't be bullying. Yes it can.

I never said Frankie Boyle was a bully, please read my posts properly, in some I'm giving my general opinion on boundaries within comedy and not on specifics but on what I find acceptable generally.

Again, I've not labelled anyone a bully so don't patronise me and put words in my mouth which you've been doing quite a lot in the thread.

As for your previous post, I didn't disregard it. I may have worded it wrong but I DID READ YOUR POST. I meant that even after the first sentence I disagreed and by the end of your post I didn't feel the need to make any responses as I'd already given my side previously and repeatedly. I'm not going to type them all up again, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to yourself so to prevent our conversation going round in circles it was best to bring it to a close.

I edited the post after I'd noticed you'd responded to kizzy and mentioned me, to which I then added more of a response to clarify my opinion further.

Once again, I've not labelled anyone a bully I merely brought up that some elements of baiting, ridicule, putting someone up in a public spotlight to be laughed at is a FORM of bullying, as you seemed to think it wasn't. I don't appreciate you jumping to one huge conclusion, as you've done many times with my stance on "free speech", and making assumptions about me which are completely untrue.

[thesheriff443]

this thread is like good rally tennis.

[Kizzy]

You want evidence of how many disabled people get annoyed at people being outraged on their behalf? Well, I can only speak from experience of chatting to the disabled people I know and interact with. I have a friend who has cerebal palsey, a brilliant career and a great sense of humour and she for one will make up her own mind what she can or can't laugh at.

How many times I'm going to repeat the fact that she show isn't aired yet is dependant on how many times you're going to ask me for my opinion. Hopefully you may have got it this time.

I have a friend/cousin/ best mate... classic get out of anything clause...
Ok livia :)

[Kizzy]

Oh so you're disregarding most of my post? Well in that case to hell your opinion then, I think it's short sighted, foolish, ridiculous and completely self righteous.

I think a lot about what I post and that's why I'm not moronic enough to use bullying as a way to make my points stick. It's completely disgusting that you throw around accusations like that in order to press your own opinion of what's decent and what isn't on others.

But fine, we'll agree to disagree. :xyxwave:

I am shocked you are staff! As having seen myself and marsh post a credible argument you choose to post abuse...
This is not your opinion but an out and out attack on those who you feel do not share your view!

[Kizzy]

You asked me "or am I reading this wrong". It's a question you've asked me a few times before and you often misquote me. So yes, as usual, you are reading it wrong. I write in quite simple, plain English so the fact that you seem to miss my point regularly is not my fault. Do try to stop turning everything into a massive drama because I don't agree with you.

Once again, because you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.... I never said she should accept the abuse, I said she has to take some responsibility for thrusting a vulnerable child into the limelight in order to make a buck. That's what's disgusting.

BLAH BLAH...back tracking, that is exactly what you said livia....How he knew this child has no consequence as to how he chose to portray him....

[Marsh.]

I never said she should accept the abuse, I said she has to take some responsibility for thrusting a vulnerable child into the limelight in order to make a buck. That's what's disgusting.

I completely agree, that is disgusting.
However, IMO, that is completely irrelevant to Boyles comments.

[Kizzy]

You asked me "or am I reading this wrong". It's a question you've asked me a few times before and you often misquote me. So yes, as usual, you are reading it wrong. I write in quite simple, plain English so the fact that you seem to miss my point regularly is not my fault. Do try to stop turning everything into a massive drama because I don't agree with you.

Once again, because you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.... I never said she should accept the abuse, I said she has to take some responsibility for thrusting a vulnerable child into the limelight in order to make a buck. That's what's disgusting.

How has she done this?.....He is visable, as he needs to be in her life, not hidden away. She loves him as any mother does a son....What would I have done if Boyle had been as vile about my son?
What she chooses to do as a profession has no baring on her children..

I do not agree there ....by discrediting Ms Price you gain nothing

[Ammi]

Ricky gervais new comedy airs on thursday on C4 'Derek' being the central character is meant to be 'satiring prejudice against the disabled'
But is it?....
From the man who labelled Susan Boyle a mong I'm not convinced it's not just hi getting away with abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/10/ricky-gervais-no-justification-lazy-cruelty

QUOTE:
''"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it''

His contradictory comments have not gone unnoticed....
QUOTE:
''Derek is an autograph hunter and this is Gervais on Derek, speaking to a journalist: "He's better than me. He's better than most people. He's kind, loving, funny, sweet, honest, open-minded, hard-working …"
This is Gervais on autograph hunters in his show:
QUOTE:
"They are the bane of my life. They're a mess. I don't mean their clothes. I mean their DNA."

Oh like he did with susan boyle you mean?....He was taking the piss.
And he is pushing boundaries yes, as he is getting away with it.

Thats like saying #my best mate is black and I say the N word all the time'...

Who mentioned twitter?...
B0GpU37hxGA

What a bliddy hypocrite eh?...He dosen't take kindly to being insulted doe's he?....

Who is suggesting a censor?...It's just the concept that is in discussion.

There are lots of comedies that mock stereotypes...But the star is not so openly offensive to individuals in the name of 'comedy'.
That is simply called 'mocking' ...And is a form of bullying.
Nobody should have the right to abuse another and attempt to pass it off as 'entertainment'

Thats not really the point is it?..
In this country we have hate laws, discrimination is not tolerated.
So why then is it acceptable when under the guise of 'humour'?

What is the topic of the thread gypsy?
And discriminating against disabled people is now a crime. Susan whilst being a lovely singer is also classed as having a disability.
She is not a 'mong' however anyone attempts to define the term...

He wrote the show.
Is that the issue.. Would you mind being insulted in front of millions of people?

So you keep saying...If it is so open to interpretation, and could mean a complete idiot he could apply it to himself then?...Imo

I disagree, and I feel your view is not taking into account the need for a positive attitude towards the disabled in this country.
As for your 'disdain' it is unfortuate you feel that way, anything for a laff eh?...

No...
I'm sure she was thrilled.

The disabled..
Not according to him he isn't...have you read the OP?

?...Just read the article.

I would rather him not claim it was satirical, and then backtrack and claim that the character is not disabled.

Just read the article, I have said about all I can on the subject , untill it is shown I would just be repeating myself....

She...

No...I disagree she highlights his contradictory statements, It shows his 'satire ' argument for what it is....rubbish.

Exhibit.
Seeing as I quoted from what he actually said and not the article it's hard to discredit that....
It has caused quite a reaction in you...Maybe you have a point?...

Quote:
"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it.

Then why suggest it is a satirical look at disability?...If he is not in any way disabled?.....

No it doesen't...
Im perfectly happy with my stance thankyou. I don't feel it is weak.

I did not assume anything....
I only asked for opinions based on the concept of the show, and the comments made in the article in the OP.

No, It doesen't work like that.
As with all prejudice its not for the abused to speak out its for the rest of society to say 'that is unacceptable'.

Why?...If It is being used to ridicule a section of our 'civilised' society then it is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Who are these 'most' disabled people?

No I'm not, all I asked was for an opinion....If you don't have one fine.

The disabled are also classed as vulnerable, I thought you would know that ammi.

So you have no idea what was said by Frankie Boyle, and yet you seem to be suggesting that the comments he made regarding her disabled son she is somehow responsible for?.....
Is that what you are saying livia, or am I reading this wrong?

How about the beckhams...tom cruise... madonnas kids?....
Stop trying to justify it , it's pathetic.

Stop taking comments out of context. If you don't agree with the opinion fine don't misquote people its uncalled for.
Just be gracious enough to except some have their reasons for their view.

Don't exaggerate...
I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you. Difference is I'm not the one jumping to bizarre conclusions...

Welcome to my world....;)

Yes It should..If he had made those comments on the street it would have been a very different story.

No it would not...You cannot be personally offensive and then cry 'It's OK I was only joking!'

Your attempt to justify this to me has failed....But I respect you and your right to your opinion.

Wrong...And in my opinion just keeps getting wronger....

Do a bit of research, find out what free speech actually means and we can discuss it.

Please don't patronise me.
No she doesen't...She did not put those words into his mouth, and it is disgusting in my opinion to suggest that she should accept that abuse.

I have a friend/cousin/ best mate... classic get out of anything clause...
Ok livia :)

I am shocked you are staff! As having seen myself and marsh post a credible argument you choose to post abuse...
This is not your opinion but an out and out attack on those who you feel do not share your view!

BLAH BLAH...back tracking, that is exactly what you said livia....How he knew this child has no consequence as to how he chose to portray him....

How has she done this?.....He is visable, as he needs to be in her life, not hidden away. She loves him as any mother does a son....What would I have done if Boyle had been as vile about my son?
What she chooses to do as a profession has no baring on her children..

I do not agree there ....by discrediting Ms Price you gain nothing


OK, I know this post will get me infracted or banned, but I feel I want to make it anyway. Kizzy, I've only quoted your replies, but would like you to read back through this thread, of course that's your decision. The original OP, the 'theory' of whether satire is an acceptable form of comedy is an interesting one and worthy of a debate. There are many types of comedy and it's very unique to the individual as to what makes them laugh. But I do agree satire is probably the most 'controversial', by it's very nature. Some will obviously see it in bad taste and offensive and others will see it as a platform to raise awareness of the more 'delicate' social areas, in a way that appeals to a large audience. Comedy and Ricky Gervais are popular with many, whether we personally find them so or not, so by doing this, he is in fact raising public awareness, he's prompting people to think and discuss their views on disabled people and how they are portrayed in the media and that is better than people not considering it at all. Too many things, important things, are not thought of at all, and we are all guilty of that, we all have our own 'stuff' to think about and don't always give time to think of others.

I think I may be rambling a bit so I'll get to my point now, which is in fact only my opinion. Many members have offered an opinion on this subject, and I commend you for the thread, however...
..I have not once read what your opinion actually is. Your posts beride everyone else for their opinion and obviously we can't agree with them all but you don't actually say why you object to them, why you think they're not valid or irrelavant
Livia gives you her opinion and her own personal relation with a friend and you dismiss it. Dezzy explains in great length why he feels 'free speech' should not be ignored in this and you pick out a word for correction. In all honesty I think you were simply rude and dismissive to Gypsygoth. These are simply my opinions.
I myself sometimes post a story and leave it for others to discuss, while I give it more thought and reading other peoples opinions helps me form what my own opinions are. Listening to others as well as what your instincts tell you is the best way to balance your view. This is something I don't think you do. There are some very valid points in this thread, from both sides, but none of them are from you. And yet you patronise and beride and make rude and dismissive remarks to anyone who has made the effort to contribute to this thread.
I hope you're not a troll Kizzy, someone who 'pokes' people for a reaction because that would be a shame. You have made many interesting threads and potentially could be a great contributor, but I feel you need to start contributing or leave the thread open for others to debate and stop dismissing them when they do or if you are going to dismiss them, give a reason why. I'm sure you have much to offer and yet, with the many posts you have made, you have offered nothing at all. If you do decide to read through this thread again, please Kizzy, listen to what people have said and whether you agree or oppose their opinion, accept that all points are worthy of respect and don't dismiss them out of hand in a very rude and patronising way

Edit: I also meant to say: Imo both 08Marsh and Dezzy have expressed equally valid views. One is more 'emotional' which is something society must take on board and the other is more 'practical' questioning if lines are drawn, it is no longer free speech, we all look at things differently but neither one is 'wrong'. These 'opposing' views are what contribute to a well balanced debate, neither being less important than the other. I have not seen any dismissal of either of these views by the other, only a 'lost in translation' of whether the posts have actually been read, because not bothering to read a response imo, is the greatest insult of all. They have both made good contributions to this thread

[thesheriff443]

and this is general chat
i wonder what it would be like if it was serious.lol

[thesheriff443]

just to add one thing if katie price never did so much drink and drugs while she was pregnant harvey would not be like he is today.

[Vanessa]

Personally i don't find this type of comedy funny. But i understand why some people may like it. :)

[Kizzy]

OK, I know this post will get me infracted or banned, but I feel I want to make it anyway. Kizzy, I've only quoted your replies, but would like you to read back through this thread, of course that's your decision. The original OP, the 'theory' of whether satire is an acceptable form of comedy is an interesting one and worthy of a debate. There are many types of comedy and it's very unique to the individual as to what makes them laugh. But I do agree satire is probably the most 'controversial', by it's very nature. Some will obviously see it in bad taste and offensive and others will see it as a platform to raise awareness of the more 'delicate' social areas, in a way that appeals to a large audience. Comedy and Ricky Gervais are popular with many, whether we personally find them so or not, so by doing this, he is in fact raising public awareness, he's prompting people to think and discuss their views on disabled people and how they are portrayed in the media and that is better than people not considering it at all. Too many things, important things, are not thought of at all, and we are all guilty of that, we all have our own 'stuff' to think about and don't always give time to think of others.

I think I may be rambling a bit so I'll get to my point now, which is in fact only my opinion. Many members have offered an opinion on this subject, and I commend you for the thread, however...
..I have not once read what your opinion actually is. Your posts beride everyone else for their opinion and obviously we can't agree with them all but you don't actually say why you object to them, why you think they're not valid or irrelavant
Livia gives you her opinion and her own personal relation with a friend and you dismiss it. Dezzy explains in great length why he feels 'free speech' should not be ignored in this and you pick out a word for correction. In all honesty I think you were simply rude and dismissive to Gypsygoth. These are simply my opinions.
I myself sometimes post a story and leave it for others to discuss, while I give it more thought and reading other peoples opinions helps me form what my own opinions are. Listening to others as well as what your instincts tell you is the best way to balance your view. This is something I don't think you do. There are some very valid points in this thread, from both sides, but none of them are from you. And yet you patronise and beride and make rude and dismissive remarks to anyone who has made the effort to contribute to this thread.
I hope you're not a troll Kizzy, someone who 'pokes' people for a reaction because that would be a shame. You have made many interesting threads and potentially could be a great contributor, but I feel you need to start contributing or leave the thread open for others to debate and stop dismissing them when they do or if you are going to dismiss them, give a reason why. I'm sure you have much to offer and yet, with the many posts you have made, you have offered nothing at all. If you do decide to read through this thread again, please Kizzy, listen to what people have said and whether you agree or oppose their opinion, accept that all points are worthy of respect and don't dismiss them out of hand

Edit: I also meant to say: Imo both 08Marsh and Dezzy have expressed equally valid views. One is more 'emotional' which is something society must take on board and the other is more 'practical' questioning if lines are drawn, it is no longer free speech, we all look at things differently but neither one is 'wrong'. These 'opposing' views are what contribute to a well balanced debate, neither being less important than the other. I have not seen any dismissal of either of these views by the other, only a 'lost in translation' of whether the posts have actually been read, because not bothering to read a response imo, is the greatest insult of all. They have both made good contributions to this thread

Thankyou for your opinion.
Not true, you have chosen to ignore it.
I have not been In any way shape or form rude to anyone.
Good for you...I do too, but if I disagree I am not afraid to say it.

Can you not see how rude it is to accuse someone of being a 'troll?' You may not see my point ....you may not agree with my point... I might 'appear' to you a certain way, that is your issue not mine.
My comments are how I feel, I don't go into chapter and verse, but I feel I manage to get my view on the subject across fine.
Of course they are worthy of respect and I have said so myself many times.
Really?...I have. Many of my comments have been met with condecension.

I can honestly say I have read every post on this thread, and responded how I saw fit. If you do not like my posting style or my views that is your problem not mine.
I do not wish to argue ammi, if you have such a strong opinion then you are under no obligation to post in this thread.
I will reserve any further judgement on this topic untill I have seen the show this evening.
Just to add, I am really upset by this attack ammi, and I really do not think I have done anything to warrant your insults.

[Mrluvaluva]

Channel 4, 10 pm.

[Kizzy]

Hey...Are you after aristas job or summat?...:)

[Mrluvaluva]

Not at all. I just think there are a few people who will not want to miss it. I am sure there will be more discussion after the pilot has aired.

[InOne]

Will you be watching kizzy?

[Shaun]

I posted about the TV show a week ago in the TV section but noone commented :laugh: [/storyofmylife]

[Boothy]

I thought it was good. A lot truer to reality than most people care to believe.

[Jesus.]

Thoughts?

I don't think any of the pre-show hysteria was in any way justified. Gervais' shows are always about interactions.

[Shaun]

Gonna watch it later, but I doubt it'll contain anything near as offensive as the usual hysterics would like me to believe

[Marsh.]

I'd like to sit down and watch it but I think I'll wait until the weekend. I don't really like Gervais so I'm not expecting much as far as my entertainment goes.

[Mrluvaluva]

I had to record it as I was watching Celebrity Juice so will post my thoughts once I have watched it.

[Jack_]

For a one-off comedy, and for someone who doesn't really bother with many of Gervais' shows (even though I like him), I thought it was quite good.

Not laugh-a-minute in the slightest, but it had its moments. It was more about the underlying message of questioning different stereotypes, all of which I thought were very discrete but pretty clever in how they were used, i.e. the woman assuming that if when she asked the man what kind of films he liked, she'd be able to determine whether he was gay, and of course at the start when Karl Pilkington's character said he 'wasn't interested in being on TV, showing off his life' - cleverly mocking shows that follow certain celebrities around like Peter Andre.

The pre-show criticism was, as other people have said, totally unjustified. Nothing in the show was offensive, it was all about cleverly mocking stereotypes. The ones I picked up on aside from the ones I mentioned were also about how disabled people are perfectly capable of doing such a job, and could show care and compassion, and there were a few little remarks which I can't remember which seemed to take the piss out of how care home life and elderly people are stereotyped.

As I had guessed...not at all offensive, and a massive overreaction by some before the show had even aired. I still stand by my point earlier in this thread that if you don't understand satire, then this show might've been offensive to you, but if you don't, are are intelligent enough to pick up on what was going on, then it wouldn't have been. I'm expecting Kizzy to come in here eating her words, as I had always thought she would have to afterwards...but we'll see.

[InOne]

I thought it was pretty good. Not offensive or even trying to be offensive. God knows why there was all the nonsense before lol

[Jesus.]

Derek will be the sanest, most honest and most innocently pure character on the show. Gervais' comedy is more about the interactions of people, so it's more likely to be poking fun at people that continually undervalue real life versions of Derek.

Prophets gon' prophesizzle :idc:

[Marsh.]

I'm expecting Kizzy to come in here eating her words, as I had always thought she would have to afterwards...but we'll see.

To be fair to kizzy she never said anything definitive about Ricky Gervais. She opened a debate to ask people's opinion on it and then the thread developed into a conversation about offensive comedy in general.

[Me. I Am Salman]

I thought it was quite interesting and had great acting. Not offensive in the slightest.

[Kizzy]

There was no 'pre show hysteria' and I am not eating my words either.
I did not find it funny, it was touching in parts but thats it. In fact I think he ripped the character off a female comedian who did a sketch of herself as a boy, can't remember what the show was called at all, I just remember she wore glasses that made her eyes look massive and said 'no nana' a lot.
Karl pilkington looked and sounded just like karl pilkington....
It was predictable and boring.

[Jack_]

There was no 'pre show hysteria' and I am not eating my words either.
I did not find it funny, it was touching in parts but thats it. In fact I think he ripped the character off a female comedian who did a sketch of herself as a boy, can't remember what the show was called at all, I just remember she wore glasses that made her eyes look massive and said 'no nana' a lot.
Karl pilkington looked and sounded just like karl pilkington....
It was predictable and boring.

But not prejudiced or offensive. Thought so.

[Marsh.]

But not prejudiced or offensive. Thought so.

Again, you're putting words in people's mouth.

[Livia]

I have a friend/cousin/ best mate... classic get out of anything clause...
Ok livia :)

It's not a get-out clause. I do have a friend who is also a colleague. How is that a get-out clause?

BLAH BLAH...back tracking, that is exactly what you said livia....How he knew this child has no consequence as to how he chose to portray him....

Blah blah? How rude. What I said is here in black and white.

So anyway... what a lot of fuss over nothing. I watched it, I thought it was handled sensitively and I doubt anyone could have been offended.

[Jack_]

Again, you're putting words in people's mouth.

I don't think I am actually...

Oh like he did with susan boyle you mean?....He was taking the piss.
And he is pushing boundaries yes, as he is getting away with it.

There are lots of comedies that mock stereotypes...But the star is not so openly offensive to individuals in the name of 'comedy'.
That is simply called 'mocking' ...And is a form of bullying.
Nobody should have the right to abuse another and attempt to pass it off as 'entertainment'

Thats not really the point is it?..
In this country we have hate laws, discrimination is not tolerated.
So why then is it acceptable when under the guise of 'humour'?

What is the topic of the thread gypsy?
And discriminating against disabled people is now a crime. Susan whilst being a lovely singer is also classed as having a disability.
She is not a 'mong' however anyone attempts to define the term...

He wrote the show.
Is that the issue.. Would you mind being insulted in front of millions of people?

No...
I'm sure she was thrilled.

The disabled..
Not according to him he isn't...have you read the OP?

I would rather him not claim it was satirical, and then backtrack and claim that the character is not disabled.

No...I disagree she highlights his contradictory statements, It shows his 'satire ' argument for what it is....rubbish.

Quote:
"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it.

Then why suggest it is a satirical look at disability?...If he is not in any way disabled?.....

No, It doesen't work like that.
As with all prejudice its not for the abused to speak out its for the rest of society to say 'that is unacceptable'.

Why?...If It is being used to ridicule a section of our 'civilised' society then it is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Who are these 'most' disabled people?

Are you suggesting my concern is unjustified?....

The disabled are also classed as vulnerable, I thought you would know that ammi.

Most, if not all of these quotes that I've pulled out seem to be kizzy implying that she thinks Derek will be discriminatory against the disabled. This is of course before the show had even aired.

Nothing to do with putting words into people's mouths.

[Jesus.]

There was no 'pre show hysteria' and I am not eating my words either.
I did not find it funny, it was touching in parts but thats it. In fact I think he ripped the character off a female comedian who did a sketch of herself as a boy, can't remember what the show was called at all, I just remember she wore glasses that made her eyes look massive and said 'no nana' a lot.
Karl pilkington looked and sounded just like karl pilkington....
It was predictable and boring.


http://files.myopera.com/AOTEAROAnz/blog/orly.jpg

[Kizzy]

It's not a get-out clause. I do have a friend who is also a colleague. How is that a get-out clause?



Blah blah? How rude. What I said is here in black and white.

So anyway... what a lot of fuss over nothing. I watched it, I thought it was handled sensitively and I doubt anyone could have been offended.

lol you never cease to make me chuckle liv, I am not the only person who had reservations about this 'comedy' ...
It was not as bad as I thought...It was just a really terrible programme is all.

[Kizzy]

http://files.myopera.com/AOTEAROAnz/blog/orly.jpg

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/24/owl.png

[Ammi]

..I thought it was quite sweet and sensitve..and I'm not really a big fan of him...I liked Ricky's character..although I did voluntary work in an old folk's care home once..and it was nothing like that..they're very very lively...full of beans and up for a laugh
..I didn't think it was really a comedy though

[Livia]

lol you never cease to make me chuckle liv, I am not the only person who had reservations about this 'comedy' ...
It was not as bad as I thought...It was just a really terrible programme is all.

Well, I wish I could say the same about you. Kiz.

No, there was a small minority of people who were getting their knickers in a knot by prejudging something.

[Kizzy]

jack
Most, if not all of these quotes that I've pulled out seem to be kizzy implying that she thinks Derek will be discriminatory against the disabled. This is of course before the show had even aired.

Nothing to do with putting words into people's mouths.


I did worry it might show the character 'derek' in a poor light giving a negative image of the disabled.
Why do you have such a problem with my opinion jack?
I was not the only person to find the concept of this show off putting ...
http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/896116-ricky-gervais-fans-give-derek-the-thumbs-up-despite-earlier-reservations

[Kizzy]

Well, I wish I could say the same about you. Kiz.

No, there was a small minority of people who were getting their knickers in a knot by prejudging something.

I offered a topic for debate livia...you should know how it works...I give my view, you give yours?
My knickers remain unknotted :)

[Kizzy]

..I thought it was quite sweet and sensitve..and I'm not really a big fan of him...I liked Ricky's character..although I did voluntary work in an old folk's care home once..and it was nothing like that..they're very very lively...full of beans and up for a laugh
..I didn't think it was really a comedy though

Neither did I tbh, It seemed more like an Alan Benett play than a comedy.The reference to old people and the picture being put in the bin as rubbish was subtle.
However his insistance that derek is not disabled is interesting, he clearly has complex social issues. To just suggest he is simply nice but dim is not recognising the need for awareness of mental health issues...But whatever, I don't want to stir another hornets nest do I?
http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/895410-ricky-gervais-derek-isnt-disabled-hes-just-not-that-bright

[thesheriff443]

kizzy did you not burn your knickers when you burnt you bra.lol
i would love yo see kizzy,liva and ammi in an old peoples home with knitting needles at the ready,lol

[Kizzy]

kizzy did you not burn your knickers when you burnt you bra.lol
i would love yo see kizzy,liva and ammi in an old peoples home with knitting needles at the ready,lol
Shaddap you! ;)

[Livia]

I offered a topic for debate livia...you should know how it works...I give my view, you give yours?
My knickers remain unknotted :)

I am always amused when people assume I'm stupid... so I guess I should amend my last post to... you sometimes make me chuckle, but not for the reason you think.

[Kizzy]

I am always amused when people assume I'm stupid... so I guess I should amend my last post to... you sometimes make me chuckle, but not for the reason you think.

Not sure how you arrived at that livia...You are far from stupid, never doubt yourself:nono:
Most people on here crack me up all the time too, I'm glad I make you so happy :elephant:

[Livia]

Not sure how you arrived at that livia...You are far from stupid, never doubt yourself:nono:
Most people on here crack me up all the time too, I'm glad I make you so happy :elephant:

I don't doubt myself Kizzy. Not ever. Perhaps you think you're being very subtle with your little jibes, but you aren't. I said you make me chuckle but not for the reason that you think. I never said you made me happy. Lots of people on here make me happy, but you are not one of them. Once again, even though my post was perfectly clear, you've misread it.

[Kizzy]

I don't doubt myself Kizzy. Not ever. Perhaps you think you're being very subtle with your little jibes, but you aren't. I said you make me chuckle but not for the reason that you think. I never said you made me happy. Lots of people on here make me happy, but you are not one of them. Once again, even though my post was perfectly clear, you've misread it.
How rude! Don't read into my comments things that are not there...
please stop with the personal remarks livia...If you have nothing to say on the topic in discussion don't comment I have no wish to hear what yours or anyone elses opinion of me is...
I hope I'm making myself clear.

[Mrluvaluva]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3L1GT2Lecg0/SNNVEoeG1gI/AAAAAAAAAqo/zyAmh0XSxWU/s400/HowVeryDareYou.jpg

[Livia]

How rude! Don't read into my comments things that are not there...
please stop with the personal remarks livia...If you have nothing to say on the topic in discussion don't comment I have no wish to hear what yours or anyone elses opinion of me is...
I hope I'm making myself clear.

Let's see if you can understand this: stop with the snide remarks and the provocation and just try to leave me alone. I in turn will do you the same courtesy.

[waterhog]

so bored of this guy - will not be watching -

[Ammi]

so bored of this guy - will not be watching -
..that's ok Joe..it's already been on LOL

[Crimson Dynamo]

Derek was funny, I just wish Life's too Short was funnier but watching it back its quite funny