[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

?...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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

She...

Clutching at straws, or what?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kizzy

She...

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

Is that better?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Boothy

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

How so?...

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

Originally Posted by kizzy

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

Neither is Derek...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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]

Originally Posted by Boothy

Clutching at straws, or what?

What?..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Boothy

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Boothy

From the OP



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

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

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.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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