[bots]

there is a distinction. The previous cartoons were making fun of a mythical person. The guardian was making fun of an entire race of people

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is a distinction. The previous cartoons were making fun of a mythical person. The guardian was making fun of an entire race of people

Well Old Mo most certainly existed, just because some people revere him doesn't actually give him mythic status... so you're mythtaken there

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Well Old Mo most certainly existed, just because some people revere him doesn't actually give him mythic status... so you're mythtaken there

no i'm not, a person named mo may have existed, but that doesn't mean that everything attributed to that person over the years is accurate. It's like jesus and the last supper, or the loaves and fishes. It's all complete bollocks.

You will be telling us next that Helen of Troy was a real person

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

no i'm not, a person named mo may have existed, but that doesn't mean that everything attributed to that person over the years is accurate. It's like jesus and the last supper, or the loaves and fishes. It's all complete bollocks.

Fair point, well made.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is a distinction. The previous cartoons were making fun of a mythical person. The guardian was making fun of an entire race of people

Out of interest does the person that wrote this particular skit have a history of mocking the Jewish community?

I'm asking because if he has a pattern of just singling one group out to ridicule then the joke stops in my eyes as it's a lot more sinister.

However as I'm seeing it so far there was a joke that wouldn't be far amiss in Family Guy or South Park, but for some reason is being banned.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Out of interest does the person that wrote this particular skit have a history of mocking the Jewish community?

I'm asking because if he has a pattern of just singling one group out to ridicule then the joke stops in my eyes as it's a lot more sinister.

However as I'm seeing it so far there was a joke that wouldn't be far amiss in Family Guy or South Park, but for some reason is being banned.

it's not being banned though is it. The guardian chose to remove it, they weren't compelled by law to do so. Public pressure is what made them remove it. That's not banning something

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it's not being banned though is it. The guardian chose to remove it, they weren't compelled by law to do so. Public pressure is what made them remove it. That's not banning something

Listening to a few people on the Internet is capitulation.

I mean that's not even public pressure when I doubt that most people didn't really care either way would be my guess.

But I am wondering why The Guardian had that skit on their Newspaper anyway? I didn't think that they knew what a joke was.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Listening to a few people on the Internet is capitulation.

I mean that's not even public pressure when I doubt that most people didn't really care either way would be my guess.

But I am wondering why The Guardian had that skit on their Newspaper anyway? I didn't think that they knew what a joke was.

it's about money, thats why they removed it.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it's about money, thats why they removed it.

But who's gonna stop reading a Newspaper because of a skit that they didn't like?

The Guardian have blown it way out of proportion imo, and should've told the 5 people trying to get it banned to politely **** off.

There's nothing wrong with disliking the skit btw (personally I didn't find it funny) but to be mortally wounded by it is bizarre imo, that's not aimed at you BOTS, that's just at people in general.

[Crimson Dynamo]