The modern take of public lynching has appeared to gotten out of hand in the last few years, people seem to get outraged very easily in this politically correct age. The problem is, for the most part, people are not genuinely offended by the subject of concern. They are easily susceptible sheep who’ve jumped on the bandwagon, thinking that taking a stand will make them morally better than those who see no harm or couldn’t give a toss. This is what social justice has turned into, less dialogue and cooperation between opposing parties and more hate and division between them instead.
Some of the people who partake these witch-hunts are career victimisers, namely left-wing pussies such as feminists. They want to be revolutionaries like the prominent figures who influence them, make a difference to the world and leave a legacy although they have no proper goals to achieve and are left to feed on scraps. The only way they can do it is trawl through everyday aspects of society and find remnants of anything that can be given discriminatory connotations.
Once a target has been acquired, they’ll create an online petition to get rid of the offending subject and spread it to the herd. If that is a success and the signatures keep racking up, the e-petition will gain coverage on the Huffington Post, followed by The Guardian and then the other big news outlets. This will pressure the party responsible for the concerning subject into buckling under the pressure and succumb to these people’s demands, where we witness civilisation getting pegged down by a couple of notches.
So many pseudo-Marxists who have no interest in getting into politics. Is it because their ideals would properly falter, perhaps?
What’s so worrying is the influence the press have over the public, if it wasn’t for them brewing up a shitstorm across the breadth of the country by instigating the head-calling of a prominent figure, hardly anyone would give a toss. These morons who are caught up in the media frenzy are easily manipulatable, unable to think independently and should be considered a risk to themselves.
They can’t think critically and don’t bother to look deeper into the story, instead jumping to conclusions by being force-fed by the press and looking like complete idiots when the story doesn’t turn out to be true. This is why pictures of food have to be accompanied with ‘serving suggestion’, common sense is an alien concept for them; you have to tell them 4 because asking them 2+2 would make their brains implode.
I feel that we are losing our fundamental right to free speech and expression whenever these morons get their way, being granted authority over something because they don’t like it; that’s bordering on the authoritarianism. So what if something upsets you? Life isn’t supposed to be tailored to meet the specifications of these over-entitled twats, learn to put up with it like the sensible folk do. It is doing more harm to society than good.
Let’s not forget we live in a world where people still question the Sunday Sport‘s journalistic credibility.
In 2014 alone, prominent figures that have been the subject of a massive public backlash, calling for their heads, but were conveniently forgotten about a week later include:
- Jeremy Clarkson
- Nigel Farage
- Richard Scudamore
- Ched Evans
- Dapper Laughs
Jeremy Clarkson this year was accused of racism TWICE, once in May and again in July, although the latter did garner some media coverage a couple of months prior. The first incident started by one of the red-top rags obtaining unbroadcast footage from Top Gear, where they accused him of saying ‘nigger’ when mumbling a nursery rhyme. The Mirror was the one with the discriminatory mindset and used it to play into the hands of its audience, by repeating a barely inaudible mumble and amplifying it would make people think Jezza appear more racist each time.
The newspaper can piss right off anyway, thinking it’s a self-righteous beacon of morality, when its editors have partook in hacking into celebrity’s phones for that juicy scoop. Rightly, the BBC brushed the uproar under the rug as nothing was breached. Perhaps it was unbroadcast for a reason, maybe to avert this exact controversy?
Jeremy Clarkson: The sworn enemy of the perpetual victim.
The second incident came from an episode broadcast over Christmas time last year, where the crew went to Burma to build a bridge over the Kok River. Clarkson stated there was a slope on their bridge, which Richard Hammond pointed out that it was uneven on one side. This didn’t seem to cause a fuss for another few months, probably when it was repeated on the digital channel Dave rather than the mainstream BBC Two. No one knew that ‘slope’ was a slur towards South East Asians, until someone with a victim complex said that he was definitely referring to a gentleman walking across the lopsided bridge at the time.
UKIP and its party members are always bombarded with the same old cries of racism and xenophobia in the run-up to an election. This time, it was the European elections where the party were the best-performing one. It was somehow forgotten after the vote, probably because the herd don’t have any interest in politics and were just jumping on what was cool at the time. The UK general election is next May so don’t be surprised if the usual suspects start spouting the same nonsense again, before not hearing a word from them afterwards.
Trying to shame UKIP only strengthens their stance and support.
Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore had his private emails leaked during the climax of the season by guess who? The social justice brigade at The Mirror again. The emails were deemed sexist by certain quarters but if you actually read those messages, you can see the jokey intentions and know they are not being serious. It’s feminism going too far, to simply put it, where women are so below men they are sacred and untouchable, as if they are privileged rather than “oppressed”.
This incident just shows how skewed some people’s perspective of morality are; being more outraged with the contents of a personal email — which are of no concern to them — than the fact that Scudamore’s privacy was breached, with his personal emails being leaked to the public. If you can support potentially illegal activities to combat morally questionable (yet legally fine) ones, you really need to re-evaluate your own judgement. It wasn’t that long ago either, when everyone was paranoid that we were being spied upon online and our own private information wasn’t really that secure, but it’s apparently alright if that personal information includes jokes you don’t like.
Footballer Ched Evans gained a bigger reputation when he got out of prison than he did going in, which I have already gone into great detail in. Some will never choose to understand what he did and the circumstances surrounding it, they will forever put him on par with the prolific sex offenders instead of admitting that he made a mistake and is very unlikely to become a repeat offender. He got the lowest possible sentence for a rape offence, five years, which does tell us about the severity of his actions on that night in May 2011. If I had a daughter, I’d much rather have her hanging around with Evans than the proper scumbags like Marlon King and Joey Barton. Most people who have heard of Ched Evans haven’t heard of the latter two footballers, despite the heinous acts they have committed. Why? Because baa.
The man who evaded social justice, or ‘social justice warriors are only swayed by media hype’.
These people hold Mike Tyson to a much higher regard than Evans, even though he’s another convicted rapist and has attempted cannibalism. Just ask the now-former Sheffield United patron Charlie Webster, who resigned from her role after the club allowed Ched to retrain there to maintain his fitness, she had no problem wanting to pose for a photo with Tyson and has since “regretted” saying it once her hypocrisy was brought to light. Have they heard of Ched’s partner in crime, Clayton McDonald, who was acquitted for his part in the same incident? I’m very doubtful, they think they know the whole story when they’ve only read one page.
Besides, he wants to go back into professional football. He’ll be in the public eye, unlike if he was considering to be a low-key office clerk. Although the chances of Evans committing such an act again are very slim, employment helps ex-convicts find their feet in society and reduces their chances of reoffending, it’s a logical paradox that the shepherds and their flock refuse to get their head around. He may be on licence and serving the second half of his term in the community, but the law still permits him to work, he doesn’t have any legal immunity which these people are trying to lead us to believe.
Footballers become professional at 16, when they finish secondary school, they miss sixth form/college because they have what higher education leads us a step closer to; a job and a nicely paid one at that. So the question is, where do the social justice mob expect him to work? It’s most likely jealousy from those who aren’t good enough to be given the opportunity to step into a job like which pays like football does.
Society forgives, or forgets, or doesn’t care if you’re a prominent name in your field.
King signed for Sheffield United last season but where was this backlash when this convicted sex offender and woman beater joined the club? Quite simply, there wasn’t one because the press didn’t give him any attention. There was a slight fury when he signed for Coventry City in 2010, after his release but that blew over when he started playing again. The same thing happened with Lee Hughes, after he was freed after causing death by dangerous driving but his coverage died a few weeks into his resurrected career, the same thing will happen to Ched Evans.
He hasn’t apologised for his actions because of the inconsistencies of the whole farce, how can one get away with doing the exact same thing as him, whilst he got convicted? I’m not sure if McDonald apologised but he doesn’t need to since he didn’t get locked up, Evans doing the same would potentially jeopardise his appeal process to clear his name. The whole judicial debacle is why Evans has his supporters, two different outcomes for two people committing the same act. I don’t think there has been a divisive court case in UK legal history, it’s the UK’s version of the O.J. Simpson case.
If his appeal is successful, will everyone forgive him and stop with this mob mentality or will they think that the justice system is victim blaming by clearing a convicted rapist like that, despite being oblivious to Clayton McDonald’s existence? My head is saying the latter, they won’t be able to accept they are brainwashed sheep otherwise it would contradict everything that went before them. Miscarriages of justice only work in their favour, apparently. There are people who refuse to accept the innocence of those wrongly accused of rape, calling them “not proven guilty” instead of ‘innocent’, which itself is victim blaming.
Well, at least they’re not disrespecting women.
Because he’s a footballer, many are concerned about Ched’s influence on the younger generation of aspiring footballers who may see him as a role model. That is a massive red herring and it’s highly subjective, those who’ve been suggesting that have no clue about football for the most part. We have Ryan Giggs, John Terry, Steven Gerrard, (Brazilian) Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Jaap Stam, Wayne Rooney and Luis Suarez — all big names and very talented footballers who have done stuff you’d be appalled if your child committed such acts.
Between them, they have; written off a sports car on a public road, started a brawl in a nightclub, slept with prostitutes of either the transvestite or senior variety, bitten people, committed adultery and sometimes with his sibling’s partner, spouted racial slurs, attacked a DJ for not playing Phil Collins, swore in front of a TV camera to millions in the middle of the afternoon, tested positive for steroids, joked about 9/11 to Americans not long after the attack. Not exactly behaviour we want our kids looking up to, is it?
It’s not too dissimilar to David Milliband stepping down from the Sunderland board when self-proclaimed fascist Paolo Di Canio became manager, everyone was caught up in the faux outrage. No one had a problem with him when he became manager of lowly Swindon Town in 2011, West Ham United fans still love him well after he made the fascist salute in Italy in 2005. No one today labels Di Canio a fascist because all that has long since blown over, no one cares and have most likely forgot about it.
Poor man’s Jay Cartwright, but who called for The Inbetweeners to be pulled?
Dapper Laughs is the comedic alter ego of Daniel O’Reilly, he has recently caused a shitstorm because his overly-exaggerated lad/geezer persona is highly misogynistic and, like it’s been read from an Alan Partridge script, has had his second series cancelled. It’s made obvious what kind of character he is, with a name like that. No one else uses the word ‘dapper’ apart from Cockneys and he has given him the second name ‘Laughs’, it’s weird how blind people can be to the painstakingly obvious when you choose to hate it. Despite being shown the axe, his rise to fame renders the online attention whores jealous; starting off on the microvlogging platform Vine to getting his on TV show on ITV.
Like many, I didn’t know who this Laughs geez was so having his series canned made him more famous than he ever was. I’ve seen trailers for his programme being promoted on the ITV channels but it seemed shit, now he is plastered all over the news complete with his little clips. I am a firm believer in the Streisand Effect, which is the ironic phenomenon of inadvertently giving something more exposure by concealing it. Has trying to push Dapper back into the unknown resulted in a spectacular own goal for the feminists?
Although Mr Laughs does not pass my funny test, the people who are complaining about him don’t know how comedy works. There are three aspects of comedy he successfully takes on board; going over-the-top, which is what makes slapstick work; satire, poking fun at the lad culture by going overboard with his caricature; and shock value, which separates the tame jokes from the risqué ones, there are more laughs in controversy.
Self-awareness is definitely lost on feminists.
I very much doubt that Laugh’s intention was to offend women, he was aiming to the crowd which use that god-awful slang on a regular basis; those who shave their heads around the sides and spend an hour making sure every single strand of hair on top stays in place, wasting another two hours moisturising their face and plucking their eyebrows — them sort of “lads”. That it actually offended certain people is what made his act funnier.
The time we live in is the reason why O’Reilly’s character got shot down like a Malaysian aeroplane so fast, we are not allowed to be edgy anymore because it would hurt someone’s feelings, which is like practically illegal now anyway. He’s since been grilled on national TV, namely on BBC’s Newsnight; a programme famed for pushing its feminist agenda in the name of “equality”. Presenter Emily Maitlis did nothing but create straw arguments, making bizarre claims and bold assumptions that the character insinuates his audience to rape, with no other reason apart from to shame the creator.
Feminists and other self-marginalised groups choose to get offended by the content of the material, not bothering to put an effort in understanding the intentions of the writer. A notable example of this has to be Brass Eye, too many people thought the programme was trivialising paedophilia rather than poking fun at the hysteria bubbled up by the press on such topics. In essence, show writer Chris Morris correctly predicted the reaction to his work without these cretins knowing, which was the genius of it. Thankfully, the sensible people who do see the intentions are in the majority, for now.
It was acceptable in the ’90s, up until 2002.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Alan Partridge or Al Murray’s Pub Landlord character would be kicked to the ground in this manner if they were created in the 2010s instead of the 1990s. Like Dapper; Partridge and the Pub Landlord are an extension of the actors who portray them. These comedy characters allow the actors to get away with saying certain things, which would otherwise result in them being condemned from all quarters.
Coogan’s and Murray’s characters are narrow-minded bigots but that’s why they’re much-loved, everyone knows they are caricatures of the traditional conservative man so why can’t O’Reilly get away with his take on the modern East Ender? Keith Lemon is just as misogynistic as Dapper but has received less criticism, Lemon has been Leigh Francis’ marquee character since 2008 but has been around since 2000, does he get away with it because he’s established and predates the PC age?
It’s pretty much the same with Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle; they’ve made jokes about rape and sexual assault, they’ve garnered some controversy for their routines but were never the victims of this sheepy lynch mob mentality. Most likely because they have the experience to put the dissenters firmly in their place and shut them up for good. The real sexists out there are the ones who predominantly judge people on their sex and genderise issues faced by people in general, those who do that more often than not are — surprise, surprise — feminists. It seems like the only way to combat sexism in this day and age is to be more sexist than the offender you’re calling out.