• The post you are reporting:
   
  No need to be disappointed Roger, I was actually being facetious(which doesn't necessarily convey well in the written word). Ross and Brand's behaviour was unacceptable, but then so is that of the other mentioned on this thread, purely on the basis that it has caused offence. For this reason we need to attempt to address what is acceptable and what is not by dialectic debate, not to called short by people suggesting things are boring. This is how we define ourselves as a society.
  
  The ambiguity of the Daily Mail mentality is a problem: "if it wasn't offensive then, why now?" and "this is PC gone mad!" By adopting this attitude of suggesting that what is offensive cannot change, we could say that the Daily Mail are still supportive of the British Union of Fascists, or Adolf Hitler. If this was the case then, why not now? Things change (not necessarily for better or worse the latter being a Daily Mail focus) and once a childs toy, or a word that had no offence intended, can evolve or take on a different meaning or signifier!

Report Post

Your Name

Reason