Sorry for the double post; I missed the quoted reply below.
There are still certain usages for the term "spastic" which would be considered correct, but there's also a tricky area. As in the use of the word "slope" in the Top Gear episode, it could be defended by insisting it referred to the level of the bridge, where the intent was actually offensive. This is done with numerous terms.
That's one of the problems when people use terms in an offensive fashion - people who would like to (or used to) use them 'properly' and non-offensively are no longer able to because of the associated stigma. It's unfortunate, but that's the way things are.
Sounds similar to the Ron Atkinson controversy. Sure, these are openly racist remarks.
I suppose it can be funny, but I don't really enjoy that kind of comedy. I prefer people who don't need to pick on differences or minorities to get their laughs (such as Stewart Lee, Dave Gorman, Charlie Brooker and Demetri Martin). Also see the John Thomson character Bernard Righton above.
I don't buy this "<x> hates everyone equally" defence. It's been used a number of times before (by Bernard Manning in particular). It's such a weak defence against the act of intentionally trying to create offence by singling out particular attributes (skin colour, sex, nationality etc).
When Stewart Lee did his Comedy Vehicle episode on "Political Correctness Gone Mad" he said that a generation of people had somehow confused or equated political correctness with health & safety legislation. At the time, I didn't buy that notion and I thought it was a bit weak. Now that I've seen the observational comedy "genius" Billy Connolly do it I've got to change my opinion on the Stewart Lee routine. Health & Safety legislation and political correctness are not related.
So, let's sum up Connolly's routine there:
Political correctness is wrong because he can't make jokes about disabled people, a menu used the term "wait person" rather than "waiter", "person hole cover" is so much worse than "manhole cover" (the facts that terms like "utility hole" or "maintenance hole" are more appropriate and that even person hole cover is more accurate since not everyone who uses them is male are incidental, of course) and he was woken by the beep of a reversing lorry (really, has anyone here been woken by that?). Really? Also, politically correct people are "at the controls". At the controls of what?
Also, saying that people who support political correctness are "beigeists" is pretty laughable.
Ultimately, political correctness is about trying not to needlessly cause offence to people, by respecting them as people. What's wrong with that, really?
I agree that it's difficult to know where to draw the line and it can also be tricky to keep up with 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' words and phrases. Ironically, part of this problem is because of people/groups taking words and using them as insults. A couple of examples would be "spastic" and "retard". These were terms used generally by medical professionals for specific situations. Members of the general public latched onto them and started to use them either intentionally as bullying terms intended to cause emotional harm (especially in the case of the word "spastic") or as a jocular term used in a similar fashion to casually racist terms (e.g. "You're such a retard!"). The use of the word "spastic" (particularly in the UK) would now generally be frowned upon unless it was medically relevant or in relation to, for example, the former name of "Scope". "Retard" is still used quite liberally, but it's another term which can be considered offensive.
With regards to shortened terms for nationality (such as "Aussie" and "Scot"), again, these are open to interpretation and should take into account historical usage. For instance, "Aussie Mark Webber" and "Scot Andrew Murray" are acceptable but "Paki Imran Khan" wouldn't be. This is largely because of the negative history of the term "Paki" (especially in the UK) as being intentionally offensive to Pakistanis (and other Asians, since racists ironically aren't particularly adept at identifying different nationalities).
I'm sure there are non-white comedians who tell blatantly racist and/or casually racist jokes too, but I'm unfamiliar with them. I don't tend to go out of my way to view people who are intentionally offensive, so my knowledge of that particular group isn't the best.
What's more important is whether the Top Gear team knew what they were doing. As I said above, they count on ignorance and apathy to get away with these types of things.
I find it difficult to find an answer for that sort of comment.
I haven't watched a full episode of Top Gear in several years. That doesn't mean I've given up the ability to complain about its content and find it offensive. Again, as I said above, I'm annoyed by the impact of the jokes in creating a more permissive society for racist/offensive jokes.
One thing I don't really understand is that during the worst of the recent blown diffuser period (2011) many of the cars sounded absolutely terrible under braking. Much, much worse than the current V6s do at any time. We didn't really hear that many complaints. Imagine if you turned up at a GP and you heard this.
Last edited by amp88, .
Reason : Changed "most" to "many"
Hence why I've been using the qualifier "casual". It's certainly true that people are still killed or attacked for being the 'wrong' colour, but the majority of society rightly sees that sort of violence as morally repugnant an undeniably wrong. Nowhere have I directly equated Top Gear's casual racism with that sort of flagrant racism. What Top Gear's casual racism does, though, is to help to create a permissive society where casual racism and other groups of offensive terms (such as the 'fatty' example above) are more acceptable and seen as totally different to flagrant racism, rather than just a diluted version.
I would neither cry nor take to Twitter. I'd just think it was wrong and add it to the catalogue of stupidity that the Top Gear team had spouted in the last few years. What if Top Gear said "There's a fatty on it" and the next day at school groups of children were all running around shouting "there's a fatty on it" and directing it with malice at the fat pupils. Would you think the actions of those children were right or wrong? Is it still funny when it's directed at a person and it's said in anger? Or is it only funny when it's not really directed at anyone on a TV programme? Of course, I'm not suggesting that if Top Gear didn't use racial slurs and other offensive terms no-one else would, but their actions can definitely be viewed in terms of creating a permissive society where insults are seen as "funny" and accepted.
There are a number of comics who made a living on saying the most offensive, non-PC things they could think up. People like Bernard Manning, Roy Chubby Brown and Andrew Dice Clay. The world would be a better place if they'd tried to think of innovative ways to get their laughs, rather than degenerating to the level where they picked on people who were different and appealed to the crowd that likes that sort of thing. Top Gear are certainly verging on that category, if they're not already there.
"Fatty" wouldn't be the 'same' as "slope", but it would still be offensive, for me. As I said, I believe in political correctness. The Top Gear team are just too lazy to actually think up some funny scenarios/jokes, so they fall back on the easy low-hanging material.
I think a large part of the reason we have such different opinions on the use of the word "slope" in particular is that it may be significantly more common in the UK than where you are. Although Top Gear is seen in a large number of countries (through BBC Worldwide and on teh Internetz) it remains primarily a programme for a UK audience. I'm sure there are a number of jokes and references that many people outside the UK wouldn't get (unless you're really immersed in 'British culture'). I'm sure there are some racist/offensive terms in Estonia which I've never heard of before, so if you were to say them to me I'd have no idea what they meant. I'm sorry, but this doesn't excuse the behaviour of the Top Gear team one bit.
See above reply.
Also, in more general terms, I'm a strong believer in political correctness. I don't believe it's OK to add casual racism in a TV broadcast because you think it might raise a few chuckles with BNP voters. The fact that some of the audience don't understand that the term is racist doesn't excuse the Top Gear team, who you be assured do understand.
edit: Also, your idea that you can only rightfully be offended by racism if you're in the 'target' group is ludicrous. This notion is one I really struggle to understand.
Allow me some latitude here. Say the bridge was totally level and there was a Chinese person walking across it. Would you find it funny if Clarkson said "This is a proud moment, but there's a chink on it."? What about if there was a black person on it and Clarkson had said "This is a proud moment, but there's a **** on it."? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have found those funny (well...I'd hope you wouldn't anyway).
So, if you see the comment in this context (i.e. that it was actually casual racism and that the "out" that was available (the bridge was sloped/slanted/not level) was just cover for the casual racism) then you can probably see why some people think it's wrong. It's just the latest in a pattern of remarks which the Top Gear presenters have made which have obviously been intended to cause controversy and offence. Read this column by Steve Coogan and you'll get some more background. Note that the column is a few years old now, so it obviously doesn't contain some of the recent examples.
Note: In this post I've obviously used racist terms intentionally. I didn't use them gratuitously or intending to cause offence. I used a '1' in the place of the 'i' to get around the swear filter.
The "Gran Torino" in the quote there is the Clint Eastwood film Gran Torino, in which there are a number of slurs and casual racist terms. "Slope" isn't just an understood term in the UK.
"Slope" is definitely a well-understood racist term in the UK. I'm not saying everyone in the UK knows it, but it's certainly widespread. The fact that the Top Gear team have been quite open with their casual racism in the past means it's impossible to think that Clarkson didn't know exactly what he was saying when he used the word "slope". That it could be interpreted as meaning the bridge wasn't level means he has an "out", but that there was someone on the bridge at the time means it's very likely it was casual racism.
I actually prefer the V6s there. The V8s were always a poor replacement for the V10s that came in the years before. I never grew to really enjoy it from 2006-2013. The nuances of the V6 sound better to me (especially from onboards, not as much from trackside), but a bit of a volume increase would be good. The fact that you can now hear the spectator reactions and tyre squeal above the engine noise is also pretty cool. Good riddance to the wall of boring noise that typified the V8s.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else. More people voted for RUF than Subaru or Nissan. The people who voted for RUF are entitled to their opinions too, and democracy sort of works, so...
Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you should throw insults at people.
I don't think this is a fair comparison because of the emphasised section in the quote above. If we're to believe Horner then the fuel flow sensor was indeed a problem before the first race. The fact that the sensor was replaced (changed for a different one then changed again back to the original sensor) during the weekend is further evidence of this. In effect the teams were going into the race knowing that a critical measuring device (ho hyperbole) was unraliable (according to Horner).
This is different from, for example, the injectors, which (again, according to Horner) were reliable:
I take your wider point about other controlled items, but what's important to note is that the mandated fuel flow sensor appears (again, according to Horner) to have been a problem for numerous teams, both in pre-season testing and during the race weekend at Melbourne.
I'm not sure about the validity of this point with regards to the ballistic shield, but it's certainly true for the Lotus nose and McLaren rear suspension.
Sure, the teams are obviously going to have more contact with the FIA than we know about.
Right, but if the sensors really aren't reliable across the pitlane why would the teams agree to race? They're effectively putting their time, effort and huge budgets in the hands of a faulty sensor. If it really was such a big issue the teams surely would have got together and lobbied the FIA en masse (exploiting the media, if necessary) to get changes made before the first race.
I'll be interested to follow the story going forward. I want to know how many of the other teams believe the sensors are unreliable, and when they first formed that opinion.
I'm glad you included the pitot tube example. The reason why I'm glad is that the pitot tube doesn't really have an impact from a legality point (as far as I'm aware they aren't homologated FIA parts and their readings aren't used in an official capacity), but the fuel flow sensor most certainly does, in a very critical fashion. We've already seen Red Bull lose a 2nd place position and a chunk of points (pending appeal) and it's only the first race. If Red Bull (and many other teams, as Horner suggests) were struggling with these sensors from pre-season testing they obviously knew the importance they were going to play in the season and they should have forced the issue with the FIA. If they truly believed they weren't accurate/consistent/reliable enough to be used in the championship races they definitely should have made more of a point about it.
The reason why we should have heard stories from testing is that we heard lots of stories about other technical/legality aspects (e.g. the Ferrari turbo ballistic shield, the Lotus 'twin' nose (staggered tips) and McLaren's rear suspension). In the past when teams have perceived legality issues they've been quick to involve the media as a means of applying additional pressure to the FIA (think back to a couple of years ago when the FIA were forced to change the wing deflection tests after a 'flexi' front wing "scandal" got coverage in the press).
Last edited by amp88, .
Reason : Added inverted commas around the word "scandal" in the last sentence
I'm just wondering why we never heard loads of stories from the pre-season testing about these terrible sensors. Obviously I understand Horner has to play things up, but if there's any truth to his comments (that the sensors were so faulty some were running without them in the race) it just seems like we'd have had those kinds of problems in Jerez and Bahrain already. It seems like the best time to highlight these problems to the FIA is during pre-season testing rather than at the first race when you've got points on the line.
Can you provide any details as to how exactly this isn't working (e.g. steps you're following to try and get it running, relevant log files, error messages etc)?
Bland - just like the Williams Martini livery. I appreciate that they can't go too far (risking alienating sponsors and what-not), but it's disappointing to see what they've made of the opportunities they have. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory seems apt.
There are some cases of Formula/open wheel and Sportscar/Prototypes lifting off the ground whilst travelling backwards/sideways. However, the likely cause for the lift is air rushing underneath the car (either under the diffuser/floor when travelling backwards or the side skirts when travelling sideways), rather than travelling over the wings 'backwards' (as Tristan referenced earlier). Perhaps the clearest example of this behaviour unfortunately comes in the form of a fatal crash for Toru Takahashi at Fuji in 1983. It's the clearest example (that I know of anyway) because there are no other cars, punctures or kerbs involved that could cloud the issue.
I'm not sure I understand your post, but it sounds to me as though you currently only have access to demo license cars (XFG, XRG and FBM)? If this is the case, you'll have to unlock LFS to allow access to the S1 and S2 license content. What does it say in the bottom right hand corner of your LFS home screen? If it says "Unlock Live for Speed" click on that button and enter your LFS username and GAME password to unlock S1+S2 content.