More flames expected later .
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Daesh Furious That They Cannot Claim Credit For Tower Block Fire
(30 posts) (13 voices)
Current rating::
-
I know we all follow the news a little obsessively, and want to be first with a 'good' story. And I appreciate that there's a bit of competition to be prolific.
However, there are two filters missing here:
1. The taste filter - as people have noted, it's close to home, it's happening now - comedy is tragedy + distance/time (take your pick), and there's none of either with this one
2. The funny filter - is it funny? Sadly not on this occasionAppreciate that my comments have just bumped it unintentionally. Titus, if you wish to respond, could you open a fresh thread in the Other Place so we don't keep bumping a less-than-sparkling sub?
Posted 3 years ago # -
If you don't like it, ignore it.
Interesting to see that for a long time, it did not receive an expected one star, despite critical comments. So much for the usual excuses offered on behalf of the cowardly anonymous One Star Wuss.
But now it appears to have received more than one star from at least one reader.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No, I don't mind lack of comment (I have got very used to it!)
What pisses me off is wankers who go to all the trouble of condemning a post by awarding a single star, but who do so anonymously and state no reason for their disapproval. That has got to be utterly pointless.
The stupidity of doing that is illustrated by the contrast in the case of this thread, where readers made their disapproval (and their reasons) for it very clear, before anyone bothered to award a single star.
Watch and learn, cowardly anonymous One-Star-Wuss.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The one starring without comment is a side issue here. The point being raised in the comments is about the content. My view is that it is crass and insensitive. Yes, anyone is free to ignore it but if you put the post up there, surely you are welcoming and inviting comments. I think the one-stars are telling you something about what people think of the post - multiple one stars by the look of things rather than a single one
Posted 3 years ago # -
I've been avoiding wading in here, if only to deprive it of the oxygen it doesn't deserve. But as it keeps floating to the top I may as well put my pole in the sand.
Apart from the very valid points made throughout this thread, there is an issue that if we, as a comedic community, are seen to consider this sub as suitable for a comedic site then all of us are likely to be judged by those who stray onto the Writer's Room, including advertisers. That threatens the existence of a valuable writing resource I don't think should be squandered.
By its very nature satire is often edgy and many of us have admitted we've got close to the line/crossed it in the past. Most of us self regulate - we put something up that's inappropriate and then take it down rapidly. I know I have and hoped nobody was looking at the time. That should have happened today.
If we fail to recognise that something could be too offensive, others tell us, and in the main most contributors take it down - there's a six hour window so most have an opportunity, and in this case there clearly was an opportunity. It seems that Titus, once again, refuses to listen to the community. It's hard to make this sound anything other than personal, because it almost always boils down to the same person.
I'll make this clear. The line is neither funny nor appropriate. It is grossly insensitive and once again Titus should be thoroughly ashamed to defend it (and keeping it up in the face of the comments from the community is defending it). None of us can force him to remove it - it's probably past the edit point now. I haven't one starred it, it doesn't merit that much, like many of his one-liners
Posted 3 years ago # -
And it is not for the first time. As to Titus "defending" it, he isn't he has just been deflecting answering the criticism by banging on about anonymous one star ratings. So either he has no argument, or he doesn't care because he has no empathy for the victims, who are in hospital with terrible injuries, grieving relatives, and those who do not know where their loved ones are.
So Titus, do you think that this was a good idea or are you now properly ashamed of yourself?
Answer the question.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Reaction to this ticker is largely nonsense and double standards.
The ticker is valid satire. The ticker mocks Daesh and does not make a joke about the tower block fire itself. Satire can be serious. Satire does not have to be funny.
This forum had countless posts and jokes about Ebola during the outbreak, and some were published. This forum had posts about refugees drowning when that was happening, and some were published. Were those "insensitive", or were the victims far enough away to make those subjects acceptable?
Posted 3 years ago # -
This forum had countless posts and jokes about Ebola during the outbreak, and some were published. This forum had posts about refugees drowning when that was happening, and some were published. Were those "insensitive", or were the victims far enough away to make those subjects acceptable?
A valid point, and probably some were insensitive. However one of the facets of satire is to point out things that might go unnoticed or even help push change. The Ebola outbreak needed press (and satire) coverage to be taken seriously and the same still goes for the refugees drowning. There is a minor point in this sub about DAESH claiming responsibility for anything (a subject tackled with humour a few days ago), but the point is nobody was unaware about the suffering in London today in this country and this post didn't push that knowledge further.
There is a very serious discussion needed over fire safety in tower blocks - I have a background in fire safety enforcement and sadly wasn't too surprised by the events of the last twenty four hours, in a similar way that I wasn't too surprised at the London and Manchester attacks. That subject will probably be debated in the chat room (it should be debated in Parliament), and there will probably be subs around the topic, hopefully aimed at the people who defend not protecting the residents - Wren has made a start today and I expect it will continue. If the line had been less clumsily written after the fire had been put out and the bodies buried then maybe it would have just been ignored. If it had targeted the people who allow shoddy fire safety in tower blocks, then it would have been fair game. But again it looked like Titus was targeting the victims, not the perpetrators.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nah, play the man, not the ball. It's much more fun to criticise and try to insult a poster than to address any points they make. I suspect that the insults usually spring from critics who don't like what has been written but find they are unable to assemble an effective argument against it.
It is interesting to see that only one or two posters in this thread so far have understood the very simple point it makes. Others seem to have concentrated on inventing things which it did not say, goodness knows why. (Just one example to illustrate this invention of things I did not say: "But again it looked like Titus was targeting the victims, not the perpetrators." Where / when / how did I target the victims? It was specifically about the perpetrators.) Yet once again, all I can say is 'Try reading what I actually wrote' rather than try to invent things I did not say.
[I had no great wish to bump this, but since other have already done so - repeatedly - I will take this opportunity to reply.]
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'll partly defend Titfuck here.
Clearly the 'joke' - which is pretty feeble - is about Daesh/ISIS, who nobody sees as not a legitimate target for humour - even though what they do and what they are both about as unfunny as can be.
Clearly too, the issue of 'too soon' is purely subjective. Those who lost relatives in the fire probably won't ever think it's a suitable subject to joke about, even with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, you won't stop people making jokes about disasters and t'web has speeded that process up to the max.
And clearly too, Titfuck is a narcissistic attention seeker whose main and successful aim was to be the centre of attention as usual.
Posted 3 years ago # -
rackstraw: so I suppose I should have waited until their bodies had been extinguished - that would have made all the difference, wouldn't it? Of course it was (and still is - the dead and bereaved still remain dead and bereaved now, don't they?) a horrific, tragic disaster. And so are any similar incidents, whether caused by human error, neglect or incompetence or by natural forces, or by loony religious fanatics. That, as most people swiftly grasped, was my whole point.
Oxy: yes, play the man, not the ball. Anyone who posts anything anywhere is obviously a narcissistic attention seeker, aren't they - unless, presumably, they post something which you happen to agree with.
Al: the fact that the answer isn't already blindingly obvious to you indicates that you would probably struggle to understand the simple word 'no' even if I posted it.
_ _ _In order to avoid being accused of further bumping my own thread, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank all those of you who took the trouble to read and to think about what I actually posted, had the intelligence to understand it and had the courage to express their own views instead of inventing things I did not say and joining in the baying, unthinking, outraged, self-righteous, witch-hunting mob.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You are a BTL Tory landlord who - judging by your remarks - despises anybody less fortunate than yourself.
I think that probably covers it.
Sadly with you Titus, it's not about the humour it's all about the attention.
Constantly checking to see the latest response, the latest comments.
First on in the morning, last out at night.
You own Newsbiscuit now, you turned it into your own little echo chamber.
Pitiful really.Posted 3 years ago # -
I ask again.
OK, if you're so thick that I have to spell it out for you in 2 and 3 letter words:
Titus, do you think that this was a good idea
Yes.
or are you now properly ashamed of yourself?
No.
I now await your complaint that this reply was too complicated for you to understand. I really, honestly, cannot make it any simpler, I'm afraid.
[Note to any grown-ups reading this: apologies for bumping this again, but Al was really beginning to get on my tits. Blame him.]
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.