Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Frankie Boyle - disgusting man
114 Answers
He is at it again ..............
http://
How long is it before this disgusting man is silenced and loses his career.... soon I hope! Anyone who laughs at his vile jokes must be as sick as he is. Judging by my local paper, most people here in Leicestershire, where Madeline lived, are outraged!
http://
How long is it before this disgusting man is silenced and loses his career.... soon I hope! Anyone who laughs at his vile jokes must be as sick as he is. Judging by my local paper, most people here in Leicestershire, where Madeline lived, are outraged!
Answers
well all that happened was everyone went on his twitter page to see what it said, so what difference doe sit make that it was posted here? - you cant expect people to join in in outrage if they have no idea what was said!
Ann did the right thing letting us see what her post is about.
its hardly a secret so i dont see what difference it makes to repost on here.
Ann did the right thing letting us see what her post is about.
its hardly a secret so i dont see what difference it makes to repost on here.
12:03 Tue 02nd Oct 2012
Actually I don't think this is giving him loads of free publicity - or at least not GOOD publicity.
I know it's said there's no such thing as bad publicity, but it's also said there's an exception to every rule and this is one IMO ...
Surely most people who ever considered spending money on Frankie Boyle will be less likely to spend it now. Whereas if this comment hadn't been publicised, they might still be lining his pockets.
I know it's said there's no such thing as bad publicity, but it's also said there's an exception to every rule and this is one IMO ...
Surely most people who ever considered spending money on Frankie Boyle will be less likely to spend it now. Whereas if this comment hadn't been publicised, they might still be lining his pockets.
-- answer removed --
Mick-Talbot - I think I failed to make my point correctly.
The reason why I described your comparison as invalid is because of the difference in public personnas between Boyle and Jackson.
Jackson's personna is as a pop star - which means he makes music. His infamy is the result of activities unconnected with the reason for his fame.
Boyle personna is as a controversial comedian - he tells jokes. His infamy is because of those jokes which are the reason for his fame.
If you choose to boycott Jackson because of what you perceive as unacceptable behaviour, then fine, but that is not directly connected to the reason for his fame.
Some people are choosing to boycott Boyle because of his humour, which is perceived as crossing the line.
Everyone has a free choice - and amen to that.
My choice is to enjoy MJ's music, which I always have, and avoid Boyle, which i also always have, not because he offends me, but because he singularly fails to even make me smile, let alone laugh.
The reason why I described your comparison as invalid is because of the difference in public personnas between Boyle and Jackson.
Jackson's personna is as a pop star - which means he makes music. His infamy is the result of activities unconnected with the reason for his fame.
Boyle personna is as a controversial comedian - he tells jokes. His infamy is because of those jokes which are the reason for his fame.
If you choose to boycott Jackson because of what you perceive as unacceptable behaviour, then fine, but that is not directly connected to the reason for his fame.
Some people are choosing to boycott Boyle because of his humour, which is perceived as crossing the line.
Everyone has a free choice - and amen to that.
My choice is to enjoy MJ's music, which I always have, and avoid Boyle, which i also always have, not because he offends me, but because he singularly fails to even make me smile, let alone laugh.
i agree its different andy - but i think you're splitting hairs a bit ...
if you choose to boycott boyles shows in reaction to him basically being sick in the head and horrible - then you also should boycott mj in reaction to him being sick in the head and horrible - and a paedo.
in terms of crime level, being a paedo is much much worse than saying a few horrible things...
if you choose to judge celebrities on what they do in their 'private' lives rather than the actually quality of their shows then you should judge them all
lets not forget, boyles comment may have been public - but its isnt part of his act or part of a show - it was a comment made on his personal twitter page
if you choose to boycott boyles shows in reaction to him basically being sick in the head and horrible - then you also should boycott mj in reaction to him being sick in the head and horrible - and a paedo.
in terms of crime level, being a paedo is much much worse than saying a few horrible things...
if you choose to judge celebrities on what they do in their 'private' lives rather than the actually quality of their shows then you should judge them all
lets not forget, boyles comment may have been public - but its isnt part of his act or part of a show - it was a comment made on his personal twitter page
joko - I agree and hold my hands up to being something of a pedant.
But the differences are important -
Frankie Boyle sets out with the deliberate intention of causing a reaction - be that amusment, offence, or in some cases - both.
Michael Jackson has not been convicted of any offences of paedophilia.
Of course, anyone is entitled to boycott either / both / neither entertainers, but only one is actively seeking such a reaction - and only one is promoting their new DVD for the Christmas market.
But the differences are important -
Frankie Boyle sets out with the deliberate intention of causing a reaction - be that amusment, offence, or in some cases - both.
Michael Jackson has not been convicted of any offences of paedophilia.
Of course, anyone is entitled to boycott either / both / neither entertainers, but only one is actively seeking such a reaction - and only one is promoting their new DVD for the Christmas market.
i agree its different - but intent or not, paedophilia is still worse than wanting to offend people with a few word ...
on another site someone said that in some strange roundabout way, the fact that it 'could' be just a publicity stunt could be said to make him somewhat less of a twart - because it means he doesn't really mean it inside - hes just doing it for publicity ... thats if you are judging him in moral way.
but you could also say its worse, because hes offended many, just to get more sales ... always 2 ways to view things i suppose.
i cant see it being a stunt simply because as evidenced on here, people will now steer clear in droves ... if it is, it backfired
on another site someone said that in some strange roundabout way, the fact that it 'could' be just a publicity stunt could be said to make him somewhat less of a twart - because it means he doesn't really mean it inside - hes just doing it for publicity ... thats if you are judging him in moral way.
but you could also say its worse, because hes offended many, just to get more sales ... always 2 ways to view things i suppose.
i cant see it being a stunt simply because as evidenced on here, people will now steer clear in droves ... if it is, it backfired
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.