It costs a lot when there isn’t consistency or a line to know what’s deemed acceptable and what isn’t. This isn’t a genuine apology because somebody’s worried they’ve offended a group of people in the heat of the moment, this is a case of a big business protecting their brand at a time where race debate is everywhere you look, for something that has never been brought into question until now.
You might see it as progressive or moving with the times but I see it as yet more ammunition to create divide amongst people, which is becoming very damaging. It’s never been so toxic. Every other article in the news is about how something might be racist and it absolutely translates to social media. It dilutes genuine racism that exists everyday.
Once you start censoring humour or removing certain groups from it inconsistently, people don’t know what is or isn’t acceptable.
Take Ricky Gervais as an example - he has a go at everybody and is incredibly controversial in a very ironic way, but if I were to put you in charge of the editing of his Fame stand up show where he mocks overweight people, white trash chavs, teenage cancer victims, people with autism, African people, Muslims and Christians, which of it would you edit out or deem worthy of an apology?
You could argue absolutely all of them..... but his whole career has been built around mocking everything and everyone, which is why from a controversial perspective, he’s actually one of the least divisive.
He’s an extreme example, but you’re more likely to create harmony amongst people by showing that nobody is exempt from comedic scrutiny.
