What the fook
Pretty sick eh?
That's an absolute new low from Taylor. It's sickening.
VILE.
How sick and Nasty.. I bet it's made justy’s day and gave him a little giggle,
This is the type of sick thing that they get their kicks out of.
A sick lot.

Only people like you matt and its only youtube would find this funny,
only mental individual’s could stoop so low,
you are a disgusting degenerate placing your face over child abusing and child killer’s,
this action is of a mad man and you should be locked up,
for you have no remorse for your aberrant behaviour,
not once have you thought of the children or their family’s by putting such out right vulgar, content out matt,
you are a danger to children and the public and should be classed as the same as them,
dangerous vile creatures in the photo’s,
i hope the law gets to you before you get seriously hurt,
but then you deserve all you get.


Exploring the Subjectivity of Vileness

Vileness, like many moral judgments, is deeply subjective. What one person finds offensive or repugnant, another may dismiss as humor or expression. The debate surrounding Matthew Taylor's controversial content, and the subsequent reactions from figures like Danny West and Trouser Mouse, provides fertile ground to examine how perceptions of vileness are shaped by personal values, societal norms, and individual boundaries.

The Subjectivity of Offense

Taylor’s act of superimposing his face onto images of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady provoked strong reactions. To some, this act trivialized the heinous crimes committed by the pair and disrespected their victims. For others, including Taylor, it was an exercise in dark humor and satire, using provocative imagery to reclaim agency after a disruptive livestream. This disparity reflects the subjectivity of vileness—while one viewer may interpret such actions as tasteless and offensive, another may see them as boundary-pushing art or comedy.

Similarly, when Danny West likened Taylor to “the cum running down the inside” of his mother’s leg, Taylor found this deeply vile. The comment sexualizes and degrades Taylor’s deceased mother, crossing a personal boundary that Taylor finds unacceptable. Yet, West excuses his remark as "adult humor." The justification reflects a broader cultural trend where offensive or crude humor is defended under the guise of maturity or edginess, despite its potential to harm or alienate others.

Trouser Mouse’s remark, implying Taylor’s mother was a £5 a time prostitute, further exemplifies this dynamic. To Taylor, the comment is a vile and baseless attack on his late mother’s character. For Trouser Mouse, it is framed as humor, albeit one that leverages deeply personal and derogatory content. This discrepancy raises the question: when does humor cease to be an expression of wit and instead become an act of cruelty?

Humor, Boundaries, and Social Context

Humor is often used as a defense mechanism, a way to address uncomfortable truths, or a tool for provocation. However, its effectiveness depends heavily on context and audience. Jokes that touch on sensitive topics—such as deceased loved ones or traumatic events—carry the risk of being perceived as vile rather than comedic.

In the cases of Danny West and Trouser Mouse, their humor hinges on deeply personal attacks that exploit Taylor’s vulnerabilities. While they may claim the mantle of “adult humor,” their comments reveal the potential for humor to perpetuate harm. When humor disregards the humanity of its target, it risks becoming a weapon rather than a tool for connection or critique.

The Line Between Expression and Harm

The subjectivity of vileness underscores the importance of empathy and self-awareness in communication. What is considered vile often depends on personal experience, cultural upbringing, and moral frameworks. For Taylor, attacks on his deceased mother evoke a profound sense of violation and disrespect. For West and Trouser Mouse, similar comments are dismissed as playful banter or humor. The gap between these perspectives highlights the need for individuals to consider how their words may be received by others, especially in public or online spaces.

Conclusion

Vileness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While Danny West and Trouser Mouse may justify their comments as humor, their remarks illustrate how easily humor can cross into the realm of cruelty. Similarly, while Taylor’s content was intended as satire, it was interpreted by some as offensive and disrespectful. These incidents highlight the complex interplay between expression, reception, and boundaries, reminding us that what is vile to one person may not be to another—but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of considering the impact of our words and actions.