Also In The News

[Guest MattP]

Britain to grow faster than Germany over the next couple of years.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-20/brexit-international-monetary-fund-forecast-imf-britain-growth/

 

Despite Brexit, obviously. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I wasnt saying Bercow isn't entitled to an opinion - I was bemused you only thought and didn't know what he thought of Brexit!

 

 

I only thought, rather than knew he was anti-Brexit because....

- I hadn't seen that article you linked to, in which he came out as anti-Brexit after standing down, so had never seen him express a view on the subject

- I didn't see his actions to stop Govt forcing its will on Parliament over Brexit as anti-Brexit; I saw them as pro-parliamentary democracy, regardless of his personal views (I presume he's a liberal "Tory" now, like Grieve or Clarke, having started off as Hard Right)

 

Anyway, whatever the flaws in our democratic processes, democracy and events have moved on now, as you say. 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Nothing wrong with punching down - that's equality for you. Interestingly Ricky Gervais touched on that in his interview with Andrew Doyle (Titania McGrath) last month.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/comedy-in-the-era-of-twitter-outrage-an-interview-with-ricky-gervais/

 

The counter-argument to Ricky’s view that anything can be a subject for comedy is that a comic must always ‘punch up’, and that by joking about trans or race issues Ricky is taking aim at the marginalised. ‘There are lots of things wrong with that. Who decides what’s punching up and punching down? I have a routine [in his new stand-up tour, Supernature] about these comedians writing articles in the Guardian, trying to set the rules of comedy, insisting that we should never punch down. And I say sometimes you’ve got to punch down. Like if you’re beating up a disabled toddler.’

You'd like to think that people would be able to tell the difference between a rather obvious one-liner like Ricky's there and a deliberate act of punching down/degradation as that TSA worker engaged in, but who knows?

 

I'm going to defer to the late great Terry Pratchett on this one: "Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying."

 

Of course people should be free to take the piss out of whatever they like, but if they're going after someone with less power than them, then expect them to be called out for being pretty mean-spirited and uncaring about those without that power and they should take such criticism about it on the chin rather than whining about it themselves. Seeing as they're not those "snowflakes" and all.

[StanSP]

Aww

 

 

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

You'd like to think that people would be able to tell the difference between a rather obvious one-liner like Ricky's there and a deliberate act of punching down/degradation as that TSA worker engaged in, but who knows?

 

I'm going to defer to the late great Terry Pratchett on this one: "Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying."

 

Of course people should be free to take the piss out of whatever they like, but if they're going after someone with less power than them, then expect them to be called out for being pretty mean-spirited and uncaring about those without that power and they should take such criticism about it on the chin rather than whining about it themselves. Seeing as they're not those "snowflakes" and all.

Laughing at the absurdity of a situation isnt the same as laughing at what happened - that TSA worker story was posted on the Sky News opinion page and the laughing emoji was top but I doubt everyone was actually laughing at the American Indian themselves.

 

I think the wider point is that we arent going to let Guardian columnists set the rules of comedy.

 

It's obviously part of a wider cause but the anti-woke backlash has delighted me. I'm surprised just how quickly it's happened but when you end up living in a World where a trans "woman" is trying to sue a business for not waxing their testicles the point where most normal people have had enough has surely been reached.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

Aww

It will just be sent back.

 

Quite amusing thinking now at all those people laughing because Boris couldn't win a vote six months ago. He's now going to win every single one he puts forward.

Edited 21 January 2020 by MattP

[mabrah]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

It will just be sent back.

Yep, all rather token really.

 

But I guess they (the Lords) has to go through the motions... send a signal or something... whatever the signal might be (redundancy?)

[Innovindil]

That time of the month again. Can't even be arsed to post the link, we all know the drill by now. Record employment, wages rising by a fat wedge vs inflation. Etc etc. 

 

We just need a round of brexit hasn't happened yet and we can chalk it off for this month. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Laughing at the absurdity of a situation isnt the same as laughing at what happened - that TSA worker story was posted on the Sky News opinion page and the laughing emoji was top but I doubt everyone was actually laughing at the American Indian themselves.

 

I think the wider point is that we arent going to let Guardian columnists set the rules of comedy.

 

It's obviously part of a wider cause but the anti-woke backlash has delighted me. I'm surprised just how quickly it's happened but when you end up living in a World where a trans "woman" is trying to sue a business for not waxing their testicles the point where most normal people have had enough has surely been reached.

You're right, it isn't - but how many are doing one and how many are doing the other, I wonder? It's difficult to tell and as such rather easier to be assumed that one is doing the latter rather than the former, given the various examples of systematic discrimination throughout history.

 

Just as Guardian columnists shouldn't set the rules of comedy, nor should Mail/Telegraph readers set the rules of morality. Which brings me to the last paragraph...

 

Some folks might be overjoyed at the idea of a "return to normalcy" (or what they define as "normal", anyhow) but it's rather amazing (in a car-crash way) how many people think that is good news for anyone other than a rather small set of people - as if history isn't full of examples of wholesale marginalisation, oppression and outright violence based on entirely arbitrary designations of demographic and anyone who wasn't the right "type" basically lived the entirety of their life in fear of what load of trouble would come next.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a regression to the Republic of Gilead is imminent, but a return even in small part to that kind of morality is going to marginalise (or keep marginalised) a lot of people who actually have little power and threaten next to no one. If that's someone's idea of a morally acceptable society, then so be it - but that's a bit twisted IMO.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51189430

 

Hypocrisy, Gambler's Ruin Fallacy and short-term self-interest in one package. Top bombing, Mr President.

[Kopfkino]

On 20/01/2020 at 19:18, MattP said:

Nothing wrong with punching down - that's equality for you. Interestingly Ricky Gervais touched on that in his interview with Andrew Doyle (Titania McGrath) last month.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/comedy-in-the-era-of-twitter-outrage-an-interview-with-ricky-gervais/

 

The counter-argument to Ricky’s view that anything can be a subject for comedy is that a comic must always ‘punch up’, and that by joking about trans or race issues Ricky is taking aim at the marginalised. ‘There are lots of things wrong with that. Who decides what’s punching up and punching down? I have a routine [in his new stand-up tour, Supernature] about these comedians writing articles in the Guardian, trying to set the rules of comedy, insisting that we should never punch down. And I say sometimes you’ve got to punch down. Like if you’re beating up a disabled toddler.’

Or as Simon Evans says "If something is funny it is funny regardless of where it sits in some theoretical oppression matrix dreamed up in a sociology department", comedian's should punch in every direction including their own face. Some folks will like some jokes, others won't but that's how comedy works. Audiences don't like to have their existing views challenged they just want to laugh at something they already know, just those that like to define in terms of directional punches want to feel like their laughs have some meaningful purpose. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51201558

 

Well, that's one way of squaring away torture with yourself morally, I guess. Can't get my head around the idea of being so sure that kind of thing is necessary that the idea it isn't doesn't even seem to enter one's head.

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Or as Simon Evans says "If something is funny it is funny regardless of where it sits in some theoretical oppression matrix dreamed up in a sociology department", comedian's should punch in every direction including their own face. Some folks will like some jokes, others won't but that's how comedy works. Audiences don't like to have their existing views challenged they just want to laugh at something they already know, just those that like to define in terms of directional punches want to feel like their laughs have some meaningful purpose. 

I'm kind of curious...does this mean that humour acts in a social vacuum of sorts and cannot be used as a tool for social belittlement, then? Because the idea of comedy punching in every direction as it is described here seems to imply that.

[Kopfkino]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm kind of curious...does this mean that humour acts in a social vacuum of sorts and cannot be used as a tool for social belittlement, then? Because the idea of comedy punching in every direction as it is described here seems to imply that.

No it really simply means if someone wants to take the piss out of x they can take the piss out of x. It can be used for whatever people wish, we don't need it policing. 

 

Comedy is quite a simple demand and supply relationship. If you want some 'progressive' "punching up" comedy go consume that. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

No it really simply means if someone wants to take the piss out of x they can take the piss out of x. It can be used for whatever people wish, we don't need it policing. 

 

Comedy is quite a simple demand and supply relationship. If you want some 'progressive' "punching up" comedy go consume that. 

So..."no" except it can be used for whatever people wish and so therefore has nothing to do with social interaction (implied, if it wasn't the case there would be forms of social pressure on humour styles), so "yes", then?

 

Yes, I'm being a pedant here but I want to be absolutely sure where the stance is. Incidentally, I'm not for any form of comedy being policed by anything except the market of public opinion, either, and I should hope that is clear. I'll happily call out comedians who are "punching down" in a belittling way, but there's no way I'd want them to be regulated out of existence - that's a really shitty slippery slope there.

[Kopfkino]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

So..."no" except it can be used for whatever people wish and so therefore has nothing to do with social interaction (implied, if it wasn't the case there would be forms of social pressure on humour styles), so "yes", then?

 

Yes, I'm being a pedant here but I want to be absolutely sure where the stance is. Incidentally, I'm not for any form of comedy being policed by anything except the market of public opinion, either, and I should hope that is clear. I'll happily call out comedians who are "punching down" in a belittling way, but there's no way I'd want them to be regulated out of existence - that's a really shitty slippery slope there.

Tbh you've got yourself in a muddle cos you've thought about it too much. Its pretty evident from UK and US comedy that there is social pressure. 

 

Comedy is to be used by people however they want, as with any art form. Punch wherever you want for whatever reason you want to, we should not be afraid of that. It's not about social vacuums, there can still be a reaction against comedy, it should just be accepting of other comedy and not descend into righteousness about directions of punches from those consumed by making everything a battle. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Tbh you've got yourself in a muddle cos you've thought about it too much. Its pretty evident from UK and US comedy that there is social pressure. 

 

Comedy is to be used by people however they want, as with any art form. Punch wherever you want for whatever reason you want to, we should not be afraid of that. It's not about social vacuums, there can still be a reaction against comedy, it should just be accepting of other comedy and not descend into righteousness about directions of punches from those consumed by making everything a battle. 

Thanks for the candor of the reply, and this last bolded part is a big point.

 

There does seem to be an awful lot of confrontation and framing things as confrontations right now, and that isn't really a good thing. Part of me wonders if things were generally more peaceful on that score in the past, while another part wonders if that peace was kept simply because the people running the show were that good at keeping those that were not silent.

 

Either way, it is a bit tiring having to pick the necessary battles out of so many different ones.

[Guest MattP]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bercow-accused-of-bullying-staff-by-his-former-top-aide-k792fd0lm

 

Not wasting any time, investigation long overdue into this and the rules need changing in the future so a speaker can't block allegations of bullying against others either.

[Guest MattP]

Very rare, but sometimes Trump absolutely nails a subject and the intentions of those behind it.

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

21 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Tbh you've got yourself in a muddle cos you've thought about it too much. Its pretty evident from UK and US comedy that there is social pressure. 

 

Comedy is to be used by people however they want, as with any art form. Punch wherever you want for whatever reason you want to, we should not be afraid of that. It's not about social vacuums, there can still be a reaction against comedy, it should just be accepting of other comedy and not descend into righteousness about directions of punches from those consumed by making everything a battle. 

 

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks for the candor of the reply, and this last bolded part is a big point.

 

There does seem to be an awful lot of confrontation and framing things as confrontations right now, and that isn't really a good thing. Part of me wonders if things were generally more peaceful on that score in the past, while another part wonders if that peace was kept simply because the people running the show were that good at keeping those that were not silent.

 

Either way, it is a bit tiring having to pick the necessary battles out of so many different ones.

Gervais said one thing recently: "I tell jokes about rape, cot deaths and the holocaust. People only get offended when it's their thing that they care about being the subject of a joke"

 

He sums it up perfectly for me in the following two clips:

 

 

 

Something I've felt for a long time about Life of Brian, which I've thought a lot more about in the last 24 hours after we lost Terry Jones; some Christians were deeply offended at the time and managed to get it banned in certain counties in the UK and US, and all over Ireland. On the other hand people found it to be extremely ****ing funny. I found it not just extremely ****ing funny but it had a profoundly inspirational effect on me growing up. If those hardline Christian nutters had their way, I would have been denied a beautiful piece of art that inspires me and makes me laugh every single day.

 

People often say that 'you can't say anything these days'. That's incorrect. What's more accurate to say is: "you never know what's going to offend people next". Because they'll ****ing find it. And they'll make sure to complain loudly about it. It's the new blasphemy.

 

We should never cave in to people who make a fuss about being offended by something. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Very rare, but sometimes Trump absolutely nails a subject and the intentions of those behind it.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

 

I'm sure you're familiar with this as an avid gambler in the past, Matt.

 

"...the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past."

 

Which is exactly what Trump is engaging in here - to say nothing of his hypocrisy regarding calling other people out about "wanting control".

[Guest MattP]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

 

I'm sure you're familiar with this as an avid gambler in the past, Matt.

 

"...the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past."

 

Which is exactly what Trump is engaging in here - to say nothing of his hypocrisy regarding calling other people out about "wanting control".

I'm also familiar with "even a blind squirrel one day finds a nut" which is how I feel about these predictions of armageddon every few years now.

 

But I was referring to the last part mainly, for many of these it's about control and dominance over others, often causes like animal rights and anti capitalism being dressed up and masquerading as environmentalism.

 

Now we are trying to get to net zero St Greta is already moving the goalposts for that possibility - imploring us to the completely unrealistic task of "real zero".

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-51193460/davos-forget-about-net-zero-we-need-real-zero-greta-thunberg

 

Nothing will ever be enough for these sort of people and its extremely important to remember that when concessions are made to them.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm also familiar with "even a blind squirrel one day finds a nut" which is how I feel about these predictions of armageddon every few years now.

 

But I was referring to the last part mainly, for many of these it's about control and dominance over others, often causes like animal rights and anti capitalism being dressed up and masquerading as environmentalism.

 

Now we are trying to get to net zero St Greta is already moving the goalposts for that possibility - imploring us to the completely unrealistic task of "real zero".

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-51193460/davos-forget-about-net-zero-we-need-real-zero-greta-thunberg

 

Nothing will ever be enough for these sort of people and its extremely important to remember that when concessions are made to them.

I think putting the tin foil down and considering the planet's health first is more important than winning an argument with a 17 year old.  I'm not even going to get into that insane Trump tweet.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think putting the tin foil down and considering the planet's health first is more important than winning an argument with a 17 year old.  I'm not even going to get into that insane Trump tweet.

We are doing.

 

Hence why our government is aiming for us to be carbon neutral by 2050 in line with the UN's recommendations from its wide ranging scientific research.

 

Let's listen to the experts, not Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm also familiar with "even a blind squirrel one day finds a nut" which is how I feel about these predictions of armageddon every few years now.

 

But I was referring to the last part mainly, for many of these it's about control and dominance over others, often causes like animal rights and anti capitalism being dressed up and masquerading as environmentalism.

 

Now we are trying to get to net zero St Greta is already moving the goalposts for that possibility - imploring us to the completely unrealistic task of "real zero".

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-51193460/davos-forget-about-net-zero-we-need-real-zero-greta-thunberg

 

Nothing will ever be enough for these sort of people and its extremely important to remember that when concessions are made to them.

With respect, conservatism, often backed up by a capable ally in organised religion, has been all about control pretty much since the idea was conceived - to conserve the world as it is, you have to have control of lives to do it, after all. It's a bit much for conservatives to hark against such ideas of control now simply because they're no longer the ones doing the controlling - even if such accusations are true, which is very much up for debate and far from a fait accompli.

 

Personally I don't think net zero is desirable or even possible with currently existing technology, but people are of course going to use that line as an excuse to carry on as we are - showing the usual lack of consideration for the future in the name of self-interest. I just wish they were more honest about that self-interest than trying to "virtue signal" themselves.

 

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

We are doing.

 

Hence why our government is aiming for us to be carbon neutral by 2050 in line with the UN's recommendations from its wide ranging scientific research.

 

Let's listen to the experts, not Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion.

This isn't just about the UK, or even about the UK at all. What BJ may or may not do as policy doesn't mean a thing when Toupee45 stands on a podium and proudly announces that the greatest carbon emitter per capita on the planet doesn't need to worry about climate change.