Worth giving this an airing again!
I know it is ment to be saterical and for comedic effect, but sadly it hits the nail on the head
I don’t disagree with him.
He claims he was misquoted, but no, Queen would not be forced to have a transgender member if they formed today. That’s obviously nonsense.
2 Likes
Apparently not racist because she’s helped to build schools in Africa but is quite happy to respond with someone being
“A waste of a mans white skin”
Honestly, what train of thought goes through someone’s head to respond / rant like that?
Also worth noting that Mone is allegedly linked with the fast track of UK PPE contracts to selected firms with links to the government, but that is a separate issue entirely.
Watching Cleese on the BBC.
What a dick he’s become.
1 Like
Yeah, its sad when a person unknown to themselves become the person they spend their career lampooning.
Unrelated, but the US schools are now being hit with is now in a spate of bills being written, and in many cases passed, outlawing the teaching of certain ideas in schools, often even the very mentions of words. This also applies to books being banned. This is almost all focused on the critical discussion of race and slavery. Tell me again how the problem of cancel culture is the illiberal left. It’s not surprising to see the complete absence of those who cry about this often completely miss this side of the story.
And this is the point of the narrative. Create a boogeyman that you flood the zone with stupid examples of of to create enough cover to shutdown the conversations you dont want to have occur without there being the mental space in average man’s head to deal with it. At worst it results in a disinterested “both sides are as bad as each other” which they know produces no negative outcomes for them politically or socially.
2 Likes
I’ve always had an uncomfortable relationship with this case.
I staunchly support gay rights and believe no-one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
But this case is problematic, because the activist isn’t asking for equal treatment - ie. he isn’t asking for a wedding cake similar to that which straight customers can order. He is asking them to create a cake with a political slogan that goes against their beliefs, and doing so because of their beliefs.
If Ashers were refusing a general wedding cake along the lines of ‘to the happy couple’ or ‘to the groom and groom’ it would be a clear case of discrimination. But this feels deliberately provocative and a little mendacious’.
2 Likes
Spot on.
As I read it, the bakery weren’t refusing the cake due to the customer being gay but were refusing a message which goes against their political beliefs. Very big difference in my opinion
2 Likes
I’m staunchly of the opinion that I should be able to serve and not serve anybody I choose as it’s my business. I shouldn’t be forced by the government to serve somebody I don’t want to. If I then choose to discriminate against straight people or tall people or people with green shoes, my business isn’t lasting long. Social media would kill me and possibly rightly so.
But flip this on its head. What if the cake had read “Don’t support gay marriage” or “All straight people are evil”. Making that cake could have been a much bigger story. We’re in agreement about religion and I’ll never accept it as a stance for discrimination but I do stand by their right to choose what work they take on. Why can a privately owned business be forced to do something they don’t want to do?
If you owned a printing business, would you take on a good contract to print flyers for your local Conservative MP? British Nationals? UK Independence party? All of which slagging off the rival Labour candidate? No discrimination based on religious views but political? BTW, I don’t think you would.
Another read of the post, maybe?
Wasn’t arguing with you, was offering a similar situation to get your take on it.
Would I work for United? Absolutely because I’m a capitalist whore.
For all the furor over situations like this I think the law on it is pretty clear. People in a protected class cannot be refused service just because of who they are. This typically means some demographic characteristic that is immutable. And, annoyingly, religion (although understandable when understanding the full scope of the law). Outside of that you still have fairly wide berth to refuse service to someone. The challenge legally comes in determining whether the service was refused to someone who just happened to be from a protected class (for legitimate reasons) or because they part of that group. Importantly, while that means you cannot have a policy of not serving gays (immutable and protected) you can choose not to do business with Nazis. That distinction of why you want to refuse service is illustrated in Mascot’s example of distinguishing between refusing to make a cake for someone who was gay, vs refusing to make one with a topper of two guys butt fucking (scenario curtesy of US version of Shameless).
1 Like
Why didn’t they just make the cake and hand over some lettering for the customer to apply…
How they are then assembled and aligned is surely immaterial…!
No hassle, No court case, No wasting of other peoples time…
When the world is going through such bleak times… meh!
1 Like
I saw Elvis Costello at a Rock Against Racism gig in 1978 and how anyone can begin to believe that he’s racist is beyond me.
Have we really got to the stage where art has to be so self censored as to be completely bland? His lyrics were always sharp and biting and all the better for it. Whatever happened to nuance? Whatever happened to context?
I’m deeply saddened that he feels that he has to take this step.
3 Likes
I would, but for totally differnet reasons.
I see how shit a job I can do to cause them as much damage and hopefully relegate them.
3 Likes
A little bit of me works a little harder every day so that one day I can buy the club and do an interview the next day with Goldbridge wearing a Liverpool shirt smoking a cigar burning their £20 notes. That would be the greatest I think. Forget curing cancer or cracking the energy crisis.
1 Like
I sort of get it. You cannot write Huck Finn without using the N word when the characters are talking about Jim. While I doubt think there was much deliberation for Twain when he wrote it, even if it was written today the author would still certainly make the same decision. So I get that in art you can make a choice to use language you wouldn’t otherwise use. But does the word in question add anything at all to Oliver’s Army? It’s a song about the glory of the empire being won with the blood of kids with no other prospects than joining the army - it’s always the poor kids who have to go off and die for the King. I can understand that if after 40 years of the it being discussed, he might get to the point where he thinks it wasn’t worth it, he miscalculated, and just wants distance.
While I dont think artists are responsible for the way their work is interpreted, I think they are responsible for not giving it oxygen if the reaction to the work is miscalculated (think Chapelle walking away from the Chapelle show for the racists missing that the joke was about them, not for them).
Having unfortunately wasted my time reading Twain’s ‘The Innocents Abroad’ I was left with the impression that he was quite racist.
However I also realise that’s not relevant to the previous point.
EDIT - I just read this article which also mentions Chappelle, so it inadvertantly was relevant.