And what's all this talk of "CDs" ffs. People buy vinyl or stream their music these days.
PB showing its old (if I may be so presumptuous, white) bloke vibe again.
Do they buy their CD's with cash ?
Cheques for me, but in a step towards modernity I do offer the CD merchant chap a bank card if they shall require the £50 cheque guarantee it provides.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
Thank you. Topping is trying to cause trouble but he's picked the wrong morning to do it. I'm bright as a button today.
We're interested in your racism scale. Tell us more. With worked examples if you have any. For example, have you stopped listening to any artist on account of their views.
Topping, what did you read at university, if any, might I ask? Maybe if you have a degree in Classics you ought to send it back, all that slavery and worse. Mathematics, not so much. English is the tricky one.
And, yet, you haven't even mentioned the slave-owning philosophers! I'm literally, literally, shaking with anger at your ignorance. This could damage peoples' mental health. Educate yourself!
Didn't have time or space. Could have discussed, say, geology and its reliance on proletarian coal surveyors and miners (actually a very interesting issue).
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
I Know Where I'm Going! is back in the cinemas this weekend. Great film.
It is a real shame that practically uniquely among Powell and Pressburger’s post 1942 work it wasn’t filmed in colour (that and A Canterbury Tale). I think it’s because all the colour cameras were in use for Henry V at the time of shooting.
Blimp is one of my favourite films and pleased that P&P’s films are getting a special from the BFI this year.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
I would add a third criterion: how long have you liked the music for. If I'd been a fan of someone since my teens and then discovered they held some views a distance from mine, I'd be more likely to give them some leeway than if they'd just appeared on the scene. At some point, the music will have become 'mine' - my life's soundtrack - rather than purely theirs.
How do you think fans of LostProphets feel ?
Having a few views someone considers iffy is one thing, however....
I still listen to some Gary Glitter tracks. Rock N Roll part 2 is a belter.
Imagine being in the band but not the criminal. You thought you’d happily get those residual cheques through every year, and you’d be able to lead a comfortable life in retirement. But now almost no-one is listening to your music any more.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
Yep. I no longer listen to any Rolf Harris stuff. The 2 little boys might still each have a wooden horse but my interest in what they get up to has gone.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
Thank you. Topping is trying to cause trouble but he's picked the wrong morning to do it. I'm bright as a button today.
We're interested in your racism scale. Tell us more. With worked examples if you have any. For example, have you stopped listening to any artist on account of their views.
Topping, what did you read at university, if any, might I ask? Maybe if you have a degree in Classics you ought to send it back, all that slavery and worse. Mathematics, not so much. English is the tricky one.
And, yet, you haven't even mentioned the slave-owning philosophers! I'm literally, literally, shaking with anger at your ignorance. This could damage peoples' mental health. Educate yourself!
Didn't have time or space. Could have discussed, say, geology and its reliance on proletarian coal surveyors and miners (actually a very interesting issue).
Enoch?
Is this a conspiraloonacy of which I am heretofore unaware?
The only Enoch known to me is an excellent commentator on American Football (Men in Tight Pants):
“And as to the death of the giants, wheresoever their spirits depart from their bodies, let their flesh, that which is perishable, be without judgment. Thus shall they perish, until the day of the great consummation of the great world. A destruction shall take place of the Watchers and the impious.”
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
You should ask a doctor, Stocky, not Topping. He's just not qualified.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
Yep. I no longer listen to any Rolf Harris stuff. The 2 little boys might still each have a wooden horse but my interest in what they get up to has gone.
I waited for Michael Jackson to die before I would listen to anything of his in a way that would make his estate cash. It genuinely sounded better again (to me) once he had gone.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
I would add a third criterion: how long have you liked the music for. If I'd been a fan of someone since my teens and then discovered they held some views a distance from mine, I'd be more likely to give them some leeway than if they'd just appeared on the scene. At some point, the music will have become 'mine' - my life's soundtrack - rather than purely theirs.
How do you think fans of LostProphets feel ?
Having a few views someone considers iffy is one thing, however....
I still listen to some Gary Glitter tracks. Rock N Roll part 2 is a belter.
Imagine being in the band but not the criminal. You thought you’d happily get those residual cheques through every year, and you’d be able to lead a comfortable life in retirement. But now almost no-one is listening to your music any more.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
You've stripped my reply of nuance. I wish people wouldn't do this.
Even if I'm a massive fan, there will still be a reaction from me if his views are sufficiently appalling. Eg I might stop searching out his tunes to listen to on my phone, but stop short of throwing the vinyl and CDs away.
By contrast (and to get the nuance back in) assume the same about his views (absolutely appalling) but in this case I'm not a massive fan, I just quite like him.
So now I think I *would* throw all his CDs and records away. Although I probably wouldn't have any given I'm not a fan of his.
I hope this is clearer now?
Would the CD and record disposal take the form of quietly putting in the bin or a more ceremonial burning type event? And does this depend on the level of racism too?
Or take them to the charity shop? Think about the implications ...
Maybe the mildly racist ones can be donated to the BNP?
There seems to be no suggestion that the actual tunes are racist, even mildly?
Can an actual tune be racist (as opposed to the lyrics?)
I feel we're straying into the realm of illegal primes here!
Easily, if the intention and effect is to take a clearly identifiable ethnic or racial stereotypical tune and exaggerate, belittle and/or mock it within a wider context.
(Arguably that's the orchestration / arrangement / development of the tune rather than the tune itself but that's splitting hairs).
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
Thank you. Topping is trying to cause trouble but he's picked the wrong morning to do it. I'm bright as a button today.
We're interested in your racism scale. Tell us more. With worked examples if you have any. For example, have you stopped listening to any artist on account of their views.
Topping, what did you read at university, if any, might I ask? Maybe if you have a degree in Classics you ought to send it back, all that slavery and worse. Mathematics, not so much. English is the tricky one.
And, yet, you haven't even mentioned the slave-owning philosophers! I'm literally, literally, shaking with anger at your ignorance. This could damage peoples' mental health. Educate yourself!
Didn't have time or space. Could have discussed, say, geology and its reliance on proletarian coal surveyors and miners (actually a very interesting issue).
Enoch?
Is this a conspiraloonacy of which I am heretofore unaware?
No, just William Smith! (really sort of small farming class, but the question of social class and its interaction with the gentlemanly learned elite is an interesting one).
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
You should ask a doctor, Stocky, not Topping. He's just not qualified.
I was responding to Topping's post though I think quotes got mixed up (Vanilla?).
Physio doesn't know what the issue is - but doubt's that it is SIRVA due to about ten days having elapsed between the vaccination and the pain starting - which makes sense. Golf or gym injury more likely.
I am sure @Foxy may be aware of this but following my wife's covid diagnosis this morning I reported it to my dedicated DVT nurse at the hospital who said it is more than possible that when I was under the weather last weekend, and stayed in bed, I actually had covid which apparently can affect the blood clotting and may have contributed to the DVT on the Monday
I have taken the test which indicates I did have covid at the weekend
Looks as if there is a lot to learn medically about the effects of covid
I too would be interested in Foxy's view.
From a position of ignorance, DVT can in very rare cases come from Covid or from the Covid vaccine * I think*.
By the way, both I and Mrs Stocky have still never had Covid (which is becoming a rarity).
It could be you're super-immune*. I think my wife is. I've had it 3 times, her never.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
You should ask a doctor, Stocky, not Topping. He's just not qualified.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
Yes quite.
If I have it (and the flu jab) do I take it in same deltoid or the in the other arm - risking buggering up both shoulders.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
I would add a third criterion: how long have you liked the music for. If I'd been a fan of someone since my teens and then discovered they held some views a distance from mine, I'd be more likely to give them some leeway than if they'd just appeared on the scene. At some point, the music will have become 'mine' - my life's soundtrack - rather than purely theirs.
How do you think fans of LostProphets feel ?
Having a few views someone considers iffy is one thing, however....
I still listen to some Gary Glitter tracks. Rock N Roll part 2 is a belter.
I watched the first episode of The Thick of It last night. Perhaps I should care about what Langham got done for, but it doesn't alter the fact that he was excellent in it.
I am sure @Foxy may be aware of this but following my wife's covid diagnosis this morning I reported it to my dedicated DVT nurse at the hospital who said it is more than possible that when I was under the weather last weekend, and stayed in bed, I actually had covid which apparently can affect the blood clotting and may have contributed to the DVT on the Monday
I have taken the test which indicates I did have covid at the weekend
Looks as if there is a lot to learn medically about the effects of covid
I too would be interested in Foxy's view.
From a position of ignorance, DVT can in very rare cases come from Covid or from the Covid vaccine * I think*.
By the way, both I and Mrs Stocky have still never had Covid (which is becoming a rarity).
It could be you're super-immune*. I think my wife is. I've had it 3 times, her never.
* Or is this myth?
Don't know. I do wonder whether something hereditary is going on. Then again both my daughters have had it.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
I believe whiny vax scepticism has been Clapton's cause recently, along with his pal Van M.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
Alan Partridge is a nicer person than Steve Coogan.
You're probably only saying that because Partridge is a Conservative. People tend to impute positive qualities to those who share their politics.
Partridge is a cock. Coogan even more so.
Fair enough. I sense this is your last word on the matter.
I sense it’s not. This kind of thing can be very triggering to certain folk.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
Yes quite.
If I have it (and the flu jab) do I take it in same deltoid or the in the other arm - risking buggering up both shoulders.
(I don't think they will give it in my thigh.)
We are all bloody pin cushions these days.
Now that _is_ a question for someone who knows what they are talking about. My point was in principle about getting the jab but the technical side of it would be for @Foxy or some other practitioner.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
In the most recent government data there were 235 cases where covid was recorded on the death certificate in the previous 7 days, so 30+ each day. Considering the infrequency and lack of accessibility of testing that is likely to be an underestimate.
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
Thank you. Topping is trying to cause trouble but he's picked the wrong morning to do it. I'm bright as a button today.
We're interested in your racism scale. Tell us more. With worked examples if you have any. For example, have you stopped listening to any artist on account of their views.
Topping, what did you read at university, if any, might I ask? Maybe if you have a degree in Classics you ought to send it back, all that slavery and worse. Mathematics, not so much. English is the tricky one.
And, yet, you haven't even mentioned the slave-owning philosophers! I'm literally, literally, shaking with anger at your ignorance. This could damage peoples' mental health. Educate yourself!
Didn't have time or space. Could have discussed, say, geology and its reliance on proletarian coal surveyors and miners (actually a very interesting issue).
Enoch?
Is this a conspiraloonacy of which I am heretofore unaware?
No, just William Smith! (really sort of small farming class, but the question of social class and its interaction with the gentlemanly learned elite is an interesting one).
Bill Smith is the type of name designed to vanish without trace on the Internet.
Are you of an age to remember the John Smith Show, where the entire studio audience consisted of people called John Smith?
Update: I see that William Smith's middle name is Emmett.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Clapton hasn’t repeated the racism more recently, but he’s gone full on COVID-19 conspiracy theories, anti-vaxx etc.
While not being old enough I could probably blag a Covid booster due to elderly parents, one in a care home, but should I? Not sure. Big G reports having caught Covid two weeks after booster jab. Is it worth it?
I would just comment that my wife and I have had covid previously, and 7 covid vaccinations, but this weeks covid is milder no doubt helped by the vaccination
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
Yep. I no longer listen to any Rolf Harris stuff. The 2 little boys might still each have a wooden horse but my interest in what they get up to has gone.
A pity. Once upon a time, it was a children's song - almost out of the 'listen with mother' stable. The sort of thing you hear as a child and can access, because that's what it's designed for; but as you adolesce, it becomes faintly embarrassing, and you leave it behind. It came back, ironically, in the early 90s, when Rolf had his period of retro nostalgia-based success and toured student unions. But then there came a time when I realised that it raised goosebumps at the start of the second chorus. Genuinely, I think that despite being a child-oriented song, it is an astonishingly well-crafted song on the subject of long-lasting friendship, a subject which is puzzlingly little touched upon, with a narrative that somehow bypasses any sort of rational analysis and taps straight into the emotions (I think this is largely a male thing). And then Rolf turned out to be, well, you know, and once again the song is rather embarrassing, albeit for different reasons, and what should have been part of the canon has been lost for reasons not really to do with the quality or otherwise of the song.
Also at school our Celtic-supporting rugby teacher taught us an offensive version of it about the police. I wonder if that is still sung or has also been put aside.
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
In the most recent government data there were 235 cases where covid was recorded on the death certificate in the previous 7 days, so 30+ each day. Considering the infrequency and lack of accessibility of testing that is likely to be an underestimate.
Not this again. "Covid was recorded on the death certificate". So you have no idea how many people died _from_ Covid. And I'm guessing those who did die of it were far, far older than young @Stocky here.
For 99% of people it is now (not even, maybe just) a bad-ish cold. But sure tell everyone to get the jab. It's in your DNA.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
In the most recent government data there were 235 cases where covid was recorded on the death certificate in the previous 7 days, so 30+ each day. Considering the infrequency and lack of accessibility of testing that is likely to be an underestimate.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
Thank you. Topping is trying to cause trouble but he's picked the wrong morning to do it. I'm bright as a button today.
We're interested in your racism scale. Tell us more. With worked examples if you have any. For example, have you stopped listening to any artist on account of their views.
Topping, what did you read at university, if any, might I ask? Maybe if you have a degree in Classics you ought to send it back, all that slavery and worse. Mathematics, not so much. English is the tricky one.
And, yet, you haven't even mentioned the slave-owning philosophers! I'm literally, literally, shaking with anger at your ignorance. This could damage peoples' mental health. Educate yourself!
Didn't have time or space. Could have discussed, say, geology and its reliance on proletarian coal surveyors and miners (actually a very interesting issue).
Enoch?
Is this a conspiraloonacy of which I am heretofore unaware?
No, just William Smith! (really sort of small farming class, but the question of social class and its interaction with the gentlemanly learned elite is an interesting one).
Bill Smith is the type of name designed to vanish without trace on the Internet.
Are you of an age to remember the John Smith Show, where the entire studio audience consisted of people called John Smith?
No, never saw that TV prog. But the main historian on Smith did complain about that very issue when trying to trace his subject and family, not so much on the net but in old archives.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
I would add a third criterion: how long have you liked the music for. If I'd been a fan of someone since my teens and then discovered they held some views a distance from mine, I'd be more likely to give them some leeway than if they'd just appeared on the scene. At some point, the music will have become 'mine' - my life's soundtrack - rather than purely theirs.
How do you think fans of LostProphets feel ?
Having a few views someone considers iffy is one thing, however....
I still listen to some Gary Glitter tracks. Rock N Roll part 2 is a belter.
Imagine being in the band but not the criminal. You thought you’d happily get those residual cheques through every year, and you’d be able to lead a comfortable life in retirement. But now almost no-one is listening to your music any more.
I don't know all that much about residuals, but were Lostprophets really a sufficiently successful band that the bassist or drummer were ever going to lead a "comfortable life in retirement" based on them?
I know they had some pretty successful albums at one time, but were they ever sufficiently mainstream or in a league where they'd be getting significant airplay many years later even if Watkins hadn't been jailed? And once you've factored in the label's slice and split the rest with other band members, would it ever have been more than a little Xmas bonus?
I am sure @Foxy may be aware of this but following my wife's covid diagnosis this morning I reported it to my dedicated DVT nurse at the hospital who said it is more than possible that when I was under the weather last weekend, and stayed in bed, I actually had covid which apparently can affect the blood clotting and may have contributed to the DVT on the Monday
I have taken the test which indicates I did have covid at the weekend
Looks as if there is a lot to learn medically about the effects of covid
It is pretty well established since the first wave that covid is a vascular disease as much as a respiratory one. This includes DVT:
In any individual it is hard to be sure if the vascular event is related to covid, but epidemiological there is a clear link.
Events can occur after vaccination too, but covid related ones are more common and more severe than vaccine ones.
There seems to be a fair bit of covid around again, with several colleagues coming down with it as well as compulsory masks again in clinical areas at my Trust.
Sounds as if you have a good team on the case so best wishes for a full recovery.
Thank you for your comments and yes, I have a brilliant dedicated team both in the hospital and at my medical practice
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
Yep. I no longer listen to any Rolf Harris stuff. The 2 little boys might still each have a wooden horse but my interest in what they get up to has gone.
A pity. Once upon a time, it was a children's song - almost out of the 'listen with mother' stable. The sort of thing you hear as a child and can access, because that's what it's designed for; but as you adolesce, it becomes faintly embarrassing, and you leave it behind. It came back, ironically, in the early 90s, when Rolf had his period of retro nostalgia-based success and toured student unions. But then there came a time when I realised that it raised goosebumps at the start of the second chorus. Genuinely, I think that despite being a child-oriented song, it is an astonishingly well-crafted song on the subject of long-lasting friendship, a subject which is puzzlingly little touched upon, with a narrative that somehow bypasses any sort of rational analysis and taps straight into the emotions (I think this is largely a male thing). And then Rolf turned out to be, well, you know, and once again the song is rather embarrassing, albeit for different reasons, and what should have been part of the canon has been lost for reasons not really to do with the quality or otherwise of the song.
Also at school our Celtic-supporting rugby teacher taught us an offensive version of it about the police. I wonder if that is still sung or has also been put aside.
Bravo! I can't top that. That's American Psycho without the gore.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
You should ask a doctor, Stocky, not Topping. He's just not qualified.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
Once again I agree with you, Cookie, and share the same bugbears. We are truly cut from the same cloth.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
@TOPPING I'm hesitant about the booster because of SIRVA.
I had shoulder problems a few days after my booster jab last October and the pain has eased somewhat but my shoulder is still not right a year later. Odds are it's nowt to do with the booster jab but I can't help wondering.
I was about to respond that if you hadn't had any side effects from the other jabs and are in the flu jab zone and believe that you don't want to get covid then go for it.
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
In the most recent government data there were 235 cases where covid was recorded on the death certificate in the previous 7 days, so 30+ each day. Considering the infrequency and lack of accessibility of testing that is likely to be an underestimate.
Not this again. "Covid was recorded on the death certificate". So you have no idea how many people died _from_ Covid. And I'm guessing those who did die of it were far, far older than young @Stocky here.
For 99% of people it is now (not even, maybe just) a bad-ish cold. But sure tell everyone to get the jab. It's in your DNA.
I didn't tell anyone to get vaccinated. People can make their own decisions, though there is a noticeable Darwin effect with anti-vaxxers.
Death rates with 28 days of a positive test, excess deaths and mentions on a death certificate all moved together throughout the pandemic, so however you define covid mortality we were measuring something genuine.
I am quite open to the "choice" argument against vaccination and non-medical interventions for covid. This does require accurate information for people to make an informed choice.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
I feel for you. For me it's 20 years and more ... would be 40 years but for the manufacturers. I was really cross when Clarks stopped selling the Cornish pasty type shoes. Fitted perfectly, all I needed do was go in and ask for some more of the size 9.
Happy voting in Mid Beds and capital of Mercia Tamworth.
Tamworth always makes me think of the Tamworth two.
Makes me think of the Tamworth Manifesto. I'm not aware of ever being in Tamworth.
If you've been on a train from London to Manchester, you've probably travelled through the station.
Also, Tamworth services on the M42 is a convenient break point if you're travelling from the SW to Yorkshire / NE or vice versa (other services are available but it's a route we take fairly regularly and it fits for us!).
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Nah. Air guitar wins.
Besides, if you are listening to the original of Layla then the best bits are Duane Allman.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
I would add a third criterion: how long have you liked the music for. If I'd been a fan of someone since my teens and then discovered they held some views a distance from mine, I'd be more likely to give them some leeway than if they'd just appeared on the scene. At some point, the music will have become 'mine' - my life's soundtrack - rather than purely theirs.
How do you think fans of LostProphets feel ?
Having a few views someone considers iffy is one thing, however....
I still listen to some Gary Glitter tracks. Rock N Roll part 2 is a belter.
Imagine being in the band but not the criminal. You thought you’d happily get those residual cheques through every year, and you’d be able to lead a comfortable life in retirement. But now almost no-one is listening to your music any more.
I don't know all that much about residuals, but were Lostprophets really a sufficiently successful band that the bassist or drummer were ever going to lead a "comfortable life in retirement" based on them?
I know they had some pretty successful albums at one time, but were they ever sufficiently mainstream or in a league where they'd be getting significant airplay many years later even if Watkins hadn't been jailed? And once you've factored in the label's slice and split the rest with other band members, would it ever have been more than a little Xmas bonus?
The record industry is famous for rubbish contracts, but a successful album will eventually yield a return. As a band member you might expect an annual cheque in the high five figures, and as a songwriter possibly the low six figures.
Can vary massively though, and depends how much of a wild life you led when you had the record company’s credit card, not realising that all those trashed hotel rooms were coming out of your own pocket.
A Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris would have been making well into the six figures annually, before they ended up in the big house.
The ones who end up broke are the manufactured boy/girl bands, they make almost nothing even while they’re famous.
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
SHAKING
Words are Violence!
Only if you're a Bene Gesserit, or in possession of a Weirding Module.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
I get almost all my outer garments from Uniqlo, which seems to be in the right place stylistically and budget-wise for me. Socks and boxers from M&S, obvs. Supplemented with the occasional signature item, such as a concert t-shirt. Work stuff from Charles Tyrwhitt. Centrist Dad is the look I'm aiming for.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
I would add, that for most people, terrorism is violence seeking policy change by threatening the civilian population/infrastructure.
1916 wasn't directed at civilians in the street - it was armed rebellion against the government.
Most of the French resistance was armed instruction against the government forces of the government.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
Mine too, but it seems fortunate for me that 501's with turn-ups, Doc Martens and Ben Sherman shirts are fashion perennials.
Keep your fingers crossed for a fashion revival of the nineties.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Nah. Air guitar wins.
Besides, if you are listening to the original of Layla then the best bits are Duane Allman.
I didn't know that but it makes sense. I love the Allman Brothers Band.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
I would add, that for most people, terrorism is violence seeking policy change by threatening the civilian population/infrastructure.
1916 wasn't directed at civilians in the street - it was armed rebellion against the government.
Most of the French resistance was armed instruction against the government forces of the government.
I agree that terrorism often (usually?) is aimed at soft targets like civilians but that's generally because of the practical realities of the disparity of forces involved. It doesn't have to be - a bombing campaign entirely against government targets would still be a terrorist one.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
Mine too, but it seems fortunate for me that 501's with turn-ups, Doc Martens and Ben Sherman shirts are fashion perennials.
Keep your fingers crossed for a fashion revival of the nineties.
The 90s are very much in. The young people are crazy for the 90s.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
Mine too, but it seems fortunate for me that 501's with turn-ups, Doc Martens and Ben Sherman shirts are fashion perennials.
Keep your fingers crossed for a fashion revival of the nineties.
You are fortunate indeed - and that sounds a look I would be entirely comfortable with. The last time I made this complaint (it can't have been less than a week ago) I mentally clocked Doc Martens for sticking with the formula. Every time the time comes to find new jeans I try 501s. They just don't fit right on my leg shape. But at least they consistently don't fit right on my leg shape. They are sticking to the formula even if it's a formula that sadly doesn't work for me. When I do find jeans that look and fit right (faded light blue, tapered at the ankle) I generally now buy at least six pairs, most of which remain unopened until the previous pair wears out. I last bought jeans in 2021 and the current tranche should see me through to my fifties.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
The IRA during the Troubles wanted to supplant British rule with Irish rule (specifically an Irish socialist rule). Were their actions therefore not terrorism? There was perhaps a continuum from the earliest period, where the IRA were more hopeful of victory and of being able to supplant British rule, to a later period, where the IRA had more modest goals. Does that mean they transitioned from non-terrorist to terrorist?
Likewise, ETA in Spain wanted to supplant Spanish rule with an independent Basque nation.
I’m not seeing a neat or clear distinction here. Obviously, we’re discussing this in the context of Hamas. Hamas are in control of a quasi-state territory in Gaza. They don’t want to force policy change in Israel. They state their aim is to wipe out Israel. Their demands, by the very nature of the demands themselves, cannot be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted. Your revised definition seems to say their actions are not terrorism, but I think you were earlier saying they were terrorism….? So, again, it seems to me terrorism is not clearly defined or definable.
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
SHAKING
Words are Violence!
But so is silence, confusingly.
I suppose what's needed is a nondescript hum or a tuneless whistle through the teeth.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
The IRA during the Troubles wanted to supplant British rule with Irish rule (specifically an Irish socialist rule). Were their actions therefore not terrorism? There was perhaps a continuum from the earliest period, where the IRA were more hopeful of victory and of being able to supplant British rule, to a later period, where the IRA had more modest goals. Does that mean they transitioned from non-terrorist to terrorist?
Likewise, ETA in Spain wanted to supplant Spanish rule with an independent Basque nation.
I’m not seeing a neat or clear distinction here. Obviously, we’re discussing this in the context of Hamas. Hamas are in control of a quasi-state territory in Gaza. They don’t want to force policy change in Israel. They state their aim is to wipe out Israel. Their demands, by the very nature of the demands themselves, cannot be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted. Your revised definition seems to say their actions are not terrorism, but I think you were earlier saying they were terrorism….? So, again, it seems to me terrorism is not clearly defined or definable.
Max Boot distinguishes guerillas (who seek to occupy territory) from terrorists (who don't have such ambitions). But, the former frequently use the tactics associated with terrorists.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?
I am happy to condemn whoever did it.
Thought it was now known it was a car park where the unidentified explosion took place, with lots of fire and no obvious bomb crater/damage.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
I would add, that for most people, terrorism is violence seeking policy change by threatening the civilian population/infrastructure.
1916 wasn't directed at civilians in the street - it was armed rebellion against the government.
Most of the French resistance was armed instruction against the government forces of the government.
Sure, I think that’s a common view. Again, it seems to me terrorism is hard to pin down.
Obviously, regular security forces inflict violence on civilians in many cases, in wars, and in other contexts, e.g. the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Groups generally described as terrorist often aim attacks at government forces. The IRA in the Troubles was often attacking the British Army or RUC.
While not being old enough I could probably blag a Covid booster due to elderly parents, one in a care home, but should I? Not sure. Big G reports having caught Covid two weeks after booster jab. Is it worth it?
I would just comment that my wife and I have had covid previously, and 7 covid vaccinations, but this weeks covid is milder no doubt helped by the vaccination
Seems the vaccine is crap, as much chance of damaging you than saving you
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
And what's all this talk of "CDs" ffs. People buy vinyl or stream their music these days.
PB showing its old (if I may be so presumptuous, white) bloke vibe again.
Do they buy their CD's with cash ?
Cheques for me, but in a step towards modernity I do offer the CD merchant chap a bank card if they shall require the £50 cheque guarantee it provides.
Now thats a blast from the past. A cheque guarantee card !!
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
It's the same reason that young people appear to dress like old people when we look back at old photographs. By and large our taste in music and clothing is set by our mid twenties and we stick to it. There are exceptions of course, and retro revivals of both clothes and music, but tastes are generally set.
This is another of my bugbears: my taste in clothing was set when I was in my late teens, but the clothing industry is run by excitable neophiles and clothing manufacturers insist on changing the sorts of clothes they sell every couple of years. All I want is a replacement for the clothing item I have been wearing for the last two years but which has now worn out.
Mine too, but it seems fortunate for me that 501's with turn-ups, Doc Martens and Ben Sherman shirts are fashion perennials.
Keep your fingers crossed for a fashion revival of the nineties.
The 90s are very much in. The young people are crazy for the 90s.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Were you born in the last 50s by any chance?
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
Mid sixties.
Mine cluster around Mid seventies to mid eighties as most played.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
I would add a third criterion: how long have you liked the music for. If I'd been a fan of someone since my teens and then discovered they held some views a distance from mine, I'd be more likely to give them some leeway than if they'd just appeared on the scene. At some point, the music will have become 'mine' - my life's soundtrack - rather than purely theirs.
How do you think fans of LostProphets feel ?
Having a few views someone considers iffy is one thing, however....
I still listen to some Gary Glitter tracks. Rock N Roll part 2 is a belter.
Imagine being in the band but not the criminal. You thought you’d happily get those residual cheques through every year, and you’d be able to lead a comfortable life in retirement. But now almost no-one is listening to your music any more.
Indeed and imagine how the poor old Glitter band, or the few surviving members of it feel.
And what's all this talk of "CDs" ffs. People buy vinyl or stream their music these days.
PB showing its old (if I may be so presumptuous, white) bloke vibe again.
Do they buy their CD's with cash ?
Cheques for me, but in a step towards modernity I do offer the CD merchant chap a bank card if they shall require the £50 cheque guarantee it provides.
Now thats a blast from the past. A cheque guarantee card !!
Back in the days when paying by card meant using one of these:
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
The IRA during the Troubles wanted to supplant British rule with Irish rule (specifically an Irish socialist rule). Were their actions therefore not terrorism? There was perhaps a continuum from the earliest period, where the IRA were more hopeful of victory and of being able to supplant British rule, to a later period, where the IRA had more modest goals. Does that mean they transitioned from non-terrorist to terrorist?
Likewise, ETA in Spain wanted to supplant Spanish rule with an independent Basque nation.
I’m not seeing a neat or clear distinction here. Obviously, we’re discussing this in the context of Hamas. Hamas are in control of a quasi-state territory in Gaza. They don’t want to force policy change in Israel. They state their aim is to wipe out Israel. Their demands, by the very nature of the demands themselves, cannot be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted. Your revised definition seems to say their actions are not terrorism, but I think you were earlier saying they were terrorism….? So, again, it seems to me terrorism is not clearly defined or definable.
Max Boot distinguishes guerillas (who seek to occupy territory) from terrorists (who don't have such ambitions). But, the former frequently use the tactics associated with terrorists.
Interesting, but then are terrorists often just failed guerillas? The IRA early in the Troubles thought it could effectively take over or “liberate” Catholic areas, fuelled by memories of the 1916 uprising. That became increasingly difficult for them to do so and they retreated to the shadows more. I don’t think who the IRA were fundamentally changed, it’s just that their tactics evolved in the face of their successes or failures.
I too am shaking with anger, and I don''t even know exactly why. But here I am, SHAKING, like a leaf in the Fall on the quivering aspen
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Eric's infamous drunken rant was very unpleasant, but I'm unaware of any racist utterances or behaviour by him before or since. Wasn't he on three bottles of brandy a day at the time? I don't know, by I imagine consuming that amount of alcohol could induce something akin to psychosis.
And what's all this talk of "CDs" ffs. People buy vinyl or stream their music these days.
PB showing its old (if I may be so presumptuous, white) bloke vibe again.
Do they buy their CD's with cash ?
Cheques for me, but in a step towards modernity I do offer the CD merchant chap a bank card if they shall require the £50 cheque guarantee it provides.
Now thats a blast from the past. A cheque guarantee card !!
Back in the days when paying by card meant using one of these:
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Have you cancelled anyone?
Yep. I no longer listen to any Rolf Harris stuff. The 2 little boys might still each have a wooden horse but my interest in what they get up to has gone.
A pity. Once upon a time, it was a children's song - almost out of the 'listen with mother' stable. The sort of thing you hear as a child and can access, because that's what it's designed for; but as you adolesce, it becomes faintly embarrassing, and you leave it behind. It came back, ironically, in the early 90s, when Rolf had his period of retro nostalgia-based success and toured student unions. But then there came a time when I realised that it raised goosebumps at the start of the second chorus. Genuinely, I think that despite being a child-oriented song, it is an astonishingly well-crafted song on the subject of long-lasting friendship, a subject which is puzzlingly little touched upon, with a narrative that somehow bypasses any sort of rational analysis and taps straight into the emotions (I think this is largely a male thing). And then Rolf turned out to be, well, you know, and once again the song is rather embarrassing, albeit for different reasons, and what should have been part of the canon has been lost for reasons not really to do with the quality or otherwise of the song.
Also at school our Celtic-supporting rugby teacher taught us an offensive version of it about the police. I wonder if that is still sung or has also been put aside.
Bravo! I can't top that. That's American Psycho without the gore.
American Psycho without the gore is a documentary about the design of business cards, debating the merits of bone, eggshell, and off-white.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
The IRA during the Troubles wanted to supplant British rule with Irish rule (specifically an Irish socialist rule). Were their actions therefore not terrorism? There was perhaps a continuum from the earliest period, where the IRA were more hopeful of victory and of being able to supplant British rule, to a later period, where the IRA had more modest goals. Does that mean they transitioned from non-terrorist to terrorist?
Likewise, ETA in Spain wanted to supplant Spanish rule with an independent Basque nation.
I’m not seeing a neat or clear distinction here. Obviously, we’re discussing this in the context of Hamas. Hamas are in control of a quasi-state territory in Gaza. They don’t want to force policy change in Israel. They state their aim is to wipe out Israel. Their demands, by the very nature of the demands themselves, cannot be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted. Your revised definition seems to say their actions are not terrorism, but I think you were earlier saying they were terrorism….? So, again, it seems to me terrorism is not clearly defined or definable.
Max Boot distinguishes guerillas (who seek to occupy territory) from terrorists (who don't have such ambitions). But, the former frequently use the tactics associated with terrorists.
Interesting, but then are terrorists often just failed guerillas? The IRA early in the Troubles thought it could effectively take over or “liberate” Catholic areas, fuelled by memories of the 1916 uprising. That became increasingly difficult for them to do so and they retreated to the shadows more. I don’t think who the IRA were fundamentally changed, it’s just that their tactics evolved in the face of their successes or failures.
There's no one definition of 'terrorist', which is probably why news organisations might decide to avoid using the term.
Obviously there are various legal definitions, friending on the jurisdiction, but outside of that it's a yet more politically charged term.
I don't have any problems calling Hamas terrorists, FWIW, but there is a pretty obvious 'where do you draw the line' problem.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
I feel the same way about Eddie Izzard - one of the finest and most original of comedians of our age even though I disagree entirely with just about evrything in his politics.
The same goes for the Anti-vaxxer Clapton. I don't think his music is any less superb because he is a lunatic.
Up to a point. I don't really mind if my favourite famous people have political views that are different to mine. But when I start to get the impression that they would mind very much if I had political opinions different to theirs - which is the impression you get from the likes of Steve Coogan and Maxine Peake - the cheerful indifference gets harder to maintain. I mean, Alan Partidge is no less funny for its creator being a bit of a twat. But it's hard to maintain a neutral opinion of the fella.
This is in practice a bigger issue for right wingers like you because famous entertainers, actors, song and dance merchants, writers, artistic and cultural big bananas in general, skew left. If you were to 'cancel' them on that basis you'd be left with meagre rations indeed. So although I agree and applaud your tolerant take on it (and I do agree and applaud it) I also have to note this self-interest angle.
That's true. But there's left wingers and left wingers. I've just finished Dave Grohl's autobiography. He makes no secret of his strongly felt Democrat leanings. But he also discusses the more important need to be able to get on with people whatever their views, and laments that America is currently unable to do this. I'd say that's the more important factor.
Yep, and to widen it a bit, there's political views and there's political views.
Eg, hypothetically imagine a denizen of rock who's very strongly of the opinion that we're well beyond what the modern state ought to be raising in tax and so favours significant cuts in public expenditure - except for the armed forces because defence of the realm must be the government's top priority.
I'm just giving that a roll of the eyes and it's not impacting one iota on my enjoyment of his tunes (assuming I like them to start with).
However if his right wingery extends to 'Enoch was a god' territory, if he's giving it the old 'multiculturalism doesn't work' cypher for being a racist, then that's materially different. That's more troubling. I have a decision to make there.
And in precisely that situation, what would your decision be.
It depends on the relative weight of the 2 things: (i) how much I like his tunes and (ii) just how ghastly are his views.
The bigger that (ii) is relative to (i) the more likely I am to remove him from my life.
In other words if you were a big enough fan you would ignore his Enoch views. Interesting, thanks.
@kinabalu 's approach seems entirely reasonable to me.
He's a very reasonable guy. Just a little bit racist, great songs: all good; huge racist, great songs: stop listening.
There is probably a matrix that we could draw up to determine the likelihood of him tolerating the artist.
You could, given sufficient time and motivation. But anyway, last roll, there's not just nuance there's nuance *within* the nuance.
Take Clapton. Eric. 'God'. But a bad apple on the 'muliticulturalism doesn't work' front (to put it mildly).
So, a person (such as me) might now still cue up Layla during an evening of drinking and listening to classic riffs, BUT whereas before knowing he was a bad apple they might really 'get into' it, be up and about the lounge playing air guitar, making iconic lip shapes, kind of *celebrating* the riff, now they'll still listen but do it in a sober thoughtful stationary manner, conscious of the issues in play, the trade offs being made.
Does Clapton still have those views ? He made a few comments in the seventies. Since then has he stuck to that ?
As for his work The musical Coda on Layla is amazing. Layla is my most played spotify track over the last 5 years. I never tire of the musical Coda.
Hotel California is also pretty decent
Eric's infamous drunken rant was very unpleasant, but I'm unaware of any racist utterances or behaviour by him before or since. Wasn't he on three bottles of brandy a day at the time? I don't know, by I imagine consuming that amount of alcohol could induce something akin to psychosis.
Yeah, it won't do him any good at all. It was deeply unpleasant but peoples views change. Look how many politicians move in their views.
I saw an interview with Joe Walsh from The Eagles around the time they reformed. His big hope was he would remember it this time as the seventies was a blur. He was shaking like a leaf. Yet during that time he produced some great work.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
I would add, that for most people, terrorism is violence seeking policy change by threatening the civilian population/infrastructure.
1916 wasn't directed at civilians in the street - it was armed rebellion against the government.
Most of the French resistance was armed instruction against the government forces of the government.
Sure, I think that’s a common view. Again, it seems to me terrorism is hard to pin down.
Obviously, regular security forces inflict violence on civilians in many cases, in wars, and in other contexts, e.g. the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Groups generally described as terrorist often aim attacks at government forces. The IRA in the Troubles was often attacking the British Army or RUC.
The PIRA killed many more civilians than their other targets. IIRC they killed more catholic civilians than all the other actors.
When the CAIN website was setup and the Sutton database published, the Shinners tried to get them defunded as "anti-peace process". Because the stark facts were not the myth they wanted to sell.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
The IRA during the Troubles wanted to supplant British rule with Irish rule (specifically an Irish socialist rule). Were their actions therefore not terrorism? There was perhaps a continuum from the earliest period, where the IRA were more hopeful of victory and of being able to supplant British rule, to a later period, where the IRA had more modest goals. Does that mean they transitioned from non-terrorist to terrorist?
Likewise, ETA in Spain wanted to supplant Spanish rule with an independent Basque nation.
I’m not seeing a neat or clear distinction here. Obviously, we’re discussing this in the context of Hamas. Hamas are in control of a quasi-state territory in Gaza. They don’t want to force policy change in Israel. They state their aim is to wipe out Israel. Their demands, by the very nature of the demands themselves, cannot be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted. Your revised definition seems to say their actions are not terrorism, but I think you were earlier saying they were terrorism….? So, again, it seems to me terrorism is not clearly defined or definable.
With the possible exception of the early 1970s (though I think not even then), the Provisional IRA always sought the British government to leave N Ireland as a matter of political choice rather than military defeat so I'd argue were always terrorist rather than quasi-military. Crucially, supplanting British rule was a political rather than military objective; one intended through the use and threat of terror rather than the control of land.
With Hamas, yes, it's more complex and there are significant overlaps between warfare and terrorism, although they undoubtedly do use terrorism, both in its traditional sense and as a means of warfare. Their ultimate aim is, as you say, the elimination of Israel, which unless Israel could be persuaded to dissolve itself, for example by enough citizens choosing to emigrate, isn't possible by terrorist means. But they also have other objectives below that overarching one that could - potentially at least - be conceded by Israel as a matter of policy.
@david_herdson We were discussing your contention that terrorism can be easily defined. My apologies: I was busy and unable to continue the conversation at the time.
You defined terrorism as violence seeking policy change. You then refined that to exclude states at war. OK. What about these other examples of violence to achieve policy change, which appear to fit your definition of terrorism.
* 1916 Easter rising in Dublin (Irish Republican forces not representing an existing state) * Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg (the Confederare States of America not widely recognised) * 1944 Warsaw uprising (not official state forces) * 1944 Slovak National Uprising (ditto) * French resistance action against Nazi occupation * 2014/5 Siege of Kobani (non-state forces on both sides: YPG vs IS)
It seems to me there are many examples of somewhat irregular forces, not representing recognised states, engaging in violent action, but which look more like war than terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism is to attempt to force policy change on a government (or organisation or individual/s); it is not to supplant them. Its method - the demonstration of violence combined with the threat of future violence if the policy demands are not met - makes no sense if the demands being made cannot, by the very nature of the demands themselves, be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted.
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
I would add, that for most people, terrorism is violence seeking policy change by threatening the civilian population/infrastructure.
1916 wasn't directed at civilians in the street - it was armed rebellion against the government.
Most of the French resistance was armed instruction against the government forces of the government.
Sure, I think that’s a common view. Again, it seems to me terrorism is hard to pin down.
Obviously, regular security forces inflict violence on civilians in many cases, in wars, and in other contexts, e.g. the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Groups generally described as terrorist often aim attacks at government forces. The IRA in the Troubles was often attacking the British Army or RUC.
The PIRA killed many more civilians than their other targets. IIRC they killed more catholic civilians than all the other actors.
When the CAIN website was setup and the Sutton database published, the Shinners tried to get them defunded as "anti-peace process". Because the stark facts were not the myth they wanted to sell.
Where are you getting your figures? Wiki suggests otherwise, and that Loyalist paramilitaries killed the most civilians of all.
Comments
To keep birds off them. Not because the raspberries like the diversion.
SHAKING
Some PBers don't realise how hurtful their words are, and how they generate a miasma of intolerence, which is all the more painful for being obviously non-existent
SHAKING
Leave went out to 10ish on the day of the referendum...
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/oct/16/powell-pressburgers-weird-confounding-films-matter-of-life-and-death
I don't have spotify, but my most played songs on itunes cluster heavily in the 1987-2001 period, with a peak about 1990-1993 - when I was 15-18. My hypothesis is that this is true of just about everyone.
Is this a conspiraloonacy of which I am heretofore unaware?
The only Enoch known to me is an excellent commentator on American Football (Men in Tight Pants):
“And as to the death of the giants, wheresoever their spirits depart from their bodies, let their flesh, that which is perishable, be without judgment. Thus shall they perish, until the day of the great consummation of the great world. A destruction shall take place of the Watchers and the impious.”
If you had SIRVA then I would personally definitely not get another jab if I didn't have to.
Just as an fyi everyone has been going down with covid to no great bad effect. My 89-yr old aunt got it two weeks ago (in hospital, obvs) and she's come out the other side in fine form.
(Arguably that's the orchestration / arrangement / development of the tune rather than the tune itself but that's splitting hairs).
Physio doesn't know what the issue is - but doubt's that it is SIRVA due to about ten days having elapsed between the vaccination and the pain starting - which makes sense. Golf or gym injury more likely.
And Earl’s Court is still a dump.
* Or is this myth?
If I have it (and the flu jab) do I take it in same deltoid or the in the other arm - risking buggering up both shoulders.
(I don't think they will give it in my thigh.)
We are all bloody pin cushions these days.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Are you of an age to remember the John Smith Show, where the entire studio audience consisted of people called John Smith?
Update: I see that William Smith's middle name is Emmett.
Not from Cornwall, then.
Once upon a time, it was a children's song - almost out of the 'listen with mother' stable. The sort of thing you hear as a child and can access, because that's what it's designed for; but as you adolesce, it becomes faintly embarrassing, and you leave it behind.
It came back, ironically, in the early 90s, when Rolf had his period of retro nostalgia-based success and toured student unions.
But then there came a time when I realised that it raised goosebumps at the start of the second chorus. Genuinely, I think that despite being a child-oriented song, it is an astonishingly well-crafted song on the subject of long-lasting friendship, a subject which is puzzlingly little touched upon, with a narrative that somehow bypasses any sort of rational analysis and taps straight into the emotions (I think this is largely a male thing).
And then Rolf turned out to be, well, you know, and once again the song is rather embarrassing, albeit for different reasons, and what should have been part of the canon has been lost for reasons not really to do with the quality or otherwise of the song.
Also at school our Celtic-supporting rugby teacher taught us an offensive version of it about the police. I wonder if that is still sung or has also been put aside.
For 99% of people it is now (not even, maybe just) a bad-ish cold. But sure tell everyone to get the jab. It's in your DNA.
I know they had some pretty successful albums at one time, but were they ever sufficiently mainstream or in a league where they'd be getting significant airplay many years later even if Watkins hadn't been jailed? And once you've factored in the label's slice and split the rest with other band members, would it ever have been more than a little Xmas bonus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OfE7NBviTc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09kcx6c/the-league-of-gentlemen-anniversary-specials-1-return-to-royston-vasey
As such, while wars (whether state-to-state, civil wars, or asymmetric ones) can and often do contain terrorism within them, outright warfare - where one side is seeking to defeat and displace the other - cannot be described as terrorism; there is no essence of forced petition. Likewise, revolutions where the aim is to replace one government (or governmental system) with another.
So, on your examples:
* Easter Uprising, 1916. Not terrorism. The aim was directly to achieve self-government through armed rebellion, not to force change on a continuing government.
* Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising. Also not terrorism for the same reason.
* French resistance under Nazi occupation. Yes, terrorism, but justified in the circumstances.
* Siege of Kobani. I don't know enough about this one but non-state actors can carry out terrorism toward the other (and often do, when the target is a population as the proxy for a government), if at least one of them is carrying out the functions of a government.
https://www2.sepa.org.uk/waterlevels/default.aspx?sd=t&lc=14917
https://floodline.sepa.org.uk/floodupdates/info/group-id/4979/
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study
Death rates with 28 days of a positive test, excess deaths and mentions on a death certificate all moved together throughout the pandemic, so however you define covid mortality we were measuring something genuine.
I am quite open to the "choice" argument against vaccination and non-medical interventions for covid. This does require accurate information for people to make an informed choice.
Besides, if you are listening to the original of Layla then the best bits are Duane Allman.
Can vary massively though, and depends how much of a wild life you led when you had the record company’s credit card, not realising that all those trashed hotel rooms were coming out of your own pocket.
A Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris would have been making well into the six figures annually, before they ended up in the big house.
The ones who end up broke are the manufactured boy/girl bands, they make almost nothing even while they’re famous.
1916 wasn't directed at civilians in the street - it was armed rebellion against the government.
Most of the French resistance was armed instruction against the government forces of the government.
Keep your fingers crossed for a fashion revival of the nineties.
Every time the time comes to find new jeans I try 501s. They just don't fit right on my leg shape. But at least they consistently don't fit right on my leg shape. They are sticking to the formula even if it's a formula that sadly doesn't work for me.
When I do find jeans that look and fit right (faded light blue, tapered at the ankle) I generally now buy at least six pairs, most of which remain unopened until the previous pair wears out. I last bought jeans in 2021 and the current tranche should see me through to my fifties.
Likewise, ETA in Spain wanted to supplant Spanish rule with an independent Basque nation.
I’m not seeing a neat or clear distinction here. Obviously, we’re discussing this in the context of Hamas. Hamas are in control of a quasi-state territory in Gaza. They don’t want to force policy change in Israel. They state their aim is to wipe out Israel. Their demands, by the very nature of the demands themselves, cannot be implemented by those to whom the demands are targeted. Your revised definition seems to say their actions are not terrorism, but I think you were earlier saying they were terrorism….? So, again, it seems to me terrorism is not clearly defined or definable.
I suppose what's needed is a nondescript hum or a tuneless whistle through the teeth.
Obviously, regular security forces inflict violence on civilians in many cases, in wars, and in other contexts, e.g. the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Groups generally described as terrorist often aim attacks at government forces. The IRA in the Troubles was often attacking the British Army or RUC.
Mine cluster around Mid seventies to mid eighties as most played.
Come crashing in into my little world
Painful to me, pierce right through me
Can't you understand? Oh, my little girl
All I ever wanted
All I ever needed is here in my arms
Words are very unnecessary
They can only do harm
The switch to EV is proving problematic.
I noticed on Linkedin lots of them are now "open for work".
https://www.just-auto.com/news/uk-administrators-assigned-to-volta-trucks-ltd/
NEW THREAD
Obviously there are various legal definitions, friending on the jurisdiction, but outside of that it's a yet more politically charged term.
I don't have any problems calling Hamas terrorists, FWIW, but there is a pretty obvious 'where do you draw the line' problem.
I saw an interview with Joe Walsh from The Eagles around the time they reformed. His big hope was he would remember it this time as the seventies was a blur. He was shaking like a leaf. Yet during that time he produced some great work.
When the CAIN website was setup and the Sutton database published, the Shinners tried to get them defunded as "anti-peace process". Because the stark facts were not the myth they wanted to sell.
With Hamas, yes, it's more complex and there are significant overlaps between warfare and terrorism, although they undoubtedly do use terrorism, both in its traditional sense and as a means of warfare. Their ultimate aim is, as you say, the elimination of Israel, which unless Israel could be persuaded to dissolve itself, for example by enough citizens choosing to emigrate, isn't possible by terrorist means. But they also have other objectives below that overarching one that could - potentially at least - be conceded by Israel as a matter of policy.