I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
It could well be.
As a Man U fan I have perfected the art of being "mentally prepared" for the inevitable disappointing outcome.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Not often the case when it comes to British relations in Ireland in fairness.
The pensions one is a tough one because pensions only came in from 1911 so were relatively new when Irish independence occurred. So, essentially the ‘funds’ (and that principle still applied then) would not have been built up to pay for Irish pensions, especially as you had 4 years of war in between.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
Untrue. Old stickbangers may whine "but we paid our taxes?!?!" but the politicians and the greater part of the public understand that the state pension is paid for from today's revenues, and not some mythic pot that current recipients paid into ever since they left school. A company scheme it ain't.
I've heard of Blackford's lunatic assertion, apparently later repeated by Sturgeon, that Scottish state pensions would end up being paid for by the English if and when the Union breaks up. It's bollocks. This nonsense is all about trying to magic away Scotland's large fiscal deficit, so that the independence movement can pretend that secession won't result in austerity (through higher taxes, lower entitlements, or some combination of the two.)
SNP politicians are clearly concerned that, whatever other benefits they can claim for separation, the muddy middle floating voters who'll decide the outcome of any future independence plebiscite will vote No if they think it'll cost them a large sum of money. And they are probably right to be concerned.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
A lie from an organisation incapable of telling the truth about anything.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
It’s always the penalties with England. Far too many stupid, unnecessary penalties.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
It’s always the penalties with England. Far too many stupid, unnecessary penalties.
I don't know how much that is just the individual players and how much of it is the coaching / tactics.
I am convinced that Eddie George has become a bit like Arsene Wenger at the end, once thought of as a progressive coach ahead of the game, to one now that doesn't seems to have adapted to the rule and tactically changes. And as a result insists on playing a way in which other teams know how to combat and also the rule changes make it such that you are always asking for trouble.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
So rUK voters are going to be angry that they aren't going to pay the pensions of people who would now be citizens of a foreign country? It would be exactly the opposite.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
One of my earliest rugby union memories was England getting slapped silly by David Sole's Scotland in 1990.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
It’s always the penalties with England. Far too many stupid, unnecessary penalties.
But Jones has one of the best records of any England coach. And England did well in the autumn internationals
I reckon Scotland will sneak it, tho. Too many injuries for England
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
No not necessarily. It depends what your act is. As I mentioned on previous thread one of the biggest comics in terms of online views, a huge chunk of his act is punching down on people in the audience, he just shreds them, anything about their appearance, their job, their life situation, he will spend 5 minutes looking for something to hit you with.
Carr's act is he takes an innocent sounding line and twists into something offensive punchline, touching on some really taboo subjects. I am not his biggest fan, but that's his act. To then go he did a gag about the gypsies that just not on, punching down....have you seen his catalogue of work! Its not exactly exclusively punching up. And there is hypocrisy in the outrage, where gypsies not on, saying a minority religious group probably brought it upon themselves, not worth a mention, because Jehovah Witness, its a certain type of religious belief the wider establishment are ok ripping the shit out of them as they see them as some weirdos (same with Morons).
Carr's main problem is that he isn't very funny. That's why he does this kind of outrage-generating stuff, because he's not naturally funny so has to try too hard to get a laugh. I don't think he should get banned or cancelled or anything but it was a pretty nasty "joke" and I don't see why he shouldn't get some grief for it.
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
No not necessarily. It depends what your act is. As I mentioned on previous thread one of the biggest comics in terms of online views, a huge chunk of his act is punching down on people in the audience, he just shreds them, anything about their appearance, their job, their life situation, he will spend 5 minutes looking for something to hit you with.
Carr's act is he takes an innocent sounding line and twists into something offensive punchline, touching on some really taboo subjects. I am not his biggest fan, but that's his act. To then go he did a gag about the gypsies that just not on, punching down....have you seen his catalogue of work! Its not exactly exclusively punching up. And there is hypocrisy in the outrage, where gypsies not on, saying a minority religious group probably brought it upon themselves, not worth a mention, because Jehovah Witness, its a certain type of religious belief the wider establishment are ok ripping the shit out of them as they see them as some weirdos (same with Morons).
Sounds like you have to be there. As for Carr, I've caught bits & bobs of him over the years and I'd say he's very very sharp.
But, yes, that's what I mean, the 'punching up vs down' question isn't necessarily applicable in all cases (since rules don't work for comedy) but it is in general relevant when reacting to a joke. Eg given the equally skilled construction and delivery of a gag I'll tend to appreciate it more if the butt of it (assuming there is one) is someone or something of high status and power. Otherwise it risks a bullying aspect. Doesn't mean it isn't funny, it still might be, but it's probably less funny. Also, being funny (even in comedy) doesn't make something acceptable to me. I could be laughing but at the same time be thinking the world would be better off without this.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
You think Neil Young doesn't like "white, male, working-class Americans"?
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
No not necessarily. It depends what your act is. As I mentioned on previous thread one of the biggest comics in terms of online views, a huge chunk of his act is punching down on people in the audience, he just shreds them, anything about their appearance, their job, their life situation, he will spend 5 minutes looking for something to hit you with.
Carr's act is he takes an innocent sounding line and twists into something offensive punchline, touching on some really taboo subjects. I am not his biggest fan, but that's his act. To then go he did a gag about the gypsies that just not on, punching down....have you seen his catalogue of work! Its not exactly exclusively punching up. And there is hypocrisy in the outrage, where gypsies not on, saying a minority religious group probably brought it upon themselves, not worth a mention, because Jehovah Witness, its a certain type of religious belief the wider establishment are ok ripping the shit out of them as they see them as some weirdos (same with Morons).
Carr's main problem is that he isn't very funny. That's why he does this kind of outrage-generating stuff, because he's not naturally funny so has to try too hard to get a laugh. I don't think he should get banned or cancelled or anything but it was a pretty nasty "joke" and I don't see why he shouldn't get some grief for it.
Carr being funny or not. That's your subjective opinion. He is an extremely popular for exactly that style of comedy, so clearly there is a large percentage of the population who do find him funny.
He isn't my favourite and thus I haven't rushed to watch the special, but it was the number 1 watched special on UK Netflix in 2021, despite only being released in the last week of 2021.
So people now going well I am offended, that's a terrible joke. Don't bloody watch it. That has been his act for 20 years.
On the header, cheers for that @Quincel. I’m inclined to believe with you, my one hesitation is the split of the Senate. There’s an interesting debate about whether the VP can break a tie-break on a SC vote (general view is yes but it’s very hazy). More of an issue is, if Manchin or Sinema raises objections (don’t think they will but it’s possible) and / or some of the more vulnerable Democrat Senators running in November are concerned about the impact of voting for a progressive candidate (again, probably not).
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
You think Neil Young doesn't like "white, male, working-class Americans"?
Yeh, well it's a theory I suppose.
Neil Young has been winding up the rednecks for 50 years. Listen to Sweet Home Alabama.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
Yes, he could easily set up “The Comedy Podcast Network” with a few friends, and screw all the existing platforms. He’s already about to open a huge comedy club in Austin, and a dozen or more A-list comics have joined him in moving there.
There are already comedians who have done their own PPV ‘event’ podcasts, on their own platforms because Patreon or YouTube would kick them off for being offensive. https://ymhstudios.com/ is the one that immediately springs to mind. Many more comics are using the existing platforms and earning serious money for weekly podcast shows.
Then the protests will move to be against Visa, Mastercard and whoever hosts the backend. See Parler and their row with AWS from last year.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
You think Neil Young doesn't like "white, male, working-class Americans"?
Yeh, well it's a theory I suppose.
Funnily enough( Young is now getting flak for saying some pretty nasty homophobic stuff back in the 80s around the AIDS crisis. Not sure how many accolades he will be getting .
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
Yes, he could easily set up “The Comedy Podcast Network” with a few friends, and screw all the existing platforms. He’s already about to open a huge comedy club in Austin, and a dozen or more A-list comics have joined him in moving there.
There are already comedians who have done their own PPV ‘event’ podcasts, on their own platforms because Patreon or YouTube would kick them off for being offensive. https://ymhstudios.com/ is the one that immediately springs to mind. Many more comics are using the existing platforms and earning serious money for weekly podcast shows.
Then the protests will move to be against Visa, Mastercard and whoever hosts the backend. See Parler and their row with AWS from last year.
You are right about the payment processing angle. See GoFundMe suspending Canadian Trucker protest funds yesterday, some vacuous nonsense about them being against their terms of service as its criminal behaviour (all the blowing your horns etc)....when they have allowed GoFundMe's for people on trial for serious crimes.
WFH anecdata: heard someone say in the week his company loved WFH because they can recruit cheap northerners. Looks like the fantasy of London wages and red wall living costs might be short lived, if this is typical (and we've seen the same in America). With a bit of luck, moving civil servants around the country might help, owing to their national pay scales.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
You think Neil Young doesn't like "white, male, working-class Americans"?
Yeh, well it's a theory I suppose.
Nah, Neil Young only likes white, male, working-class Canadians.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
What annoys the complainers, is that Rogan has a massive audience of people they don’t like - white, male, working-class Americans.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
The thing with Rogan is he is so massive he could just go back to DIYing the podcast with a small membership fee.
You think Neil Young doesn't like "white, male, working-class Americans"?
Yeh, well it's a theory I suppose.
Where did I say that?
The funniest thing about Neil Young getting upset about misinformation and conspiracy theory stuff, he was a big supporter of RJK Jnr very dodgy claims over GMO, and who is wall to wall conspiracy nutter, anti-vaxxer and recently put out a very iffy book on COVID.
I'm not match fit enough for a London trip and I wouldn't have been able to afford it anyway. Hope you all have fun and it's not a trap to have you all incarcerated in the Tower of London.
WFH anecdata: heard someone say in the week his company loved WFH because they can recruit cheap northerners. Looks like the fantasy of London wages and red wall living costs might be short lived, if this is typical (and we've seen the same in America). With a bit of luck, moving civil servants around the country might help, owing to their national pay scales.
If HMG were really, deadly serious about levelling up, they'd make it illegal to advertise the same job at different salaries in different areas.
Would destroy London, of course, and ruin many poorer people . Maybe a cap of 40% to begin with, tapering down over several decades.
I'm not sure I did so well now, obtaining tickets for the England Ireland game 🤔
You did well! 6N tickets are always gold dust and there’s a great atmosphere in the crowd at HQ. It’s worth going just for the day out, irrespective of the score.
I’ve been to Twickenham a few times without a ticket, and have either picked one up or just hung out in the town for the day.
I'm not match fit enough for a London trip and I wouldn't have been able to afford it anyway. Hope you all have fun and it's not a trap to have you all incarcerated in the Tower of London.
There should be a levelling up trip to a Cumbrian pub at some point.
WFH anecdata: heard someone say in the week his company loved WFH because they can recruit cheap northerners. Looks like the fantasy of London wages and red wall living costs might be short lived, if this is typical (and we've seen the same in America). With a bit of luck, moving civil servants around the country might help, owing to their national pay scales.
If HMG were really, deadly serious about levelling up, they'd make it illegal to advertise the same job at different salaries in different areas.
Would destroy London, of course, and ruin many poorer people . Maybe a cap of 40% to begin with, tapering down over several decades.
Wouldn't may a blind bit of difference - what the jobs are advertised for is a) always fiction and b) usually a broad range 'depending on experience' (in fact of course, it depends on the market competition and how much they need to pay to get you).
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
It’s always the penalties with England. Far too many stupid, unnecessary penalties.
I don't know how much that is just the individual players and how much of it is the coaching / tactics.
I am convinced that Eddie George has become a bit like Arsene Wenger at the end, once thought of as a progressive coach ahead of the game, to one now that doesn't seems to have adapted to the rule and tactically changes. And as a result insists on playing a way in which other teams know how to combat and also the rule changes make it such that you are always asking for trouble.
Eddie George as a rugby coach is an interesting concept! 🙂
WFH anecdata: heard someone say in the week his company loved WFH because they can recruit cheap northerners. Looks like the fantasy of London wages and red wall living costs might be short lived, if this is typical (and we've seen the same in America). With a bit of luck, moving civil servants around the country might help, owing to their national pay scales.
If HMG were really, deadly serious about levelling up, they'd make it illegal to advertise the same job at different salaries in different areas.
Would destroy London, of course, and ruin many poorer people . Maybe a cap of 40% to begin with, tapering down over several decades.
Wouldn't may a blind bit of difference - what the jobs are advertised for is a) always fiction and b) usually a broad range 'depending on experience' (in fact of course, it depends on the market competition and how much they need to pay to get you).
I'm definitely biased towards the world of graduate scheme salaries.
WFH anecdata: heard someone say in the week his company loved WFH because they can recruit cheap northerners. Looks like the fantasy of London wages and red wall living costs might be short lived, if this is typical (and we've seen the same in America). With a bit of luck, moving civil servants around the country might help, owing to their national pay scales.
If HMG were really, deadly serious about levelling up, they'd make it illegal to advertise the same job at different salaries in different areas.
Would destroy London, of course, and ruin many poorer people . Maybe a cap of 40% to begin with, tapering down over several decades.
Making it illegal to advertise jobs without a salary would be a start.
Wait until England are getting bashed up in a couple of hours.
Several of us will be going offline for 'a period of reflection' if that happens.
Like the England performance in the Ashes I have mentally prepared myself. It will be a frustrating amount of unnecessary box kicks from England, poor performance in the scrums and too many penalties.
It’s always the penalties with England. Far too many stupid, unnecessary penalties.
I don't know how much that is just the individual players and how much of it is the coaching / tactics.
I am convinced that Eddie George has become a bit like Arsene Wenger at the end, once thought of as a progressive coach ahead of the game, to one now that doesn't seems to have adapted to the rule and tactically changes. And as a result insists on playing a way in which other teams know how to combat and also the rule changes make it such that you are always asking for trouble.
Eddie George as a rugby coach is an interesting concept! 🙂
LOL, woophs of course I meant Eddie Jones. To be honest Eddie George might well do a better job, as he also coaches a game with an odd shaped ball where people batter into one another.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
That really would not be the implication. The implication would be if you decide to cease to be involved in the U.K. you cease to benefit from its perks.
Rents are already so high in London that disposable income is usually higher outside the capital unless you have the kind of high-paying job only available there.
It’s one way to “level up”, though not a terribly efficient one.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Talking of England cricket, the U19s have made a right jazz of the world cup final.
They've clawed it back though with an excellent 7th wicket partnership. Got to push it on a bit now though.
You've done it again, FFS.
Can you now say Scotland will win the rugby today.
It was the excellent over before which was a maiden. It forced Rew, who had batted superbly, to go big. Good play by India but England are not out of it thanks to that partnership.
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
I'm not sure how relevant it can be, when as you note it couldn't reasonably be cast iron anyway. Would it magically make some comedy more worthy because of the target? Obviously not. In which case even if many comic routines might not focus on the 'punching down', is a relevant goal?
Deliberately offensive comedy - which is hard to pull off but can be very funny - would rely on not following such an approach, but even more mainstream stuff would have the opportunity, as otherwise you're removing a lot of possible comedic avenues.
My concern would be a suspicion whose explicit goal is punching up vs punching down as some kind of moral position, might well have a rather strange view of who comprises those targets of up and down.
I agree you can't have rules or goals. But 'punching down or up?' is relevant to me in my reaction to comedy and I'd expect it to be relevant to most others. If somebody finds whether a joke has a bullying aspect or not to be of zero relevance to how they feel about it, I'd be a little wary of that person since they probably have a crass nature.
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
I'm not sure how relevant it can be, when as you note it couldn't reasonably be cast iron anyway. Would it magically make some comedy more worthy because of the target? Obviously not. In which case even if many comic routines might not focus on the 'punching down', is a relevant goal?
Deliberately offensive comedy - which is hard to pull off but can be very funny - would rely on not following such an approach, but even more mainstream stuff would have the opportunity, as otherwise you're removing a lot of possible comedic avenues.
My concern would be a suspicion whose explicit goal is punching up vs punching down as some kind of moral position, might well have a rather strange view of who comprises those targets of up and down.
I agree you can't have rules or goals. But 'punching down or up?' is relevant to me in my reaction to comedy and I'd expect it to be relevant to most others. If somebody finds whether a joke has a bullying aspect or not to be of zero relevance to how they feel about it, I'd be a little wary of that person since they probably have a crass nature.
Maybe, but like I say I'd equally be wary of someone for whom that was a primary consideration, since who they consider to be up or down might be quite unintentionally telling.
Edit: To me it comes down to undefinable 'time and a place for x' which will vary from person to person - we've seen on here some really don't like black humour, finding it distasteful, even offensive, but in all but the most extreme of cases it surely is each to their own. It'd have to be something truly unusual to judge someone on their nature based on what jokes they laugh at, and the moral value of what they laugh at.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Yes, I should think most Calvinists are not Trumpians and vice versa. However Calvinism and its many lookalikes are revolting and obnoxious. As a minimum it requires the belief that there are, from the creation of the world, two sorts of human being: the saved and the damned and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. It is a belief repellent both to humanist and decently religious insights. Highly attractive to tyrants, extremists, apartheid supporters, racists. Few normal people will touch it explicitly, but quite a lot of elites, (and others) act as if it is partly true.
WFH anecdata: heard someone say in the week his company loved WFH because they can recruit cheap northerners. Looks like the fantasy of London wages and red wall living costs might be short lived, if this is typical (and we've seen the same in America). With a bit of luck, moving civil servants around the country might help, owing to their national pay scales.
The trick is individual salaries and rules that ban people from finding out what others are paid.
Short term it will reduce costs, long term as others find out the savings available those savings disappear (as you will discover trying to find a good developer anywhere).
- Cases are declining again. R is showing a steady fall as well. - Admissions - down - MV beds - down - In hospital - down - Deaths - down
Must be about a month since the peak in cases now, and hospital admissions have also been in sustained decline for some weeks. I'm wondering how much longer it will be before the rather small drop in deaths becomes more substantial.
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
I'm not sure how relevant it can be, when as you note it couldn't reasonably be cast iron anyway. Would it magically make some comedy more worthy because of the target? Obviously not. In which case even if many comic routines might not focus on the 'punching down', is a relevant goal?
Deliberately offensive comedy - which is hard to pull off but can be very funny - would rely on not following such an approach, but even more mainstream stuff would have the opportunity, as otherwise you're removing a lot of possible comedic avenues.
My concern would be a suspicion whose explicit goal is punching up vs punching down as some kind of moral position, might well have a rather strange view of who comprises those targets of up and down.
I agree you can't have rules or goals. But 'punching down or up?' is relevant to me in my reaction to comedy and I'd expect it to be relevant to most others. If somebody finds whether a joke has a bullying aspect or not to be of zero relevance to how they feel about it, I'd be a little wary of that person since they probably have a crass nature.
Maybe, but like I say I'd equally be wary of someone for whom that was a primary consideration, since who they consider to be up or down might be quite unintentionally telling.
Edit: To me it comes down to undefinable 'time and a place for x' which will vary from person to person - we've seen on here some really don't like black humour, finding it distasteful, even offensive, but in all but the most extreme of cases it surely is each to their own. It'd have to be something truly unusual to judge someone on their nature based on what jokes they laugh at, and the moral value of what they laugh at.
As Jimmy Carr said on one of his videos posted earlier, to paraphrase:
This shouldn’t be a shock to you, you knew what you were coming to see, you paid £25 for a ticket to this show!
Yes, it’s different when it’s on the radio (cf. Jo Brand’s Nigel Farage joke), or even on a random comedy club night where you don’t know who will be on. But if you buy tickets to a theatre show with Jimmy Carr’s name on it, you can’t really expect to be upset by what he might have to say.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
That really would not be the implication. The implication would be if you decide to cease to be involved in the U.K. you cease to benefit from its perks.
A bit like leaving the EU...
I'm thinking of the ordinary public point of view. That is, a personal contract between UKG and the individual. Chap goes to Australia - he's no longer involved in the UK but gets the pension he has paid for. And so on. But in the Scottish case many people will still be rUK subjects. So ...
The Fraser of Allander article says in fact tthat that notion - of differentiating on personal citizenship or otherwise - is actually not a workable approach.
The only way round that is as part of the transfer of liabilities and assets.
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
I'm not sure how relevant it can be, when as you note it couldn't reasonably be cast iron anyway. Would it magically make some comedy more worthy because of the target? Obviously not. In which case even if many comic routines might not focus on the 'punching down', is a relevant goal?
Deliberately offensive comedy - which is hard to pull off but can be very funny - would rely on not following such an approach, but even more mainstream stuff would have the opportunity, as otherwise you're removing a lot of possible comedic avenues.
My concern would be a suspicion whose explicit goal is punching up vs punching down as some kind of moral position, might well have a rather strange view of who comprises those targets of up and down.
I agree you can't have rules or goals. But 'punching down or up?' is relevant to me in my reaction to comedy and I'd expect it to be relevant to most others. If somebody finds whether a joke has a bullying aspect or not to be of zero relevance to how they feel about it, I'd be a little wary of that person since they probably have a crass nature.
Maybe, but like I say I'd equally be wary of someone for whom that was a primary consideration, since who they consider to be up or down might be quite unintentionally telling.
Edit: To me it comes down to undefinable 'time and a place for x' which will vary from person to person - we've seen on here some really don't like black humour, finding it distasteful, even offensive, but in all but the most extreme of cases it surely is each to their own. It'd have to be something truly unusual to judge someone on their nature based on what jokes they laugh at, and the moral value of what they laugh at.
Yep, time and place are key, and each to their own, and no rules. And 'what the butt is' should be neither a primary consideration of comedy or irrelevant. That's a wrap.
- Cases are declining again. R is showing a steady fall as well. - Admissions - down - MV beds - down - In hospital - down - Deaths - down
Must be about a month since the peak in cases now, and hospital admissions have also been in sustained decline for some weeks. I'm wondering how much longer it will be before the rather small drop in deaths becomes more substantial.
Yes - from previous peaks, it will take a bit of time to start falling rapidly...
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Yes, I should think most Calvinists are not Trumpians and vice versa. However Calvinism and its many lookalikes are revolting and obnoxious. As a minimum it requires the belief that there are, from the creation of the world, two sorts of human being: the saved and the damned and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. It is a belief repellent both to humanist and decently religious insights. Highly attractive to tyrants, extremists, apartheid supporters, racists. Few normal people will touch it explicitly, but quite a lot of elites, (and others) act as if it is partly true.
I’d agree with all of that. By its nature, it’s a dark and miserable religion that, as you said, creates two types of humans. For elites, it’s a very useful tool - it justifies extreme action as your opponents are, by definition, ‘evil’. In fairness, some of its offshoots have tried to mitigate this (the Black Baptist churches for example) but, if you want to know where the Westboro Baptist Church (or whoever they are) get their views from, it’s pretty clear.
Its not like somebody just found a tweet from 10 years ago on a secondary account before they became famous.
Is it really any surprise, that a famously risqué comic’s show, called His Dark Material might end up offending someone or other?
Sadly these days, too many people are out looking for reasons to be offended. Watching comedy specials kept me and millions of others sane during the pandemic.
At least with the outrage twitter bus over Chapelle, the outrage started the day after it was released, not 6 weeks after millions appeared to have watched it over Christmas and seemed unmoved.
Perhaps the people who find Carr's gypsy gag ball achingly unfunny and unpleasant don't tend to watch Carr or specifically that show, and it's only come to their attention now. Me for example.
I think its highly unlikely nobody in the media who are leading the frothing over this didn't watch it. For starters for a lot of them, its their job to be watching this.
As for the wider public, its very simple, don't watch him. I personally can take or leave him, some of the jokes are good, some I don't care for and thus on balance I don't tend to rush to watch his gigs.
It would be interesting to see how many lovers of free speech would remain if Carr had formulated a similar joke where Jews were the butt. Afaics the principle would be precisely the same, except the free speech upholders and Carr would have to have a deal more courage of their convictions.
I would be surprised if he hasn't done a Jewish joke at some point.
In the context of this joke, the whole point is he explains the construct for the joke (which is clipped out) and part of the reason it works (in his mind) is that most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated. It is the switcharoo, that doesn't work if you just say Jews getting killed was a positive.
Most people don't know it wasn't just the Jews getting exterminated? It's a theory..
You will be surprised how uneducated most people are. I think it is probably more accurate to say not that they don't know, but forget, as 99% of the time holocaust is only mentioned in terms of Jews.
I think a sad truth in this kerfuffle, not afaik mentioned by the 'yebbut you've got to see the CONTEXT' lads, is that though the world has largely moved on from seeing Jews as money obsessed lesser beings who were asking for it, and the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth was so heinous jokes about it are ill advised, we can still have a good giggle at genocide against gypsies. I may be wrong but don't feel that this was the point Carr was trying to make.
Funny you should say that...the full bit, again not getting any attention, he then spins it into Jehovah's Witnesses, they are forever going around knocking on people's doors pissing them off pushing their watch tower magazine. So saying Jehovah Witnesses had it coming, not even getting a single mention.
I was unaware of the Jehovah Witness race.
The point is who is it fine to giggle about genocide of. Jehovah Witnesses, who also suffer plenty of discrimination and the butt of plenty of jokes, not even worth a mention, as part of the outrage over the whole thing.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a race or people. Afaik they were given the 'choice' to renounce their faith (no choice at all of course), Jews and gypsies were not.
By this logic, jokes of strict Muslim ladies looking like letterboxes is ok because they could always renounce (or take a slightly more liberal interpretation of the Koran).
Personally, I don't think its funny, because as well as offensive, it just lazy.
But it comes back to my main point, there is among some who lead the media / comedy industry who openly state, offensive is only ok if you punch up. But among this logic there is massive hypocrisy. Resulting in joke about gypsies getting gassed, outrage headlines, joke about Jehovah Witness also getting gassed and bringing it upon themselves, not even worth a mention as part of the outrage.
The 'punching up vs punching down' thing is relevant, though, don't you think? You can't apply it as some sort of cast-iron rule of comedy - since rules ruin comedy - but it does make a difference.
No. And it's also deeply racist and patronising to those described as 'down'.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Yes, I should think most Calvinists are not Trumpians and vice versa. However Calvinism and its many lookalikes are revolting and obnoxious. As a minimum it requires the belief that there are, from the creation of the world, two sorts of human being: the saved and the damned and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. It is a belief repellent both to humanist and decently religious insights. Highly attractive to tyrants, extremists, apartheid supporters, racists. Few normal people will touch it explicitly, but quite a lot of elites, (and others) act as if it is partly true.
A fairly fundamental misunderstanding. Calvinists believe in predestination, however the individual has no knowledge over whether they are in the Elect or not. Hence there is no complacency over being in that group, even if they can be fairly certain that some other people are going to be in Hell.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
Louis Theroux interviews controversial people. Rogan just lets controversial people say shi*t, then says sh*t himself.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Yes, I should think most Calvinists are not Trumpians and vice versa. However Calvinism and its many lookalikes are revolting and obnoxious. As a minimum it requires the belief that there are, from the creation of the world, two sorts of human being: the saved and the damned and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. It is a belief repellent both to humanist and decently religious insights. Highly attractive to tyrants, extremists, apartheid supporters, racists. Few normal people will touch it explicitly, but quite a lot of elites, (and others) act as if it is partly true.
I’d agree with all of that. By its nature, it’s a dark and miserable religion that, as you said, creates two types of humans. For elites, it’s a very useful tool - it justifies extreme action as your opponents are, by definition, ‘evil’. In fairness, some of its offshoots have tried to mitigate this (the Black Baptist churches for example) but, if you want to know where the Westboro Baptist Church (or whoever they are) get their views from, it’s pretty clear.
Edit - I should have also added that, in apartheid South Africa, it was of course the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church that justified Apartheid from a “Christian” standpoint.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
That really would not be the implication. The implication would be if you decide to cease to be involved in the U.K. you cease to benefit from its perks.
A bit like leaving the EU...
But in the Scottish case many people will still be rUK subjects. So ...
Punching up or down is an absolutely foolish line that some people take. If you don't believe in 'nasty' comedy, that's fine. And if you do, that's fine. But having special protected groups or particular targets (who alone can be subjected to the most extreme humour) is to hold no principle on the boundary of taste or free speech at all, but an arbitrary preference for one side or against another.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
So rUK voters are going to be angry that they aren't going to pay the pensions of people who would now be citizens of a foreign country? It would be exactly the opposite.
That is not a disqualification at present, actually. The sole criterion is whether one has paid one's payments in NI, according to the website for such things. There is absolutely no mention of whether or not one is a citizen of a foreign country as a disqualification. And there is such a thing as dual nationality. So that is a spurious argument.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
Louis Theroux interviews controversial people. Rogan just lets controversial people say shi*t, then says sh*t himself.
Theroux doesn't really interview anybody. He inserts himself into a situation and then lets stupid people hang themselves. He certainly didn't hold Savile or Clifford to account, they were too smart for his tactics.
As for Rogan, there is this huge focus on all the controversial people he has on. The reality is the vast majority of guests really aren't that controversial. Lots of genuine experts, lots of comedians and MMA fighters and a decent sprinkling of slightly loony out there people, but aren't really a danger to the public e.g. Graham Hancock is a "out there" guy about there was an ancient civilization.
The number of times the really controversial people on is minimal of 12 years e.g. Alex Jones has been on twice I believe in 12 years, and actually most of that was very similar to Theroux, he let him say totally bonkers shit and then said oh come on that nonsense.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Yes, I should think most Calvinists are not Trumpians and vice versa. However Calvinism and its many lookalikes are revolting and obnoxious. As a minimum it requires the belief that there are, from the creation of the world, two sorts of human being: the saved and the damned and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. It is a belief repellent both to humanist and decently religious insights. Highly attractive to tyrants, extremists, apartheid supporters, racists. Few normal people will touch it explicitly, but quite a lot of elites, (and others) act as if it is partly true.
A fairly fundamental misunderstanding. Calvinists believe in predestination, however the individual has no knowledge over whether they are in the Elect or not. Hence there is no complacency over being in that group, even if they can be fairly certain that some other people are going to be in Hell.
In theory yes but, in practice, no. Again, that idea was brought in really as a safety mechanism to ensure behaviour didn’t break down. Crucially, if you lived the ‘Godly’ lifestyle, that was essentially a sign you were part of the Saved rather than it was your Godly behaviour that caused you to be saved. So, even though you didn’t know in theory you were saved, your behaviour was a sign in practice that you were.
Mr. Carnyx, do you think, if Scotland left the UK, that Scots should contribute towards the pensions of people in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
So rUK voters are going to be angry that they aren't going to pay the pensions of people who would now be citizens of a foreign country? It would be exactly the opposite.
That is not a disqualification at present, actually. The sole criterion is whether one has paid one's payments in NI, according to the website for such things. There is absolutely no mention of whether or not one is a citizen of a foreign country as a disqualification. And there is such a thing as dual nationality. So that is a spurious argument.
The whole Pensions debate is basically an admission by SNP Types that Scotland is indeed Too wee and Too poor to be able to pay for it's self.
I don't want Joe Rogan to be cancelled. I don't like his presentation style, and don't listen to his show even when his guest is someone I should be interested in.
But if he is cancelled, the effect on the wider world will be zilch in ten years' time. Someone else will take over the role of educating Leon.
I think one concern might be that it then allows other up and coming people to also be censored / canned or at the very least not be given the kind of opportunity Rogan has, as then nobody will dare task a risk on similar individuals if they have ever interviewed similarly controversial people.
We have seen it with social media, this creeping in of who gets a ban, in some cases getting banned having never said anything rule breaking on a particular platform, they just get the blanket un-personing.
The cancel culture stuff, it isn't about the too big to really cancel people, it the chilling effect among those that don't have 10 millions of listeners / viewers and top notch lawyers to fight everything.
The thing that is likely to save Joe Rogan is Spotify’s share price. It fell 18pc last week on poor subscriber guidance. The CEO of Spotify is well aware that, if Joe Rogan quits / is sacked, then his share price will get pummelled, especially if Rogan turns on Spotify.
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
You would think with Goldberg that the penny might have dropped. As I said down thread, the solution was very simple, you say sorry and that clearly not as well versed in this as I should be, then have an expert on the holocaust on and talk with them, ask questions and be educated. That surely has to be the way forward.
I’ve made the comparison before between Calvinism and what we are seeing from progressives. I’ll state it again because I think it explains a lot of what we see from the likes of Goldberg.
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
Have you read Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'? He posits a similar argument to explain the rise of capitalism in the West; it's a sociological classic. I don't think he'd agree with your analogy were he still around. Interestingly, most of what you call 'progressives' are more likely to be agnostic or atheist. By contrast, to give a random example, Trump appeals to more of those with traditional faith in God and beliefs similar to Calvinism.
Yes, years and years ago as part of my degree. I think where we would have ground is in the ‘Godly’ part where Calvinists had to be productive but that was a byproduct of the need to counter the logical conclusion of predestination. Not sure if you read it but read ‘The Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ by James Hogg to see the conclusions.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Yes, I should think most Calvinists are not Trumpians and vice versa. However Calvinism and its many lookalikes are revolting and obnoxious. As a minimum it requires the belief that there are, from the creation of the world, two sorts of human being: the saved and the damned and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. It is a belief repellent both to humanist and decently religious insights. Highly attractive to tyrants, extremists, apartheid supporters, racists. Few normal people will touch it explicitly, but quite a lot of elites, (and others) act as if it is partly true.
I’d agree with all of that. By its nature, it’s a dark and miserable religion that, as you said, creates two types of humans. For elites, it’s a very useful tool - it justifies extreme action as your opponents are, by definition, ‘evil’. In fairness, some of its offshoots have tried to mitigate this (the Black Baptist churches for example) but, if you want to know where the Westboro Baptist Church (or whoever they are) get their views from, it’s pretty clear.
Edit - I should have also added that, in apartheid South Africa, it was of course the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church that justified Apartheid from a “Christian” standpoint.
Plenty of other churches seemed quite comfortable with racisl discrimination and even slavery. It is absurd to depict it as a Calvinist thing.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
So rUK voters are going to be angry that they aren't going to pay the pensions of people who would now be citizens of a foreign country? It would be exactly the opposite.
That is not a disqualification at present, actually. The sole criterion is whether one has paid one's payments in NI, according to the website for such things. There is absolutely no mention of whether or not one is a citizen of a foreign country as a disqualification. And there is such a thing as dual nationality. So that is a spurious argument.
So you are saying that the Irish precedent doesn't count? It's possible. After all, that was non-contributory at the time. But it's not probable.
I think you would be on safer grounds with pensions paid by the state,e.g. doctors, teachers, civil servants. And there are plenty of them. But as for the state pension, it really is not probable it would continue to be paid by the British government in an independent Scotland.
Or at least, not unless you gave up so much in exchange that Holyrood actually had less practical power than it did now.
Only been to Twickenham once. But it was the day Erica Roe whipped out her tits. The 15 year old me thoroughly enjoyed the day. Don't remember who won, but fondly recall a couple of the points.
Mr. Carnyx, do you think, if Scotland left the UK, that Scots should contribute towards the pensions of people in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
No, because I don't think it works that way of a company scheme - it would have to be a transfer of obligations - but HMG has done a very good job of claiming, as recently as a few weeks ago (as I commented) that it is. Indeed, in the HMG website about state pensions and emigration, there is zero mention of current UK citizenship or other citisenship - it is all as if one had paid one's stamps.
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
So rUK voters are going to be angry that they aren't going to pay the pensions of people who would now be citizens of a foreign country? It would be exactly the opposite.
That is not a disqualification at present, actually. The sole criterion is whether one has paid one's payments in NI, according to the website for such things. There is absolutely no mention of whether or not one is a citizen of a foreign country as a disqualification. And there is such a thing as dual nationality. So that is a spurious argument.
So you are saying that the Irish precedent doesn't count? It's possible. After all, that was non-contributory at the time. But it's not probable.
I think you would be on safer grounds with pensions paid by the state,e.g. doctors, teachers, civil servants. And there are plenty of them. But as for the state pension, it really is not probable it would continue to be paid by the British government in an independent Scotland.
Or at least, not unless you gave up so much in exchange that Holyrood actually had less practical power than it did now.
No, I think transfer is the likely thing as per Irish precedent. But the whole idea of NI and state pension is such a mess anyway that debate based onthat is going to be a mess, as indeed we see this afternoon.
That FoA report itself says "The question of citizenship in an independent Scotland is immaterial to this analysis. Under current state pension rules, it is NICs rather than citizenship that determines eligibility. Thus whether an individual in an independent Scotland has Scottish, UK or dual citizenship (or any other nationality) would not under current policy influence eligibility for the state pension."
BTW I recall concerning the forthcomijng NI rise that UKG, as reflected by one of us, rather obviously on orders from CCHQ, was recently pushing the spin of "NI is not a tax but a payment for entitlement to pensions etc" in response to general disgust (on PB as elsewhere) at the targeting of working folk rather than wealthy Tory-voting OAPs.
There is an easy way to answer the question on UK or Scotland paying pensions after independence.
How did the matter get arranged when the UK withdrew from its empire?
In India, the answer was that those who retired before independence were paid by the British. Afterwards, they were paid by the government of the country in question.
But - that applied to the defined benefit pension for state employees. Not to the state pension which didn't extend to those countries.
In Ireland - the only place where state pension rules applied - the Irish government had to take them over. And cut them substantially due to their limited financial resources (much more limited than would be available to Scotland).
I suspect the answer would be the same in Scotland. Public sector schemes that had been taken, would keep being paid by the UK government. The state pension however, both existing and commitment, would be a matter for payment by a new Scottish government.
Whether that's the way the SNP would frame it in a referendum campaign, I don't know. But if they want to be credible, they would be wise not only to do so but to have a convincing answer as to what they would do to pay for them
Pensions should be split like any other UK government obligation such as the national debt, i.e. according to population or GDP. So that means that Scotland would pay about 8% of the total legacy UK obligation going forward.
The interesting thing about this entire discussion on PB is that nobody seems to have spotted the implications for the impact on rUK voters - the demonstration that your decades of payments to HMG are worthless in terms of any actual obligation, despite marketing by successive governments of all shades as an insurance policy for your old age. It will need some tricky spin to get round that rather obvious point. So that is an incentive for HMG to negotiate something such as you say.
So rUK voters are going to be angry that they aren't going to pay the pensions of people who would now be citizens of a foreign country? It would be exactly the opposite.
That is not a disqualification at present, actually. The sole criterion is whether one has paid one's payments in NI, according to the website for such things. There is absolutely no mention of whether or not one is a citizen of a foreign country as a disqualification. And there is such a thing as dual nationality. So that is a spurious argument.
The whole Pensions debate is basically an admission by SNP Types that Scotland is indeed Too wee and Too poor to be able to pay for it's self.
Scotland is perfectly capable of paying for itself. It just makes independence much easier to sell IF the Scottish Government can convince its electorate that Scotland doesn't have to pay for itself, because the English taxpayer will shell out instead.
The typical Scottish voter isn't thick. This line won't fool enough of them to help the cause.
Mr. Carnyx, your line is completely unsustainable.
You can't just leave a country then demand it pays your pensions. You can't drag with you the payment of pensions and abandon entirely the responsibility for funding them.
Comments
However, your point it’s a good one, it’s not Rogan who needs to be worried, it’s the smaller artists who don’t have his audience. A Spotify could sacrifice them without seeing a financial hit.
It’s also the hypocrisy of the matter. Look at Whoopi Goldberg who got a two week suspension for her comments. Now, I don’t think she should necessarily be cancelled for her comments although if you live by the sword, you die by it. But she is now coming out and saying she will quit (she won’t) unless her suspension is revoked because she thinks her suspension is unjustified and she has apologised. From someone who was one of the loudest advocates of getting people cancelled.
We could have the Treasury cross the road from the main entrance and GBR cross the road from the other entrance.
As a Man U fan I have perfected the art of being "mentally prepared" for the inevitable disappointing outcome.
I've heard of Blackford's lunatic assertion, apparently later repeated by Sturgeon, that Scottish state pensions would end up being paid for by the English if and when the Union breaks up. It's bollocks. This nonsense is all about trying to magic away Scotland's large fiscal deficit, so that the independence movement can pretend that secession won't result in austerity (through higher taxes, lower entitlements, or some combination of the two.)
SNP politicians are clearly concerned that, whatever other benefits they can claim for separation, the muddy middle floating voters who'll decide the outcome of any future independence plebiscite will vote No if they think it'll cost them a large sum of money. And they are probably right to be concerned.
Spotify knows that, having paid for Rogan and given him full editorial control, they would have to pay him off eight figures, only to see him immediately appear exclusively on a rival network, taking tens of millions of subscribers with him and seriously tanking the Spotify share price.
Which is why they are now trying to go for Rogan personally, for things said more than a decade ago that have been online since. They want to devalue his brand, make no other company want to hire him.
Wales 0
[64 mins]
Calvinists believe that they had already been saved by God by the nature of their religion and that the matter had been predetermined. Therefore, they were naturally ‘good’ and whatever they did on Earth had no consequence for their Salvation. That obviously could have had profound consequences so the Calvinists mitigated the risks by insisting on a strict and ‘Godly’ lifestyle but the core belief was still the same.
It’s the same thing with many progressives, at least today’s version. They believe that their beliefs mean they are naturally good and, therefore, that gives them licence to do what they want. It also means that, if you question that or indicate they may be wrong - as ABC (I think it’s them) has done here half-heartedly - then not only is it wrong but that puts you on the side of “evil” because you have chosen to go against one of the elect.
It’s a very powerful mindset.
I am convinced that Eddie George has become a bit like Arsene Wenger at the end, once thought of as a progressive coach ahead of the game, to one now that doesn't seems to have adapted to the rule and tactically changes. And as a result insists on playing a way in which other teams know how to combat and also the rule changes make it such that you are always asking for trouble.
It would be exactly the opposite.
This is return to the glory of my youth.
I reckon Scotland will sneak it, tho. Too many injuries for England
But, yes, that's what I mean, the 'punching up vs down' question isn't necessarily applicable in all cases (since rules don't work for comedy) but it is in general relevant when reacting to a joke. Eg given the equally skilled construction and delivery of a gag I'll tend to appreciate it more if the butt of it (assuming there is one) is someone or something of high status and power. Otherwise it risks a bullying aspect. Doesn't mean it isn't funny, it still might be, but it's probably less funny. Also, being funny (even in comedy) doesn't make something acceptable to me. I could be laughing but at the same time be thinking the world would be better off without this.
Yeh, well it's a theory I suppose.
He isn't my favourite and thus I haven't rushed to watch the special, but it was the number 1 watched special on UK Netflix in 2021, despite only being released in the last week of 2021.
So people now going well I am offended, that's a terrible joke. Don't bloody watch it. That has been his act for 20 years.
But at 1/2, I would probably put some money on.
There are already comedians who have done their own PPV ‘event’ podcasts, on their own platforms because Patreon or YouTube would kick them off for being offensive. https://ymhstudios.com/ is the one that immediately springs to mind. Many more comics are using the existing platforms and earning serious money for weekly podcast shows.
Then the protests will move to be against Visa, Mastercard and whoever hosts the backend. See Parler and their row with AWS from last year.
It is quite possible they will fight to prevent any nomination from actually getting voted on - try and time out Biden until the 2024 election.
The funniest thing about Neil Young getting upset about misinformation and conspiracy theory stuff, he was a big supporter of RJK Jnr very dodgy claims over GMO, and who is wall to wall conspiracy nutter, anti-vaxxer and recently put out a very iffy book on COVID.
Would destroy London, of course, and ruin many poorer people . Maybe a cap of 40% to begin with, tapering down over several decades.
I’ve been to Twickenham a few times without a ticket, and have either picked one up or just hung out in the town for the day.
I’d agree that most of the progressives aren’t religious but, in one way, that explains the issue even more because, in the lack of a religious religion, there is the need to create a secular one, and one which has fed on America’s historical and peculiar religious tradition.
Re Trump, funnily enough, I would say his appeal is actually more at the Catholic end of things, namely that things are not ordained and the idea of ‘Jesus loves a sinner’. A lot of his supporters know they are poor, uneducated and not fancy but Trump gives them a chance to be ‘saved’ - similarly religious in its nature
Can you now say Scotland will win the rugby today.
A bit like leaving the EU...
It’s one way to “level up”, though not a terribly efficient one.
Can you start supporting Australia instead?
Edit: To me it comes down to undefinable 'time and a place for x' which will vary from person to person - we've seen on here some really don't like black humour, finding it distasteful, even offensive, but in all but the most extreme of cases it surely is each to their own. It'd have to be something truly unusual to judge someone on their nature based on what jokes they laugh at, and the moral value of what they laugh at.
- Cases are declining again. R is showing a steady fall as well.
- Admissions - down
- MV beds - down
- In hospital - down
- Deaths - down
Short term it will reduce costs, long term as others find out the savings available those savings disappear (as you will discover trying to find a good developer anywhere).
This shouldn’t be a shock to you, you knew what you were coming to see, you paid £25 for a ticket to this show!
Yes, it’s different when it’s on the radio (cf. Jo Brand’s Nigel Farage joke), or even on a random comedy club night where you don’t know who will be on. But if you buy tickets to a theatre show with Jimmy Carr’s name on it, you can’t really expect to be upset by what he might have to say.
The Fraser of Allander article says in fact tthat that notion - of differentiating on personal citizenship or otherwise - is actually not a workable approach.
The only way round that is as part of the transfer of liabilities and assets.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
As for Rogan, there is this huge focus on all the controversial people he has on. The reality is the vast majority of guests really aren't that controversial. Lots of genuine experts, lots of comedians and MMA fighters and a decent sprinkling of slightly loony out there people, but aren't really a danger to the public e.g. Graham Hancock is a "out there" guy about there was an ancient civilization.
The number of times the really controversial people on is minimal of 12 years e.g. Alex Jones has been on twice I believe in 12 years, and actually most of that was very similar to Theroux, he let him say totally bonkers shit and then said oh come on that nonsense.
I think you would be on safer grounds with pensions paid by the state,e.g. doctors, teachers, civil servants. And there are plenty of them. But as for the state pension, it really is not probable it would continue to be paid by the British government in an independent Scotland.
Or at least, not unless you gave up so much in exchange that Holyrood actually had less practical power than it did now.
The 15 year old me thoroughly enjoyed the day.
Don't remember who won, but fondly recall a couple of the points.
Well, in that case I shall start the EWNI Independence movement. We shall leave the UK, and the remaining bit (Scotland) will fund our pensions.
Cunning, eh?
That FoA report itself says "The question of citizenship in an independent Scotland is immaterial to this analysis. Under current state pension rules, it is NICs rather than citizenship that determines eligibility. Thus whether an individual in an independent Scotland has Scottish, UK or dual citizenship (or any other nationality) would not under current policy influence eligibility for the state pension."
They've already stated on PB that they'll play political games with the NUKES
The typical Scottish voter isn't thick. This line won't fool enough of them to help the cause.
You can't just leave a country then demand it pays your pensions. You can't drag with you the payment of pensions and abandon entirely the responsibility for funding them.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.