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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
I'm not demanding that at all - read my post again. Simply considering some of the lines of argument. Of which the notion that Scots no longer being UK subjects is a disqualification is not plausible.
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.
Most white 'progressives' tend to be atheists or agnostics (though Biden is a Roman Catholic). However Black Democrat or Labour voters tend to be at least as actively Christian as white Conservatives, especially in the Pentecostal churches. Hispanics in the US are also generally strong Roman Catholics but still vote more Democrat than Republican.
Asian Labour voters here also tend to be Muslim or Hindu or Sikh
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.
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.
There’s also very few other people doing serious long-form interviews to a general audience.
Rogan and Jordan Peterson did four hours last week, which was definitely worth listening to.
Another that really sticks in the mind, was when he and Tim Pool interviewed Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde from Twitter, about social media censorship, and it became obvious that the tech CEOs and COOs had built a monster that they could no longer control.
The shows where three of four comics just get pissed and stoned and talk sh!t are usually very funny, and he does an awful lot for up-and-coming comics and those who have a special or tour to promote.
Last time Alex Jones was on, they also had comic Tim Dillon with his laptop, fact-checking everything Jones said!
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
Another thought occurs.
When we left the EU, the pensions liability for ex EU civil servants of British nationality was transferred to us.
In practice that didn't make a lot of difference - it just meant we paid them directly instead of sending the EU the money to pay them for us - but it might prove an awkward precedent for Scotland.
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.
In practice then not really different to free will, if both those demonstrating free will and those believing in predestination act in a "Godly way".
Worth noting that Jesus (particularly in the Gospel of Matthew) was scathing about those who believed themselves saved, yet had no love in their hearts.
While external "Godly" behaviour may well be a manifestation of a Godly inner life, it could be just Phariseeism.
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
The SNP are like the man who divorces his wife & still expects dinner & a blowjob from her every night after the divorce
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
I'm not arguing that at all.
I said: "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."
Transfer of responsibilities, as part of the wider fiscal agreement, is what happened with Ireland, as @Ydoethur has very helpfully elucidated.
I am commenting that some of the arguiments we have seen on PB don't hold up, that's all.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
The SNP are like the man who divorces his wife & still expects dinner & a blowjob from her every night after the divorce
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
Another thought occurs.
When we left the EU, the pensions liability for ex EU civil servants of British nationality was transferred to us.
In practice that didn't make a lot of difference - it just meant we paid them directly instead of sending the EU the money to pay them for us - but it might prove an awkward precedent for Scotland.
That was though part of the overall financial settlement package, as would be any pensions liability following Sindy. There would be a discussion of how to allocate these as part of discussions, that would also include the Scottish share of the National debt for example.
What's really daft about the SNP argument about pensions is that the UK government rebuttal "no pension if you vote for independence" is likely to be more damaging to the nationalist cause than any gain from chumps thinking they'll be getting a free pension. The SNP should be trying to reassure people that everything will be fine, not leave them thinking they'll be broke.
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
The SNP are like the man who divorces his wife & still expects dinner & a blowjob from her every night after the divorce
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.
In a wider sense I think we can predict one of the major themes Project Fear III, the Reckoning, will be adopting having lost its foundation stones of EU membership, stability, prosperity, a new devolution settlement etc. The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable; they seem to have become very poor at persuading themselves of the Indy ref II point.
On Bettertogether and their promises, this popped up on my timeline a couple of days ago..
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
It’s funny how quoting Martin Luther King, who famously said that he would like see a future where society is colour-blind, now makes one ‘far-right’ in certain social circles in the US.
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.
In a wider sense I think we can predict one of the major themes Project Fear III, the Reckoning, will be adopting having lost its foundation stones of EU membership, stability, prosperity, a new devolution settlement etc. The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable; they seem to have become very poor at persuading themselves of the Indy ref II point.
On Bettertogether and their promises, this popped up on my timeline a couple of days ago..
It would be Project Fear II surely - or did I miss an indyref???
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'm talking generally not specifically about race. Eg, a joke in the office where the butt is the boss cf where it's the cleaner - you telling me that's completely irrelevant to whether you like the joke or not?
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.
In a wider sense I think we can predict one of the major themes Project Fear III, the Reckoning, will be adopting having lost its foundation stones of EU membership, stability, prosperity, a new devolution settlement etc. The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable; they seem to have become very poor at persuading themselves of the Indy ref II point.
On Bettertogether and their promises, this popped up on my timeline a couple of days ago..
It would be Project Fear II surely - or did I miss an indyref???
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
Another thought occurs.
When we left the EU, the pensions liability for ex EU civil servants of British nationality was transferred to us.
In practice that didn't make a lot of difference - it just meant we paid them directly instead of sending the EU the money to pay them for us - but it might prove an awkward precedent for Scotland.
That was though part of the overall financial settlement package, as would be any pensions liability following Sindy. There would be a discussion of how to allocate these as part of discussions, that would also include the Scottish share of the National debt for example.
Well, yes. As part of the overall financial settlement, liability was transferred to us...Scotland to the UK would be as the UK to the EU in an independence scenario.
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
There’s enough people - even the more sane ones - who believe it.
They’ll be asking schools to chop off the bottom of fire doors next
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
I'm not demanding that at all - read my post again. Simply considering some of the lines of argument. Of which the notion that Scots no longer being UK subjects is a disqualification is not plausible.
I think you're average rUK voter understands there is a big difference between deciding to retire abroad and the part of the UK you're from seceding it. In the event of independence, their view will be that if the people of Scotland no longer want to be part of the UK, they need to stand on their own two feet. Any Westminster party which agreed for English taxpayers to pay Scottish pensions post-indy would get a worse shellacking at the following election then the Tories got in 97.
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.
In a wider sense I think we can predict one of the major themes Project Fear III, the Reckoning, will be adopting having lost its foundation stones of EU membership, stability, prosperity, a new devolution settlement etc. The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable; they seem to have become very poor at persuading themselves of the Indy ref II point.
On Bettertogether and their promises, this popped up on my timeline a couple of days ago..
It would be Project Fear II surely - or did I miss an indyref???
You missed all the Brexiteers whining about Project Fear leading up to the EU referendum? Tbf it is confusing, a lot of them were all in favour of it before 2014.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
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.
In a wider sense I think we can predict one of the major themes Project Fear III, the Reckoning, will be adopting having lost its foundation stones of EU membership, stability, prosperity, a new devolution settlement etc. The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable; they seem to have become very poor at persuading themselves of the Indy ref II point.
On Bettertogether and their promises, this popped up on my timeline a couple of days ago..
It would be Project Fear II surely - or did I miss an indyref???
Brexit referendum saw No 2.
Fear of staying in the benign supra-state?
I think having the rugby match on the background is confusing you and Divvie a bit.
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.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
It’s funny how quoting Martin Luther King, who famously said that he would like see a future where society is colour-blind, now makes one ‘far-right’ in certain social circles in the US.
Though society being colour blind can be an ultimate goal, to ignore the experience of racism in existing society is a racist act itself. That goal is a fine one, but we are a long way off it still.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
So you are just as likely to laugh at a joke which bullies a low status target as one which takes the piss out of the high and mighty?
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.
I think thats fair. Personally never really understood the stand-up comedy world as it always has been (in my lifetime) tediously weighted to trying to be offensive and crude. I think i have a good sense of humour but never go to stand-up for this reason . There are loads of different types of comedy that are not offensive or crude including dark comedy.So its strange that we fete comedians who use this narrow and controversial type of comedy. Never really understood the argument that comedy has to be controversial either. Whilst it is bad for governments or others to try and legislate for comedy and what they can and cant say I just think people like Carr ,Boyle etc are a trun-off and errr not funny
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
I don't think that's a very plausible theory, to be honest. The people I know who think about these issues a lot are mostly people who have experienced racism, frequently pretty nasty racism at that. Accusing them of being racists sounds an awful lot like gaslighting.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
As I fully expect the Sxottish Government to take on the responsibility in such an event, it's not a problem for me.
But this notion of the pension rights of individuals lies in the fact of a UKG very firmly determined in all sorts of ways to remain the UK and saying it will retain all legal and financial obligations, and when (more generally) UKG itself very much emphasises the state pension as a cointract between individual and state, without any mention at all of the eventual beneficiary's citizenship (this last in marked contrast to some of the wibbling on PB). I know it's a Ponzi, we all do on PB, but how many of the general public really do understand that?
Scotland Rugby has really improved in the last 5 years or so after a bad period - if England don't win it I kind of hope they do, they deserve it after so long.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
It’s funny how quoting Martin Luther King, who famously said that he would like see a future where society is colour-blind, now makes one ‘far-right’ in certain social circles in the US.
Though society being colour blind can be an ultimate goal, to ignore the experience of racism in existing society is a racist act itself. That goal is a fine one, but we are a long way off it still.
Yes, but the right way to deal with racism is to get people to ignore race, not bring race into everything all the time.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
So you are just as likely to laugh at a joke which bullies a low status target as one which takes the piss out of the high and mighty?
Absolutely agree. It has never bothered me when English clowns tell jokes about the Welsh. At least they're punching up (or trying to).
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.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no real chance before the 2030s
Not to mention the complexities of the border issues now in play because of Brexit.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
It’s funny how quoting Martin Luther King, who famously said that he would like see a future where society is colour-blind, now makes one ‘far-right’ in certain social circles in the US.
Though society being colour blind can be an ultimate goal, to ignore the experience of racism in existing society is a racist act itself. That goal is a fine one, but we are a long way off it still.
I think that is true to an extent, we cannot ignore that we do not yet live in societies where racism or historical acts do not still have impacts. There is a question, however, whether a trend toward hyper sensitivity and focus on everyone's differences is the best way to reach the intended goal.
There is only one sensible and equitable way of paying Scottish pensions after independence. Contributory pensions are paid from the pot that has been built up. Non contributory pensions are paid by the Scottish Government, Scottish Civil Service, or whoever employs the pensioner when they retire. State pensions are paid by the Scottish Government to all those who retire in Scotland after independence, whether the stay in Scotland or move elsewhere.
If Sturgeon’s SNP are saying differently, I suspect it’s because they don’t want independence, despite what they are pretending.
What's really daft about the SNP argument about pensions is that the UK government rebuttal "no pension if you vote for independence" is likely to be more damaging to the nationalist cause than any gain from chumps thinking they'll be getting a free pension. The SNP should be trying to reassure people that everything will be fine, not leave them thinking they'll be broke.
This all comes back to the same fundamental problem: Scotland would evidently be not only a viable but a relatively wealthy nation state. It's simply the case that the Scottish Government doesn't want to set out a realistic prospectus for independence, because it is frightened that a key cohort of floating voters (middle class types who have no emotional buy-in to the Union and don't particularly like rule from London either, but who also view the Union as transactionally beneficial to their finances,) will look at the extra costs of secession - higher taxes, lower entitlements, and issues relating to trade barriers, the currency and legacy Sterling-denominated household and business debt - and vote No.
All this brouhaha about pensions really boils down to is that the Scottish Government wants to convince its electorate that independence will be pain-free, because Scotland can enjoy various benefits of sovereignty whilst all the drawbacks will be covered by blank cheques issued by the Treasury in London. It's obviously dishonest and the Scottish floating voters are not going to be any more convinced by lies told by Nicola Sturgeon than they are by lies told by the Clown.
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
As I fully expect the Sxottish Government to take on the responsibility in such an event, it's not a problem for me.
But this notion of the pension rights of individuals lies in the fact of a UKG very firmly determined in all sorts of ways to remain the UK and saying it will retain all legal and financial obligations, and when (more generally) UKG itself very much emphasises the state pension as a cointract between individual and state, without any mention at all of the eventual beneficiary's citizenship (this last in marked contrast to some of the wibbling on PB). I know it's a Ponzi, we all do on PB, but how many of the general public really do understand that?
But that's your confusion. The contract will be honoured. The liability for honouring it would pass to the Scottish government, for anyone (Scottish or English, I would assume) resident in Scotland.
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.
I think people are being simplistic either way on this one. On separation I expect the SG will assume full liability for the pensions of their citizens. Question then is, in the separation settlement will a one-off compensating value be assigned to the NI paid up to that date by those citizens to the UKG? Yes, I think so. But will that value be equal to the liability assumed? No way. So that's the negotiation, it'll be part of the bigger one, and I guess we'll get another outing for 'nothing is agreed till everything's agreed' and 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. Oh god.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
I don't think that's a very plausible theory, to be honest. The people I know who think about these issues a lot are mostly people who have experienced racism, frequently pretty nasty racism at that. Accusing them of being racists sounds an awful lot like gaslighting.
I'm not sure the term gaslighting is very helpful, however (it rarely is). That theory may well be wrong, but is someone advaancing it truly gaslighting? It's not been hard to find people who have suggested X cannot be a racist because they are a great anti-racist, yet in fact X has said racist things (the classic example would be the sort of thing Baddiel details). In that situation it wouldn't be gaslighting to call someone a racist even though they would see themselves as anti-racist, even though labelling anyone who who is preoccupied with these issues as racist would be incorrect.
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
As I fully expect the Sxottish Government to take on the responsibility in such an event, it's not a problem for me.
But this notion of the pension rights of individuals lies in the fact of a UKG very firmly determined in all sorts of ways to remain the UK and saying it will retain all legal and financial obligations, and when (more generally) UKG itself very much emphasises the state pension as a cointract between individual and state, without any mention at all of the eventual beneficiary's citizenship (this last in marked contrast to some of the wibbling on PB). I know it's a Ponzi, we all do on PB, but how many of the general public really do understand that?
But that's your confusion. The contract will be honoured. The liability for honouring it would pass to the Scottish government, for anyone (Scottish or English, I would assume) resident in Scotland.
Not my confusion as I do say transfer of 'responsibility'.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no chance of an indyref2 while we have a Conservative government.
If Labour form a government after the next general election however it becomes more likely, especially if they need SNP confidence and supply
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
It's funny, doubly so when you remember what the SNP wrote in the white paper about pensions in the event of Scottish indepence prior to the first indyref.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no chance of an indyref2 while we have a Conservative government.
If Labour form a government after the next general election however it becomes more likely, especially if they need SNP confidence and supply
A conservative government.
I can't remember when we last had one of those.
Sound money, dedicated to public service, knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Intelligent. Committed to the national interest.
Would be quite pleasant to have a government like that.
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.
I think thats fair. Personally never really understood the stand-up comedy world as it always has been (in my lifetime) tediously weighted to trying to be offensive and crude. I think i have a good sense of humour but never go to stand-up for this reason . There are loads of different types of comedy that are not offensive or crude including dark comedy.So its strange that we fete comedians who use this narrow and controversial type of comedy. Never really understood the argument that comedy has to be controversial either. Whilst it is bad for governments or others to try and legislate for comedy and what they can and cant say I just think people like Carr ,Boyle etc are a trun-off and errr not funny
Which speaks well of you imo. Cruel comedy does sometimes land with me but it's not a great feeling when it does.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no chance of an indyref2 while we have a Conservative government.
If Labour form a government after the next general election however it becomes more likely, especially if they need SNP confidence and supply
That's a novel analysis. Do you think you could perhaps repeat it twice daily for the next, let's say, generation so we can keep it in our minds?
Anyway night all - an Arbroath smoked haddock is warming, to be eaten with bread and butter for tea.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
So you are just as likely to laugh at a joke which bullies a low status target as one which takes the piss out of the high and mighty?
Absolutely agree. It has never bothered me when English clowns tell jokes about the Welsh. At least they're punching up (or trying to).
Do you remember that Max Boyce stuff from years ago during the Wales rugby heyday? He used to throw a few the other way.
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
what utter bollox, people leave the country all the time and get the state pension. Only if England bans all Scottish and English people living in Scotland from retaining UK citizenship could they even think about it. Would not surprise me on them welching though.
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
what utter bollox, people leave the country all the time and get the state pension. Only if England bans all Scottish and English people living in Scotland from retaining UK citizenship could they even think about it. Would not surprise me on them welching though.
I don't really follow why it matters if Scotland is massively subsidising England anyway, what difference would it make?
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
You blithering idiot , Scotland would have to pay pensions for English people resident in Scotland when they became pensioners. Take the union Jack blinkers off.
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
what utter bollox, people leave the country all the time and get the state pension. Only if England bans all Scottish and English people living in Scotland from retaining UK citizenship could they even think about it. Would not surprise me on them welching though.
I'm a British Scot - but know if your lot win I will likely lose my British citizenship.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no chance of an indyref2 while we have a Conservative government.
If Labour form a government after the next general election however it becomes more likely, especially if they need SNP confidence and supply
If you read between the lines, from what Starmer says (“more devolution” etc) it is clear Starmer will not grant an indyref either
If the vote were lost, he would have broken the Union and also forsaken any chance of Labour reviving in Scotland and having a better chance of proper majorities
The SNP faces two main parties in Westminster who will not grant a vote. They will both use the “generation” argument
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
You blithering idiot , Scotland would have to pay pensions for English people resident in Scotland when they became pensioners. Take the union Jack blinkers off.
Don't worry, the rUK government will pay the pensions of Scottish-born residents of rUK.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no chance of an indyref2 while we have a Conservative government.
If Labour form a government after the next general election however it becomes more likely, especially if they need SNP confidence and supply
That's a novel analysis. Do you think you could perhaps repeat it twice daily for the next, let's say, generation so we can keep it in our minds?
Anyway night all - an Arbroath smoked haddock is warming, to be eaten with bread and butter for tea.
Hello Carnyx, sounds lovely. Harissa chicken in panko breadcrumbs for me with crinkle cut chips.
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
what utter bollox, people leave the country all the time and get the state pension. Only if England bans all Scottish and English people living in Scotland from retaining UK citizenship could they even think about it. Would not surprise me on them welching though.
I'm a British Scot - but know if your lot win I will likely lose my British citizenship.
It's be Brexit x 10
It’s rarely mentioned, and was talked about little in 2013, but the issue of citizenship will be a big one in the aftermath of a Scottish vote to leave the UK. It’s still an issue between the UK and Ireland, a century later.
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
It's funny, doubly so when you remember what the SNP wrote in the white paper about pensions in the event of Scottish indepence prior to the first indyref.
Chuckle brothers double act , question is who is tweedledum
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no real chance before the 2030s
Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to envision a rematch later in this decade if (a) Labour returns to power and (b) it becomes obvious that Scottish public opinion is coalescing behind the desire to have one. The determinant of the latter will, however, be what the UK Government's reading of the situation in Scotland is, and not the existence of the umpteenth consecutive SNP administration at Holyrood.
Regardless, the next vote, if and when it comes, will almost certainly follow on from yet another round of devolution - AIUI our old friend Gordon Brown is working on some kind of report for Starmer on 'more powers,' surprise surprise. Paradoxically, however, a further loosening of the Union ought to make full independence more difficult to achieve. If there ends up being something very like Home Rule - i.e. there's not much left of the Union barring frictionless trade and a common foreign and defence policy - then the notion of getting rid of it becomes harder to sell. Are soft independence voters going to want to go through the upheaval of establishing a separate currency, withdrawing from the UK system of risk pooling (Treasury borrowing and transfer payments,) and erecting a hard border with England, just so that they can have their own defence force and apply to rejoin the EU?
In the long term, yes, they might: this being contingent on future developments in Scotland making the country wealthier than the rest of the UK and sending the flow of transfer payments out rather than in, as I believe was the case during the North Sea oil boom of the 1980s. In the short-to-medium term, it's a tough sell.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
I don't think that's a very plausible theory, to be honest. The people I know who think about these issues a lot are mostly people who have experienced racism, frequently pretty nasty racism at that. Accusing them of being racists sounds an awful lot like gaslighting.
I'm not sure the term gaslighting is very helpful, however (it rarely is). That theory may well be wrong, but is someone advaancing it truly gaslighting? It's not been hard to find people who have suggested X cannot be a racist because they are a great anti-racist, yet in fact X has said racist things (the classic example would be the sort of thing Baddiel details). In that situation it wouldn't be gaslighting to call someone a racist even though they would see themselves as anti-racist, even though labelling anyone who who is preoccupied with these issues as racist would be incorrect.
I think that calling someone who talks about racism because they experience racism a racist is a textbook example of gaslighting to be honest.
If an individual ceases to be a UK citizen, the UK (as payer of the pension) still exists. If Scotland leaves the UK then the former payer of the pension has been split into Scotland and EWNI. The idea that only one of those would pay pensions is somewhere between novel and deranged, and rather closer to the latter than the former.
I'm fascinated by the the elision by @Carnyx of the pension rights of individuals with the completely unrelated question of which government would be responsible for paying those pensions in an independent Scotland, which of course would be determined in the exit negotiations. Determined in the first five minutes of the exit negotiations, and not in the way the SNP are hilariously claiming.
It's funny, doubly so when you remember what the SNP wrote in the white paper about pensions in the event of Scottish indepence prior to the first indyref.
Chuckle brothers double act , question is who is tweedledum
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'm talking generally not specifically about race. Eg, a joke in the office where the butt is the boss cf where it's the cleaner - you telling me that's completely irrelevant to whether you like the joke or not?
No, because I don't see a cleaner as being 'down' the way that you clearly do. Cleaning is a perfectly honourable job, and it's possible to be a lousy cleaner and an exceptional one. Use of 'punching down' only cruelly exposes the patronising notions of those who use it.
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
I don't think that's a very plausible theory, to be honest. The people I know who think about these issues a lot are mostly people who have experienced racism, frequently pretty nasty racism at that. Accusing them of being racists sounds an awful lot like gaslighting.
Don't think LuckyGuy does this but to my ear a lot of this "antiracists are actually racist" is not so much gaslighting but baiting. People who are irritated with those who focus on racism ask themselves, "Now let me see, what would really drive these social justice warriors nuts? Ah yes, if they were themselves to be accused of being racists! Ha ha ha. Let's do it!"
Time to watch his dark material before it's pulled
You could not force me , most unfunny comedian on the planet apart from Corden.
Corden is tripe. He also happens to be one of the most arse-licking presenters. No wonder celebs love him.
If you've seen Corden on stage you might have a different opinion. I saw him in One Man Two Governors at the National Theatre years ago and he was probably the most gifted physical comedian I've ever seen. It was an incredible performance.
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.
The frenzied rehashing of pensions by folk who have been assuring everyone for years that there isn't going to be another referendum is remarkable
This is what I don't understand. I thought we were being assured that there was no chance of IndyRef2?
There is no real chance before the 2030s
Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to envision a rematch later in this decade if (a) Labour returns to power and (b) it becomes obvious that Scottish public opinion is coalescing behind the desire to have one. The determinant of the latter will, however, be what the UK Government's reading of the situation in Scotland is, and not the existence of the umpteenth consecutive SNP administration at Holyrood.
Regardless, the next vote, if and when it comes, will almost certainly follow on from yet another round of devolution - AIUI our old friend Gordon Brown is working on some kind of report for Starmer on 'more powers,' surprise surprise. Paradoxically, however, a further loosening of the Union ought to make full independence more difficult to achieve. If there ends up being something very like Home Rule - i.e. there's not much left of the Union barring frictionless trade and a common foreign and defence policy - then the notion of getting rid of it becomes harder to sell. Are soft independence voters going to want to go through the upheaval of establishing a separate currency, withdrawing from the UK system of risk pooling (Treasury borrowing and transfer payments,) and erecting a hard border with England, just so that they can have their own defence force and apply to rejoin the EU?
In the long term, yes, they might: this being contingent on future developments in Scotland making the country wealthier than the rest of the UK and sending the flow of transfer payments out rather than in, as I believe was the case during the North Sea oil boom of the 1980s. In the short-to-medium term, it's a tough sell.
No, a UK government will only grant a 2nd vote (before a “generation” is up) if the polls overwhelmingly show that NO would definitely win it
After the political suicide that was the Brexit referendum (for Cameron) they have all learned the lesson. Do Not Allow A Vote
Eventually this will prove untenable, but we are at least a decade away from any indyref pressure proving impossible to resist
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
I don't think that's a very plausible theory, to be honest. The people I know who think about these issues a lot are mostly people who have experienced racism, frequently pretty nasty racism at that. Accusing them of being racists sounds an awful lot like gaslighting.
I'm not sure the term gaslighting is very helpful, however (it rarely is). That theory may well be wrong, but is someone advaancing it truly gaslighting? It's not been hard to find people who have suggested X cannot be a racist because they are a great anti-racist, yet in fact X has said racist things (the classic example would be the sort of thing Baddiel details). In that situation it wouldn't be gaslighting to call someone a racist even though they would see themselves as anti-racist, even though labelling anyone who who is preoccupied with these issues as racist would be incorrect.
I think that calling someone who talks about racism because they experience racism a racist is a textbook example of gaslighting to be honest.
But that was not the original proposition. The original 'theory' was about people 'preoccupied with issues of race'. That will undoubtedly include people who have experienced racism, but is not the full extent of them. Indeed, many people are rightly and positively interested in issues of race without having experienced racism themselves.
So even if the theory was bollocks I don't think anyone suggested the approach you are calling gaslighting. Indeed, is it gaslighting to imply that was what was suggested? Am I gaslighting by suggesting that your suggestion was not the original suggestion?
Mr. Tres, could you list the races you think should be allowed to discuss racism? Or would you prefer to weigh arguments on their merits rather than prejudging them based on the skin colour of the speaker?
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.
To concisely rephrase: it's a crock of shit.
I have a theory that the people preoccupied with issues of race are those who are, in actuality, racist. The opposite of a racist isn't an 'anti-racist', it's someone who sees no colour, just likes everyone, with no prior judgements, until given a reason to do otherwise. 'Punching down' is a deeply racist idiom.
I don't think that's a very plausible theory, to be honest. The people I know who think about these issues a lot are mostly people who have experienced racism, frequently pretty nasty racism at that. Accusing them of being racists sounds an awful lot like gaslighting.
What about the theory that use of the phrase 'to be honest' usually indicates the presence of an untruth?
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
I'm not demanding that at all - read my post again. Simply considering some of the lines of argument. Of which the notion that Scots no longer being UK subjects is a disqualification is not plausible.
I think you're average rUK voter understands there is a big difference between deciding to retire abroad and the part of the UK you're from seceding it. In the event of independence, their view will be that if the people of Scotland no longer want to be part of the UK, they need to stand on their own two feet. Any Westminster party which agreed for English taxpayers to pay Scottish pensions post-indy would get a worse shellacking at the following election then the Tories got in 97.
State Pension entitlement in an independent Scotland
The key points of the Scottish Government's proposals for State Pension entitlement are:
for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government
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.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.
what utter bollox, people leave the country all the time and get the state pension. Only if England bans all Scottish and English people living in Scotland from retaining UK citizenship could they even think about it. Would not surprise me on them welching though.
I'm a British Scot - but know if your lot win I will likely lose my British citizenship.
It'll be Brexit x 10
There is no such thing as British citizenship to lose, you could move to and play your flute there.
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'm talking generally not specifically about race. Eg, a joke in the office where the butt is the boss cf where it's the cleaner - you telling me that's completely irrelevant to whether you like the joke or not?
No, because I don't see a cleaner as being 'down' the way that you clearly do. Cleaning is a perfectly honourable job, and it's possible to be a lousy cleaner and an exceptional one. Use of 'punching down' only cruelly exposes the patronising notions of those who use it.
Comments
Asian Labour voters here also tend to be Muslim or Hindu or Sikh
Rogan and Jordan Peterson did four hours last week, which was definitely worth listening to.
Another that really sticks in the mind, was when he and Tim Pool interviewed Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde from Twitter, about social media censorship, and it became obvious that the tech CEOs and COOs had built a monster that they could no longer control.
The shows where three of four comics just get pissed and stoned and talk sh!t are usually very funny, and he does an awful lot for up-and-coming comics and those who have a special or tour to promote.
Last time Alex Jones was on, they also had comic Tim Dillon with his laptop, fact-checking everything Jones said!
It doesn't withstand a moment's thought to condemn as unreasonable the notion that UK funding of Scottish pensions must continue but that Scottish funding of UK pensions won't happen.
If the current UK funding and payment of pensions is divided by Scotland leaving the most obvious and fairest approach is for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to fund their pensions, and Scotland to fund Scottish pensions.
The idea you can separate then demand citizens of another country wholly fund your 'independent' pensions while contributing absolutely nothing to the other country's pension fund is demented.
When we left the EU, the pensions liability for ex EU civil servants of British nationality was transferred to us.
In practice that didn't make a lot of difference - it just meant we paid them directly instead of sending the EU the money to pay them for us - but it might prove an awkward precedent for Scotland.
Worth noting that Jesus (particularly in the Gospel of Matthew) was scathing about those who believed themselves saved, yet had no love in their hearts.
While external "Godly" behaviour may well be a manifestation of a Godly inner life, it could be just Phariseeism.
I said: "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."
Transfer of responsibilities, as part of the wider fiscal agreement, is what happened with Ireland, as @Ydoethur has very helpfully elucidated.
I am commenting that some of the arguiments we have seen on PB don't hold up, that's all.
Might be fun.
On Bettertogether and their promises, this popped up on my timeline a couple of days ago..
They’ll be asking schools to chop off the bottom of fire doors next
Any Westminster party which agreed for English taxpayers to pay Scottish pensions post-indy would get a worse shellacking at the following election then the Tories got in 97.
I think having the rugby match on the background is confusing you and Divvie a bit.
If it was cricket or football I'd support Scotland - but Rugby? Meh.
But this notion of the pension rights of individuals lies in the fact of a UKG very firmly determined in all sorts of ways to remain the UK and saying it will retain all legal and financial obligations, and when (more generally) UKG itself very much emphasises the state pension as a cointract between individual and state, without any mention at all of the eventual beneficiary's citizenship (this last in marked contrast to some of the wibbling on PB). I know it's a Ponzi, we all do on PB, but how many of the general public really do understand that?
Re. The Rugby - great try by Scotland
If Sturgeon’s SNP are saying differently, I suspect it’s because they don’t want independence, despite what they are pretending.
All this brouhaha about pensions really boils down to is that the Scottish Government wants to convince its electorate that independence will be pain-free, because Scotland can enjoy various benefits of sovereignty whilst all the drawbacks will be covered by blank cheques issued by the Treasury in London. It's obviously dishonest and the Scottish floating voters are not going to be any more convinced by lies told by Nicola Sturgeon than they are by lies told by the Clown.
Scotland will win this, they have a vintage team
Prince Andrew to be deposed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre's lawyers on March 10 in London
Exclusive: The Duke will be forced to make a statement at a 'neutral' location when his accuser's lawyers fly in from the US
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/05/revealed-prince-andrew-deposed-virginia-roberts-giuffres-lawyers/
If Labour form a government after the next general election however it becomes more likely, especially if they need SNP confidence and supply
I can't remember when we last had one of those.
Sound money, dedicated to public service, knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Intelligent. Committed to the national interest.
Would be quite pleasant to have a government like that.
Shame we've got this one.
History tells me that's the best place to depose royals.
Anyway night all - an Arbroath smoked haddock is warming, to be eaten with bread and butter for tea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcC_2V-5zfU
It'll be Brexit x 10
If the vote were lost, he would have broken the Union and also forsaken any chance of Labour reviving in Scotland and having a better chance of proper majorities
The SNP faces two main parties in Westminster who will not grant a vote. They will both use the “generation” argument
So: 2030s it is
Regardless, the next vote, if and when it comes, will almost certainly follow on from yet another round of devolution - AIUI our old friend Gordon Brown is working on some kind of report for Starmer on 'more powers,' surprise surprise. Paradoxically, however, a further loosening of the Union ought to make full independence more difficult to achieve. If there ends up being something very like Home Rule - i.e. there's not much left of the Union barring frictionless trade and a common foreign and defence policy - then the notion of getting rid of it becomes harder to sell. Are soft independence voters going to want to go through the upheaval of establishing a separate currency, withdrawing from the UK system of risk pooling (Treasury borrowing and transfer payments,) and erecting a hard border with England, just so that they can have their own defence force and apply to rejoin the EU?
In the long term, yes, they might: this being contingent on future developments in Scotland making the country wealthier than the rest of the UK and sending the flow of transfer payments out rather than in, as I believe was the case during the North Sea oil boom of the 1980s. In the short-to-medium term, it's a tough sell.
If an individual ceases to be a UK citizen, the UK (as payer of the pension) still exists. If Scotland leaves the UK then the former payer of the pension has been split into Scotland and EWNI. The idea that only one of those would pay pensions is somewhere between novel and deranged, and rather closer to the latter than the former.
You two are dumb as a box as rocks on this.
After the political suicide that was the Brexit referendum (for Cameron) they have all learned the lesson. Do Not Allow A Vote
Eventually this will prove untenable, but we are at least a decade away from any indyref pressure proving impossible to resist
So even if the theory was bollocks I don't think anyone suggested the approach you are calling gaslighting. Indeed, is it gaslighting to imply that was what was suggested? Am I gaslighting by suggesting that your suggestion was not the original suggestion?
The key points of the Scottish Government's proposals for State Pension entitlement are:
for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/8/