To be clear, I am not saying that every "homophobe" is a closet homosexual. I'm just saying that, in my own experience, it is often the case that a man who is obsessed with "the gay issue" turns out to be harbouring homosexual leanings within himself. It makes sense that such men would be more aware than others of the matter, and in actual fact, it doesn't negate their social objections to homosexuality at all - the unexamined assertion that it does is yet another trick of the Left.
Good comment but Soft Cell, PSB and especially Bronski Beat always repulsed me, even as a child watching Top of the Pops. 40 years on, to me it seems much of the music of that time is not very good at all, and most of it is low brow trash. We weren't offered anything better. I am inclined to move on from it and leave it behind, despite some very fond memories of those times. Those times would have been better with less crap music, had that been an option.
But it was not devoid of the influence of disco, which belongs to the same kind of origins and degeneracy as blues, soul, jazz etc. The extent to which pop was European was just the same as rock music of the time - white Europeans and Americans brought their own sensibilities to the alien musical forms they were exposed to and influenced by. I am not anti-pop. I have always loved Depeche Mode and some others. I just feel more alive to its limitations these days.
Agree with your take on DM. Apart from that you're strawmanning me hard. That "early eighties British pop had no significant European flavour" is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. What's wrong with Alan Wilder? Not a fanatic or a cynic though you seem only to be able to understand me by appealing to extremes and projecting hard.
Bt the way you have some good points and insights but I think you would do well not to be so aggressive about them. I'm not an enemy, just someone who found your post interesting.
"Often, the truth is benign but complicated, whereas a lie is nasty but simple, and therefore more interesting." That 's a very nice insight indeed ('nice' in the Elizabethan sense). And I loved your point about the frequent existence of smoke without fire (try lighting one!). I stopped watching HIGNFY with the episode in question. The other two's treachery was repulsive, the stuff of animal blood sports. Indeed, the sight of that loathsome little lizard Hislop preening and posing as a beacon of moral probity made me want to throw a brick through my TV (to one's shame, one never does!) And how Hislop has revealed his true colours now! Pretending to attack the establishment whilst being paid a fortune by it and simultaneously betraying his country's culture and traditions. And don't even mention what he's done to Private Eye - utterly neutered of real satire, and sporting front covers of such limp-dicked impotence ('Trump is nasty' etc) as to be truly breathtaking - Peter Cook must be turning in his grave, while lighting another fag). As for Paul Merson, his blank dourness was always a tedious one-trick pony. Surprised he wasn't handed his P45 donkeys years ago. HIGNFY was very much a psychological product of its age. Celebrity is now a dirty word. It is the definition of those who suck up to power in order to secure pleasure and safety within the corrupt narrative. The famous are no more than state apparatchiks. I despise them, which is painful experience actually, because I want to love them. The spirit of emulation binds and inspires true culture. We all need heroes But then no doubt today we must become the heroes we need. Thanks for a super essay, MW. And trust you're enjoying these superb sunny days - glo-ball warmink, donchaknow!
Agreed about the treachery and the hypocrisy. I have a major six-part essay on HIGNFY, including one part dedicated to Ian Hislop, coming up this month.
To hold Deaton to account for what are largely harmless private vices would make sense in an age of solemn public respectability; in our days it seems extreme, like firing a woman for showing her ankle. When you consider that even worse degeneracy is probably the norm in the BBC; when you consider that everyone there knew about Savile & they probably thought it was just a perk of the job, that it was indeed fine because the victims were the white working class, then I'm inclined to despise those who pretend to be outraged. It would be interesting to know HOW exactly Deaton's crimes came out, when there must be so many others in the BBC which no one will ever hear about.
The more pathologized, feminized, and technocratically managed we become, the more this kind of thing will rule us. All that will matter is the spin those with social power put on anything, anyone. Truth, purpose, and nuance are all endangered species.
On the "public money" issue: in most contexts that means "government money derived from tax revenues or fees." I don't know the first thing about Deayton--had to look him up on Wikipedia just now--but my initial instinct is that the correct response to the allegation that he paid for his hookers and blow with "public money" is "No, he didn't."
He's a public employee sure, but he's still just an employee. Once his paycheck hits his bank account, it isn't "public money" anymore.
Things would be different if he was actually billing the BBC for his extracurriculars. Treating it like a business expense or something. That would indeed be an aggravating factor--but no more than a sales guy putting his business trip champagne room shenanigans on the company credit card would be. The boss doesn't have to give a flying fig about the inherent morality of said shenanigans to be pissed about having to pay for them.
Still, there are intuitions about public employees being held to some kind of higher standard, so one could argue that. . . no, wait never mind. I can't finish that sentence without cracking up. As long as the money he spent came from his salary, I have very little sympathy for the "public money" angle.
I see HIGNFY on youtube occasionally and the pomposity (if that's the right word) of Hislop , Merton and everyone else involved just makes me sick to be honest. I must have stopped watching it about 10 years ago and, esp after the last 3 years, I cannot believe people still watch it and most likely think they're jolly clever for doing so, as if it's edgy or something. You are right Woes, their treatment of Deaton in that last episode was pretty disgusting. I wouldn't have fired him, I think I'd have left him on the show and let people decide if they still wanted to watch it or not, let the viewers vote with their feet. I dare say they wouldnt have lost many viewers over it. I did enjoy the guest presenters for a while though, but that was in another era. I don't watch or listen to BBC comedy anymore.
Of course I know the difference. Please be serious.
To be clear, I am not saying that every "homophobe" is a closet homosexual. I'm just saying that, in my own experience, it is often the case that a man who is obsessed with "the gay issue" turns out to be harbouring homosexual leanings within himself. It makes sense that such men would be more aware than others of the matter, and in actual fact, it doesn't negate their social objections to homosexuality at all - the unexamined assertion that it does is yet another trick of the Left.
Good comment but Soft Cell, PSB and especially Bronski Beat always repulsed me, even as a child watching Top of the Pops. 40 years on, to me it seems much of the music of that time is not very good at all, and most of it is low brow trash. We weren't offered anything better. I am inclined to move on from it and leave it behind, despite some very fond memories of those times. Those times would have been better with less crap music, had that been an option.
But it was not devoid of the influence of disco, which belongs to the same kind of origins and degeneracy as blues, soul, jazz etc. The extent to which pop was European was just the same as rock music of the time - white Europeans and Americans brought their own sensibilities to the alien musical forms they were exposed to and influenced by. I am not anti-pop. I have always loved Depeche Mode and some others. I just feel more alive to its limitations these days.
Agree with your take on DM. Apart from that you're strawmanning me hard. That "early eighties British pop had no significant European flavour" is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. What's wrong with Alan Wilder? Not a fanatic or a cynic though you seem only to be able to understand me by appealing to extremes and projecting hard.
Bt the way you have some good points and insights but I think you would do well not to be so aggressive about them. I'm not an enemy, just someone who found your post interesting.
"Often, the truth is benign but complicated, whereas a lie is nasty but simple, and therefore more interesting." That 's a very nice insight indeed ('nice' in the Elizabethan sense). And I loved your point about the frequent existence of smoke without fire (try lighting one!). I stopped watching HIGNFY with the episode in question. The other two's treachery was repulsive, the stuff of animal blood sports. Indeed, the sight of that loathsome little lizard Hislop preening and posing as a beacon of moral probity made me want to throw a brick through my TV (to one's shame, one never does!) And how Hislop has revealed his true colours now! Pretending to attack the establishment whilst being paid a fortune by it and simultaneously betraying his country's culture and traditions. And don't even mention what he's done to Private Eye - utterly neutered of real satire, and sporting front covers of such limp-dicked impotence ('Trump is nasty' etc) as to be truly breathtaking - Peter Cook must be turning in his grave, while lighting another fag). As for Paul Merson, his blank dourness was always a tedious one-trick pony. Surprised he wasn't handed his P45 donkeys years ago. HIGNFY was very much a psychological product of its age. Celebrity is now a dirty word. It is the definition of those who suck up to power in order to secure pleasure and safety within the corrupt narrative. The famous are no more than state apparatchiks. I despise them, which is painful experience actually, because I want to love them. The spirit of emulation binds and inspires true culture. We all need heroes But then no doubt today we must become the heroes we need. Thanks for a super essay, MW. And trust you're enjoying these superb sunny days - glo-ball warmink, donchaknow!
Agreed about the treachery and the hypocrisy. I have a major six-part essay on HIGNFY, including one part dedicated to Ian Hislop, coming up this month.
Much look foreward to it! 😎
To hold Deaton to account for what are largely harmless private vices would make sense in an age of solemn public respectability; in our days it seems extreme, like firing a woman for showing her ankle. When you consider that even worse degeneracy is probably the norm in the BBC; when you consider that everyone there knew about Savile & they probably thought it was just a perk of the job, that it was indeed fine because the victims were the white working class, then I'm inclined to despise those who pretend to be outraged. It would be interesting to know HOW exactly Deaton's crimes came out, when there must be so many others in the BBC which no one will ever hear about.
The more pathologized, feminized, and technocratically managed we become, the more this kind of thing will rule us. All that will matter is the spin those with social power put on anything, anyone. Truth, purpose, and nuance are all endangered species.
On the "public money" issue: in most contexts that means "government money derived from tax revenues or fees." I don't know the first thing about Deayton--had to look him up on Wikipedia just now--but my initial instinct is that the correct response to the allegation that he paid for his hookers and blow with "public money" is "No, he didn't."
He's a public employee sure, but he's still just an employee. Once his paycheck hits his bank account, it isn't "public money" anymore.
Things would be different if he was actually billing the BBC for his extracurriculars. Treating it like a business expense or something. That would indeed be an aggravating factor--but no more than a sales guy putting his business trip champagne room shenanigans on the company credit card would be. The boss doesn't have to give a flying fig about the inherent morality of said shenanigans to be pissed about having to pay for them.
Still, there are intuitions about public employees being held to some kind of higher standard, so one could argue that. . . no, wait never mind. I can't finish that sentence without cracking up. As long as the money he spent came from his salary, I have very little sympathy for the "public money" angle.
>Why is it different when the money has been collected via the License Fee than when a consumer buys commercial products?
I heard you don't get much choice about paying your license fee, do you? We assume the costumer chooses to buy the product of a private enterprise.
I see HIGNFY on youtube occasionally and the pomposity (if that's the right word) of Hislop , Merton and everyone else involved just makes me sick to be honest. I must have stopped watching it about 10 years ago and, esp after the last 3 years, I cannot believe people still watch it and most likely think they're jolly clever for doing so, as if it's edgy or something. You are right Woes, their treatment of Deaton in that last episode was pretty disgusting. I wouldn't have fired him, I think I'd have left him on the show and let people decide if they still wanted to watch it or not, let the viewers vote with their feet. I dare say they wouldnt have lost many viewers over it. I did enjoy the guest presenters for a while though, but that was in another era. I don't watch or listen to BBC comedy anymore.