Hong Kong - MacPherson Stadium (Oct. 6, 2016) post-show

Post your info and reviews related to this concert in the comments section below. Other links (photos, external reviews, etc.) related to this concert will also be compiled in this section as they are sent in.

Setlist:

Suedehead / You Have Killed Me / Alma Matters / Speedway / Ouija Board, Ouija Board / You're The One For Me, Fatty / Ganglord / World Peace Is None Of Your Business / Kiss Me A Lot / I'm Throwing My Arms Around Paris / The Bullfighter Dies / First Of The Gang To Die / Jack The Ripper / The World Is Full Of Crashing Bores / Meat Is Murder / All The Lazy Dykes / How Soon Is Now? / Everyday Is Like Sunday / What She Said // Judy Is A Punk

setlist provided by setlist.fm. Link posted by Sarcasmos.


  • Photo from afoxontheroad / Instagram:

    39191_hongkong.jpg
 
Last edited:

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
I just happen to think that the sub-species comment was blown out of proportion and most importantly was taken out of context.
It was taken out of context. The full quote isn't usually used.
"Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies." That does add context. "Can't help but feel" implies that it is with regret he feels this or would say it, and he'd just seen a program about animals being tortured as part of everyday business as usual. That would make someone angry.

But you can't say it's blown out of proportion because that would be like saying Morrissey is stupid and doesn't know exactly what he was saying, and the sort of associations that sort of language has. He was doing what he does best, making a controversial statement. Was it racist? If it wasn't it was clumsy and stupid to think it would be seen otherwise. He'd been making comments about China for more than a decade by then, so this wasn't some comment made in anger and regretted ten minutes later.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It was taken out of context. The full quote isn't usually used.
"Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies." That does add context. "Can't help but feel" implies that it is with regret he feels this or would say it, and he'd just seen a program about animals being tortured as part of everyday business as usual. That would make someone angry.

But you can't say it's blown out of proportion because that would be like saying Morrissey is stupid and doesn't know exactly what he was saying, and the sort of associations that sort of language has. He was doing what he does best, making a controversial statement. Was it racist? If it wasn't it was clumsy and stupid to think it would be seen otherwise. He'd been making comments about China for more than a decade by then, so this wasn't some comment made in anger and regretted ten minutes later.

Then you shouldn't be offended if someone says "You can't help but feel you are an ignorant Morrissey apologist with a brain the size of a testicle."
 

2-J

Member
Was it racist? If it wasn't it was clumsy and stupid to think it would be seen otherwise.

I agree, in context (as I explained and you explained) there is no sensible way it can be read as a racist comment. And yes I do agree it was clumsy and stupid, he should have known by now how the media picks up and seizes on things and takes them out of context.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I agree, in context (as I explained and you explained) there is no sensible way it can be read as a racist comment. And yes I do agree it was clumsy and stupid, he should have known by now how the media picks up and seizes on things and takes them out of context.

Why don't you print the subspecies comment on a t-shirt and wander around China? If anyone confronts you can explain how there is no sensible way it can be read as a racist comment.
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
I agree, in context (as I explained and you explained) there is no sensible way it can be read as a racist comment. And yes I do agree it was clumsy and stupid, he should have known by now how the media picks up and seizes on things and takes them out of context.
I think you misunderstood. I agree the statement was taken out of context, but I think he had enough experience with the media to know it would be. Yes, it was taken out of context, but that doesn't mean it's not racist. It's either intentionally racist or he's an idiot. You can't write all those lyrics and make all those controversial statements without knowing the power of language, and to use the extreme term "subspecies" without a precise intent isn't really possible. The statement is clearly racist and the context might provide an excuse, but it doesn't change the meaning. You'd have to be naive to think that language just came out of his mouth by accident. "Taken out of context" is an overused excuse for all sorts of statements constantly. Context matters and I can see being angry after watching the program he was referring to, but again, he'd said China should be bombed over ten years before. He's had time to think about this. The statement wasn't off the cuff. He didn't apologize or explain. It has to have been fully intentional, and there's no way it's not racist to use that sort of language.
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
Then you shouldn't be offended if someone says "You can't help but feel you are an ignorant Morrissey apologist with a brain the size of a testicle."
I'd consider the source before I was offended... When a monkey flings its poo you sort of have to laugh, right? Not to be specist. :monkeyface: :thumb:
 

2-J

Member
there's no way it's not racist to use that sort of language.

Well, if I misundertood, I think it's because you didn't explain your position thoroughly (which you have now gone on to do). I didn't appreciate, from your previous comments, that you were asserting that it was inherently racist to use the word "sub-species" regardless of context. I think that view is patently ridiculous, because context matters.

When you say

It's either intentionally racist or he's an idiot

I agree with this, as I said above, he was stupid not to realise how the media would sensationalise it.
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
Well, if I misundertood, I think it's because you didn't explain your position thoroughly (which you have now gone on to do). I didn't appreciate, from your previous comments, that you were asserting that it was inherently racist to use the word "sub-species" regardless of context. I think that view is patently ridiculous, because context matters.

When you say



I agree with this, as I said above, he was stupid not to realise how the media would sensationalise it.

Context can modify a statement but "taken out of context" is meaningless without explaining how the context modifies a word like "subspecies." Can you explain it?
The rest goes into mind reading, guessing his intent, but I give him credit for knowing that everything he says when talking to the press will become a sort of currency. The press wants to sell his statements and I don't think he's stupid enough to make a statement like that by accident.
 

2-J

Member
Context can modify a statement but "taken out of context" is meaningless without explaining how the context modifies a word like "subspecies." Can you explain it?

I already did in my first post in this thread.

He didn't say the Chinese were a sub-species.

He said that looking at the treatment of cats and dogs in China, "you can't help but feel" the Chinese are a subspecies.

There is a difference.
it's a turn of phrase 'you can't help but feel...' what you say after that doesn't have to be what you really think is objectively factually true, in fact the implication is that you don't think it is objectively true, it could be a fleeting thought (e.g. in the heat of the moment, or out of anger etc).
 

bun bun

baklava
He specifically said the Chinese are a sub-species. He hasn’t said that about the Japanese and their dolphin- and whale massacres, Canada, the Spanish with their bullfighting, the French with their f***ing fois gras, Australia and its animal transports, Vietnam … He pointed to the Chinese. Of course it was racist.

I just feel it’s a shame he says these things because it detracts from his message, an important one. He could have just said “the animal rights situation is China is appalling, don’t eat dog (although - why is eating dog any worse than eating cow or pig?) and don’t buy UGG boots, especially the cheap knock-offs from China because they skin animals alive making them”. Or something. Instead he labelled an entire nation as a sub-species.

Instead of advancing animal rights, he just goes down in history as a silly racist.

Thank God he’s not an LGBT activist, God knows the damage he could have done to the cause.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Came here to read a review of the gig.

Silly me.

Ah yes the gi I mean performance !
Wwwwwwell just the same old routine really, same old songs, sporting the same old humasexual ding-bling-dazzlers, tossed his shirt, thick fog etc, etc, apart from they performed a new version of Judy is a punk o_O
The second verse wasn't anything like the first in fact he changed the lyric to 'Chow' and 4kd off ! :eek:
And if that wasn't bad enough the 4king Lawnmowers followed suit ! :eek: The whole circus packed up and drove off into the night without a refund or explanation :confused:
Totally unprofessional in my book, what a way to treat the people of Hong Kong ? It seems as though there is some kind of mad rush to just rip through these dates as fast as they can doing as little as they need to ! It's all a bit "Can I take your order sir ? Here you are sir now fck off ! Next !" :squiffy:

Now in the aftermath the bots will come up with all sorts of reasons to excuse this kind of behaviour :lbf:.
So just kick back and let the real entertainment commence :popcorn::rofl:Enjoy !

" Chow "

Benny-the-British-Butcher :greatbritain::knife:
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
I already did in my first post in this thread.
Okay. I think that doesn't really change it. Imagine I were to say that "Did you know that much of the African slave trade was financed by Jewish bankers? When you consider this you can't help but feel that, as Hitler stated, the Jewish people are subhuman."
Then the papers write "Calamine Lotion says 'the Jewish people are subhuman," can I say that my statement was intentionally misinterpreted?
Morrissey didn't quote Hitler, but when he talks about "subspecies" he might as well have. He was saying that because of the cruelty shown on a documentary showing that some people who are Chinese have practices that are cruel and indefensible, that he "can't help but feel" that "the Chinese," all of them, are not human.
I was hoping for something that would put that in a different context, and neither "one can't help but feel" or even, "taking into consideration" which he didn't actually say, modify that word "subspecies" into any context that avoids racism.
In my opinion you could make a better justification or excuse by saying that of course he did this on intentionally to draw attention to a problem than to say, oh poor misunderstood, naive foolish Morrissey, after all these years of making statements calling for the bombing of scientist's homes, and the deaths of heads of state, he is just so simple that he can't understand that these things he says will be distorted.
You can say he didn't mean it, though it seems he did, and that it was justified because of an emotional reaction, but I think you have a really hard time selling the idea it was an accident or that he was victimized. He knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would have, and that's exactly what happened.
 

bun bun

baklava
I'm not sure Morrissey really is this smart troll that some people give him credit for these days.

From The Smiths and, as one other poster said a while ago, "a band that had a fierce intelligence about them", to his cringe-worthy stage banter and some of the not so clever statements he makes these days ... I don't know what happened. Like, with the incredibly ignorant speaking-Mandarin-to-a-Hong-Kong-audience incident he reminds me more of

 
Last edited:

bun bun

baklava
still angry?

Is this aimed at me?

What are you insinuating in that case?

That anyone who criticises Morrissey's behaviours must have anger problems? Couldn't possibly be that they have a point?

The mind of a Mozbot.
 
Last edited:

2-J

Member
Okay. I think that doesn't really change it. Imagine I were to say that "Did you know that much of the African slave trade was financed by Jewish bankers? When you consider this you can't help but feel that, as Hitler stated, the Jewish people are subhuman."
Then the papers write "Calamine Lotion says 'the Jewish people are subhuman," can I say that my statement was intentionally misinterpreted?
Morrissey didn't quote Hitler, but when he talks about "subspecies" he might as well have. He was saying that because of the cruelty shown on a documentary showing that some people who are Chinese have practices that are cruel and indefensible, that he "can't help but feel" that "the Chinese," all of them, are not human.
I was hoping for something that would put that in a different context, and neither "one can't help but feel" or even, "taking into consideration" which he didn't actually say, modify that word "subspecies" into any context that avoids racism.

It would be a shocking thing to hear (just like Morrissey's comment was, even in context) but if it was reported as you say, I would argue that it had been misinterpreted yes, and intentionally so. He was talking about a visceral, emotional reaction at a moment in time (presumably to actually seeing photos or video, or hearing about it in detail) that did not represent his considered objective view on the matter, and his choice of words / phrasing etc reflect that.

In my opinion you could make a better justification or excuse by saying that of course he did this on intentionally to draw attention to a problem than to say, oh poor misunderstood, naive foolish Morrissey, after all these years of making statements calling for the bombing of scientist's homes, and the deaths of heads of state, he is just so simple that he can't understand that these things he says will be distorted.
You can say he didn't mean it, though it seems he did, and that it was justified because of an emotional reaction, but I think you have a really hard time selling the idea it was an accident or that he was victimized. He knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would have, and that's exactly what happened

This alternative doesn't seem plausible to me either. The idea that he, in a calculated way (so we are even talking premeditation here) said this to deliberately cause a reaction to draw attention to the issue seems far fetched to me. I am aware of his history of controversial statements, but I would argue that this history makes it more plausible that he just generally doesn't shy away from saying controversial things and expressing his opinions in dramatic and even shocking terms.

and by the way, I have criticised Morrissey in the past on here for saying idiotic things, I'm not even a vegetarian myself for goodness' sake, so lord knows I find many of views completely barmy. Nevertheless, I do feel on this occasion that he was significantly misrepresented.
 

King Leer

Leering since '97
I've always thought the exact opposite. Moz knows that as far as the mainstream media goes, the animal issues he cares about are a non-story. The easiest way to get at least some discussion happening is to jumpstart it with an outrageous remark like "sub-species". I don't consider it trolling because that implies its only purpose is to rile people up.
Does he think all people of Chinese descent are a "sub-species"? No. I don't even believe he thinks all people in China are. But he was pissed off enough about the barbaric practices he'd seen that the media attention his statement got outweighed any racial fallout. He doesn't care. No article could not mention the reasoning behind the nutty remark -- mission accomplished.

I don' t know if Morrissey's MO is a good thing, but we all know he values animals far more than any human. Sub-species, the Royals stuff, even the early 90s racial brouhaha -- meh. Only Norway massacre truly bothered me as it involved specific victims whose loved ones were just mourning.

It would be a shocking thing to hear (just like Morrissey's comment was, even in context) but if it was reported as you say, I would argue that it had been misinterpreted yes, and intentionally so. He was talking about a visceral, emotional reaction at a moment in time (presumably to actually seeing photos or video, or hearing about it in detail) that did not represent his considered objective view on the matter, and his choice of words / phrasing etc reflect that.

This alternative doesn't seem plausible to me either. The idea that he, in a calculated way (so we are even talking premeditation here) said this to deliberately cause a reaction to draw attention to the issue seems far fetched to me. I am aware of his history of controversial statements, but I would argue that this history makes it more plausible that he just generally doesn't shy away from saying controversial things and expressing his opinions in dramatic and even shocking terms.

and by the way, I have criticised Morrissey in the past on here for saying idiotic things, I'm not even a vegetarian myself for goodness' sake, so lord knows I find many of views completely barmy. Nevertheless, I do feel on this occasion that he was significantly misrepresented.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
From the top of the thread:

"Post your info and reviews related to this concert in the comments section below. Other links (photos, external reviews, etc.) related to this concert will also be compiled in this section as they are sent in."

What's going on with this site? It's very poorly moderated. This is a post show thread, right? Why not discuss the "sub-species" comment in a thread specifically about that instead of cluttering this thread. Many posting off topic here and in other threads appear to be longtime members, and should know better. Also, a lot of fans couldn't care less about Moz's inflammatory comments, whether or not he eats cheese, (etc.). Again, those that do can start or post in threads about all of that nonsense. Some fans just enjoy the music and choose to separate artist and man, for better or worse, as shocking as that may be to some.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
From the top of the thread:

"Post your info and reviews related to this concert in the comments section below. Other links (photos, external reviews, etc.) related to this concert will also be compiled in this section as they are sent in."

What's going on with this site? It's very poorly moderated. This is a post show thread, right? Why not discuss the "sub-species" comment in a thread specifically about that instead of cluttering this thread. Many posting off topic here and in other threads appear to be longtime members, and should know better. Also, a lot of fans couldn't care less about Moz's inflammatory comments, whether or not he eats cheese, (etc.). Again, those that do can start or post in threads about all of that nonsense. Some fans just enjoy the music and choose to separate artist and man, for better or worse, as shocking as that may be to some.

Actually this site is remarkably well moderated, whether you agree or not. The sub-species comment is absolutely 100% on-topic. If you don't like it, we can recommend several other sites that might offend you less.
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Top Bottom