He serves a purpose, but that purpose is ultimately destructive to real communication.I guess my point was that ‘we’ve’ gone from criticising content to criticising a modality that is often celebrated—particularly when the content is liked.
You said “There are enough people out there that relate to him and they love it when someone speaks for them so they don't have to articulate their own viewpoints which rarely ends well for them.”
This could equally be applied to Trump, Mandela, Keir Hardy and thousands of other representatives. Including Morrissey. In and of itself I don’t feel doing this is a bad thing.
So are you really suggesting that he represents fearful thousands who you’d rather see having no representation at all—itself a political belief which itself seems shared but mostly unsaid by some here?
Or are you suggesting he’s lying—for his own benefit (the cynics view of politicians). I guess that’s interesting, because it might hint that that’s what you feel Morrissey is doing (as Watson mainly repeats Morrissey’s words in the video).
peeps are taken in by 'cynical reps' that are already reps and peeps voted for FC?He serves a purpose, but that purpose is ultimately destructive to real communication.
Nothing I said suggests people should not have representation but when people are taken in by cynical representatives who provide them with a preformed set of ideas I don't think this is a good thing. Even more than that, it's the attitude.
FC I take it you consider yourself part of this 'some here' group that wont spea their views, allowing you to postIf you have a political belief and you're afraid to say it I'm perfectly content that you don't. Not speaking to you directly but to this idea of "some here" who won't speak their views. That idea allows people to carry out actions, not just talk, because they believe that many others feel the same way.
If people are too ignorant or inarticulate to be able to express their own point of view I don't feel badly about my lack of interest in their representation.
I think that one of the problems with social media in general and Facebook as a particularly bad example, is that people that really should probably be trading fried chicken recipes feel compelled to have A Very Important Opinion on many things that they really don't bother to learn much about.
Moz is a different matter than having peeps show at the poll.I sometimes wonder when voter drives happen if having more people showing up at the polls on election day is really the answer.
Morrissey is a different matter.
I believe his purpose is often to stir the pot but I don't think he's doing this for economic reasons as most of his controversial statements cost him far more than they benefit him. I don't think he's doing this, as a politician would, to gain power either. I believe he likes to appear in print saying things that will make people react. There are two Morrisseys. One is a pop star trying to chart records and the other is a public figure known more for things he has said than his music. The first one does make him some money from time to time but the second one adds to the myth but causes practical problems.
It doesn't matter what's in the video
Paul's far right connections can only make Morrissey's situation worse.
Guilt by association.
Again, it doesn't matter. He's associated with white nationalists, echoed their talking points & said some bigoted things.
It would be another nail in the coffin.
a beloved elder statesman and right-on sexagenarian regular of corporate festivals who rehashes his old glories while wallowing in conformity even as he poses as some kind of rebel outlier?
Well, it's sure gracious of you to clear that up for everybody.
Today's lesson — it doesn't matter what anyone actually is, but only what the socially engineered mob say they are. Seems to be the way of things anymore.
What exactly "would be another nail in the coffin"? Some kind of association between Morrissey and Watson? I seem to recall him having including references to Watson in his posts over at Morrissey Central from time to time. So, unless I'm mistaken, that horse bolted already.
It might be that the prospect of a worsening situation doesn't intimidate him enough to share your reservations about the fellow's patronage. He may lament the stickiness of his predicament, but that isn't tantamount to a willingness to compromise or sanitize himself in order to save the career, nor should it be. The determination and character required to dig his heels in and not look for the easy way out should be applauded. This isn't a Mumford forum, is it?
I mean, what is it that we want out of Morrissey? Do we want a true artist with some honest convictions, whether we agree with them all or not? Or do we want a beloved elder statesman and right-on sexagenarian regular of corporate festivals who rehashes his old glories while wallowing in conformity even as he poses as some kind of rebel outlier? Maybe in a more coherent age we could have both the honest artist and the respected elder statesman, but this is not that.
Besides, was anyone ever drawn to Morrissey because he was the toast of polite society or slotted neatly into the dominant cultural orthodoxy? Would it really be in keeping with his history, and everything we ever found attractive about him, if Morrissey was accepted? Let's be truthful, some sanitization of his public image and some acceptance is all Morrissey has to gain in forcefully distancing himself from the likes of Watson (which would be an insincere act). And it's been too late for that for some time now, anyway.
If "far right" is being used specifically as an interchangeable term for white nationalists — which would make a change from it being carelessly tossed around to refer to people like Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nigel Farage, Anne Marie Waters and, quite hilariously, Raheem Kassam — it should be noted that a great many in that number dislike and even loathe Watson.
But did it ever occur to any offhand critics of white nationalism that white nationalists might even have some valid arguments, and that maybe this accounts for some people who are not avowed white nationalists sharing some talking points with avowed white nationalists? I and my neighbor may have varying mileage on a multitude of issues, but that doesn't render one or the other of us utterly incapable of making astute observations or identifying realities. Why should any nominal group be given a monopoly on talking points? They're talking points, they don't belong to any particular party. Some non-white people are even known to share talking points with white nationalists, as much as it might inspire cognitive dissonance in the boggled minds of some here. It's not just possible, but actually quite common, for people to share some views even as their more general outlooks are significantly nuanced. Two people can, for example, agree that western nations have been subject to an orchestrated program of demographic replacement (there is, after all, a certain amount of historical evidence and political testimony to support that view) even while possessing differing views on whether or not it is desirable to share one's ancestral homeland with others of a different ethnic and cultural background. Is there any truth, substance and food for thought to be extracted from the talking point or not? This is all that should matter.
If people actually got into the real world instead of viewing it through media tropes, they'd realize that the numbers of white Europeans who object to demographic replacism — a phenomenon which, at this stage, could only be denied by those who don't get out and about much, whether one attributes its existence to deliberate design or a conspiracy of happenstance — are swelled by a great contingent of liberally minded folk who have been sharing and socializing with people of different ethnicities for decades.
(To me, Watson comes off like a pretty safe civic nationalist with streaks of classical liberalism, but I'm not offering a categorical statement on whether he is or isn't white nationalist. Maybe he's a really sneaky white nationalist operating under the cover of a pretty safe civic nationalist or something, whatever, that's not my argument.)
Card-carrying member of the Weller-approved, feathercut-sporting dadrocker club for around three decades now. Utterly lost without the muse and direction a certain firebrand gave him. Now reduced to claiming that he wanted a quiet life all along and was never drawn to Morrissey in the first place for the inherent edginess he himself lacked and, according to his own previous testimony, desired in the band to which he would belong.
This guy's hero was Keith Richards, for goodness' sake. He had four or five inspired years in the Smiths, a contribution for which I am sincerely grateful, but he was always a square.
The emotional homecomings of the healthily robust and enduringly relevant (not just due to the great prescience of many of his earlier works),
Or the paisley-splattered, wizened, eternally constipated cabaret of the sanitized and accepted,
It's a no-brainer for me.
It's actually not goalpost moving at all, it's just that you're used to grifters spoon-feeding you their dishonest interpretations of "data" and so you don't understand how to look at what this information actually suggests. More people feeling comfortable identifying as homosexual in a poll conducted over the telephone does not mean there is an uptick in the number of homosexuals roaming the earth or that nefarious forces are somehow "turning" children gay.
Nice, Morrissey being championed by a guy banned on IG and FB for hate speech and conspiracy theories.