Jump to content

BomberPat

Paid Members
  • Content Count

    2,942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BomberPat

  1. While this is theoretically true, one can also be a victim of religious persecution/prejudice while not being a follower of the religion, they just need to be perceived as one. Someone who blames Protestants, or indeed Muslims or Jews, for everything they dislike in life probably isn't interested in a theological discussion to determine the precise religion of the target of their ire.
  2. It's difficult - on one hand it can be argued as a distraction, on the other hand it's all part and parcel of a much wider concern. I've been thinking that myself the past couple of days - I've spent a lot of time on social media banging on about statues, about the legacy of Churchill and Empire, and so on. It's familiar ground to me, politically and academically. But then I start to think that maybe by focusing too much on all of that, as well intentioned as it may be, is a distraction from more urgent issues of inequality and racism going on today. Then, on the other hand, I think that mine isn't the voice that should be heard on that, and I don't want to be yet another person drowning out and talking other more marginalised voices. In general, it's something that "The Left" or, more accurately, disjointed pressure groups, need to reckon with - something like the removal of Colston's statue in Bristol has been in the works for years, a local equivalent has been ongoing since before the statue was erected about 5 years ago. But this goes on in closed Facebook groups, discussions in pubs and student unions, or in discreet lobbying. So it's invisible to the vast majority of the public. So the majority of the public that lean centre-right and aren't politically engaged don't see that these things are the culmination of years of work, or that there's any coherent ideology behind them, they just see it as something they once enjoyed or took for granted being arbitrarily declared unacceptable.
  3. Barbara is the element I found hardest to watch when going back, but I also interpreted the character in the revival very differently to you - it felt like, because Barbara had always been portrayed as grotesque and laughably "unfeminine", that they were ridiculing the idea of trans rights and her arguments for dignity and respect by association. I found it, if anything, harder to watch than the character had been in the initial series, so it's interesting to see you read it very differently. I assume Boosh was the Spirit of Jazz, yeah. Bit of a shitty comment from Harry Enfield, though. Why would he have to play him? Why not cast someone else to do it?
  4. It's an area we all grew up in, still have extensive family ties in, and the specific town in question is where my brother and his kids live, so we've all spent a lot of time there over the years, it's definitely not an assumption.
  5. I actually never watched the sitcom, and only saw the ads for it, and it was never framed in this way at all there. Which is part of the problem - when you can reduce it to catchphrases, the catchphrases tend to take on a life of their own when removed from context. Presumably Lee & Herring weren't involved in the writing of it once it moved to ITV?
  6. There's a bloke I'm Facebook friends with, who I only really keep on my friends list because it gives me a bit of a window into this mindset - I've seen him transform from a liberal, Guardian reading type, anti-Brexit at the time of the referendum, to over the last three years becoming so reactionary as to have actually posted photos of himself at a Free Speech event stood with the leader of the Proud Boys. He can be relied upon to argue every right wing talking point imaginable, and tilt at windmills arguing with imaginary leftists. I know for a fact that he hated Little Britain, and I'm waiting with bated breath for him to post a spirited defence of it today.
  7. There are black wrestlers on their roster that you barely see - I'm pretty sure Sonny Kiss still hasn't wrestled on Dynamite outside of Battle Royals. Big Swole only seems to show up once in a blue moon.
  8. I'm convinced it's an exercise in manipulating Google search results so that anyone searching for the best/greatest match ever see this before anything from another company.
  9. @Astro Hollywood will probably have a better take on this than me, but the likes of Alf Garnett seem to be far more of a "have their cake and eat it" situation than a misunderstood character; they may have routinely been the butt of the joke, but the structure of the jokes still put the big laugh on racial slurs and racist humour. It was a way of still getting away with racist jokes with a thin veneer of an excuse that you were laughing at racists. There's a bit in "Hitler Moustache" by Richard Herring where he talks about having been a writer for the Pub Landlord character, but then sitting backstage at some big arena gig Al Murray was playing and having the realisation that not everyone was laughing at it in the spirit in which it was intended, to say the least. It's the same thing every time Blazing Saddles comes up in this kind of context - a lot of people saying "you couldn't get away with that any more!" seem to think that the film's humour lies in giving them the excuse to shout racial slurs in the name of comedy, rather than how it subverted the myth-making of Hollywood westerns, and how racism was a significant part of that. It's true that you couldn't make it any more - because the genre it's spoofing is utterly irrelevant. Little Britain was shit, and it's not just that they were playing other ethnicities, it's that they were "punching down" for the most part, and that when they were playing other races they were absolute grotesques. The punching down is the main reason I'm not sad it's been taken off streaming services, though - I know disabled kids who were bullied with "yeah I know", and old blokes in the pub who would do the "I'm a lady" voice when talking about a trans woman. It's comedy that's given dickheads language to insult people, and I have no time for that. It's going to be funny seeing people who up until this week thought it was shit now defending it as a classic of its time, though. League of Gentlemen I'm a little more annoyed about. There's more offensive stuff in League than Papa Lazarou, and I think summing up Lazarou as just a blackface character is a bit much. He's a horrible, absurd villain, using the iconography of minstrelsy not to mimic or mock blackness but to suggest something more otherworldly and sinister. But then I appreciate that I'm maybe only making that defence because I like League, and don't like Little Britain, and that it sounds a bit too much like Alan Moore's shitty defence of using the gollywog as a character in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. What's more tiresome is people talking about this in terms of censorship, or these shows being banned. Shows are removed from Netflix every day, and no one bats an eyelid. It's a commercial decision. I would rather they hadn't explained why, which feels a bit like seeking clout, and just let it quietly disappear, and we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. But you can still buy it on Amazon or anywhere else, and I expect every charity shop in the company still has a dozen copies on DVD.
  10. This is the point of systemic racism, though. It doesn't mean "it's a system that has racists in it", it means it's a system that is inherently racist. I'm sure the vast majority, if not all, police officers join the police in order to make a difference and do good. Considerably moreso than in the US, where in many - perhaps all - states one of the key attractions of the police force is that it's a well-paying job that you don't need a bachelor's degree to go into. But as Houchen said, the reason people talk about the police as being inherently corrupt isn't because of the actions of individual police officers, it's because it is (or certainly appears to be from the outside) a closed shop that will close ranks when faced with criticism, to protect their own rather than to root out the individuals causing the problem. And when the institution becomes complicit in protecting, defending or excusing the actions of individuals, that's when the institution itself becomes the problem. It's not that individual cops aren't turning in bad cops, it's that the entire judicial system seems to be designed with the express intent of protecting the bad cops. As for the broader discussion on race and class, there are absolutely sections where the two intersect - I dislike talking about "black on black crime" or "knife crime" as that tends to be a dog whistle to suggest violent black male gangs in London, but if you look at crime rates, particularly violent crime (with the exception, for the purpose of this point, of domestic violence), the common denominator is economic/lack of opportunity, not race. The two tend to intersect - 40-50% of black households fall into the bottom quarter of household income, compared to 10-20% of white households, while for the top quarter of household income the % of white households remains roughly the same, but black households represent less than 10% - but where youth crime is divided on economic grounds and not racial grounds, we don't talk about it as "white" crime. When Glasgow was the most violent city in Europe, there weren't people clutching their pearls about "white on white crime" or asking why white people as a whole weren't doing more to tackle white crime. Adjusted for economic factors, the racial split disappears - poor white kids are committing more crimes than rich black kids. Where that class differences becomes more or less irrelevant, though, is in policing, and in perception. Countless black academics, lawyers, doctors, and other middle class professions have stories of being stopped by police that would be completely anomalous within their profession if race weren't an issue. I've spoken to the chancellor of a London university who was pulled over by police on the way to a graduation ceremony. On a more personal, anecdotal level, and outside of the topic of policing, I grew up in a small village in East Yorkshire that, for most of the time I lived there, was overwhelmingly white - I could literally count on the fingers of one hand the non-white individuals who lived there, not even different non-white families. I have mixed race family who live elsewhere. A few years ago, my parents moved back to the area. While they were house-hunting, I was on a train with my Dad and my aunt, and they were talking about where they might move to, and named one of the nearby towns. My aunt said that she couldn't live there because people would stare at her (black) daughter. That isn't economic or class-based; she's the daughter of a social worker, lives in a decent part of London, has a good degree and works for a tech start-up - she's not being stopped because of her class, or because of her economic standing, she's being stopped because she has black skin. That's all a bit rambling, and I'm not convinced I've made my point - but I'm stumbling towards it.
  11. He carried himself like a star, and that's half the battle. Even coming out to do commentary towards the end of his WWF run, his whole body language was of someone who felt he was the dog's bollocks and that everyone knew it. I'm not sure he was ever going to be a top guy, but maybe if he hadn't had the back injury he would have risen to a much better position - he was set for a feud with Luger coming out of Wrestlemania X, and they could have done a lot worse than push him to the top in '95, then have him mixing it up with Bret and Shawn et al in '96/'97. I was always disappointed he didn't do more when he came back in 2002, but every fucker was working there then, so he was hardly a priority.
  12. I think there's a place for it, and some of it can be great, but I hated the Adam Cole/Velveteen Dream match, and a large part of that was because it was neither one nor t'other. It felt really uncomfortable watching Adam Cole bleed, and both of them take dangerous bumps, in a heavily edited pre-taped match. There's no need.
  13. Going to need some stats on that one.
  14. People used to call him "Johnny Thighslaps" even before NXT. Killer Kross had an actual visible handprint on his thigh during his match with Ciampa.
  15. surely Warrior having previously beaten Hogan was the entire point, even in kayfabe? Just like they'd done with Roddy Piper previously - Hogan is the unstoppable heel champion on top of the world, it doesn't look like anyone can topple him, but along comes a guy who has his number. That's the story.
  16. The only gaming Twitch stream I've ever watched was Nate Crowley playing Red Dead 2, and it seemed like accidentally shooting people, or sending his horse running down a cliff, was a regular occurrence.
  17. an old alcoholic who lived around the corner from my old place wasn't found for nearly a year after he died in his chair. Can't even - and don't want to - imagine the state of him.
  18. Regal's Alfred Hayes impression was fucking atrocious.
  19. Not quite no idea why, but I was a really late convert to Samoa Joe because I hated his shit name, shit hair and shit shorts.
  20. This sounds extremely familiar to me too! I know currently there are guidelines on how kids' products are advertised, in terms of not imploring the child to buy it, or suggesting that the kid would be bullied/inferior for not owning the product. But I definitely remember this being a thing that kids' advertising was far more regulated - I have strong memories of watching kids' TV in the late '90s/early '00s and the adverts being full of loan and insurance ads and so on. It is a thing for food, though - high fat, sugar or salt foods can't be advertised at a time when the majority of the audience are likely to be children, and I don't think they advertise stuff like toys in Happy Meals any more (is that even still a thing?).
  21. and, again, the statue being removed has created more acknowledgement and reflection (at least outside of Bristol) of what it represented than it standing there for 150 years ever did. We wouldn't be having this discussion about reckoning with our past if the statue was just left there unbothered. We probably wouldn't be having it if it had been quietly taken down by workmen overnight. We're having the discussion about what it represented, and who he was, because it's been removed. Statues aren't educational. They're celebratory. They're not historical. They're hagiography.
  22. what made the Nexus angle great was how unprecedented it seemed - not just that it was a bunch of nobodies thrust into the main event spotlight, but the nature of that first appearance. You never saw the ring announcer or timekeeper get beaten up like that, and the visual of them dismantling the ring itself was something completely unique in WWE; I can't think of another time where you saw the exposed wooden boards on WWE TV. It felt raw and exciting in a way their TV never does any more, and rarely did then. It was pretty much doomed to failure beyond that point, as there's no way to keep up that level of intrigue without fundamentally changing how they write TV. Though there was a superb Piper's Pit in the build to the Orton/Barrett match, where Piper does a better job of selling the story on the go-home show than everyone else has managed for the entire build. Then, of course, it was all fucked and fell apart into The Corrrrrrrrre and New Nexus and whatnot.
  23. We did a module on Irish History for GCSE History, and I don't remember any of it, but I don't think there was a single thing about the role of the British. Which is like discussing the history of malaria without including the mosquito. There was American History, too, but can't remember any of it except it being an excuse to watch Dances With Wolves for one lesson. We also did "Medicine Through Time" for what seemed like for-fucking-ever. Though the bulk of my GCSE History lessons seemed to be just doing past exam papers, rather than actually learning anything. That said, if the school I went to had been in England, it would have been in the bottom three of the league table for results/performance, so might not be representative. The one good thing about studying history at a shit school in Jersey, which coincided with the one time since living here that I had a competent History teacher, is that the way World War 2 is taught here is far more nuanced than the UK, due to the local focus. The Channel Islands were occupied during the War, which means that in some quarters The Occupation carries the same sort of Origin Story myth-making as The Spirit Of The Blitz does for flag nonces in England, but for the most part means a slightly more honest reckoning with the reality of war, and of Churchill's legacy. It's not uncommon for our local paper to run editorials on Churchill's flaws around Liberation Day/D-Day, and the Jersey Museum's exhibition on Occupation contains a fair amount of discussion on collaboration. There's a museum up the road from me, in what was a partially completed underground hospital built by the Nazis, and this is the Churchill "monument" they chose to place right at the entrance; I just don't recall ever seeing that kind of honest reckoning with the legacy of Churchill anywhere in England - in Glasgow, and in Wales, yes, but not in England.
  24. I finished Spider-Man over the weekend, and fucking hell what a game that was. One of the best PS4 games I've played, and one of the better interpretations of the Spider-Man character and universe, too. Lovely stuff. Started on Red Dead 2 yesterday, being years behind everyone else as I am. It's bloody slow starting, and I can't see myself being able to remember all the controls.
×
×
  • Create New...