General Chat > Off Topic

Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?

<< < (72/74) > >>

Funt Solo:
So, mini-Solo's first encounter with John Cleese was him being grumpy about imaginary woke bogie-men*, over breakfast.

She dubbed him "Wobbly Walrus Face", which is quite Pythonesque.

*Or bogie-women. Or non-gendered bogie-people.

On the one hand, it shouldn't be surprising that John Cleese is going all right-wing talk-point, as he fits the target demographic exactly.

On the other hand, its sad to see someone who gave me so much enjoyment expose himself as a blithering idiot.

So he suggests things should go wrong and children should learn from bad things, because that will make them tougher. Which is tantamount to “we should be able to say what we want and get away with it” while ignoring the massive privilege he’s had through his entire life.

It’s extremely telling that he immediately gets grumpy with the interviewer because she says “but” rather than “exploring what I just said” — even though she was about to… explore what he just said. Presumably, he has agreed to an interview and thinks that means everyone will be reverential and let him say his piece unchallenged. The follow-up, though — which is precisely the same follow-up I’d have used as a journalist — was to ask whether racist jokes are OK, because they were once considered just banter. Cleese: “I think it’s a very poor question.” He argues it’s too broad and not possible to answer such a question.

It really is. Here’s how you answer a question regarding whether racist jokes are acceptable: No. It’s really that simple.

Also, his tour will be based on a talk about why there is no hope, the central point being that “everyone wants to be right and nobody really wants to listen to other people’s opinions”. Which is garbage, again. What he’s angry about is that people aren’t listening to him and nodding along. They’re challenging him, which rarely used to happen when he was considered a god-like comedy genius. Now, he’s a doddery old fucker who can’t move with the times — a Jim Davidson with a superior back catalogue.

The one thing he does hit on is that society is polarised and that is damaging. What he doesn’t appear to understand is that in slamming people who want to avoid (not ban — just ignore and marginalise) shitty viewpoints and calling them “woke”, he is part of the problem and another reason why things are becoming more polarised, regardless of dressing up his thinking in pseudo academia.

That 'why do you say "but"?' mini-tantrum is a bit Basil Fawlty.  Between that and his absurdly defensive reaction to the three words 'Are you saying..', he gets triggered quite easily, doesn't he? Incredibly common, it seems to me, among the people who complain how easily other people get triggered.

Richmond Clements:
Ah well. We still have Idle and Palin.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version