Katie Hopkins is as much the person she portrays in the Sun as Steve Coogan is Alan Partridge. These obnoxious celebrities (Brooker is the left wing version) just create personas and know they will continue to get bookings on mediocre shows desperate for some headline time if they keep saying the right thing. Think about how much money Hopkins has made, and how much the Sun has made, through this persona.
That is what it is, a persona,Katie Hopkins, Karl Pilkington, Joey Essex, Jeremy Clarkson, these people know exactly what they are doing.
Charlie Brooker would find you're description of him as a left wing Katie Hopkins extremely funny. Totally wrong - but none the less funny.
Though I am sure he would be the first to admit he plays up certain characteristics compared to his 'actual' personality.
The difference is what Charlie Brooker says , whether you agree with him or not , is clever , satirical and nearly always funny. Hopkins is none of those. she opens her mouth and out gushed bile. There is no comparison.
I agree entirely, the point merely was that a lot of 'media figures' today tend to exaggerate their opinions and play up personas for better coverage. The real difference is how much tolerance we have for those views. To be honest I would be astonished if Hopkins truly really believed a lot of the crap she comes out with, she just knows controversy sells and she knows how to sell it.
Katie Hopkins is as much the person she portrays in the Sun as Steve Coogan is Alan Partridge. These obnoxious celebrities (Brooker is the left wing version) just create personas and know they will continue to get bookings on mediocre shows desperate for some headline time if they keep saying the right thing. Think about how much money Hopkins has made, and how much the Sun has made, through this persona.
That is what it is, a persona,Katie Hopkins, Karl Pilkington, Joey Essex, Jeremy Clarkson, these people know exactly what they are doing.
Charlie Brooker would find you're description of him as a left wing Katie Hopkins extremely funny. Totally wrong - but none the less funny.
Though I am sure he would be the first to admit he plays up certain characteristics compared to his 'actual' personality.
The difference is what Charlie Brooker says , whether you agree with him or not , is clever , satirical and nearly always funny. Hopkins is none of those. she opens her mouth and out gushed bile. There is no comparison.
Someone of a different political persuasion would flip those names round in that sentence.
You're of a different political persuasion. Would you call Katie Hopkins clever and satirical?
Katie Hopkins is as much the person she portrays in the Sun as Steve Coogan is Alan Partridge. These obnoxious celebrities (Brooker is the left wing version) just create personas and know they will continue to get bookings on mediocre shows desperate for some headline time if they keep saying the right thing. Think about how much money Hopkins has made, and how much the Sun has made, through this persona.
That is what it is, a persona,Katie Hopkins, Karl Pilkington, Joey Essex, Jeremy Clarkson, these people know exactly what they are doing.
Charlie Brooker would find you're description of him as a left wing Katie Hopkins extremely funny. Totally wrong - but none the less funny.
Though I am sure he would be the first to admit he plays up certain characteristics compared to his 'actual' personality.
The difference is what Charlie Brooker says , whether you agree with him or not , is clever , satirical and nearly always funny. Hopkins is none of those. she opens her mouth and out gushed bile. There is no comparison.
Someone of a different political persuasion would flip those names round in that sentence.
Would they really? I think you be hard pressed to put up a serious argument that Brooker is not clever. As for his method, it is clearly satirical. You may not find him funny, but he is for many people, so saying the opposite just flies in the face of reality. It seems that it would be tricky for anyone to use those epithets on Hopkins. Clever? Satirical? Funny? I challenge you to find something that she's said that meets any of these descriptions and post it here.
Some things are political, some things just are. Charlie Brooker is clever, satirical and funny. Nothing that I've ever seen has persuaded me that Hopkins is.
Katie Hopkins is as much the person she portrays in the Sun as Steve Coogan is Alan Partridge. These obnoxious celebrities (Brooker is the left wing version) just create personas and know they will continue to get bookings on mediocre shows desperate for some headline time if they keep saying the right thing. Think about how much money Hopkins has made, and how much the Sun has made, through this persona.
That is what it is, a persona,Katie Hopkins, Karl Pilkington, Joey Essex, Jeremy Clarkson, these people know exactly what they are doing.
Charlie Brooker would find you're description of him as a left wing Katie Hopkins extremely funny. Totally wrong - but none the less funny.
Though I am sure he would be the first to admit he plays up certain characteristics compared to his 'actual' personality.
The difference is what Charlie Brooker says , whether you agree with him or not , is clever , satirical and nearly always funny. Hopkins is none of those. she opens her mouth and out gushed bile. There is no comparison.
I know what you mean Beds, but it's quite funny that you use a sentence comparing Brooker with Hopkins....and then say there is no comparison when you've just made one!
Katie Hopkins is as much the person she portrays in the Sun as Steve Coogan is Alan Partridge. These obnoxious celebrities (Brooker is the left wing version) just create personas and know they will continue to get bookings on mediocre shows desperate for some headline time if they keep saying the right thing. Think about how much money Hopkins has made, and how much the Sun has made, through this persona.
That is what it is, a persona,Katie Hopkins, Karl Pilkington, Joey Essex, Jeremy Clarkson, these people know exactly what they are doing.
Charlie Brooker would find you're description of him as a left wing Katie Hopkins extremely funny. Totally wrong - but none the less funny.
Though I am sure he would be the first to admit he plays up certain characteristics compared to his 'actual' personality.
The difference is what Charlie Brooker says , whether you agree with him or not , is clever , satirical and nearly always funny. Hopkins is none of those. she opens her mouth and out gushed bile. There is no comparison.
Someone of a different political persuasion would flip those names round in that sentence.
I can't agree. Brooker is a brilliant, witty writer. Hopkins is talentless.
Yeah Huskaris is spot on. She's a professional troll. Media outlets get her "opinions" as it's guaranteed hits on their website or viewers on TV. Everyone getting annoyed at it is just like shouting "quick come here and have a look at what she's said now". Just ignore it and she'll soon disappear
She would disappear but the views/outlook she represents would not.
Interesting comment: perhaps Katie and her opinions are relief valves for the pent up, frustrated views held by hundreds of thousands of people .. as in: 'She's saying just what I think, good on her' .. (this might stop some extreme behaviour being carried out by the most fed up and frustrated) .. 'someone understands me, I am not alone in my despair at how England is going to the dogs and what we must do about it' .. I think the psychologists might term this as cognitive dissonance, a form of hatred and despair aimed at things one can't understand and can't obtain
Yeah Huskaris is spot on. She's a professional troll. Media outlets get her "opinions" as it's guaranteed hits on their website or viewers on TV. Everyone getting annoyed at it is just like shouting "quick come here and have a look at what she's said now". Just ignore it and she'll soon disappear
She would disappear but the views/outlook she represents would not.
Interesting comment: perhaps Katie and her opinions are relief valves for the pent up, frustrated views held by hundreds of thousands of people .. as in: 'She's saying just what I think, good on her' .. (this might stop some extreme behaviour being carried out by the most fed up and frustrated) .. 'someone understands me, I am not alone in my despair at how England is going to the dogs and what we must do about it' .. I think the psychologists might term this as cognitive dissonance, a form of hatred and despair aimed at things one can't understand and can't obtain
I'm not a psychologist, but I find it unlikely that any psychologist would see someone in the media describing people from identifiable ethnic groups as "cockroaches" or a "virus" and believe that this would lead to less hostility and less violence against those groups.
Earlier, you said that describing someone as a "cockroach" was a "backhanded compliment". I would strongly encourage you to read the (short) Wiki entry on RTLMC
Yeah Huskaris is spot on. She's a professional troll. Media outlets get her "opinions" as it's guaranteed hits on their website or viewers on TV. Everyone getting annoyed at it is just like shouting "quick come here and have a look at what she's said now". Just ignore it and she'll soon disappear
She would disappear but the views/outlook she represents would not.
Interesting comment: perhaps Katie and her opinions are relief valves for the pent up, frustrated views held by hundreds of thousands of people .. as in: 'She's saying just what I think, good on her' .. (this might stop some extreme behaviour being carried out by the most fed up and frustrated) .. 'someone understands me, I am not alone in my despair at how England is going to the dogs and what we must do about it' .. I think the psychologists might term this as cognitive dissonance, a form of hatred and despair aimed at things one can't understand and can't obtain
I'm not a psychologist, but I find it unlikely that any psychologist would see someone in the media describing people from identifiable ethnic groups as "cockroaches" or a "virus" and believe that this would lead to less hostility and less violence against those groups.
Earlier, you said that describing someone as a "cockroach" wares a "backhanded compliment". I would strongly encourage you to read the (short) Wiki entry on RTLMC
You're right, you are not a psychologist .. AND you have taken my quote re 'cockroaches' out of context, and not quoted exactly what I typed, a habit you must rid yourself of if you want your comments and rebuttals to be taken seriously
Yeah Huskaris is spot on. She's a professional troll. Media outlets get her "opinions" as it's guaranteed hits on their website or viewers on TV. Everyone getting annoyed at it is just like shouting "quick come here and have a look at what she's said now". Just ignore it and she'll soon disappear
She would disappear but the views/outlook she represents would not.
Interesting comment: perhaps Katie and her opinions are relief valves for the pent up, frustrated views held by hundreds of thousands of people .. as in: 'She's saying just what I think, good on her' .. (this might stop some extreme behaviour being carried out by the most fed up and frustrated) .. 'someone understands me, I am not alone in my despair at how England is going to the dogs and what we must do about it' .. I think the psychologists might term this as cognitive dissonance, a form of hatred and despair aimed at things one can't understand and can't obtain
I'm not a psychologist, but I find it unlikely that any psychologist would see someone in the media describing people from identifiable ethnic groups as "cockroaches" or a "virus" and believe that this would lead to less hostility and less violence against those groups.
Earlier, you said that describing someone as a "cockroach" wares a "backhanded compliment". I would strongly encourage you to read the (short) Wiki entry on RTLMC
You're right, you are not a psychologist .. AND you have taken my quote re 'cockroaches' out of context, and not quoted exactly what I typed, a habit you must rid yourself of if you want your comments and rebuttals to be taken seriously
The way you dismiss IA's quite valid and well thought out argument actually undermines your own quite valid and well thought out argument.
I'd never heard of Katie Hopkins until doing a google search. Her offensive comments have clearly then had the desired effect of creating some desperately needed publicity. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is as low as you can go it seems.
Yeah Huskaris is spot on. She's a professional troll. Media outlets get her "opinions" as it's guaranteed hits on their website or viewers on TV. Everyone getting annoyed at it is just like shouting "quick come here and have a look at what she's said now". Just ignore it and she'll soon disappear
She would disappear but the views/outlook she represents would not.
Interesting comment: perhaps Katie and her opinions are relief valves for the pent up, frustrated views held by hundreds of thousands of people .. as in: 'She's saying just what I think, good on her' .. (this might stop some extreme behaviour being carried out by the most fed up and frustrated) .. 'someone understands me, I am not alone in my despair at how England is going to the dogs and what we must do about it' .. I think the psychologists might term this as cognitive dissonance, a form of hatred and despair aimed at things one can't understand and can't obtain
I'm not a psychologist, but I find it unlikely that any psychologist would see someone in the media describing people from identifiable ethnic groups as "cockroaches" or a "virus" and believe that this would lead to less hostility and less violence against those groups.
Earlier, you said that describing someone as a "cockroach" wares a "backhanded compliment". I would strongly encourage you to read the (short) Wiki entry on RTLMC
You're right, you are not a psychologist .. AND you have taken my quote re 'cockroaches' out of context, and not quoted exactly what I typed, a habit you must rid yourself of if you want your comments and rebuttals to be taken seriously
Didn't take it out of context, you said that it described the survivability and grit of those people, then you said it was "a backhanded compliment perhaps but an unfortunate choice of words".
I don't believe it was "unfortunate". She knew what she was doing. That's why I recommended that you read up on RTLMC.
The main point is that the dehumanising language used by Hopkins presents an increased risk to safety for persons from Africa who live in the UK, and their families, no matter how or when they may have arrived into the UK.
Libya has a population of 6.2 million , Syria has 22 million. What if they all decide to get on a boat ! Where we going to put them all ? The point Katy makes very badly is they should be stopped from leaving. Let's setup UN safe havens in their own countries and support them there. The boat that sank allegedly had 50 children 200 women and 700 men. Yet we go on about family's fleeing, that is not a true reflection of the demographic on that boat !
We also heard of Muslims on boats throwing the Christians overboard. Yet they are heading for a Christian nation expecting to be looked after. Lots of issues here.
Katy Hopkins puts it out there it prompts discussion.
Whilst I agree she attention seeks on many things, KH also writes what a lot of people are thinking but are too fearful to say due to PC brigade backlash.
Whilst I agree she attention seeks on many things, KH also writes what a lot of people are thinking but are too fearful to say due to PC brigade backlash.
I see this a lot on here mate, yet it certainly seems there are not too many who are backward in coming forward with their "non PC" thoughts.
Like Richard Littlejohn, Jeremy Clarkson, Trevor Kavanaugh, Piers Morgan and the host of other right wing commentators in the popular press and other media who are so fond of telling us in their regular newspaper columns how freedom to say what you like is being stifled, whilst saying exactly what they like in their newspaper columns...
Whilst I agree she attention seeks on many things, KH also writes what a lot of people are thinking but are too fearful to say due to PC brigade backlash.
I see this a lot on here mate, yet it certainly seems there are not too many who are backward in coming forward with their "non PC" thoughts.
Like Richard Littlejohn, Jeremy Clarkson, Trevor Kavanaugh, Piers Morgan and the host of other right wing commentators in the popular press and other media who are so fond of telling us in their regular newspaper columns how freedom to say what you like is being stifled, whilst saying exactly what they like in their newspaper columns...
I think a lot of these deliberately over state their case not just because they want to get a shock reaction, but to normalise the slightly less outrageous views that lie behind what they say.
I read a thing in Private Eye that there is big pressure on the Telegraph opinion writers to get the internet hits on their opinion pieces, hence James Delingpole. There seems to be an incentive to shock and offend in our media.
I read a thing in Private Eye that there is big pressure on the Telegraph opinion writers to get the internet hits on their opinion pieces, hence James Delingpole. There seems to be an incentive to shock and offend in our media.
The Mail lead the way on this and have done for several years. The Guardian are also fond of attaching shock/misleading headlines to uninteresting news stories on their web edition. If they're not behind a paywall they need to generate as much advertising revenue as they can.
Whatever your politics or your views on immigration, or your fears for the common man, or your sense that Britain is losing its tradition; calling desperate human beings cockroaches and suggesting that they be treated as such is utterly indefensible.
These are people whose crime is to have been born in a country which is now in a terrible situation from which they're desperate to escape, it's reasonable to debate the extent to which we should be looking to intervene but whichever side of the spectrum you fall on in that regard, the least we should be able to do is agree to empathise rather than dehumanise them.
Hopkins has the right to say whatever she wants but both her and the 'click-at-all-costs' media outlets that purvey her sh!tty views would feel utterly ashamed of themselves if they had the decency.
Whatever your politics or your views on immigration, or your fears for the common man, or your sense that Britain is losing its tradition; calling desperate human beings cockroaches and suggesting that they be treated as such is utterly indefensible.
These are people whose crime is to have been born in a country which is now in a terrible situation from which they're desperate to escape, it's reasonable to debate the extent to which we should be looking to intervene but whichever side of the spectrum you fall on in that regard, the least we should be able to do is agree to empathise rather than dehumanise them.
Hopkins has the right to say whatever she wants but both her and the 'click-at-all-costs' media outlets that purvey her sh!tty views would feel utterly ashamed of themselves if they had the decency.
You have knocked on the head there Pass it.
That awful woman and the majority of Tories like her do not have the basic human ability for empathy or for compassion. It is all about self for them. Not their fault, they should be pitied.
I wouldn't turn this into a political thing. She has become a caricature and has to shock to have a career. She is a sad sign of our times, as is Joey Essex and quite a few others.
I wouldn't turn this into a political thing. She has become a caricature and has to shock to have a career. She is a sad sign of our times, as is Joey Essex and quite a few others.
Yeah, the 80's was better. Just Paedo DJ's and TV presenters back then!
Comments
Some things are political, some things just are. Charlie Brooker is clever, satirical and funny. Nothing that I've ever seen has persuaded me that Hopkins is.
Earlier, you said that describing someone as a "cockroach" was a "backhanded compliment". I would strongly encourage you to read the (short) Wiki entry on RTLMC
I don't believe it was "unfortunate". She knew what she was doing. That's why I recommended that you read up on RTLMC.
The main point is that the dehumanising language used by Hopkins presents an increased risk to safety for persons from Africa who live in the UK, and their families, no matter how or when they may have arrived into the UK.
We also heard of Muslims on boats throwing the Christians overboard. Yet they are heading for a Christian nation expecting to be looked after. Lots of issues here.
Katy Hopkins puts it out there it prompts discussion.
Like Richard Littlejohn, Jeremy Clarkson, Trevor Kavanaugh, Piers Morgan and the host of other right wing commentators in the popular press and other media who are so fond of telling us in their regular newspaper columns how freedom to say what you like is being stifled, whilst saying exactly what they like in their newspaper columns...
It does feel at times we're told how to think, that's what encourages people like KH.
There seems to be an incentive to shock and offend in our media.
These are people whose crime is to have been born in a country which is now in a terrible situation from which they're desperate to escape, it's reasonable to debate the extent to which we should be looking to intervene but whichever side of the spectrum you fall on in that regard, the least we should be able to do is agree to empathise rather than dehumanise them.
Hopkins has the right to say whatever she wants but both her and the 'click-at-all-costs' media outlets that purvey her sh!tty views would feel utterly ashamed of themselves if they had the decency.
That awful woman and the majority of Tories like her do not have the basic human ability for empathy or for compassion. It is all about self for them. Not their fault, they should be pitied.