Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
You can set your watch by him. So bone-crushingly predictable.
When he was Starting out as a comedian he used to go down the old Kent road and watch Jimmy Jones in the pubs, he gave Jimmy the nickname The Governor,Jimmy told him not to copy his jokes!
As this subject is constantly coming up, perhaps we could simplify comments.
Type A Davidson is a prick. B Davidson is a racist C Davidson isn't funny D Davidson isn't a Prick E Davidson Is Funny F Davidson isn't Racist G Davidson is a anti-woke hero H Davidson is a anti-woke twat I Davidson used to be funny but times have changed. J Davidson never used to be funny and times haven't changed.
1 But Davidson is Charlton 2 But its embarrassing he's Charlton. 3 He raises money for Charity 4 He lives on a boat you know.
So to save time
Cafctom could type E Hoof it up to benty C Wheresmeticket A Doucher E1
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
You can set your watch by him. So bone-crushingly predictable.
Bit weird that your only comment on this thread* is just to dig out another poster though, rather than engage with the subject matter.
*since this thread's revival - you also posted once in 2016, which, bizarrely, also wasn't to do with the subject matter, but to ask if someone was going to watch Sarah Millican live. (And yes, I Ctrl+F'ed the thread just to make sure I was fact checking properly)
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
You have a short memory, Seth.
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
I have , as have others . You just refuse to give alternative perspectives any credence.
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
You have a short memory, Seth.
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
If you look at my post I did not mention critical race theory at all. I mentioned the origin of the word, and behind what I wrote is annoyance that the word 'woke' has been taken up to mean anything that pisses people off. Especially when the origin of the word is considered. I suppose I am talking about a concept that I dislike, but in this instance seems apt, that of cultural appropriation. It was a word that grew from the black community to remind each other to be on their guard, to be awake to stuff that might happen to them because of the colour of their skin. I think the notion and the word has been taken and twisted. Sometimes I believe that there isn't anything that pisses some people off that they don't describe with the catch all 'woke'.
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
You have a short memory, Seth.
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
If you look at my post I did not mention critical race theory at all. I mentioned the origin of the word, and behind what I wrote is annoyance that the word 'woke' has been taken up to mean anything that pisses people off. Especially when the origin of the word is considered. I suppose I am talking about a concept that I dislike, but in this instance seems apt, that of cultural appropriation. It was a word that grew from the black community to remind each other to be on their guard, to be awake to stuff that might happen to them because of the colour of their skin. I think the notion and the word has been taken and twisted. Sometimes I believe that there isn't anything that pisses some people off that they don't describe with the catch all 'woke'.
I know you're right about its origin, but I honestly think people just use it incorrectly now instead of saying PC. Why and what was wrong with the term PC I have absolutely no idea. I've not researched it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it's not used as much now.
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
You have a short memory, Seth.
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
Why have you brought up CRT on this thread? If it was just a reminder for Seth then I would suggest you'd probably not give us a few sentences on how "laughable" it is. In any case, you have, so I feel compelled to provide an alternative perspective.
First up - I have to be honest, I'm not an exacting proponent of CRT. And that's because I can't see it as one overarching theory or idea, despite the name. CRT is a bit nebulous with a variety of opinions and scholars who have contributed different ideas to the general pool of thought.
However - CRT does not suggest all white people should be ashamed of themselves and that white people are "inherently evil and wrong". Rather, the argument - because it is about 40 years old - is that society in the US (and probably elsewhere) has been created and maintained for the benefit of the white-majority population, and such, all choices, can feed into maintaining concepts that unconsciously perpetuate racism or similar. I don't think unconscious bias is particularly controversial: I would say I likely have that even as a POC.
Deliberately conflating CRT with "wokeness" - as if they are one and the same - is another clever enough argument that certain posters on this forum will gobble right up, but I wish to point out that you are conflating the two.
Equally, like you say, "wokeness" means different things to different people. I'd say I'm pretty woke. I'm sure everyone here probably would. But does that mean I am therefore a self-flagellating hater of the white part of myself or whatever? No.
What I do agree with in your post is that yeah, the world is complicated, and I would rather ideologues on either side be afforded far less air time (because they are ideologues!).
--------------
I'd argue my views on Davidson are quite clear from my previous contributions to this thread, incidentally. He describes himself as a "homophobic arsehole" and has been character witness to a convicted drug trafficker. Alison Holloway has claimed he abused her too. So like you say - who fucking cares about his comedy?
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
You have a short memory, Seth.
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
Why have you brought up CRT on this thread? If it was just a reminder for Seth then I would suggest you'd probably not give us a few sentences on how "laughable" it is. In any case, you have, so I feel compelled to provide an alternative perspective.
First up - I have to be honest, I'm not an exacting proponent of CRT. And that's because I can't see it as one overarching theory or idea, despite the name. CRT is a bit nebulous with a variety of opinions and scholars who have contributed different ideas to the general pool of thought.
However - CRT does not suggest all white people should be ashamed of themselves and that white people are "inherently evil and wrong". Rather, the argument - because it is about 40 years old - is that society in the US (and probably elsewhere) has been created and maintained for the benefit of the white-majority population, and such, all choices, can feed into maintaining concepts that unconsciously perpetuate racism or similar. I don't think unconscious bias is particularly controversial: I would say I likely have that even as a POC.
Deliberately conflating CRT with "wokeness" - as if they are one and the same - is another clever enough argument that certain posters on this forum will gobble right up, but I wish to point out that you are conflating the two.
Equally, like you say, "wokeness" means different things to different people. I'd say I'm pretty woke. I'm sure everyone here probably would. But does that mean I am therefore a self-flagellating hater of the white part of myself or whatever? No.
What I do agree with in your post is that yeah, the world is complicated, and I would rather ideologues on either side be afforded far less air time (because they are ideologues!).
--------------
I'd argue my views on Davidson are quite clear from my previous contributions to this thread, incidentally. He describes himself as a "homophobic arsehole" and has been character witness to a convicted drug trafficker. Alison Holloway has claimed he abused her too. So like you say - who fucking cares about his comedy?
"I don't think unconscious bias is particularly controversial:" ......... Ill push back on that ; its a contested space. I have read White Guilt and have explored UB. Its not a proven science but rather a hypothesis and it is not accepted across the Board by people generally and indeed by the BAME community
Being called ‘woke’ for not liking or agreeing with Jim Davidson illustrates how the word has been hijacked. Now it’s little more than a justification for acting like a cunt without being called out.
It’s as meaningless as it’s predecessor - “the PC brigade”.
To be woke is to be anti racist. To be anti woke is to be in favour of racism.
There has been a good series to be found on BBC Sounds by Matthew Syed looking at the word woke and it’s origins (Huddie Leadbetter, Leadbelly, features).
The word woke put briefly is to stay ‘awake’ to racial oppression and actual attacks which is made clear by the programme and the evidence presented. See the ‘Scottsboro boys’ case.
I know words can change meaning over time, or add extra meaning if you like, but usually if there is collective acceptance (see the word ‘gay’). I would not say there is a collective acceptance of any other meaning to the word ‘woke’ beyond woke meaning anti racist. I believe it is the racists that want to seize the word woke, distort it and turn it into something bad because it is a word that kind of stands up to racism and they don’t like that.
If people don’t like something, they can say what and why, but if they say it is because it is too ‘woke’ they are saying nothing beyond wanting to undermine anti racists.
How many times do you have to be called out on this bollocks?
Not bollocks at all, but I have put my case, and with reasons. Nobody has ever ‘called me out’ about it with any alternative position. If you have one I would be interested to hear it and see if it stands up to scrutiny, logic and reality.
You have a short memory, Seth.
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
Why have you brought up CRT on this thread? If it was just a reminder for Seth then I would suggest you'd probably not give us a few sentences on how "laughable" it is. In any case, you have, so I feel compelled to provide an alternative perspective.
First up - I have to be honest, I'm not an exacting proponent of CRT. And that's because I can't see it as one overarching theory or idea, despite the name. CRT is a bit nebulous with a variety of opinions and scholars who have contributed different ideas to the general pool of thought.
However - CRT does not suggest all white people should be ashamed of themselves and that white people are "inherently evil and wrong". Rather, the argument - because it is about 40 years old - is that society in the US (and probably elsewhere) has been created and maintained for the benefit of the white-majority population, and such, all choices, can feed into maintaining concepts that unconsciously perpetuate racism or similar. I don't think unconscious bias is particularly controversial: I would say I likely have that even as a POC.
Deliberately conflating CRT with "wokeness" - as if they are one and the same - is another clever enough argument that certain posters on this forum will gobble right up, but I wish to point out that you are conflating the two.
Equally, like you say, "wokeness" means different things to different people. I'd say I'm pretty woke. I'm sure everyone here probably would. But does that mean I am therefore a self-flagellating hater of the white part of myself or whatever? No.
What I do agree with in your post is that yeah, the world is complicated, and I would rather ideologues on either side be afforded far less air time (because they are ideologues!).
--------------
I'd argue my views on Davidson are quite clear from my previous contributions to this thread, incidentally. He describes himself as a "homophobic arsehole" and has been character witness to a convicted drug trafficker. Alison Holloway has claimed he abused her too. So like you say - who fucking cares about his comedy?
"I don't think unconscious bias is particularly controversial:" ......... I'll push back on that ; it's a contested space. I have read White Guilt and have explored UB. Its not a proven science but rather a hypothesis and it is not accepted across the Board by people generally and indeed by the BAME community
I suppose there is some contesting of it as a theory and I never would say it's accepted universally, and should have clarified that that bit is my own opinion (i.e. that it's not really controversial).
I work in search and even some of the least progressive people I have worked alongside tend to acknowledge unconscious biases. But that's anecdotal, hence my opinion.
In the early 90s the Supporters Club played a Jim Davidson Live video on an away coach. Caused the same ruckus on RTM as this thread some 30 plus years later!
Before I knew better almost 50 years ago I found him mildly amusing. I must admit I now find him embarrassing. Not quite sure what alpha numerical ranking that gives me
Ignore all of the politics etc., when we we're close to going under in the 80s when he was coining it he was a director of Bournemouth and then Torquay. Only mentioned us with the "I support Charlton nil" line.
Heard a story about him once from a mate who was a chauffer for ITV,
He took Jim to the airport and several hours later the hotline called him to go and pick him up at the same airport. He said Jim was so pissed he thought he had done the gig and was being picked up on his return. Airport wouldn't allow him to fly.
Ignore all of the politics etc., when we were close to going under in the 80s when he was coining it he was a director of Bournemouth and then Torquay. Only mentioned us with the "I support Charlton nil" line.
Genuine question- Was he asked to be part of our board ?
Comedy is very much down to the individual. I recall loving Monty Python and my dad couldn't understand why it was funny. I love Karl Pilkington and Ricky Gervais whilst others don't. I always loved Bottom but I appreciate you have to get yourself into that space. Stand up is quite challenging now. I went to a comedy night a couple of months ago with a lot of comedians and only one was really funny for me.
One thing we all know is that comedy evolves over time. What was funny, in many cases, 40 or 50 years ago is less so now. Watching comedy from the 30s, most of it is not funny (Except Laurel and Hardy who were geniuses). But we can look at Charlie Chaplin films and see his talent but not have too many laughs.
There is still an audience who like Davison's humour but of course it is getting increasingly smaller. But I think that is true for a lot of comedy. Davison looked like he was going to achieve what Bradley Walsh has done, both were/are good at presenting, very good. The thing about Walsh is he clearly tries not to be controversial and maybe because of this is more likeable to many. Mind you, Ant and Dec are likeable but I can't stand them. I appreciate I am in the minority there.
Not bothered by his jokes, it's his personal opinions about other human beings that make him a wrongen.
It's great that he's supported the military over the years, but he should have the intelligence to know that people dont travel across the globe to live on a boat and claim £60 a week unless they really need to.
He is a good example of someone who hasn’t been able to move with the times. His latest rant re immigration is like listening to my mother in law who is convinced everyone of them has been sent to kill her.
Wonder what the people who don't like JD think of Gervais, Carr, Boyle etc, constantly using cancer, paedophilia and disability in their material? Generally, just by merely saying you don't find it funny, you're immiately told that it is, in fact, very funny, but you just "don't get it".
They're all still in regular work, even though they constantly "offend" people. Mainly because, I think, the people they do offend don't shout and ball about it.
Remember, when asked on his Desert Island Discs, Jimmy Carr saying that the only subject he wouldn't joke about was the Hillsborough disaster. I don't think he was being completely honest, even if its only because he wouldn't get any work again.
I personally don't find JD funny as a comedian. Maybe the odd thing he's come out with has made me chuckle, but I struggle with most stand up comedy as I get older.
Wonder what the people who don't like JD think of Gervais, Carr, Boyle etc, constantly using cancer, paedophilia and disability in their material? Generally, just by merely saying you don't find it funny, you're immiately told that it is, in fact, very funny, but you just "don't get it".
They're all still in regular work, even though they constantly "offend" people. Mainly because, I think, the people they do offend don't shout and ball about it.
Remember, when asked on his Desert Island Discs, Jimmy Carr saying that the only subject he wouldn't joke about was the Hillsborough disaster. I don't think he was being completely honest, even if its only because he wouldn't get any work again.
I personally don't find JD funny as a comedian. Maybe the odd thing he's come out with has made me chuckle, but I struggle with most stand up comedy as I get older.
Me too - I have to sit down more now when I go to a comedy club.
Wonder what the people who don't like JD think of Gervais, Carr, Boyle etc, constantly using cancer, paedophilia and disability in their material? Generally, just by merely saying you don't find it funny, you're immiately told that it is, in fact, very funny, but you just "don't get it".
They're all still in regular work, even though they constantly "offend" people. Mainly because, I think, the people they do offend don't shout and ball about it.
Remember, when asked on his Desert Island Discs, Jimmy Carr saying that the only subject he wouldn't joke about was the Hillsborough disaster. I don't think he was being completely honest, even if its only because he wouldn't get any work again.
I personally don't find JD funny as a comedian. Maybe the odd thing he's come out with has made me chuckle, but I struggle with most stand up comedy as I get older.
Me too - I have to sit down more now when I go to a comedy club.
Comments
*since this thread's revival - you also posted once in 2016, which, bizarrely, also wasn't to do with the subject matter, but to ask if someone was going to watch Sarah Millican live. (And yes, I Ctrl+F'ed the thread just to make sure I was fact checking properly)
We have, indeed been here before, regarding the laughable hypothesis that is 'Critical Race Theory', which as woke as woke can be. It is also moronic and racist, binning the simple espousal of equality put forward by MLK and substituting for it a creed which simply holds that white people are inherently evil and wrong and should ashamed of themselves, their history and culture for no other reason than being born with low levels of melanin. Of course, this goes down a treat with your classic self hating white 'progressive' types and people of colour who are racist, but not so much with people who are able to think rationally and have some kind of moral character.
Therefore, it is possible to dislike wokeness and not only not be racist, but be against the racism that is inherent in a woke theory such as CRT.
But you already know this.
Woke means different things to different people and the above shows that you can be woke and/or a racist/halfwit or both; to be fair you can also be things and not be woke as well. In reality, the world is complicated. To ideologues it is anything but, which is why they tend to really fuck things up for everyone else, be they from the left or the right of the classic political landscape.
As for JD. He clearly has talent or he wouldn't have been able to pay the bills for so long and had a career in primetime TV, theatre etc.
Is he funny?
Given that humour is subjective, that depends - I can certainly understand if some folk find him as funny as fire in an orphanage and his sense of humour dated. But then someone gave Hannah Gadsby a TV special which appears to introduce the novel concept of stand up where the jokes are replaced with self-righteous and stern moral lectures, so there really is no accounting for taste.
Personally JD's not really my cup of tea, and neither is Gadsby, but each to their own and more importantly, who fucking cares?
I suppose I am talking about a concept that I dislike, but in this instance seems apt, that of cultural appropriation. It was a word that grew from the black community to remind each other to be on their guard, to be awake to stuff that might happen to them because of the colour of their skin.
I think the notion and the word has been taken and twisted.
Sometimes I believe that there isn't anything that pisses some people off that they don't describe with the catch all 'woke'.
Comedy is subjective, dont waste energy on comedy you don't find funny, that is the beauty of comedy. It is never forced down your throat
First up - I have to be honest, I'm not an exacting proponent of CRT. And that's because I can't see it as one overarching theory or idea, despite the name. CRT is a bit nebulous with a variety of opinions and scholars who have contributed different ideas to the general pool of thought.
However - CRT does not suggest all white people should be ashamed of themselves and that white people are "inherently evil and wrong". Rather, the argument - because it is about 40 years old - is that society in the US (and probably elsewhere) has been created and maintained for the benefit of the white-majority population, and such, all choices, can feed into maintaining concepts that unconsciously perpetuate racism or similar. I don't think unconscious bias is particularly controversial: I would say I likely have that even as a POC.
Deliberately conflating CRT with "wokeness" - as if they are one and the same - is another clever enough argument that certain posters on this forum will gobble right up, but I wish to point out that you are conflating the two.
Equally, like you say, "wokeness" means different things to different people. I'd say I'm pretty woke. I'm sure everyone here probably would. But does that mean I am therefore a self-flagellating hater of the white part of myself or whatever? No.
What I do agree with in your post is that yeah, the world is complicated, and I would rather ideologues on either side be afforded far less air time (because they are ideologues!).
--------------
I'd argue my views on Davidson are quite clear from my previous contributions to this thread, incidentally. He describes himself as a "homophobic arsehole" and has been character witness to a convicted drug trafficker. Alison Holloway has claimed he abused her too. So like you say - who fucking cares about his comedy?
I work in search and even some of the least progressive people I have worked alongside tend to acknowledge unconscious biases. But that's anecdotal, hence my opinion.
He took Jim to the airport and several hours later the hotline called him to go and pick him up at the same airport. He said Jim was so pissed he thought he had done the gig and was being picked up on his return. Airport wouldn't allow him to fly.
One thing we all know is that comedy evolves over time. What was funny, in many cases, 40 or 50 years ago is less so now. Watching comedy from the 30s, most of it is not funny (Except Laurel and Hardy who were geniuses). But we can look at Charlie Chaplin films and see his talent but not have too many laughs.
There is still an audience who like Davison's humour but of course it is getting increasingly smaller. But I think that is true for a lot of comedy. Davison looked like he was going to achieve what Bradley Walsh has done, both were/are good at presenting, very good. The thing about Walsh is he clearly tries not to be controversial and maybe because of this is more likeable to many. Mind you, Ant and Dec are likeable but I can't stand them. I appreciate I am in the minority there.
It's great that he's supported the military over the years, but he should have the intelligence to know that people dont travel across the globe to live on a boat and claim £60 a week unless they really need to.
They're all still in regular work, even though they constantly "offend" people. Mainly because, I think, the people they do offend don't shout and ball about it.
Remember, when asked on his Desert Island Discs, Jimmy Carr saying that the only subject he wouldn't joke about was the Hillsborough disaster. I don't think he was being completely honest, even if its only because he wouldn't get any work again.
I personally don't find JD funny as a comedian. Maybe the odd thing he's come out with has made me chuckle, but I struggle with most stand up comedy as I get older.