Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Chet isn't the only faker. His feminist critics are too

Aussie performer Chet Faker's stage name is a play on the real name of the iconic tragic jazz great and is therefore meant to make him seem post-modernist and ironic and all. But frankly I think it's accurate in a WYSIWYG kinda way -- at least as it pertains to his political beliefs. He resembles so many sneering hipsters in the arts world these days in that he presents a right-on facade to stay in the good books with the meeja. To be fair, he doesn't really have that much of a choice, as a recent Twitter ruckus illustrates.

See, feminist journo Erin Riley, who spends most of her waking hours looking for things to be, er, lefteously indignant about, discovered that the private school "Chet" attended had produced an inordinate number of Triple J Hottest 1000 winners. This fun fact involved obvious white male privilege and gender disparity and was therefore gold for an SJW hoping to lift her profile. She must have been delighted when a twitstorm ensued after he fired back at her with tweets implying that he wasn't that privileged after all. She earned some free publicity for herself and got to play the victim, the twin goals of most feminist behaviour these days.

She also had a clear win before all her adoring frightbat fans because the eeevil white male backed down after his initial self-defence and offered the usual boilerplate BS about equality, etc. Seems pretty clear he was only saying it to put out the social media fire that resulted form his initial reaction.

Riley's response to the muso eating crow was interesting:

Ms Riley retweeted the apology on Wednesday morning.

She told Daily Mail Australia that his tweets were 'very gracious'.

'I was impressed by his willingness to admit his mistake. That being said, the torrent of abuse and vitriol that came from other people - which was clearly in no way his fault - at a simple fact was very concerning.'

Eh? So he's not to blame for the reaction of others. That's a direct contradiction of the usual PC line, which is to sheet home as much blame to influencers as possible. She might have to swot up on her tactics.

Also, was it really a "torrent of abuse and vitriol"? Maybe she got some snark in e-mails. But if you search her name and handle on Twitter there seems to be little if any of negative reaction to her. Try both kinds, and you'll see what I mean. Not saying that she didn't receive any at all. But her choice of words seems to be hugely OTT by any rational measure.

Also, on the subject of private school, did Erin attend one herself? She has a very entitled air about her. I suspect it's likely, although I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Seems to me both the muso and the, er, critic in this case should check their privilege -- not to mention ease up on the fakery.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Oscars racism controversy shows the absurdity of PC

So funny that a bunch of bloody movie stars, directors and other inordinately well-paid film professionals are claiming to be victims of racism. They've gotta be among the most privileged people on the planet! But as lefties are so fond of saying, "everything is relative". If they're in one of the groups that mostly white, privileged socialists define as historically oppressed, and they genuinely feel that they've been discriminated against, well they have. And who are you to say that they haven't been -- especially if you're an eeevil white male!

As well as showing the childish, selfish emotionalism of those running it, the #OscarsSoWhite campaign highlights their strange priorities. If they cared primarily about doing great work, rather than getting accolades for it, then not being handed them wouldn't be a problem. It could even be argued that choosing gigs and approaching them with the main intention of winning an Oscar is a self-defeating approach, since doing so would detract from the emotional, physical and intellectual effort of producing great work. I mean, that's what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is supposed to award -- great work, right?

This was well expressed by Ice Cube, who said that complaining about not getting an Oscar was like bitching that you didn't get enough icing on your cake.

“We don’t do movies for the industry. We do movies for the fans, for the people,” Ice Cube said Friday.

"The industry,” Cube continued, “if they give you a trophy or not or a pat on the back or not, it’s nice but it’s not something that you should dwell on.”

Here's another example, from days of yore: Woody Allen, whose motivation has always been solely to keep cranking out excellent movies until he pops his clogs, didn't even show up to the Oscars when his classic Annie Hall won several Academy Awards including Best Picture. He was playing jazz at his favourite club, just as he always did. Good on him for that.

In fact, the movie itself has this brilliant line about the ultimate meaninglessness of giving out little statues of golden blokes:

Alvy Singer: Awards! They always give out awards! I can't believe it. Greatest Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler.

Another toxic aspect of campaigns like #OscarsSoWhite is that rather than just running out of steam, they tend to precipitate more of the same. When one group starts playing victim, others pile on. This provokes snark from those who don't think these claims are as deserving of attention. Numerous rich Hollywood egomaniacs end up shitty with the others because they've had their dewicate wittle feewings hurt.

It's blindingly obvious to any sane, rational adult observing such an unedifying spectacle that total -- perhaps even partial -- equality is impossible. The goals of today's diversity crusaders will never be realized. They'll just keep getting increasingly indignant, and everyone else will become ever more exasperated with them.

Something's gotta give, though. There has to be a point where the powers that be stop acceding to SJWs' shrill, unreasonable demands and tell 'em to take a flying f**k at a rolling donut. Probably a long way off in Tinsel Town, but it is happening elsewhere, thankfully.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Is Charlie Hebdo's Aylun Kurdi "groper" cartoon more PC than provocative?

Many so-called satirists like to think of themselves as edgy and provocative. But they're usually anything but. Take the lame "satirical" smartarses on the ABC. Their "comedy" is drearily politically correct, very careful to only mock Christians, conservatives and the like -- and usually very badly at that.

They tend to do this because there's a set template for this kind of stuff, so they don't have to be creative or original. Also, it will keep them in the good books with the PC powers that be (thereby ensuring long term employment) and they won't suffer any negative consequences at all bar a few outraged e-mails from viewers.

These clowns (and I use the term loosely) were always pretty gutless of course. But after the slaughter of a bunch of cartoonists at French magazine Charlie Hebdo a year ago they're even more so.

Speaking of which: The magazine has gone and done it again! This time half the bloody planet is in uproar over a new cartoon that seems to suggest that if drowned toddler Aylun Kurdi had lived he would have grown up to become a sex pest like one of the group gropers in Cologne. 

But you could also read its message in the opposite way. Rather than mocking Muslims, it could be seen as a parody of the politically incorrect "Islamophobic" stereotype of them. 

This kind of thing often happens with satire -- even when the writer thinks he's being crystal clear with it. A personal example: I used to perform a right-on leftie character who was clearly the joke, not the joker. He was meant to be laughed at, not with.

After 9/11, he would say how sad he felt for the "innocent victims" of that terrible day, "all nineteen of them". Almost everyone saw what I, through the character, was getting at. But at least one audience member didn't. After the gig he paid out on me because he thought that I agreed with the character and was thereby condoning what the terrorists did! I tried to explain that I was mocking that very attitude. He didn't buy it. You see what you want to see, as the saying goes ... 

So, it's easy to grab the wrong end of the satirical stick. And it looks like this is what is happening with this latest Charlie Hebdo "outrage". As this tweep points out, the offending "Aylun as groper" cartoon was placed in a context that should be considered.

If you're going to ignore that context you completely distort the message. I think this tweet sums it up well:
Getting all outraged about it therefore becomes a massive own goal. Needless to say, there are heaps of them being scored all over the world.

And even if Charlie Hebdo is trying to offend Muslims with their most recent offering, their cartoonists certainly don't deserve to die for it. Yet this is what a lot of people are wishing for. "These fascists deserve a repeat of what happened a year ago!" is a very popular sentiment.

Of course you'd expect lots of Muslims to believe this. But heaps of those caring sharing, compassionate and "pro-freedom of speech" liberals and lefties do too. Depressing that so many of them don't see where all this is leading us.