Cavey wrote:
@Meems
Hey, I don't get to set the rules of human nature and perception, and I think I made my own personal views re. the choice of people to wear what they damn well like pretty clear. I'm simply pointing out the blindingly obvious.
I've never rated Izzard, personally - and I've never understood why he's such a dwarling of the intellectual Left, given that (IMO) so much of the stuff he says seems to be the usual dim-witted, hippy-dippy, super-simplistic boilerplate trash that would be hard-pressed to impress reasonably smart teens (and as for the stand up I've seen, this was about as funny as TB in my opinion). Look, the guy wears a dress: get over it. See also: Russell Brand.
For me, if Izzard was really serious about trying to convert souls and minds (as opposed to, say, possibly indulging his own ego and desire to shock?), he might of toned it down a bit, and even done a bit of homework before coming on. For me, it's annoying that people like him are given such a platform and mouthpiece, when there are so many who are far more worthy who are denied. Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
Hey, I don't get to set the rules of human nature and perception, and I think I made my own personal views re. the choice of people to wear what they damn well like pretty clear. I'm simply pointing out the blindingly obvious.
I've never rated Izzard, personally - and I've never understood why he's such a dwarling of the intellectual Left, given that (IMO) so much of the stuff he says seems to be the usual dim-witted, hippy-dippy, super-simplistic boilerplate trash that would be hard-pressed to impress reasonably smart teens (and as for the stand up I've seen, this was about as funny as TB in my opinion). Look, the guy wears a dress: get over it. See also: Russell Brand.
For me, if Izzard was really serious about trying to convert souls and minds (as opposed to, say, possibly indulging his own ego and desire to shock?), he might of toned it down a bit, and even done a bit of homework before coming on. For me, it's annoying that people like him are given such a platform and mouthpiece, when there are so many who are far more worthy who are denied. Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
Sorry, I don't know if my post somehow read that I disagreed with you... I don't. I think you are correct in the reading of how it may have been perceived by many (hopefully not by many here, but in some sections of society). If you read my post perhaps a little less defensively you might see that I'm agreeing with you for the most part.
Mr Russell wrote:
I thought I'd have a look at an image of this seeing as how people are going on about his appearance. It's not even out of the ordinary!
Right?
He's wearing a hat. The hat is pink.
...
He's wearing nail varnish. Weren't half the men on this board wearing nail varnish only a few weeks ago?
He's not appeared on the show dressed as a giant aubergine or something. It's a flipping hat is all.
Mimi wrote:
Cavey wrote:
@Meems
Hey, I don't get to set the rules of human nature and perception, and I think I made my own personal views re. the choice of people to wear what they damn well like pretty clear. I'm simply pointing out the blindingly obvious.
I've never rated Izzard, personally - and I've never understood why he's such a dwarling of the intellectual Left, given that (IMO) so much of the stuff he says seems to be the usual dim-witted, hippy-dippy, super-simplistic boilerplate trash that would be hard-pressed to impress reasonably smart teens (and as for the stand up I've seen, this was about as funny as TB in my opinion). Look, the guy wears a dress: get over it. See also: Russell Brand.
For me, if Izzard was really serious about trying to convert souls and minds (as opposed to, say, possibly indulging his own ego and desire to shock?), he might of toned it down a bit, and even done a bit of homework before coming on. For me, it's annoying that people like him are given such a platform and mouthpiece, when there are so many who are far more worthy who are denied. Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
Hey, I don't get to set the rules of human nature and perception, and I think I made my own personal views re. the choice of people to wear what they damn well like pretty clear. I'm simply pointing out the blindingly obvious.
I've never rated Izzard, personally - and I've never understood why he's such a dwarling of the intellectual Left, given that (IMO) so much of the stuff he says seems to be the usual dim-witted, hippy-dippy, super-simplistic boilerplate trash that would be hard-pressed to impress reasonably smart teens (and as for the stand up I've seen, this was about as funny as TB in my opinion). Look, the guy wears a dress: get over it. See also: Russell Brand.
For me, if Izzard was really serious about trying to convert souls and minds (as opposed to, say, possibly indulging his own ego and desire to shock?), he might of toned it down a bit, and even done a bit of homework before coming on. For me, it's annoying that people like him are given such a platform and mouthpiece, when there are so many who are far more worthy who are denied. Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
Sorry, I don't know if my post somehow read that I disagreed with you... I don't. I think you are correct in the reading of how it may have been perceived by many (hopefully not by many here, but in some sections of society). If you read my post perhaps a little less defensively you might see that I'm agreeing with you for the most part.
Nope, not being defensive at all. You should read my post; most of it concerns moving the discussion onto points that I want to talk about, namely why is Izzard even invited to have such a platform *at all*. Doesn't seem to be particularly based on his merits as a political commentator.
Well, he's very famous and a prominent European political campaigner.
@Cavey: I didn't disagree with that because I didn't address it... They are your opinions, which you are entitled to, but I was only addressing the thread of comments stemming from asfish's description using terms like 'bad tranny', and whether Izzard's attire does or doesn't detract from what he says.
Whether what Izzard has to say is affective as an argument is always going to be personal to the individual audience member, as is tge argument of anyone with a broadcasting platform, but that's not the bit of what Asfish said that I have issue with.
Whether what Izzard has to say is affective as an argument is always going to be personal to the individual audience member, as is tge argument of anyone with a broadcasting platform, but that's not the bit of what Asfish said that I have issue with.
Cavey wrote:
Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
We're deep in the era of post-truth sound bite politics now, when Michael Gove can say with a straight face that "people are fed up of experts" and the no-one says "wait, what the shit." Or when Cameron can denounce Sadiq Khan because he "shared a platform with ISIS supporters" based on Khan having met with an iman who -- it later revealed -- had previously campaigned for the Tories and met with Goldsmith.
No-one cared. No consequences befell Cameron, he wasn't made to retract his statement or apologise. No-one cared when he campaigned with Khan a few short weeks later for Remain. People aren't interested in consistency or logic or experience or experts.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
We're deep in the era of post-truth sound bite politics now, when Michael Gove can say with a straight face that "people are fed up of experts" and the no-one says "wait, what the shit." Or when Cameron can denounce Sadiq Khan because he "shared a platform with ISIS supporters" based on Khan having met with an iman who -- it later revealed -- had previously campaigned for the Tories and met with Goldsmith.
No-one cared. No consequences befell Cameron, he wasn't made to retract his statement or apologise. No-one cared when he campaigned with Khan a few short weeks later for Remain. People aren't interested in consistency or logic or experience or experts.
Sadly, you're absolutely right Doc.
Cavey wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Call me boring, but I'd have liked to hear from a spokesperson of the OECD or IMF, instead of this bullshit; people are discussing Eddie Izzard's headgear, not GDP forecasts. Gah.
We're deep in the era of post-truth sound bite politics now, when Michael Gove can say with a straight face that "people are fed up of experts" and the no-one says "wait, what the shit." Or when Cameron can denounce Sadiq Khan because he "shared a platform with ISIS supporters" based on Khan having met with an iman who -- it later revealed -- had previously campaigned for the Tories and met with Goldsmith.
No-one cared. No consequences befell Cameron, he wasn't made to retract his statement or apologise. No-one cared when he campaigned with Khan a few short weeks later for Remain. People aren't interested in consistency or logic or experience or experts.
Sadly, you're absolutely right Doc.
Mark. The. Day.
I agree with Doc about loads of stuff, and our "big picture" objectives are almost identical as far as I can tell, i.e. we both want the same things, merely disagree about how best to achieve them.
The things he describes are a disgrace to our media (as well as to Cameron). Not in my name etc.
I also weep for the intellectual depths and standards of public debate now routinely plumbed in this country, as elsewhere, and have commented as such for at least as long as I've been a member of this board, and WoS and FF before it.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/sta ... 4978174976
Dog whistle now audible to humans.
Edit -- now deleted -- mirror here
https://twitter.com/IanMorris78/status/ ... 3581192192
Dog whistle now audible to humans.
Edit -- now deleted -- mirror here
https://twitter.com/IanMorris78/status/ ... 3581192192
The Brexit fuckrags have deleted that tweet, here's a copy of it to cut out and keep. pic.twitter.com/hwiJOuSv7Z
— Ian Morris (@IanMorris78) June 13, 2016
Well that's vile
Cras wrote:
Well that's vile
And nonsensical. The shooter was an American. In America. How on earth does that relate to the EU Ref.? Pure shameful scaremongering.
And yet it'll get some people nodding along going "yeah... YEAH!"
Link doesn't work so guess its been pulled?
Mimi wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
I thought I'd have a look at an image of this seeing as how people are going on about his appearance. It's not even out of the ordinary!
Right?
He's wearing a hat. The hat is pink.
...
He's wearing nail varnish. Weren't half the men on this board wearing nail varnish only a few weeks ago?
There is a difference between a drunken night out and a publicly watched debate on an issue which has the potential to significantly screw over the country...
If you want to convince people, it's probably best not to alienate them before you've said a single word. Unless you somehow think you're bigger than the issue.
Quite so Dave, yes.
I honestly thought he was utterly self indulgent and shit.
I honestly thought he was utterly self indulgent and shit.
So how is wearing a hat "alienating"?
You know, unless you're a bigot.
Mr Russell wrote:
So how is wearing a hat "alienating"?
It's a case of know your audience, really, isn't it. It might not effect you, but I guarantee that some people will discount him immediately.
Mr Russell wrote:
You know, unless you're a bigot.
Given that were somewhat at risk of leaving the European due to bigotry...
Do you not think that pushing them away is rather stupid.
I suspect I'm fairly closed-minded in my open-mindedness, so I can't comprehend why people think that way.
As such I probably won't say any more on this subject, as certain comments here have already left a terrible taste in my mouth.
As such I probably won't say any more on this subject, as certain comments here have already left a terrible taste in my mouth.
That Leave.EU tweet was deleted, don't let them get away with it; here's a mirror
https://twitter.com/IanMorris78/status/ ... 3581192192
https://twitter.com/IanMorris78/status/ ... 3581192192
The Brexit fuckrags have deleted that tweet, here's a copy of it to cut out and keep. pic.twitter.com/hwiJOuSv7Z
— Ian Morris (@IanMorris78) June 13, 2016
Mr Dave wrote:
It's a case of know your audience, really, isn't it. It might not effect you, but I guarantee that some people will discount him immediately.
Oh yes. If you want to win people over to a point of view that they are not becesarily going to be too happy with; you are way better off mirroring them as much as possible. Rocking up in an "I'm an individual" statement clothes is going to make people less lkely to engage as there appears less liklihood of material movement (nice wording, I know). In this case it drops the authority of what he is saying, because of the "Look I'm me" statement. It's like when you walk in to a meeting with new people you snap a judgement on those presented to you (weirdly, for me it often goes "Wants to be Mali, wants to be Mali, wants to be with Mali, wants to be Mali" when i size up a room) and copying apprearance is a big thing on your side.
Edit: for example: if a person was in a shirt and jacket telling me about coding solutions for meatspace repackaging I'd believe him less than if he did the same thing but without the jacket as he'd be wearing a short sleeved shirt and then i would know he was a software engineer but in the jacket probably sales.
That Leave tweet is like something Britain First would put on Facebook. 
Mr Dave wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
So how is wearing a hat "alienating"?
It's a case of know your audience, really, isn't it. It might not effect you, but I guarantee that some people will discount him immediately.
He was indoors, FFS!
I'm not a huge fan of people having to lie about who they are or how they are to make a point in what is supposed to be a mainstream debate. It's just another attempt to silence minorities, etc.
Should a gay person act 'straight' just to try to curry favour among the heterosexuals?
Should a gay person act 'straight' just to try to curry favour among the heterosexuals?
Curiosity wrote:
Should a gay person act 'straight' just to try to curry favour among the heterosexuals?
How does one act gay? Do they cock their wrist and say "Ohhhh" a lot?
TheVision wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Should a gay person act 'straight' just to try to curry favour among the heterosexuals?
How does one act gay? Do they cock their wrist and say "Ohhhh" a lot?
They dress like a trany.
Mr Russell wrote:
TheVision wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Should a gay person act 'straight' just to try to curry favour among the heterosexuals?
How does one act gay? Do they cock their wrist and say "Ohhhh" a lot?
They dress like a trany.
Are we talking a good trany or a bad trany? Like Optimus Prime or Megatron?
Good trany
Curiosity wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of people having to lie about who they are or how they are to make a point in what is supposed to be a mainstream debate.
Oh come on. Seriously? People tell me "everyone understands" etc., and then promptly demonstrate the precise opposite is the case.
This isn't a hard concept, and should not be contentious. No-one is asking anyone to "lie" about anything, it's not that "he was wearing a hat"; it's merely a matter of COMMON SENSE presentation, and concern for what impressions you give to the very audience you are (or are supposedly) trying to influence.
You and a few others may as well rail against human nature; it's effectively what you are doing? Yes, wouldn't it be fine and dandy if I - as a man who loves to dress down and ride motorbikes - could just turn up at a job interview in ripped jeans, T-shirt and leather jacket - but you know, life isn't like that, one either has to respect the likely sensibilities of those you're trying to impress, or accept a *significant* disadvantage. My putting on a smart shirt, trousers and tie does not mean I'm "lying" FFS and besides, in my case, were I not to do this, such a disadvantage would be entirely mine to risk, so fair enough, but Izzard? He was there to lobby against possibly the worst decision the Great British Public is seriously at risk of making; he should at least be presenting himself in a *reasonable* way that, at the very least, does not totally detract from what he's there to do or say, and likely to be counter-productive, whether you like that or not. Them's the realities; this thing is bigger than him, and indeed everyone.
People need to grow up. There's a much bigger picture, and so much more at stake here, than their precious persona/egos/carefully managed "identities" or whatever. Proof of the pudding: people are talking about the supposed merits or otherwise of Izzard's fucking pink beret, not Remain/Brexit, whereas if we'd have had someone sensible and knowledgable on, we might at least have learned something worthwhile. How many of these golden opportunities to explain Remain's case do you think we're going to get?
No sympathy. At all.
Cavey wrote:
There's a much bigger picture, and so much more at stake here,
Civilisation itself, apparently.
Cavey wrote:
one either has to respect the likely sensibilities of those you're trying to impress, or accept a *significant* disadvantage.
Demographics give Leave a significant advantage: specifically, that older people statistically favour Leave, and they are more likely to turn out to vote. Given that, a good tactic for Remain would be to specifically appeal to younger voters and encourage them to vote. Given that, dressing in a sober suit and tie may be counter-productive for the exact reasons you cite.
OK last try: I used the smart shirt and tie example as applicable to me, if going for a job interview or whatever.
You're getting bogged down by the semantics/specifics, Doc, try to step back and see the bigger picture here? No-one is suggesting Izzard should have turned up in a grey double breasted suit, just perhaps rather less extreme than he was, at least so as not to become the subject matter/talking point himself? Though personally, as I've said, I absolutely don't know what he was doing there at all, irrespective of how he was dressed. Personally I'm sick of these vapid comedian-cum-political commentators, let someone who actually knows something have a go. It's not as though the debate is overwhelmed with facts and information, is it?
Tick tock.
You're getting bogged down by the semantics/specifics, Doc, try to step back and see the bigger picture here? No-one is suggesting Izzard should have turned up in a grey double breasted suit, just perhaps rather less extreme than he was, at least so as not to become the subject matter/talking point himself? Though personally, as I've said, I absolutely don't know what he was doing there at all, irrespective of how he was dressed. Personally I'm sick of these vapid comedian-cum-political commentators, let someone who actually knows something have a go. It's not as though the debate is overwhelmed with facts and information, is it?
Tick tock.
I only wear ties, for weddings, funerals and job interviews
Izzard is famous for cross-dressing. He does so when campaigning for various causes. It'd be significantly more weird for him to be seen wearing a suit or just dressing up like a 'normal' person than it would to see him in the kind of clothes he usually wears. If people are going to judge him for that, it's a shame, but by going on telly like that it helps to slowly get it through to people that it's okay to be a transvestite.
Sigh. You read where I've said, repeatedly, no one would've expected him to wear a suit etc., just maybe tone it down a bit such that the (hugely important) subject matter was the discussion point, not him? Okies.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
Cavey wrote:
Sigh. You read where I've said, repeatedly, no one would've expected him to wear a suit etc., just maybe tone it down a bit such that the (hugely important) subject matter was the discussion point, not him? Okies.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
What specifically needed toning down?
Mr Russell wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Sigh. You read where I've said, repeatedly, no one would've expected him to wear a suit etc., just maybe tone it down a bit such that the (hugely important) subject matter was the discussion point, not him? Okies.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
What specifically needed toning down?
Eddie Izzard normally:
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm ... K3uesLwDTE
Can you not spot a difference between how he normally dresses and what he wore there?
Mr Dave wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Sigh. You read where I've said, repeatedly, no one would've expected him to wear a suit etc., just maybe tone it down a bit such that the (hugely important) subject matter was the discussion point, not him? Okies.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
Anyway I'm bored of Eddie bloody Izzard already.
What specifically needed toning down?
Eddie Izzard normally:
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm ... K3uesLwDTE
Can you not spot a difference between how he normally dresses and what he wore there?
No, because he's dressed in all variety of different styles there. In make up, in a suit, with a silk scarf, in running gear.
He doesn't seem to dress any one way 'normally'. Maybe he just wears whatever the heck he wants.
I'm amazed that we're all here discussing how Izzard looked and not what he said, and yet some people are saying it didn't matter how he looked.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
Grim... wrote:
I'm amazed that we're all here discussing how Izzard looked and not what he said, and yet some people are saying it didn't matter how he looked.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
... precisely.
Grim... wrote:
I'm amazed that we're all here discussing how Izzard looked and not what he said, and yet some people are saying it didn't matter how he looked.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
I don think anyone said it didn't matter what he wore. That's why I agreed with Cavey that it did, but I think it mattered far more the more close-minded that you are.
What has surprised me is that people are surprised at it. Izzard has worn make up and elements of women's clothing ranges for years and years. How is this news? Why are people suddenly shocked by it?
Mimi wrote:
Grim... wrote:
I'm amazed that we're all here discussing how Izzard looked and not what he said, and yet some people are saying it didn't matter how he looked.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
He totally should be able to wear what he likes, but it's certainly going to affect what people think about him. We're proving that right now.
I don think anyone said it didn't matter what he wore. That's why I agreed with Cavey that it did, but I think it mattered far more the more close-minded that you are. I think it's only an issue to those that have made it so.
What has surprised me is that people are surprised at it. Izzard has worn make up and elements of women's clothing ranges for years and years. How is this news? Why are people suddenly shocked by it?
It's pragmatism vs idealism, in a nutshell.
Curiosity wrote:
It's pragmatism vs idealism, in a nutshell.
That's pretty much this forum.
Cavey wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
It's pragmatism vs idealism, in a nutshell.
That's pretty much this forum.
Yup. Today I'm all about idealism. Tomorrow, maybe not.
The world needs both types though.
I'd like to think that we can be pragmatic idealists about all of this.
And ignore pink berets.
And ignore pink berets.
