soooooooo, I'm findin' this whole business of what is generally offensive right peturbin' which has irked me no end.
In possibly Britain's most successful supermarket I found that Frankie Boyle's biography "My Shit Life So Far" had been censored and Roy "Chubby" Brown's new dvd "Too Fat to be Gay" had not. I'm not a gay man and dont think the name of the dvd is particularly offensive (although I'm not sure that weight is an issue in the gay community, don't be so hard on yourself Chubby, if you wanna be gay you go out and find all the bum fun you can, fill yer boots or your bum duct with man meat or indeed if you're the post man deliver a parcel ;) ;) )
It's the sight of Chubs in a tutu that I believe is offensive because while there are effiminate gay people, the vast majority (at least the gay guys I know) are largely ambiguous in the way they conduct themselves and most elightened people know this.
There's nout wrong wiv bein' a girl n that but it's that old insinuation that gay fellas are diff'rent n should be viewed as a seperate gender from the other two (man and woman respectively) and I would rather explain to my child that 'shit' is a vulgar noun that is innapropriate in some circles than try to reverse the perception that effeminate men are somefin to be gorped at n mocked rather than embraced as a fellow member of this 'ere 'ooman race.
If you find the word 'shit' offensive it's because you've conjured up the image in you own mind of a festering pile 'o effluent, you make it offensive, the word itself is innocuous and as a singular unit of language doesn't really suggest much, it's only offensive in context eg. "You are a shit" or "I wanna stuff shit in your mouth", see? that's offensive, but on its own 'shit' just ain't.
This whole business makes me sad 'cos it whiffs of institutionalised homophobia, 'shit' is offensive to those who choose to find it so and homophobia targets a specific group of innocent people which truly is offensive in much the same way that burglary is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander so let's do away wiv this 'ipocrasy and be sensitive to people who are afraid of the word 'shit' and the gay community as well, eh?
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Rage Indeed?
So I cast me wanderin' peepers o'er that iTunes malarkey and saw that 'Rage Against the Machine' still hold the top spot (and as it's 1.44am sunday, 20th December at the time of writing I presume this makes it 2009's Christmas no.1), that poor Joe fellow, how awful for him. He is such a nice boy with nothing particularly remarkable, offensive, interesting or useful about him. Surely in this age of pandemics and violence and those dear sweaty polar bears all huddled atop a nubbin of ice peaking above the brine we can find a little space in our hearts for what I believe will be a vaccuos little ditty about love, over coming odds or some such guff that can suck us into it's dark void and pop us out the other side, only aware that three and a half minutes of our lives has disappeared inexplicably.
What else would I do with the 79p it takes to make a young man's dream to accomplish the level of stardom only the backing singers from 'East 17' and Jeremy from 'Airport' know, buy 7 and 9/10 of a Chomp, (I am of an age that recalls Chomps being a handsome 10 new pennies, if they are currently of a less reasonable price I do apologise for what is surely a mathematically confusing assertion).
And that bunch of noisy nitwits with their benevolence, callously taunting their fans by throwing the money gained from the sale of 'Killing in the Name' at the vagrants that riddle our fair land, pouching our deer and scrumping (as I am sure they often do) as if to say "you're money is no longer needed, we've reaped all we need from our past success and welcome not a single farthing of your grubby cash". At least Simon Cowell would put that money into something of beauty like a new lotus that might stand as a moving monument to your appretiation (perhaps you might see it roll by with his lordship in as you look from the squalour of your suburban gutter and you might bask in it's vapid capitalist glow).
For shame pop enthusiasts, you have made a poor old, square headed mogul, living vicariously through the talent and naivity of celebrity z listers to be slightly less wealthy at the end of the year and I hope you're happy.
What else would I do with the 79p it takes to make a young man's dream to accomplish the level of stardom only the backing singers from 'East 17' and Jeremy from 'Airport' know, buy 7 and 9/10 of a Chomp, (I am of an age that recalls Chomps being a handsome 10 new pennies, if they are currently of a less reasonable price I do apologise for what is surely a mathematically confusing assertion).
And that bunch of noisy nitwits with their benevolence, callously taunting their fans by throwing the money gained from the sale of 'Killing in the Name' at the vagrants that riddle our fair land, pouching our deer and scrumping (as I am sure they often do) as if to say "you're money is no longer needed, we've reaped all we need from our past success and welcome not a single farthing of your grubby cash". At least Simon Cowell would put that money into something of beauty like a new lotus that might stand as a moving monument to your appretiation (perhaps you might see it roll by with his lordship in as you look from the squalour of your suburban gutter and you might bask in it's vapid capitalist glow).
For shame pop enthusiasts, you have made a poor old, square headed mogul, living vicariously through the talent and naivity of celebrity z listers to be slightly less wealthy at the end of the year and I hope you're happy.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Journo Speak
I am, in truth, a farely garrulus young beast, I loves me loquation, you just watch me loquate all up in your cheeky chops with the gusto of a cliche and having said that I feel I should warn you, I speak with much more fluency than I spell and you are in the unenviable position of experiencing my grasp on grammer at first hand what with you reading this and such.
Important as spelling and grammer are I am primarily concerned with the letters and arranging them in such a manner that might give a vague imprint of the word I hope to impart and following that word with a similarly appropriate arrangement of alphabetic units much like this collection here.
Still with me? you must be if you read that bit and continue to do so as this sentence progresses wasting your time simply describing the action that is neccessary to perform the action.
I feel awful for doing that to you but there, I did it and I cant give you back the time that was taken from you much like Neil Arnold did in his article "A Trip Down High Strangeness Street" of the January 2010 issue of Paranormal (page 43) when he needlessly confused me with this sentence (pay special attention to the bold bit, it'll save you having to reread it) "Take a tour through the high street, from the Chatham end, and walk right through to the famous castle, and you'll be enlightened to find that Rochester harbours many apparitions, not a few of which have failed to find their way into the numerous books written about the place."
I feel stupid. It may seem obvious to you but that little linguistic nuance threw me mainly because it doesn't seem to allude to any particular amount of ghosty ghosts (I like 'em, I'm skeptical to the point of disbelief but I like a bit of a spook & that's why I was examining said publication), and this makes me feel all weird in my tummy space and my head feels all warm and I need to lie down, booooooo neil! boo you! I know some failed to make it into the literature of the town but not wether this amount is all of the ghosts, some or none and, if I have read material regarding Rochester, how surprised I would be to find out about the ghoulies dotted about the place.
Maybe I was tired and stressy, maybe this funk brought on a bout of asphasia (oh yeah! I said asphasia, and if you don't know what it means you'll be all confused like wot I woz when I read Neil's sentence meaning that the discomfort I experienced and am trying to convey will now be vividly apparent, forcing you to consider abandoning this little rant, rendering the point of it null and void, oh the irony) but on reflection with fresh eyes and a zealous appretiation for all things spooky it still refuses to rectify itself in a satisfactory manner.
My only wish is that we abandon vagueness for the sake of verbosity and get down to brass tacks, give it to me straight Neil, say what you mean 'cos you done made me feel all stooput :P
(Its worth noting that the rest of the magazine was perfectly adequate in performing it's duty)
Important as spelling and grammer are I am primarily concerned with the letters and arranging them in such a manner that might give a vague imprint of the word I hope to impart and following that word with a similarly appropriate arrangement of alphabetic units much like this collection here.
Still with me? you must be if you read that bit and continue to do so as this sentence progresses wasting your time simply describing the action that is neccessary to perform the action.
I feel awful for doing that to you but there, I did it and I cant give you back the time that was taken from you much like Neil Arnold did in his article "A Trip Down High Strangeness Street" of the January 2010 issue of Paranormal (page 43) when he needlessly confused me with this sentence (pay special attention to the bold bit, it'll save you having to reread it) "Take a tour through the high street, from the Chatham end, and walk right through to the famous castle, and you'll be enlightened to find that Rochester harbours many apparitions, not a few of which have failed to find their way into the numerous books written about the place."
I feel stupid. It may seem obvious to you but that little linguistic nuance threw me mainly because it doesn't seem to allude to any particular amount of ghosty ghosts (I like 'em, I'm skeptical to the point of disbelief but I like a bit of a spook & that's why I was examining said publication), and this makes me feel all weird in my tummy space and my head feels all warm and I need to lie down, booooooo neil! boo you! I know some failed to make it into the literature of the town but not wether this amount is all of the ghosts, some or none and, if I have read material regarding Rochester, how surprised I would be to find out about the ghoulies dotted about the place.
Maybe I was tired and stressy, maybe this funk brought on a bout of asphasia (oh yeah! I said asphasia, and if you don't know what it means you'll be all confused like wot I woz when I read Neil's sentence meaning that the discomfort I experienced and am trying to convey will now be vividly apparent, forcing you to consider abandoning this little rant, rendering the point of it null and void, oh the irony) but on reflection with fresh eyes and a zealous appretiation for all things spooky it still refuses to rectify itself in a satisfactory manner.
My only wish is that we abandon vagueness for the sake of verbosity and get down to brass tacks, give it to me straight Neil, say what you mean 'cos you done made me feel all stooput :P
(Its worth noting that the rest of the magazine was perfectly adequate in performing it's duty)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
