Elvis Costello- Oliver's Army (is no longer on its way)

[SophLad]

Maybe You Tube & co
Will clamp down on all those music vids relating to the use of the 'n word bitches guns & drugs

Uh oh!!  That’s another strike for “Oliver’s army”

Did you know..... that Costello wasn’t happy with the demo to Oliver’s army and almost gave the song away.  The keyboard player intentionally decided to then add some “ABBA” keyboard chords to the song and it lifted the whole song to a different level and so decided to keep it. 

Did you also know. Costello’s dad wrote and performed the song “secret lemonade drinker” for the tv commercial advertising “R whites“ lemonade?

Did you also know, Costello used to busk outside record label offices to try and get a recording contract?

Yes.

[Duffers]

This is it though, JK Rowling hasn't been seriously damaged as an icon.  To the vast, vast majority of the world she is a highly succesful author of children's books.  She's only a transphobe in the eyes of the people who decide to attach themselves to that cause and rant about it on the only social media site that gives a shit - Twitter.  Maybe the Guardian wrote about it too.  But nobody has succesfully 'cancelled' JK Rowling.

Well, whilst the word cancelled may be harsh, she's been damaged and continues to be. Here's an example in recent weeks. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/154455...ans-rights

I had to, not so long ago, give media advice to a very senior barrister against all kinds of abuse he got for tweeting about an ex legal big wig who'd died, just for saying he agreed this chap was right above a smart appearance in court helping people get on.

He got heaps of abuse from Rastafarian barristers etc, etc, and it went off on a right hideous angle, when it was totally innocuous, and the Times came calling for this chap, so I had to help him get out of this mess.

He's now taken himself off social media- one of the leading legal minds in this country. He says it's not worth the hassle as people are looking for rows and offence.

This is a huge debate, but trying to make out it's much ado about nothing clearly isn't so.

I honestly think you read too much into it. The media highlight the extreme elements and by doing so imply it's a commonly held view. There have always been idiots and those who want to shout extremist views and they've always made great news. I remember 'bloody students' and 'loony left' being common refrains in the 80s! Malcolm Mclaren exploited it magnificently for the sex pistols in the 70s!

Take your JK Rowling example, it must have been unpleasant for her but has it actually damaged her? If I was cynical, I would argue that she welcomes it. She has no new great 'Harry Potter' cash cow on the horizon, sales of her old books are slipping as other shiny, new books come out and would you believe it? She gets propelled into the media fighting a 'cause celebre'.... Frankly, the nastier the comments the better - it's like a more lucrative version of those shock-jock phone-ins we used to have in the 90s

Personally, I do believe that some (ahem) corporations and bigger companies go over the top trying to be 'PC', but I don't think that's an 'agenda'. I think it's bigger companies are running scared away from a new thing. They're in a 're-calibrating' phase. However, I'm betting companies are already starting to realise that social media campaigns ultimately mean the square root of fa in the long term, as long as you don't cave in. 

We'll all get bored of it soon and stop listening, anyway.

'Times they are-changing', but not as much as people believed then and now.

That’s a far more eloquent explanation than I can ever manage.

[Fido]

This is it though, JK Rowling hasn't been seriously damaged as an icon.  To the vast, vast majority of the world she is a highly succesful author of children's books.  She's only a transphobe in the eyes of the people who decide to attach themselves to that cause and rant about it on the only social media site that gives a shit - Twitter.  Maybe the Guardian wrote about it too.  But nobody has succesfully 'cancelled' JK Rowling.

Well, whilst the word cancelled may be harsh, she's been damaged and continues to be. Here's an example in recent weeks. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/154455...ans-rights

I had to, not so long ago, give media advice to a very senior barrister against all kinds of abuse he got for tweeting about an ex legal big wig who'd died, just for saying he agreed this chap was right above a smart appearance in court helping people get on.

He got heaps of abuse from Rastafarian barristers etc, etc, and it went off on a right hideous angle, when it was totally innocuous, and the Times came calling for this chap, so I had to help him get out of this mess.

He's now taken himself off social media- one of the leading legal minds in this country. He says it's not worth the hassle as people are looking for rows and offence.

This is a huge debate, but trying to make out it's much ado about nothing clearly isn't so.

I honestly think you read too much into it. The media highlight the extreme elements and by doing so imply it's a commonly held view. There have always been idiots and those who want to shout extremist views and they've always made great news. I remember 'bloody students' and 'loony left' being common refrains in the 80s! Malcolm Mclaren exploited it magnificently for the sex pistols in the 70s!

Take your JK Rowling example, it must have been unpleasant for her but has it actually damaged her? If I was cynical, I would argue that she welcomes it. She has no new great 'Harry Potter' cash cow on the horizon, sales of her old books are slipping as other shiny, new books come out and would you believe it? She gets propelled into the media fighting a 'cause celebre'.... Frankly, the nastier the comments the better - it's like a more lucrative version of those shock-jock phone-ins we used to have in the 90s

Personally, I do believe that some (ahem) corporations and bigger companies go over the top trying to be 'PC', but I don't think that's an 'agenda'. I think it's bigger organisations are running scared away from a new thing. They're in a 're-calibrating' phase. However, I'm betting companies are already starting to realise that social media campaigns ultimately mean the square root of fa in the long term, as long as you don't cave in. 

We'll all get bored of it soon and stop listening, anyway.

'Times they are-a-changing', but not as much as people believed then and now.

You're right. Companies are always looking for an edge but the one thing they are shit-scared of is falling behind, above anything else.

[Squid]

This is it though, JK Rowling hasn't been seriously damaged as an icon.  To the vast, vast majority of the world she is a highly succesful author of children's books.  She's only a transphobe in the eyes of the people who decide to attach themselves to that cause and rant about it on the only social media site that gives a shit - Twitter.  Maybe the Guardian wrote about it too.  But nobody has succesfully 'cancelled' JK Rowling.

Well, whilst the word cancelled may be harsh, she's been damaged and continues to be. Here's an example in recent weeks. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/154455...ans-rights

I had to, not so long ago, give media advice to a very senior barrister against all kinds of abuse he got for tweeting about an ex legal big wig who'd died, just for saying he agreed this chap was right above a smart appearance in court helping people get on.

He got heaps of abuse from Rastafarian barristers etc, etc, and it went off on a right hideous angle, when it was totally innocuous, and the Times came calling for this chap, so I had to help him get out of this mess.

He's now taken himself off social media- one of the leading legal minds in this country. He says it's not worth the hassle as people are looking for rows and offence.

This is a huge debate, but trying to make out it's much ado about nothing clearly isn't so.

I honestly think you read too much into it. The media highlight the extreme elements and by doing so imply it's a commonly held view. There have always been idiots and those who want to shout extremist views and they've always made great news. I remember 'bloody students' and 'loony left' being common refrains in the 80s! Malcolm Mclaren exploited it magnificently for the sex pistols in the 70s!

Take your JK Rowling example, it must have been unpleasant for her but has it actually damaged her? If I was cynical, I would argue that she welcomes it. She has no new great 'Harry Potter' cash cow on the horizon, sales of her old books are slipping as other shiny, new books come out and would you believe it? She gets propelled into the media fighting a 'cause celebre'.... Frankly, the nastier the comments the better - it's like a more lucrative version of those shock-jock phone-ins we used to have in the 90s

Personally, I do believe that some (ahem) corporations and bigger companies go over the top trying to be 'PC', but I don't think that's an 'agenda'. I think it's bigger organisations are running scared away from a new thing. They're in a 're-calibrating' phase. However, I'm betting companies are already starting to realise that social media campaigns ultimately mean the square root of fa in the long term, as long as you don't cave in. 

We'll all get bored of it soon and stop listening, anyway.

'Times they are-a-changing', but not as much as people believed then and now.

So many blokes on here agreeing with the comment that maybe she's just doing it for attention is quite depressing. Aside from the fact that sales of her old books are not slipping, because the Robert Gilbraith books sell very well, do you really think anyone welcomes death threats from the clearly mentally unhinged? 

Also, her comments weren't nasty. Thinking that women should have single-sex refugees, prisons and sports were common sense until only a few years ago. You can read her comments here and judge for yourself how "nasty" they are: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-r...er-issues/

Finally, cancel culture isn't about celebrities, but ordinary people. A professor is facing disciplinary action for these tweets: https://twitter.com/James_Treadwell/stat...2945281025 

The impact of that will mean that others in similar positions will be frightened to speak.

And I know a lot of you aren't interested in this particular issue, but maybe one day people will be frightened to openly discuss an issue you do care about.

[fuzzbox]

I think there was some miscommunication here - my fault, I typed it too quickly. Nasty was actually related to the responses she got - as in the nastier the better for publicity reasons. I wasn't saying that what she herself said was nasty!! Perhaps if I had made that clearer, I wouldn't have depressed you so much!

I also never said she did it 'just' for attention. I'm sure she believes in what she says. I was saying she understands what she's getting into, why she's doing it and what she wants to get out of it.  I just sometimes find it disingenuous when celebs issue press releases expressing shock at the responses. She would have known - it was guaranteed. It's what always happens - and it's of no consequence.

At this point, I should say that my 'reality' is probably different to a lot of other people.  In addition to the usual racist vitriol, I got daily death threats during the time of the BLM , Floyd and the Bristol slave trafficker debates. Was I bothered? Yes and no. I would have been more bothered if I thought they were serious, but, like a 'nasty' response on twitter, I knew they weren't. It's just a small amount of people doing what they always do for reasons only they really know. Experiencing this, I do wonder why 'media' people publicise their social media attacks? Personally, I couldn't see the point of giving them or their hate any oxygen, but maybe I didn't want to light a fire.

To be clear, just because I'm cynical about celebrity media manipulation (in my opinion), it's incorrect to infer I don't have any sympathy for a particular cause. For example, I'm not particularly interested when celebrities express shock and hurt about responses to pro-BLM on Social Media either. However, that emphatically doesn't mean I'm against equal rights for all races. Far from it. It's leaps of logic like that, that close down debate and effectively frighten people who want to openly discuss an issue you do care about.


Update: I've spent a few hours going down an internet rabbit hole reading about what concerns you. There is some truly heartbreaking stories and obviously some issues that need to be addressed.

[Duffers]

The cynics amongst you might note he released a new album last week…

“Don’t play my old stuff despite the naughty word being edited out a long time ago… here’s my new record…”

[fuzzbox]

The cynics amongst you might note he released a new album last week…

“Don’t play my old stuff despite the naughty word being edited out a long time ago… here’s my new record…”

Exactly. Even worse, it causes people to become 'tired' and 'cynical' about the perfectly legitimate cause it purports to support. Even I think 'here we go again' when I read some of the celebrity heartache stories about racism, so I can imagine what the average white male must think. (Actually, I know exactly after reading this dump for so many years!   )

[Tom Joad]

The cynics amongst you might note he released a new album last week…

“Don’t play my old stuff despite the naughty word being edited out a long time ago… here’s my new record…”

Quite possible/probable. It's a fine album though ( the new one, that is).

---

The cynics amongst you might note he released a new album last week…

“Don’t play my old stuff despite the naughty word being edited out a long time ago… here’s my new record…”

Quite possible/probable. It's a fine album though ( the new one, that is).

[Sliced]

The cynics amongst you might note he released a new album last week…

“Don’t play my old stuff despite the naughty word being edited out a long time ago… here’s my new record…”

Good shout