Posted 8 hours ago

Another excellent example of the “I’m all for something…except that I’m obviously not” sub-type of pointless letter, last seen in the wild in The Times a couple of months back. Steve’s letter may well claim that he is totally on board with that whole “equality and bonding” thing, but the lava-hot, seething undercurrent of “WHO THE FUCK DO THESE FUCKING PLEBS THINK THEY ARE WITH THIS FUCKING CALLING ME STEVE BUSINESS?” couldn’t be more deliciously apparent.

Posted 12 hours ago

Meanwhile, over at the Times, there’s a tense moment as fighting talk almost takes one letter writer to the point of tutting and raising an eyebrow.

Posted 15 hours ago

Top class rambling reminiscing to kick us off on a Monday morning, courtesy of Derek and the magic of the silver screen.

Posted 1 day ago

It’s all been kicking off in Wrexham!

(many thanks to Stokesy over on Twitter for this one)

Posted 1 day ago

You can’t say anything these days

At the start of October there was a flurry of news stories covering the fact that Amazon had put up original, unedited Tom & Jerry cartoons from the 1940s and 50s on their “instant video” service. This wasn’t what made the news, what did was the fact that Amazon included a message with the cartoons that said they depicted “…ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society” which were “…wrong then and are wrong today.”

Rather than edit out some of these scenes (as seems to have been done at various points in the past) Amazon decided to include them unedited but, in recognition of the fact that a) modern audiences might look on some of the imagery being used to get laughs and wince and b) some of the people watching these cartoons today might be a bit young to have built up an historical context in which to view these things, it seems a fair enough sort of “middle ground”, doesn’t it?

image

Oh dear.

The Daily Express disagreed strongly, dedicating most of an entire page the subject (bear in mind that no-one said the cartoons were racist, merely that some of the depictions were based on prejudices that were fine and dandy in the 1940s and aren’t in 2014).

image

Well, I would have said it shows an attempt at striking a balance between censorship (either not showing the cartoons at all, or only showing the ones that don’t feature imagery that depicts a racial or ethnic stereotype) and appearing to not care about these issues by just showing them and saying nothing.

image

…which sort of skips over the point, that these cartoons were made during this “torrid time” where a lot of the attitudes that fueled the KKK and those thugs in the Deep South had a degree of mainstream acceptance that they don’t have today.

image

"I mean, okay, sure, there’s a character who’s called Mammy and there’s a clear history of the mammy caricature in American history, but that could just be coincidence.”

image

"It’s not even important that she’s black! It’s just a lark! These are just cartoons! You people! Get a sense of humour, eh?”

image

"Remember, just a lark."

image

"JUST A LARK!"

image

"Escapism, nothing more."

image

"It’s crazy to call these cartoons racist in any way, shape or form."

image

"I don’t see why Amazon would want to do something as fatuous as putting a disclaimer at the start of these films."

image

"You can’t even watch a harmless old cartoon these days…"

image

"…without those PC liberal do-gooders stamping all over you."

image

There should be some sort of rule that when you use a phrase like “political correctness police” a hooter goes off. Surely in 2014 we have the technology to make this happen.

image

"First, they came for the tank engines, and I did nothing because I was not a train. Then, they came for the fat controller, and I did nothing because I was not a fat controller."

(again though, no-one is talking about editing these cartoons, as has already been done over the years - this is the original, unedited cartoons with a paragraph of text stuck on as a disclaimer)

image

"Politically correct brigade" should also set off the hooter.

And of course, this outrage that a cartoon made in the 1940s could be said to have any unfortunate depictions of racial stereotypes that might need addressing in 2014 carried over into the letters page, first of the Daily Express…

image

See? YOU’RE THE RACISTS, PC POLICE!

image

Does Tom and Jerry qualify as a fable, now?

And it even got to that nirvana of reasoned debate, the Daily Mail letters page:

image

The “cold and mirthless world” where you can’t even have a laugh at a bit of a depiction of racial stereotypes from 80 years ago without some wooly, liberal, loony leftie PC police do-gooder coming along with their paragraph of text to stick on a screen. BROKEN BRITAIN.

image

Posted 1 day ago

So there you go, folks - if any of you out there want to build to a climax, Julia from Rugby is giving you the green light.

Posted 2 days ago

Because it’s not a discussion about law and order without complaining that the country is too civilised and doesn’t hang enough people, is it?

Posted 2 days ago

…because as we all know, being a) female and b) into something like a band isn’t a simple matter! You might think “Oh, I’m into this band/movie/TV show/game/whatever, and I’m just going to buy a t-shirt that shows off something about this band/movie/TV show/game/whatever, to express my interest in that band/movie/TV show/game/whatever because I think it’s cool!” as if it’s just as simple as that, but no! No no no no no!

Don’t you see, you have to pass the “entrance exam” to prove that you’re not just faking it? Because reasons. And logic. Name three songs. Then you’re allowed to wear the t-shirt.

(other people have written about this in far more depth and with a lot more wit and clarity, and some have even written a song speaking to this point)

(many thanks to Ashles3000 over on Twitter for this one)

Posted 2 days ago

Way too pleased with the punning at the end, there.

Posted 3 days ago

Quite possibly the Daily Mailiest theatre review you’re ever likely to read.