I think it's legitimate to prefer one culture to another
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) May 30, 2019
For example, I prefer cultures that do not tolerate female genital mutilation.
Will this will be considered racist by all those who hover, eagerly hoping that someone will offend them - on someone else's behalf, naturally https://t.co/4WbZDFjs3o
३० मे, २०१९
Cleese doubles down.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
Eventually intersectionality will catch up to you, hopefully before it's too late.
Color or principles? That is the question.
Its totally more fun to have sex with a woman who is biologically capable of enjoying it. But suddenly its racist.
Seems almost all of the responses argue why Cleese should not have said it, but I've seen none argue that he is wrong.
I liked this reply to the “London is a global city” view from Suhail Bhatia:
“Singapore, Hong Kong, Calcutta, Mumbai, Shanghai have also been deeply informed and influenced by global trade. But the indigenous inhabitants have not been outnumbered. The cities still retain their native culture. London is going the other way.”
Will this will be considered racist by all those who hover, eagerly hoping that someone will offend them - on someone else's behalf, naturally
Yes. Next question.
Mr.D - John Cleese has already been proven a racist. He is a white, European male. What more proof is required these days?
He didn’t double down, he’s been all in for a long while if forever.
Eventually we all come to say 'go fuck yourself'.
Cleese states an obvious truth.
But in a tongue twister of a sentence
I've never considered myself a feminist; but I do like cultures that don't require women to wear hijabs and don't support honor killings when they don't. If a woman chooses to wear a hijab, then that's her choice, but she should have the right to change her mind.
Why doesn't he just say, he prefers England to be English? Anyway, the English are insane. A crowded island that first imports millions of Blacks so as to have a race problem, and then imports millions of Muslims in order to have a religious conflict.
Of course, the English have never really liked cities anyway. So, I'm sure most Londoners were glad to sell out and move out to the suburbs or countryside.
The problem isn't the Muslims. If you don't want Islam in your country - don't let them in.
The British are the ones who gave us the crazy philosophy of "Invade the world, Invite the world".
Ann,
I bet your don't approve of a culture (Islam) that tosses gays off of tall buildings either. But most libs in America today apparently do!
What besides an abortion are the pro-choice people allowing you to choose?
the thing is, cleese would never do a joke about an Arabic or Urdu translating phrasebook,
the lyon bomber, mohammed hichem, had closer ties to Islamic state, then they let on,
When you're factually correct doubling down seems like an easy strategy.
The problem, of course, is the truth you're stating may make some people feel upset. Presumably Cleese, a bright enough fellow, understands the danger of that and believes he is above being harmed by the expressed feelings of the rage mob. Good for him! His point that the expressed feelings of outrage are likely less than genuine/are likely performative, done on behalf of others, is also an important one and gives non-mob members--nice centrist people--permission to appropriately discount the alleged hurt feelings of mob members.
Fuck 'em.
@rcocean - Yes, they stupidly invited the world. Now they are getting what they asked for, good and hard.
Another one of those classic blunders, Such as "Never get involved in a land war in Asia.".
Never pick a twitter fight with John Cleese
I do not have a problem with what John Cleese is saying. I have a small problem with him waiting so long to say it as this issue has been apparent for quite some time in London. I do hope that more and more people do speak up and support what Cleese has pointed out.
CJinPA, 11:23:
“I’ve seen none argue that he is wrong.”
Get with the times! We’ve replaced “I disagree, and here’s why” with “I hate you.”
The British are the ones who gave us the crazy philosophy of "Invade the world, Invite the world".
Not really...from about 1600 to 1960, they were exclusively Invade the World and from 1960 onward they've been exclusively Invite the World.
Only Americans are crazy enough to do both at the same time.
Good for him. Almost Trumpian. I'm rich, I'm famous, I'm accomplished, go fuck yourself. Why not? What was it all for if you feel you have to grovel at the end of the day?
He's not wrong!!
Finally someone who does not grovel to the Twitter mob. Bravo John Cleese.
If you don't want Islam in your country - don't let them in.
Is it really as easy as that? Perhaps, I don't want Islam in my country, but those who run the country do.
Now, I suppose you'll tell me to just vote them out.
“Singapore, Hong Kong, Calcutta, Mumbai, Shanghai have also been deeply informed and influenced by global trade. But the indigenous inhabitants have not been outnumbered. The cities still retain their native culture. London is going the other way.”
Impossible to outnumber Asians.
Asians are everywhere.
Asians are everywhere.
There and here, here and there
Asians are everywhere
There was lots to pick from and Cleese picked just one element of the magnificent Muslim culture. Bully for him.
It's a conscious choice, and not an irrational one at that. London has rightly laid claim to being a (the?) global city for centuries. The game changed dramatically on 9/11 though. London had a worthy (as well as richer and tougher) competitor in NYC. After the attacks, the gobsmacking, gratuitous petrowealth was less uncomfortable and conspiquous here in the USA. And remember this was at a time when petro$ > tech$. Londoners thoughtfully and purposefully chose to take advantage of that. They opened the door even wider to attracting people, money, culture, food, aesthetics, . . . . . everything (as long as it came with a few £mm) from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.
You can't get something without giving something else up. And this was going to happen anyway, but 9/11 was a clear accelerant.
W/o 9/11 NYC would be much more "global" and London less so.
The streets of Belgravia were noticeably more "global" in 2005 than the were in 1995.
John Cleese vs. Moby. Which is the better response?
Discuss.
I think it's legitimate to prefer one culture to another.
....and then he arrives at Trump's shithole argument.
the thing is, cleese would never do a joke about an Arabic or Urdu translating phrasebook,
I watched a special on the anniversary of Life of Brian, the Monty Python film that poked fun at Christians. The recurring theme was how it was important to use humor to prevent a Christian theocracy from taking hold in the West.
This was right before the time Muslim fundamentalism was on the rise and encroaching on the West. You don't hear such talk anymore.
I certainly prefer the Dead White European Male Culture--previously known as "culture"--over Trash Culture, whether that be Black Ghetto Trash or White Trailer Trash.
@CJinPA: I watched a special on the anniversary of Life of Brian, the Monty Python film that poked fun at Christians.
I think you missed the point.
It didn't make fun of Christians, it made fun of religion.
I don't mind Islam in my country, but I do mind the culture and customs of my country moving to Sharia law.
the thing is, cleese would never do a joke about an Arabic or Urdu translating phrasebook
He might if it caused his nipples to explode with delight.
It didn't make fun of Christians, it made fun of religion.
This was obvious during the entire "To them only are given....." segment involving the shoe, the gourd, and the hermit. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
John Cleese doubled down on the obvious, which takes courage in our politically correct world.
Hey Skipper: It didn't make fun of Christians, it made fun of religion.
Along with Roman aristocrats, left-wing activists, the gender-confused, cross-dressing women in trigger-happy stoning mobs...
I don't remember any theme or sub-theme about the dangers of an encroaching "Christian theocracy".
One of the funniest movies ever made.
Cleese is not a moby.
I prefer cultures that do not celebrate a book that calls for the killing of unbelievers.
I also prefer cultures that do not willingly invite people who celebrate a book that calls for the killing of unbelievers.
John Cleese for Prime Minister!
Too bad the top executive is elected in back rooms, not by the population at large.
The anti-nativists are on notice.
That said, the rate of immigration should not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before planned parenthood.
After reading Sebastian's point at 4:07PM:
An inconvenient truth is that the Koran does indeed promote killing/enslavement of nonbelievers. The argument I often hear in response when expressing concern over this is that the old testament also has a lot of violent, graphic instructions that are essentially ignored or no longer valid. People tend to give Islam the same shrift re: calls to violence.
I work with LOTS of very nice Muslims who may or may not (secretly) feel that this call to killing is rhetorical or not direct. What are we supposed to do to confront this? I would really like to know!
Cleese is but one small step from his cultural predecessor, Sir Charles Napier.
Napier, governing in India during the days of Empire, respected the Hindu tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands, but demanded the Hindus respect the English tradition of hanging those who burned widows alive.
Amazingly, widows were no longer burned alive after * mutual * cultural respect was demanded.
Is it wrong to take pleasure watching the left eat their own?
"Its totally more fun to have sex with a woman who is biologically capable of enjoying it. But suddenly its racist."
Wait! Nobody told me they were supposed to enjoy it too! Wow! That changes everything. I'm gonna play harder to get.
There is a real dearth of Christians acting out the Old Testament.
What Islam needs is a carpenter in sandals, and there is no doubt he would meet the same fate.
Will this will be considered racist by all those who hover, eagerly hoping that someone will offend them - on someone else's behalf, naturally
Nicely stated Sir John.
Well, If I were king, he would be knighted.
The basic and fundamental message of the Holy Quran is, "Keep quiet and nobody gets hurt!"
We (USAians) have been venturing into the Islamic world with this stirring cry on our lips--
"We're infidel perverts, and we're here to help you!"
Narr
I think we need a better battlecry, at least
“I see. Well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.... You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement,... you whining hypocritical toadies with your colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes. You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me.”
And speaking of life of Brian, you have to watch the "call me Loretta" bit again. It is hysterical and spot on. I showed it to my 15 year old nephew, and he got agitated and said it's not funny, it's too true. He has all kinds of people at his high school doing that bi, cis, normative stuff. As always, it's not funny if it's true.
We was so poor we slept under a burlap bag in the middle of the roadway, and our da used to murder us every night!
Narr
OWTTE
Comedians are smarter than average
Lot of "calibration" work
Fawlty Towers is wonderful
Cleese is one of the greats
So is Cosby
The 80 year old is telling those on the path to Utopia
where they are really going
Comedians are our canary in the coal mine vis a vis PC.
Add me to those who love Life of Brian. I'm a Christian, and have no problem with it. I don't consider it offensive or blasphemous, although I can understand why people may have when it first came out. The movie does mock religious pretense and hypocrisy, which deserve mockery. "The People's Front of Judea" versus "The Judean People's Front" is something every Christian can relate to.
The scene in which Brian tries to explain to the crowd that they are all individuals who can think for themselves should be required viewing for young liberals. Same with the "Loretta" scene, as noted above.
More Christians should watch Life of Brian, to lighten up a little and avoid becoming Pharisees.
Dave D. @4:34 "the old testament also has a lot of violent, graphic instructions that are essentially ignored or no longer valid"
The old testament doesn't portray God ordering His people to kill or conquer outsiders as a general case. It records specific instances of God ordering people to kill outsiders, up to and including entire (extinct as far as we know) tribes. Hence, the old testament has a lot of violent instructions, all of which have been fulfilled and no longer apply.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा