The different behaviours GIovanni talks about goes back to my original point among moral policing as opposed to debate.
Certainly his & Russell's response to the WJ JT thing was a world away from the kinds of shouting down via various ists, isms & phobes you often see.
I'm sure once the numbers get up, regardless of the language things can seem pretty full on, but there's a world of difference between challenging something that's said or an idea vs simply denouncing the person that's said it.
It's when it's the later I think problems start & can quickly turn into what someone described as Maoist hazing.
But the people she was talking about feeling silenced or deciding to keep quiet weren't the 'slut shaming' types but simply people (often feminists, POC etc) who conception of politics differed. Being a liberal universalist secular humanist seems to be enough to fall foul of some of the 'call out' brigade.
But the point of Goldberg bringing up Intsectionality in relation to the absurd 'call out' culture is that much of the basis of that culture (within elements of the radical left) is from people purporting to practice intersectional politics. Surely youur beef seems to be with people supposedly misusing the concept rather than someone picking up on how the idea's used in practice as opposed to what you see as its real meaning.
My point about moral policing is the tendacy to go way beyond what any reasonable person would deem abuse or harassment and to attack people for expressing ideas that are deemed beyond the pale (often ideas that outside certain online bubbles are probably held by a lot of people) via a refusal to consider context or even to stop & consider what someone might of meant. The only thing that counts is your subjective interpretation & subsequent outrage, which you'll express not with a better idea but with 'How dare you even think it's ok to say that, shut up' × 1000 people piling on.
It's illiberal, intolerant & a terrible way to convince people of your position.
The hounding of Liz Shaw got quite disturbing at one point, especially as it involved people who'd probably see themselves as compassionate right on types. Thankfully I've not seen anything for ages.
Amanda Palmer is another one who seems to get it. I find her quite annoying, but also find myself rooting for her each time she gets dumped on. To her credit she seems to not let it bother her.
Certainly one problem is the tendency for online debate to be reduced to a kind of moral policing, in which what's said isn't challenged but merely condemned along with whoever has said it.
Can't remember the last time I saw a response along the lines of 'What did you mean by X,as it appears to suggest Y & I'd have a problem with that'. Almost always there's instant judgement (On the worst assumption possible) & an attack on the speaker & their right to speak.
It's not helped by the implication speech = harm & the answer isn't more speech but to condem & attack the person for having spoken at all & suggest their only response should be silence.
Debate (which I now gather in certain circles is 'problematic' in itself) is replaced with hounding people for expressing a view which falls foul of certain people's idea of what can & can't be said.
You could expand this bedroom (largely) one person band thing to Tiny Ruins, Luckless, Cool Rainbows, Dear Time's Waste, Grayson Gilmour, Zen Mantra all of whom have released excellent records of late.
It's often a bit dubious lumping people into a 'scene', but (Tiny Ruins who's more folk aside), there is a minimal but lush dream pop vibe to a lot of it.
Given so many of them are young, and are just starting out I don't remember a time of being so excited by all the talent about.
Yeah, and that qualifies as great politicking if little else. Substance and making a case have been largely irrelevant to political interviews for a very long time. It's rarely going to persuade anyone, it certainly doesn't create a more informed electorate, but from the perspective of 'winning' it dam well insures no blows are landed & the base can go off smiling gleefully.
But it's what any competent media trained western politician has been doing for a generation, so I'm not quite getting people creaming themselves over Keys performance. It looks super impressive only in the context of Shearer and the rest of Labour looking like could spot clue if it kicked in the bollocks, and I hate to say when being interviewed by someone like John Campbell.
The fact is it's still the same John Key that often comes across as sneering smug bully when rattled, and is just as likely to fall back on a banal mateiness. There's other interviews where he wouldn't have got away with such a mixture of non answer & banal twaddle, and it's no coincidence it's rare for him to do them.
His approach wouldn't be half as successful if the economy wasn't going ok for sectors of the electorate he needs to keep onside, or if we have a leader of the opposition even vaguely worthy of the name. One or both of those things may change, if he Key can still front and still 'impress' to the same degree then you can talk. The idea that nothing sticks is simply down to his brilliance, is a nice idea if you want accuse the left of complacency, but I don't think it stacks up.
You're probably right, but I doubt they could sell the festival on the back of that sort of thing. It'll be interesting to see how much they try and change the whole dynamic.
Big stages in big fields need big crowds, and given a kind of collective taste is becoming less and less common, acts who'll appeal to a younger crowd & pull massive crowds may not be simple.
You're seeing it with the likes of Glastonbury and other European festivals increasingly falling back on the safety boomer era rock, as a safe bet.
I'm sure part of it is that people making the decisions are out of touch, but I also think people's tastes being more fractured plays a part as well.
It's of course not a bad thing, and loads of festivals make it work by not relying on a small number of acts to pull huge crowds.
Question is can they make BDO work that way?
Couldn't answer for Germany, but in terms of the UK I think I can safely answer, no they're not better governed. Probably goes for the others as well.
But surely it's not the point, surely the point is will WE be better governed comparable to how we are now?
That the UK isn't, has little to do with it having a longer term.
Personally, I'm quite open to the idea of fours years. Five is too long, but I would say the UK introducing fixed terms is a positive move.
The agitating for an early election, and constant media speculation was ridiculous and benefited no one bar the insular Westminster village.