“Schadenfreude” refers to taking delight from another’s misfortune, in this case from Clarkson’s firing. By definition, it is not possible to have schadenfreude before misfortune occurs.
The leftist media write for an audience that sympathizes with them, and is a healthy size. I don’t see why the leftist media should give a damn about your scorn, Clarkson’s, or anyone else’s. They’re obviously not even trying to appeal to you.
The Guardian ran 5 triumphalist, crowing articles a day from the news broke to his resignation.
“Jeremy Clarkson” = 917,000 hits on the Guardian search.
“Barack Obama” = 842,000 hits
“Tony Blair” = 829,000 hits.
“Jesus” = 723,000 hits
What can I add to that. That newspaper and its readers are obsessed with the man
Your comparison needs to control for the number of years in the spotlight, respectively 27, 7, 10, and 2015.
What of it? Not sure what this has to do with identity politics, except that you seem to think everything is about identity politics.
I mean I like Jeremy Clarkson. I like that he is a contrarian dick. But dude… the guy assaulted an underling during a prima donna temper tantrum. He has clearly climbed way too far up his own ass at this point and I have no sympathy for his self inflicted plight.
Also here’s how much I care that the Guardian has it in for him: not at all. I bet Clarkson thrives on that shit anyway.
What kind of person accepts physical violence from coworkers as run of the mill issues?
pro wrestlers?
This is the politics of the personal, not corporate or government politics. The attacks are made against people not systems or institutions, hence it dominates social media and popular culture.
All political attacks are ultimately made against people. Just ask Rick Santorum. Or ask a gay couple trying to get married.
And politics is generally aimed at changing rules. It’s true that corporations and governments provide a target-rich environment. But informal associations, including Internet cliques, have their own rules. The rules may be unwritten but they are no less susceptible to activism.
For example, in this forum the traditional rules of debate are generally used. When someone makes an argument based on authority (ie “I’m right because I have a PhD and you don’t”), we call them out. But that’s an arbitrary rule. In some settings, an appropriate background by itself adds value to one’s words. In other settings, it’s a requirement. And people can fight all the time about which ruleset is best.
You seemingly want to make social media into an activist-free zone, in distinction to every other joint human endeavor. I think you will be disappointed.
Exactly. Depersonalisation is an excuse.
Unfortunately, polarisation in politics is rising, even where in actuality views are closer together than before.
Is it that views are closer, or just that apathy is rising?
I think that apathy is what is making polarization rise- as the most radical vote the most consistently.
Which is the goal of the extremes really. If you can’t convert moderates to your position, disenfranchise them so they don’t vote against you (because they’ll never vote for you).
In countries with FPTP, anyway ><
Hence why you misused schadenfreude. The leftist media position, tone and content about Clarkson did not particularly change after the Oisin assault. The oisin assault served as an introduction on ‘new’ articles that were rewrites of old articles that were rewrites of even older articles. They have never understood why people didn’t read their articles ‘showing’ him to be a homophobic misogynistic racist and not utterly denounce him immediately. After Oisin, they triumphantly replayed the same narrative and…still can’t understand why readers aren’t immediately denouncing him as a misogynistic homophobic racist. Therefore there can have been no schadenfreude.
I’m glad you seem to understand the context that schadenfreude is used in, and that you used it in the wrong. Hopefully, we can move on now.
The leftist media thinks it’s appealing to the majority. The schadenfreude (note the correct usage) is that the Clarkson affair has shown just how small their audience is and just how little anyone else cares. And they know it now, even if before they may have only suspected it.
‘Another shrill hyperbolic Guardian article screaming into the night (right) wondering why no-one even pretends to listen any more’
I’m starting to suspect that you don’t do much reading outside of your twitter stream, so let me clue you in. When someone has to write an article over 140 characters in length, they generally include a lot of background information.
If you ever decide to read a full length article, say about the latest legal events in the Julian Assange saga, then you’re probably also going to read about the controversies surrounding him and Wikileaks over the past few years. If you ever read a full length article about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, then you’re probably also going to read about the controversies surrounding her and her husband over the past decade.
Yes, it’s true, articles aimed at grownups tend to recapitulate previous articles. Those on Clarkson are no different. It’s been like that ever since the printing press was invented, and the only surprise is your apparent surprise.
They have never understood why people didn’t read their articles ‘showing’ him to be a homophobic misogynistic racist and not utterly denounce him immediately. After Oisin, they triumphantly replayed the same narrative and…still can’t understand why readers aren’t immediately denouncing him as a misogynistic homophobic racist. Therefore there can have been no schadenfreude.
I can only imagine the befuddled narrative you have conjured up in your head, and I almost hate to break it to you: the media doesn’t care very much what you or any other reader does after they publish their articles and get their clicks.
They don’t expect readers to denounce anyone. The Guardian, for instance, doesn’t even allow readers to comment on some of their articles. And when they do allow comments, it’s quite unlikely that anyone other than an intern will bother to read them. I suspect this might come as another shock to you, but lack of interest in your personal musings is perfectly normal for most of the traditional media.
I’m glad you seem to understand the context that schadenfreude is used in, and that you used it in the wrong.
Your delusions won’t let up, will they? First the Guardian secretly confided its greatest fears to you, and then you saw an apparition of me that made such a profound admission? Maybe it’s time to get back on the meds.
The leftist media thinks it’s appealing to the majority. The schadenfreude (note the correct usage) is that the Clarkson affair has shown just how small their audience is and just how little anyone else cares. And they know it now, even if before they may have only suspected it.
I don’t know what your fever dream internal polling told you, but back here on Earth-616 the Guardian has done pretty damn well for itself.
No identity politics isn’t all “activism” nor do I see it changing anything of significance.
http://nickcohen.net/2015/03/28/political-correctness-devours-its-own-children/
in a sign of an age when identity politics has gone haywire, censorship is not provoked by a comprehensive attack but by an offending passage in an article or book written years ago.
One of the banned, Julie Bindel, has done more to help rape victims than any British activist I know. Her work counts for nothing. Every time she tries to speak on any subject, trans campaigners and their supporters try to stop her. For years, they had her on a National Union of Students blacklist. All because she wrote a piece in 2004 that disparaged a transsexual who had gone to the courts to demand the right to counsel raped women, even though she had recently been a man herself.
Neither Bindel nor anyone else I know on the British Left excuses attacks on transsexuals. No matter. Feminists are now denounced as the equivalent of racist bigots: the Ku Klux Klan in sensible shoes.
A writer in the left-wing New Statesman described the frenzy thus:
A US women’s college recently announced it would be discontinuing its annual performance of The Vagina Monologues because it’s exclusionary to talk about vaginas when some women do not have one. Last year a trans activist on Twitter denounced feminist campaigns against FGM as “cissexist”. Discussions of menstruation, pregnancy and abortion rights are all regularly interrupted by the same complaint.
The journalist did not dare publish under her own name. She hid behind a pseudonym to spare her from having to spend the next decade dodging demands that she be “no-platformed”.
This isn’t activism this is insanity.
would be discontinuing its annual performance of The Vagina Monologues because it’s exclusionary to talk about vaginas when some women do not have one.
lol
No.
Bitter infighting to control the direction of a faction is part and parcel of activism, from the Bolsheviks to the Tea Party. It often looks like a uselessly self-destructive exercise to outsiders, and “eating their own” is their eternal refrain.
Politics is messy.
Ah yes, the mythical lady penis
Monty Python gag was supposed to be a Monty Python gag when it was filmed in a fiction movie.
Relevant Bill Maher monologue