Religion The Fucking Left

[Scouse]

Cancel Me: John Cleese to present Channel 4 show on ‘woke’ thought

Comedian to interview ‘cancelled’ subjects while examining ‘all aspects of political correctness … there’s so much I don’t understand’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gwadien]

Nirvana sued by the baby from Nevermind's album cover

Spencer Elden, who was photographed as a four month-old, is alleging child pornography.

www.bbc.co.uk

haha

 

[Scouse]

"Haha" indeed.

Lets hope the cunt is suing his parents too for being child trafficking pimps.

 

[Gwadien]

"Haha" indeed.

Lets hope the cunt is suing his parents too for being child trafficking pimps.

The thing is, I don't think he's a cunt.

He's been doing reshoots (if you look at that article) of it.

I reckon he's a bit down on his luck and some lawyers have approached him with this genius idea to get some cash.

 

[DaGaffer]

The thing is, I don't think he's a cunt.

He's been doing reshoots (if you look at that article) of it.

I reckon he's a bit down on his luck and some lawyers have approached him with this genius idea to get some cash.

So he is a cunt. Reading the article he's a total cunt.

 

[Raven]

...that has said in the past that it benefited his career. The only reason people know it is him is if he tells them, I doubt many people care one way or another.

Complete bellend, out for an easy dollar.

 

[Tom]

The question is, how much did the band make from having that album cover, and was any of that money sent his way?

And don't tell me it's just about the music and that the album cover is irrelevant to the album's success. People don't spend millions advertising for nothing.

It reminds me of Clare Torry suing Pink Floyd because she was paid for a single session on Dark Side of the Moon. The court agreed that actually, she helped write The Great Gig in the Sky and was due a hell of a lot more money.

 

[DaGaffer]

The question is, how much did the band make from having that album cover, and was any of that money sent his way?

And don't tell me it's just about the music and that the album cover is irrelevant to the album's success. People don't spend millions advertising for nothing.

It reminds me of Clare Torry suing Pink Floyd because she was paid for a single session on Dark Side of the Moon. The court agreed that actually, she helped write The Great Gig in the Sky and was due a hell of a lot more money.

The album cover is irrelevant to the album's success. I have never bought an album because of the cover art except for an early Velvet Underground that still had the banana sticker (so purely for the rarity). The Nevermind cover became iconic because of the music, absolutely not the other way around.

I actually don't mind him chancing his arm, but the child porn thing is extremely distasteful blackmail basically, and for that reason alone he should be fucked right off.

 

[Tom]

The album cover is irrelevant to the album's success.

Why did the record company spend all that money on the cover then? Why not just blank cardboard with a title stamped on it?

 

[Raven]

They didn't.

It was taken at a party with the band.

 

[Tom]

Funny, I remember the album's release in HMV and posters up that baby up everywhere.

People spend money on advertising for a reason - to make more money. He deserves some of it.

 

[DaGaffer]

Why did the record company spend all that money on the cover then? Why not just blank cardboard with a title stamped on it?

So people can find it in the shop visually. And that's it. We don't even need that any more, but its a hangover that will continue, like the appendix.

In truth the main reason why any significant effort was lavished on album covers was to satisfy the egos of the band and record company execs. There's a brilliant subplot in 24 Hour Party People about the ridiculous album covers Factory Records used to commission that actually cost more than they got back in sales and no one could understand what they meant but they looked amazing. Its not much of an exaggeration. Movies and games are different because they have a story to tell, albums only have to tell you the artist and name of the album (and quite often they fail at that), the rest is frippery.

 

[DaGaffer]

Funny, I remember the album's release in HMV and posters up that baby up everywhere.

People spend money on advertising for a reason - to make more money. He deserves some of it.

I bet you don't. There was almost no promotion of Nevermind in UK retail on release, they only released 35,000 copies on first release in the UK, which is nowt by pre-internet volumes.. You're probably remembering subsequent remastering or re-release.

Its also interesting that Geffen records were worried about the naked baby's penis in the photo and Cobain's retort that if they wanted to cover it it would be be with a sticker that said "if this offends you you're probably a closet pedophile".

 

[Scouse]

Funny, I remember the album's release in HMV and posters up that baby up everywhere.

People spend money on advertising for a reason - to make more money. He deserves some of it.

Nah. He said they sexually exploited him. That's the charge.

This loser can CTFOADOA - if he'd have said "I didn't consent to be on the album cover and want some cash" I'd have sympathy.

But the left around here haven't blinked at the sexual exploitation accusation. That's disgusting.

Read the article. The guy is a loser chancer who took advantage of it in his early years but now wants to cash in rather than getting a job.

 

[Scouse]

"if this offends you you're probably a closet pedophile".

This is the most interesting and important thing about the album cover and the left's new puritanism.

Sorry. Not "new" puritanism. It's puritanism, plain and simple.

 

[Hawkwind]

Cancel Me: John Cleese to present Channel 4 show on ‘woke’ thought

Comedian to interview ‘cancelled’ subjects while examining ‘all aspects of political correctness … there’s so much I don’t understand’

www.theguardian.com

Writers at the Guardian like Owen Jones have been at the front end of cancelling, so very surprised that it wasn't just a hit piece on Cleese. A lot of people in comedy are getting fed up with woke cancel culture. Even those on the left are fed up with it. Remember Tom Walker (aka Johnathan Pie) on CNN last year talking about it.

found it...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-MFQBwTNQQ


5 mins in starts to get interesting.

 

[Scouse]

@Raven put a good Pie interview link in @Hawkwind

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_6APlOR_jg&ab_channel=Channel4News

I'm still disappointed that the left (@Gwadien) hasn't volunteered a single cogent argument against the points raised here, never mind a defence of the dirty money grubber who's opportunistically thrown in sexual exploitation as a reason for cash damages.

I guess that's why they're unelectable at the moment.

 

[Gwadien]

Now I know how muslims feel when they're told to apologise on behalf of extremists.

JUSTIFY THESE VIEWS

I don't hold those views

JUSTIFY THEM!

But I do-

JUSTIFYYYYYY TTTTTTHEEEEMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit - I actually posted the Nirvana story here because I thought it'd be funny to try and see you make a connection between the story and the 'Fucking Left', you didn't disappoint

 

[Scouse]

I don't hold those views

I don't see that at all.

The thing is, I don't think he's a cunt....

...I reckon he's a bit down on his luck and some lawyers have approached him with this genius idea to get some cash.

Where's the condemnation of the guy who's put child pornography in as an argument?

It's loud and clear in it's absence, in the absence of a defence of free speech.

I think you do hold those views, unfotunately. You used to post that @Job's views were obvious because of posting history. As with him...

 

[Gwadien]

I don't see that at all.


Where's the condemnation of the guy who's put child pornography in as an argument?

It's loud and clear in it's absence, in the absence of a defence of free speech.

I think you do hold those views, unfotunately. You used to post that @Job's views were obvious because of posting history. As with him...

I've already explained, I think rather than him being a leftie (or what ever label you wanna stick on it) I think it's more likely it's a lawyer who told him he could make a quick buck, which is hardly a 'left' problem.

Also, why do I need to condemn a guy for an argument he made? Surely that goes against EVERYTHING this thread is preaching about?

But what ever, I'm not going to justify views I don't hold, you like to pick a whipping boy on this forum for each of your topics, you're trying to do it to me here, but I don't hold those views, as much as you want me to.

 

[Scouse]

Nothing to do with picking a whipping boy at all. The guy has clearly made spurious paedo allegations and you said you don't think he's a cunt for it.

But whatever...

 

[Gwadien]

Nothing to do with picking a whipping boy at all. The guy has clearly made spurious paedo allegations and you said you don't think he's a cunt for it.

But whatever...

If that's the case then sure, he's a cunt.

But.

A. What does that have to do we the left.

B. Isn't that his freedom to say that?

 

[Scouse]

A. What does that have to do we the left.

I thought it was a bit weak when you brought up the subject in this thread tbh.

I can only surmise you did that because, on some level, you understand the fact that it was the left that took us down the route where taking photos at kids nativity plays is an enforced social no-no in case someone in the audience might want to wank over it. The left brought about a world where a picture of a naked child on the cover of an album can be associated with accusations of paedophilia and not simply be laughed out of town.

As DaGaffer pointed out - at the time Cobain said:

Cobain's retort that if they wanted to cover it it would be be with a sticker that said "if this offends you you're probably a closet pedophile".

But that was in the 90's, before "political correctness gone mad" was ignored on the road to the shitshow we have today.

But I don't know exactly why you brought it up. That would be my assumption tho.

B. Isn't that his freedom to say that?

Absolutely. People should be free to be absolute cunts. And people should be free to point out that they're being a cunt (which he undoubtedly is).

The problem we have nowadays is that this sort of accusation is now taken seriously, rather than getting laughed out at face-value. Even given the story in the article.

It's sort of hand-in-hand with the "I believe you" movement for every accusation of sexual assault. Which is patently ridiculous, but if you say "errr, no, we've a court for those sorts of things, so we'll reserve judgement" the most rabid of the left start lobbing around accusations of rape apologism - with real world consequences.

 

[Ormorof]

What happened to courts or gtfo?

 

[Raven]

What happened to courts or gtfo?

Social media happened.

 

[Scouse]

What happened to courts or gtfo?

For this:

It's sort of hand-in-hand with the "I believe you" movement for every accusation of sexual assault. Which is patently ridiculous, but if you say "errr, no, we've a court for those sorts of things, so we'll reserve judgement" the most rabid of the left start lobbing around accusations of rape apologism - with real world consequences.

Absolutely.

But the album cover for Nevermind is paedophilia? Basically - naked children = paedophila? How about Houses of the Holy?

Sorry, you're being disingenuous there @Ormorof.

 

[Wij]

Lol:


View: https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/1430823591935942657

 

[Raven]

You'll love Pie's new video @Scouse

Not on Youtube yet.

 

[Scouse]

Banana to sue The Velvet Underground over ‘exploitative’ album cover

A banana has announced plans to sue The Velvet Underground over reports that it had been depicted in an ‘exploitational’ way.

newsthump.com

And...


View: https://m.imgur.com/JSgffQ4?r

 

[Hawkwind]

I honestly dont get

Nirvana sued by the baby from Nevermind's album cover

Spencer Elden, who was photographed as a four month-old, is alleging child pornography.

www.bbc.co.uk

haha

Honestly don't get the whole Nirvana album thing. His parents were paid for the picture and agreed to it being taken. After that, it's the photographer's property, right? Looks like it's just a money grab to me. Why now, he even admits he has reposed for the picture several times in the past.

His argument is that the parents never gave consent for its use which is bizarre as they accepted payment. No legal knowledge of photography and image use it just seems odd to me and makes no sense given the case.