Talk about whatever you want to here, but stay correct
#314966 by Billy Rhomboid
Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:18 am
LicoriceLain wrote:How about Burchill being a jackass formerly on the Observer and now on the Telegraph?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-article/

If you all ever wondered why college kids sometimes get arrogant and shizz, it is because knobgobblers like this. Seriously, what is it with these idiots who not only refuse to do research and look like a fool when referring to entire groups of people, but also think that posting something inflammatory on the internet isn't going to result in a neverending stream of trolls and death-threats? If you don't want bad press, either get off your ass and actually do research or stay off the web. It is not hard.


You more or less expect homophobia in the Torygraph, but it is astounding that the Observer would print such hate-mongering bile. Oh sorry, I forgot, it's okay to hate queers and trannies as long as you menstruate and your parents were poor. Julie Burchill is a vile excuse for a human being.
#314974 by JuZ
Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:55 pm
Billy Rhomboid wrote:
LicoriceLain wrote:How about Burchill being a jackass formerly on the Observer and now on the Telegraph?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-article/

If you all ever wondered why college kids sometimes get arrogant and shizz, it is because knobgobblers like this. Seriously, what is it with these idiots who not only refuse to do research and look like a fool when referring to entire groups of people, but also think that posting something inflammatory on the internet isn't going to result in a neverending stream of trolls and death-threats? If you don't want bad press, either get off your ass and actually do research or stay off the web. It is not hard.


You more or less expect homophobia in the Torygraph, but it is astounding that the Observer would print such hate-mongering bile. Oh sorry, I forgot, it's okay to hate queers and trannies as long as you menstruate and your parents were poor. Julie Burchill is a vile excuse for a human being.


That was my first experience of Ms Burchill, but I hope it'll be my last. What a hateful, nasty piece that was.
#314976 by Faffy
Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:40 pm
Behold reasons why this forum is awesome above!


As for this Burchill twat.... ew.
#314993 by rock_midget
Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:50 pm
JuZ wrote:
Billy Rhomboid wrote:
LicoriceLain wrote:How about Burchill being a jackass formerly on the Observer and now on the Telegraph?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-article/

If you all ever wondered why college kids sometimes get arrogant and shizz, it is because knobgobblers like this. Seriously, what is it with these idiots who not only refuse to do research and look like a fool when referring to entire groups of people, but also think that posting something inflammatory on the internet isn't going to result in a neverending stream of trolls and death-threats? If you don't want bad press, either get off your ass and actually do research or stay off the web. It is not hard.


You more or less expect homophobia in the Torygraph, but it is astounding that the Observer would print such hate-mongering bile. Oh sorry, I forgot, it's okay to hate queers and trannies as long as you menstruate and your parents were poor. Julie Burchill is a vile excuse for a human being.


That was my first experience of Ms Burchill, but I hope it'll be my last. What a hateful, nasty piece that was.


I'm going to assume that everyone is familiar with the full context of the debate. Not just Suzanne Moore's piece. Or her violent reaction on twitter, instead of admitting a poor choice of words. But the earlier context of charges brought against Dr Richard Curtis. If you're not familiar with how badly timed Moore's piece was, there's a great summing up of the context by Roz Kaveney here.

Julie Burchill comes from a cadre of writers that came to prominence in the eighties, with a sort of punk ethos that tied in to the times - from my experience, particularly as part of the circle that wrote for the likes of the NME (see also Stephen Wells, Everett True, even Steve Lamacq proved his chops around that time). As I've said elsewhere, you commission a column from Julie Burchill if you want a piece that will get people talking. The Observer most definitely got that.

The truly disappointing thing about this isn't just the horrific trolling, but the fact that she has a point in the need to open up a debate about the way in which transgender issues are discussed. But it's couched in so much trolling, bile, and poor expression, that all that comes out of the piece is "YOU DARED HAVE A GO AT MY MATE? I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO MOAN ABOUT!"

I can understand the need to defend a friend. But she utterly wasted this golden opportunity to write a piece that could not only calm the debate and take the heat off her friend, but get a proper discussion of these issues going. I'm certainly not the writer to do this - which is why it upsets me to see someone who does have that skill, that power of persuasion; who is (or was) in some position of influence ruin an opportunity like this.

I've seen much better parody pieces written in this style that are able to make meaningful contributions to the discussion by flipping the debate at the end. In this way, they give the reader something to think about regarding their own preconceptions and why they feel a particular way. This was not one of those articles, and that deeply saddens me.
#315050 by Tyroshai
Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:44 pm
Image
#315145 by Faffy
Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:13 am
#315160 by JuZ
Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:30 am
Faffy wrote:
#315165 by Faffy
Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:18 am
JuZ wrote:
Faffy wrote:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests