Now I had exactly zero interest in the Royal Wedding. I am quite happy for others

[Burney]

to derive enjoyment from it and am a monarchist, but there was never the remotest possibility that I was going to bother my arse watching it.

However, nothing is better calculated to make me warm to the damn thing than the performative demonstrations of po-faced, adolescent posturing about it that invariably spew forth from lefty anti-monarchist types. Social media has been absolutely crawling with them this last week with their whataboutery, self-loathing miserabilism, hand-wringing and just plain dishonesty.

Honest to God, can these people not hear what dry cvnts they sound?

[PSRB]

to derive enjoyment from it and am a monarchist, but there was never the remotest possibility that I was going to bother my arse watching it.

However, nothing is better calculated to make me warm to the damn thing than the performative demonstrations of po-faced, adolescent posturing about it that invariably spew forth from lefty anti-monarchist types. Social media has been absolutely crawling with them this last week with their whataboutery, self-loathing miserabilism, hand-wringing and just plain dishonesty.

Honest to God, can these people not hear what dry cvnts they sound?

I ended up watching bits of it as the wife loves that sort of stuff. I thought it was all rather splendid, we do pomp and ceremony exceptionally well.

[Free the Pok]

to derive enjoyment from it and am a monarchist, but there was never the remotest possibility that I was going to bother my arse watching it.

However, nothing is better calculated to make me warm to the damn thing than the performative demonstrations of po-faced, adolescent posturing about it that invariably spew forth from lefty anti-monarchist types. Social media has been absolutely crawling with them this last week with their whataboutery, self-loathing miserabilism, hand-wringing and just plain dishonesty.

Honest to God, can these people not hear what dry cvnts they sound?

Bit ironic as yopu seemed to spend the early part of last week slagging our latest monarch off ( i do think it was tongue in cheek)

What isn't there to like about the way we do pomp in this country

[Sir C]

to derive enjoyment from it and am a monarchist, but there was never the remotest possibility that I was going to bother my arse watching it.

However, nothing is better calculated to make me warm to the damn thing than the performative demonstrations of po-faced, adolescent posturing about it that invariably spew forth from lefty anti-monarchist types. Social media has been absolutely crawling with them this last week with their whataboutery, self-loathing miserabilism, hand-wringing and just plain dishonesty.

Honest to God, can these people not hear what dry cvnts they sound?

Yes, the prospect of watching it never occurred to me, until at about 11 a.m. the glw said, 'Ooh let's take a peek' and we ended up quite entranced. It was really rather lovely, actually. The sun shone, the cavalry looked incredibly dashing, the people cheered; just for a moment it was possible to believe that the majority of the population are relatively happy with their country and generous of spirit, to boot.

Then I read the contributions of the likes of Coad and Alibhai-Brown, sighed, and opened a drink...

[Burney]

Yes, the prospect of watching it never occurred to me, until at about 11 a.m. the glw said, 'Ooh let's take a peek' and we ended up quite entranced. It was really rather lovely, actually. The sun shone, the cavalry looked incredibly dashing, the people cheered; just for a moment it was possible to believe that the majority of the population are relatively happy with their country and generous of spirit, to boot.

Then I read the contributions of the likes of Coad and Alibhai-Brown, sighed, and opened a drink...

I happened to be in Ware at the time. The church bells were ringing for a good couple of hours. All very nice.

I popped into the pub for a livener, only to find that I and one other chap were the only ones in there on a Saturday lunchtime - everyone else watching the wedding, presumably. The landlord bought us both a pint, bless him.

[Burney]

Bit ironic as yopu seemed to spend the early part of last week slagging our latest monarch off ( i do think it was tongue in cheek)

What isn't there to like about the way we do pomp in this country

I wasn't criticising our Monarch. I was criticising the choice of this person Harry has seen fit to get married to. I still think it will transpire to be a terrible error.

[Sir C]

I happened to be in Ware at the time. The church bells were ringing for a good couple of hours. All very nice.

I popped into the pub for a livener, only to find that I and one other chap were the only ones in there on a Saturday lunchtime - everyone else watching the wedding, presumably. The landlord bought us both a pint, bless him.

I got fired into a bottle of rosé, which obviously doesn't count as booze, so it seemed appropriate to open the second... wánkered by 4 p.m. The only reasonable response was to push through. Still feel a little rough, actually.

I'm still shocked about your mayonnaise issues. I'm thinking the metal container must be the issue. Some reaction with the acid, perhaps? I discovered that method two weeks ago and have used it 5 times without any sort of issue.

[Pokster]

I wasn't criticising our Monarch. I was criticising the choice of this person Harry has seen fit to get married to. I still think it will transpire to be a terrible error.

But she probably bangs like an old gate in a storm...... and he is Harry, son of who knows??? At least she is an interesting one.

[Burney]

I got fired into a bottle of rosé, which obviously doesn't count as booze, so it seemed appropriate to open the second... wánkered by 4 p.m. The only reasonable response was to push through. Still feel a little rough, actually.

I'm still shocked about your mayonnaise issues. I'm thinking the metal container must be the issue. Some reaction with the acid, perhaps? I discovered that method two weeks ago and have used it 5 times without any sort of issue.

I shall try it with a plastic jug and see what happens. I do wonder if there was too complete a vacuum created between my stick blender and the bottom of the container.

[Sir C]

I shall try it with a plastic jug and see what happens. I do wonder if there was too complete a vacuum created between my stick blender and the bottom of the container.

Ah. Hmm. You should be covering the yolk but there must be access for oil, naturally.

I suspect you have simply fúcked up. :-(

[Burney]

Ah. Hmm. You should be covering the yolk but there must be access for oil, naturally.

I suspect you have simply fúcked up. :-(

I don't think so. The edge of the blender is fluted, which should allow said access, shouldn't it? There was nothing in your instructions about leaving a gap to let oil in.

[Sir C]

I don't think so. The edge of the blender is fluted, which should allow said access, shouldn't it? There was nothing in your instructions about leaving a gap to let oil in.

So I needed to tell you that oil is required to make mayonnaise?

Right.

[Burney]

So I needed to tell you that oil is required to make mayonnaise?

Right.

I followed your instructions (and those in the video) to the letter. All I got was salad dressing.

You have let down me, awimb and - frankly - your country and your monarch.

For shame!

[Pokster]

I followed your instructions (and those in the video) to the letter. All I got was salad dressing.

You have let down me, awimb and - frankly - your country and your monarch.

For shame!

Sir C was getting his own back for your anti wedding slant last week. In fact, i can't believe that our own knighted AWIMBer didn't get an invite... must have shagged her at some point

[Tony C]

It was great seeing all the reptilians in close quarters imo #flatearth

[Sir C]

It was great seeing all the reptilians in close quarters imo #flatearth

Did you have a bet on anything, t?

[Ash]

It was great seeing all the reptilians in close quarters imo #flatearth

:nod: Orf with their heads imo. The baby-eating b'stardos!

[Burney]

I don't think so. The edge of the blender is fluted, which should allow said access, shouldn't it? There was nothing in your instructions about leaving a gap to let oil in.

So hang on. Was Markle a reptile before she met Harry? Or did she get turned into one?

[Tony C]

Did you have a bet on anything, t?

I had a fiver on her arriving between 12 and 12.05

I was happy to wait for the racing but they showed her in the Phantom breaking the speed limit to get there on time. Easy money.

[Burney]

I had a fiver on her arriving between 12 and 12.05

I was happy to wait for the racing but they showed her in the Phantom breaking the speed limit to get there on time. Easy money.

The left-hand drive, electric E-Type made me sad, t. :-(

[Ash]

to derive enjoyment from it and am a monarchist, but there was never the remotest possibility that I was going to bother my arse watching it.

However, nothing is better calculated to make me warm to the damn thing than the performative demonstrations of po-faced, adolescent posturing about it that invariably spew forth from lefty anti-monarchist types. Social media has been absolutely crawling with them this last week with their whataboutery, self-loathing miserabilism, hand-wringing and just plain dishonesty.

Honest to God, can these people not hear what dry cvnts they sound?

In Jorge's absence, I should make some sort of effort to step up to the plate. Just for a bit of sport.

Here's the thing: I just don't get it. I get that 74% of the population does, but I don't. We've spent 800 years clawing power off their ilk, and this morning I noticed a headline saying that the new Mrs Wossname is going to use her position to push feminism.

On what authority to these people think they can tell us what to do? By all means prance about in your silly outfits if people enjoy the show, but keep the eff out of politics, please.

[Sir C]

The left-hand drive, electric E-Type made me sad, t. :-(

What kind of absolute bóllocks was that? You can get a perfectly restored and, undeed, updated E Type for around £250k. Why would you ponce about with a left hand drive abortion with a milk float engine?

[Burney]

In Jorge's absence, I should make some sort of effort to step up to the plate. Just for a bit of sport.

Here's the thing: I just don't get it. I get that 74% of the population does, but I don't. We've spent 800 years clawing power off their ilk, and this morning I noticed a headline saying that the new Mrs Wossname is going to use her position to push feminism.

On what authority to these people think they can tell us what to do? By all means prance about in your silly outfits if people enjoy the show, but keep the eff out of politics, please.

I tend to agree. They really ought to stay the fvck out of politics - especially if they're going to start p1ssing about with identity politics, which can be nothing other than divisive.

Odd thing, though: some of the most progressive and liberal countries on earth are constitutional monarchies. The idea that such arrangements ingrain conservatism or entrench privilege is demonstrable nonsense.

[Burney]

What kind of absolute bóllocks was that? You can get a perfectly restored and, undeed, updated E Type for around £250k. Why would you ponce about with a left hand drive abortion with a milk float engine?

I thought of you when I saw it. :-( Imagine whisking your new bride of in something that makes that whiny, monotonous drone.

[Sir C]

I thought of you when I saw it. :-( Imagine whisking your new bride of in something that makes that whiny, monotonous drone.

Do you know what a Mk 1 3.8 E-Type sounds like? It has a vicious rasp that makes the hairs on your neck stand up. :-(

[Sir C]

In Jorge's absence, I should make some sort of effort to step up to the plate. Just for a bit of sport.

Here's the thing: I just don't get it. I get that 74% of the population does, but I don't. We've spent 800 years clawing power off their ilk, and this morning I noticed a headline saying that the new Mrs Wossname is going to use her position to push feminism.

On what authority to these people think they can tell us what to do? By all means prance about in your silly outfits if people enjoy the show, but keep the eff out of politics, please.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex to you.

But, in general, otherwise agreed.

[Burney]

Do you know what a Mk 1 3.8 E-Type sounds like? It has a vicious rasp that makes the hairs on your neck stand up. :-(

Not that one. That one sounded like a mosquito trapped in a holiday apartment. :-(

[barrybueno]

Yes, the prospect of watching it never occurred to me, until at about 11 a.m. the glw said, 'Ooh let's take a peek' and we ended up quite entranced. It was really rather lovely, actually. The sun shone, the cavalry looked incredibly dashing, the people cheered; just for a moment it was possible to believe that the majority of the population are relatively happy with their country and generous of spirit, to boot.

Then I read the contributions of the likes of Coad and Alibhai-Brown, sighed, and opened a drink...

I channel hopped into it at one point for about 5 seconds and the cameraman panned to my fave Dave Beckham. I mean 5 ****ing seconds! How many times must they have showed that cheesy grinning ****?

Anyway, went and threw up, came back and put The Simpsons on. Something a bit more realistic

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I did try to watch but I switched on just as thon preacher man was bellowing questions at the congregation and found it so embarrassing I had to switch off.

The genius of our monarchy is how adeptly they can shape-shift to fit the zeitgeist and secure another fifty years of leeching rights.

I remain convinced that is woman this going to be a whole bunch of trouble for the firm. Let's hope so.

[Burney]

I did try to watch but I switched on just as thon preacher man was bellowing questions at the congregation and found it so embarrassing I had to switch off.

The genius of our monarchy is how adeptly they can shape-shift to fit the zeitgeist and secure another fifty years of leeching rights.

I remain convinced that is woman this going to be a whole bunch of trouble for the firm. Let's hope so.

At one point, apparently, the bloody man mentioned 'sexual union'. At a marriage! In front of The Queen! I was furious. :furious:

[Sir C]

At one point, apparently, the bloody man mentioned 'sexual union'. At a marriage! In front of The Queen! I was furious. :furious:

That wasn't the yanqui, that was the vicar bloke.

It was appalling.

[Burney]

That wasn't the yanqui, that was the vicar bloke.

It was appalling.

Good God! Really? I’d assumed only an American would be capable of such a solecism.

What on earth has become of the C of E? ‘Sexual onion’, indeed. :-(

[Luis Anaconda]

Good God! Really? I’d assumed only an American would be capable of such a solecism.

What on earth has become of the C of E? ‘Sexual onion’, indeed. :-(

You don’t often see God and the Church of England mentioned in the same breath

[WES]

The Times went on about how he had taken the wedding by storm, he was the highlight of the service etc etc etc

I then watched his sermon only to see endless smirks and grins from the audience and in some cases outright embarrassment. Liz and Phil looked aghast. :hehe:

[Burney]

The Times went on about how he had taken the wedding by storm, he was the highlight of the service etc etc etc

I then watched his sermon only to see endless smirks and grins from the audience and in some cases outright embarrassment. Liz and Phil looked aghast. :hehe:

Soft bigotry of low expectations, innit. If a white priest had come out with that drivel, he’d have been castigated. Essentially, what yer progressives are saying they is ‘Yeah, but they love all that, dont they, the darkies. Bless’.

[WES]

Soft bigotry of low expectations, innit. If a white priest had come out with that drivel, he’d have been castigated. Essentially, what yer progressives are saying they is ‘Yeah, but they love all that, dont they, the darkies. Bless’.

Yes, there's that angle as well as the 'had they come out and said it was sh1t and cringe worthy they would have been accused of racism' angle.

Not to mention the desire to confirm - yet again - that they couldn't possibly be racist by telling everyone how wonderful it was.

[Monty92]

Yes, there's that angle as well as the 'had they come out and said it was sh1t and cringe worthy they would have been accused of racism' angle.

Not to mention the desire to confirm - yet again - that they couldn't possibly be racist by telling everyone how wonderful it was.

One of those appalling pastor types debated Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson on Friday on the relative merits of political correctness.

Whether it's worth two hours of your time you will have to decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0

[Ash]

One of those appalling pastor types debated Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson on Friday on the relative merits of political correctness.

Whether it's worth two hours of your time you will have to decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0

Have you spent the two hours on it? If so what did you think? #tldr

[Burney]

One of those appalling pastor types debated Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson on Friday on the relative merits of political correctness.

Whether it's worth two hours of your time you will have to decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0

I've watched bits of it. The two people against them (including the pastor) seemed pathetically outgunned intellectually.

What's interesting regarding Fry's involvement is that the comedy/media establishment (at least those parts of it bright enough to notice and rich enough to not have to worry about it costing them work) do seem finally to be waking up to the monster they've created. Whether this means others will dare stick their heads above the parapet remains to be seen.

[Monty92]

I've watched bits of it. The two people against them (including the pastor) seemed pathetically outgunned intellectually.

What's interesting regarding Fry's involvement is that the comedy/media establishment (at least those parts of it bright enough to notice and rich enough to not have to worry about it costing them work) do seem finally to be waking up to the monster they've created. Whether this means others will dare stick their heads above the parapet remains to be seen.

Fry has always done that, to be fair. He's been railing against 'offensive culture' for years.

He does talk about the point you're making during this debate, though - in particular how he would be ostracised if he expressed certain opinions among his media luvvie counterparts.

Of course, the pastor's response was pretty much "Don't talk to me about oppression - you're a rich white man."

[Monty92]

Have you spent the two hours on it? If so what did you think? #tldr

Yeah.

I think it was about as good a debate as that kind of format will ever allow. That is, wholly inadequate and ultimately frustrating :-(

[Burney]

Fry has always done that, to be fair. He's been railing against 'offensive culture' for years.

He does talk about the point you're making during this debate, though - in particular how he would be ostracised if he expressed certain opinions among his media luvvie counterparts.

Of course, the pastor's response was pretty much "Don't talk to me about oppression - you're a rich white man."

Yes. But he seems to have become a bit more active about it recently.

The pastor's response, of course, is a classically oppressive one and demonstrates the problem neatly, since it is explicitly designed to clamp down on free expression of contrary opinions by dint of race and socio-economic status. The blindness to this profound contradiction can only be wilful, which is what makes it so sinister.

[Burney]

Yeah.

I think it was about as good a debate as that kind of format will ever allow. That is, wholly inadequate and ultimately frustrating :-(

But there is no debating anymore. We're dealing with dogma. You might as well put two rational atheists and two clerics on the stage and have them debate. At some point, the argument runs into the brick wall of unbending dogmatic belief in a monolithic idea that is not subject to rational critique for the simple reason that it is not rational.

[Monty92]

but I think the format is the main obstacle.

With a longer format and a good moderator, it would be possible to cut through the dogma and get to the nub of the matter.

One-to-one podcasts with no time limit are by far and away the best format for these things. Did you listen to Sam Harris vs Ezra Klein, by any chance?


But there is no debating anymore. We're dealing with dogma. You might as well put two rational atheists and two clerics on the stage and have them debate. At some point, the argument runs into the brick wall of unbending dogmatic belief in a monolithic idea that is not subject to rational critique for the simple reason that it is not rational.

[Burney]

but I think the format is the main obstacle.

With a longer format and a good moderator, it would be possible to cut through the dogma and get to the nub of the matter.

One-to-one podcasts with no time limit are by far and away the best format for these things. Did you listen to Sam Harris vs Ezra Klein, by any chance?

But the nub of the matter is that one side insists things that are empirically false are 'emotionally true' and the other refuses to accept those things. I've never heard an argument with those premises that ends in anything other than frustrated, furious deadlock.

[Monty92]

But the nub of the matter is that one side insists things that are empirically false are 'emotionally true' and the other refuses to accept those things. I've never heard an argument with those premises that ends in anything other than frustrated, furious deadlock.

Exactly. But with the right format, the credibility of these claims can be effectively interrogated and exposed. Someone who insists, for example, that there is no objective reality and the validity of the 'lived experience' should always be given primacy can easily coast through your average 2-hour debate in which the moderator's main job is to ensure the panel doesn't get stuck on specific points of disagreement and to keep things flowing...

But actually it is that final demand that ruins such debates.

Take the first podcast between Sam Harris and Peterson. They were intending to discuss many issues but from the very outset got stuck on their respective beliefs on the right definition of the word 'truth'. They ended up discussing this single point for three hours!!!

It was of course faintly ridiculous, but sometimes that's what you need...

[Burney]

Exactly. But with the right format, the credibility of these claims can be effectively interrogated and exposed. Someone who insists, for example, that there is no objective reality and the validity of the 'lived experience' should always be given primacy can easily coast through your average 2-hour debate in which the moderator's main job is to ensure the panel doesn't get stuck on specific points of disagreement and to keep things flowing...

But actually it is that final demand that ruins such debates.

Take the first podcast between Sam Harris and Peterson. They were intending to discuss many issues but from the very outset got stuck on their respective beliefs on the right definition of the word 'truth'. They ended up discussing this single point for three hours!!!

It was of course faintly ridiculous, but sometimes that's what you need...

Problem is that any dialogue now is retrospectively spun into something it never was to suit whatever agenda people want. Look at the Cathy Newman/Peterson thing. A rational conversation in which he examines ideas rationally and rightly refused to be tarred with ideas or opinions he's never held or espoused (leading to her receiving some legitimate ridicule) becomes 'Evil alt-right trolls attack female presenter'. Everything is now weaponised in order to suit an agenda and further polarise opinion. Debate and discussion therefore become redundant and nobody changes anybody's mind.

There's nothing else for it. We're just going to have to start shooting these people. :shrug:

[WES]

Problem is that any dialogue now is retrospectively spun into something it never was to suit whatever agenda people want. Look at the Cathy Newman/Peterson thing. A rational conversation in which he examines ideas rationally and rightly refused to be tarred with ideas or opinions he's never held or espoused (leading to her receiving some legitimate ridicule) becomes 'Evil alt-right trolls attack female presenter'. Everything is now weaponised in order to suit an agenda and further polarise opinion. Debate and discussion therefore become redundant and nobody changes anybody's mind.

There's nothing else for it. We're just going to have to start shooting these people. :shrug:

Ever seen that Mehdi Hassan chap debate Islam and its role in terrorism, or something similar?

It's mental. The audiences (British and non-British) seem to love him but when you examine his arguments he has only two. One, since 99.99% of Muslims don't blow themselves up any argument that ties terrorism to Islam is invalid and an example of racial bias and two, whataboutery.

My favourite was his response to someone who pointed out how barbaric it was that the Koran encourages beheading people under certain conditions. Mehdi replied and I paraphrase 'you are aware that our allies Saudi Arabia allow beheading'.

The British audience applauded him for that one. :hehe:

[Burney]

Ever seen that Mehdi Hassan chap debate Islam and its role in terrorism, or something similar?

It's mental. The audiences (British and non-British) seem to love him but when you examine his arguments he has only two. One, since 99.99% of Muslims don't blow themselves up any argument that ties terrorism to Islam is invalid and an example of racial bias and two, whataboutery.

My favourite was his response to someone who pointed out how barbaric it was that the Koran encourages beheading people under certain conditions. Mehdi replied and I paraphrase 'you are aware that our allies Saudi Arabia allow beheading'.

The British audience applauded him for that one. :hehe:

:hehe: He is a revolting Islamist apologist and I'd have him shot, of course.

Mind you, in the unlikely event that Saudi ever becomes a liberal democracy, lefties would be completely fvcked for whataboutery.

[Monty92]

:hehe: He is a revolting Islamist apologist and I'd have him shot, of course.

Mind you, in the unlikely event that Saudi ever becomes a liberal democracy, lefties would be completely fvcked for whataboutery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZAfYpdn468

[WES]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZAfYpdn468

That video came up in one of the debates I watched. He dismissed it as 'I no longer believe things I once did when I was younger'.

Fair enough, but it was fun to watch him crawl. The worrying thing is that he isn't stupid and he is eloquent yet his arguments are absurd. Which sort of makes you wonder what impact his religion a) has on him and b) has on people considerably less intelligent than him.

Also, he makes me want to punch him, really hard. :nod: