Only one question for Graham so far - there were scores for Helen Joyce & Maya Forstater! You've got until Wednesday as at that point I have to prepare my radio script.
While I don't know Steersman as a person, he and I have gone back and forth in many Substack comment sections and I usually - but not always - disagree with his definitions. I don't think a woman is only someone who is currently expecting to menstruate within the next month or so. I think pregnant women, menopausal women and girls who have not yet menstruated and aren't about to are all female. I think people whose gonads are not functioning are still either male or female, and that only a very few people have such ambiguous characteristics as to make them not apparently male or female (a few people with certain types of DSD's, not most DSD's, which are found in either males or females, for a total of about .02% of the population).
However, to be fair, I don't really know the exact definition of the terms and how we draw the line, which is why I do think a few people are neither male nor female, and that those very few people should have a choice as to how to be considered. Steersman insists that it has to do with presently functional gonads. Although I disagree, I find his comments to be reasonable enough and it seems to me that he is interested in keeping to some consistent scientific definition so as not to end up causing perhaps inconceivable (at the moment) problems down the line.
That all having been said, I think we should save the vitriol and demands for banning for the lunatics and haters, and address those with which we simply disagree in a civilized manner. That will bring us all to a better place.
I think we're all on the same team - the team looking to respect the human body, protect young vulnerable people from physical and psychological harm, and protect women's right, privacy, safety and fairness in sports. Minor disagreements about definitions can be dealt with through civilized debate.
steermanuresman is a psycho and a giant waste of time. i see nothing "scientific" in his blather beyond what anyone with common sense and minimal capacity for rational thought could manage. it is unfortunate that you brought this up given helen's distaste for debate about him.
"Since when do "moral considerations" -- feelinz -- get to trump scientific facts and theories?"
I perceive that "morality" is basically a combination of (1) our inherent instinctual evolved characteristics (mostly psychological), that manifest as unconscious actions or "feelings", with release of preordained neurochemical agents, etc.; and (2) cultural practices and behaviors that social experience has shown to be "good enough" to provide some level of security and further well being, at least for "most people". Thus the results from scientific study of emotional responses in the brain are in fact scientific facts about "feelinz". This is an area that has received a lot more attention in the last two or three decades, but the complexity is still pretty high to make simple observations and pronouncements. I won't attempt that here.
I need to find and reread the essay that Lorenzo cited when I raised this topic with him. :-)
Most of the "woke" "left" cancel culture, including the institutional forms, is totalitarian, neo-communist (the Evergreen State/Bret Weinstein fiasco being a good example) and insane.
"woke" = Actual "Cluster B" psychological disordered. Grifters. Liars.
Dealing with such sociopathic-narcissistic-borderline lunatics and their emotionally manipulative, predatory behavior is repulsive and gut wrenching.
The good news is that they can be clinically diagnosed, which means that institutions can potentially develop self-defense mechanisms to protect against internal or external "woke" insanity.
Purpose – Organisations sometimes select and promote the wrong individuals for managerial positions. These individuals may be incompetent, they may be manipulators and bullies. They are not the best people for the job and yet not only are they selected for positions of authority and responsibility, they are sometimes promoted repeatedly until their kind populate the highest levels of the organisational hierarchy.
The purpose of this paper is to address this phenomenon by attempting to explain why it occurs and why organisational members tolerate such destructive practices.
It concludes by proposing a cultural strategy to protect the organisation and its stakeholders from the ambitious machinations of the organisational sociopath.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors develop an explanatory framework by attempting to combine elements of the theory of memetics with structuration theory.
Memetic theory helps to analyse culture and communication of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts.
Structuration theory can be used to identify motives and drives.
A combination of these theoretical approaches can be used to identify the motives of organisational sociopaths. Such a tool is also useful for exploring the high level of organisation tolerance for sociopathic managers.
Findings – Organisational tolerance and acceptance for sociopathic managerial behaviour appears to be
[->] a consequence of cultural and structural complexity.
While this has been known for some time, few authors have posited an adequate range of explanations and solutions to protect stakeholders and prevent the sociopath from exploiting organisational weaknesses.
Reduction of cultural and structural complexity may provide a partial solution.
Transparency, communication of strong ethical values, promotion based on performance, directed cooperation, and rewards that reinforce high performing and acceptable behaviour are all necessary to protect against individuals with sociopathic tendencies.
Originality/value – The authors provide a new cultural diagnostic tool by combining elements of memetic theory with elements of structuration theory.
The subsequent framework can be used to protect organisations from becoming the unwitting victims of sociopaths seeking to realise and fulfil their needs and ambitions through a managerial career path.
Unions. Having Mum and Dad go thru hell in Tom Jackson's Postal Strike and go back for a half-penny raise; having lived the Three Day Week and all the pre-St Margaret hellscape, I've no time or sympathy for trade unions. Enemies of me and England. Full stop.
And of or in the USA, too. If you can't or don't have the talent and capabilities to obtain a job (as an individual) at or above market rates, maybe you are pursuing the wrong tasks/life assignment. Something else would better match your inherent skill set.
You don't have a "right" to a job, unless you are the employer providing the funds to pay for it being performed by someone else. It is the employer's job, not the employee's job. The unions have this all wrong in their pronouncement and thinking! Employees are providing skills, etc., to accomplish the tasks and roles required for said job, but it does not belong to them. Their skills and capabilities do. That is what they need to maximize for maximal income, etc.
More might be said about the historical wrongs that semi-monopoly employers used against their employees, but I will leave that out for now.
Except the corporate-state, by definition, is a bunch of cartel schemes that are frequently criminally corrupt. That is why labors unions began to form in the 1800s as the corruption unleashed by the Industrial Revolution reached insane levels as the industrialists , oligarchs and plutocrats corrupted govt to subvert constitutional order so as the carry out wars against the working classes. Same as “woke” oligarchs now.
Interesting to read the blurb and comments about Big Trouble. Not an area of history that I know in any detail beyond HS history taken decades ago, and a few articles read since. Clearly illegality was done on both sides of the "conflict". That inflamed passions beyond "labor law ideals". Of course also a new social situation beyond the prior agricultural economic models.
The core question remains: the miners did not have ownership of any mining jobs. In theory they should have left. Or organized in an association that still obeyed the law (in spite of the Pinkerton or "black Army" depredations). Collective action vs. individual action: each has plus and minus considerations for achieving liberty and prosperity.
Mines were "owned" as a result of criminal cartels (oligarchs, plutocrats) and corrupt politicians that sold out to plutocrats that subverted constitutional order.
How conservatives (apologists for plutocrats) hijacked anarcho-libertarian populism:
Curiously absent among many libertarian, conservative, or free-market critiques of interventions by the state into society are the myriad of ways in which government acts to assist, protect, and, indeed, impose outright, an economic order maintained for the benefit of politically connected plutocratic elites. Of course, recognition of this fact has led some on the Left to make much sport of libertarians...
Perhaps the efficacious gift to the present corporate order by the state has been what Kevin Carson calls ["]the subsidy of history,["] a reference to the process by which the indigenous inhabitants and possessors of property in land were originally expropriated during the course of the construction of traditional feudal societies and the subsequent transformation of feudalism into what is now called ["]capitalism["], or the corporatist- plutocratic societies that we have today. Contrary to the myths to which some subscribe, including many libertarians, the evolution of capitalism out of the old feudal order was not one where liberty triumphed over privilege, but one where privilege asserted itself in newer and more sophisticated forms.
There is a bunch of history (in the UK for example) about the process by which the ruling and economic elites forced peasants off of the "commons" and into industrial slums, sometimes with the assistance of the army, usually with the assistance of the police. State violence.
That is the pertinent pattern behind "ownership" and the labor movement, it has little or nothing with utopian blather about the sanctity of property ownership.
I can't think of a good question, so I'll just say that I'm looking forward to your episode with Graham Linehan. I'm a fan of his work, I can still confidently rely on Father Ted to cheer me up on a bad day. I'm impressed by his fortitude and look forward to reading his book.
I have two comments. First, you might want to ask Linehan about Count Arthur Strong. I liked all his shows a lot, but I think that might be my favorite. Second, I wouldn't be so sure those pro-hamas letter writers and demonstrators have made themselves unemployable. The academic and legal elite welcomed lots of revolutionary Marxists of my generation, even convicted murderers. See, e.g., https://www.johnlocke.org/leftist-children-of-privilege-play-by-different-rules/.
Do you think the majority of other comedians in the industry who didn't support you are scared to speak up, or do you think they are true believers?
You have paid a significant price for speaking up about this issue. Thank you for all your bravery and courage, but it is sad it has come at such a cost. Do you ever regret speaking out?
I had the pleasure of seeing you at your UnHerd event and you mentioned ( words to the effect of) that writing the book made you feel like a comedian / creative again. That's great. Do you have any comedy work or more creative work in the pipeline and if so, how can we support these projects (beyond buying the book of course)?
Do you have hope for the future and if so, what gives you this hope?
Are there any topics you don't like to touch in your jokes? If any, why?
Do you think there should be any limits on the topics comedy should cover?
Sorry if you have covered some of this in your book. I have the signed copy from the UnHerd event but I haven't yet finished it!
Should ESG be outlawed? If large corporations have a list of political requirements that must be fulfilled when hiring staff and even trading then what is the role of democratic institutions?
Does ESG affect scriptwriting?
How did the Left get such power in Humanities faculties and the media? In the UK it was an appreciation of the "old school tie" - if the establishment could recruit their own then so could the organised Left. Eventually people with opposing views would not be given employment or even allowed into the staff friendship groups.
1. What does Graham think will happen to British comedy in the future (near or far)? Does he see any future where there is diversity of thought allowed in the industry?
2. Does he have a favourite era of comedy, and if so, why?
Thank you Helen for asking for questions, and to Graham for hopefully answering them.
Question for Graham, TalkTV and GBNews regularly have comics on that have been cancelled or hold no truck with cancel culture. Have you ever thought of setting up your own comedy venue, The unCancelled Comedy Venue? The stir you would cause would be huge, I reckon bog standard people would flock to it. We are truly sick of being told what/who we can listen to by those who have the temerity to tell us ‘for our own good’.
I'll ask Graham about "Comedy Unleashed", the outfit that tried to have him perform at the Edinburgh Fringe. Comedy Unleashed was co-founded by Andrew Doyle and is designed to be that sort of comedy venue - but if they tour outside their dedicated premises in London, they're vulnerable to venues cancelling on them.
Is the brave, insightful gentleman aware of the significant body of psych research that relates to "Cluster B" personality disorders and how they map into radical-extremists ideologies, activist politics, totalitarianism, the collapse of moral and social order under postmodern social conditions, and so forth?
Example:
Oct 30 [2023]
JD Haltigan: The Emotional Dysregulation Behind Progressive Authoritarianism
The vulnerable narcissism of the Radical Left
Reporting on humanity, civilization, and the environment
Episode details
We’ve all experienced it. You get in an argument with someone who knows little about the subject they’re talking about, but who is absolutely confident they’re right. Maybe it’s police violence, maybe it’s climate change, or school closures during the pandemic. They’re reciting tired progressive talking points that have been debunked a dozen times over. You’re presenting them with counterarguments that are hardly original, but your interlocutor seems to have never considered them before. Pretty soon they’re backed into a corner.
So they pull out the card you knew was coming from the very beginning: “Oh, so you’re just content to let them die???”
The argument has now pivoted from a dispute over facts and reason to an unwinnable contest over who has the purer heart. And the assumption is, quite clearly, that you’re the monster for having your awful opinions. You can keep arguing if you want, but at this point there’s no more persuasion to be had, if there ever was any. You’ve been condemned for your thought crimes and there’s no appeals process. The person you just wasted ten minutes arguing with will walk away with their position utterly unchanged, but their opinion of you diminished. According to terms you never agreed to, you’ve lost the debate.
The part of this that is about "woke" attitudes toward radical, reactionary Hamas/Salafist extremists:
Population genetics, deep cousin marriage and inbreeding in the Arab gene pool and genetically determined pre-liberal and/or ILLIBERAL culture, religion and social forms.
Note: I informally studied Twelver Shi'ism, Shaykhism/Babism/Bahaism and middle eastern history for several decades (mostly in the context of both printed and internet debates by academics like Juan Cole, 1980s/90s) as well as evolutionary psych and "stage theory" (Kegan). I've read a little bit of Henri Corbin's work on Sunni esotericism/Sufism (and the rigidly orthodox muslim reaction to Ibn al-Arabi and his followers).
People are commenting about "Christian Zionism" on social media and the influence of "end times" theology on Jewish Zionism, but are probably not aware that there was a similar "end times" movement in the early 1800s in Muslim religious history.
Any "peace" movement in the middle east will presumably have to deal with population genetics and the different stages of cultural evolution present in the region. Imposing "democratic" western, modern values on pre-liberal, pre-modern cultures is usually a disaster. Some kind of "more evolved" (Kegan stage 5) post-colonial standpoint other than the reality-deficient "woke" one will be required (I'm assuming that it is understood that the standard colonialist-lite neocon war monger standpoint has severe limits).
Well I do not agree with confusing the two ; freedom of association and free speech go hand in hand ; economic despotic powerful institutions including data profiling and these ruddy 3rd party off shore hiring syndicates use candidate profiling ; behind the data estate curtain and if they use robot analytic tools to sift out employees - economic vulnerable women across careers and with varied life experience are increasingly being alienated by AI smart OXYMORONIC analysis and via data social media profiling ; in or out - women in general are out unless theyve got a foot in fewer privileged doors - at the bottom rung in health ir say govt services public services and in the captured youth obsessed so called Arts women are particularly vulnerable unless they kiwtow to the spurious agendas ;what they say and who and what they are perceived as being reps for are often simply the questioning by seasoned human minds to anomalous or flawed conceptual dogmas - issues which concern them ; Simply cause one human lumps all or any they perceive as problematic - it is statistical fact about the indiscriminate dealths of mostly women and children - the balance of death ; 40,000 dead women and children vs the evil heinous attacks by bitter extremists 1400 ( The evil dudes were put there due to an intractable regime with agendas and with the oversight of a fascist who overturned his own HC court IGNORING THE democratic mainstay a Separation of Powers dealing with "his people" ..horrific stuff and people get swept up - do not judge and vilify people for the horrors - people want better govt and a freeing of those poor hostages - better long term end to this fascist regime - that is pro people - Do not judge via personal experience or cancel or separate as it only leads to cancelation of democracy
Only one question for Graham so far - there were scores for Helen Joyce & Maya Forstater! You've got until Wednesday as at that point I have to prepare my radio script.
The funny was "found on the internet" and I've done nothing to it - and would probably lack the technical skills to do anything tbh.
“Mind rot”
PROJECTION.
You keep pulling blobs of mental sewage out of your hind sphincter and smearing them on the walls of various comments sections.
Hopefully Helen will ban you if you persist in your mental dysfunction.
It would be really great if Steersman got off his hobby-horse and you stopped chasing him with scatological comments. Really and truly.
Give it a rest.
SteerManuresMan is a psych case.
Either ban him/it, or put up with his/its obsessive-compulsive stench.
Side note: substack needs to fully implement their "block" function.
you proved my point, lunatic.
While I don't know Steersman as a person, he and I have gone back and forth in many Substack comment sections and I usually - but not always - disagree with his definitions. I don't think a woman is only someone who is currently expecting to menstruate within the next month or so. I think pregnant women, menopausal women and girls who have not yet menstruated and aren't about to are all female. I think people whose gonads are not functioning are still either male or female, and that only a very few people have such ambiguous characteristics as to make them not apparently male or female (a few people with certain types of DSD's, not most DSD's, which are found in either males or females, for a total of about .02% of the population).
However, to be fair, I don't really know the exact definition of the terms and how we draw the line, which is why I do think a few people are neither male nor female, and that those very few people should have a choice as to how to be considered. Steersman insists that it has to do with presently functional gonads. Although I disagree, I find his comments to be reasonable enough and it seems to me that he is interested in keeping to some consistent scientific definition so as not to end up causing perhaps inconceivable (at the moment) problems down the line.
That all having been said, I think we should save the vitriol and demands for banning for the lunatics and haters, and address those with which we simply disagree in a civilized manner. That will bring us all to a better place.
I think we're all on the same team - the team looking to respect the human body, protect young vulnerable people from physical and psychological harm, and protect women's right, privacy, safety and fairness in sports. Minor disagreements about definitions can be dealt with through civilized debate.
steermanuresman is a psycho and a giant waste of time. i see nothing "scientific" in his blather beyond what anyone with common sense and minimal capacity for rational thought could manage. it is unfortunate that you brought this up given helen's distaste for debate about him.
"Since when do "moral considerations" -- feelinz -- get to trump scientific facts and theories?"
I perceive that "morality" is basically a combination of (1) our inherent instinctual evolved characteristics (mostly psychological), that manifest as unconscious actions or "feelings", with release of preordained neurochemical agents, etc.; and (2) cultural practices and behaviors that social experience has shown to be "good enough" to provide some level of security and further well being, at least for "most people". Thus the results from scientific study of emotional responses in the brain are in fact scientific facts about "feelinz". This is an area that has received a lot more attention in the last two or three decades, but the complexity is still pretty high to make simple observations and pronouncements. I won't attempt that here.
I need to find and reread the essay that Lorenzo cited when I raised this topic with him. :-)
Exactly what did DeBoer say? He is a well known internal critic on the “left” including of “woke” insanity.
Ultra Zionism is a psychopathic thug cult, it exists in the same category of “totalizing Abyss”* tribalistic ideologies as Salafism.
* See Eric Weinstein vs Sam Harris on a recent Triggernometry podcast.
On the whole I'm fine with allowing people to say what they want and reaping the consequences as others decide they don't want to work etc. with them.
One of my big issues with Cancel Culture on the left is that they don't want you to even speak if you disagree with them
Most of the "woke" "left" cancel culture, including the institutional forms, is totalitarian, neo-communist (the Evergreen State/Bret Weinstein fiasco being a good example) and insane.
"woke" = Actual "Cluster B" psychological disordered. Grifters. Liars.
Dealing with such sociopathic-narcissistic-borderline lunatics and their emotionally manipulative, predatory behavior is repulsive and gut wrenching.
The good news is that they can be clinically diagnosed, which means that institutions can potentially develop self-defense mechanisms to protect against internal or external "woke" insanity.
-----
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242338489_Organisational_sociopaths_Rarely_challenged_often_promoted_Why
excerpt:
Abstract
Purpose – Organisations sometimes select and promote the wrong individuals for managerial positions. These individuals may be incompetent, they may be manipulators and bullies. They are not the best people for the job and yet not only are they selected for positions of authority and responsibility, they are sometimes promoted repeatedly until their kind populate the highest levels of the organisational hierarchy.
The purpose of this paper is to address this phenomenon by attempting to explain why it occurs and why organisational members tolerate such destructive practices.
It concludes by proposing a cultural strategy to protect the organisation and its stakeholders from the ambitious machinations of the organisational sociopath.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors develop an explanatory framework by attempting to combine elements of the theory of memetics with structuration theory.
Memetic theory helps to analyse culture and communication of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts.
Structuration theory can be used to identify motives and drives.
A combination of these theoretical approaches can be used to identify the motives of organisational sociopaths. Such a tool is also useful for exploring the high level of organisation tolerance for sociopathic managers.
Findings – Organisational tolerance and acceptance for sociopathic managerial behaviour appears to be
[->] a consequence of cultural and structural complexity.
While this has been known for some time, few authors have posited an adequate range of explanations and solutions to protect stakeholders and prevent the sociopath from exploiting organisational weaknesses.
Reduction of cultural and structural complexity may provide a partial solution.
Transparency, communication of strong ethical values, promotion based on performance, directed cooperation, and rewards that reinforce high performing and acceptable behaviour are all necessary to protect against individuals with sociopathic tendencies.
Originality/value – The authors provide a new cultural diagnostic tool by combining elements of memetic theory with elements of structuration theory.
The subsequent framework can be used to protect organisations from becoming the unwitting victims of sociopaths seeking to realise and fulfil their needs and ambitions through a managerial career path.
...
Unions. Having Mum and Dad go thru hell in Tom Jackson's Postal Strike and go back for a half-penny raise; having lived the Three Day Week and all the pre-St Margaret hellscape, I've no time or sympathy for trade unions. Enemies of me and England. Full stop.
And of or in the USA, too. If you can't or don't have the talent and capabilities to obtain a job (as an individual) at or above market rates, maybe you are pursuing the wrong tasks/life assignment. Something else would better match your inherent skill set.
You don't have a "right" to a job, unless you are the employer providing the funds to pay for it being performed by someone else. It is the employer's job, not the employee's job. The unions have this all wrong in their pronouncement and thinking! Employees are providing skills, etc., to accomplish the tasks and roles required for said job, but it does not belong to them. Their skills and capabilities do. That is what they need to maximize for maximal income, etc.
More might be said about the historical wrongs that semi-monopoly employers used against their employees, but I will leave that out for now.
Except the corporate-state, by definition, is a bunch of cartel schemes that are frequently criminally corrupt. That is why labors unions began to form in the 1800s as the corruption unleashed by the Industrial Revolution reached insane levels as the industrialists , oligarchs and plutocrats corrupted govt to subvert constitutional order so as the carry out wars against the working classes. Same as “woke” oligarchs now.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/416710.Big_Trouble
Interesting to read the blurb and comments about Big Trouble. Not an area of history that I know in any detail beyond HS history taken decades ago, and a few articles read since. Clearly illegality was done on both sides of the "conflict". That inflamed passions beyond "labor law ideals". Of course also a new social situation beyond the prior agricultural economic models.
The core question remains: the miners did not have ownership of any mining jobs. In theory they should have left. Or organized in an association that still obeyed the law (in spite of the Pinkerton or "black Army" depredations). Collective action vs. individual action: each has plus and minus considerations for achieving liberty and prosperity.
Thank you for admitting your ignorance about the history of labor unionism.
re: "organized in an association that still obeyed the law"
That is exactly what actually happened, Teddy Roosevelt started the process of making labor unions legal and it was completed by FDR.
The (unintended?) side effect was to reduce the radicalism of the labor movement by making it a component of the corporate-state system.
Then the postmodern "left" (feminists, etc.) threw the muscular-radical elements of labor unions under the bus in the 1960s, beginning a long decline.
Mines were "owned" as a result of criminal cartels (oligarchs, plutocrats) and corrupt politicians that sold out to plutocrats that subverted constitutional order.
How conservatives (apologists for plutocrats) hijacked anarcho-libertarian populism:
https://attackthesystem.com/free-enterprise-the-antidote-to-corporate-plutocracy/
excerpts:
...
Curiously absent among many libertarian, conservative, or free-market critiques of interventions by the state into society are the myriad of ways in which government acts to assist, protect, and, indeed, impose outright, an economic order maintained for the benefit of politically connected plutocratic elites. Of course, recognition of this fact has led some on the Left to make much sport of libertarians...
Perhaps the efficacious gift to the present corporate order by the state has been what Kevin Carson calls ["]the subsidy of history,["] a reference to the process by which the indigenous inhabitants and possessors of property in land were originally expropriated during the course of the construction of traditional feudal societies and the subsequent transformation of feudalism into what is now called ["]capitalism["], or the corporatist- plutocratic societies that we have today. Contrary to the myths to which some subscribe, including many libertarians, the evolution of capitalism out of the old feudal order was not one where liberty triumphed over privilege, but one where privilege asserted itself in newer and more sophisticated forms.
...
There is a bunch of history (in the UK for example) about the process by which the ruling and economic elites forced peasants off of the "commons" and into industrial slums, sometimes with the assistance of the army, usually with the assistance of the police. State violence.
That is the pertinent pattern behind "ownership" and the labor movement, it has little or nothing with utopian blather about the sanctity of property ownership.
I can't think of a good question, so I'll just say that I'm looking forward to your episode with Graham Linehan. I'm a fan of his work, I can still confidently rely on Father Ted to cheer me up on a bad day. I'm impressed by his fortitude and look forward to reading his book.
I have two comments. First, you might want to ask Linehan about Count Arthur Strong. I liked all his shows a lot, but I think that might be my favorite. Second, I wouldn't be so sure those pro-hamas letter writers and demonstrators have made themselves unemployable. The academic and legal elite welcomed lots of revolutionary Marxists of my generation, even convicted murderers. See, e.g., https://www.johnlocke.org/leftist-children-of-privilege-play-by-different-rules/.
Finance elite welcomed ultra zionist thugs in the same way.
Some questions for Graham:
Do you think the majority of other comedians in the industry who didn't support you are scared to speak up, or do you think they are true believers?
You have paid a significant price for speaking up about this issue. Thank you for all your bravery and courage, but it is sad it has come at such a cost. Do you ever regret speaking out?
I had the pleasure of seeing you at your UnHerd event and you mentioned ( words to the effect of) that writing the book made you feel like a comedian / creative again. That's great. Do you have any comedy work or more creative work in the pipeline and if so, how can we support these projects (beyond buying the book of course)?
Do you have hope for the future and if so, what gives you this hope?
Are there any topics you don't like to touch in your jokes? If any, why?
Do you think there should be any limits on the topics comedy should cover?
Sorry if you have covered some of this in your book. I have the signed copy from the UnHerd event but I haven't yet finished it!
These are great - thanks!
Should ESG be outlawed? If large corporations have a list of political requirements that must be fulfilled when hiring staff and even trading then what is the role of democratic institutions?
Does ESG affect scriptwriting?
How did the Left get such power in Humanities faculties and the media? In the UK it was an appreciation of the "old school tie" - if the establishment could recruit their own then so could the organised Left. Eventually people with opposing views would not be given employment or even allowed into the staff friendship groups.
Systems theorist Nassim Taleb gives one answer in "The Dictatorship of the Intolerant Minority".
https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship-small-minority/
nassimtaleb. org /2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship-small-minority/
The evolutionary psychology of the human species is generally "dysfunctional" (paraphrasing E.O. Wilson)
I've thought of some questions:
1. What does Graham think will happen to British comedy in the future (near or far)? Does he see any future where there is diversity of thought allowed in the industry?
2. Does he have a favourite era of comedy, and if so, why?
Thank you Helen for asking for questions, and to Graham for hopefully answering them.
Maya and Helen answered all the questions you (and others) provided - I'm sure Graham will do likewise!
What a relief to see you identify the real problem and move away from Warby's last-stand-for-Scholasticism obsession with hints of heresy.
incoherent
Question for Graham, TalkTV and GBNews regularly have comics on that have been cancelled or hold no truck with cancel culture. Have you ever thought of setting up your own comedy venue, The unCancelled Comedy Venue? The stir you would cause would be huge, I reckon bog standard people would flock to it. We are truly sick of being told what/who we can listen to by those who have the temerity to tell us ‘for our own good’.
I'll ask Graham about "Comedy Unleashed", the outfit that tried to have him perform at the Edinburgh Fringe. Comedy Unleashed was co-founded by Andrew Doyle and is designed to be that sort of comedy venue - but if they tour outside their dedicated premises in London, they're vulnerable to venues cancelling on them.
If it isn't too late, a question for the show:
Is the brave, insightful gentleman aware of the significant body of psych research that relates to "Cluster B" personality disorders and how they map into radical-extremists ideologies, activist politics, totalitarianism, the collapse of moral and social order under postmodern social conditions, and so forth?
Example:
Oct 30 [2023]
JD Haltigan: The Emotional Dysregulation Behind Progressive Authoritarianism
The vulnerable narcissism of the Radical Left
Reporting on humanity, civilization, and the environment
Episode details
We’ve all experienced it. You get in an argument with someone who knows little about the subject they’re talking about, but who is absolutely confident they’re right. Maybe it’s police violence, maybe it’s climate change, or school closures during the pandemic. They’re reciting tired progressive talking points that have been debunked a dozen times over. You’re presenting them with counterarguments that are hardly original, but your interlocutor seems to have never considered them before. Pretty soon they’re backed into a corner.
So they pull out the card you knew was coming from the very beginning: “Oh, so you’re just content to let them die???”
The argument has now pivoted from a dispute over facts and reason to an unwinnable contest over who has the purer heart. And the assumption is, quite clearly, that you’re the monster for having your awful opinions. You can keep arguing if you want, but at this point there’s no more persuasion to be had, if there ever was any. You’ve been condemned for your thought crimes and there’s no appeals process. The person you just wasted ten minutes arguing with will walk away with their position utterly unchanged, but their opinion of you diminished. According to terms you never agreed to, you’ve lost the debate.
© 2023 Michael Shellenberger
https://public.substack.com/p/jd-haltigan-the-emotional-dysregulation#details
public. substack. com /p/jd-haltigan-the-emotional-dysregulation
The part of this that is about "woke" attitudes toward radical, reactionary Hamas/Salafist extremists:
Population genetics, deep cousin marriage and inbreeding in the Arab gene pool and genetically determined pre-liberal and/or ILLIBERAL culture, religion and social forms.
Note: I informally studied Twelver Shi'ism, Shaykhism/Babism/Bahaism and middle eastern history for several decades (mostly in the context of both printed and internet debates by academics like Juan Cole, 1980s/90s) as well as evolutionary psych and "stage theory" (Kegan). I've read a little bit of Henri Corbin's work on Sunni esotericism/Sufism (and the rigidly orthodox muslim reaction to Ibn al-Arabi and his followers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykhism
So,
People are commenting about "Christian Zionism" on social media and the influence of "end times" theology on Jewish Zionism, but are probably not aware that there was a similar "end times" movement in the early 1800s in Muslim religious history.
Any "peace" movement in the middle east will presumably have to deal with population genetics and the different stages of cultural evolution present in the region. Imposing "democratic" western, modern values on pre-liberal, pre-modern cultures is usually a disaster. Some kind of "more evolved" (Kegan stage 5) post-colonial standpoint other than the reality-deficient "woke" one will be required (I'm assuming that it is understood that the standard colonialist-lite neocon war monger standpoint has severe limits).
Well I do not agree with confusing the two ; freedom of association and free speech go hand in hand ; economic despotic powerful institutions including data profiling and these ruddy 3rd party off shore hiring syndicates use candidate profiling ; behind the data estate curtain and if they use robot analytic tools to sift out employees - economic vulnerable women across careers and with varied life experience are increasingly being alienated by AI smart OXYMORONIC analysis and via data social media profiling ; in or out - women in general are out unless theyve got a foot in fewer privileged doors - at the bottom rung in health ir say govt services public services and in the captured youth obsessed so called Arts women are particularly vulnerable unless they kiwtow to the spurious agendas ;what they say and who and what they are perceived as being reps for are often simply the questioning by seasoned human minds to anomalous or flawed conceptual dogmas - issues which concern them ; Simply cause one human lumps all or any they perceive as problematic - it is statistical fact about the indiscriminate dealths of mostly women and children - the balance of death ; 40,000 dead women and children vs the evil heinous attacks by bitter extremists 1400 ( The evil dudes were put there due to an intractable regime with agendas and with the oversight of a fascist who overturned his own HC court IGNORING THE democratic mainstay a Separation of Powers dealing with "his people" ..horrific stuff and people get swept up - do not judge and vilify people for the horrors - people want better govt and a freeing of those poor hostages - better long term end to this fascist regime - that is pro people - Do not judge via personal experience or cancel or separate as it only leads to cancelation of democracy