Will Self destroys Jamie Oliver

[Buzzer]

I doubt very much whether he is claiming it as his own idea or in any way original.

I doubt it too but I am somewhat bemused that just because Self said it, you felt the need to say it's a valid point. It is stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it?

But if that's the point you seem to think is the important thing here then after reading Self sneer at Oliver for offering a chance of a job for disadvantaged youngsters and Self sneer at Oliver for getting off his fat arse and actually trying to give children healthier food just leaves me with the impression that Self's utopian society would more likely be achieved by more Jamie Olivers and far fewer lotus eaters such as Will Self.

I should like Self, he's best mates with Nick Cave but everything about him, not least his "dissolute cousin of John Major"-like voice really grates. Actually, I tell a lie. He recorded a superb track with Bomb the Bass on the criminally under-rated album 'Clear'. He describes his addiction to heroin and the veins on his arms start resembling the M25. It's a masterpiece.

[yt]XMjNP7mTmNk[/yt]

 

[Bold Seagull]

Will Self thinks that what we need a society where no group is dependant on charity. Jesus wept, is this the great insight? Is he claiming this as his own idea? I'm sure Jamie would agree with that, it's such a truism that I'm struggling to think of any fair-minded individual who hasn't thought of this many times before.

Given the result of our last elections, I can think of 11 million people that didn't think of the truism that as a society, no group should be dependent on charity.

 

[Buzzer]

Given the result of our last elections, I can think of 11 million people that didn't think of the truism that as a society, no group should be dependent on charity.

You think that do you? That everyone who voted Tory doesn't want a society where there is no need for charity? Or that voting other than Tory would more likely create this kind of society? Power to the people, Wolfie.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You think that do you? That everyone who voted Tory doesn't want a society where there is no need for charity? Or that voting other than Tory would more likely create this kind of society? Power to the people, Wolfie.

No, of course not. I sincerely imagine every Tory voter shares a utopian vision of society taking care of it's poor, needy and dependent in a completely compassionate, responsible way, open to the notion of complete funding without any need for charity.

 

[Buzzer]

No, of course not. I sincerely imagine every Tory voter imagines a utopian vision of society taking care of it's poor, needy and dependent in a completely compassionate, responsible way, open to the notion of complete funding without any need for charity. I suspect all of them shared that very notion.

No wonder you're such a fan of Self's writing with sneering contempt such as that.

 

[Simster]

I think Will Self needs to lighten up, it's just a bit of lunch. Oliver isn't everyone's cup of tea, but by Christ he makes things happen.

This, in a nutshell.

I really used to enjoy Self's writing - he's written some brilliant books. But I can't stand the thought of lining his pockets any more than he can stand the thought of lining Jamie Oliver's. And his pompous appearances on QT make me want to punch the telly - only Steve Coogan comes across as more of a bellend.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No wonder you're such a fan of Self's writing with sneering contempt such as that.

Sneering contempt, not at all. Wasn't the Big Society all about charity and volunteering taking the place of the state? Or was I as confused as everyone else on that one!?

 

[Buzzer]

Wasn't the Big Society all about charity and volunteering taking the place of the state? Or was I as confused as everyone else on that one!?

It certainly was but that doesn't preclude a utopian ideal where charity isn't necessary. I stand by my assertion that most people of all non-extremist political persuasions would think it's a good thing to aspire to.

Sneering contempt, not at all.

Absolute bollocks.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I doubt it too but I am somewhat bemused that just because Self said it, you felt the need to say it's a valid point. It is stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it?

But if that's the point you seem to think is the important thing here then after reading Self sneer at Oliver for offering a chance of a job for disadvantaged youngsters and Self sneer at Oliver for getting off his fat arse and actually trying to give children healthier food just leaves me with the impression that Self's utopian society would more likely be achieved by more Jamie Olivers and far fewer lotus eaters such as Will Self.

I should like Self, he's best mates with Nick Cave but everything about him, not least his "dissolute cousin of John Major"-like voice really grates. Actually, I tell a lie. He recorded a superb track with Bomb the Bass on the criminally under-rated album 'Clear'. He describes his addiction to heroin and the veins on his arms start resembling the M25. It's a masterpiece.

[yt]XMjNP7mTmNk[/yt]

Why would something being "bleeding obvious" stop it being a valid point. I wasn't claiming it was a gem of original thought.

I admire Jamie Oliver and his campaigning mode, to be honest.

But I think there are plenty of people who do not agree with your earlier point that everybody would agree with the thing about Social Justice. The whole David Cameron "Big Society" thing was built on charity - and it didn't work.

 

[Simster]

Why would something being "bleeding obvious" stop it being a valid point. I wasn't claiming it was a gem of original thought.

Truisms are generally not points worth making. "Wars are bad", "the universe is big", "animal cruelty is wrong" etc etc. It is DULL because it is uncontentious and accepted. Will Self protesting that we should aim for a society without the need for charity is very much the same thing.

The whole David Cameron "Big Society" thing was built on charity - and it didn't work.

The reason that didn't work was that it was utter flim flam. And when pressed during campaigning, Cameron suggested it meant that people did some good for the society they work in, seemingly unaware that we have more unpaid voluntary workers in this country than pretty much any other country in the world. It was that sort of bullshit that cost the Tories the big majority they were seeming a shoe-in for.

 

[Buzzer]

Why would something being "bleeding obvious" stop it being a valid point.

"It would be a nice if there were no wars in the world"

"Yes, you make a valid point"

Can you see the absurdity of such statements? I'd have less of a problem with it if Self deigned to give us the benefit of his wisdom on how his 'valid point' could be achieved.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It certainly was but that doesn't preclude a utopian ideal where charity isn't necessary. I stand by my assertion that most people of all non-extremist political persuasions would think it's a good thing to aspire to.



Absolute bollocks.

The only thing absolute is your arrogance.

 

[Buzzer]

The only thing absolute is your arrogance.

Physician heal thyself. So your post wasn't laden with sarcasm? Yeah, right.

What about this gem from you?

They do say ignorance is bliss.

 

[Simster]

The only thing absolute is your arrogance.

Sorry to butt-in here, but in what way is Buzzer being arrogant? By suggesting that there are Tory voters who aspire to a society where charity isn't necessary and believe theirs is the best way to achieve that? How is that arrogant?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Physician heal thyself. So your post wasn't laden with sarcasm? Yeah, right.

What about this gem from you?

You can say 'Physician heal thyself' in one sentence then hold up 'ignorance is bliss' in another!? You don't see the irony!?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sorry to butt-in here, but in what way is Buzzer being arrogant? By suggesting that there are Tory voters who aspire to a society where charity isn't necessary and believe theirs is the best way to achieve that? How is that arrogant?

More to the point of my posts being labelled 'sneering contempt' and 'absolute bollocks' by a person who appears to be able to state truisms that speak for the whole of society. I'd say that is pretty arrogant in my book.

 

[Buzzer]

You can say 'Physician heal thyself' in one sentence then hold up 'ignorance is bliss' in another!? You don't see the irony!?

It would have been irony if I'd said that I wasn't arrogant. I can't be arsed debating that one with you. I just find it slightly odd that of all people , you're the one calling people arrogant after some of your posts on this thread. Now that's irony.

 

[Buzzer]

More to the point of my posts being labelled 'sneering contempt' and 'absolute bollocks' by a person who appears to be able to state truisms that speak for the whole of society. I'd say that is pretty arrogant in my book.

It certainly isn't arrogant to say truisms are ideas that most of society thinks is a good idea. It's almost a definition.

 

[Questions]

"It would be a nice if there were no wars in the world"

"Yes, you make a valid point"

Can you see the absurdity of such statements? I'd have less of a problem with it if Self deigned to give us the benefit of his wisdom on how his 'valid point' could be achieved.

War war is stupid
And people are stupid
And love means nothing
In some strange quarters

If only you lot would just stop and listen to Boy George.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It certainly isn't arrogant to say truisms are ideas that most of society thinks is a good idea. It's almost a definition.

You're the one stating it's a truism! Who's to say it is? How can you state that pretty much all of society believes we should take such collective responsibility that there should be no need for charity? You've made a political statement, which when questioned you could only respond with 'sneering contempt' and 'absolute bollocks'.