A Gander into the Right; a leftist stroll to the unknown
To start on a typical meander before we get to the actual title, I’ve been going on long walks. A two to three hour wander around not only to maintain sanity in these times, but also to attempt the inevitable. The inevitable being my future as a fat middle aged bastard whose next true love is a stripper who, alright, dances for others, but be assured that “Destiny never dances like that for anyone else”. So yes, walkies… because the gyms are shut and running in this weather is akin to juggling an increasingly sweaty bag of assorted meat through a freezer whilst being chaffed to absolute buggery.
(On the note of chaffing… ouch… how anyone can argue for intelligent design when you can end up bowleggedly shuffling around your own home due to an injury sustained by your own festering limbs rubbing against your own self is a bloody mystery to me.)
It was on one of these walks away from lovely Destiny, that I listened to Louis Theroux’s second series of ‘Grounded with Louis Theroux.’ On the episode in question, Frankie Boyle was discussing various subjects and, what with Frankie Boyle being a rather contradictory figure in modern comedy, being an ardent leftist whilst defending a rather aggressive and controversial comedic style, inevitably the question of cancel culture came up. It was during this discussion that Ricky Gervais’ routine about Caitlyn Jenner was discussed and criticised. This being when Gervais defended comments he made at the golden globes, in a stand up routine claiming he could equally self identify as a monkey.
It was then during an incident of insomnia that, about 20 minutes before I started drafting this (so about 5:20AM), I came across some YouTube videos addressing the podcast in question. This in itself is terrifying considering I listened to it on Spotify, and that the general right-wing nature of the account was not something that would normally pop up on my feed. I also noticed various other videos about the same thing, that being accusing the BBC (in cahoots with Frankie Boyle) of attempting to ‘cancel’ Ricky Gervais over his comments. I would like to stress at this point that I do not want to dive into the morality of Ricky Gervais’ remarks, but rather examine the nature of right-wing media. However, it is important to note that an intent to shock is different from an attempt to harm/hurt, which is what Boyle argues Ricky Gervais was doing. I do agree that Gervais crossed a line here and that these comments in particular were unnecessary, cruel and genuinely harmful. After all, comedy can be comedy for the sake of it, but an attack (or at least a statement directly concerning someone) needs a point, or it is just cruel. In this case, either there is no point, or the point is derogatory to the trans community.
As a liberal university student involved in the arts, my knowledge of actual right-wing media is relatively limited. I know it exists; I know how it works in principle… but why bother looking at it? After all, its nonsense. But examining how the right frames issues of free speech is genuinely fascinating (in an Orwellian way).
The following was alleged:
- The podcast attempted to cancel Ricky Gervais (now the phrase ‘cancel’ or any notion of de-platforming was never brought up, only criticism of the comedian in question but no talk of repercussion).
- Frankie Boyle was in cahoots with the BBC- or as one commenter put it ‘sold his soul to the devil’.
- Frankie Boyle was a “massive hypocrite due to his own style of comedy meaning he has no right to criticise others”.
Now to me, this was fascinating. For a start, the idea of Boyle attempting to cancel Gervais is absolutely fabricated. The statements made were a criticism, not a call for action. This is an incredibly intelligent technique of silencing free speech by attacking criticism of conservative points of view; literally attempting to demolish free speech by using free speech to say others are silencing free speech. It’s an absolute mind fuck worthy of a mastermind or a village idiot. It’s the way this kind of media is absolute genius in theory but mind-numbingly fucking idiotic in practicality, which makes it somewhat fascinating. And yet, the stupidity makes it so mundane and unpretentious that it cannot be manipulation because of how simple it is, making it the perfect propaganda! This is not to say that the people behind this are either geniuses or simpletons. It’s trickle down insidiousness (ironically the only form of trickle-down economics proven to work), that seems to have spread and spread through right-wing media.
It is at this point I feel I should define what I mean by the right and left. In context of the sources in question, when discussing the right I am referencing the media or platform and not the people who digest it. When referencing right-wing media, this is not generally aimed at tabloids but at YouTube channels and websites that promote this kind of content. I am not discussing overt far-right fascism, or moderate/centrist politics but the more subtle form of right-wing extremism which attempts to sow distrust and anger onto a system breeding liberal ‘snowflakes’, attempting to break down all social conventions and reducing free speech to a minimal ‘acceptable’ bracket. Which, just so ya know, is bullshit.
Again, the idea of cancelation was never once brought up. The mere act of criticism is suggested to be a form of cancelation in itself, which is clearly fucking insane. Also, lets just discuss this idea of cancellation for a second. (On another quick note, this was written before the great Trump ban and is also solely about the nature of cancelation in the world of comedy.) Of course occasionally a comedian will go too far or does something considered ‘un-PC’ and this will lead to a show potentially being cancelled or their position replaced. However, genuine and complete de-platforming is very rare. Comedians bounce back, find new platforms, gain new specials and make a shite-ton of money elsewhere. The only person I can think of who was genuinely cancelled is Roy Chubby Brown, and lets make no mistake… he is not controversial… he is a cunt. Simple.
The fact is, capitalism is hard to overcome; if someone is liked by the public then it is near impossible for someone to be truly cancelled. What is more likely is for that person to change platform, but still maintain success. This is not to say that there were never consequences, as a broadcaster does have a duty to its watcher and some action is often required. And this is key, capitalism requires its audience to side with its content. If an act is cancelled or de-platformed, it is because the tide of popular support has changed, not due to a conglomerate conspiracy. If someone is cancelled, it is because the general public has decided that the person in question does not reflect the views of today. This leads to companies realising that the person in question is unprofitable, and this leads to cancelling, not the other way around. It is not the opinion of ‘snowflake liberals’, or the ‘Orwellian BBC’ which informs these decisions, but the people the extreme right and left always forget about… that being, the general public.
The only exception to this is when a public figure inspires hate, violence or harmful misinformation (cough cough, okay I allowed myself one minor input from the future) and this is a very different scenario indeed.
(Oh God this is gonna be a long one.)
There is also the genius move of these sources of never mentioning that this occurred on Louis Theroux’s podcast. Theroux was replaced by the shadowy image of the BBC. The reason? We bloody love that guy. The argument focuses on two controversial figures to stir up discord and discontent; it is so perfectly and cuntishly framed. Throwing Theroux into the dialogue would ensure that moderation would enter, and that is the last thing these guys what.
The narrative sets up a conflict between Gervais and Boyle in a way which is just not true to the actual event. The comment took place in context of a discussion of ‘edgy’ comedy and where that line of funny/cruel is currently placed, also in reference to when Frankie Boyle himself was pulled off air because you have to find that fine line (something Boyle accepted and explored in this podcast).
I would also argue that tone and intention is so important in comedy. A joke has to be punching up or be so exaggerated that it cannot reasonably considered to be a genuine opinion even if it is framed as such. A joke that punches down or hits such a cruel note in reality that it fractures the disconnect between the surreal world of a comic routine and the harsh and disappointing world we actually inhabit, is more cruel and less suitable unless there is a justification behind it (and a justification better than the age old “funny tho innit”).
But in a Catch-22, this is what this form of media wants. To create discourse, specifically angry discourse. Outrage from the right, feeds of outrage from the left, in perhaps the most depressing cyclical form to have existed since your parents attempted to 69.
To sum up this whiplash of an article- considering my last two posts- a fabricated cancel attack was birthed into being by taking things out of context and framing a clash between two controversial public figures that in reality, never actually took place. Attempting to engage in a debate of false premises around cancel culture, which is an issue generally exaggerated to make peeps angry and has become a focal point of outrage for the right.
This is hardly an original observation, the farce in America the past few years has made my point rather mundane. However, its mundanity does not make it irrelevant for commentary- in fact, it is all the more necessary to explore.
Firstly, I would also like to end by saying that, of course the left does this too. The left also picks out events and, surged by social media, attempts to create angry discourse in order to enact social change or represent ‘other-thinking’ as bizarre and counter-cultural. There is still a huge debate raging about whether controversial figures should be allowed to speak at University campuses and harsh criticism of any form of right-wing thinking, even if someone considers their politics as liberal conservatism. This is no more evident than in the presentation of all Brexit voters as selfish xenophobes and, while there are definitely many who fit this description, it is often forgotten how misleading the Leave campaign was and the flagrant lies told that scared centrists and the moderate right into voting for it.
Secondly, understanding the other viewpoint is fascinating and necessary. Finding a way to do this without funding/publicising these media outlets is hard though, hence why there are no links/direct references to them. After all, this is a casual blog not a political one, or in anyway academic. But also, by understanding and I mean really understanding not just recognising these logical flaws in others, it can be easier to spot the flaws in your own media sources. Although it would be reckless to say that far-left media is perfect- it suffers from many of the same problems- I would definitely argue it is generally more peaceful and less incendiary but there is a tendency to demonise any other point of view. There does need to be dialogue about issues of free speech, and the left and right have good points but both are confounded by provocative and isolating outlets that promote these kinds of stories.
In terms of ways forward… go research someone cleverer than me, I’m a twat who’s tired at 6:40AM with a job interview at 11. I am not someone to take political philosophy from. Try the wonderful John Oliver.
And on that note, my editor can be assured that the next one will be about giraffe dicks or some shit like that.
A note from Rachel:
It has just occurred to me that all of this has come out of the mouth/fingertips of the biggest cunt I know. It really is heart-warming to find out that you have morals. Who knew? Every day really is a school day.
