heh, 'when will moderate Christians condemn his violence'.
-1 for replacing Doug Stanhope with that lumpy internet creature.
I haven't watched it yet, but I thought Doug Stanhope was everybody's problem with the show in the first place.
whoops should've read the old one first too. Can't say I've seen enough Stanhope to formulate an opinion.
I really enjoyed his bit on the show...and even if you didn't like him, look at what your dislike hast wrought.
I'd take Stanhope over Zeb any day.
Re: Zeb specifically, Mr Brooker has raised this point before, as have other cultural satirists, including The Onion as well as Matt Stone and Trey Parker. While I don't *entirely* disagree with what he says, and the point made is certainly an important observation, I do have two strong objections here:
First, there is a world of difference between the voluntary exchange of personal information between an informed party and his or her circle of peers, and the coercive intrusion by state forces into the private lives and thoughts of citizens. If *you* want to shit out TMI about certain aspects of your life all over the vlogosphere, then that's your choice, that's on you. But there's really no ethical nor political comparisons to be made between social media behavior, and the sorts of creepy panopticon initiatives being explored by Herr Cameron and his tentacled, eyeless, bat-like cronies.
Second, there is a *danger* in presenting this sort of argument, particularly to an audience of internet dweebs! No sane person who raises the "Zeb observation" is actually _in favor_ of the surveillance state, Charlie Brooker least of all. Whenever the "Zeb Observation" is made, the *intended narrative* seems to be to get people to re-examine their own pattern of behavior; to note inconsistencies and possibly reclaim their own privacy by taking steps to minimize how much of their crap gets thrown out there. HOWEVER, might it not be equally likely that your average "Barry Shitpeas", already well-accustomed to a routine of life-casting and Twitter-bombing, could see a sarcastic segment like this and think, "Oh, well, fair point! Guess I don't have anything to worry about! Spy away, Big Tory Brother!" ? Could this tactic not be counter-productive, and, instead of raising awareness about privacy rights, might it not inadvertently convince even more people to stop giving a shit?
No she's not.
Brooker has referred to the lumpy internet creature as "he", hence why I just call it lumpy internet creature.
When Morgana Robinson isn't playing a garish character, she's very easy on the eyes.
Charlie seems exceptionally sad in this one.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|