@@martinarnold5239 You've clearly not read the court report...it was made crystal clear by the Sheriff that context is irrelevant, the previous contributors on this thread are perfectly correct.
Any adult knows that there has to be limits on free speech. It's only mental children who blieve there shouldn't, either that or liars who want to be able to say whatever they want whilst censoring others. If you believe there should be no limits on free speech then you believe that peadophiles should be able to advocate for s*x with children, you support that.
I can name this guy a comedian in Canada who was dealt a $42k fine in a human rights tribunal after making a joke about a disabled child. Mike Ward's case might make Fin think twice.
It’s very interesting to see this now 4 years down the line in the future that they are discussing and how more correct Fin was than this comments section gave him credit for
Unsubscribing is a bit of an overreaction. They aren't seasoned intererviewers. They are trying to interview not debate. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I can't believe quite how much I disagreed with almost everything Fin said here. At some points he seemed to be describing an entirely different reality to the one that I live in. People arguing about trans issues may be a minority on either side, but the idea that it's all just happening on the Internet is somewhat undermined when people start getting visited by the police based on things they've said - including Father Ted creator Graham Linehan. When that starts happening it's hard to just dismiss it as online nonsense and not see it as the start of something more pervasive. As for Netflix and free speech, considering that they summarily fired one of their executives for saying the N-word in a meeting _in the context of talking about what words shouldn't be broadcast,_ on top of their general far-left political leanings, I wouldn't hold out much hope of them being the last bastion of free speech that Fin suggests they might be here. Also, I'm not sure that I'd describe the Independent Group of MPs as not being dogmatic considering that every single one of them are fervent Remainers. As far as I'm concerned, the entire Parliament right now is full of people from all parties who have essentially the same mindset, and it makes little difference what different combinations they reform themselves into. As for Big Tech being pro-Ayn Rand, that might be the least true statement I've ever heard made about anything. Silicon Valley is demonstrably dominated by far-left authoritarians. They don't even make a secret of that. I have literally no clue whatsoever what Fin might be basing this statement on. There's more I took issue with, but I'll leave it there seeing as I've already produced a wall of text that no one will read. I'm still glad the interview happened though, it's just strange to see someone consistently taking what I consider to be a view entirely opposite to what appears to be true.
*@gadd10* This is actually more than I've seen them challenge a guest, although I don't actually mind the format of just letting people say their piece and allowing the viewer to make up their own minds.
I read it. You successfully saved me from getting my blood pressure too high this morning as I now know I should skip this one. You may have saved a life dude ☺
*@SSgt Sniper* It's not that he's on 'the other side', whatever that may mean, but there's a strange thing that happens sometimes where even people who've been personally fed into the mincer still for some reason don't appear to be willing to accept the full extent of what's going on around them. I suspect it has something to do with not wanting to have to reassess your entire worldview; it's much easier to just assume that whatever you experience is just an anomaly or a phase that will play itself out without causing any further significant problems. Unfortunately the general consensus among people who pay attention to this stuff seems to be that things are likely to get a lot worse before they get better, a conclusion I sadly agree with.
At 25:00. Asked "have you seen a change in the 10 years or so that you've been a comedian in terms of What people find edgy?" Answers: "It's only been the last 3 years I've been reviewed as kind of provocative." That means yes. The definition of edgy has moved to include him, about 3 years ago. He just doesn't realise it. He's there swearing that speech policing isn't affecting comedy but is willfully blind to it affecting his career.
The guy keeps describing himself as nuanced, but can’t tell the difference between Dankula’s joke and direct abuse from football fans. Also, was it me, or did his analysis of Dankula at the end amount to ‘everyone is calling him racist, so if i defend him, they might think I’m racist’?
this dude seems to have no idea what he's talking about or what point he's trying to make; you both did well to try and keep him on track but.. he should stick to tired jokes on the mediocre BBC
There is no nuance to be had about principles. And "muh nuance" isn't somehow making your positions stronger or more just, simply by virtue of being a middle ground. The middle ground between Good and Bad is not superior by virtue of being in the middle. Either you believe in Free Speech and in the primacy of individual rights or you don't. And this guy clearly doesn't. He even goes as far as saying that wider cultural context is to be taken into consideration alongside the context of the prosecuted act. This is exactly the constructivists notions that gave birth to all the Authoritarians states of the XX century. His position literally is "Individuals rights, as long as I LIKE the way society goes as a consequence. If society is not going the way I LIKE, I FEEL justified in raining down upon any and all individuals whose actions - despite not being direct infringement upon other peoples rights - contribute IN MY OPINION to society going the way I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE." This is seriously sick stuff, veiled in "muh nuance" and "I don't know nothing". Oh and please, putting people in jail over jokes and controlling the Internet isn't in any way shape or form contributing in any meaningful way to reducing abuse that people receive online. It's not like the Communications Act and the criminalization of gross offence are prerequisites to prosecuting harassers. THERE ARE HARASSMENT LAWS FOR THAT ! Quite the opposite ... stifling Free Speech diverts resources away from investigating and prosecuting real harassment, as well as radicalizing people INTO the culture war because they see their favourite comedians, shows, hobbies, .... becoming controversial and thus VERBOTTEN. And we all know how harassment-free the culture war truly is, don't we ? TL:DR : Some leftist constructivist bloke who gets a boner every time the power of the state is used to destroy what he deems problematic and who uses sophistic argument pertaining to "you have to criminalize everything else you can't prosecute the real bad stuff" (WTF ?). Has no principles and thinks it's a proof that he is "evidence based", when it really just shows that he has no spine, and that as far as he's concerned ... The end justify the means.
There is no such thing as a more virtuous position, morals are purely subjective at best and are always conveniently fit self-centered agendas. People in the middle ground are just fair minded enough to accept this, and not try to force other people to agree with them just because their ego makes them think they're right. You attack the middle because being fair-minded is not in line with your perspective and like every fool on the internet you believe your views should dominate. The people who dare to question the idea that anything is objectively more virtuous are an even bigger threat to you than the people who believe in opposing virtues. Which is why you were so triggered as to write a several paragrapj essay attacking them
@@AeneasGemini I attack bad argument when I see them. And you completely missed the point. I emphasized that the primacy of the individual is not a moral position it is a (tried and true) *principle*. You cannot discuss principles because they bear within themselves their own logic. You either abide by them or reject them. If you reject Free Speech then you're making speech laws based on context, perceptions and feelings, which means that it can shift dramatically both ways. Principles exist to anchor the discussion, if principles can be opposed with context then they're no principles at all and don't serve any purpose. Can you reject that principle, sure. But you cannot say I believe in Free Speech BUT ... Free Speech is a principle, which LITERALLY means that it comes first. You thus can't argue against a principle with contextual evidence. You can reject it, though. The main focus of my attacks was the disingenuous nature of his speech. Both refusing to rejects those principles (because he know he would look like a fool and an authoritarian fool at that) and at the same time refusing to abide by them and take them to their logical conclusion. If you believe in Free Speech you believe everyone should be able to speak and say anything they wish as long as it does not directly cause harm to someone else (harm that has to be proven in a court). If you don't then you either don't believe in Free Speech or don't even know what Free Speech is as a principle. Can you reject Free Speech as a principle, sure you can, I personally disagree but at least you're not being some sort of disingenuous "but think of the children" brand of authoritarian. Oh and being articulate about an answer and putting forth all the reasons why this buffoon's reasoning is not to be adopted is not being salty, it's just participating in a debate. Comments are here to give the community an opportunity to engage with the content, doing so, in depth is no sign of impulsivity, to the contrary.
He constantly talks about the 2 sides of the argument among comediennes. So in terms of Brexit you've got Geoff Norcott vs Every other UK comedian.....So yeah just 2 even sides basically
I didn't feel the need to watch beyond 40 minutes only because your guest really offered no insight into the debate on free speech/hate speech/irony. His knowledge of the Count Dankula affair was weak and ill-informed. Dankula refused point blank to pay the fine and WAS willing to go to prison but TPTB garnered his bank account for the money, most likely so as to avoid creating a martyr for the cause of comedy/free speech. I would also like to commend the tone of the comments section here, which I find to be considered, measured and reasoned. Fine work triggernometarians one and all!
I’ve seen a lot of comments on here being fairly negative towards Fin. Now whether I think that’s warranted or not is irrelevant as everyone has a right to their own opinion and I respect that. But I will say Fin Taylor is one of if not the BEST undiscovered comedian working the circuit in Britain today and I encourage absolutely anybody to see him perform live, you won’t agree with him 100% but that’s the point, he’s incredibly nuanced and brave to take on a lot of current issues in our modern day depressing society
The guy is fence sitting just to keep his options open, or a sense of smug superiority. He's willfully ignorant of how this mentality directly caused Count Dankula's incident. And more-so he's not in the slightest, concern about the death of context of speech in these courts. There's much to hate.
this is a serious subject. the uk is not a free place and that's the centre that essentially invented the modern form of freedom. this one appears to be wilfully blind to this and as hence deserves a thorough seeing to.
Not a fan of this guy, but that’s why I like this channel....to listen to different opinions and views from all political sides. Keep up the good work!
“No comedian is in jail for their jokes.” Dankula was fined. Is that not enough? If we had free speech in this country he wouldn’t have faced such a consequence. I can’t believe he wasn’t challenged on this.
This guy equivocates issues to the point of it being dysfunctional. He's so all over the place with his anecdotes I don't even know how to address the point. I agree with many of the comments: fence sitter for the sake of his career. The guys did a valiant job of trying to keep him consistent.
WOW... "It'll all just calm down, sure there might be some that will pay a cost as we experiment before getting it right. Hey but it wont be me so you have my permission to carry on!" Silly boy SMH
No chin Fin and his Middle class millennial comedy, Jesus Christ. I think my fingers just vomited writing that. I always wondered who read the Independent, now I know. If that’s what people want to watch, so be it. Good luck to him. However, if your idea of edge is Netflix (who have banned staff from making eye contact for longer than 3 seconds), then your measurement is a little bit off.
34:05 "How do you stop someone just pumping hate speech into the aether?" OK, my counter question, who do you get to define what this "hate speech" is and how are they selected. While it may be horrible to allow everyone free speech and some harm will be done, can you be certain that this is more harmful in the long run than censorship? And finally, would Mr Fin Taylor be happy to be censored for the greater good? Because if I find his opinions offensive then I can see a process by which I can have them branded as "hateful" and so take his voice out of the conversation.
This guy is full of it 'I'm a comedian and can say whatever I like' the 'dankula maybe is, maybe isn't a comedian but he shouldn't have made that joke', such a great double standard he has.
This was a good episode in that it's the first time I felt a real tension between the thoughts and opinions of the host and guest, but I was very frustrated to see him sitting on the fence and fail to articulate a reason why he felt Count Dankula should have been 'in trouble'. It felt like he was trying to protect his career with self-censorship and placed a vague and shifting 'it is alright until it is something I personally don't like' limitation on free speech. I didn't like his points but appreciated a host-guest dynamic like this
Social media firms will increasingly call for regulation as it is a good way to entrench their current market position by setting barriers to entry in their market.
I think that the reason we don’t see “this kind of thing in an audience” is because it’s much easier and safer to read up and/or battle online. Minds are made up there, which arguably puts even _more_ importance on the scoffed at “blooooghs”. Whaddaya say to that? :)
25:00 - so it only been the last two or three years that he's been reviewed at provocative, edgy? That this fence-sitting milk-toast soft-lad is now considered edgy is very telling in and of itself. Also, amazing how interviewing this guy is making Bert and Earie look like bad bois! Even "good cop" Francis is sticking the boot in now, well done, fellas. When are you going to set things up so that you've got a nice bright light shining in your guests face? I'm sure Konstantin knows how that all works... J for Joke... honestly - muh context.
Good interview again, but for a guy who talked for an hour i dont think he said anything of much valve. I did notice how he went from saying dankula clearly articulated his video was a joke (35 mins) yet in the last segment he states maybe dankula wasnt clear enough (53 min) 🤔...which is it fella? Oh and the GTJ went up from 40 to 50 in those 18 minutes...weird
Nice to see a different perspective on the free speech/censorship debate. Seems to me that Fin is making the case for the other half of the rights debate that is often ignored - that every legal right must be accompanied by social responsibility in order to maintain societal cohesion. Of course, that side of the conversation will face the same hurdles as the rights side (that of the level of state involvement). I hope he is right that these events are just part of the growing pains of that conversation (and not something more tyrannical). Also, Fin should make a youtube channel :D
Great episode, and very frustrating to listen to. I think the MSM can learn from this. How to represent people you disagree with - properly and fairly.
Socially acceptable language and behavior is not the same as legal language and behavior. We should not require the government to force is to use language in a certain way unless the language actually poses an imminent threat to other people's safety
I'm 30 mins in and this interview feels awkard. EDIT: Konstantin seems really pissed off with Fin. Fin also feels safe because he's a comedian and as worked for the BBC. They have lawyers. I wonder how he feels now that Jo Brand had the Police called on her after she, herself did a joke on the BBC, with those same lawyers?
You guys were so right about the whole "Automatic Un-Subscirbe"! Thing, some MOFO not liking your truths! (Hopefully, we will no longer be effected by this!)
The Police calling a person up to "check on their thinking" sounds scary, because it is scary. Did you not just had Steve Davies (an actual expert) on this show talking about the different directions Parliament and to a lesser degree society are realigning themselves and the conflict or friction that involves and the roots of that. Pile that on top of other traceable cultural conflicts from the last 4 decades. The idea that the culture wars are a myth, is uninformed. Also, the very careful unstated reason why he doesn't care about Dankula and the very non-mythical shit he is in, is because Dankula's life being sacrificed means that his (Taylor) side is winning. Each measured response shows that. This was a good interview, but Taylor's positions were pretty weasely.
Just read his most recent guardian review. Seems Fin has had a change of heart because they were very unhappy with some of his jokes and he got a 2 star review. Usually a bad review off the guardian means you’re doing something right 🤷♂️
The problem here is that the activist minority has taken control of some very important institutions. Such as the APA and it's damming statement against masculinity. That has been pervasive enough that several articles have this month appeared in the UKs equivalent magazine warning the UK is inching that way and the letters were warnings from professionals against their society using the same damaging principles.
Just after 56:30, when talking about the struggle of free speak and the (subjective struggle) of when the line is. Does he really think the state has the nuance to find that line? I got the feeling that he sees some people are weak and need protecting from themselves, in case they see or hear something. Notice he himself does not see count dankula's post as grossly offensive, but the state does. Is the state wrong Fin? What else could it be wrong about?
Im so pissed at people having a strong view about the Dankula thing without knowing all of the details. He was not a comedian at the time and did not publush the video expecting to get an audience. He was going to surprise his wife with the video during a youtube viewing night.
If this is the most painfully middle class conversation you've listened to this week, why not cleanse your mental palate with some classic Count Dankula "Absolute Mad Lads - KIllDozer" ua-cam.com/video/Xmr6jIpXSmg/v-deo.html
the quarter-greek guy was a little bit too offended by the predator joke wasnt he? i swear he was passive-aggressive because of that for the whole hour
He called these two "failed comedians" recently, and that's exactly what they are. Not skiled enough to be funny and offensive at the same time so they pretend it's the world that is holding them back and not their own inate lack of ability.
I discovered Fin recently and didn’t think he’d be this way inclined… quite confusing, maybe he’s had a change of heart recently? I saw him on the have a word podcast and he was anything but pc
@FinTaylorcomedy The problem is that these online lunatics are going out of their way to change or create policy that then burns ordinary people. As I often tell family and friends: What you don't know, is precisely HOW they're hurting you. (Addition) The point isn't 'once indoctrinated, uni students don't grow out of being PC maniacs' it's that professors' job is to TEACH, not radicalize for their pet causes. Teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
His defence of the prosecution of Count Dankula was pathetic. You expect more from comedians because they always claim that as a group they are more intelligent than the rest of us. He missed the point that such prosecutions demonstrate how the rights of corporations are protected while the rights of the individual person are under attack. Remove the immunity from prosecution which corporations enjoy and those corporations would be obliged to remove distasteful content themselves, rather than public funds being wasted on policing and prosecuting 3500 individuals in the UK a year.
Its all fun and jokes until this guy gets arrested for a mean joke. Burying your head in the sand wont do shit. This guy is either really out of touch with what is happening or just chooses not to see, that its only one of the sides that has all the institutional power that allows them to terrorize anyone that goes against them. What a poor guest, even though he too will eventually be dragged and kicked out for either a past offense that has recently become offensive or he will kiss the boot and become just another mediocre mainstream bbc "comedian".
So many comments slagging off Fin, saying that he got 'destroyed' and so on. I find it quite ironic that people who supposedly feel so strongly about free speech are unable to tolerate an extremely respectful and open conversation by people with different but also strongly overlapping viewpoints. Imagine how you guys feel about conversations with people who actually strongly disagree with the hosts here? I thought the whole point here was that people can express their opinions respectfully and disagree without problem. I thought Fin spoke a lot of sense, and questioned his own nuanced viewpoints with a thoughtfulness that Konstantin and the other guy Francis mostly lack. They have formed a fairly reductive viewpoint which simultaneously critiques, perpetuates and feeds off the culture wars, and are monetising it quite nicely.
Comedy is supposed to be exactly the opposite of what people say.Its supposed to be funny,kings had people in there court's who would take the piss out of the them for the sake of humor without fear of retribution
Keep up the good work chaps. I respect what Fin says about keeping a balance but there's a bit of a blind spot with claiming to want to "just clean up the internet a bit". Politicians of all shades who have ever tried moral crusades to clean up society in the past have always failed, even where they may have been justified. Margaret Thatcher tried it towards the end of her reign and it made her look a bit deluded (the rubbish in the houses of parliament springs to mind). John Major tried and failed and David Cameron's attempt at doing a compassionate version of such crusades in the form of "hug a hoodie" was met with derision. These ideas are ineffective because for them to be effective requires a disproportionate level of authority and control that most people likely will not accept in the UK. I'm not talking about criminal acts here; it's more about trying to mould society to be what you want it to be and it never works. The problem with Fin's thinking - and I am certainly guilty of this in the past too - is that it is too focused on the idea of being decent/kind/balanced and thus ignores it's underlying flaws, essentially because it is uncomfortable to contemplate that being "nice" does not equal being right or being effective.
Thanks Francis for contradicting him on the "Mediterranean men" thing. It's *true*. The joke is funny because it's TRUE. Saying "yeah but it's a joke" is actually a hypocritical cop-out. This was a great guest but only because you were great. He was useless.
I thought this guys joke about letting trans women piss where they want was funny, until I realised he actually seems to believe there is a pay gap and that he felt the need to do 'research' in order to validate it???
It’s not necessary to have the police calling people to check their thinking. I don’t approve of thought policing at all. Doubt I’ll watch this channel again, they didn’t challenge him enough.
The idea of "evidence based" policy sends a shiver up the spine. Politics is supposed to be about principles (not evidence): If you like evidence do science.
I liked the comedy clip, but found myself disagreeing with many of Fin's interpretations. Others have mentioned his Dank disapproval, but Fin seems to have wholly swallowed the MSM narrative regarding BoJo's comments. Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear the most repressive garment humanity has come up with to hide women under, he just couldn't understand any woman who would want to wear it due to what it looks like. It wasn't a joke, it was a serious point of confused support made with perhaps unnecessarily flippant language.
The dankula case is a lot simpler than he's making it seem. It was to piss off his gf as he stated in the vid, barely anyone would have seen it since he was a tiny channel on youtube, but someone put it on reddit and it got a ton of views. It would have been a little thing that went by if not for a random redditer. As for the alternate he said, some folks would have said throw him in jail, but I'd bet shit posters would still have the same opinion. It's just one is a 70 year old joke made by everyone while the other is currently killing people and using religion to make people like said girl run off to Syria. As for government needs to regulate, not really. We more need to find a way to segregate shit posting sites from social media to quarantine behaviors, because tell people don't be an asshole online and they'll mock you mercilessly. And it's not really random asshole online making a teenage girl/boy kill herself/himself, it's usually bullying from people they know. I'd say have twitter and facebook not allow people under 18 to prevent it so they stay on more anonymous forums and the shit talking there doesn't have the same personal sting and it isn't 24/7 bullying from people you know. Because in past suicide stories it's that the bullying and harassment followed them online. And the dankula thing and football banter are 2 very different things, one is a joke while the other is banter to rile up the rival but it's being an over the top asshole and that would probably die down once punches get thrown. And by that I mean how Phili fans here in the US are violent assholes in every sport so there isn't any banter other than they're violent knuckle draggers, and if you shit talk or just wear away jerseys expect some kind of trouble. Seriously, in 2010 a girl in a dolphins jersey got intentionally vomited on by a Philadelphia Philies fan, and because their team was losing Flyers fans threw bracelets on the ice on a night they were honoring the deceased owner and got their team a penalty. The day har har nazi jokes (whether mocking nazis or being intentionally offensive) stop is the day "X is just like the nazis!" in arguments stop.
Dank literally says at the start 'I'm going to turn this cute dog into the worst thing on earth - A nazi' How is that not clear?
@@martinarnold5239 So to you context doesn't matter. Congratulations, by typing the "offending" words you just committed a "hate crime".
@@martinarnold5239 How can you use such offending words? I think you need reporting, remember context doesn't matter.
@@purdy9431 Quite easily, actually
@@stevesc5 nice try
@@martinarnold5239 You've clearly not read the court report...it was made crystal clear by the Sheriff that context is irrelevant, the previous contributors on this thread are perfectly correct.
A comedian who thinks the State should censor the Internet. Now I've seen everything.
Lmao that's most comedians who make it on TVs opinion
Agreed. I upvoted for the hosts, Fin deserves a down vote for cognizant Olympics.
Any adult knows that there has to be limits on free speech. It's only mental children who blieve there shouldn't, either that or liars who want to be able to say whatever they want whilst censoring others. If you believe there should be no limits on free speech then you believe that peadophiles should be able to advocate for s*x with children, you support that.
I can name this guy a comedian in Canada who was dealt a $42k fine in a human rights tribunal after making a joke about a disabled child. Mike Ward's case might make Fin think twice.
Nah I think he's too smug and pretentious and say his joke was actually funny
Well that guy should have been funnier then.
Constantin did a good job of trying to challenge him on his view of the whole Dank situation but I don’t think it quite hit home.
It’s very interesting to see this now 4 years down the line in the future that they are discussing and how more correct Fin was than this comments section gave him credit for
This guy seems to be fence sitting for the sake of his career/on-stage persona. Good to get a bit of variety of opinion though.
His principles seem convenient to him
Yeah and worse the interviewers didn’t challenge him enough. What he’s advocating isn’t free speech. I’ve unsubscribed.
Unsubscribing is a bit of an overreaction. They aren't seasoned intererviewers. They are trying to interview not debate. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Not everyone has to agree 100% & I disagree with some of it, he's a least working through it in his head, which is all any of us can do.
An anti free speech comedian - what a joke
If only it was funny :(
What do you except telly pays more and he's willing to sell his soul
Lol the comment section proving Finn right
I can't believe quite how much I disagreed with almost everything Fin said here. At some points he seemed to be describing an entirely different reality to the one that I live in.
People arguing about trans issues may be a minority on either side, but the idea that it's all just happening on the Internet is somewhat undermined when people start getting visited by the police based on things they've said - including Father Ted creator Graham Linehan. When that starts happening it's hard to just dismiss it as online nonsense and not see it as the start of something more pervasive.
As for Netflix and free speech, considering that they summarily fired one of their executives for saying the N-word in a meeting _in the context of talking about what words shouldn't be broadcast,_ on top of their general far-left political leanings, I wouldn't hold out much hope of them being the last bastion of free speech that Fin suggests they might be here.
Also, I'm not sure that I'd describe the Independent Group of MPs as not being dogmatic considering that every single one of them are fervent Remainers. As far as I'm concerned, the entire Parliament right now is full of people from all parties who have essentially the same mindset, and it makes little difference what different combinations they reform themselves into.
As for Big Tech being pro-Ayn Rand, that might be the least true statement I've ever heard made about anything. Silicon Valley is demonstrably dominated by far-left authoritarians. They don't even make a secret of that. I have literally no clue whatsoever what Fin might be basing this statement on.
There's more I took issue with, but I'll leave it there seeing as I've already produced a wall of text that no one will read. I'm still glad the interview happened though, it's just strange to see someone consistently taking what I consider to be a view entirely opposite to what appears to be true.
You're spot on. I was thinking they should have pushed back a bit but he would have just shrugged and said 'I just don't see it that way'
*@gadd10*
This is actually more than I've seen them challenge a guest, although I don't actually mind the format of just letting people say their piece and allowing the viewer to make up their own minds.
@@conrad1on Yeah that's fair. As I said it wouldn't have helped anyway. Most people just get defensive and very very few ever change their mind
I read it. You successfully saved me from getting my blood pressure too high this morning as I now know I should skip this one. You may have saved a life dude ☺
*@SSgt Sniper*
It's not that he's on 'the other side', whatever that may mean, but there's a strange thing that happens sometimes where even people who've been personally fed into the mincer still for some reason don't appear to be willing to accept the full extent of what's going on around them.
I suspect it has something to do with not wanting to have to reassess your entire worldview; it's much easier to just assume that whatever you experience is just an anomaly or a phase that will play itself out without causing any further significant problems.
Unfortunately the general consensus among people who pay attention to this stuff seems to be that things are likely to get a lot worse before they get better, a conclusion I sadly agree with.
Brilliant discussion. Thank you.
At 25:00.
Asked "have you seen a change in the 10 years or so that you've been a comedian in terms of What people find edgy?"
Answers: "It's only been the last 3 years I've been reviewed as kind of provocative."
That means yes. The definition of edgy has moved to include him, about 3 years ago. He just doesn't realise it. He's there swearing that speech policing isn't affecting comedy but is willfully blind to it affecting his career.
Exactly.
Awesome! Thank you!
His entire argument regarding free speech seems to be "It's ok for me(because I'm a comedian), but not for thee."
The guy keeps describing himself as nuanced, but can’t tell the difference between Dankula’s joke and direct abuse from football fans.
Also, was it me, or did his analysis of Dankula at the end amount to ‘everyone is calling him racist, so if i defend him, they might think I’m racist’?
Yep. Basically... he's spineless.
Says its "nuanced" just after saying he should be "buried like bin laden", what an absolute dick.
this dude seems to have no idea what he's talking about or what point he's trying to make; you both did well to try and keep him on track but.. he should stick to tired jokes on the mediocre BBC
Right - and when he's shut down himself he'll eat his weasel words
@@jessfranco69 I almost feel embarrassed for him.. almost
I could be wrong, but I think he sounds dishonest. I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't see comics being censored.
There is no nuance to be had about principles. And "muh nuance" isn't somehow making your positions stronger or more just, simply by virtue of being a middle ground. The middle ground between Good and Bad is not superior by virtue of being in the middle.
Either you believe in Free Speech and in the primacy of individual rights or you don't. And this guy clearly doesn't. He even goes as far as saying that wider cultural context is to be taken into consideration alongside the context of the prosecuted act. This is exactly the constructivists notions that gave birth to all the Authoritarians states of the XX century.
His position literally is "Individuals rights, as long as I LIKE the way society goes as a consequence. If society is not going the way I LIKE, I FEEL justified in raining down upon any and all individuals whose actions - despite not being direct infringement upon other peoples rights - contribute IN MY OPINION to society going the way I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE."
This is seriously sick stuff, veiled in "muh nuance" and "I don't know nothing".
Oh and please, putting people in jail over jokes and controlling the Internet isn't in any way shape or form contributing in any meaningful way to reducing abuse that people receive online. It's not like the Communications Act and the criminalization of gross offence are prerequisites to prosecuting harassers. THERE ARE HARASSMENT LAWS FOR THAT !
Quite the opposite ... stifling Free Speech diverts resources away from investigating and prosecuting real harassment, as well as radicalizing people INTO the culture war because they see their favourite comedians, shows, hobbies, .... becoming controversial and thus VERBOTTEN. And we all know how harassment-free the culture war truly is, don't we ?
TL:DR : Some leftist constructivist bloke who gets a boner every time the power of the state is used to destroy what he deems problematic and who uses sophistic argument pertaining to "you have to criminalize everything else you can't prosecute the real bad stuff" (WTF ?). Has no principles and thinks it's a proof that he is "evidence based", when it really just shows that he has no spine, and that as far as he's concerned ... The end justify the means.
Thank you, this is pretty good summary of this guy.
Pretty much read my mind. This dude clearly doesn't understand much about how the Internet works.
Actual boomer politician takes
great summary:
also muh whamanz argument (he's sexist to boot).
There is no such thing as a more virtuous position, morals are purely subjective at best and are always conveniently fit self-centered agendas. People in the middle ground are just fair minded enough to accept this, and not try to force other people to agree with them just because their ego makes them think they're right. You attack the middle because being fair-minded is not in line with your perspective and like every fool on the internet you believe your views should dominate. The people who dare to question the idea that anything is objectively more virtuous are an even bigger threat to you than the people who believe in opposing virtues. Which is why you were so triggered as to write a several paragrapj essay attacking them
@@AeneasGemini
I attack bad argument when I see them. And you completely missed the point. I emphasized that the primacy of the individual is not a moral position it is a (tried and true) *principle*. You cannot discuss principles because they bear within themselves their own logic. You either abide by them or reject them.
If you reject Free Speech then you're making speech laws based on context, perceptions and feelings, which means that it can shift dramatically both ways. Principles exist to anchor the discussion, if principles can be opposed with context then they're no principles at all and don't serve any purpose.
Can you reject that principle, sure. But you cannot say I believe in Free Speech BUT ... Free Speech is a principle, which LITERALLY means that it comes first. You thus can't argue against a principle with contextual evidence. You can reject it, though.
The main focus of my attacks was the disingenuous nature of his speech. Both refusing to rejects those principles (because he know he would look like a fool and an authoritarian fool at that) and at the same time refusing to abide by them and take them to their logical conclusion.
If you believe in Free Speech you believe everyone should be able to speak and say anything they wish as long as it does not directly cause harm to someone else (harm that has to be proven in a court). If you don't then you either don't believe in Free Speech or don't even know what Free Speech is as a principle.
Can you reject Free Speech as a principle, sure you can, I personally disagree but at least you're not being some sort of disingenuous "but think of the children" brand of authoritarian.
Oh and being articulate about an answer and putting forth all the reasons why this buffoon's reasoning is not to be adopted is not being salty, it's just participating in a debate. Comments are here to give the community an opportunity to engage with the content, doing so, in depth is no sign of impulsivity, to the contrary.
He constantly talks about the 2 sides of the argument among comediennes. So in terms of Brexit you've got Geoff Norcott vs Every other UK comedian.....So yeah just 2 even sides basically
I didn't feel the need to watch beyond 40 minutes only because your guest really offered no insight into the debate on free speech/hate speech/irony. His knowledge of the Count Dankula affair was weak and ill-informed. Dankula refused point blank to pay the fine and WAS willing to go to prison but TPTB garnered his bank account for the money, most likely so as to avoid creating a martyr for the cause of comedy/free speech.
I would also like to commend the tone of the comments section here, which I find to be considered, measured and reasoned. Fine work triggernometarians one and all!
Was that clip at the start as funny as he gets? No wonder I haven't heard of him
Yep, I didn't laugh either.
That line about Dankula being a "UA-cam comedian" was a bit telling.
This is the interview that triggered Konstantin the most according to the latest live stream.
I’ve seen a lot of comments on here being fairly negative towards Fin. Now whether I think that’s warranted or not is irrelevant as everyone has a right to their own opinion and I respect that. But I will say Fin Taylor is one of if not the BEST undiscovered comedian working the circuit in Britain today and I encourage absolutely anybody to see him perform live, you won’t agree with him 100% but that’s the point, he’s incredibly nuanced and brave to take on a lot of current issues in our modern day depressing society
Wow, looking down these comments. Tough crowd.
The guy is fence sitting just to keep his options open, or a sense of smug superiority. He's willfully ignorant of how this mentality directly caused Count Dankula's incident. And more-so he's not in the slightest, concern about the death of context of speech in these courts.
There's much to hate.
this is a serious subject. the uk is not a free place and that's the centre that essentially invented the modern form of freedom. this one appears to be wilfully blind to this and as hence deserves a thorough seeing to.
Not a fan of this guy, but that’s why I like this channel....to listen to different opinions and views from all political sides. Keep up the good work!
Not bad but the the Ayn Rand association with the tech companies was interesting. Not sure many libertarians would agree.
Ayn Rand didn't like libertarians for a start. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about there.
5 years later and look how right fin is and these guys are wrong.
Started out promising then he wanted to regulate the Internet...
“No comedian is in jail for their jokes.”
Dankula was fined. Is that not enough? If we had free speech in this country he wouldn’t have faced such a consequence. I can’t believe he wasn’t challenged on this.
A Vancouver Bar is a place where you find people who have no plan to laugh and walk into a place clearly labeling a Comedy Night.
This guy equivocates issues to the point of it being dysfunctional. He's so all over the place with his anecdotes I don't even know how to address the point. I agree with many of the comments: fence sitter for the sake of his career. The guys did a valiant job of trying to keep him consistent.
wow Konstantine was spot on! 5 years from now everyone will understand the "Cis" joke, maybe sooner. 4 years on and i think most would get it. Scarey
WOW... "It'll all just calm down, sure there might be some that will pay a cost as we experiment before getting it right. Hey but it wont be me so you have my permission to carry on!"
Silly boy SMH
What a bloody lot of gatekeeping at the end.
I think a "proper comedian" should be funny. Full stop.
No chin Fin and his Middle class millennial comedy, Jesus Christ. I think my fingers just vomited writing that.
I always wondered who read the Independent, now I know.
If that’s what people want to watch, so be it. Good luck to him.
However, if your idea of edge is Netflix (who have banned staff from making eye contact for longer than 3 seconds), then your measurement is a little bit off.
Don't agree with pretty much anything this one said.
A lot of the stuff Fin has said in this podcast left me with a very puzzled look on my face, glad you guys had him on though. Great comedian.
34:05 "How do you stop someone just pumping hate speech into the aether?" OK, my counter question, who do you get to define what this "hate speech" is and how are they selected. While it may be horrible to allow everyone free speech and some harm will be done, can you be certain that this is more harmful in the long run than censorship? And finally, would Mr Fin Taylor be happy to be censored for the greater good? Because if I find his opinions offensive then I can see a process by which I can have them branded as "hateful" and so take his voice out of the conversation.
This guy is full of it 'I'm a comedian and can say whatever I like' the 'dankula maybe is, maybe isn't a comedian but he shouldn't have made that joke', such a great double standard he has.
This was a good episode in that it's the first time I felt a real tension between the thoughts and opinions of the host and guest, but I was very frustrated to see him sitting on the fence and fail to articulate a reason why he felt Count Dankula should have been 'in trouble'. It felt like he was trying to protect his career with self-censorship and placed a vague and shifting 'it is alright until it is something I personally don't like' limitation on free speech. I didn't like his points but appreciated a host-guest dynamic like this
Very funny, konstantin has basically become a political commentator now, appearing on Question Time. Maybe it was to prove this guy wrong
"He would have found who the real rape apologists were in the comedy industry" Did he name and shame Russell Brand four years ago?
Social media firms will increasingly call for regulation as it is a good way to entrench their current market position by setting barriers to entry in their market.
Great stuff chaps. Did you see tha police are stealing Dankulas money?
I think that the reason we don’t see “this kind of thing in an audience” is because it’s much easier and safer to read up and/or battle online. Minds are made up there, which arguably puts even _more_ importance on the scoffed at “blooooghs”. Whaddaya say to that? :)
25:00 - so it only been the last two or three years that he's been reviewed at provocative, edgy? That this fence-sitting milk-toast soft-lad is now considered edgy is very telling in and of itself. Also, amazing how interviewing this guy is making Bert and Earie look like bad bois! Even "good cop" Francis is sticking the boot in now, well done, fellas. When are you going to set things up so that you've got a nice bright light shining in your guests face? I'm sure Konstantin knows how that all works... J for Joke... honestly - muh context.
this guy has not been pushed on all his points. because he would'nt hold these views if they had
Good interview again, but for a guy who talked for an hour i dont think he said anything of much valve.
I did notice how he went from saying dankula clearly articulated his video was a joke (35 mins) yet in the last segment he states maybe dankula wasnt clear enough (53 min) 🤔...which is it fella? Oh and the GTJ went up from 40 to 50 in those 18 minutes...weird
He’d be a bit keener on free speech if he found himself in Dankula’s shoes.
Nice to see a different perspective on the free speech/censorship debate. Seems to me that Fin is making the case for the other half of the rights debate that is often ignored - that every legal right must be accompanied by social responsibility in order to maintain societal cohesion. Of course, that side of the conversation will face the same hurdles as the rights side (that of the level of state involvement).
I hope he is right that these events are just part of the growing pains of that conversation (and not something more tyrannical).
Also, Fin should make a youtube channel :D
Where the hell was this guy during the 2015 election? ID POL is everywhere.
Yaaaaassss Geoffrey Miller next week!
Great episode, and very frustrating to listen to. I think the MSM can learn from this. How to represent people you disagree with - properly and fairly.
Good interview. Didn't like the interviewee.
Socially acceptable language and behavior is not the same as legal language and behavior. We should not require the government to force is to use language in a certain way unless the language actually poses an imminent threat to other people's safety
I'm 30 mins in and this interview feels awkard.
EDIT: Konstantin seems really pissed off with Fin. Fin also feels safe because he's a comedian and as worked for the BBC. They have lawyers. I wonder how he feels now that Jo Brand had the Police called on her after she, herself did a joke on the BBC, with those same lawyers?
This guy runs with the foxes and the hounds......
You guys were so right about the whole "Automatic Un-Subscirbe"! Thing, some MOFO not liking your truths! (Hopefully, we will no longer be effected by this!)
The Police calling a person up to "check on their thinking" sounds scary, because it is scary.
Did you not just had Steve Davies (an actual expert) on this show talking about the different directions Parliament and to a lesser degree society are realigning themselves and the conflict or friction that involves and the roots of that. Pile that on top of other traceable cultural conflicts from the last 4 decades. The idea that the culture wars are a myth, is uninformed.
Also, the very careful unstated reason why he doesn't care about Dankula and the very non-mythical shit he is in, is because Dankula's life being sacrificed means that his (Taylor) side is winning. Each measured response shows that. This was a good interview, but Taylor's positions were pretty weasely.
Just read his most recent guardian review. Seems Fin has had a change of heart because they were very unhappy with some of his jokes and he got a 2 star review. Usually a bad review off the guardian means you’re doing something right 🤷♂️
The problem here is that the activist minority has taken control of some very important institutions.
Such as the APA and it's damming statement against masculinity.
That has been pervasive enough that several articles have this month appeared in the UKs equivalent magazine warning the UK is inching that way and the letters were warnings from professionals against their society using the same damaging principles.
I think what happened to count dankula was a disgrace; I wish they had challenged him harder.
Just after 56:30, when talking about the struggle of free speak and the (subjective struggle) of when the line is. Does he really think the state has the nuance to find that line? I got the feeling that he sees some people are weak and need protecting from themselves, in case they see or hear something. Notice he himself does not see count dankula's post as grossly offensive, but the state does. Is the state wrong Fin? What else could it be wrong about?
As you guys know I know my comedy and Finn is the only comic thst truly offended me. I loved it. Thank him for me.
Keeeeep up the great work.
Im so pissed at people having a strong view about the Dankula thing without knowing all of the details. He was not a comedian at the time and did not publush the video expecting to get an audience. He was going to surprise his wife with the video during a youtube viewing night.
If this is the most painfully middle class conversation you've listened to this week, why not cleanse your mental palate with some classic Count Dankula "Absolute Mad Lads - KIllDozer" ua-cam.com/video/Xmr6jIpXSmg/v-deo.html
the quarter-greek guy was a little bit too offended by the predator joke wasnt he?
i swear he was passive-aggressive because of that for the whole hour
He called these two "failed comedians" recently, and that's exactly what they are. Not skiled enough to be funny and offensive at the same time so they pretend it's the world that is holding them back and not their own inate lack of ability.
I discovered Fin recently and didn’t think he’d be this way inclined… quite confusing, maybe he’s had a change of heart recently? I saw him on the have a word podcast and he was anything but pc
@FinTaylorcomedy The problem is that these online lunatics are going out of their way to change or create policy that then burns ordinary people. As I often tell family and friends: What you don't know, is precisely HOW they're hurting you.
(Addition) The point isn't 'once indoctrinated, uni students don't grow out of being PC maniacs' it's that professors' job is to TEACH, not radicalize for their pet causes. Teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
His defence of the prosecution of Count Dankula was pathetic. You expect more from comedians because they always claim that as a group they are more intelligent than the rest of us. He missed the point that such prosecutions demonstrate how the rights of corporations are protected while the rights of the individual person are under attack. Remove the immunity from prosecution which corporations enjoy and those corporations would be obliged to remove distasteful content themselves, rather than public funds being wasted on policing and prosecuting 3500 individuals in the UK a year.
Well, that went downhill pretty rapidly.
Its all fun and jokes until this guy gets arrested for a mean joke. Burying your head in the sand wont do shit. This guy is either really out of touch with what is happening or just chooses not to see, that its only one of the sides that has all the institutional power that allows them to terrorize anyone that goes against them. What a poor guest, even though he too will eventually be dragged and kicked out for either a past offense that has recently become offensive or he will kiss the boot and become just another mediocre mainstream bbc "comedian".
Hmm.. Jo Brand anyone?
Get Andrew Lawrence on.
So many comments slagging off Fin, saying that he got 'destroyed' and so on. I find it quite ironic that people who supposedly feel so strongly about free speech are unable to tolerate an extremely respectful and open conversation by people with different but also strongly overlapping viewpoints. Imagine how you guys feel about conversations with people who actually strongly disagree with the hosts here? I thought the whole point here was that people can express their opinions respectfully and disagree without problem.
I thought Fin spoke a lot of sense, and questioned his own nuanced viewpoints with a thoughtfulness that Konstantin and the other guy Francis mostly lack.
They have formed a fairly reductive viewpoint which simultaneously critiques, perpetuates and feeds off the culture wars, and are monetising it quite nicely.
A comedian possibly funded by the BBC.
ua-cam.com/video/VGErC6QQdoc/v-deo.html This mans anthem.
Comedy is supposed to be exactly the opposite of what people say.Its supposed to be funny,kings had people in there court's who would take the piss out of the them for the sake of humor without fear of retribution
what a muppet
Please don't have him on again, he was dreadful
Fin should relax, I listen to comedians to laugh -- not for any advice. Take comedians seriously, that's laughable.
So this show could be done for libel but not the platform that is broadcasting it, bizarre
Keep up the good work chaps.
I respect what Fin says about keeping a balance but there's a bit of a blind spot with claiming to want to "just clean up the internet a bit". Politicians of all shades who have ever tried moral crusades to clean up society in the past have always failed, even where they may have been justified. Margaret Thatcher tried it towards the end of her reign and it made her look a bit deluded (the rubbish in the houses of parliament springs to mind). John Major tried and failed and David Cameron's attempt at doing a compassionate version of such crusades in the form of "hug a hoodie" was met with derision. These ideas are ineffective because for them to be effective requires a disproportionate level of authority and control that most people likely will not accept in the UK. I'm not talking about criminal acts here; it's more about trying to mould society to be what you want it to be and it never works. The problem with Fin's thinking - and I am certainly guilty of this in the past too - is that it is too focused on the idea of being decent/kind/balanced and thus ignores it's underlying flaws, essentially because it is uncomfortable to contemplate that being "nice" does not equal being right or being effective.
Thanks Francis for contradicting him on the "Mediterranean men" thing. It's *true*. The joke is funny because it's TRUE. Saying "yeah but it's a joke" is actually a hypocritical cop-out. This was a great guest but only because you were great. He was useless.
k
I thought this guys joke about letting trans women piss where they want was funny, until I realised he actually seems to believe there is a pay gap and that he felt the need to do 'research' in order to validate it???
It’s not necessary to have the police calling people to check their thinking. I don’t approve of thought policing at all. Doubt I’ll watch this channel again, they didn’t challenge him enough.
The idea of "evidence based" policy sends a shiver up the spine. Politics is supposed to be about principles (not evidence): If you like evidence do science.
I liked the comedy clip, but found myself disagreeing with many of Fin's interpretations.
Others have mentioned his Dank disapproval, but Fin seems to have wholly swallowed the MSM narrative regarding BoJo's comments. Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear the most repressive garment humanity has come up with to hide women under, he just couldn't understand any woman who would want to wear it due to what it looks like. It wasn't a joke, it was a serious point of confused support made with perhaps unnecessarily flippant language.
At least we know a comedian to avoid now, I guess?
The dankula case is a lot simpler than he's making it seem. It was to piss off his gf as he stated in the vid, barely anyone would have seen it since he was a tiny channel on youtube, but someone put it on reddit and it got a ton of views. It would have been a little thing that went by if not for a random redditer. As for the alternate he said, some folks would have said throw him in jail, but I'd bet shit posters would still have the same opinion. It's just one is a 70 year old joke made by everyone while the other is currently killing people and using religion to make people like said girl run off to Syria.
As for government needs to regulate, not really. We more need to find a way to segregate shit posting sites from social media to quarantine behaviors, because tell people don't be an asshole online and they'll mock you mercilessly. And it's not really random asshole online making a teenage girl/boy kill herself/himself, it's usually bullying from people they know. I'd say have twitter and facebook not allow people under 18 to prevent it so they stay on more anonymous forums and the shit talking there doesn't have the same personal sting and it isn't 24/7 bullying from people you know. Because in past suicide stories it's that the bullying and harassment followed them online.
And the dankula thing and football banter are 2 very different things, one is a joke while the other is banter to rile up the rival but it's being an over the top asshole and that would probably die down once punches get thrown. And by that I mean how Phili fans here in the US are violent assholes in every sport so there isn't any banter other than they're violent knuckle draggers, and if you shit talk or just wear away jerseys expect some kind of trouble. Seriously, in 2010 a girl in a dolphins jersey got intentionally vomited on by a Philadelphia Philies fan, and because their team was losing Flyers fans threw bracelets on the ice on a night they were honoring the deceased owner and got their team a penalty.
The day har har nazi jokes (whether mocking nazis or being intentionally offensive) stop is the day "X is just like the nazis!" in arguments stop.
Fin Taylor, normie comedian
This 'comedian' is appallingy unaware. Remember he is a performer.
Worst laugh ever.
Another privately.educated guy trying hard to sound less posh than he is.