Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Sky King wrote: »

No.

Would you be happy to debate someone in a debate about a very serious issue (e.g. suicide) if they were using a fake voice, and fake accent and wearing a disguise?

Well my point is that it would depend on what they were saying.

If that person was on the phone and you couldnt see what they were wearing, would it make it different if they were saying the same things? If you didnt know the accent was put on, would it make what is being said different?

Boom_Bap

Pter wrote: »

Well my point is that it would depend on what they were saying.

If that person was on the phone and you couldnt see what they were wearing, would it make it different if they were saying the same things? If you didnt know the accent was put on, would it make what is being said different?

Exactly, we don't know what people on the radio are wearing......or what other posters on this forum are wearing.

It's about the content of what is being said.

weldoninhio wrote: »

That’s nonsense. If someone is delivering a message dressed as a clown, their opinion is going to be taken as the opinion of a clown.

Indeed.

Who'd listen to Dustin the Turkey talk about a serious issue?

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed.

Who'd listen to Dustin the Turkey talk about a serious issue?

So Dustin comes on the radio raising awareness of a children's charity (which is within his area as a childrens entertainer) and you ignore it on the basis that it's coming from Dustin?

Relikk

Pter wrote: »

If that person was on the phone and you couldnt see what they were wearing, would it make it different if they were saying the same things? If you didnt know the accent was put on, would it make what is being said different?

Whataboutery...

We know who he is and what he does. He's a character and a parody, who puts on an exaggerated accent and wears a bag on his head. Personally, I find it hard to take that seriously. When members of Monty Python debated religion on a chat show they came as themselves. John Cleese and Michael Palin, if I remember correctly. They didn't come as a Minister of Silly Walks, or as Luigi Vercotti. That, I respect.

Who or what you portray yourself as has to command a certain level of respect, if the person behind Blindboy stopped hiding behind a ridiculous character then I'd take his opinions more seriously (well, maybe not, as I find his pseudo-intellectuallist ramblings to be quite tedious, regardless of his qualifications).

Relikk wrote: »

Whataboutery...

We know who he is and what he does. He's a character and a parody, who puts on an exaggerated accent and wears a bag on his head. Personally, I find it hard to take that seriously. When members of Monty Python debated religion on a chat show they came as themselves. John Cleese and Michael Palin, if I remember correctly. They didn't come as a Minister of Silly Walks, or as Luigi Vercotti. That, I respect.

Who or what you portray yourself as has to command a certain level of respect, if the person behind Blindboy stopped hiding behind a ridiculous character then I'd take his opinions more seriously (well, maybe not, as I find his pseudo-intellectuallist ramblings to be quite tedious, regardless of his qualifications).

Its not whataboutery at all. If we are discussing BB, most of his public work is being done without the accent via a podcast. No shopping bag in sight; no character or persona - just his actual opinions and thoughts - same as the entertainers you have mentioned. If he chooses to 'protect' his identity, is that the major issue?

Relikk

Pter wrote: »

Its not whataboutery at all. If we are discussing BB, most of his public work is being done without the accent via a podcast. No shopping bag in sight; no character or persona - just his actual opinions and thoughts - same as the entertainers you have mentioned. If he chooses to 'protect' his identity, is that the major issue?

Of course it's whataboutery, as I said, we know who he is and what he portrays. You're comparing it to someone we don't know because we've never seen them before and we don't know if they're an exaggerated character.

Yes, he's probably sitting in the comfort of his own home and not wearing a bag on his head, but he's still using the character and his podcasts are labelled with the characters name.

Relikk wrote:

Of course it's whataboutery, as I said, we know who he is and what he portrays. You're comparing it to someone we don't know because we've never seen them before and we don't know if they're an exaggerated character.

I disagree that someone can't be a character as well as a person if that's what you are getting at. Plenty of 'characters' speak as the 'actor' and vice versa and I think that's what's happening here.

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's one of the reasons Jordan Peterson presents himself the way he does. He presents as a middle aged man to help him connect with his primary audience of middle aged men

It's stuff like this that makes it super hard to take you seriously.

Do what you like. I can't remember the last time you responded to my post without it being a personal attack. If you're able to discuss the issue, feel free to do so.

Pter wrote: »

So Dustin comes on the radio raising awareness of a children's charity (which is within his area as a childrens entertainer) and you ignore it on the basis that it's coming from Dustin?

no, but if he was on TV talking about depression, homelessness "crisis", no jobs for the lads in Limerick, other puplulist horsesh1t like BB does, I'd ignore that

Augeo wrote: »

no, but if he was on TV talking about depression, homelessness "crisis", no jobs for the lads in Limerick, other puplulist horsesh1t like BB does, I'd ignore that

So you arent taking him seriously based on the topics he is talking about? Ok so. Is that because you think they arent worth discussing, or because he is bringing them up? Genuinely interested as to the reasons why people feel he shouldnt be taken seriously.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Pter wrote: »

On its merits, not on the basis of who the artist is.

Or should we be running background checks on all artists before we appreciate or slate a piece of art?

His personal background is irrelevant to me but if an artist assumes a public persona for their art, then one would consider that persona to be a extension of the art itself and therefore subject to the same scrutiny the art would get.

I can't say I agree with that. He dresses as a clown of sorts. The reason for using a plastic bag is because there isn't much established preconception about wearing a spar shopping bag over your face. It is supposed to have the very opposite affect to the one you're claiming. The point of the bag is to take attention away from the persona and direct attention to the message content.

Oh for the love of God..

There's a preconception about wearing a plastic bag on your head?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can't say I agree with that. He dresses as a clown of sorts. The reason for using a plastic bag is because there isn't much established preconception about wearing a spar shopping bag over your face. It is supposed to have the very opposite affect to the one you're claiming. The point of the bag is to take attention away from the persona and direct attention to the message content.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh for the love of God..

There's a preconception about wearing a plastic bag on your head?

Not much, according to the post i assume you are responding to.

Pter wrote: »

So am i right in saying you put more weight in who is saying something vs what is being said?

It's a bit basic but lots of people evaluate an argument including irrelevant aspects of the speaker. That's why salesmen wear shiny suits. It's not clever but it's something people do.

I think the whole point of blindboy presenting arguments as a ridiculous character is to make sure the focus is completely on the argument and not on the speaker. Some people are inclined to judge the book by the cover which isn't clever but talking what people sometime do.

Sky King wrote: »

Pter wrote: »

So am i right in saying you put more weight in who is saying something vs what is being said?

No.

Would you be happy to debate someone in a debate about a very serious issue (e.g. suicide) if they were using a fake voice, and fake accent and wearing a disguise?

Wouldn't it depend on what the person has to say over how they are dressed? I notice you didn't actually answer the question.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the whole point of blindboy presenting arguments as a ridiculous character is to make sure the focus is completely on the argument and not on the speaker.

Read that back to yourself and realise how daft it sounds.

The way to get people to focus on the arguments alone, and not on your appearance, is to wear a plastic bag on your head? LOL.

Pter wrote: »

Not much, according to the post i assume you are responding to.

Regardless it's still an idiotic point..

Blindboy fanboys are funnier than Blindboy at this stage anyway..
Although maybe it's just "gas cnutism" in action, and they're extras in Blindboy's breaking down of the fourth wall..

*Gas cnutism never struck me as that gas really, and seemed like more of a needlessly crass stupid soundbite..

Boom_Bap

Deleted User wrote: »

Read that back to yourself and realise how daft it sounds.

The way to get people to focus on the arguments alone, and not on your appearance, is to wear a plastic bag on your head? LOL.

I guess it's all about the perspective of the listener then :pac:

Relikk

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a bit basic but lots of people evaluate an argument including irrelevant aspects of the speaker. That's why salesmen wear shiny suits. It's not clever but it's something people do.

It's to do with professionalism, and what the majority of the world would perceive as professionalism. You'd see the salesman at your door in a suit and know he means business. You'd see someone with a bag on their head and think that they're taking the piss.

Ok im out. People arent willing to answer simple questions put to them, but will jump on an analogy and take it literally. Im glad ye all have your opinions made up, but based off the numbers of questions i have asked to gain info on your opinions, vs the number of direct answers ye have given, ye arent doing a great job at explaining said opinions.

Thank you for the thoughts that were put forward, though!

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I genuinely can't see how anyone in their right mind would think that someone affecting a silly over top persona is the best way to convey a serious message. Imagine if Rod Hull and emu were telling people to check their scrotums for lumps, for example. Nobody would focus on the message then.

He became known as blindboy. 'Fred's musings and social commentary podcast' wouldn't be as recognisable as the blindboy podcast.
In any case, isn't it his choice own to publicise? It's probably fair to say different audiences respond to different presentations.

Don't you feel a bit silly that you're stuck in his appearance rather than the content of his message?

Deleted User wrote: »

Read that back to yourself and realise how daft it sounds.

The way to get people to focus on the arguments alone, and not on your appearance, is to wear a plastic bag on your head? LOL.

I'd say it negates his appearance as a selling point. Do clothes matter that much to you in audio form? Fair play to you if you can tell what someone is wearing while listening to a podcast.

Woke Hogan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He became known as blindboy. 'Fred's musings and social commentary podcast' wouldn't be as recognisable as the blindboy podcast.
In any case, isn't it his choice own to publicise? It's probably fair to say different audiences respond to different presentations.

Don't you feel a bit silly that you're stuck in his appearance rather than the content of his message?

Well, like I said earlier...

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I'm not talking about his costume, I mean his persona.

His persona being a "rough and ready bleggard from the streets with the soul of an artist," right? It's a crap persona: it's not particularly clever nor is it funny.

Relikk wrote: »

It's to do with professionalism, and what the majority of the world would perceive as professionalism. You'd see the salesman at your door in a suit and know he means business. You'd see someone with a bag on their head and think that they're taking the piss.

You're impressed by a salesman at the door in a suit? Sweet Jesus, I see a salesman at the door in a suit with greasy hair and I assume he's on his way to court. Maybe this is a generational thing, but Im not as impressed by suits are you are. An interesting argument is more important to me than the shininess of the suit.

I mean I could critique Jordan Peterson's appearance but the contents of his speech is of interest to me not his dowdy clothes.

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

By using Blindboy, a caricature, to deliver the message it means the focus is on the message not the presentation of the person delivering the message.

That’s nonsense. If someone is delivering a message dressed as a clown, their opinion is going to be taken as the opinion of a clown.

If you're someone who can't separate the message from the person who delivers it, then you'll fall into that trap alright. You wouldn't be that silly though, would you?

Woke Hogan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're someone who can't separate the message from the person who delivers it, then you'll fall into that trap alright. You wouldn't be that silly though, would you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Don't you feel a bit silly that you're stuck in his appearance rather than the content of his message?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're impressed by a salesman at the door in a suit? Sweet Jesus, I see a salesman at the door in a suit with greasy hair and I assume he's on his way to court.

Then you'd feel really silly.

The Blindboy devotees should have to clarify if they're from Limerick I reckon..