Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

I'll spoiler this in case anyone hasn't yet seen the film, but........

One thing which is quite clear is that the guy wanted people to see him for his music above all else and so in that regard I think the film stuck the right balance between showing his life as a musician but yet also not sidestepping some of the major issues he had to contend with in his life. To say the film is about a man who 'did loads of drugs and gay sex' is arguably accurate I suppose but to suggest (which I feel he is) that it doesn’t deal with the fact that Freddie was gay or used drugs is agenda saturated attention seeking hogwash.

Deleted User wrote: »

The issue was that they glazed over his romantic relationships with men and instead focused on his one heterosexual relationship, further perpetuating the idea that it’s “wrong” or “indecent” to be a gay man, and that he should really be with a woman.

Nonsense.

There are many inaccuracies with the Mary timeline also and indeed it's condensed down into a few scenes.

Not suggesting it's a fair film with regards to how much time they focused on each relationship, but the point is that it doesn't do as Blindboy (nor you) suggest, which is that it ignored that part of his life, as it simply did not.

I agree that they glazed over many aspects of his relationships, with both men and women (and especially when it comes to the rest of the band) but what I call bull**** on is that the film perpetuated the idea that it’s “wrong” or “indecent” to be gay, and that he should really be with a woman.... the film did nothing of the sort.

They certainly made it clear that the media at the time tried to do that alright, but if anything the film gave two fingers to that attitude and showed that its was anything but.

Also, you say their relationship lasted seven years (actually it was six) but those years were all AFTER the point at which the film ends, Live Aid. So with regards to the timeline of the film, Freddie only knew Jim for four months.

Interesting to see his numbers have "plummeted". A lazy google couldn't find any stats on this myself. Except to see he has dropped down the iTunes charts significantly between 2017-2019. But stats on his podcast as a whole (since most views and downloads are likely from the acast platform anyway) I could not find quickly enough... and am not bothered enough to try :) What's the source that he has "plummeted"? I think at the peak (which I assume he is long past now) he was cited at something like 250,000 domestic downloads per show and 1 million international?

I saw the moan about him advertising alcoholic drinks on another thread though the person moaning there did not dig in on it and just wandered off. Mainly because they were asked how doing so was in any way contradictory to his mental health messaging, especially as he goes into detail on relationship with alcohol and how to identify problematic relationships with it. In fact personally I would put more credence in him endorsing a product that he espouses caution and care and maturity about... than I would if he was endorsing something he never speaks about or endorses wholeheartedly with no caveats at all.

Unsure what cherry picking three topics from three podcasts says about the content as a whole though? The cherry picked three podcasts, in my limited experience of his content, does not appear representative at all.

Also can not say I see much mutually exclusive between Rogan and Blindboy. I can listen to both happily on occasion, without following either religiously or frequently. Sometimes they cover topics I enjoy. Sometimes not. I would say "acolyte" fans and preachers of any public name are painful to converse with, but thankfully they are rare and.... again.... not at all representative. But by all means let's see and laugh at some citations/examples of who and what we are talking about here. Where did you see this?

peterson comes across as being a right arsehole though, having a professorship doesnt mean your exempt of being an arsehole!

those of us on the spectrum do have a major role in explaining to society the implications of mental health issues, as they are a critical component of the disorder

...again qualifications dont necessarily mean 'all knowing' or even correct for that matter, many professionally qualified persons and fields of expertise have turned out to be catastrophically incorrect, we have placed many professional fields on a pedestal which are turning out to completely wrong and dangerous for human existence

I am not sure declaring your position and opinion "obvious" helps much though. Clearly because I questioned it, and the same position was questioned on the other blindboy thread (before the person espousing it retreated, cant remember if it was you or not), it is not "obvious" otherwise why would I/we be querying it?

I genuinely do not see the issue with him advertising alcohol. So rather than just call it "obvious", please enlighten me. Because the rest of your post after calling it "obvious" was already addressed by what I said in my post above already. Which is that the fact he discusses at length the issues with alcohol, ways to recognise when your relationship with alcohol has become harmful, and what to do about this.... means he is precisely the person I would like to see advertising alcohol. Compared to say a sports star who has never mentioned alcohol before and suddenly starts saying that alcohol, or one particular alcohol product, is great.

ALL the same issues you describe would exist there too. People who look up to that "star", often with issues of their own which they may self medicate will suffer the same effects you describe above. Not to mention the drinking culture that exists with some sports like Soccer. 

So who would I like to see more/less using their "voice" to endorse alcohol? A sport star people look up to who has never said anything about alcohol before? Or a podcaster who talks often and at length about alcohol harms, abuse, self care, self awareness and more?

YMMV. But I am going with the latter every time. So your issue is not as "obvious" as you seem to think. The issue is more likely to be that our own opinions are always "obvious" to ourselves, so we assume they must be to others. Often fallaciously. Especially if you find you have to back them up with throw away ad hominem lines that are just filler like "I feel sorry for you".

Further I have more respect for an alcohol product choosing to sponsor someone who speaks in this way about alcohol rather than someone who would just endorse it with a smile. There are many people a marketing rep for alcohol could choose, and for whatever reason they chose to advertise with someone who speaks openly and honestly about alcohol, its harms, and identifying toxic relationships with it. Kudos to their honestly for choosing in that way.

All that said I have to say I am entirely ignorant as to which advert you are talking about. I have not actually seen/heard him advertise alcohol ever. Perhaps on the infrequent occasions I listen to his podcast I am doing so in Germany and so I get hit with different adverts than you listeners in Ireland do? And no this is not me "denying the ads exist" either. Who exactly denied their existence in the other thread? Or was it just that they, like me, had not heard it and asked for a link/citation which you then did not provide?

Well the issue is the case you stated in "great detail" is to me obviously poor and wrong. And I have explained, also in great detail, how and why I see it to be wrong. I did it without calling it "obvious" or fluffing it out with throw away ad hominems though. Which rather makes your comments about "rational discussion" somewhat comical. Check a mirror sometime.

I also listen on Acast, but ads on Acast are not fixed. They differ from user to user based on your location and browsing history. This is likely why.... assuming the ad exists.... you heard it but many others have not.

I am neither a "fanboy" or a "cultist" however.... just more throw away ad hominems to dismiss my position above. I listen to him infrequently depending on the topic he is discussing. That is literally it. In fact if you have heard this alcohol ad as often as you claim, it sounds like you listen to him as much if not more than I do :p :p or maybe just Acast. But I listen to a lot on acast and have not heard it. My IP Location is likely the reason.

I have not yet met or heard from any of these supposed "acolyte" fans of his. I rather hope I never do. But I asked above for citations from some of them.... such as the ones claiming you can not listen to Rogan.... but I am still waiting.

Rational discussion is only not possible if you refuse to have one and run away. If you can show some aspect of my post that was not rational, by all means do! But simply shouting "not rational" and legging it.... yeah not convincing really.

Again: They could select anyone to pay to endorse their product. They specifically chose to sponsor someone who discussed alcohol openly and honestly, who recommends caution, and who discuses at length how to identify why you have alcohol issues and when to stop using it. He has mentioned on many occasions giving up alcohol for long periods, and explained why.

So by all means tell me who is your "obvious" person to endorse an alcoholic product than that? Because that is EXACTLY the kind of voice I would prefer do so.