Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

I pretty much agree with all the statements from 1 to 4 there. With the exception that more often than not he has played DOWN, not up, his education on mental health and more plays up his own experiences. For a few reasons, including as he says himself that he did not complete that education at all and dropped out of it rather early. He is very quick to identify himself as a complete non expert on the subject over and over.

But it is not points 1 to 4 I disagree with. It's your complete leap to point 5 that this is "contemptible" and that you think this is "obvious" that I disagree with.

Once again (happy to keep repeating it): The very fact that he discusses often and at length the pitfalls, dangers, and responsible use of alcohol.... including discussing at some length ways to identify if your relationship with it is degrading and poor........ makes him precisely the voice who SHOULD be selected on an advertisement for such a product.

What is "contemptible" to me is when the opposite happens. When someone who has done no such thing discussing alcohol, who is successful and a role model, starts endorsing potentially harmful products to an often vulnerable audience with a smile and not a single caveat. Sticking Brian ODriscoll on a Guiness advert would be 1000 more times more contemptible to me than sticking Blindboy on one for that reason.

...or worse, having the wrong type of qualified persons in government, with flawed thinking and understanding of their portfolio, is possible/probably the most dangerous, our current mental health minister in a fine example!

So back to the cop out ad hominem without even attempting to show any error in my reasoning. Again this just makes your comments about "rational discussion" comical. As you appear to not even know how to have one.

If you can not rebut me, that says it all really.

Especially when the ad hominem is so patently wrong. I barely listen to more than 33% of his output, have never listened to his music, and have never read any of his books.

There is plenty to fault him on. He has some weird paranoid views on things like Chinese Restaurants being fronts for trafficking to name one example. And he is not a great interviewer at all, talking over his guests way too much to hear himself speak rather than them. Makes me cringe sometimes hearing him do interviews.

But when I see nonsense I call it out as nonsense. Regardless of whether I am a "fan" of the person I am defending or hate them entirely.

your final statement is fairly apt!

And yet your throw away (again) comment you end the post with once again fails to address the rebuttals to your own position.

Again again: (as I said I am happy to keep repeating it until you rebut rather than throw away dismiss it): If Hetfield has never discussed the harms of alcohol and how to use it responsibly or identify if you are not doing so.... I would prefer Blindboy to be the voice of such a product than Hetfield.

Again again: What is "contemptible" to me is targeting a vulnerable market with the smile and endorsement from some role model people want to emulate and nothing else........ and I see nothing "contemptible" about endorsing a product using a voice who has in the past, and likely will in the future.... discuss the careful and responsible use of that exact product!

If there is something fallacious in the reasoning there by all means highlight it rather than ad hominem it because really that is the only thing "embarrassing" here from someone claiming to be interested in "rational discussion".

Like you I think my opinion and position here is "patently obvious". But I am able to argue my position and rebut yours rather than simply declare it "obvious" and running away.... or throwing insulting labels at you like "cultist". So who really appears more rational and able for discussion in that light, honestly?

Weren't you the guy who said the song Bags of Glue was a parody of people like that. Only for Blindboy to confirm he made it to please the horse outside crowd?

I’ve just spent 3 minutes scrolling through his Twitter… basically the guy is just an attention seeker. He will jump on whatever bandwagon that enables that kind of gratification.

He gained his popularity from being an artist who provided escapism entertainment. But the more popular he got, he started to hitch his wagon to the power structure/establishments stance on everything from preaching tolerance to virtue signaling about mental health. Artists who swing to close to the structures of power end up loosing their artistic credibility as they become less part of the artistic, rebellious, escapism realm, and instead become intertwined with the boring, managed, uncharismatic realm of the establishment power structure.

Once again you seem not to know what "rational discussion" actually entails, despite acting like you think you are the only one capable of it. All you have done above is repeat points already accepted and/or rebutted and then, once again, legged it. This is the opposite of rational discussion.

For example you claimed multiple times, and were corrected, that he "uses his education on the subject". He does not. He does the opposite. He openly tells people NOT to treat him as any kind of educated expert on the subject for one. And secondly he openly admits he only studied it for something like a year before dropping out. So from the outset, your appraisal of his approach is a fabrication and a lie. You were corrected on this, you ignored the correction, and you repeated the fallacy. This is not a good look for someone moaning about "rational discussion".

That aside though, your conclusion is a non-sequitur from your points 1 to 4. The points simply do not lead in any way to the conclusion you present(ed). There is nothing "wrong" or "sick" about it. And shouting "cultist" at everyone who disagrees with your nonsense non sequitur is.... again.... not a good look.

Dodging, ignoring, and retreating from all questions asked directly of you, because you can not answer them, completes the bad look you have constructed here.

Once again: The fact he engages with his audience openly and honestly about the harms of alcohol, and how to maintain and evaluate proper relationships with alcohol, makes him one of the people who can most justify putting their name to advertising of alcohol. Especially in a world where most, if not all, other celebrities who put their name to alcohol advertisements merely smile at the camera and go home with their cheque without A) worrying about the effect it has on their fan base or B) engaging with their fan base on any level with regards healthy use of alcohol.

It is comical to see you screech "cultist" at everyone who disagrees with you when in fact shutting down discussion, shouting people down with words like "cultist" and "fanboy", repeating your soap boxed points without defending them or engaging with rebuttal, saying you are not going to engage but then repeatedly engaging none the less, "ignoring" those against you, and acting like everything you espouse is "obvious" and correct.... are all actually the hall marks of cultish behaviour. You are literally acting out what you are accusing everyone but yourself of. Which is.... again.... rather comical and entertaining to watch.

Yes. Assuming your question is genuine and not rhetorical, the reason(s) for the bag have been explored before. He has long suffered from intense social anxiety so the bag was partly a stage gimmick and prop.... but mostly was to maintain some small level of privacy and create a kind of "layer of distance" between himself an an audience.

He suffers in social situations and situations that are "normal" for the rest of us like simply going to the supermarket. And long had an issue with panic attacks before he knew what panic attacks were and how to deal with them.

While he is not exactly "famous" he certainly is someone who has been around enough to gain some level of recognition and notoriety. and as such the idea of doing something as simple as a supermarket trip where people he does not know are going to come up to him and engage in conversation would be something he would dread.

Most recently it seems, I notice in a news paper article from last week, he has been diagnosed as autistic. I have not listed to his podcast in awhile so I have not heard the episode where he came out in this way. I might get around to it now this thread has put him back in my mind. In fact most of the time(s) I have listened to him have because people have espoused weird nonsense about him on a thread and I have gone off to research it.

But autism certainly explains a good chunk of this social anxiety and much/many/most of the other social and interpersonal issues he has suffered from in life. And it sheds some light on the type of fiction he writes too, and a new light on some of the lyrics he wrote in his music.

I think he is a pretty poor interviewer, often talking over his guest or not really responding to what they said but some vague tangent. Probably another aspect of his autism I do not know. Often it is because his guest is expert on something he himself is intensely excited by and he just wants to get out all the things he wants to say, at the expense of his guest actually getting to talk.

But I have heard a few of his interviews with well known or famous people and interestingly many of them have expressed a jealousy over his bag, and his ability to take it off and become normal and unknown and unseen. To them it seems like a super power they wish they had.

He has also mentioned that his bag has lost him work / media appearances.... where the network or producer in question wouldn't accept it and so would not have him on. But has still managed to get a show on the BBC for a few seasons and release best selling books regardless.