Oh, so it's not destructive so long as it was only intended to be traditional light-hearted fun? Is that like 'locker-room talk'? I'll have to remember that defence.
Heh! I see you trying to reverse ferret on the distinction both you and I made and a moment ago accepted. Accept my contextualisation and the distinction I'm making or not, but shifting the goalposts so blatantly is a bit naughty and not going to fly. Have a nice day!
Oh, so it's not destructive so long as it was only intended to be traditional light-hearted fun? Is that like 'locker-room talk'? I'll have to remember that defence.
Seriously? You're comparing being a bit impolite about names used by the powerful and how they're reported with jokes made by the powerful about sexual assault? Try getting a sense of perspective.
Dear me. Something of a hornets' nest seems to have been stirred up.
Let me make it quite plain. I have nothing whatsoever against Master Wilfred, and, anyway, I don't think it was I who first suggested that, under the circumstances, 'Pestilence' might be an appropriate - if uncouth - name. The spelling is slightly different, but 'Wilfrid' was, and is, a much-respected English saint.
If I am worthy of being chastised or admonished by a Host or Admin, let them say so.
Oh, so it's not destructive so long as it was only intended to be traditional light-hearted fun? Is that like 'locker-room talk'? I'll have to remember that defence.
You're right to say an innocent baby shouldn't be bullied for its parents' ineptitudes or faults.
But I can't see that that has really happened here. The names that the parents have chosen for the child have been slightly mocked, so the parents are being ridiculed, but not the kid. Indeed, bearing in mind who the parents are, there is, arguably, something of the whiff of opportunism about naming your newborn after the doctor who helped save your life, somewhat along the lines of traditionally naming a child after rich Uncle Fred who has no-one else to leave his money to, when he dies, and is suitably flattered at the compliment to forgive all family transgressions. Nobody surely will dare speak critically about Johnson's latest foray into family life - or indeed his politics towards social health care - when he has honoured the NHS in this distinctive fashion. I'm not sure I personally would be that cynical in this case, but it's an argument that could be made.
Actually, I think Wilfred is a fab name. But then my real-life name is not exactly 'normal' and often raises a giggle.
I don't think it was I who first suggested that, under the circumstances, 'Pestilence' might be an appropriate ... name.
Please sir, it was me sir.
It used to be a thing to name your children for notable points in your career eg Brilliana, Lady Harley - because her da was governor of Brill at the time.
But belike history will notice this aspect of Mr Johnson's premiership without the prompt of the wean's name.
The question is whether parents' kids are fair game for their misdeeds.
In my view, deciding they are amounts to eagerly grabbing on the populist playbook with both hands, and the more that's done, no matter the format, it's legitimising the tactic, including for those who might not have the inclination to address the more serious issues. But fire away, this is Hell.
I’m with @Eutychus. It’s going to be hard enough for the kid having such a detestable father. IMO, the children should be off-limits.
I don't know if anyone else has caught the Netflix documentary on Rachel Dolezal. The documentary is about as controversial as Dolezal herself, but one thing I took away from it was that her kids (well, one is IIRC her adopted brother that she adopted as her son) come across as amazingly together, loyal, and balanced people who pay a heavy price for her notoriety, and quite unreasonably so.
Unless the child is miraculously precocious, it's not sentient or able to take offense. That is a task that will be left to its progenitors, for now. Who, as it happens, are responsible for its name. Seems like the natural flow of snark is entirely shunted to the adults, and the child is entirely unscathed (by these examples of snark).
Perhaps clutch those pearls a little harder, so they can strangle you.
Not the point. It's just a matter of what should or shouldn't be off limits in terms of not being an asshole.
I'm sure it's easy to justify now, and when a kid's a bit older, it's easy to justify because, well, it's not like they're going to be reading ship of fools, so they're never going to see it, right?
Kids of famous people (and famous kids) have fucked up lives. As far as I can see, adding any more to that is just gratuitous.
By the time the kid is aware of anything, the mockery will have died away. Laughing at its name now does not cause it any harm, and I doubt it worries the parents either.
"should be off limits of being an asshole"
If you are that mistaken about the nature of assholes, it's possible that you are being one without noticing.
Dude, I have know intention of villifying anyone on the Ship, however this is the experience of the kid of a head of state growing up:
“For me, maybe because I’ve had so much vitriol flung at me for as long as I can literally remember, people saying awful things to me even as a child, I’ve never found it productive, personally, to engage in that way. To retaliate with crass language or insult someone personally – I just don’t think I’m built that way.“
Does she tell herself they’re not really talking about her? “Oh, no,” she flashes back, with a low chuckle. “I know they’re talking about me. I just think that the way they’re talking about me, to me, to my face, online, is a reflection on them and not about me. The savagery that is directed at me, sometimes it’s because I’m just the person that they happen to see and recognise, and they’re angry, and so that anger kind of spills out. Sometimes they’re mad at me because of something that my mum or dad did, or something that my mum or dad never did – but they have been fed the narrative that they were trafficking children, or drugs, or some other heinous crime.”
That’s the life this poor kid has been born into. There’s going to be much, much worse thrown at them than anyone on the Ship is going to dish out, because (in the main), we’re not assholes. However, adding anything to the coming shit pile is just capricious. Joking that a baby should be called pestilence is where, for me, it crossed a line.
I appreciate it’s apparently me and @Eutychus in the minority here, but I’m sure the people that gave crap to Chelsea all her life could justify it with all sorts of reasons too - but there is a cumulative effect, and I don’t think we should be part of it.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. Better to go back to holding Mr Johnson to account, than derailing this any further.
It's nice to be in a minority of at least two, but I'm genuinely depressed about the size of that minority here, or at least the size that's speaking out.
Chelsea puts it well.
Also, the problem I see with this kind of thing is that it leaks. Before we know where we are "Pestilence's dad" or some such will have become Ship vernacular and used in Purgatory as well as in Hell. That sets a certain tone for the debate, one that is not exactly conducive to hearing from those with opposing political views in a constructive manner. And it is right out of Trump's playbook ("Little Adam Schiff...", "Pocahontas"...). As is the response when this is pointed out.
As the onlie begetter, I am happy to transfer the epithet to the father. Capability Brown, Pestilence Johnson (T Pratchett having already trademarked Bloody Stupid Johnson).
Also, the problem I see with this kind of thing is that it leaks. Before we know where we are "Pestilence's dad" or some such will have become Ship vernacular and used in Purgatory as well as in Hell.
At the moment he is far more likely to be referred to as 'Boris'. Yet he is not your friend, you would never refer to another politician in this way, and by using his preferred form you are perpetuating his populist framing.
"Boris" is at least accepted by all sides. Neither is it inherently populist ("call me Tony").
It's not language that is going to put off his sympathisers, and it's not inherently derogatory. This is not a right/left thing for me. I had exactly the same sentiment about "Bliar".
Also, the problem I see with this kind of thing is that it leaks. Before we know where we are "Pestilence's dad" or some such will have become Ship vernacular and used in Purgatory as well as in Hell.
At the moment he is far more likely to be referred to as 'Boris'. Yet he is not your friend, you would never refer to another politician in this way, and by using his preferred form you are perpetuating his populist framing.
Or behaving in a decent manner towards the poor little bastard.
"Boris" is at least accepted by all sides. Neither is it inherently populist ("call me Tony").
Very few people did (call him 'Tony'), the use of 'Boris' conjures of decades of constructed personality and deliberate branding that is almost entirely populist.
Also, the problem I see with this kind of thing is that it leaks. Before we know where we are "Pestilence's dad" or some such will have become Ship vernacular and used in Purgatory as well as in Hell.
At the moment he is far more likely to be referred to as 'Boris'. Yet he is not your friend, you would never refer to another politician in this way, and by using his preferred form you are perpetuating his populist framing.
Or behaving in a decent manner towards the poor little bastard.
I'm not sure this follows from referring to his father by his surname.
"Boris" is at least accepted by all sides. Neither is it inherently populist ("call me Tony").
the use of 'Boris' conjures of decades of constructed personality and deliberate branding that is almost entirely populist.
This is true. However, I don't see the alternatives used widely here as doing anything to sidestep that populist image to address the substance.
What I do see, especially if they are used outside Hell, is that they would be off-putting to anybody right-leaning and seeking to engage on the basis of the issues and not the personalities.
"Boris" is at least accepted by all sides. Neither is it inherently populist ("call me Tony").
the use of 'Boris' conjures of decades of constructed personality and deliberate branding that is almost entirely populist.
This is true. However, I don't see the alternatives used widely here as doing anything to sidestep that populist image to address the substance.
I'm not arguing for any of the alternatives being used here in this thread - I just find irony in fact that you warn against 'Trump's playbook" while perpetuating that populist image elsewhere.
I'm not making any claim to be totally consistent here. I do think that there's a question of degree, though. "Boris" hardly carries with it the same connotations as, say, "Bliar". And if Chelsea Clinton was an unfair target, so is his kid.
(There seems to have been remarkable restraint as regards Bannon Trump. Or perhaps I don't visit the right (?) parts of the internet).
I'm not making any claim to be totally consistent here. I do think that there's a question of degree, though. "Boris" hardly carries with it the same connotations as, say, "Bliar". And if Chelsea Clinton was an unfair target, so is his kid.
(There seems to have been remarkable restraint as regards Bannon Trump. Or perhaps I don't visit the right (?) parts of the internet).
I think the attitude towards Bannon at this point largely tends towards pity. ABdPJ may be a terrible human being in lots of ways but he isn't a patch on Mango Mussolini. President or not, I'd be concerned for the welfare of a child being raised in that environment. The only consolation is that Bannon probably doesn't have to spend too much time with the day-glo moron.
I also think the case with Chelsea is different as she had abuse directed at her. Making comments about why you would name your child after a London borough is a long way from abusing that child directly.
I'm not making any claim to be totally consistent here. I do think that there's a question of degree, though. "Boris" hardly carries with it the same connotations as, say, "Bliar".
I'd entirely agree, in that the latter was a pejorative and the former was what carried its holder to the nation's highest elected office on the back of the banter heuristic.
"Call me Tony", meanwhile, was seen as the embodiment of a let's-do-this-in-armchairs-and-not-bother-with-minutes culture of informality that contributed to the Labour government's incompetence in the WMD scandal.
"Call me Tony", meanwhile, was seen as the embodiment of a let's-do-this-in-armchairs-and-not-bother-with-minutes culture of informality that contributed to the Labour government's incompetence in the WMD scandal.
Absolutely, it was a historical crime committed in plain sight for which the perpetrators never suffered any penalty.
If I was referring to him as 'Tony" (or Charlie) you would have a point.
FWIW, I agree with @chrisstiles on the “Boris” thing, hence referring to him as Mr Johnson earlier in the thread. I also wholeheartedly agree with the observation that the right wing press fawning over this new child given the wanton attitude towards family and relationships that his father has exhibited is hypocritical and selective.
But these are separate issues as to whether the kids themselves should be fair game or not, which to my mind is a blanket ‘no’. One only has to read the experiences of famous kids / kids of famous people with a little empathy to realise why.
But these are separate issues as to whether the kids themselves should be fair game or not, which to my mind is a blanket ‘no’. One only has to read the experiences of famous kids / kids of famous people with a little empathy to realise why.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The sins of the fathers are not to be visited on the sons and all that.
So with that in mind, I wonder what his other children think of this and how they might take this out on the country when they grow up.
It does strike me that a major reason people can use "Boris" is that it's a distinctive name. Things might have been different had his name been "Fred".
Other PMs graced with commonly-used single-name epithets were "Maggie" (often in a derogatory sense) and "Winston". Of course others - but not all - gained nicknames such as "Supermac" and "Sunny Jim". In London we had "Red Ken" as Leader of the Council and later as Mayor.
I am put in mind of Prince Charles arriving on board the first naval vessel to which he was posted: 'Hallo, I'm your new midshipman. You can call me Charles.' 'Indeed? I am the First Officer of this ship, and you can call me "Sir".'
The First Officer is, I take it, the First Lieutenant of earlier days, but it was certainly true in the Navy at one time that the Captain was second only to God, this being due simply to God being older...
...as Mr Midshipman Windsor no doubt soon discovered.
From this week's Church Times, in a review by the Rt Revd Lord Harries of a recently published biography of the late Archbishop John Habgood,
"When Justin Welby went up to Cambridge, he was told by the boatman at the University Boat Club that Etonians came in two kinds, "proper gentleman who I'd trust anywhere or complete bastards".
Now, of course, Lord Harries is strongly implying that both Justin Welby and John Habgood belong in the first category. So, why am I quoting this here? And is it just a coincidence that he chose to start his review with this comment? It isn't that relevant to the rest of the review.
Comments
Seriously? You're comparing being a bit impolite about names used by the powerful and how they're reported with jokes made by the powerful about sexual assault? Try getting a sense of perspective.
Let me make it quite plain. I have nothing whatsoever against Master Wilfred, and, anyway, I don't think it was I who first suggested that, under the circumstances, 'Pestilence' might be an appropriate - if uncouth - name. The spelling is slightly different, but 'Wilfrid' was, and is, a much-respected English saint.
If I am worthy of being chastised or admonished by a Host or Admin, let them say so.
You're right to say an innocent baby shouldn't be bullied for its parents' ineptitudes or faults.
But I can't see that that has really happened here. The names that the parents have chosen for the child have been slightly mocked, so the parents are being ridiculed, but not the kid. Indeed, bearing in mind who the parents are, there is, arguably, something of the whiff of opportunism about naming your newborn after the doctor who helped save your life, somewhat along the lines of traditionally naming a child after rich Uncle Fred who has no-one else to leave his money to, when he dies, and is suitably flattered at the compliment to forgive all family transgressions. Nobody surely will dare speak critically about Johnson's latest foray into family life - or indeed his politics towards social health care - when he has honoured the NHS in this distinctive fashion. I'm not sure I personally would be that cynical in this case, but it's an argument that could be made.
Actually, I think Wilfred is a fab name. But then my real-life name is not exactly 'normal' and often raises a giggle.
Remind me, does the BCP feature a prayer for protection against evil?
In the light of recent comments in Purgatory, I wouldn't suggest it applies to all tories.
Please sir, it was me sir.
It used to be a thing to name your children for notable points in your career eg Brilliana, Lady Harley - because her da was governor of Brill at the time.
But belike history will notice this aspect of Mr Johnson's premiership without the prompt of the wean's name.
Well, someone (can't remember who) said that there was "something of the night" about him.
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I’m with @Eutychus. It’s going to be hard enough for the kid having such a detestable father. IMO, the children should be off-limits.
I don't know if anyone else has caught the Netflix documentary on Rachel Dolezal. The documentary is about as controversial as Dolezal herself, but one thing I took away from it was that her kids (well, one is IIRC her adopted brother that she adopted as her son) come across as amazingly together, loyal, and balanced people who pay a heavy price for her notoriety, and quite unreasonably so.
You just did though.
Perhaps clutch those pearls a little harder, so they can strangle you.
I'm sure it's easy to justify now, and when a kid's a bit older, it's easy to justify because, well, it's not like they're going to be reading ship of fools, so they're never going to see it, right?
Kids of famous people (and famous kids) have fucked up lives. As far as I can see, adding any more to that is just gratuitous.
But the parents? Sure. Fill your boots.
If you are that mistaken about the nature of assholes, it's possible that you are being one without noticing.
That’s the life this poor kid has been born into. There’s going to be much, much worse thrown at them than anyone on the Ship is going to dish out, because (in the main), we’re not assholes. However, adding anything to the coming shit pile is just capricious. Joking that a baby should be called pestilence is where, for me, it crossed a line.
I appreciate it’s apparently me and @Eutychus in the minority here, but I’m sure the people that gave crap to Chelsea all her life could justify it with all sorts of reasons too - but there is a cumulative effect, and I don’t think we should be part of it.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. Better to go back to holding Mr Johnson to account, than derailing this any further.
It's nice to be in a minority of at least two, but I'm genuinely depressed about the size of that minority here, or at least the size that's speaking out.
Chelsea puts it well.
Also, the problem I see with this kind of thing is that it leaks. Before we know where we are "Pestilence's dad" or some such will have become Ship vernacular and used in Purgatory as well as in Hell. That sets a certain tone for the debate, one that is not exactly conducive to hearing from those with opposing political views in a constructive manner. And it is right out of Trump's playbook ("Little Adam Schiff...", "Pocahontas"...). As is the response when this is pointed out.
At the moment he is far more likely to be referred to as 'Boris'. Yet he is not your friend, you would never refer to another politician in this way, and by using his preferred form you are perpetuating his populist framing.
It's not language that is going to put off his sympathisers, and it's not inherently derogatory. This is not a right/left thing for me. I had exactly the same sentiment about "Bliar".
Or behaving in a decent manner towards the poor little bastard.
Very few people did (call him 'Tony'), the use of 'Boris' conjures of decades of constructed personality and deliberate branding that is almost entirely populist.
I'm not sure this follows from referring to his father by his surname.
This is true. However, I don't see the alternatives used widely here as doing anything to sidestep that populist image to address the substance.
What I do see, especially if they are used outside Hell, is that they would be off-putting to anybody right-leaning and seeking to engage on the basis of the issues and not the personalities.
I'm not arguing for any of the alternatives being used here in this thread - I just find irony in fact that you warn against 'Trump's playbook" while perpetuating that populist image elsewhere.
(There seems to have been remarkable restraint as regards Bannon Trump. Or perhaps I don't visit the right (?) parts of the internet).
I think the attitude towards Bannon at this point largely tends towards pity. ABdPJ may be a terrible human being in lots of ways but he isn't a patch on Mango Mussolini. President or not, I'd be concerned for the welfare of a child being raised in that environment. The only consolation is that Bannon probably doesn't have to spend too much time with the day-glo moron.
I also think the case with Chelsea is different as she had abuse directed at her. Making comments about why you would name your child after a London borough is a long way from abusing that child directly.
I look forward to the day when the BBC refer to the Labour leader only by his first name.
(Narrator: And he continued to wait until the end of his days...)
I'd entirely agree, in that the latter was a pejorative and the former was what carried its holder to the nation's highest elected office on the back of the banter heuristic.
Absolutely, it was a historical crime committed in plain sight for which the perpetrators never suffered any penalty.
If I was referring to him as 'Tony" (or Charlie) you would have a point.
I think you are underestimating how much the use of 'Boris' in itself shifts the Overton Window.. but I'll leave it there.
But these are separate issues as to whether the kids themselves should be fair game or not, which to my mind is a blanket ‘no’. One only has to read the experiences of famous kids / kids of famous people with a little empathy to realise why.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The sins of the fathers are not to be visited on the sons and all that.
So with that in mind, I wonder what his other children think of this and how they might take this out on the country when they grow up.
I called him de Pfeffel until he got sick, then it sounded unkind. So now I just call him the prime minister.
Other PMs graced with commonly-used single-name epithets were "Maggie" (often in a derogatory sense) and "Winston". Of course others - but not all - gained nicknames such as "Supermac" and "Sunny Jim". In London we had "Red Ken" as Leader of the Council and later as Mayor.
Or Alex.
The First Officer is, I take it, the First Lieutenant of earlier days, but it was certainly true in the Navy at one time that the Captain was second only to God, this being due simply to God being older...
...as Mr Midshipman Windsor no doubt soon discovered.
Now, of course, Lord Harries is strongly implying that both Justin Welby and John Habgood belong in the first category. So, why am I quoting this here? And is it just a coincidence that he chose to start his review with this comment? It isn't that relevant to the rest of the review.