Why is the casual homophobia on 'Never mind the buzzcocks' acceptable?

No, I know what you mean, Guy. It's particularly gruesome whenever they have someone like Richard Fairbrass or Boy George on - the boys locker-room laddism is a bit odd considering the supposed pc credentials of Hughes and Jupitus. Hell, if Anne Robinson making comments about the Welsh merits a police investigation, surely we can get Lamarr hauled before the beak...

(Infinitely more obnoxious – to me – is the line-up section, where current micro-stars get the chance to mock former ditto, for the infinite crime of no longer being current.... )

I don’t even agree with Geordie (sorry, good buddy, to bring disharmony into the tag team) abt Ross vs Clary. This was a standard- issue luvvie-spat abt who’s treading on whose shtick: Ross got into the fisting-Norman-Lamont zone first and best, and Clary was annoyed, and everyone has embarrassed that he was uncool abt it. (Like, if he doesn’t like the way this game is played, why’s he here at all?)

(But then I like Ross – a minority opinion? – and I think Clary’s compromised, coasting, lazy, gorgeous [sigh] and, hey, way past his comedy sell-by these last [x] years... )

As for this widespread laddoid flirting-with/flirting-against gayness, it seems far more to me the fruits of a (?small?) pro-queer cultural victory than the seeds of some dire future anti-queer reversal: affectionate, if sometimes nervously (or clumsily, or forcedly), rather than any kind of genuine toxin.

That argument I'm talking about - the source may be the same - Ross implying that people want to seek a cure for gayness- but the meaning differs coz of how we interpret it. For me time stopped as Clary looked at Ross like Lee Van Cleef,real eye of the tiger,coiled and ready to pounce,two blades in his stanley at Ross' neck vein saying - 'how far do you want to take this cause the line is drawn ?'. Clary was powerful silence,potential energy, maximum giri,fierce voodoo ( like Paxman used to be ),Kaliber became Excaliber and I forgot all his past schtick . But he didn't pull the trigger - just like when Tim Sebastian quizzed Gil Scott Heron about him beating his wife - Julian like Tim just did enough,let his nutz hang while Ross shrivelled. Sure - the thing was taped - so he couldn't effectively go buckwild on Ross ( and end his own primetime career)and he may be past his best but he got the message across to a wannabath charva skiprat in Newcastle.

Do I mind this type of humour? Hmmmmm. A side of me feels horrendously politically correct saying I do mind; but I think the reality of homophobia is for most people intimately connected with lads name-calling in the playground. These quasi flirtations are designed to patrol the limits rather than explore them - I find this depressing not funny. I agree it’s pretty mild, its all vaguely ironic, blah blah… but Bernard Manning jests about race in this way.

Is this thread too boring for you ?

We could broaden the topic and bring them in by asking whether the you're-so-gay stuff on South Park is homophobic? But then I've hardly ever watched that, too.

Dont know if this is what you're talking about re. NMTB but I think stuff like 'gay' and 'gaylord' etc. etc. came back in a few years ago as a kind of retro playground insult with the standard (it's that word again) ironic twist, i.e. wow we used to call each other this all the time wasn't that outrageous, and then it's a very short step to calling each other it all the time again. I've done it myself occasionally in that kind of playground random-insult level and then thought oh God that's a bit awful.

The subtext seems to be - we're cool urban post-everything liberals, we couldn't possibly be prejudiced. Which is bollocks, obviously. You can see it to in the way you get people appropriating "bitch" and "ho", too (which does bring a whole racial element in also) and also in the way that 5 years ago I'd never have thought of calling someone a cunt because it was an Offensive Word and fenced off. And for some people it still is but it's like I now feel that the invisible thing that stopped me doing it isn't there any more.

Is there an offensive identification with the struggles and dignity of other races on the part of todays white urban liberals in the same way that Jamie Oliver and Albarn appropriate mockernee accents without their grandmas ever having had to scrub steps for a living?

I think in public we have a duty to be cautious and to avoid causing offence. Of course within intimate situations, before consenting adults etc people can play out any master - slave type thing they want. But on TV, within light entertainment, I think there is a certain responsibility not to drown out voices – which is what this sort of things about – it isn’t censorship because the effect of a dominant group ridiculing another group is to silence the abused group and make them seethe.

Maybe I'm exaggerating the badness of the programme. But jeez, it managed to make even Lloyd Cole seem almost uninteresting. So it *must* be bad. *Really* bad.

I do worry about Eminem's lyrics, actually. But I think his records are good so I don't not listen to them because I don't like the lyrics.

Similarly if I liked NMTB I'd be worried about the homophobia and would prefer a version of NMTB which didn't have it in, but would probably continue to watch the version that exists.

With some exceptions, I don't think most people think of Eminem, Dre, Snoop and the like as "characters" when they're rapping; with stuff about raping and killing, sure, but not when it comes to the tone & viewpoint of the insults. Remember that Dre said, "I don't care about those people" when asked about gays who were offended by Eminem's songs.

It seems to me that if you're talking about homophobia in music, hip- hop IS the end-all. What other genre is comparable, in terms of how much it equates homosexuality with weakness? I just think it's fascinating to talk about, how people do or don't deal with that, that's all. Peace.

ps. your supposed 'love' of hiphop was not in question, but no matter how cool you think coldcut are doesn't change the fact that you've already expressed your views on hiphop as a music only good enough to 'excite' you and that you consider it entirely void of emotion otherwise. that's what one might call a grudge.

x0x0

Guy's duty/playground etiquette: It's like if you go to school with a note that says "Mark S must not play with the rough boys as he is delicate." Well-intentioned, protective, a kind, meant-to-be-thoughtful move: but a BIG disaster, also. A weapon against bullying that wd become a prime excuse FOR bullying. _South Park_ is (of course) great on the dynamics of much of this: the key insult (imagine Cartman saying it) is "Thet's so WEAK." An act which says, Looks, hands off, guys, gayness IS weakness is a thanks- much-fucker of a gesture.

Clary's shtick is the unleashed glittering cruelty of (a certain kind of) gay banter. It's NOT weak: it fights back. The problem with PC solutions is that they're like teacher saying, "No fighting, chaps, Mark S isn't up to it" — then leaving the area. They don't stop the fight; they just wash hands ("our" hands) of responsibility.

'fruits of a cultural victory": I don't mean that Professional Lads saying "that's so gay" is the victory in itself, obviously not. The victory is the relatively easy visibility of several species of gayness on routine UK TV. Like it's just not that big a deal (compare US TV, I suspect, tho I haven't been over for a while; compare UK TV even 10 years ago). Yes, Buzzcox lameness is certainly abt policing the potential of "light entertainment"; but it requires LESS cautiousness, not more. (I mean Light Entertainment does: NMtB can sod off: tho I suspect Lamarr and (maybe) Jupitus are already in the Hell-of-Media-Compromise now, self-awareness- wise; a LOT of self-hatred going on there).

"affectionate": OK (a) I didn't see any specific incident Guy might have been mentioning; (b) that comes across more forgiving than I maybe quite want it to: however

The point I'm making is this: if media-tosser [x] says "That's so gay", of some opinion/behaviour of media-tosser [y]'s, what's the Learnt Behaviour, playgroundwise? That [y]'s opinion/behaviour is unacceptable/abominable/beyond-the-pale/fit-to-be- witchburnt or merely a silly lovable errancy on the part of a valued buddy? Esp.if [y] just chuckles and throws back some other retort, then isn't this just (detoxified) banter? [ie Learnt Behaviour is that "gay" is NOT a mortal insult which requires defence of humour, anguished refusal-denial, but just an updated version of "oo, yer daft a-porth"].

(How d'yer spell "a-porth" — it means "halfpennyworth", but obviously THAT can't be right... )

Thing is: I want "fisting Norman Lamont" gags to be so ORDINARY that no one even notices (except maybe to say, time Clary updated his material), but I still also want the crackle of outsider-illicit material and/or danger as it flashes across the face of the humdrum. Emotional danger more interesting (to me) than "sexual" danger. But that's only going even to be an option if the gatekeepers are pretty lax.

Clary - I agree totally with your analysis of his ‘shtick’. It is ‘fighting back’ and he does it well. It’s not the camp of Inman at all, but a determination to speak truths as he finds them. Graham Norton does something similar.

"That’s so gay" should be laughed off with some other retort - This is more problematic I think. Of course on a personal level, with a mate, it’s an excellent strategy and to be commended as there is nothing more boring than being with someone who takes offence. However Mark’s proposal is a survival strategy not a justification for giving offence.

My "playground etiquette" does not work in the playground - curiously the "laws" of the playground are not the laws of adult life – adult physical assault for example is punished far more heavily than children’s. Likewise rightly women expect protection from sexual harassment at work. I think if anything you are behind here Mark. Schools are being sued for allowing homophobic bullying and that includes name-calling.

"Mark S must not play with the rough boys as he is delicate." – Gay culture, like lad culture, has a problem with delicacy – it can be even more hysterically macho than straight culture. Some boys are ‘weedy poofs’ and may they always be able to be so. Of course many gays are not, or choose to be not, and not all weeds are poofs and so on.. But with Proust as their patron saint, I say "vivre le weed".

I think you perceive considering PC ideas as being pro banning ideas.. The point here surely is to engage… Politically I applaud Peter Tatchell’s protests against Eminem because it seems an excellent idea to use the ever news-worthy Eminem to flag up the issue of homophobia. And what one thinks of the records is an entirely separate question in my view. Nothing after all is preventing Eminem from affirming his auteur status by distancing his personal views from those of his characters…

NMTB is less useful than Eminem in that it has a very low media profile but still relevant because the music industry is more homophobic now than fifteen years ago. Who is releasing top twenty records like ‘smalltown boy’ now? Who are the big new out pop bands? Stephin Merritt is too marginal a taste to count in this respect. Think back to the mid 80s – Frankie, Culture Club, Bronski Beat, Pet Shop Boys (closety but obvious), Erasure, Marilyn, Divine, Dead or Alive…. Now do a similar list for 2001… Lad culture has made things less inclusive not more.

Hello! I have only just seen this show for the first time! The new ones with the new host! I find it highly amusing! I know, I know! English people will groan! But we don't have this sort of show in the U.S.! Phil Jupitus kinda sucks, yes! I keep feeling like he's imitating Gervaise on The Office until I remember that Gervaise on The Office is imitating people like him! But this still amuses me! "Johnny Tourette!" Okay.

What an early thread this is, up there. Old-school. I think that's from before I ever looked at ILX.

The new ones are pretty good when I remember to watch them but that isn't often.

(This was actually a bad time to revive this, seeing as it is now Friday night in the UK)

Amstell is a lot funnier than Mark Lamarr, but I think Bill Bailey's left now and been replaced by somebody rubbish so he's basically carrying the show himself unless he has a decent guest on?

Oh I just Wiki'd it and Bailey was only replaced by Noel Fielding for a couple of shows. Okay then - Amstell & Bailey = pretty solid lulz

nabisco i've revived a thread on this recently! i like it too! the ep with amy winehouse is highly recommended! i still don't believe johnny tourette actually exists!

But we don't have this sort of show in the U.S.!

Well, technically, we did have this show in America if you count the version hosted by Marc Maron.

I thought panel-based zingathons were common on both sides of the pond?

no panel shows here whatsoever

unless you count "real" ones about politics on sunday morning

Oh wow. Have you never had them? I assumed we ripped these formats off from the US at some point.

We have crap talking-head "remember that song you remember" shows. Weirdly enough, the closest major thing I can think of to this format is, like, The View.

My favorite thing from the Winehouse ones = "that was Hava Nagila ... by Jews."

mine is FANKS...DAHLIN

They are very British. I suppose they have grown out of Radio 4 shows.

I think they've grown out of sarcastic smartarses being sarcastic in the pub.

Buzzcocks is incredibly similar to standing at the bar in my local watching VH1.

Oh wait, there is one US show I can think of that works like this -- that Chelsea Handler show -- and it's interspersed with produced segments and entirely about celebrity/gossip stuff. Plus I've never seen a US show that has any real level of interaction: it's always a host asking specific questions of comedians, who then launch into a bit they've clearly written in advance.

We have Jonathan Ross for that.

i think the big distinction is that the 'official mechanism' of NMtB (the quiz) is completely irrelevant to the show. it doesn't matter who wins, and that's kind of the thing on komedy-panel shows, i take it? i think that kind of knowing pointless excerise as mere grounds for joeks would just confuse and enrage american audiences (to get morbzy, a little)

we have hit game shows that wring MASSIV DRAMA out of people basically doing nothing but pointing at boxes for money. so some fictitious game, no matter how flimsy, has to have something totally at stake

lol we have that game too.

i hate it

Yeah Alba is probably right, this tradition in the UK probably goes back to 50s BBC panel shows where urbane, professorial "celebrities" would show off their erudition for all the thickies at home to be impressed by.

they used to play "my word" on the public radio station in iowa where i grew up. must have been cheap!

This is some grainy real player shit, I'm afraid

But it is an example of the exact thing I was trying to describe.

Well, I also doubt you could possibly get U.S. celebrities to expose themselves to humor and mockery this way, apart from serious wash-outs who nobody wants to see anyway. It would just wind up being a bunch of comedians trying to do their act onstage.

There was a point, though, where late-night and variety-show entertainment in the U.S. could totally work like this! I mean, this stuff is not hugely different from a really good night of Johnny Carson, format-wise.

Noodle otm re ross. jeez that guy is a heavy load, culturally and economically.

I think a lot of the guests who take the most mockery on Buzzcocks are somewhere between wash-outs and never-gonna-get-washed-ins. The more successful guys don't seem to get as much flack.

i still don't believe johnny tourette actually exists!

dude's a total phoney in case u didn't know, it's all a big act!

the show is too horrific to watch. full fkg stop.

Could you elaborate on that please

I think he meant "full fucking stop".

This thread helped me pinpoint why I feel slightly unclean watching this, I thought I just felt like I was dipping into the shameful memory of high school anglophilia but now I think it really is more that I'm going out of my way to watch what is basically one of those vh1 shows that should only be viewed when you are too lazy to get up out of your own filth and turn something else on. This is esp. lame when I don't know half the guests or find half the jokes funny, but simon amstell is a treat

Heh, I was just talking to someone about NMTB earlier and I said that it had been a dead horse with Lamarr for years and that (though I haven't seen it much for some time) it was at least potentially more interesting with a gay host who can hold his own in zingfests after however many years of "ha ha, some of these people look a bit gay, ooh blimey don't bend over, roffles etc", and they had never noticed this at all, and since they watch(ed) it a good deal more often than I did I wasn't sure whether I was imagining it or had just happened to see some bad episodes or what. So it was weird in a good way to look at ILE and see this thread had been revived.

(Maybe I should've said "openly gay", seeing as I know nothing about Mr Lamarr?)

And this isn't even ILE! I think this is where I take the hint that it's well past my bedtime.

Jupitus is still partial to the odd bit of casual homophobia. But it's OK now because the host is gay.

Amstell continues to be amazing value on this. I make a point to watch Buzzcocks on Catch Up TV if I miss it now (unthinkable during Lamarr's reign, even if such a thing as Catch Up Tv had existed then).

Lamarr's thing is "hey everyone knows i'm p.c. to the max, so i can make the gay and women jokes"

Bill Maher's show is a panel show

xp and race jokes. he realy should be on here

amstell is gay?

gay as a window

Lamarr's thing is "hey everyone knows i'm p.c. to the max, so i can make the gay and women jokes"

essentially yes, but you forgot race! similar to Gervais in a way.

Mark Lamarr has been charged with common assault and false imprisonment.

The 51-year-old former Never Mind The Buzzcocks host was charged on September 1 and will appear before magistrates next month.

‘He was released on conditional bail and will appear at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on October 2,' a spokesperson said.

Reports say the case involves an ex-girlfriend in Chiswick, West London.