Verbwhores Through The Looking Glass

[TJ]

There is (or at least has been) a perception elsewhere on the internet that Verbwhores is populated by right wing-leaning middle class white males with no interest in anything above lowbrow culture and nothing better to talk about than masturbation and drugs. Leaving aside the latter question for the moment, how accurate or not is the rest of the accusation?

It has struck me for a long time that there are a lot of what could be termed vaguely right-wing posters to the boards, some of whom are weirdly labouring under a misapprehension that they are in fact somehow left wing (can't remember who it was, but someone once likened me to a right-wing tabloid columnist for being *opposed* to tuition fees - not sure how that works exactly, but I felt fucking insulted by it all the same), and threads like the current 'Bloody Foreigners' one hardly do much to help the widespread perception of the boards. Then again, I'd charge that this is an unfair accusation as there are plenty of clearly left wing types (from the reasoned and sensible likes of Ambient Sheep all the way up to those curious characters who appear to believe the contents of every single anti-Bush page they stumble across on the internet), and plenty of more objective individuals too who are what really make the various politically-inclined discussions fascinating reading, it's just that they're easy to ignore if you're looking for a stick to beat Verbwhores with.

The 'lowbrow culture' one is harder to wave away, because whilst there are always active and vibrant threads about the most obscure and esoteric of subjects, there are still incidents that stick out like a sore thumb and make even the board's staunchest defenders wonder why they're bothering. The John Cage thread on the old board was probably the worst offender as far as I'm concerned (a pity that's disappeared now, as it brought out some great responses). Yet on the other hand, there is a healthy tendency to discuss supposedly 'lowbrow' stuff in a more detailed and analytical style which raises it far above the usual "kerry mcfadden's tits fucken well huge mate!!!" standard, and if someone can take the time and trouble to hit back at criticism of the likes of "Big Brother" using proper reasoning and arguments rather than indignant cliche then that's fair enough in my book.

As for ethnicity and class... we could debate the latter until the cows come home and there's little point and certainly no method of easy demarcation. As  regards the former, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I'm part Hispanic so the would-be derogatory comments always cause me to smirk to myself at the irony.

This thread is in no way inspired by any comment in particular, nor is it intended as a direct criticism of anyone, it's more a way of sparking off a bit of discussion about the way in which these boards are viewed by the rest of the online comedy community.


Thoughts?

[zozman]

Well sometimes I'm lowbrow, sometimes I'm highbrow.  I don't see any contradiction in posting to a highbrow topic and then adding my contribution to "You Know Who I Fancy?"

And as for right or left wing - I don't think that's really as relevant as it used to be (prove me wrong - I'd be happy to have a philosophical discussion, as long as we had a corresponding one about nipples).  I'd say I was generally left wing, but I've been known to swing wildly to the right on topics like crime and education.  I know left wing is more serious, but sometimes it's good to bring out the birch for the scally twat who's knifed your tyres "for a laff".  

*please note - not entirely serious, but not far off*

[mayer]

right wing-leaning

i've always thought that VWs was more "left wing" than right, at least regarding foreign policy, almost to the point of homogenity, so your statement there does surprise me. as an example the "Question for Pro-War VWs" thread was a case of the majority ("left-leaning") 'whores enquiring of the opinions of the very few that were in favour of invasion.

i do think that many VWs edge rightwards on domestic policy, but certainly not to any level where i would describe them as "right wing"


EDIT: poor reading on my part, you've already said what i was thinking in your post.

middle class white males

well, that's the main demographic of internet users (i think... correct me if i'm wrong), so there is probably some truth to that. especially as broadband doesn't come cheap, and comedy forums are not seen as an upper-class pursuit, i would imagine most regular posters are "middle-class".

on the gender/skin colour point, i'd probably say that was true, but can offer no reason why. the supposition that white males use the internet/discussion boards more than other groups may well be true, but that of course only delays the answering of "why?" to another level.

no interest in anything above lowbrow culture

if he doesn't mind me mentioning it, i had an interesting chat with fanny about this at the last meet. if i recall correctly we both agreed that there are some posters who seem to revel in a sort of anti-intellectaulism and scorn of anything smacking of being "high-brow".

however, many people (including a good percentage of the responders to the Cage thread) do appreciate discussion of art, culture and so on. and many of those not interested in certain spheres have the good sense to either not post, or intelligently explain their lack of appreciation for certain artforms/artists etc. appropriately.

i think in this instance it's often a case of those few with nothing to say screaming the loudest, and possibly shouting down those who are in fact interested in a certain topics. a shame, of course, but not a fair indictment of the majority of the board.

[Johnny Yesno]

What was wrong with the John Cage discussion?

[TJ]

What was wrong with the John Cage discussion?

The "I want my license fee back, they shouldn't broadcast this wank on a station that's not intended for me and I don't listen to anyway" sentiments. As mentioned above, though, a lot of people took issue with this.

[mayer]

What was wrong with the John Cage discussion?

there was quite a bit of "silence... that's not bloody art!" without any further evaluation.

to think that Cage's work is rubbish is perfectly legititmate, but to not explain why, (or worse still, not even thinking why) makes it pointless and unnecessary to share your opinion on the matter.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

That probably explains the desire by some to do away with general dicussions, as that's the source for most of the low brow stuff (as well as Multimongia). In both of those forums defence, there is plenty of in-depth discussions, loads in fact, as well as things which are genuinely funny- lowbrow or not.

I wouldn't worry too much about what other forum users think of this place. They're probably wrong about us, and we're wrong about them.

The right-wing accusation is mostly bollocks. There's plenty from each side of the fence, and plenty sitting on the fence too. For every mayer, gazzykins, Bill Oddie there's a Pinball, a Kingboy_D and a smoker. So yeah- I wouldn't worry about it that much.

[Borboski]

someone once likened me to a right-wing tabloid columnist for being *opposed* to tuition fees - not sure how that works exactly, but I felt fucking insulted by it all the same)

That was me.

I did the following to back up my witty, acerbic points...









Jerermy Clarkson

Intimating that you were in fact Jeremy Clarkson posting under the name TJ. Unfortunately I read all the posts on the thread, seen a couple posted by people with names beginning with T, and assumed they were all the same.

How we laughed eh?

[hencole]

The right wing comment is slightly true when it comes to crime and punishment, the politicaly correct debate, homosexuality, and ethnicity. Sometimes reads like a right wing tabloid. But to be fair the rest of it is liberal, leftie namby pamby stuff ; ) On the whole though everyone seems to agree about a lot of stuff at the base level and any differences are down to perceptions more than anything else.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

On the whole though everyone seems to agree about a lot of stuff at the base level and any differences are down to perceptions more than anything else.

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. There seems to be people with fundamentally different views on certain topics. And aren't differences always about perception?

Oh crap. I shouldn't be talking like this. Balls, arse, wank, gays etc.

[Jemble Fred]

This all sounds like nonsensical paranoia to me. Where have you read people slagging us off for being right wing? Surely it's exactly the opposite?

The only bad reputation for VWs that I know of is that we rip into new comedy with a vengeance given half a chance. And that's not exactly untrue.

[Morrisfan82]

I'm a little concerned that some of the cited criticisms of Verbwhores in TJ's post may be derived purely from a volume of posters who will often respond to threads in a flippant and terse manner for humourous effect. Ie. somebody starts a thread about political correctness & then a couple of people fire off quick replies about 'bloody darkies' or whatever. Which are clearly cheap comedy rebuttals & nothing to do with the real-life persona or opinions of the posters involved.

And I'm not complaining about people who do that, it's just the mood of the board seems to generate that kind of silly jovial response sometimes. And I'm pretty sure 95% of people here view such things as throwaway jokey comments and nothing more.

In addition to that, I am aware of a certain degree of devil's-advocate-playing and angry-mock-persona-taking that sometimes operates on particularly socio-political threads. Again, such stance-taking is usually an exaggeration of people's real intent, and probably a symptom of the facelessness of the internet, combined with people accessing the site from odd locations/situations (ie. work, where emotions are usually up & down during the course of a day anyway). The comedic pretense of the site itself could also be adding to this.

But aside from stuff like this, Verbwhores seems a pretty well-meaning, intelligent and reasonable place, population-wise. Certainly a far cry from the majority of interweb communities, revelling in their own pointlessness á la 'Blazin Squad iz fit' and 'I MAKE THAT PIMMS O'CLOCK'.

I don't know who TJ is referring to specifically about whoever has been propagating this image of the inhabitants of this site, but it's clearly nothing to get self-concious about. My better judgement would suspect probably yet another own-trumpet-blower with their little agenda as usual.

Ps. for the record I am neither right-wing nor middle-class, not that anyone should care.

[Rats]

There is (or at least has been) a perception elsewhere on the internet that Verbwhores is populated by right wing-leaning middle class white males with no interest in anything above lowbrow culture and nothing better to talk about than masturbation and drugs.

That's bollocks, we're all lefties.

[untitled_london]

OT and not really dealing with the issue in hand,

well, that's the main demographic of internet users

haha - not by a long chalk mate.

japan, china, korea, india, in no small measure trounce the white middle class assumption being made here.

on you go, just wanted to add that little gem.

p.s. i'm not sure but i think it was predicted/ guesstimated (i hate that word too) that over 50% of the content would be in an asian (meaning oriental for those of who who still take asian to mean south-asia/india) dialect by last year - i haven't seen any follow ups to prove or disporve the assertion yet.

[hencole]

It has struck me for a long time that there are a lot of what could be termed vaguely right-wing posters to the boards, some of whom are weirdly labouring under a misapprehension that they are in fact somehow left wing (can't remember who it was, but someone once likened me to a right-wing tabloid columnist for being *opposed* to tuition fees - not sure how that works exactly, but I felt fucking insulted by it all the same),

I think that I was once annoyed by yours and a majority of others support for Tony Martin and the rights of homeowners to kill unarmed burglars. So in that sense I would classify that as right wing. Not that you or those that I disagreed with on that thread come across as right wing on most other issues.

[Bogey]

(meaning oriental for those of who who still take asian to mean south-asia/india)

Is that not most people?
I'm aware that in the United States the term Asian refers to someone of far-eastern or "oriental" origin, but I thought in this country it's used to refer to those with a subcontinental background.
Have I missed something.

(sorry to stray from the topic by the way, I was just curious about the wordage there)

[Rats]

Well we all thought that untitled london but realised he was talking about people in england.
I bet Jim Davidson shoots burglars.

[TJ]

I think that I was once annoyed by yours and a majority of others support for Tony Martin and the rights of homeowners to kill unarmed burglars. So in that sense I would classify that as right wing. Not that you or those that I disagreed with on that thread come across as right wing on most other issues.

I'm afraid you've got me wrong there Hencole. I don't support 'the rights of homeowners to kill unarmed burglars', I simply didn't have a shred of sympathy for the 'victims' in this case and got annoyed by the forgiving view that many people seemed to take of them (not least the newspaper that referred to the sixteen-year-old who broke into someone's house as 'little', like he was a tragic child murder victim or somesuch). There is a difference. A big one.

[phes]

I'm new to the net so I have little comparison, but I like this website and find that many posters have helped me shake up some of the more concrete thought processes I have. Overall I think the views down this way are quite varied, even if the demographic is to a lesser extent. I've learnt a lot of stuff I didn't know, although I tend not to post on these threads.

[untitled_london]

heh @ rats

agreed, but the pedant in me wouldn't let it lie, and besides i love a cheap shot :P

Is that not most people?
I'm aware that in the United States the term Asian refers to someone of far-eastern or "oriental" origin, but I thought in this country it's used to refer to those with a subcontinental background.
Have I missed something.

(sorry to stray from the topic by the way, I was just curious about the wordage there)

its a curious thing, but i'm under the impression that only the UK (maybe only the english) use asian in the 'indian' sense.

tbh, it just annoys me, asia is heooooge and do dismiss, central, south easern, and major/minor is imo a wilfull display of ignorance, its the equivalent of saying yellow or brown in my mind.

[mayer]

well, that's the main demographic of internet users

haha - not by a long chalk mate.

heh, as addressed by Rats and yerself, i was restricting my jabber to the UK, probably because this is a site about primarily British comedy.


but yes, on with the discussion.

[Purple Tentacle]

Who cares what other people think if they're wrong?

Fuck 'em.

[elderford]

Who cares what other people think if they're wrong?

Fuck 'em.

You are either Tony Blair or David Blunkett and I claim my free subscription to The Daily Mail.

[Johnny Yesno]

What was wrong with the John Cage discussion?

The "I want my license fee back, they shouldn't broadcast this wank on a station that's not intended for me and I don't listen to anyway" sentiments. As mentioned above, though, a lot of people took issue with this.

Oh yeah, I remember. It did lead to a great discussion, though, and not too many people ended up calling each other cunts. I supported putting 4'33" on the radio but I don't think we should always blindly accept what other people tell us is art, otherwise the Emins of this world will always get away with it (see I'm doing it now!).

I do agree with you about the existence of some rightwing viewpoints at cab. I tried to start a thread about this which went wrong. It had a poll ("Are you an idiot or a dolt?" or something) which had something to do with whether you thought Morris's material was about being able to exercise your right to totally untrammelled free speech (usually the domain of rightwing libertarians, see Enoch Powell) or whether it was always about making some satirical point (often the domain of the lefties). It went wrong because the way I phrased it meant it looked like just another "What's Morris about, eh?" thread.
It was a shame because I thought I'd noticed a couple of trends in people's perception of some comedy shows and wanted to see what other VWs thought. For example, Ali G: there seems to be a strand in society (not here, I hasten to add) that finds him funny but still doesn't realise he's a piss-take of certain white people, which makes me think that they think that laughing at black people is okay. Yet I watch the same material and it seems obvious to me that it's not about that at all. Alf Garnett revisited?
Sorry, I've lost where I was going with this. Anyone got a compass?

[Purple Tentacle]

Who cares what other people think if they're wrong?

Fuck 'em.

You are either Tony Blair or David Blunkett and I claim my free subscription to The Daily Mail.

I was referring more to other people's perceptions of myself / verbwhores, rather than opinions on... things.   But I'm sure you knew that already and was joking.

[Munday's Chylde]

I'm a bit... stupid... when it comes to subjects like this, would someone explain to me what left and right wing is and the differences between? Then I'll reward you by telling you which category I fit in.

[Purple Tentacle]

I'm a bit... stupid... when it comes to subjects like this, would someone explain to me what left and right wing is and the differences between? Then I'll reward you by telling you which category I fit in.

Nah, you need the liberal/authoritarian axis thrown in, otherwise it's far too general to take seriously and puts the Nazis far further "left" than you'd expect, and puts Stalin on the hard left, which is innaccurate.


That was no help at all, I'm sorry.

[mayer]

I'm a bit... stupid... when it comes to subjects like this, would someone explain to me what left and right wing is and the differences between? Then I'll reward you by telling you which category I fit in.

well, the labels are pretty much meaningless if you scratch even the slightest surface of any political persona (which is why i often stick them in quote-marks).

but regarding foreign policy:
those thought to be right-wing are pro-America and pro-Westernism. right-wingers used to be anti-interventionism, but are now in favour of it. (well, rather, the meaning of right-wing is what has changed here)

and regarding domestic policy:
those thought to be right-wing are in favour of strong enforcement of law and order, and a restricted welfare state.


the labels are often just used as a simple way to bypass political debate. anyone arguing for gay rights or nuclear disarmament can be dismissed as "loony left", and those with concerns about immigration or welfare expenditure as "right wing bigots", handily avoiding the examination of one's own opinions.

[elderford]

I believe the term comes from France, and is to do with seating arrangements, UK parliament of course sit opposite each other (I suppose where we get The Opposition from?).

Everyone who was posh and didn't want lazy poor people to have access to their hard-earned money sat on the right.

Everyone who had a plan to create a fairer society that would benefit all and end with pogroms involving the mass extermination of large swathes of the population sat on the left.

[12 years, 11 months old]

There is (or at least has been) a perception elsewhere on the internet that Verbwhores is populated by right wing-leaning middle class white males

I hope this doesn't sound like a personal atttack, but its no suprise that the description applies pretty well exactly to Pinball, who seems to start most of the political threads around here and dominates a lot of the subsequent debate.