dg comments

please empty your brain below

I really appreciate this post DG. Thank you!

Sam | 12.06.20 - 7:03 a.m. | #

Marmite!

Tigger | 12.06.20 - 7:10 a.m. | #

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Dan Mulchoon | 12.06.20 - 7:22 a.m. | #

Thanks.

Bryn Davies | 12.06.20 - 7:37 a.m. | #

Thank you, DG. I appreciate your thoughtful reflection here.

Ann | 12.06.20 - 7:42 a.m. | #

I thought the post and the diverse responses very thought provoking (in a good way) and quite compelling. I visited the page many times yesterday to catch up on the latest dialogues.

TomH | 12.06.20 - 7:43 a.m. | #

You need to make no apologies. It's your blog and you have no obligation to any of us.

chicker | 12.06.20 - 7:44 a.m. | #

Thanks for responding in a measured and thoughtful way.

Baldassaro | 12.06.20 - 7:54 a.m. | #

I hope you don't get in to an internet pickle over yesterday's post!

Dom | 12.06.20 - 7:54 a.m. | #

I disagreed; I didn't doubt you, however.

I was a little perturbed by a few of those who gave you their 'support'.

Brian | 12.06.20 - 8:09 a.m. | #

So was I.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 8:11 a.m. | #

No apology needed.

Herbof | 12.06.20 - 8:12 a.m. | #

I took the post as humorous, even if , for me, the humour missed the target. What I find much more distasteful were the commenters who seem to have migrated from the darker reaches of the daily mail comments section.

Perhaps an update on bus stop M might calm the waters

Ian | 12.06.20 - 8:18 a.m. | #

I think you have shown yourself to be a big person.

My comment was more about how we are all living through history being made.

Michael | 12.06.20 - 8:19 a.m. | #

Thanks DG.

Having reflected on this myself-

I don't think you set out to upset anyone. I think you genuinely sought to highlight that the institutional response to matters like this is sometimes reactionary, excessive, tone deaf, overly cautious etc and rarely comes from genuine concern or appreciation of the issues, just from a desire to avoid "controversy" or bad pr.

Unfortunately in trying to mock this your post instead appeared to imply that the demands of the protestors themselves were excessive, "pc gone mad" or reactionary, problematic etc. I now think this was not your intention, but if taken in this way, it is easy to see why some (including me) felt the post missed its target and punched down.

I don't wish to reopen the debate in the comments, just to apologise if I also upset anyone with my comments yesterday.

Satire is hard to get right, especially on an issue like this, and normally you are spot on. On this occasion you missed the mark, but I really appreciate your reflective post and hope you do not feel discouraged by the response you received.

E | 12.06.20 - 8:22 a.m. | #

It may be possible to make a controversial point and only get 'a's. It might, just. But it will never be possible to make a controversial point with humour and not get any 'b's. That is not a reason for not doing it.

Sarah | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 8:23 a.m. | #

I enjoyed the post, looked at the number of comments already there by 10am, thought "dumpster fire" and skipped reading them for a change.

I come here for your commentary, the comments on that are (usually) just icing.

Chz | 12.06.20 - 8:23 a.m. | #

You have done a great job, over the years, and particularly yesterday. You have nothing to apologise for.
Be advised that some trolls can you use long words, but they're still trolls

Alan Slater | 12.06.20 - 8:32 a.m. | #

“your post appeared to imply...” is at the nub of this.

Unfortunately it appeared to imply different things to different people.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 8:33 a.m. | #

Don't feed the trolls.

Blue Witch | 12.06.20 - 8:37 a.m. | #

Thanks, DG, for the thoughtful response. There really is no need to apologise - this is your blog and you are entitled to write whatever you like, whether about the Archers or sex or buses or all three at once - but I’m glad you did, as some readers were clearly quite upset or disappointed.

You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but you do an extraordinary job of pleasing most of the people most of the time, as demonstrated by the number of us who keep coming back year after year (9 million plus visitors). So thank you.

Andrew | 12.06.20 - 8:40 a.m. | #

I didn't have chance to read yesterday's post. What did I miss?

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 8:41 a.m. | #

As Korzybski said "The map is not the territory and the word is not the thing". This applies as much to statues as to satirical blog posts. A world where people took both in context, learned from them, and checked and changed their own behaviour in response would be a wonderful thing.

Mike Newman | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 8:42 a.m. | #

Agree with Sarah - well said.

Herbof | 12.06.20 - 8:43 a.m. | #

Your post did imply different things to different people. Most of your blogs will, although on a different plane.

This is your blog and we are visitors to your musings. We can agree that Ironbridge (say) is worth visiting or huff that once you've seen one bridge you've seen them all. It's not your fault if someone doesn't like bridges. As I say, a different plane.

Keep it up and I, too, wouldn't mind an 'M' update.

Chris | 12.06.20 - 8:52 a.m. | #

Excellent response!

You could teach Mr Cummings a lesson or two...

Thomas | 12.06.20 - 8:59 a.m. | #

For me the overall impression was of alignment with the ‘where will it end’ brigade - the details about the slave owners showed that that was not the intention and that something more was going on, but perhaps it was too subtle. Is there a way to describe the equivalent of double and triple bluffs in satire? Certainly the comments showed that the post had been taken in various different ways, some quite surprising.

Alan | 12.06.20 - 9:02 a.m. | #

Chin Up!

The post was misjudged in my view, but like others I'll keep reading because tomorrow you'll no doubt write something that does educate or entertain. Even if it is about bus stop signage!

For me, I find myself sharing the shock and sympathy over the George Floyd killing and completely understanding why this might be a time to make certain changes. But at the same time, I can't help finding some of the comments [eg. "Racism is a pandemic"] nonsense if taken literally and some of the targets of anger misguided at best, if not absurd.

I guess you spotted the potential for satire in all this but the tone and timing misfired for many of us.

Alan | 12.06.20 - 9:16 a.m. | #

Thank you, DG

TheLupineOne | 12.06.20 - 9:21 a.m. | #

I sense a spike of sanctimonious po-facery these last couple of days. Maybe it's lockdown thing - a blog post attempted to amuse, but didn't. Nothing more to see here, let's move on to the important stuff.

Frank F | 12.06.20 - 9:41 a.m. | #

I have never commented before but felt like I had to pop my cherry. I felt you were mocking the middle class white people who have literally jumped on the bandwagon of outrage which seems endemic in society today. Dialogue seems to have ended and all reason has gone out of window, lets discuss real injustices that marginalised people have (which can often bring people together).

Chris | 12.06.20 - 10:34 a.m. | #

Can we please have a post about kittens?

Debster | 12.06.20 - 10:48 a.m. | #

Thank you for your unreserved apology - it shows the better person.

Never change - your posts are always interesting and educational even if you sometimes miss the mark, and some of us fail to notice until it's pointed out.

Being held to account leads to growth, which is good.

Cornish Cockney | 12.06.20 - 11:35 a.m. | #

DG - I accept that you’ve reflected on all this, and you’ve decided that you’ve missed the mark. You have umpteen years of blogging experience and 9 million+ visits, and it is your space to create, after all.

However, a couple of thoughts - could satire not be viewed as an art form? And if so - aren’t all pieces of art potentially open to multiple interpretations, that there may be no single ‘correct’ way to view what you wrote? Part of what made the experience for me was reading the various takes readers had on what you wrote - some of which never would have occurred to me to think about otherwise.

I also wonder how these groupings look, compared with previous posts. Do you find that there is a higher proportion of a)s for your posts usually? How do the groupings compare, both with similar ‘controversial’ posts and other, non-controversial ones? Is there an example that supports your claim, that you can make a controversial point and only get a)s?

Sam | 12.06.20 - 12:12 p.m. | #

I was in group d) didn't comment - as I saw the post as satire which has place in a thinking society if only to prick the bubbles of inflated politicians to bring them down to earth.

You might be over thinking this, perhaps you need to get out more. Travel broadens the mind. What's stopping you?

Richard | 12.06.20 - 12:18 p.m. | #

Thanks for this DG. I think you also had three options:

a) Ignore the reaction to yesterday's post and move on.
b) Double down and defend it.
c) Acknowledge it as a mistake.

I'm really glad you went for c - it shows the thoughtful and compassionate person we know you are!

BP | 12.06.20 - 12:31 p.m. | #

Nice one DG. That's the way.

Baboon | 12.06.20 - 12:33 p.m. | #

I was also in group d), mainly because I wasn't quite sure what point you were making (in part because I couldn't square it with the viewpoint expressed in the previous two days). I fear this was a classic example of Poe's law - and, indeed, you can't spend any substantial amount time on the internet without eventually falling foul of it.

Anyway, thanks for today's post. I wish more people on the web were this reflective.

Alex | 12.06.20 - 1:26 p.m. | #

BP has summed it up perfectly.

There are plenty of politicians[and their advisors] who could learn a thing or two from DG's magnanimity.

Richard | 12.06.20 - 1:31 p.m. | #

This is your blog, your comments, your musings, your opinions. Any and all of that can, will and often does generate comment. In this case the post offered a different, unusual and a uniquely 'DG' take on an important debate. I feel that most reasonable people will have seen it for that.

Stuart Render | 12.06.20 - 1:37 p.m. | #

Good response.

Yesterday's post felt so out of character. Good to see sanity restored today.

xx

A | 12.06.20 - 1:37 p.m. | #

It wasn't the article, it was the sort of people that will be triggered by it, and see it as a serious article.

There is a small but vocal minority at opposite ends of the political spectrum that are looking for offence and outrage in every little thing.

The majority of us still have a sense of perspective.

Darren | 12.06.20 - 1:45 p.m. | #

I caught up with yesterday's comments earlier this morning. One hit me between the eyes and really moved my thinking (I do hope Anon’s partner can continue to enjoy the blog). I held off from commenting here to see if a bit of ‘business as usual' would water down my reflections.

The commenter in question may be interested to know that it hasn’t. There are so many things in there which are undeniable, yet are routinely denied, all too often unwittingly. I sometimes dismissed these as a sort of cultural ‘chip on the shoulder’. Sometimes I nearly didn’t. Now I don’t. Thank you.

You never quite know what you’ll get when you open the DG blog...

NickW | 12.06.20 - 2:30 p.m. | #

Also in group d) - didn't comment, but was glad that you had written the post, which I consider didn't detract from the widespread sense of outrage following the murder of George Floyd.

Bob L-S | 12.06.20 - 2:31 p.m. | #

I still see nothing wrong with yesterday's post, especially as I understood what you were trying to say, and am glad you've left it up.

Mikey C | 12.06.20 - 2:33 p.m. | #

It's not about whether you thought it was OK.
A significant number of people didn't.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 2:36 p.m. | #

I'm group (d) too. I read, but didn't feel the need to comment, as I never have done before.

I, as always, enjoyed your post, whether I not I personally agree with everything.

Somebody said something in the comments yesterday which struck a chord with me. Sometimes you find people are offended by things you've enjoyed or appreciate. The vice versa means you need to learn from this and tolerate things you find offensive, as others may have enjoyed or appreciated them.

You maybe 'miss the mark' on other days too, but the people bothered don't feel the need to speak up.

This is your own personal blog, you don't need to filter your thoughts due to the pressure of your audience Some of the best artists and musicians etc in history, wouldn't have got very far if they did.

T. Wolf | 12.06.20 - 4:02 p.m. | #

It's worth pointing out that so-called group d), on a normal day, comprises 99% of readers.

Even yesterday it was still 97%.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 4:06 p.m. | #

Missed the post yesterday and catching up today.
You have nothing to apologise for, i found it very entertaining. You have the right to your view despite the new age puritans. The original puritans were also strange people.
By the way I read the Daily Mail each day

James | 12.06.20 - 5:47 p.m. | #

I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and so felt fairly confident I can recognise what you are trying to say when you are being satirical but yesterday felt like a dog whistle for racists. I trust you didn’t intend this. I think the point you were trying to make was too nuanced for a humourous post. As always, I appreciate your blog and your thoughtfulness in reflecting on the post.

Kate | 12.06.20 - 5:55 p.m. | #

5:47 p.m. "You have nothing to apologise for, i found it very entertaining. By the way I read the Daily Mail each day."

5:55 p.m. "but yesterday felt like a dog whistle for racists."

juxtapose | 12.06.20 - 6:42 p.m. | #

I've read you for years and never post. I think I know you a bit. Yesterday's made me think and probably on balance I wasn't a fan. But even your mates piss you off once in a while and it hardly matters. Keep up the excellent blog

Paul | 12.06.20 - 6:43 p.m. | #

Thank you DG for putting out your post yesterday.

I felt that in your own inimitable way, you identified the difficulties involved in seeking simplistic solutions to the complex issue of how we are to address the less attractive and acceptable aspects of our history and society and move forward accordingly.

At a time when others are merely seeking to replace the cultural imperialism of the past with a social hegemony of the present, someone needs to try to stimulate a more rational and considered approach to this vexed question.

The fact that your respondents fell into 3 equal groups says that there is not a unanimity of opinion as to the best way to do this. But if on reflection you felt dissatisfied with it yourself then so be it.

I don’t always agree with the points you make in your posts, but nevertheless we are all the better for you making them, and long may you continue to do so.

IanD | 12.06.20 - 9:26 p.m. | #

Pressure builds and people vent.
Then others vent on people venting.
Pressure is relieved.

muzzar | 12.06.20 - 9:39 p.m. | #

People often disagree with what I've written.
But I never normally get so many people telling me I shouldn't have written it in the first place.
That's the key thing here.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 12.06.20 - 9:43 p.m. | #

Is that such a bad thing?

dg writes: Yes.

It was well researched, factual and informative.
We all have skeletons in the cupboard, but yesterdays subjects reinvested their (dubious) income in the local community.
Bit like portrait of HMQ by Rolf Harris. As someone who does not admire art in galleries, in fact finds it utterly boring, his portrait was superb, and removing it from display after his court case left us all worse off.
Lord Baden Powell is being attacked now. Amongst his achievements (or otherwise) this kid gained so much confidence and knowledge from joining his scouting idea.

Without Marconi, who had some associations that I find odd, I could not be communicating this.

Rather than try and unjustify the past, which has been done for better or worse, it is better to put the present to rights, and change the future.
There is plenty of slavery going on in the world still today, and getting multinational companies to have a slavery policy does little to right that wrong. It is not them doing it. Just makes a certain section of community have a warm glowing feeling.

scrumpy | 12.06.20 - 11:52 p.m. | #

I was critical of the post and I am not sure why. I know it was satire and I like your satirical way of writing but for some reason the post just did not work for me.

Andrew | Homepage | 13.06.20 - 12:08 a.m. | #

Long time reader and lurker.

Likewise wasn’t impressed with the original post but felt your intention was good I.e. satire also the facts very interesting. Today’s post shows you’re a classy guy. Cheers

John H | 15.06.20 - 2:56 a.m. | #

TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy