"These are days of savagely superficial moral outrage" - brief Morrissey interview - El Comercio

A publication he's spoken to before.
Via translate - so take with a pinch of salt:

Morrissey: "Son días de indignación moral salvajemente superficial" -
El Comercio Perú

By José Tsang, Nov. 23, 2018.

5bf80d387753f.jpeg


Morrissey:
"These are days of savagely superficial moral outrage"

Before his concert in Peru, the former The Smiths answers a questionnaire to refer to "El cóndor pasa", Venezuela, his intoxication in Lima and other issues.

The healthy exercise of thinking differently seems devalued. In music, an illustrious member of that minority club is called Morrissey . The media usually highlight their statements and the 59-year-old British artist defends himself with his songs. His latest album, "Low in High School" (2017), includes a song like "Spent the Day in Bed", which states: "Stop watching the news / Because the news manages to scare you / To make you feel small and alone / To make you feel that your mind is not yours. "

The contribution to the music of Morrissey is unquestionable: the band The Smiths is one of the best acts of the 80s, and his solo career also generates admiration. On the other hand, his opinions produce resistance, either because of his militant veganism or to criticize current feminism because he believes that he does not aspire to reach a higher intellectual level.


Morrissey - confessed by a scathing writer like Oscar Wilde - will offer a new concert in Peru this Tuesday, November 27. Before the evening, the singer and composer answered in writing a questionnaire from El Comercio. Among the issues addressed, the figure of intoxication in Lima in 2013.

-The Pretenders played in Lima a few months ago. At the concert, his singer Chrissie Hynde said that you are one of his favorite composers. What inspires you? And what does "Back on the Chain Gang" - you just make a cover of this song by The Pretenders - for you?

Chrissie and I have been friends for years. She is an impressive composer who can bring an unusual feeling to her songs, while most writers copy what has been successful. She is determined and does not have that paranoia to do or say what others believe is right.

-The world of music has changed. The physical disk is disappearing. How not to lose faith in these times? Is it a lost battle? Can we be optimists?

People will always find music and will need it, but at the same time I think they are all exhausted by the promotional machinery that drives the same faces with the same content. There is no more that thing called natural success. Every move is made. We constantly look at what number 1 is and we do not believe in it even for a second. We are tired of hearing about artists who sell millions, although we know that such artists do not inspire love for music.

-In this final phase of 2018, what is Oscar Wilde's phrase that comes to mind the most?

What we fear is what happens to us.

-Let's talk about your last album "Low in High School". What musical spirit did you look for in it?

I'm interested in making songs that start conversations, which is easy in these days of savagely superficial moral outrage that everyone seems to want to express. If you offer a song to people, you should raise their lives for at least four minutes; otherwise, it does not make sense. The greatest honor I receive is when they tell me: "Nobody could have written that song, except you".

-A song like "Who Will Protect Us From The Police?" (Who will protect us from the police?) Is dedicated to Venezuela. What is your point of view about your situation?

Last year I often saw television images in which the Venezuelan police attacked people, which was because they were tired - as you know - of economic corruption. I wondered what gives the police the right to attack people, which rather pays the police for their protection. It seems to me that whenever the people have had enough of the dishonest governments, the police begin to attack the citizens, but they do not attack the dishonest government. How is this fair or civilized? Governments do not pay the police. People do it.

-In your last concert in Lima, in 2015, you sang "El cóndor pasa". Why did you choose this song?

I feel that it has a great moral virtue for the people of Peru; It's like a hand on the shoulder. We all want freedom, we do not want to be the snail or the nail [the phrase in English presents a play on words: "We do not want to be the snail or the nail"], and we imagine that the birds that pass have the final freedom . The song is obviously very old, but it still means a lot because every day we see and hear people who cry out for freedom. Why is it so difficult to get it?

- Fortunately, the episode of poisoning in Peru, in 2013, was overcome. You said you were "officially dead for nine minutes". What did you see in those nine minutes?

When you survive a terrible disease, you recover your health but you realize the unbearable meddling of society in your life, your money, your body and your thoughts, just as you see that we have almost no right to relax and be ourselves. People do not seem to realize that just a sneeze separates us from death. We are willing to live as slaves in one way or another, persistently doing what has been said by people we do not respect. We are all slaves in many ways.

-What can we expect from your new concert in Lima?

I say what I believe and I say it well. Music brings us closer to other people who share our beliefs. If they come to the concert without expecting anything, they will be disappointed.


Regards,
FWD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

countthree

Obvious person
Wow Pablo, it would be nice that all the japanese people who think they failed to their families and are therefore thinking about suicide, they think instead about second chances in another cultural background. In ancient times exile was considered a punishment worst than death. They could set free their families from shame and exiliate to our country. We love losers and we fail all the time here. Second, third and more chances are our thing. Please suicides, come to fail to Argentina. Love you, you don't need to prove anything.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Don't think he had an alternative.
No , he knew that Judus would rat on him, he had plenty of time to make his escape, his apostles I believe even encouraged him to flee, but no.

JESUS COMMITTED SUICIDE.

will you ever forgive him ?

I can’t.

:cool:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I reckon suicide is a sin per the California Son's strong Catholic beliefs. I ye reckon how can any of you lots thick wacker reckon that suicide is not a sin and be a fan of Air Morrissey. Reckon Uncle Steve and Aunt Nancy are usually at the 10:00 mass every Sunday at Our Lady of Malibu inn nn nn n din't inn nnn n n it mate.

View attachment 46555
"Father Morrissey", is it ?.....Almost looks real don't he ? Right down to the black stockings and Irish priestly look of em. Confession time for Auntie ? Sacrilege, or what left of it, prohibits further commentary it does.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No , he knew that Judus would rat on him, he had plenty of time to make his escape, his apostles I believe even encouraged him to flee, but no.

JESUS COMMITTED SUICIDE.

will you ever forgive him ?

I can’t.

:cool:

"A symbol of where madmen and lovers must pause and draw the line."
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
"A symbol of where madmen and lovers must pause and draw the line."
yes ! and the virgin Mary was impregnated by an angel !

an alien abduction! :alien::christmastree::fearscream:

the bible sure is a funny book.

:cool:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
He DID blame the kid for being molested. This is really one that people should just drop because what Morrissey said was absolutely blaming the victim and even "where were the parents?" See, if you leave your 14 year old in the care of an adult you're pretty much asking for them to be molested.
He didn't "condone underage sex" because that is not what happened. That is not the issue here.
"Underage sex" between two people who are underage is still maybe not completely acceptable to all, but it's a lot different than what actually happened.
Just let it go. What Morrissey said was indefensible, but even if it wasn't you would not be the one who could make the case for it. He did not say that "underage sex is widespread in the entertainment industry." He questioned why the boy was there, which might be a reasonable question, had it not been answered previously to his statements. It's almost as if, and I know this is impossible, but it's almost like Morrissey picked an issue that was in the news which he hadn't even bothered to learn about and formed a super hot take on it guaranteed to get his name in the headlines. How completely out of character!
The boy was an actor and was working with Kevin Spacey. Kevin Spacey took the boy and his friend and showed them around town. To a normal person this would be mentoring but if Kevin Spacey is the one doing it, it's called grooming. He gained the trust of the boy and his parents and then invited him to a party.
This happened a year after he is accused of having raped another 14 year old boy but no one knew that at the time. The point is he planned it. He chose a victim who was vulnerable, being in town working alone. He acted like a nice guy and nobody was alerted to his intentions. It didn't seem that strange to invite a professional actor to a party with other professional actors even if he was just 14. But then, according to Spacey, he doesn't remember what happened at all but he's certain he was drunk. And I think that the boy wasn't too socially mature or he would have left then party when he got bored. Instead he watched tv in the bedroom.
This is where everyone says "He went in the bedroom? Obviously he wanted to be raped!" Or maybe that is where the tv was? But if Spacey was a decent person he would have called a cab for the kid when he got bored. Instead he got rid of everyone else and then tried a clumsy attempt at getting the kid to have sex and the kid left.
This is not "underage sex." Just. next time you want to talk about this, do Morrissey and everyone else a big favor and keep your arguments to yourself. We've all mostly forgotten about it and moved on. We don't need to revisit it anymore. It was a stupid thing to say. He even denied he said it until the audio was posted and then he put down his drink for long enough to get a clue that maybe he should shut up about it.

What he said was widespread was actors/actresses having sex to get roles which I'm certain is true but Harvey Weinstein is accused of rape which is very different. And Morrissey's comments about that, which again he denied, and again, were later shown to be exactly what he said, were more along the lines that actresses are these cynical people that have sex for a role and then later on they need attention so they say they were sexually assaulted.

And here's the important thing. This quote, that has been run through google translate, about "moral outrage" sounds like he's revisiting his comments about Spacey and Weinstein but when you actually read it he's not. Professional troll that he is, he's maybe implying something that will get people to pull their hair out in fits of rage but he's not actually saying it. His outrage game has improved. He isn't even talking about that anymore, for which I think we should all give thanks, and he definitely doesn't need you to "explain" it so please don't.
I'm not speaking on my actual views on the subject. I'm hardly talking about the event at all. I'm talking about Morrissey's perception of the event and how I understood it. I don't care if he was wrong or ill-informed(which I do believe he was, but that's my opinion).

He said that the boy must've had "an inkling of what might possibly happen". If Morrissey believes that the boy knew what was going to happen in the bedroom, yet went anyway, isn't safe to assume that Morrissey believes that the boy didn't mind it happening? He also said that, in his youth he was "never in situations like that".
I think he's saying that he avoided such situations because he knew they were dangerous and the fact that the boy didn't means that he might've wanted to be there. That's my interpretation. He then goes on to say
If he meant that the boy should've been aware of where it could lead to, I'd see it as victim-blaming. If he meant that the boy was aware of where it could lead to, I say again that he's saying that it wasn't attack but consensual. I believe the latter because of the "he must've had an inkling of what might possibly happen" quote, but I'm a bit wishy-washy on that, so please try to prove me wrong.

I think it's very clear that he obviously doesn't see the boy as a victim period. The whole speech about "the person who is called a victim" being "merely disappointed" shows plainly that he believed it to be consensual sex. That's not the same as saying: That girl got drunk and was dressed scantily! She was asking to get raped!
That's what I would call victim-blaming.

Afterwards, Morrissey spoke about the children who, would have sex with rock stars. This was meant to prove that consensual sex between adults and children was quite common. So he was defending consensual underaged sex, and even if, as you said, "that is not what happened. That is not the issue here", Morrissey believes it to be the issue and that's all I'm concerned with.

What actually happened is irrelevant to my argument, which only concerns Morrissey's interpretation of what happened(as I've said 50 times). I personally think he was ill informed and unnecessarily cynical, but I don't see it as victim blaming.
 

countthree

Obvious person
No , he knew that Judus would rat on him, he had plenty of time to make his escape, his apostles I believe even encouraged him to flee, but no.

JESUS COMMITTED SUICIDE.

will you ever forgive him ?

I can’t.

:cool:

Maybe he was tired of running away and hiding since he was born, and he decided not to escape anymore. But he did not commit suicide. Other people killed him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No , he knew that Judus would rat on him, he had plenty of time to make his escape, his apostles I believe even encouraged him to flee, but no.

JESUS COMMITTED SUICIDE.

will you ever forgive him ?

I can’t.

:cool:


This is extra hot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not speaking on my actual views on the subject. I'm hardly talking about the event at all. I'm talking about Morrissey's perception of the event and how I understood it. I don't care if he was wrong or ill-informed(which I do believe he was, but that's my opinion).

He said that the boy must've had "an inkling of what might possibly happen". If Morrissey believes that the boy knew what was going to happen in the bedroom, yet went anyway, isn't safe to assume that Morrissey believes that the boy didn't mind it happening? He also said that, in his youth he was "never in situations like that".
I think he's saying that he avoided such situations because he knew they were dangerous and the fact that the boy didn't means that he might've wanted to be there. That's my interpretation. He then goes on to say
If he meant that the boy should've been aware of where it could lead to, I'd see it as victim-blaming. If he meant that the boy was aware of where it could lead to, I say again that he's saying that it wasn't attack but consensual. I believe the latter because of the "he must've had an inkling of what might possibly happen" quote, but I'm a bit wishy-washy on that, so please try to prove me wrong.

I think it's very clear that he obviously doesn't see the boy as a victim period. The whole speech about "the person who is called a victim" being "merely disappointed" shows plainly that he believed it to be consensual sex. That's not the same as saying: That girl got drunk and was dressed scantily! She was asking to get raped!
That's what I would call victim-blaming.

Afterwards, Morrissey spoke about the children who, would have sex with rock stars. This was meant to prove that consensual sex between adults and children was quite common. So he was defending consensual underaged sex, and even if, as you said, "that is not what happened. That is not the issue here", Morrissey believes it to be the issue and that's all I'm concerned with.

What actually happened is irrelevant to my argument, which only concerns Morrissey's interpretation of what happened(as I've said 50 times). I personally think he was ill informed and unnecessarily cynical, but I don't see it as victim blaming.
Okay, you want to really discuss this? How can what Morrissey believes to have occurred be more important than what actually occurred? When he spoke about a specific situation and said that the victim knew what he was getting into how can that not be seen as blaming the victim?
The things that Jimmy Page and David Bowie and thousands of other rock stars have done with underage groupies has nothing to do with what Kevin Spacey did.
How can the facts of a specific case that he commented on be irrelevant to what he said?
Why did he deny saying it?
Why did he quit talking about it when the audio was posted online?

Morrissey's "interpretation" of the facts of the case that he commented on was false and led him to make comments that blamed the victim. It was a regrettable statement. Morrissey's songs still matter to me and I have moved on from this statement. There is no reason for you to bring it up and try to explain it. If Morrissey wanted to explain "When I spoke recently about some events that I'd been asked my opinion on I regret that I was nor fully informed," that would be relevant. He didn't say that. He denied making the comments.

So let's agree to disagree and move on.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Maybe he was tired of running away and hiding since he was born, and he decided not to escape anymore. But he did not commit suicide. Other people killed him.
He committed suicide by letting himself be crucified.

He has sinned and will not be forgiven.

Except by Morrissey, because he is all loving,
and can see past human weakness.

:cool:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Okay, you want to really discuss this? How can what Morrissey believes to have occurred be more important than what actually occurred? When he spoke about a specific situation and said that the victim knew what he was getting into how can that not be seen as blaming the victim?
The things that Jimmy Page and David Bowie and thousands of other rock stars have done with underage groupies has nothing to do with what Kevin Spacey did.
How can the facts of a specific case that he commented on be irrelevant to what he said?
Why did he deny saying it?
Why did he quit talking about it when the audio was posted online?

Morrissey's "interpretation" of the facts of the case that he commented on was false and led him to make comments that blamed the victim. It was a regrettable statement. Morrissey's songs still matter to me and I have moved on from this statement. There is no reason for you to bring it up and try to explain it. If Morrissey wanted to explain "When I spoke recently about some events that I'd been asked my opinion on I regret that I was nor fully informed," that would be relevant. He didn't say that. He denied making the comments.

So let's agree to disagree and move on.
I would like to explain that when I wrote "underage groupies" it sounds like I'm denigrating them and I don't mean to do that. Each one of them is an individual who chose to have sex with an adult while they were in their teens and every one of them has a different story. To me "groupie" isn't really a derogatory term but when I read it back it sounds like I'm saying that I do blame some minors for being sexually exploited and that is not what I believe or meant to say.
 

g23

Always crashing in the same car
Morrissey overestimates the importance of music. Music is a throwaway affair. A mere distraction. Music is whim and fickledom. It's soothing, to a degree, but that's about all. The older I get, the less music means to me. Of course, I'll have a tune at my funeral, but music all the time? There's more to life than a nice tune. Of all the arts, music is the one I could most easily forgo. Even the most majestic of key changes fade on repeated listening.
How very sad this is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Okay, you want to really discuss this? How can what Morrissey believes to have occurred be more important than what actually occurred? When he spoke about a specific situation and said that the victim knew what he was getting into how can that not be seen as blaming the victim?
The things that Jimmy Page and David Bowie and thousands of other rock stars have done with underage groupies has nothing to do with what Kevin Spacey did.
How can the facts of a specific case that he commented on be irrelevant to what he said?
Why did he deny saying it?
Why did he quit talking about it when the audio was posted online?

Morrissey's "interpretation" of the facts of the case that he commented on was false and led him to make comments that blamed the victim. It was a regrettable statement. Morrissey's songs still matter to me and I have moved on from this statement. There is no reason for you to bring it up and try to explain it. If Morrissey wanted to explain "When I spoke recently about some events that I'd been asked my opinion on I regret that I was nor fully informed," that would be relevant. He didn't say that. He denied making the comments.

So let's agree to disagree and move on.
What Morrissey believes is more important than the facts when looking at intent, because his statements were formed only from what he believed to be true, not what was actually true.
Apologies, I don't think I'm explaining this well. Here's a metaphor-
Say you only see in monochrome and someone asks you the color of a ball. You might say grey, because you see the ball as grey. You announce that the ball is grey and people come at you with pitchforks because they believe you to be lying. You shouldn't have announced the color of the ball, since you didn't have all the information. However, when we look from your perspective, we see that you didn't intend malice in saying something untrue. That's just the way you saw it. You would need more data to get the full picture. Therefore, I don't think there's any point in saying, "Well, the ball was actually yellow. That's the fact of the situation. That means you're a liar!". I think that the fact that the ball was actually yellow is irrelevant if we're discussing your character- whether or not you're a liar. I think your sin was announcing that the ball was grey, though you were obviously lacking information. I think it's a little bit ridiculous that someone asked you in the first place, but never mind.
Was that any good? Am I more clear now?

"When he spoke about a specific situation and said that the victim knew what he was getting into how can that not be seen as blaming the victim?" Because if the victim knows what he's getting into, it's not victimhood. How can you blame a victim for being harassed if you don't believe there's a victim, and you don't believe the event was harassment?
He thought the situation was comparable to Page, Bowie, etc sleeping with children, which demonstrates the crux of his understanding of the situation.
Anyway, yes, agree to disagree.

I didn't bring it up. You (or some other anon poster) did.

"Why did he deny saying it?"
Yes, I do think that was imbecilic of him. I think he was trying to lawyer his way out of it. "That's not exactly what I said. Well, that's not exactly what I meant!" He completely canned himself. I agree that he should've admitted his mistake, but that wouldn't be in character, would it?

"Why did he quit talking about it when the audio was posted online?"
He didn't. He released the December Speech after the audio was released. He said that "you could hear it in the tone of" his voice that he didn't support rape, sexual harassment and pedophilia. That was the only quote in which he addressed the audio, but he addressed the Spiegel situation throughout.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What Morrissey believes is more important than the facts when looking at intent, because his statements were formed only from what he believed to be true, not what was actually true.
Apologies, I don't think I'm explaining this well. Here's a metaphor-
Say you only see in monochrome and someone asks you the color of a ball. You might say grey, because you see the ball as grey. You announce that the ball is grey and people come at you with pitchforks because they believe you to be lying. You shouldn't have announced the color of the ball, since you didn't have all the information. However, when we look from your perspective, we see that you didn't intend malice in saying something untrue. That's just the way you saw it. You would need more data to get the full picture. Therefore, I don't think there's any point in saying, "Well, the ball was actually yellow. That's the fact of the situation. That means you're a liar!". I think that the fact that the ball was actually yellow is irrelevant if we're discussing your character- whether or not you're a liar. I think your sin was announcing that the ball was grey, though you were obviously lacking information. I think it's a little bit ridiculous that someone asked you in the first place, but never mind.
Was that any good? Am I more clear now?

"When he spoke about a specific situation and said that the victim knew what he was getting into how can that not be seen as blaming the victim?" Because if the victim knows what he's getting into, it's not victimhood. How can you blame a victim for being harassed if you don't believe there's a victim, and you don't believe the event was harassment?
He thought the situation was comparable to Page, Bowie, etc sleeping with children, which demonstrates the crux of his understanding of the situation.
Anyway, yes, agree to disagree.

I didn't bring it up. You (or some other anon poster) did.

"Why did he deny saying it?"
Yes, I do think that was imbecilic of him. I think he was trying to lawyer his way out of it. "That's not exactly what I said. Well, that's not exactly what I meant!" He completely canned himself. I agree that he should've admitted his mistake, but that wouldn't be in character, would it?

"Why did he quit talking about it when the audio was posted online?"
He didn't. He released the December Speech after the audio was released. He said that "you could hear it in the tone of" his voice that he didn't support rape, sexual harassment and pedophilia. That was the only quote in which he addressed the audio, but he addressed the Spiegel situation throughout.

If I say that some people who are raped or molested are partly to blame for having put themselves in circumstances that they shouldn't have because they should have known better, in some cases that might be true. But when I talk about a specific case without knowing the facts, and then it turns out that what I said was not in agreement with the facts, there is no excuse for my ignorance.
When it involves minors it's even worse.

I understand that you're saying that he didn't know the facts or hadn't read the claims made by the victim, factual or not. You're saying that if the facts were as he had assumed them to be then what he said wouldn't have been victim-blaming, because in fact the victim would have been to blame.
I don't believe that this is not a good argument because the person who made these claims is talking about a time when they were barely in their teens. When I was that age I thought I knew everything. Years later I worked with kids that age and I realized that even teens who are having sex, using drugs, and involved in various adult or criminal activities by choice don't realize the risks they are taking and the potential dangers they are in. To say that a 14 year old probably knew what they were getting into, without knowing the facts, without having bothered to read about it is very irresponsible. The reason it makes me angry is because I know how victims of this kind of behavior respond. They often blame themselves and feel shame and guilt. So for someone to put out the opinion that they should have known better is disgusting.
It doesn't matter to me that he didn't know what he was talking about. I don't think that makes it better.

I understand what you're saying and I disagree. My disagreement with your opinion is not based on a misunderstanding of what you men.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If I say that some people who are raped or molested are partly to blame for having put themselves in circumstances that they shouldn't have because they should have known better, in some cases that might be true. But when I talk about a specific case without knowing the facts, and then it turns out that what I said was not in agreement with the facts, there is no excuse for my ignorance.
When it involves minors it's even worse.

I understand that you're saying that he didn't know the facts or hadn't read the claims made by the victim, factual or not. You're saying that if the facts were as he had assumed them to be then what he said wouldn't have been victim-blaming, because in fact the victim would have been to blame.
I don't believe that this is not a good argument because the person who made these claims is talking about a time when they were barely in their teens. When I was that age I thought I knew everything. Years later I worked with kids that age and I realized that even teens who are having sex, using drugs, and involved in various adult or criminal activities by choice don't realize the risks they are taking and the potential dangers they are in. To say that a 14 year old probably knew what they were getting into, without knowing the facts, without having bothered to read about it is very irresponsible. The reason it makes me angry is because I know how victims of this kind of behavior respond. They often blame themselves and feel shame and guilt. So for someone to put out the opinion that they should have known better is disgusting.
It doesn't matter to me that he didn't know what he was talking about. I don't think that makes it better.

I understand what you're saying and I disagree. My disagreement with your opinion is not based on a misunderstanding of what you men.
I'll be 17 next month, so I do remember quite clearly what it's like to be 14, but I haven't obtained the insight you have yet. I knew everything then and I know everything now. ;) I only mention my age to say that perhaps there's something in this that I can't fully understand until I take a step back. However, I hope you'll still take me seriously.
I must repeat this point because it's the one point that has me convinced that M wasn't blaming a victim. If I'm wrong here, I concede all points and my argument falls to bits-
Morrissey didn't say the boy should've known better. He assumed that the boy did know better. If Morrissey had said he should've known better, that would be obvious victim-blaming. In assuming that he did know, Morrissey is intimating that the victim wanted it to happen, in which case, he isn't a victim. You do mention that him implying such a thing without knowing the information is irresponsible. Yes, you have reason to be angry with him for being irresponsible. However, I still don't believe it's victim-blaming. Blah blah blah...

Again, we should agree to disagree and put this to rest, because yours is an opinion based on emotional experience, so it likely won't change, and mine is a pointless semantics argument.
You definitely have reason to be upset with the comments. I was upset with them too.

Thank you for humouring me. :o
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'll be 17 next month, so I do remember quite clearly what it's like to be 14, but I haven't obtained the insight you have yet. I knew everything then and I know everything now. ;) I only mention my age to say that perhaps there's something in this that I can't fully understand until I take a step back. However, I hope you'll still take me seriously.
I must repeat this point because it's the one point that has me convinced that M wasn't blaming a victim. If I'm wrong here, I concede all points and my argument falls to bits-
Morrissey didn't say the boy should've known better. He assumed that the boy did know better. If Morrissey had said he should've known better, that would be obvious victim-blaming. In assuming that he did know, Morrissey is intimating that the victim wanted it to happen, in which case, he isn't a victim. You do mention that him implying such a thing without knowing the information is irresponsible. Yes, you have reason to be angry with him for being irresponsible. However, I still don't believe it's victim-blaming. Blah blah blah...

Again, we should agree to disagree and put this to rest, because yours is an opinion based on emotional experience, so it likely won't change, and mine is a pointless semantics argument.
You definitely have reason to be upset with the comments. I was upset with them too.

Thank you for humouring me. :o
It's okay. I actually enjoy semantics and arguing when the argument is with someone such as yourself with a clear and rational point of view. I do think that we agree on this much more than we disagree. You make a fine point with "(Morrissey) assumed the boy did know better." By fine I mean very narrowly defined. The problem for me is that in order to get to this point we have to put two unknown factors into the argument. One of them is what Morrissey meant and the other is what he was basing it on. If he believes that the the boy did or should have known better what is this based on?
Anyway, I had to respond because I want to make it clear that I appreciate your argument and the time you took to make it. I was only telling you to stop because I'm trying to forget what Morrissey said. And here he comes again rattling on about "censorship" so, much like the boy in the story, it doesn't appear that this issue will be put to bed soon. I don't want to discourage you in any way from stating your opinion ever. I enjoyed the conversation even if the topic is something I was trying to forget about.
Good luck.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom