Morrissey Central "World Of Wool" (February 28, 2020)

Comments

A

Anonymous

Guest
There is no need to breed them to exploit them in the first place. It might surprise you to know that a prey species aren’t too fond of being captured and manhandled. Kind of stressful. And when they are no longer profitable they are killed. The wool industry is the meat industry.

Hopefully this means Moz will finally switch to non woollen blazers. God knows his journey to veganism has taken many decades for such an outspoken advocate of other animals.
:thumb: He has flirted with veganism, as he does with most things, but he is, as far as is known, not vegan. He alludes to it. He never confirms. Probably so he can't get caught out as he did with his 'vegetarian' lark.
 

GirlAfraidWillNeverLearn

Well-Known Member
He said in a letter that he churns out animal rights statements to deflect from his other bigoted nonsense?
Not really. There was a leaked e-mail by Morrissey to his the manager complainig about his single "The Youngest Was The Most Loved" flopping. He listed some things that in his opinion should have made the single a hit and "enormous tabloid coverage of my animal rights comments" was one of those things. He didn't say anything about deflecting from "bigoted nonsense".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
He said in a letter that he churns out animal rights statements to deflect from his other bigoted nonsense?

Has he ever considered - hiring a PR & saying what we tell him to say? IT'S SO MUCH EASIER.
.... and almost on cue here she is commenting about a video (and comments relating to that video) without watching said video. An example of the blind attempting to lead the blind.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not really. There was a leaked e-mail by Morrissey to his the manager complainig about his single "The Youngest Was The Most Loved" flopping. He listed some things that in his opinion should have made the single a hit and "enormous tabloid coverage of my animal rights comments" was one of those things. He didn't say anything about deflecting from "bigoted nonsense".
I think though you've made Skinny's point for him.

You quote Morrissey stating that a reason for his 'artistic' success should be linked to "enormous tabloid coverage of my animal rights comments".

If that's not a cynical, self-serving statement about his animal right's statements I'm not sure what is.
 

Amonymous

Member
We've seen this before. When he's got something to sell, he churns out 'animal rights' statements to deflect from his other bigoted nonsense. Don't take my word for it, he admitted it himself in the leaked letter to Sanctuary. You're all being played.
Where can I access that letter? It was taken down before I got to read it.

I don't see any dubious intent in sharing this video. First, he hasn't said anything remotely controversial in almost a year... so what is he trying to deflect from?
Secondly, it's just a video. He didn't comment on it, so it's not going to be reported on and the only people who go on M Central are his fans. It won't reach anyone who doesn't already know him.

I have no doubt that when he says something like "Holocaust, Slavery, Meat industry" he's aware that it will garter a ton of publicity. He surely didn't expect any publicity from posting a PETA video to his website.
 

GirlAfraidWillNeverLearn

Well-Known Member
I think though you've made Skinny's point for him.

You quote Morrissey stating that a reason for his 'artistic' success should be linked to "enormous tabloid coverage of my animal rights comments".

If that's not a cynical, self-serving statement about his animal right's statements I'm not sure what is.
Well, not that it matters much but I disagree. He didn't state that he only made those comments in order to create attention or media coverage. They obviously did though and he just wondered why his single was "received by the media like a release from a complete nobody".
I'm not going to argue about the interpretation of this though.
 

GirlAfraidWillNeverLearn

Well-Known Member
I
Where can I access that letter? It was taken down before I got to read it.

I don't see any dubious intent in sharing this video. First, he hasn't said anything remotely controversial in almost a year... so what is he trying to deflect from?
Secondly, it's just a video. He didn't comment on it, so it's not going to be reported on and the only people who go on M Central are his fans. It won't reach anyone who doesn't already know him.

I have no doubt that when he says something like "Holocaust, Slavery, Meat industry" he's aware that it will garter a ton of publicity. He surely didn't expect any publicity from posting a PETA video to his website.
If you do some digging on this site I'm sure you will find it reposted in some comment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Where can I access that letter? It was taken down before I got to read it.

I don't see any dubious intent in sharing this video. First, he hasn't said anything remotely controversial in almost a year... so what is he trying to deflect from?
Secondly, it's just a video. He didn't comment on it, so it's not going to be reported on and the only people who go on M Central are his fans. It won't reach anyone who doesn't already know him.

I have no doubt that when he says something like "Holocaust, Slavery, Meat industry" he's aware that it will garter a ton of publicity. He surely didn't expect any publicity from posting a PETA video to his website.
What is it that you are trying to say?

You mention clearly that when Morrissey makes statements about "Holocaust, Slavery, Meat Industry" That it will garner attention. In doing so you acknowledge that Morrissey makes these statements in the hope of gaining media coverage.

Then you go on to say that by posting a video containing a similar message: Wool is cruel (animal abuse), that this is somehow a different message and that he's wouldn't expect publicity from it? If he didn't wish to raise the 'profile' (of what/whom we're uncertain) then why on earth would he post it - of course it's about publicity. Did you watch the video? The video makes the barbarity utterly clear.

You seem to be using this "First, he hasn't said anything remotely controversial in almost a year" as a badge of honour. It's been a year since one of his outbursts. Are we to be grateful?

"... so what is he trying to deflect from?" He could be deflecting from poor tickets in the UK. Making statements such as this could draw attention a away form that fact or they coud backfire and draw attention to it. Morrissey PR machine has long since been broken.
He could be attempting to draw attention to himself as any mention of the Peta video wll invariably mention that he has a new album to promote.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Not really. There was a leaked e-mail by Morrissey to his the manager complainig about his single "The Youngest Was The Most Loved" flopping. He listed some things that in his opinion should have made the single a hit and "enormous tabloid coverage of my animal rights comments" was one of those things. He didn't say anything about deflecting from "bigoted nonsense".
That sounds as if someone has told him to do more publicity & he's fired back with I Have.

To which he probably got told, no you haven't. Morrissey Makes Animal Rights Comment is like saying The Sun Rises In The East & Sets In The West. It's timeless & the public is unlikely to relate it to a current single.

It doesn't mean he's not sincere about animal rights. And you cannot play the public if it's never worked.
 
Last edited:

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
The 'leaked' letter was indeed removed via a copyright takedown request (which validated its authenticity quite nicely).
@davidt could probably summate the gist of it without incurring the wrath of lawyers.
As for this particular story - the leap to 'this must be a message from Morrissey' without considering SER's extremely well-documented animal rights posts is a tiny bit foolhardy.
This is the point where someone tells me that the explicit 'rule' for 'Messages From Morrissey' is that everything there is something he sanctions or agrees with - well, I just don't see that as true enough as to use definitives when constructing any arguments personally.
Regards,
FWD.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The 'leaked' letter was indeed removed via a copyright takedown request (which validated its authenticity quite nicely).
@davidt could probably summate the gist of it without incurring the wrath of lawyers.
As for this particular story - the leap to 'this must be a message from Morrissey' without considering SER's extremely well-documented animal rights posts is a tiny bit foolhardy.
This is the point where someone tells me that the explicit 'rule' for 'Messages From Morrissey' is that everything there is something he sanctions or agrees with - well, I just don't see that as true enough as to use definitives when constructing any arguments personally.
Regards,
FWD.
Not a dig at you - just an observation ....

It's always nice for Morrissey to have that comfortable fence of his to sit on and for their to be a level of ambiguity as to who posts messages. That, in itself, is an irrelevance as the message are postsed in his name, on his official sites, and therefore the responsibility ends with him.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
Not a dig at you - just an observation ....

It's always nice for Morrissey to have that comfortable fence of his to sit on and for their to be a level of ambiguity as to who posts messages. That, in itself, is an irrelevance as the message are postsed in his name, on his official sites, and therefore the responsibility ends with him.
When Morrissey 'says' something on that site it tends to be indicated as such.
TTY was run by a fan and issued forth information and the occasional statement. It was used on tour posters - Messages... is run by a family member in a similar way. Morrissey's 'responsibility' probably never extends as far as to check if posting 6 cover versions of TIALTNGO is ok or not. I doubt he perceives any 'ultimate' responsibility whatsoever - it's a vehicle to say things whilst pleasing a family member may be the full extent of the arrangement. A large amount of things attributed to being 'definitely' Morrissey are actually things the nephew has seen and shared and you can often see that happen in real time if you watch social media closely.
That doesn't mean I think he (SER) should be given carte blanche to do what he wants, but that appears to be the setup. Point being: I won't use definitives regardless of people's literal interpretation of terms like official as there's no indication that he is that involved or particularly cares - when I know otherwise, my view will change. Drawing conclusions based on ambiguity isn't really a persuasive argument style - whether that ambiguity is contrived or not is a different thing perhaps :)
Regards,
FWD.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
I know that the original letter was removed. I saw it replicated in user comments a while ago though and it's still there. I don't want to link to it here, but if I was able to find it others will too.
It's a shame, I enjoy reading Moz when he's in high cranky diva mode. In his autobiography every time I thought The Trial had ended it started again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We've seen this before. When he's got something to sell, he churns out 'animal rights' statements to deflect from his other bigoted nonsense. Don't take my word for it, he admitted it himself in the leaked letter to Sanctuary. You're all being played.
Hows that Pea?
 

Amonymous

Member
What is it that you are trying to say?

You mention clearly that when Morrissey makes statements about "Holocaust, Slavery, Meat Industry" That it will garner attention. In doing so you acknowledge that Morrissey makes these statements in the hope of gaining media coverage.

Then you go on to say that by posting a video containing a similar message: Wool is cruel (animal abuse), that this is somehow a different message and that he's wouldn't expect publicity from it? If he didn't wish to raise the 'profile' (of what/whom we're uncertain) then why on earth would he post it - of course it's about publicity. Did you watch the video? The video makes the barbarity utterly clear.

You seem to be using this "First, he hasn't said anything remotely controversial in almost a year" as a badge of honour. It's been a year since one of his outbursts. Are we to be grateful?

"... so what is he trying to deflect from?" He could be deflecting from poor tickets in the UK. Making statements such as this could draw attention a away form that fact or they coud backfire and draw attention to it. Morrissey PR machine has long since been broken.
He could be attempting to draw attention to himself as any mention of the Peta video wll invariably mention that he has a new album to promote.
I'm trying to say exactly what I said.

You mention clearly that when Morrissey makes statements about "Holocaust, Slavery, Meat Industry" That it will garner attention. In doing so you acknowledge that Morrissey makes these statements in the hope of gaining media coverage.
Yes, I think that when Morrissey makes incendiary remarks, he's doing it to get media coverage. I never said that he was doing it to draw attention to himself or his album releases. He might make these statements to garner attention towards the issue of factory farming. Either way, he knows these statements will be reported on. That was my point.

Then you go on to say that by posting a video containing a similar message: Wool is cruel (animal abuse), that this is somehow a different message and that he's wouldn't expect publicity from it? If he didn't wish to raise the 'profile' (of what/whom we're uncertain) then why on earth would he post it - of course it's about publicity. Did you watch the video? The video makes the barbarity utterly clear.
I never said that the video has a different message. My point there was that we won't be seeing any Daily Mail articles talking about Morrissey posting a PETA video on his website. We would almost certainly see articles talking about Moz comparing the meat industry to the Holocaust. Therefore, Morrissey is not going to get any extra attention from the video, as the only people who visit Central are people who already know him. The PETA video would be terribly ineffective at promoting his music because it won't reach anyone who hasn't heard of his music.
That's why I think that this video is not about promoting himself, but promoting his cause. I actually think we agree here, but you misunderstood my point. Yes, it's about publicity, but not about himself. He's raising the profile of animal abuse within his group of fans. He's using his fame to promote animals (in this instance), not using animals to promote himself.

You seem to be using this "First, he hasn't said anything remotely controversial in almost a year" as a badge of honour. It's been a year since one of his outbursts. Are we to be grateful?
No, I said that fairly matter-of-factly to mean that it's a bit late for damage control. Why would he be trying to distract people from the "bigoted nonsense" that no one remembers? I would understand the "deflection" claim if he said something quite controversial last week, but, as his last controversial statement was ages ago and all the ire has long since calmed down, it just doesn't seem relevant.

"... so what is he trying to deflect from?" He could be deflecting from poor tickets in the UK. Making statements such as this could draw attention away from that fact or they could backfire and draw attention to it. Morrissey PR machine has long since been broken.
He could be attempting to draw attention to himself as any mention of the Peta video wll invariably mention that he has a new album to promote.
I don't understand why you're assigning so much weight to this video. It doesn't even have a statement attached to it. The caption is not a song lyric. He's had no hand in the video.
Who do you think will be mentioning the PETA video? Do you really think journalists will be writing articles about M sharing a video on his website? I don't think anyone will view the video relative to Morrissey and his career. The only connection between the PETA video and Morrissey's new album is Morrissey himself. Do we agree that his sole target audience when posting this video is his fans? How would a random fan connect this video to ticket sales?If the PETA video reminds people of his new album, the people will be making that connection themselves, as there's nothing in the video to remind them of it. Or are you suggesting that he only posted the video to remind people that he exists and that the actual content of the video was negligible?
I genuinely don't understand your point.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
I'm trying to say exactly what I said.



Yes, I think that when Morrissey makes incendiary remarks, he's doing it to get media coverage. I never said that he was doing it to draw attention to himself or his album releases. He might make these statements to garner attention towards the issue of factory farming. Either way, he knows these statements will be reported on. That was my point.



I never said that the video has a different message. My point there was that we won't be seeing any Daily Mail articles talking about Morrissey posting a PETA video on his website. We would almost certainly see articles talking about Moz comparing the meat industry to the Holocaust. Therefore, Morrissey is not going to get any extra attention from the video, as the only people who visit Central are people who already know him. The PETA video would be terribly ineffective at promoting his music because it won't reach anyone who hasn't heard of his music.
That's why I think that this video is not about promoting himself, but promoting his cause. I actually think we agree here, but you misunderstood my point. Yes, it's about publicity, but not about himself. He's raising the profile of animal abuse within his group of fans. He's using his fame to promote animals (in this instance), not using animals to promote himself.


No, I said that fairly matter-of-factly to mean that it's a bit late for damage control. Why would he be trying to distract people from the "bigoted nonsense" that no one remembers? I would understand the "deflection" claim if he said something quite controversial last week, but, as his last controversial statement was ages ago and all the ire has long since calmed down, it just doesn't seem relevant.


I don't understand why you're assigning so much weight to this video. It doesn't even have a statement attached to it. The caption is not a song lyric. He's had no hand in the video.
Who do you think will be mentioning the PETA video? Do you really think journalists will be writing articles about M sharing a video on his website? I don't think anyone will view the video relative to Morrissey and his career. The only connection between the PETA video and Morrissey's new album is Morrissey himself. Do we agree that his sole target audience when posting this video is his fans? How would a random fan connect this video to ticket sales?If the PETA video reminds people of his new album, the people will be making that connection themselves, as there's nothing in the video to remind them of it. Or are you suggesting that he only posted the video to remind people that he exists and that the actual content of the video was negligible?
I genuinely don't understand your point.
He could deflect from poor ticket sales by selling tickets via conventional methods, like mentioning the tour more than once on his social media & not posting about dead people & tortured sheep.
 

RobLand

Visitor since 1997
We've seen this before. When he's got something to sell, he churns out 'animal rights' statements to deflect from his other bigoted nonsense. Don't take my word for it, he admitted it himself in the leaked letter to Sanctuary. You're all being played.
I could not find a post about that letter. Would you please refresh my memory? Thanks (in advance)
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom