This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard from you, Richard Armitage

Screen shot 2016-08-18 at 9.48.43 AM

~ by Servetus on August 18, 2016.

166 Responses to “This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard from you, Richard Armitage”

  1. Hm. He left me confused there. There may be some truth in the quote. But surely, RA himself has been politicising a lot recently – isn’t the quote then exactly criticising his own behaviour? Hm…

    • He seems to be pointing the finger at himself, yes. However, the statement in itself (an aphorism of Montaigne’s) is already a problem.

      Honestly, if I needed to hear this kind of crap, I could go to the local cafeteria. I had a very hard time not simply titling this post “fuck you Richard Armitage.”

      • Ouch.
        Well, it’s a continuous rollercoaster with the man. Exciting. coughs

        • Willetts is an arch-conservative and he’s quoting Montaigne here at his most unlikeable, from an essay on why traditional laws are difficult to / should not be changed. Montaigne wasn’t writing about voters, obvs, in the 16th c., but even so he was hardly a democrat. One of the most valuable social goods we have is the right to political self-determination and that requires opinion.

          What an ass.

          • Agree with you. I guess RA hasnt yet looked more deeply into Willetts and/or Renaissance European philosophy. I don’t know Willetts, but I did read philosophy at uni…

            • It’s probably too much to ask an actor to source his quotes before he starts throwing them around.

              • Well, then he has to live with the backlash 😉… Or just “finish” the conversation.

                • There won’t be any backlash. The flood of “oh, Richard, you’re so wonderful and erudite” has already begun.

                  • *sigh

                    • After a quick google search, I can’t believe he’s even reading Mr Willetts, not to mention quoting his “gems” 😯

                    • yeah, Willetts is an arch-conservative (but IMO that doesn’t automatically disqualify him as reading; he’s not an idiot). What’s interesting about Willetts in this case is that he’s an arch-conservative who agrees at least in part with the point that Bartlett seems to be making in the play about the way that the boomers stole their children’s futures — and Bartlett is definitely not a conservative. I think it totally makes sense as a way of doing research for a play. I’ll have to wait to see how this kind of thing fits into the character of Kenneth or if that is visible.

                    • It’s not the diverse reading list that puzzles me, on the contrary. I read people who tend to be polar opposites from my pov too. As wrong as I may find their opinions to be. It’s quoting W in this context that I don’t get. It’s nothing really helpful in this quote. And I remember reading about Willetts’ view on women/workplace/feminism. I think I was looking for something more critical in response to what he reads in W’s book. But we’ve already touched upon this.

                    • yeah — part of the problem here is that we could have reason to think this is Kenneth approving, but even in that context it’s of questionable utility.

                      The most charitable reading I can think of is that Armitage had an off the cuff reaction of agreement with the level of the Montaigne quote that suggests that expressing opinions is arrogant and that’s why he underlined it, i.e.,this has nothing to do with Willetts OR Montaigne or any deep thought at all. I just hate that people somehow seem to think speech doesn’t matter on this level.

          • Well, just goes to prove that quotes taken out of context are a dangerous thing…

            • If you care about that kind of thing, which the fandom doesn’t. 🙂

            • That’s the thing, it was completely out of context. I think responses were based solely on that passage, not it’s original, historical context.

              • I honestly see no relevant context, contemporary or historical, in which this aphorism is really worth quoting — it is a historical artifact that is commonly used to bolster what we might called a Burkean conservative position — but I think you are correct about fans choosing their own contexts. In general, as we discovered last weekend, fans just decide what Armitage means while paying little attention to what he is actually saying.

          • As I tell my son, everyone has an opinion just like everyone has a butt. Just don’t make an ass out of yourself with your opinion.

            • While I take your point, everyone is going to have a different measure of that. Is demonstrating to support your opinion making an ass of yourself, for instance? Just as one person’s self-esteem is another person’s arrogance.

              • I am trying to teach him to base his opinions on facts and not so much on his feelings. One of my pet peeves with him is when he uses the term, “Well, other people are saying” to make his point. I don’t like RA’s underlined comment because he is basically preaching that if you have an opinion you are selfish in stating it?

                • The original author was talking about opinions in the sixteenth century in the context of the question of habits that humans have and whether or not they should be changed. This passage originally is about social change, and points out that the consequences of political opinions often lead to things that we don’t like (war, corruption) mean that taking the risk of articulating and insisting upon a change reflect arrogance (as opposed to true judgement). In the end Montaigne himself seems not as skeptical as this viewpoint, but it was the general viewpoint of his world that novelty was bad.

                  Willetts is quoting it in a way that modern conservatives often do (as far as I can tell based on the snippet — I don’t care to buy the book and put money in the hands of someone who thinks women shouldn’t be educated), essentially to say that hoi polloi thinks all politicians are arrogant.

                  It’s still an open question as to what Armitage meant by citing the Willetts piece.

                  Good on you for making your son figure out what he thinks based on evidence. This is a skill that will always stand him in good stead.

  2. I think I hit a language barrier here. What does he mean “I’m top full of political opinion”? Is it that he has more than enough opinions himself or that he’s fed up with all the opinions he’s confronted with or something else entirely?

    • I read that as (US English) “I am full to the rim with political opinion myself”, i.e., he’s trying to be self-deprecating.

    • Also, I wouldn’t consider that quote a ‘gem’ either. Renaissance philosophers in the current political context, well…

      • I love Montaigne — he is quoted regularly in this blog. I’ve taught excerpts of the Essays many, many times. But yes, what he has to say about politics is totally inappropriate to the habits of a democratic polity. He was an aristocrat who thought aristocrats should be in charge.

        • Exactly. And at uni I regularly found those essays interesting in the context of their time, but reading them with a modern and feminist eye – let’s say those “chaps” can be frustrating 😉 Kant was a focus at one point. Okay for his time, not suitable in a all aspects in today’s society. But that is always something to be aware of when dealing with old texts.

          • I was rereading them while my mother was dying, and I appreciated their stoic cast. They’re also really important (and still relevant) reflections on the nature of the individual (and the emergence of the individualism). I am amusing by the essay on child-rearing. I could go on and on — i could blog about Montaigne and Montaign criticism. I still think he has plenty to say but not about the functioning of a democracy. And this particular snippet is a standard commonplace for modern conservatives to quote.

  3. I just don’t agree with the statement at all, least of all for modern times. Ideology is important, ideas are important, not just for politics but society in general. Yes, politicians have egos and i am sure they play big parts in their involvement. But it is very important to voice them and get people involved otherwise we would always be stuck in the one way of the present which is not always good. And how else would you change things in a dictatorship? And yes the public may not be interested in general in politics, but democracy works by getting them involved and it is the politicians main job to express views, get them involved. And it is important for people to voice different opinions so we have diversity and choice.

    I can imagine he is full of various opinions from his reading material and goings on and it might seem a lot like political noise at one point and current realities are not such as to increase out trust in politicians. But debate, opinions, ideologies, exchange of views an expression is the way of democracy. It’s the only way in democracy to try and change unsatisfactory reality.
    Also blackening politicians and ideology and political debate is how populists gain ground and dictators justify ‘knowing everything better’. No, thanks.

    • re: blackening debate — yes, exactly. This quotation is no more that the equivalent of something my father would say in a bar: “all politicians are self-interested jerks.” As I just said to someone else, if I wanted to listen to this, i could go to the local diner and listen to the farmers talk.

      • RA’s statement is an other example I had this week that makes me wonder and sometimes even despair a little how people read/comprehend texts.

        • I’ve been noticing it a lot lately, too. I think because I used to be fulltime in a classroom, I had a tendency to write it off as student error, i.e., yeah, these students are poor readers but that is why they are here, to improve. Now that I don’t deal with it professionally, I am freer to notice how it characterizes the public sphere. I think it’s two pronged — one is poor reading. The other is that people just will not assimilate evidence that doesn’t conform to their previous pattern. I was watching a fascinating FB conversation the other day in which one of the partners was essentially saying, every time anyone advanced any evidence, “I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that.” When asked what he did believe, the person said, “I only believe what I already know.” Well, then.

          • interesting, had a chat about bias in a similar way with somebody internally, ie people usually say a particular piece of media is biased because they express an opinion different from their own (we were discussing if we as a media organisation had been biased as a bigger number of people complained, from both sides). Maybe that is one of the hardest things to achieve in democracy, accepting that not everyone who has a different opinion with you is automatically against you, ie they may have a valid argument.

            • yeah, there is a real difference between “I disagree with this source” and “this source i biased.” There’s a real belief in the US political sphere at the moment that reality conforms at all times with ideology.

          • Cela me remet en mémoire l’extrait de la chanson ” Maintenant je sais”, du grand acteur Jean Gabin, qui dit:
            ” Toute ma jeunesse, j’ai voulu dire JE SAIS.
            Seulement, plus je cherchais, et puis moins je savais.
            Il y a 60 coups qui ont sonné à l’horloge.
            Je suis encore à ma fenêtre, je regarde et je m’interroge ?
            Maintenant JE SAIS, JE SAIS QU’ON NE SAIT JAMAIS !
            La vie, l’amour, l’argent, les amis et les roses.
            On ne sait jamais le bruit ni la couleur des choses
            C’est tout ce que je sais ! Mais ça, je le SAIS… !”
            “to believe” = plus ou moins “to know”
            🙂 thank you Servetus and Hariclea

        • or how easy they are won over by populist views which don’t offer practical solutions, just vent dissatisfaction with realities? Sigh, getting rid of people/opinions is never a good idea..

          • This is the very real problem of the GOP at the moment. (Which isn’t to say that the Dems don’t have seriously problems, too — they really do — just that they are not ideologically dominated in the same way the GOP has been this election cycle).

      • But poor Richard probably doesn’t hang out with farmers at local diners much unless he is doing research for a role. I am also ‘top full’ of his political opinions he feels compelled to share. At this point, I think his pov on most political issues is entirely predictable and mainstream for an actor. I wish he would surprise us with something we don’t expect. How about a confession that he secretly goes to square dances on the weekends, is taking tennis lessons or has started collecting stamps? Anything but the same old same old.

        • Do you think he’d be a good tennis player?

          • Cricket 😉

            Or basketball, given his height.

          • Probably. He has a good wingspan and height which would help him at net and with his serve. Don’t know how quick he is with his feet, and he would have to have good eye/hand coordination, but all in all, I think he could be good. He would have to bring a macho vibe to the court to be politely intimidating and exude confidence. One cannot be self deprecating. He would have to own his power. No humble demeanor allowed, until he shakes hands after the match.

            • well, there was Borg, back in the day. I don’t know that he was humble, but he wasn’t ever noisy …

        • I would love him to surprise us😉!! I agree that his pov on most political issues is entirely predictable and mainstream as an actor. Indeed, given some of his recent utterances, I sometimes wonder whether he realises that he is at risk of turning himself (unwittingly?) into a pastiche of an actor!

          • Interesting question (to which a different section of Montaigne is strongly relevant — how do we establish who we are for certain? can we?), and it’s a problem that we all suffer from (mutatis mutandis) to some extent.

            I wonder how, if you’re an actor, you avoid looking like a pastiche of an actor. His rep for humility and manners was one counter to that, of course.

    • That’s a really helpful interpretation/contribution! You have me convinced now. (Cos I thought there was a kernel of truth in the quote. I am not sure of that anymore. Thanks!)

      • i still like him though generally, just don’t like his choice of quotes; i feel like i need to say that, just sometimes i feel too much reading and twisting/tweeting probably does his head in 😉 Between the CIA world of BSt and the LLL play and elections and referendums he probably doesn’t know what to think/believe anymore 😉 I wonder how this applies to the play for example.. hm, was that a time when all politicians were considered useless? Possibly, but even expressing that view or thinking current day politics are not suitable for realities is a political view/standpoint in it’s own right, assuming it doesn’t just advocate total chaos. I wish we could play these opinions back to him and see what he thinks… I really really hope we will get some long form interviews about the play and maybe more nuanced views…. I can’t see how such a view as in the quote would align for example with supporting labour party views and i guess also believing that for example the labour party can make a difference. Surely that is also supporting an ideology/idea 🙂 Questions and more questions, eh? 🙂

        • Yes, but that is exactly what I like – finally we are getting back to a proper in-depth discussion of something.
          If current day politics are not suitable for “the man on the street”, then we may as well go back to dictatorship, totalitarianism or feudalism. Benefit of the doubt for RA – that’s probably not what he meant.
          I doubt there will be interviews that will really delve in this kind of topic. We’ll continue to scrape at the surface, as usual. And try to interpret the cryptic messages thrown to us.

          • true — at least we are having a good discussion. I honestly think that most people are not skeptical about politics in the way that Willetts says. They don’t think all people who have politicial opinions are arrogant — they think arrogant people who have political opinions are arrogant.

            re: interviews — I think you are right.

            • That’s a good way of putting it. Political activism (whether conservative or not) is not synonymous with arrogance – even for people who are not interested in politics…

            • J’ai l’impression que l’ arrogance et le narcissisme se logeraient dans la volonté de convaincre, de manière rédhibitoire, la personne avec une opinion différente, que fondamentalement elle a tord et doit changer sa propre opinion. Cela est tout autant valable pour un politicien, que pour un acteur, qui s’adresserait, plus ou moins directement à ses fans, pour leur dicter leur conduite en matière d’ harcèlement sur internet, par exemple . Quelle différence y aurait-il, entre l’attitude de ce politicien et celle de cet acteur? Chacun d’eux s’arrogerait ce droit en vertu de leur notoriété personnelle. Est-ce que la notoriété peut tout permettre? Et le corolaire: peut-on alors tout leur pardonner? Nous aurions alors le droit de clamer: “Ras le bol de la politique et ras le bol des discours de prêche.”
              We would then have the right to shout: “Fed up with politics and sick of preaching speech.”

              • This is well put. The attitude he seems to be proclaiming precludes precisely the sort of persuasion he apparently wants to practice (on us).

                • Je prolongerai cette “analyse”, ne lui déplaise, par l’idée que: comme tout anglais, il est un fervent adepte du brouillard. Rien n’est clair ou précis; l’ambiguïté et l’imprécision règnent trop souvent. Cela conduirait à ressentir un décalage, une inadéquation entre ses proclamations et ses actes réels, ses propos réels. Il en découle une grande frustration et une énorme incompréhension. Si certains fans sont déroutés et en viennent à se détacher émotionnellement, c’est très compréhensible. Quel gâchis! Est-ce que sa tranquillité et sa notoriété est au prix de tant de casse? Il ne faut pas de vagues, il faut abraser les sommets qui affleurent (tidal). Que deviendra son image? Il espère qu’elle en sera bonifiée. Mais cette intolérance, cette rigidité semble le reflet de son moi intérieur. Souvenez-vous de votre article sur la violence, où j’avais effleuré l’idée d’une éducation et d’une personnalité stricte, construite avec la danse et la musique.
                  Bonne fin de semaine.

                  • I think it’s correct to point out the rigidity (we could add to that — potential over rehearsal as something I’ve always postulated about him) and the need to maintain control, but then he really seems to have a fickle, changeable, moody quality that doesn’t fit with that. (shrugs) The puzzle continues.

          • yup,i bet you are right, who knows if there will be many interviews anyway, more likely to have a few about BSt… Too bad as the play itself is very political. At least we entertain ourselves guessing and debating his messages 🙂 I don’t mind that at all. And hopefully if we’ll get to see BSt as well there will be enough food for thought and debate in there too!

    • Hear, hear!

  4. I’m just going to sit quietly here and scowl. Don’t mind me.

  5. Umph I have to confess my total ignorance of Montaigne here – had no idea of the evil patriarchal, anti-democratic stance in his political writings (and I am not being ironic here – I am not big on political philosophy). In a weird twist of opinion I am almost glad about the gaffe – because I have learnt something new today. Am I going to be thrown out of this conversation if I suggest that maybe Mr A is not big on political philosophy either, did not bother to research, and simply took on an aphorism that resonated with him? Definitely a lapse – in this case, a tweet-delete might be a good idea, for once.

    • As a historian, I try to avoid automatic disqualifications related to my own ideological commitments (obviously, or there’d be nothing I could have researched in the 16th c.). Most of the people I write about have opinions that I do not hold and could never have held. That doesn’t mean Montaigne is meaningless to me (see comments above), not in the least.

      I think a big piece of the problem is he’s quoting Willetts, who is a super conservative. It is probably an appropriate strategy for acting, but it’s questionable if political discussion is what you’re participating in. And if you just say something is a “gem” — well, it’s totally open to interpretation what you’re approving of.

      re: deleting, I’m still against it, lol.

      • On re-reading the excerpt contained in the picture (including the bit written bei Willets) – eh, I find that horribly condescending. “Most people are not particularly ideological, so it leaves them cold.” Well, we are getting a taste of Kenneth then, are we?

        • I suppose Armitage could be using the term ‘gem’ sarcastically — that hadn’t occurred to me. In which case, ich nehme alles zurück und behaupt das Gegenteil (I wish there were such a snappy way to say that in English).

          I wonder if he’s concluded that Kenneth is a conservative? I sure didn’t.

          • If it had been meant sarcastically, surely he would have used inverted commas?
            Damn, and another misinterpretation of mine. Haven’t read the play; sort of assumed that Kenneth develops from a sixties Hippie to a conservative fuddy-duddy. I stand corrected.

            • I’m not the core audience for the play (as an American) so there are probably nuances I am missing. To me, going conservative involves a sort of ideological commitment that Kenneth isn’t willing to make. He is above all things intellectually and morally lazy. I feel like becoming a Tory would be too much work for him. I should re-read the play.

          • Maybe Mike Bartlett read W as part of his research when he wrote the play. He could have then also suggested those books for RA’s prep.

          • Yes, I was just about to say, Servetus, that often (but not always) when an English person uses the term ‘gem’ it is with a sarcastic sneer. When you hear them speak, you can obviously recognise it in their tone. Not so on Twitter.

            • I was about to point this out too. And add that bunny ear quotes wouldn’t necessarily be included.

              • So what did enemies of the state mean when it was presented in scare quotes a few days ago then? I guess he was serious and not being sarcastic about that.

            • jaydee, I apologize for reiterating what you already have heard from me in another context: I read English. Have since I was three. The usage is the same in the US.

              • I was agreeing with your previous remark, Servetus, which discussed sarcasm. What did I say wrong this time? I didn’t know whether or not ‘gem’ was used in the same way in the States.

                • If you thought I was saying that I seriously believed Armitage was being sarcastic, then you were incorrect. In any case, if the only reason you are still leaving commentaries here is to inform us about matters of usage we’re already familiar with, such comments are superfluous.

                  • No, I didn’t think that you believed that RA was being sarcastic but I noted that you had brought up the topic – which I had just been about to comment on. I was agreeing that your mention of the word made it worthy of discussion. And I don’t second guess anyone’s knowledge of a word or its inferences when we have so many different languages spoken here and so many cultural backgrounds. I don’t know why you think I am always attacking your knowledge of the English language which is obviously excellent but yours is AE and mine is EE as is Armitage’s and I sometimes think I might have something of value to add in this respect – just as others think they might have a contribution when they comment. You talk as if I am always passing comment here when you know it is only once in a blue moon. I get a banned/but not banned vibe but all I’m doing is trying to be helpful and join in an interesting and lively conversation.

                    • You haven’t broken the comment policy. However, you only ever come here to schoolmarm us. I am personally not interested in that. And guess what? I can read and understand British English, too! I’m multifunctional that way.

          • I don’t think he was using “gem” sarcastically in light of his earlier quote/underline from the same source, which seemed to be serious. If this was a “gem” sarcastically, than what was the other meant to be ( about nationalism and patriotism?)

            • I agree. If he’s using it sarcastically here then we have to reread the previous tweet and it makes even less sense.

        • I figured Kenneth for Blairite Labour.

  6. I’ll be away for a while — got to get my hair cut. What a miserable day.

  7. Sexy Männer soll man nur hören und nicht sehen 😁 (Sexy men should only be seen, not heard).

    • Scheisse!
      Schöne Männer soll man nur SEHEN und nicht hören😂 Mann, der Typ schafft mich …

      • Jetzt passt’s. Wie die Faust aufs Auge.

        • I know: blasphemy has to be learned 😆 It includes not only to produce such “gems” but to bring them in the right context. I will work on my skills furthermore.

      • “C’est l’histoire d’une blonde qui…”. Tout le monde connaît ces petites saynètes qui stigmatisent l’ingénuité ou la stupidité prétendue des femmes aux cheveux blonds. Mais il n’y aura jamais d’équivalent pour les beaux hommes, bruns et musclés.
        En tant que brune, pas sexy, pas musclée, je vous appelle à vous révolter, comme les premières féministes, contre toutes ces inégalités. JOKE

        • I’m sure there jokes about stupid men — just not connected with brown hair. Although we could try to make some up.

    • Another thing I’m having to forcibly restrain myself from saying today.

  8. I think it’s sarcasm. There should be quotations, but he’s never been strong on punctuation.

    • So what does the previous tweet mean, then?

      • Are you referring to the previous tweet on August 11 underlining the writing of the same guy? Maybe they are not linked at all?

        • Then why use the word “gem” in both cases?

        • Or perhaps he meant the term “enemies of the state,” which he used sarcastically, I thought, seriously? A few tweets before that?

          • Like I said the tweets are a few days apart. Who is to say they are linked in any way?

            • Just that they are quotes from the same books, both with underscores and the same word is used to introduce them. That’s pretty strong evidence to me. You are free to differ, but you need to explain why they come from the same book, are underscored, and introduced with the same word (“gem”) if you want to convince me.

              • Surprisingly, I don’t really feel the need to convince you. You are entitled to your interpretation and I mine.

                • You’re entitled to your interpretation and I am entitled to mine, but they are not both equally correct. This seems to me to be one of the most common misconceptions of the day, that because people disagree about things that what each of them believes respectively is equally valid. There is such a thing as evidence. Words mean things.

            • oh — and they are both from the same book that Armitage introduced earlier as “homework” for his job, which also ties them together.

              • Additional evidence that the tweets are related to indicate his approval of the author’s POV, is that in the first one, he called the quote “this little gem” that “resonated” with him, and in the second, he referred to “another gem” by the same author. So the tweets are related, IMO, as evidence that he’s liking what he’s reading.

  9. Another vote for sarcasm too, as I tried to comment earlier – somehow I got lost in the rush, and apologies if I later seem to repeat myself. Personally I’d not feel the need for quotation marks, either.

  10. Aus all euren Äußerungen schließe ich, dass frau hoffen sollte, er habe einfach die Anführungszeichen vergessen. Dann wären wir erleichtert, vielleicht sogar erfreut und Servetus nähme alles zurück und behauptete das Gegenteil. Hab ich das richtig verstanden???
    (Ein Fortbildungsthema jagt das nächste…)

    • Hier kriegst du Wissen vermittelt, das toppt jeden VHS-Kurs 😉

      • Ich reibe mir zur Zeit immer wieder verwundert die Äugelein! Es ist nicht zu fassen, mit welchen Themen ich mich EURETWEGEN beschäftigen “muss/will”. 😉
        “Ockhams Rasiermesser” habe ich sogar schon in meinem RL zum Einsatz gebracht. Wie hältst du das nur schon seit Jahren aus? Wirst du deiner Umgebung nicht langsam unheimlich?

        • Das will ich nicht hoffen 😂 Ich lebe hier im Fandom meine Freude an der spitzen Zunge aus und fühle mich oftmals intellektuell gekitzelt, aber oft auch leicht überfordert (winkewinke Serv).
          Aber auch hier gilt die Weisheit meines Lieblingschefs: Nur Druck macht aus Kohle Diamanten. (Dieser Knallkopp 😆)

          • we’ll try and tone it down. I have think about cooking anyway, it’s nowhere near as frustrating as politics most of the time.

          • “Leicht unterfordert” ist manchmal “leicht” untertrieben 😉
            Dein Lieblingschef scheint ja ein ganz besonderes Juwel zu sein… Na ja, lassen wir da Thema “Chef” lieber bleiben gequälthust
            Aber es stimmt schon, dass man manchmal halt nicht freiwillig zur Anstrengung neigt, dass man aber dann schon merkt, dass es Spaß macht das Hirnschmalz in Wallung zu bringen.

            • Überfordert. Das Wort war “überfordert” 😁

              • UUUps! “Überfordert” stimmt in jeder Hinsicht und sollte eigentlich oben auch so heißen. Das kommt davon, wenn man sich nebenbei mit dem Schatz unterhält…
                Leider kann ich das nicht verbessern grummel
                Immer, wenn ich einen Fehler entdecke, was nicht selten vorkommt, ärgere ich mich darüber, dass ich ihn nicht verbessern kann. Mit Fehler macht der Satz leider wenig Sinn. 😦

                • Blöd gell, dass man auf den Blogs nix deleten kann. Hatte ich auch gerade wieder (s.o.). Da ist Twitter ein viel “dankbareres” Medium. Wie wir aus der jüngeren Vergangenheit am Twitterverhalten einer uns allen bekannten Person mitverfolgen (dürfen).

                  • Wir müssen halt zu unseren Fehlern stehen und können die Diskussion nicht einfach so für beendet erklären 😉 Nix mit “basta”.
                    Lass es uns positiv sehen und annehmen, das wir durch Fehler lernen (wie es so schön heißt – ich bin mir nicht immer sicher, ob das auch stimmt).

  11. my take on the tweet is that “gem” was used sarcastically and “I’m top full” was intended to be self-depreciating. the self-depreciation in this instance didn’t come off as bashful (which is usually the case w/Richard) but cocky instead. the thinking being that since the underlined text implies that someone who shares their political opinion publicly is disturbing the peace, and Richard has been doing so much of that lately (sharing his political opinions), then he must be seen as an arrogant troublemaker.

    I won’t dispute the arrogant part 😉

    • LOL!

      I agree that it was intended in a self-deprecating way (see above), but it doesn’t really matter to me, in that I don’t think political speech is a thing that should be deprecated, period (I agree with Hariclea on that one, pretty firmly).

      But I don’t see how he can be self-deprecating and use “gem” sarcastically at the same time. If he’s self-deprecating his own political expression, doesn’t he have to be using “gem” in a positive sense?

      There is a sense in which self-deprecation sounds like arrogance and he’s definitely on that boundary here.

      • after thinking about it, I see how the two can contradict themselves. the way it was worded would be something I might say myself, so the usage didn’t strike me as odd. if he does think that sharing political opinions publicly is arrogant and he not only continues to do so but revels in it, then… (I can’t seem to finish that sentence in a polite manner, so I won’t 😀 )

        • well, he could be self-deprecating (or think that he’s being successfully self-deprecating), i.e., if you think he was saying something like “anyone who talks about politics is a blowhard including me”. But in that case he couldn’t mean “gem” ironically, I don’t think. I thought you were seeing something I hadn’t considered.

  12. My brain hurts from work today. I wasn’t going to respond here, but I can’t resist. This quote disturbs me. What bothers me more is this sense I always have with these “political” tweets of Armitage. Is he ambiguous to be a shit disturber? Is he lacking in intellect/analytical ability? Is he really opposed to free speech? These are questions that hang in the air for me and I really wish he would just be an actor and do what he does best (act). I have a bad feeling that one of these days in the not too distant future he is going to tweet something that sends me right over the edge and which will turn me off of him completely. It’s been a rough year with this guy on Twitter!

    • I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about the extent to which one as fan contorts oneself in order to preserve one’s picture of a crush. I really think I’m kind of getting to a point where, after two years of stuff like this, I am running out of conclusions other than that Richard Armitage is an opponent of free speech both generally and for his fans specifically. Not sure what to do with that conclusion, but I’ve got four data points now. Shrugs.

  13. I don’t normally comment on the subject of politics because it adsolutely bores me . But I think he hit it spot on. Most polotitions just want to be in a position to change laws to suite themselves. Then later rather them or someone else convinces them to change things yet again. So who’s to say, we or they could all be wrong.

    • What you say about politicians may or may not be true, but that’s not what Armitage’s quote of Willett quoting Montaigne says. It’s not about the correctness or falseness of policy, nor is it about the potential for self-interest (which is not the same as arrogance) as a motivation for change. The Montaigne quote is about how the average person (who, when he was writing was not a voter because there was no democracy in France) views the tendency of people to express political opinions. Willett is quoting this to assert (questionably IMO) that most voters find politicians arrogant and are left cold by ideology. It strikes me that actually the opposite is probably true. If one votes, one actually cares about other people’s political opinions, including those of politicians. I do and I certainly hope that is true of others.

  14. It would appear that your conclusion is completely reasonable. What I was not previously sure of with him was whether his desire to police his fandom was because he disliked controversy and was trying to always “keep it nice.” But it is impossible to view it that way now. What emerges is evidence that he may be a control freak, who thinks it’s okay for him to state his opinion whenever he wants to, but it is somehow NOT okay for others to do the same. I agree, it is hard to keep a crush going on someone like that.

    • Yeah, it’s hard to reconcile all of this politics with the desire to push sweetness and light, because political discussion doesn’t really facilitate that. I’ve thought for a long time that he is a control freak, not least because this is often a feature of the successful ambitious personality. But mixing that up with a clearly anti-democratic position exacerbates the will to control, IMO.

  15. Perhaps I am oversimplifying this far too much, but in the underlined quote, I see him alluding to a politician like Trump. As for the “Top Full”, I took it to mean that he either has a lot of political opinions, or that he’s had enough (as in “I’ve had it up to here!”)
    As I’m coming into the conversation rather late, without any views on Montaigne, I’ll slink away now and continue packing for my camping trip in the middle of nowhere with no cell service or ANY amenities. Been doing this from 2004-2016 with three kids and my brother’s family, and I’ve got to say, I’m “top full” of hardcore camping at the moment.
    Happy discussions…see you in a week.

    • Far be it from me to defend Donald Trump, but he is also a citizen and also has the right to express and pursue the institution of his opinions. Is it by its very nature arrogant to establish an opinion in public? And how does that differentiate him from any other politician who seeks to air his/her opinions publicly and pursue their establishment? I know plenty of people who think Donald Trump is not the most arrogant politician in the 2016 presidential race.

      I hope you have a great camping trip and don’t get too stressed out!

      • I see the point. Anyone is allowed to express their opinion. And, true, Trump is not the only arrogant one, I know. While all this is part of the privilege of democracy, I find myself worn thin by the implications this particular election on our democracy.
        As for camping, I actually do love it. The beautiful surroundings and peace away from bustle is well worth it. What I don’t love is packing. 🤔😫😬

        • Packing is the worst, absolutely. And you have to hope for good weather, of course. I will keep my fingers crossed for you!

          In this quotation, Montaigne isn’t talking about all public discourse, but if you took him as aphoristically as both Willetts and Armitage seem to do, you could say, well, anyone who writes and shares their writing is arrogant, too.

      • Your comment here is how I felt reading the excerpt.

  16. I find the difference in time zones makes it hard for me to join the conversation. Finished work and the drive home and dinner now. I didn’t read this tweet as sarcasm at all, but rather agreement with the quote. And I’m not sure that it was meant to be self deprecating. I thought that RA was saying he was full up with hearing politicians’ opinions. To me that seems to fit with the Willetts passage. Probably not with what Montaigne’s context was, but then I don’t think Armitage was reading beyond what was in that immediate paragraph. I’m not sure there was a lot of deep analysis on his part. I look at the “sharing” of this “gem” and find it annoying. Especially when combined with the fawning replies given to him.

    • yeah — someone is always losing it out. Usually the Australians have it worst, though they at least had a two year period of being at the point of dissemination.

      As the day wore on he started getting some backwind. I was really glad that people pointed out to him what a problem Willetts is.

  17. I’m also too late into this, and I took the tweet as a statement of being fed up with politics for now. As for Willets and Montaigne and why or why not this excerpt is/is not a gem, I’ve simply got to admit to being ignorant.

    I hate when quotes that are unable to stand alone are taken out of context.

    • that seems to be what he said this morning, so we were apparently all wrong about the self-deprecation.

  18. Where on earth do you read that the underlined sentence is even Richard Armitages personal opinion? It’s a quote of a quote of a quote and a gem may well be just that, an interesting thing found in research. Does any of his political tweets sound conservative or anti-democratic to you? I just don’t get it. What is it that annoys you so much? What’s so stupid about it it needs hours of analyzing? It might even be necessary for an actor to take in certain stuff to create a role. As we know it’s his thing to do so. The more I read posts and comments online the more I feel bad for actors who let themselves talk into doing social media. There’s always the option to not read stuff you find stupid or annoying. And I wish I hadn’t read those “Handsome men should shut up” opinions in some comments. Now I start to think that some people here are very anti-democratic themselves. O.o

    • I didn’t say it was his opinion, I said the post was the stupidest thing I had heard from him. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that if someone posts something and doesn’t explicitly eschew it or say what it is about, however, that it reflects something about his opinion. He was the one who said it was a “gem” and this connects to his previous statement about something being a “gem.” Anyone who seeks to delegitimate free speech, which he has now done on four different occasions in three different contexts, is anti-democratic in my opinion. re: handsome men should be seen and not heard — I agree it’s not the most tactful thing anyone has ever said on this blog but it is not contrary to the comments policy. However, saying that people should not analyze anything is contrary to the published rules of commenting on this blog. Therefore, this is your first and last comment on this blog. “Don’t like don’t read” is a rule you can feel free to follow yourself if it is important to you; it’s not one of my opinions, however.

      • By the way, my quoting a joke about being pretty and not talking was in itself a joke. (Tactless as it might be.). I would suspect that most of the people reading this particular blog value a variety of opinions being expressed, including Armitage’s. However, I myself think it’s ok to mention what it is that we find most interesting about Armitage, which for me is inseparably the beauty and the acting. And things that help us try to figure out what makes him tick. And frankly the discourse in the fandom.

        • I took it as a joke. It’s a kind of joke I am ambivalent about in that most people would see it as sexist. At the same time, I would be lying if I said that same thought had never crossed my mind — especially yesterday.

          There’s a tricky balance in dealing with comments in a situation like this. Time and again it’s been proven that a certain modicum of rules makes discussion flow better. At the same time, I would never claim I’m perfect in my formulation of those rules or my enforcement of them. At times I may allow too much latitude and at others I may not allow enough. I, too, am a work in progress.

          • As are we all. And yes it is sexist but not really meant. I guess to me what I found funny was that the original joke was Guy thinking this about Marion, and therefore reflecting badly on himself. Turning it around was for me self deprecating in a way. For even having such a thought.

            • some commentators would say that since women and fans are the subordinates in this hierarchy, simply turning a joke on its head is not sexist or hypocritical. In any case, I thought it was funny, too. I get what you are saying about self-deprecation. It’s sort of like when I find myself saying something my mother would have said after years of swearing I would never say that particular thing.

          • The original quote is: little children should be seen and not heard.
            Was für ein Aufregung wäre es erst gewesen, wenn ich das im wortwörtlichen Sinne angebracht hätte. Klar ist das grenzwertig und unhöflich. Deshalb ist es ja auch nur ein Gedankenspiel. Was für eine Welle….

            • yeah — people say that round here as well. Don’t worry about it. The person who had a problem came in with the intention to disrupt the conversation rather than to try to understand what was being said.

              • Disruptitage.

                • There are just people who’d rather blow up a group than contribute. I am more aware of this now than I was when I started blogging. They tend to show up at moments like this, too.

  19. It does seem that if you want true, and lasting peace, one must prepare for war on any level. That is what that quote says to me. Of course, I’m an optimist that peace on any level is Everlasting.

  20. Schultern zuck

    Die meisten Leute, die ich kenne, benutzen Zitate, weil sie sie “passend” oder “tiefsinnig” finden, und sie kennen oft den Kontext der ursprünglichen Aussage nicht oder haben ihn zumindest nicht im Sinn, wenn sie das Zitat anbringen.

    Wenn ich hier raten sollte: Richard hat den Hinweis vergessen, dass seiner Meinung nach das Zitat am besten in meterhohen Buchstaben an der Wohnzimmerwand verschiedener Politiker stehen sollte.

    Oder er fand es aus irgendwelchen anderen Gründen gut; das kann er nur selber wissen.

    • Either of those explanations is annoying, though, each on a different level. It’s not that I expect him to collect aphorisms in a way different from other people — but each piece of the aphorism, taken on its own, is also offensive in its own right to people who really care about politics (of whom I am one).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: