Elton John watches Billy Elliot The Musical with husband David Furnish

The Telegraph does like to do this, doesn’t it?

18 thoughts on “Elton John watches Billy Elliot The Musical with husband David Furnish”

  1. “Billy Elliot’s dad was right.”

    Billy Elliot’s dad was a striking miner, a socialist, and not so much opposed himself as frightened that if people found out the bullies and thugs would assume he was gay and beat seven kinds of crap out of him. When he realised that Billy was not just playing, that he had an actual talent and a real chance to escape the cycle of poverty, he made major personal sacrifices to enable Billy’s to have his chance. He even tried to cross the picket lines so that he could earn enough money to pay for the trip, showing that his love for his son could even overcome his socialism.

    It’s a story of how well-meaning people can get trapped by their culture and by the demands of their society, but can overcome it if the cause is seen to be good enough.

    That was what you meant, wasn’t it?

  2. Well, we live and learn. It just goes to show that even a socialist can be right about the evil in other men’s hearts. Experience, no doubt.

    PS. Are you gay? You write a bit gay. Just asking – I’m not attracted to you, or anything.

  3. The Inimitable Steve

    NiV – To be fair, I’ve never actually seen Billy Elliot, because I’m not interested in dancing boys.

    Are you gay?

    Only in prison, and that doesn’t count.

    xx <3 xx

  4. “Only in prison, and that doesn’t count.”

    Ah! That’s the one where you get beaten up for not being gay! Male-oriented cultures are interesting things, aren’t they?

  5. The Inimitable Steve

    That’s the one where you get beaten up for not being gay!

    See also: The Liberal Democrats.

  6. > Nah. I meant ballet dancing is gay.

    Confusingly, Billy Elliot the stage show is a musical, not a ballet. Ballet isn’t that gay, but musicals definitely are.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “It’s a story of how well-meaning people can get trapped by their culture and by the demands of their society, but can overcome it if the cause is seen to be good enough.”

    Really? And not about the inherent narcissism of the writer? Who needs to play up how awful his father was because, you know, he is such a sensitive soul who has suffered so much. But who also needs to let the world know he is such a star, such a talent, that his family was forced to recognise this and make enormous sacrifices because he was so loveable and they loved him so much they could not help themselves?

    It looks a lot like what a narcissist who was utterly uninterested in other people except in so far as they formed the backdrop to his Glorious Leading Role in the Story of the Century would write.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Ljh – “One can’t account for tastes: I would never dress a fruit salad in olive oil.”

    +1

  9. “Really? And not about the inherent narcissism of the writer?”

    No. That’s just your delusional state of mind trying to construct fantastical justifications for your hatred of anything obliquely positive being said about gays.

    ” Who needs to play up how awful his father was because, you know, he is such a sensitive soul who has suffered so much.”

    Delusional again. The point of the story was that his father *wasn’t* being awful. He was trying to *protect* his son, by warning him against the horrific social consequences of not conforming to cultural expectations. He wasn’t wrong about those, either.

    It wasn’t his father who was “awful”, it’s all the thugs and bullies who will pick on somebody and make their lives a misery because they don’t fit in with what they think is right and true and the only way people should be allowed to live. The SJW-like authoritarians who appoint themselves as gender-role police, in other words.

    I’m guessing that’s who Inimitable Steve really meant – it’s just that not being gay he hadn’t watched the film, and so didn’t know the details. That’s forgivable. Cheering on the self-apointed SJW-like gender police, not so much.

    This sort of behaviour has long been recognised as a problem by libertarians, but nobody ever listens.

    Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

    Authoritarians always oppose authoritarianism that tries to get them to behave as *others* demand they should, but see nothing wrong with *their own* demands being imposed on others. The inconsistency passes them by – simply because they know that they’re right and everybody else is wrong. Trouble is, everyone else thinks the same thing.

    Billy’s dad was quite right that not conforming to stereotype was dangerous. Where he went wrong was in knuckling under to the authoritarians, rather than fighting them. The same applies to SJWs. They make demands, and people conform to the politically correct constraints for the sake of a quiet/safe life, not realising it is their own liberty they are surrendering.

    The Billy Elliot story even has a somewhat libertarian theme to it – it’s about people being allowed to do what they want to. Only an SJW would see anything so very terrible in that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *