Fiona Dodwell interview - Felten Ink (Jan. 30, 2020)

On Mozza: "He is an absolutely outstanding artist, entirely in a league of his own"

I saw interview on Fiona dodwell about her writing and they ended asking some questions about why she likes Mozza and why she would still support him, and I think it hits the nail on the head for a lot of fans who still stand by Morrissey, so thought worth sharing

Link to the full thing is here

FIONA DODWELL: “INEXPLICABLE EVENTS HAVE PROBABLY PLANTED LITTLE SEEDS OF INSPIRATION.” - Felten Ink

I have to ask you about Morrissey, after all, you drew my attention with your interviews and I’ve been following you on social media ever since. What do you think that’s so divisive about him among people?

I think Morrissey is seen by some as a “divisive” figure because there simply is no one else out there like him, being so truthful, so open, so willing to discuss things that others won’t. He doesn’t pander to the press, he doesn’t bind himself to the apparent “boundaries” that other artists apply themselves to (out of fear of being controversial or opinionated). He is a rarity, a non-conformist, and because of that, people are sometimes shocked. Wow – a singer with an opinion? Aren’t they just supposed to stand there and inoffensively nod along? No, Morrissey has never been like that and it’s one of the reasons I admire him. There are few like him out there, we should treasure the braver souls amongst us.

What was the initial attraction for you?

First and foremost it’s about the music. That’s the main thing. He is an absolutely outstanding artist, entirely in a league of his own. I know I have spent many years with his music as the “backdrop” to my daily life and so his lyrics, his albums, are very special to me. Then, as we discussed above, there is his confidence and willingness to be bold and strong in the face of some really bad treatment from the mainstream media. That’s something I admire, more than I can express. I get bored of people who try to blend in, or who baulk at the idea of standing-out. It excites me when I see somebody who is willing to go against the grain, and let’s face it, Morrissey does this often. Alongside all of this, I’ve always admired his stance on animal rights.

Why do you think certain elements of the press now take such an unfavourable stance towards him?

I think it’s a combination of lazy journalism, lazy thinking and the hunger to be seen as “politically correct” in a climate where being offended is the fashion. Rarely does the mainstream press actually stop and examine why Morrissey says what he says, they just seem to take a line or two and then run away with their own story.

I find myself agreeing with him more than anything else, but I’d be appalled to be labelled ‘far right’…

It’s the names and labels that do the most damage. If you call somebody “far right” or “racist” then you have blocked the debate at hand, and stopped people examining the specific issues that are being discussed. Plenty of times, Morrissey has made valid points or issues that are relevant, yet what he says isn’t dissected, it’s people’s opinions about what he says that are instead dissected. Why are the mainstream so afraid of actually discussing what he says with level-headedness? Why does everything have to come down to name-calling, immature headlines and mud-slinging? Nobody needs to agree with what another says to at least respectfully hear them out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, I agree for the most part. I'm getting tired of discussing Tatchell every day but I will say this. While you're correct that Stephen Hoffman's posts broke down into nothing at the end Tatchell's quote mentions children as young as 9 so it provides plenty of fuel for anyone wishing to talk about young people. Of course anyone of the age of consent should be able to have sex with others of the age of consent.
The letter was painting a sunny picture of 9 year old children having sex with adults. My point is that regardless of motive you can't just call someone homophobic for bringing that up even if they give clear evidence elsewhere. It makes a handy weapon for homophobic people that would like to use to discredit Tatchell and his work in human rights. That is certainly inconvenient for those who value his work and support equality. I will take your word that he is a valuable asset in the fight for equality and at the same time I will not dismiss what he wrote. Do you see how he is also a liability? He gives people who are too dull and simple to come up with a real argument against equality this one sentence to discredit him, and then when the movement supports him, to also discredit the movement by association. It helps them sell lies and the real battle here is for the minds of the general public, not the LGBTQ-friendly or those like Pippistrella who get excited at the idea of turning back the clock. Those minds are made up. It's the people that are still unsure or think that it has nothing to do with them whose opinions matter in this.
The bottom line is that he can be both an asset and a liability and when his past statement is brought up it doesn't help to attack those who mentioned it.

I agree entirely and share your exhaustion regarding this topic. While I fully appreciate that some children (male/female and those that identity as neither) can sexually mature prior to the one-size-fits-all age of consent (UK 16) it provides a much needed benchmark relating to appropriate sexual behaviours and the law. Everyone, no matter their age, has a right to consensual safe, sexual relationships.

Children (those under 16) are protected by law by what is, in my opinion, an arbitrary age (16). Something does need to be in place but I do think our view on the age of consent should develop with a focus on healthy relationships not blame or guilt. Children are becoming sexualised at an earlier age and while I personally find that quite sad, it's a fact. Society has promoted this hyper-sexualisation in children in order to sell them and their parents product. Society needs to adapt to the situation it has created but it's unlikely to.

I had some admiration for Tatchell but (and I need to read the actual letter) if he is in any way attempting to defend the normalisation of sex (children with adults) then any admiration I may have had for him will dissipate. I don't believe it to be homophobic to raise individual issues such as this. I do believe it to be homophobic to suggest (as others have) that "lots", "many" gay men are a sexual threat to male children without having any factual evidence to back it up other than "the bible says ... ", "everybody knows" or "it's a fact" without the facts.

In my opinion if what you say is correct (again, I have to read the letter) then I believe the best thing for him to do for LGBT people and associated organisations would be to step down. There is such a thing, whether right or wrong, as blame by association. I'm aware that Nerak poses a counter argument (which may be correct) but I have little faith in Nerak's ability to filter fact from personal thinking.
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
I agree entirely and share your exhaustion regarding this topic. While I fully appreciate that some children (male/female and those that identity as neither) can sexually mature prior to the one-size-fits-all age of consent (UK 16) it provides a much needed benchmark relating to appropriate sexual behaviours and the law. Everyone, no matter their age, has a right to consensual safe, sexual relationships.

Children (those under 16) are protected by law by what is, in my opinion, an arbitrary age (16). Something does need to be in place but I do think our view on the age of consent should develop with a focus on healthy relationships not blame or guilt. Children are becoming sexualised at an earlier age and while I personally find that quite sad, it's a fact. Society has promoted this hyper-sexualisation in children in order to sell them and their parents product. Society needs to adapt to the situation it has created but it's unlikely to.

I had some admiration for Tatchell but (and I need to read the actual letter) if he is in any way attempting to defend the normalisation of sex (children with adults) then any admiration I may have had for him will dissipate. I don't believe it to be homophobic to raise individual issues such as this. I do believe it to be homophobic to suggest (as others have) that "lots", "many" gay men are a sexual threat to male children without having any factual evidence to back it up other than "the bible says ... ", "everybody knows" or "it's a fact" without the facts.

In my opinion if what you say is correct (again, I have to read the letter) then I believe the best thing for him to do for LGBT people and associated organisations would be to step down. There is such a thing, whether right or wrong, as blame by association. I'm aware that Nerak poses a counter argument (which may be correct) but I have little faith in Nerak's ability to filter fact from personal thinking.
Totally agree with all of this.
 
Thank you. I know there are some people out there understanding, that it is devastating to see his idol in such a bad state. Music-wise, career-wise and with a badly damaged public image.

What kind of weirdo idolizes another man? His career is doing better than any of his peers and his voice had never been better. Just had a successful tour and releasing a new album.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Below is the comment from the user that Nerak consistently claims to be sexist. You’ll notice that despite Nerak’s later addition of the word shrill, shrill does not appear in the disputed comment. She has also alleged that the disputed comment contained a sexist remark about her appearance? There is a comment about appearance but it’s in no way sexist.



Nerak responded to the users with the comment below. It contains an ageist comment and an unfounded allegation of sexism.



The user asked Nerak to explain why she had made her sexist allegation.



Nerak got shirty, put the user on ignore, and continued to misrepresent what was said in order to substantiate her actions.

Nerak wonders why some people think she is actually the troll Reelfountain in disguise.

There are a number of reasons that I can determine but here are just 2 examples:

  1. The actions above are exactly what Reelfountain would do i.e. engage in conversation, make unfounded allegations, block the user and then continue to rubbish them in the forum.
  2. The role of IP hash monitor was a common Reelfountain predilection. When annoyed Reelfountain would announce the block and then publish the IP hash. Sound familiar?

There was another post in which they (you?) called me shrill.

And almost all of their (your?) posts to me were personally abusive & were sea-lioning rather than making a real point I could respond to.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There was another post in which they (you?) called me shrill.

And almost all of their (your?) posts to me were personally abusive & were sea-lioning rather than making a real point I could respond to.

You misrepresented a comment.
You made an accusation of sexism.
You added shrill to support your non-argument. Shrill was not part of the disputed comment.

The facts are there for all to see despite your continual protestations.
 

Phranc & Open

Well-Known Member
What kind of weirdo idolizes another man? His career is doing better than any of his peers and his voice had never been better. Just had a successful tour and releasing a new album.

None of the 4 gigs is sold out. BMGs interest in promotion tends against ZERO. Fine voice but no memorable tunes anymore. But go on writing, that everything's wonderful and extremely successful in Morrissey world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There was another post in which they (you?) called me shrill.

And almost all of their (your?) posts to me were personally abusive & were sea-lioning rather than making a real point I could respond to.

You got caught out.
Own it!
 

Phranc & Open

Well-Known Member
Sorry. That's not a good answer at all. You don't want to read critical words, that's all. All is fine on planet Morrissey? "You are sleeping, you do not want to believe. You are sleeping."
 

Thewlis

Junior Member
Sorry. That's not a good answer at all. You don't want to read critical words, that's all. All is fine on planet Morrissey? "You are sleeping, you do not want to believe. You are sleeping."
Well yes, a new album and tour coming up. Had never expected that even 6 months ago. Exciting times indeed!
 

Phranc & Open

Well-Known Member
That's a more reasonable comment than the usual "Morrissey is GOD and why do you write here when you think he isn't".
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Anal sex was the most common form of contraception in Victorian England. Historical fact.
What is weird and 'modern' and very unusual is giving unorthodox sexual predilections a label.
From the dawn of history most cultures have seen sex as a spectrum that takes all sorts. The psyche is a bird - why put it in a cage?
It was only with the phallic-monotheistic storm god of Abraham that the obsession of sin and certain practices being seen as 'dirty' was foisted upon the world. Has any philosophy done more damage or f***ed up more minds?

How would anyone know bumming was the most common form of contraception in Victorian England? Did they have canvassers out on the street asking people?
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Another desperate attempt at attention seeking. If you wanted to ignore the person all you had to do was ignore them. Not you! You have to let everyone know that you were ignoring them. Have you any idea how desperate that makes you look?

Your actions also speak to your character. In the few short months that you joined this forum you have paraded yourself like a male peacock. Relentlessly posting comments, aggressively challenging the opinions of others and displaying a considered lack of communication skills. There's a certain air of immaturity masquerading as mature. When you are challenged you become hostile. This seems contrary to your claim of enjoying social discourse; or do you only enjoy social discourse when people agree with you?

I think you're deluded enough to think that posting the users IP was a clever, final act of revenge. There was nothing clever about it. It was merely nasty. IP addresses on this site can be obtained for any user, using any device, in any location but you went out of your way to publicly display this information. Your petty act of revenge has outed you as the aggressive bully that you are.

Aggressive Bully? Lolz.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No I wasn't.
They should own being entirely unable to argue their case.

They did argue their case clearly, concisely and factually (see below). You on the other hand have blatantly misrepresented what occured and showboated your inaccurate 'truth' like a petulant Trump. It's bloody embarrassing to read. You're making a right arse of yourself.

Maybe attention, any attention is what you crave. It certainly seems like it.

Below is the comment from the user that Nerak consistently claims to be sexist. You’ll notice that despite Nerak’s later addition of the word shrill, shrill does not appear in the disputed comment. She has also alleged that the disputed comment contained a sexist remark about her appearance? There is a comment about appearance but it’s in no way sexist.

Anonymous
"BS? Brilliantly said? What's this and a Mirror? You haven't broken another one with your fizzog have you?"

Nerak responded to the users with the comment below. It contains an ageist comment and an unfounded allegation of sexism.

Nerak
"Troll away, you boring old sexist."

The user asked Nerak to explain why she had made her sexist allegation.

Anonymous
"Explain what was sexist about that comment? I can put you in the direction of an ageist comment."

Nerak got shirty, put the user on ignore, and continued to misrepresent what was said in order to substantiate her actions.

Nerak wonders why some people think she is actually the troll Reelfountain in disguise.

There are a number of reasons that I can determine but here are just 2 examples:

  1. The actions above are exactly what Reelfountain would do i.e. engage in conversation, make unfounded allegations, block the user and then continue to rubbish them in the forum.
  2. The role of IP hash monitor was a common Reelfountain predilection. When annoyed Reelfountain would announce the block and then publish the IP hash. Sound familiar?

Having Hofmann consistently pipe up in your defence should be added to your Reelfountain-alike syndrome. He was a keen supporter of Reelfountain too.

It seems you have 'friends' in low places?
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
They did argue their case clearly, concisely and factually (see below). You on the other hand have blatantly misrepresented what occured and showboated your inaccurate 'truth' like a petulant Trump. It's bloody embarrassing to read. You're making a right arse of yourself.

Maybe attention, any attention is what you crave. It certainly seems like it.



Having Hofmann consistently pipe up in your defence should be added to your Reelfountain-alike syndrome. He was a keen supporter of Reelfountain too.

It seems you have 'friends' in low places?

No they didn't - & it's embarrassing that they (you?) are keeping this going.

They're boring, sexist, insulting & sea-loining.

That's all there is to it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No they didn't - & it's embarrassing that they (you?) are keeping this going. They're boring, sexist, insulting & sea-loining.
That's all there is to it.

With such 'facts' at your fingertips as "that's all there is to it" how can anyone be anything but convinced?
You have a rudimentray grasp of communication that is peppered with misrepresentations, lies and thoughts disguised as facts. You are a Trump-bot! But, please do continue to harangue.

 
Tags
fiona dodwell

Trending Threads

Top Bottom