Wednesday, 12 November 2014

How Daniel O'Reilly Killed The Brilliant Dapper Laughs With His Own Stupidty

Note: I understand Dapper made some outrageous twitter comments that I haven't mentioned in this article and also caused a lot of bullying towards females who opposed him online but I wanted to deal in hard, real life facts and not delve into the world of saying something irresponsible on twitter. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt so that's the approach I took. There's been a lot of hate aimed at the man and character so in a way I just wanted to take the foot off the pedal and provide a constructive view without so much anger towards him. He is still human after all.

When Dapper Laughs first came about on vine I thought he was pretty hilarious. In truth I thought he was parodying lad culture and mocking anyone that actually thinks as this supposed character 'Dapper' did.

However upon seeing him perform live and viewing his vulgar TV show in which he almost seemed like a schoolboy bully to some of his contestants (example: in the first episode and on twitter he mocked the guy he was supposed to be helping to learn to 'pull' by saying his face looked like an old woman's vagina, among other things. There was no punchline or comedy. It just seemed like the hot guys laughing at the less popular kid in a school playground) I started to doubt very much whether this was a persona and whether he knew the extreme lad culture he was promoting.

Having appeared on BBC 2's Newsnight and confirming the 'character' is dead and stating his career and life is under severe strain, I feel almost sorry for him. In fact I do. But only because of his own idiocy. 

I'm a big fan of offensive comedy. Frankie Boyle makes me laugh and Jimmy Carr at his worst always cracks me up. These people are comedians and they tell jokes as jokes. They don't endorse what they say.

The problem with Daniel O'Reilly's character Dapper is that he doesn't, or didn't rather, seem to realise that with an extremely popular parody persona character comes great responsibility. Spiderman knows.
Not even Spiderman can save Dapper. Just one episode
of 'On The Pull' has him hospitalized

If what Daniel said on Newsnight is all well and true and his intention was always to mock lads who actually think like Dapper and make fun of men with that mindset, then why in God's name didn't he distance himself from the character's views?

When you make a persona you MUST let it be known that IT IS A PERSONA. You must take every opportunity to remind people 'hey hey, it's Daniel O'Reilly over here, just reminding you my character isn't for real. OK? OK. OK. Goooood' because otherwise it comes across like you are genuinely endorsing what you're doing as this character and suddenly the lines between what is perceived as fiction and what is perceived as fact are completely blurred and almost synonymous. 

He claims he didn't handle how popular Dapper got very well. And he's damn fucking right. A TV show that borders on being a sexist? With no disclaimer or even a hint of genuine, purposeful, satire? How the fuck - HOW THE FUCK - are people supposed to know if they're watching a genius parody character or a genuinely bigoted sexist male who has simply garnered popularity through media sources like vine? HOW

The result of these blurred lines (looks like they really are blurred here Robin) is people thinking Dapper is for real. And no, you don't have to be unhinged to think that. Why? Because Daniel's demographic, his target audience, is teens. Teenagers who, mimic, copy and obsess in order to try and find some form of expressive outlet. It's what teenagers do and it's why older people in their twenties watch him for a guilty pleasure and shake their heads while laughing at his outrageous satire and why teenagers take him seriously and try to become little Dapper Laughs. I do not think comedians are under obligation to try not to hurt people's feelings in any way. But when you are targeting a demographic that is SO OBVIOUSLY going to try and copy your laddish behavior, then you need to make sure you step 10000 miles away from that character and state very clearly it's all a joke. Fuck it, that's a basic rule when creating any character with negative connotations. It's not fucking rocket science here, Daniel. 
I've seen people copying him in real life too. So don't argue that shit. It fucking happens.

Lad culture is very closely tied with sexism. And unfortunately vulgar lad culture is still alive and well today in the UK. So it's risky to create a character who seemingly endorses it and takes it to extremes. That's why Dapper Laughs failed. Because Daniel did not take care to make sure it was all perceived correctly and did not distance himself from the character. He did not take care and was not responsible when creating a character endorsing such issues.

I saw a tweet from a fan of Dapper's saying something along the lines of: 'anyone who takes Dapper Laughs comedy seriously must be mad'. I thought to myself: 'well how does one know if it IS comedy and not an actual bigot throwing their sexist views around for attention?'. And truth is, Daniel O'Reilly did not give us any reason not to assume he simply was Dapper Laughs and everything Dapper Laughs promotes. 

Who is Daniel O'Reilly? Oh he's that Dapper Laughs guy.
Mr. Thicke DEFINITELY knows

Wrong. He is not. But how were we supposed to know? In the end both Daniel's real name and his character's became synonymous. And in the end his comedy, as genius as it was, was misinterpreted. Dapper Laughs as a character mocking lads, mocking lad culture and satirizing sexism in the UK is brilliant. Because Dapper is repulsive, vulgar, nasty and a sexist bigot. He represents the culture wonderfully.

However Dapper Laughs being Daniel O'Reilly for real without a disclaimer is simply repulsive, vulgar, nasty and a sexist bigot. 

Misinterpretation can easily end your career. And making sure misinterpretation doesn't occur is the biggest benefit to your career.

I saw the footage of Daniel O'Reilly's Dapper saying a female member of the audience was 'gagging for a rape'.

Before he said this he was also giving an example of how he and his TV show are not a rapist almanac as suggested by some journalists. I totally understood the point of this section and why he said that to an audience member. If you see the full clip you can clearly see he's sarcastically mocking journalists calling him out for endorsing rape. So the 'gagging for a rape' joke was simply poking fun, sarcastically, at journos. And it works. But it also doesn't.

See here, again, is where Daniel O'Reilly fucked up.

By defending himself on stage and getting Dapper to respond to critics in the manner he did it was, again, blurring the lines that were already borderline non existent to the public, about whether Daniel endorses Dapper Laughs.

The moment you get your vulgar, horrible, sexist, lad, bigot of a character to justify themselves, you know your character has failed.

It seemed, when Daniel did this on stage, that he was no longer approaching this comedy as character Dapper but bringing his own views - the views of Daniel - into it. 

Le'ts make this clear: there must be a fine line between what you, the comedian thinks and what your character thinks. Daniel thinks this. Dapper thinks this. As an example: Daniel disagrees with sexist views. Dapper endorses them. Daniel disagrees with harassing women on the street. Dapper thinks the opposite. 

So when Dapper responded on stage to critics he seemed to be airing Daniel's views, not his own.

Ask yourself this: 

If a character is fictional, why must they, and why would they feel the need, to answer critics and respond to the naysayers? They're fictional. Don't exist. They're parody. They're satire. They DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMEDY AND ANYONE CRITICAL OF THEIR VIEWS MOST LIKELY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEY ARE NOT REAL.

*Wait, repeat that last bit.
'If people are critical of your parody character for what they are saying, they are most likely not aware it is fiction.'

Uh... Yeah. That's the problem we had with Dapper. We didn't know for sure he was fiction.*

So when Dapper justified himself and mocked critics what was really happening is Daniel O'Rielly took over and was venting his frustration at his comedy not being appreciated for what it was to the audience. 

We were never given a look at Daniel. He never seemed to come out of
character and let us see the guy behind the gags. Maybe that was where
part of the misinterpretation problem started. To everyone Daniel just
seemed to be Dapper. And maybe he let the success go to his head and
actually did become Dapper.
Answering critics is fine. But doing so on stage as a character and answering with the views you hold yourself is blurring the lines between what is character and what is a real person too much. That was the final straw and people had enough of his bigotry. So they axed him and Daniel called it a day for Dapper.

This was all unnecessary. If Daniel had simply taken the steps to make sure people knew it was all a gag and a satire, mocking look at lad culture from the beginning he wouldn't be axed right now. And if he remained professional and didn't confuse his own rants about critics with Dapper Laughs on stage, well, we wouldn't be here. Truth of the matter is Daniel clearly didn't know what the fuck he was doing. And his ignorance and lack of professionalism has lead to a career downfall. 

I want to see Daniel make a comeback. Maybe do comedy AS HIMSELF this time (assuming he isn't actually Dapper Laughs in real life in which case he can fuck off) and then maybe, once he's learned how to deal with success and being influential, he can bring Dapper back and do it properly this time. Because I'll tell you what, Dapper Laughs may have caused a storm but he's a prime PERFECT example of what is wrong with lads in today's society. He perfectly portrayed how vulgar the culture is. What a waste that his lack of care caused it to be misinterpreted as endorsement for Dapper's behavior.

So I do feel sorry for Daniel. He's the victim of his own stupidity. I won't forget him getting up on stage (Dapper Laughs that is) at V Festival 2014 and slating condoms and contraception and pretty much promoting not wearing protection. Now if Daniel had made clear that Dapper was a satire parody character mocking lads, hell, it would've been funny. But he didn't make that clear. And instead you had a tent full of teens and lads looking up at a guy who was seemingly endorsing not wearing condoms and thinking 'this guys got it right'. How very sad indeed.

We were never given a look at Daniel. He never seemed to come out of character and let us see the guy behind the gags. Maybe that was where part of the misinterpretation problem started. To everyone Daniel just seemed to be Dapper. And maybe he let the success go to his head and 
actually did become Dapper. Either way there was potential here that is now wasted. And this man's life has gone from 100-0 so fast I can barely believe it. Maybe we should all take a second to forget Dapper. Forget Daniel. And forget influence. And remind ourselves exactly what values we should be aspiring to. Do you really want to be known by your friends as the guy that shouts at women in public and openly endorses outrageously disrespectful and sexist behavior? Or do you want to hold yourself and others to higher values that show respect and a caring nature towards women and your fellow men? Dapper is fine for showing what is wrong with society. But he absolutely should not be taken as setting an example.

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Sad Celebrity Deaths, The Need To Offend & I'm An Asshole (No Surprises There)

There are 3 things.

3 things that link together to create this post.

Sad celebrity deaths.

The need to offend.

And, yes, I'm an asshole.

How, exactly, do these things merge into one?
Poor John. Rocking those Harry Potter glasses
before it became a 'thing' (someone should
have told him it looked a bit lame though).

Well here's how.

I don't really get sad at many things. But for some reason, when someone like a celebrity dies, it bothers the shit out of me.

Let's use a few of examples.

John Lennon.
Didn't like the guy much. Not a huge Beatles fans either. But it makes me so sad to think he died because some nut job decided to get his name in the papers. 

Heath Ledger.
This one always bothers me. God it's so sad, isn't it? The guy was an astonishing actor who deserved more than the one Oscar he earned for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight. He was great. A seemingly nice guy too. Yet he died. For what reason? Well, it was pill related. Apparently he was on a ton of pills and bam, he took a fatal dose and died. 

It's sad not only because he was cut short of reaching his full potential at such a young age but also because no one knows if it was suicide or not and why he may have killed himself.

The Heath we saw as the Joker and the Heath
we saw normally were two very different people.
I just wish Nolan would release the behind the scenes
footage that included Ledger. This is one of the
few pictures of him on set.
Apparently Heath hadn't been himself before his death after the filming of The Dark Knight. He was unsettled and suffering from Insomnia. No one really knew what was up with him. Was it his broken relationship with his ex girlfriend? Was it his brutal dedication to the role of the Joker? Who knows. But either way, he ended up dead in his hotel room.

Michael Jackson.
Poor Michael. Jesus I feel sorry for this guy. If you want an example of someone being victimised by the public and media, look no further than this guy. 

He lived his life as a fragile plastic surgery addict who was so scarred from his childhood bullying experiences and poor relationship with his father that he decided to try and make himself visually perfect, yet came out looking like a Loony Tunes character gone wrong.

His lack of proper childhood lead to him obsessively trying to live an adult version of it in the form of a theme park thing in his back garden and consistently hanging around kids. He eventually got labelled as a paedo and the court cases ensued. 
It's a shame Jackson felt the need to ruin his
good looks by morphing into a white man mannequin.
He seemed to smile a lot more when he was
black too. Although maybe that's because all
the surgery restricted his muscle movement.

Poor poor Michael Jackson. People still think he's a paedo, which is understandable, but don't people realise the cases that did go to court were settled and one kid even admitted to lying about Jackson molesting him years later? How fucking sad.

I don't know why it gets me down so much to think of these people (and others) dying. Maybe it's death in general. Someone got hit by a train at the train station where I live and after I heard the news my day was pretty much ruined.

This, however, is odd.

Why? Because my sensitivity towards people dying somehow doesn't numb my perverse joke making towards it.

In fact, I think I have something wrong with me. Resist the chance to make an offensive joke? You must be mad. I just can't do it.

Frankie Boyle, the renowned offensive comedian, once said that he has this sort of 'reflex' where he says horrible things even when he doesn't mean or want to. I understand his issue.

Despite being sensitive about people dying and celebrity deaths, while exchanging sick jokes with my friend I made a horrible joke towards Jewish people AND the fairly recently deceased Paul Walker.


Because when the opportunity arises to shock and offend with an absurdly offensive joke arises I just can't resist. It's impossible. It's like in one side of my brain I'm thinking: 'This is Gold. Can't wait to see their faces after I say this. Hilarious' and the other side is thinking: 'But it is offensive. I don't really have this opinion. It's not really very... Me to make this joke. But then it is only a joke after all. What's the harm?'.

So I made this joke. I'll tell you what it is. But it comes with a disclaimer. The disclaimer being that it will make you think I'm an asshole, which I guess I am.

The joke goes like this.

What do the Jewish people of the Holocaust and Paul Walker have in common?
They all burned to death.

Now upon reading that you either thought 'What's the big deal?' or 'You sick fuck!' and then probably clicked off this page or left a mean comment.

The thing is it is a sick, offensive and incredibly disrespectful joke. I'll be the first to admit that.
But I'll also be the first to admit Paul Walker's death was tragic and makes me genuinely really sad. I'll also be the first to admit the Holocaust sends shivers down my spine and I have the utmost respect for every person involved in it (I mean victims. I don't have respect for the Nazi's responsible for it. Obviously.).

So why make the joke I did? Well... It's a joke. I feel like when I do offensive things I'm playing a character. It's not really ME, I sort of go into 'offensive mode' where I am an exaggerated asshole version of myself. It's almost like I have this inbuilt dickhead personality that comes through constantly. And THAT'S the issue; it shows all the time.

It's not like I only turn into this offensive character on here. The asshole side of my personality comes through all the time in normal conversation. It's like when the chance to make a horrible joke or comment comes up I literally can't resist and my dickhead personality trait comes through and BAM! I've just lost half my friends.

I have a need to offend. And I can honestly say, it doesn't bother me. It's just hard to find those people who accept that jokes are jokes and nothing more. Lots of people seem to have this idea that what you say, whether a joke or not, should be taken literally as your actual opinion and a real example of what you think.
These people are also called retards.

See, was the 'retard' insult really necessary? No, but I just can't help but be an asshole. So I guess that's what I am. I'm the part of a person where crap comes from. Ah well. No one's perfect.

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

Unfriending On Facebook = THE WORST OFFENCE EVER.

Wow. Isn't the world a curious place. There's several incredibly unbelievable things about this story I want to talk about in this article. Number one being that somehow this 'story' actually managed to make it into the news (although I did first read this on the Daily Mail website so I don't know if that is classed as news. That said, it has been published on other actual news sites too).

What is this story I'm referring to? Well a cancer victim posted some pictures and - wait for it - one hundred people found them offensive and - wait for it again- UNFRIENDED HER!

Aaaaah. The horror. Save us now. From this shitty excuse for news.

Pretty much, this woman called Beth Whaanga posted nude pictures of herself after having a mastectomy due to cancer and some people got offended by it.

And this is apparently... A problem?

OK, so I'm far from the type of person who feels that the 'offended' should get their own way and have things they disapprove of not shown and blocked from the world just because they don't like it, and I don't think this woman's pictures should be removed in any way just because some people were offended, but people HAVE THE RIGHT to be offended just as much as anyone has the right to offend them. So really, who the fuck cares if, oh no, some people unfriended her or not? Who actually fucking cares?

Is this supposed to be an issue? Are we supposed to read this shit and gasp "Oh my God! That poor woman! All she wanted to do was show everyone on Facebook her naked body after having surgery to get rid of her cancer and one hundred - ONE FUCKING HUNDRED PEOPLE UNFRIENDED HER?" And then grab our pitchforks and hunt the pricks down?



No no no no no no no no no no!

What the fuck?

Some people don't want to see nude pictures of you after surgery on their news feed. And not only do I myself respect that but I also understand it.

No offence to this lady Beth... Errr... What was her last name? Wanga? Wanka? Waaanga? Whatever. Something like that. Anyway, no offence to this Beth Wonga person but who wants to see that shit on their bloody Facebook? I get you're trying to spread around that this is the type of shit you can expect after having a mastectomy but fucking hell, on Facebook? REALLY? Who wants to see that?

Some poor bastards were just scrolling through their news feeds, perving on hot girls and spying on people's conversations when BAM!

"FUCK. ME. What did I just see?"

No. No. No. NO ONE WANTS THAT. No. One.

Obviously a lot of her friends were alright with it. Just sorta got on with their Facebooking and didn't think much of it, or maybe dropped a like and a supportive comment. But apparently one hundred people thought:
"Nah, not for me thanks mate." And that's fine. No issue. You know why? Because it's Facebook and they have the right to say 'I don't want this on my feed' and unfriend the shit out of you.

What's more, no one expects or probably wants those pictures on Facebook. Like I just said, people aren't expecting graphic post-operation photos on their feed. Facebook isn't labelled as the 'place to be if you want surgery pics', it's a bloody social networking site.

I personally think people are better off making blogs or websites dedicated to these sort of unqiue things and letting appreciative and supportive people FIND THEM. Not forcing it onto every person you know's (or may have met once at a party) news feed. Quite frankly, I'm not surprised she lost friends and honestly, there's no need for her to get arsey about it. It's only Facebook.