Fame's just fleeting. All of the stars have faded away.
Jason Arday #3
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Jason Arday Threads
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
You've gotta roll with it.
Never mind Oasis. It’s all about the Foo Fighters these days.
Based on, like, well, like, everything, how anyone could believe this was a serious academic (who can barely talk about anything other than himself even when meant to be giving a keynote or talk on Academia is a Crossfire Hurricane*) is mystifying.
Not to me it doesn’t. But then, I’m not, like, basically the Lady GaGa of the nonprofit sector, so.
which he clearly named/titled himself, and which makes zero bleeping sense whatsoever.
Not to me it doesn’t. But then, I’m not, like, basically the Lady GaGa of the nonprofit sector, so.
Last edited:
I keep reading that he was charismatic. Was he?
A good looking guy (at least before the eyeliner and perpetual shine), he absolutely was. But listening to him speak... I'm not charmed so much as I want to crawl up my own hoop to escape the sensation of watching someone humiliate themselves.
A good looking guy (at least before the eyeliner and perpetual shine), he absolutely was. But listening to him speak... I'm not charmed so much as I want to crawl up my own hoop to escape the sensation of watching someone humiliate themselves.
I haven't read all the threads yet but the fact the gofundme goal keeps being increased is giving Jay Slater.
That is such a good article.
I simply cannot believe the amount of so called liberal thinkers who encourage this sleepwalking into a world where they want outside agencies to deem what is acceptable or not to say. And things declared 'hateful' aren't allowed.
It's funny that Ann Widdecombe was a free speech absolutist. Sucked up any amount of personal attacks and bile as 'it's your right to say that'. She'd have thought increased censorship was a dreadful attack on civil liberties.
It looks like GLP have now turned on the Guardian. (It seems that the “turning point” in this sorry affair was Lanre Bakare’s “pig’s head” article).
As you would expect, it is not going well for GLP:
As you would expect, it is not going well for GLP:
Jo Maugham is a shameless grifter and him popping up to scold a black person for being “racist” does not surprise me in the least. He’s spent the last half decade scolding women for not being “feminist” enough for his tastes. Why anyone gives the fox battering Jeffrey Epstein looking twit any attention at all is beyond me.
That’s really interesting, Jason.Never mind Oasis. It’s all about the Foo Fighters these days. View attachment 4094084View attachment 4094085View attachment 4094086View attachment 4094087View attachment 4094088View attachment 4094089Based on, like, well, like, everything, how anyone could believe this was a serious academic (who can barely talk about anything other than himself even when meant to be giving a keynote or talk on Academia is a Crossfire Hurricane*) is mystifying.View attachment 4094095View attachment 4094096View attachment 4094098View attachment 4094099which he clearly named/titled himself, and which makes zero bleeping sense whatsoever. View attachment 4094115
Not to me it doesn’t. But then, I’m not, like, basically the Lady GaGa of the nonprofit sector, so.
Lots of thought-provoking posts – I’ve quoted only some of them.
If you’re not a fan of long-winded posts, this one may not be for you!
@Valiofthedolls: “He starts his PhD and ‘life as a university lecturer’ on page 204.”
He was clearly setting the stage for Volume #2 of They are lucky to have me: The most extraordinary life and times of Cambridge University's most extraordinary professor ever.
@VeniVidiVicki: “I’ve been watching videos of him speaking this evening and there is very clearly something ‘off‘.”
Yes! I am so glad that someone else has noticed that. I have spent most of my life observing other people in an attempt to understand other people and to improve my social skills. Arday’s demeanour always gave me the creeps as there was something that was, as you put it, ‘off’.
In the excerpts I’ve read of his autobiography – there are no names of childhood friends and no attempt to have any romantic relationships outside of the one he had with his ex-wife, Debs.
After he and Debs divorced, he moved back into his parents’ home. That isn’t that uncommon, but it’s often when the partner doesn’t have money to rent a flat. That wouldn’t have been the case with Arday as he was making good money. It does seem that home was a refuge where nothing was demanded of him: his sainted mum (and the way he talked about her is unsettlingly obsessive) would have taken care of all of his needs.
This meshes with what (I believe it was) @PurvyPenguin noted in another thread about his time at Glasgow and the social aspect of life in Cambridge. If he had commuted daily to Glasgow (which I doubt) and stayed living in his childhood bedroom in south London, rather than live in university accommodation, he would have avoided the need to interact with other people.
And, no, I don’t believe that that could be explained away his alleged autism. Just like neurotypicals, some of us like to socialise! Our condition just means that we aren’t always very good at it.
@InkHeart: "You can even see his eyes look so... haunted? dead? after he says he has no skill. Then he puts the mask on again and starts being animated once again."
I have seen numerous mentions (maybe here; maybe elsewhere) about his eyes. They are flat and emotionless. It’s like there’s nothing behind them.
@Valiofthedolls: "Based on, like, well, like, everything, how anyone could believe this was a serious academic (who can barely talk about anything other than himself even when meant to be giving a keynote or talk on Academia is a Crossfire Hurricane*) is mystifying."
@nothanksbabes: "I keep reading that he was charismatic. Was he?"
I am always surprised when people describe him as charismatic. Arday’s delivery never varied – he spoke in the same monotone, he didn’t use any kind of body language, he showed no interest in other people and never spoke or wrote about anything other than himself.
I was struck in videos I watched that he rarely (if ever) described a conceptual framework, research approach, methodology, theories or theorists. He just regurgitated navel-gazing pap about himself. There is no attempt to engage the audience or to share information about anything that the watcher / student can use to apply what he shared to a wider context. It’s not a one-off; this is his modus operandi.
"A good looking guy (at least before the eyeliner and perpetual shine), he absolutely was. But listening to him speak... I'm not charmed so much as I want to crawl up my own hoop to escape the sensation of watching someone humiliate themselves."
There is a principle in psychology called the Halo Effect. From the link: “Studies show that when someone is attractive, we’re more likely to assume they have other positive attributes, too — everything from confidence and trustworthiness to intelligence and emotional stability.”
I am sure that if Arday had been a cross-eyed, leprous hunchback (and no shade to cross-eyed, leprous hunchbacks – I’m sure that many of you are delightful) he would have been received less rapturously.
(As always, apologies for any typos or grammatical errors.)
If you’re not a fan of long-winded posts, this one may not be for you!
@Valiofthedolls: “He starts his PhD and ‘life as a university lecturer’ on page 204.”
He was clearly setting the stage for Volume #2 of They are lucky to have me: The most extraordinary life and times of Cambridge University's most extraordinary professor ever.
@VeniVidiVicki: “I’ve been watching videos of him speaking this evening and there is very clearly something ‘off‘.”
Yes! I am so glad that someone else has noticed that. I have spent most of my life observing other people in an attempt to understand other people and to improve my social skills. Arday’s demeanour always gave me the creeps as there was something that was, as you put it, ‘off’.
In the excerpts I’ve read of his autobiography – there are no names of childhood friends and no attempt to have any romantic relationships outside of the one he had with his ex-wife, Debs.
After he and Debs divorced, he moved back into his parents’ home. That isn’t that uncommon, but it’s often when the partner doesn’t have money to rent a flat. That wouldn’t have been the case with Arday as he was making good money. It does seem that home was a refuge where nothing was demanded of him: his sainted mum (and the way he talked about her is unsettlingly obsessive) would have taken care of all of his needs.
This meshes with what (I believe it was) @PurvyPenguin noted in another thread about his time at Glasgow and the social aspect of life in Cambridge. If he had commuted daily to Glasgow (which I doubt) and stayed living in his childhood bedroom in south London, rather than live in university accommodation, he would have avoided the need to interact with other people.
And, no, I don’t believe that that could be explained away his alleged autism. Just like neurotypicals, some of us like to socialise! Our condition just means that we aren’t always very good at it.
@InkHeart: "You can even see his eyes look so... haunted? dead? after he says he has no skill. Then he puts the mask on again and starts being animated once again."
I have seen numerous mentions (maybe here; maybe elsewhere) about his eyes. They are flat and emotionless. It’s like there’s nothing behind them.
@Valiofthedolls: "Based on, like, well, like, everything, how anyone could believe this was a serious academic (who can barely talk about anything other than himself even when meant to be giving a keynote or talk on Academia is a Crossfire Hurricane*) is mystifying."
@nothanksbabes: "I keep reading that he was charismatic. Was he?"
I am always surprised when people describe him as charismatic. Arday’s delivery never varied – he spoke in the same monotone, he didn’t use any kind of body language, he showed no interest in other people and never spoke or wrote about anything other than himself.
I was struck in videos I watched that he rarely (if ever) described a conceptual framework, research approach, methodology, theories or theorists. He just regurgitated navel-gazing pap about himself. There is no attempt to engage the audience or to share information about anything that the watcher / student can use to apply what he shared to a wider context. It’s not a one-off; this is his modus operandi.
"A good looking guy (at least before the eyeliner and perpetual shine), he absolutely was. But listening to him speak... I'm not charmed so much as I want to crawl up my own hoop to escape the sensation of watching someone humiliate themselves."
There is a principle in psychology called the Halo Effect. From the link: “Studies show that when someone is attractive, we’re more likely to assume they have other positive attributes, too — everything from confidence and trustworthiness to intelligence and emotional stability.”
I am sure that if Arday had been a cross-eyed, leprous hunchback (and no shade to cross-eyed, leprous hunchbacks – I’m sure that many of you are delightful) he would have been received less rapturously.
(As always, apologies for any typos or grammatical errors.)
It's something I have never seen mentioned in any discourse anywhere... that Cambridge woman gushing over him and saying he's the best in the world... she clearly fancies him, right? I guess there's no political point to be made from that, but her admiration is not strictly academic... right?
In that part of the video where they meet in Reception, she coos and bows at him, like a pigeon mating ritual or something
Something which is bothering me the more I think about it. I am seeing left activists attempt to start hate campaigns about journalists for writing articles about Jason as if they were the only people to ever speak about him.
I personally only saw a handful of articles from traditional media. The rest came from people discussing on forums and social media. Sharing clips and extracts they had found and making their own minds up from reading his own words rather than having them filtered through a journalist.
First, I hate that certain people have decided that they want to target journalists to destroy carriers and destroy their mental health in retaliation. It is the behaviour of a hypocrite.
Second, I find it really patronising as it implies that normal people can't think for themselves and need someone at the telegraph to tell them what opinions to have.
I personally only saw a handful of articles from traditional media. The rest came from people discussing on forums and social media. Sharing clips and extracts they had found and making their own minds up from reading his own words rather than having them filtered through a journalist.
First, I hate that certain people have decided that they want to target journalists to destroy carriers and destroy their mental health in retaliation. It is the behaviour of a hypocrite.
Second, I find it really patronising as it implies that normal people can't think for themselves and need someone at the telegraph to tell them what opinions to have.
And all the people glomming onto the story as the latest cause du jour to drive engagement and traffic to their channels, Patreon etc etc, criticising people for doing exactly that in the first place.
As the saying goes..."First impressions count". Arday's physical appearance vaulted him over the first hurdle.
Spotify are cynically promoting his book on the main page 🫤
The thing that always sets my Billy buller radar off overwhelmingly is when people can remember monologues of conversation weeks and years after the fact. I consider myself to have a good memory which is backed up academically and socially, but I genuinely can’t remember everyday, nay, even important conversations much past a sentence or two or beyond the main point. Having read the excerpts of the book, Jason seems to manage to remember all and every conversation. I’ve seen this done in several memoirs and it always sets my radar off.
Oh but they're right so it's fine
Rules for Thee, But Not for Me is everywhere in social media age.
I haven’t watched this video, but I have seen clips of it. I’m leaving this here in case anyone wants to watch it. Owen Jones is literally writhing around in his seat. I’m not sure if he is ill or uncomfortable about the conversation. His eye contact is poor.
Mr. Kehinde Andrews is a Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham University (or was), and a regular on Good Morning Britain, where he always relishes the opportunity to tell us how racist we all are, whilst we chow down on our cornflakes.
He suggests during this discussion that his recent redundancy from Birmingham University is racist. In actual fact it is due to the very low number of students enrolling onto the course. Single digits - apparently eight students.
My personal view is that Professor Andrews is a very bad influence on anyone enrolling on his course. Further education is very expensive. These students need to study a subject that will secure them work, not tick a box. It’s not sustainable. I think there is no honesty in any of these conversations with Kahinde Andrews. He seems unable to show any impartiality, which quite frankly makes him a dangerous mind. We already fear that educational institutions are being used to indoctrinate the minds of young people. I’m glad to learn these students have been voting with their feet. It gives me hope.
I totally agree. I have picked up on that too. I thought that about the passage in his book, shared on the last thread, about him getting ready for his Cambridge interview at the damp B&B. You know, the crummy B&B Cambridge University stuck him in, with the racist receptionist. Do B&B’s have a reception desk?
Anyway, he listed all the music that he was listening to whilst getting ready, blasted at full volume, which was a bit selfish if you think about people trying to sleep in the neighbouring bedrooms, but duck those people, man. They were probably white and old, so it doesn’t matter.