4 ms·

You could have just called him "Johnson". To use his birth forename seems especially inappropriate when you are explicitly commenting on the behaviour of his po

You could have just called him "Johnson". To use his birth forename seems especially inappropriate when you are explicitly commenting on the behaviour of his political persona, not on his personal life.

klelatti 6y ago
I was making a point that "Boris" is part of an act to make a deeply cynical and ruthless politician seem fun and approachable. I don't think anyone reasonable would think that using someone's birth forename that he personally uses and prefers when not in his 'act' as inappropriate in any way at all.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  Au contraire, I believe it would be inappropriate to refer to Harry Houdini as "Erik Weisz" except when discussing his personal life, for the same reason.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    Alex Johnson uses his "Boris" persona as part of an act. It's a calculating and deliberate effort, not to separate his personal life from politics - which would be reasonable - but to create a more attractive persona to present to the electorate. It's one which is quite different from his real persona. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to resist that effort. No idea what Harry Houdini has to do with this. I don't recall him standing for election as Harry Houdini.
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      As we both already know, Harry Houdini never stood for election as Prime Minister. He constructed a stage persona in exactly the way you ascribe to Johnson; the only difference is that you personally decline to accept Johnson's. Setting aside the question of whether people should have the right to choose how others refer to them in a professional vs a private context, there's already a very simple, common, and well-known way to refuse to call him "Boris", and it's one which already carries the same connotations. As a matter of simple courtesy, don't force people to ask you what you mean (which is what you do when you refer to him as "Alex", exactly as you would if you referred to Houdini as "Erik"); presumably you find it as infuriating as everyone else when people deliberately speak in such a way as to force you to ask them to clarify. It's bad manners just as using needlessly pretentious and obscure vocabulary is.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ncallaway 6y ago
        > He constructed a stage persona in exactly the way you ascribe to Johnson; the only difference is that you personally decline to accept Johnson's. I mean, yes. If you're an entertainment personality you can have a stage persona and I accept that. If you're a politician, then I reject your desire to have a stage persona. Politicians pretending to be something they aren't is a massive problem, and treating politics exactly like another form of entertainment is a massive problem with our society and our politics. So I am doing exactly what your criticize, but I do it proudly, and I actually return the opposite criticism to you.
        klelatti 6y ago
        Completely agree. The Harry Houdini example is actually illuminating I think: what if he had stood as Harry Houdini - would it be reasonable to stand on that persona rather than his real one? I think not. Another point on Johnson is that he deliberately conflates his personal life with politics when it suits him (pictures of his new born son on the front pages of papers) whilst using the courts to obscure others (his possible fatherhood of another child). On use of his name it's the man himself who makes the ruthless political decisions and not the stage persona which is is much more 'warm and cuddly'.
        Smaug123 6y ago
        To me, "calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns" and "referring to someone at work using a name you know is their spouse's pet name for them" would fall into the same category. I find it hard to view any of these as anything other than Dick Moves. I do have an unusually strong loathing of globally-inconsistent rules, though, which probably makes me more prone than most to generalise the rules along this axis (whereas you believe that they should not generalise past a particular point). Re Harry Houdini specifically: I think it would have been reasonable, yes. Lord Buckethead does it. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to stand as Borat, and people voting for Borat would be voting specifically for Borat, not for Sacha Baron Cohen. If elected, I would expect Sacha Baron Cohen to rule to the best of his ability as if he were Borat.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Are entertainers and actors using screen names and politicians working for the country equivalent?
  - phyalow 6y ago
    In both the subtlety of meaning and in totality of context, reference to ones birth name in this case, helps illuminate the original point of his ruthlessness as a political operator who constructed a persona grata. Highly appropriate I say.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  What's cynical about it? People got to vote on him and enough approved. If you hold something against people named 'alex' then let's hear it. Prime ministers are a part of a larger story. The practice of aligning with the larger story won't change, people will just work harder to make it happen. I don't want to play the game of guessing who legally changed their birth name to match what the people wanted instead of just running on a pen name and accepting the world as it is.

klelatti 6y ago

I was making a point that "Boris" is part of an act to make a deeply cynical and ruthless politician seem fun and approachable. I don't think anyone reasonable would think that using someone's birth forename that he personally uses and prefers when not in his 'act' as inappropriate in any way at all.

Smaug123 6y ago
Au contraire, I believe it would be inappropriate to refer to Harry Houdini as "Erik Weisz" except when discussing his personal life, for the same reason.
- klelatti 6y ago
  Alex Johnson uses his "Boris" persona as part of an act. It's a calculating and deliberate effort, not to separate his personal life from politics - which would be reasonable - but to create a more attractive persona to present to the electorate. It's one which is quite different from his real persona. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to resist that effort. No idea what Harry Houdini has to do with this. I don't recall him standing for election as Harry Houdini.
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    As we both already know, Harry Houdini never stood for election as Prime Minister. He constructed a stage persona in exactly the way you ascribe to Johnson; the only difference is that you personally decline to accept Johnson's. Setting aside the question of whether people should have the right to choose how others refer to them in a professional vs a private context, there's already a very simple, common, and well-known way to refuse to call him "Boris", and it's one which already carries the same connotations. As a matter of simple courtesy, don't force people to ask you what you mean (which is what you do when you refer to him as "Alex", exactly as you would if you referred to Houdini as "Erik"); presumably you find it as infuriating as everyone else when people deliberately speak in such a way as to force you to ask them to clarify. It's bad manners just as using needlessly pretentious and obscure vocabulary is.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > He constructed a stage persona in exactly the way you ascribe to Johnson; the only difference is that you personally decline to accept Johnson's. I mean, yes. If you're an entertainment personality you can have a stage persona and I accept that. If you're a politician, then I reject your desire to have a stage persona. Politicians pretending to be something they aren't is a massive problem, and treating politics exactly like another form of entertainment is a massive problem with our society and our politics. So I am doing exactly what your criticize, but I do it proudly, and I actually return the opposite criticism to you.
      - klelatti 6y ago
        Completely agree. The Harry Houdini example is actually illuminating I think: what if he had stood as Harry Houdini - would it be reasonable to stand on that persona rather than his real one? I think not. Another point on Johnson is that he deliberately conflates his personal life with politics when it suits him (pictures of his new born son on the front pages of papers) whilst using the courts to obscure others (his possible fatherhood of another child). On use of his name it's the man himself who makes the ruthless political decisions and not the stage persona which is is much more 'warm and cuddly'.
        Smaug123 6y ago
        To me, "calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns" and "referring to someone at work using a name you know is their spouse's pet name for them" would fall into the same category. I find it hard to view any of these as anything other than Dick Moves. I do have an unusually strong loathing of globally-inconsistent rules, though, which probably makes me more prone than most to generalise the rules along this axis (whereas you believe that they should not generalise past a particular point). Re Harry Houdini specifically: I think it would have been reasonable, yes. Lord Buckethead does it. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to stand as Borat, and people voting for Borat would be voting specifically for Borat, not for Sacha Baron Cohen. If elected, I would expect Sacha Baron Cohen to rule to the best of his ability as if he were Borat.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Are entertainers and actors using screen names and politicians working for the country equivalent?
- phyalow 6y ago
  In both the subtlety of meaning and in totality of context, reference to ones birth name in this case, helps illuminate the original point of his ruthlessness as a political operator who constructed a persona grata. Highly appropriate I say.
friendlybus 6y ago
What's cynical about it? People got to vote on him and enough approved. If you hold something against people named 'alex' then let's hear it. Prime ministers are a part of a larger story. The practice of aligning with the larger story won't change, people will just work harder to make it happen. I don't want to play the game of guessing who legally changed their birth name to match what the people wanted instead of just running on a pen name and accepting the world as it is.