I was astonished a few years ago when they broadcast that one unedited. Can't remember which channel it was- perhaps UKTV.
Why does it need to be edited?
It doesn't. Channels would be better off broadcasting content like this, which is neither written with the intention to incite hatred nor consistently offensive throughout, as it is but with appropriate warnings beforehand.
There's no difference at all between chucking episodes of Fawlty Towers in the dustbin due to a dated script and banning all future performances of Macbeth because it contains an antisemitic line. Most people are sophisticated enough both to enjoy a piece based on its artistic merit and to comprehend that it may feature elements which are of its time and would not be included in a more contemporary work. Watching an episode of a 1970s comedy that's rude to the Germans and contains the odd dated racist remark might make a lot of people cringe, but it's hardly going to promote those behaviours in a modern population which, generally speaking, quite likes Germany and finds racism abhorrent.
Those who either aren't that sophisticated or who simply find the offensive element too repulsive to be tolerated have the choice to refrain from watching altogether.
There's some talk of removing or moving Welligton's statue in Glasgow which means that there's now the prospect of woke, indy supporting Glaswegians demanding it stays as a canvas for Glasgow's gallus spirit while staunch Yoon types want it removed to a place of greater safety to escape the disrespect.
No way would unionists want it moved! Any who do need a proper sense of humour bypass - I'll believe it when I see it. Perhaps Glasgow will be where wokism finally gets told to fuck off.
I'm confused, do you want the Black Power traffic cones encouraged or told to fuck off?
In fact it was the staunchly Unionist Labour Glasgow Council that had a cherrypicker on call to remove the traffic ones, and at one point had plans to raise the plinth by 20 ft to discourage further disrespect. I can't disagree that they were humourless twats.
I don't care what cone he wears, happy for him to accessorise as Glaswegians see fit.
Sounds like everyone wants to keep him (if for different reasons).
I wonder if the first episode of Blackadder II will pass muster, where Blackadder falls for what he thinks (despite it being obvious not the case) is his male manservant, given the exended scene of the doctor mocking him for possibly being gay. He wasn't the good guy in the scene, but one cannot be too careful.
There was also that episode of The Good Life where Margo wanted some new neighbours gone (I forget why) and was initially pleased they were being replaced by a nice middle class couple, but the ending gag was her horror as they turned out to have an asian/middle eastern name (I don't recall the exact details)
I was astonished a few years ago when they broadcast that one unedited. Can't remember which channel it was- perhaps UKTV.
Why does it need to be edited?
In case a snowflake saw it and melted.
It is quite obvious the series is filmed in the 1970's and is of its time.
You won't get far with that kind of attitude.
I kind of like being able to acknowledge flaws in things, even ones I wouldn't have seen as a flaw at the time, whilst still . I recall an episode of Brooklyn Nine-Nine a few years ago where Ace Ventura comes up, and a character notes it was, to them, a classic and one of their childhood favorites and that it only gets overly transphobic right at the end. I thought it made its point without being too preachy in its delivery.
Hmm. Either that'll be permanent, or the boarding up just encourages some rascal to deface it the instant it comes down because it was boarded up and unavailable, perhaps.
I wonder if the first episode of Blackadder II will pass muster, where Blackadder falls for what he thinks (despite it being obvious not the case) is his male manservant, given the exended scene of the doctor mocking him for possibly being gay. He wasn't the good guy in the scene, but one cannot be too careful.
There was also that episode of The Good Life where Margo wanted some new neighbours gone (I forget why) and was initially pleased they were being replaced by a nice middle class couple, but the ending gag was her horror as they turned out to have an asian/middle eastern name (I don't recall the exact details)
I was astonished a few years ago when they broadcast that one unedited. Can't remember which channel it was- perhaps UKTV.
Why does it need to be edited?
In case a snowflake saw it and melted.
It is quite obvious the series is filmed in the 1970's and is of its time.
You won't get far with that kind of attitude.
I kind of like being able to acknowledge flaws in things, even ones I wouldn't have seen as a flaw at the time, whilst still . I recall an episode of Brooklyn Nine-Nine a few years ago where Ace Ventura comes up, and a character notes it was, to them, a classic and one of their childhood favorites and that it only gets overly transphobic right at the end. I thought it made its point without being too preachy in its delivery.
Early (Grandad era) Only Fools and Horse will have to go, as well as some later episodes
To be fair, if people want to buy the DVDs they can, being able to watch whatever you want, whenever you like on tv is such a new thing that most of the people who are upset by them not being available wont notice, or know how to watch them, anyway!
Would it be impossible to implement some kind of law that said that if a product is sold in a country, the workers who made it must be paid that country's minimum wage?
It would do wonders for the UK garment industry. If, for example, Bangladeshi garment workers had to be paid the British minimum wage for clothes sold in Britain, then the competitive advantages of offshoring the manufacture of clothes would be removed. Might as well make them in the UK again and dispense with the costs of shipping them halfway round the world.
Of course, it would also make the clothes a lot more expensive and serve to highlight just how hard up, relative to the UK average, a lot of families in this country really are. The news for them would be that formerly cheap clothes from the likes of Primark or the local supermarket would now be priced at mid-market level, so if you want something new to wear you probably can't afford it anymore. Instead, it's an exciting opportunity to rummage through other peoples' castoffs in the charity shops.
There's an important question here. For most of us, if our clothes cost twice as much and we kept them for twice as long, would we really be worse off?
We'd be morally better off if we paid the slave labour we keep out of sight the going rate
They are paid the going rate for where they live. If you imposed a minimum wage of 4 or 5 times the going rate, they'd all just be unemployed which is much better.
Actually, making the stuff in the UK doesn't cost that much more. The labour cost is a fairly small component of the retail cost. Indeed the trend for disposable "Fast Fashion" with quick turn around times to stay on trend has led to a revival of Leicesters rag trade.
Time for the Left to structurally analyse every comedy show of the last half century using the Intersectionality training from last week's (online) seminar at the University of Plate Glass Meadows.
Would it be impossible to implement some kind of law that said that if a product is sold in a country, the workers who made it must be paid that country's minimum wage?
It would do wonders for the UK garment industry. If, for example, Bangladeshi garment workers had to be paid the British minimum wage for clothes sold in Britain, then the competitive advantages of offshoring the manufacture of clothes would be removed. Might as well make them in the UK again and dispense with the costs of shipping them halfway round the world.
Of course, it would also make the clothes a lot more expensive and serve to highlight just how hard up, relative to the UK average, a lot of families in this country really are. The news for them would be that formerly cheap clothes from the likes of Primark or the local supermarket would now be priced at mid-market level, so if you want something new to wear you probably can't afford it anymore. Instead, it's an exciting opportunity to rummage through other peoples' castoffs in the charity shops.
There's an important question here. For most of us, if our clothes cost twice as much and we kept them for twice as long, would we really be worse off?
We'd be morally better off if we paid the slave labour we keep out of sight the going rate
They are paid the going rate for where they live. If you imposed a minimum wage of 4 or 5 times the going rate, they'd all just be unemployed which is much better.
Actually, making the stuff in the UK doesn't cost that much more. The labour cost is a fairly small component of the retail cost. Indeed the trend for disposable "Fast Fashion" with quick turn around times to stay on trend has led to a revival of Leicesters rag trade.
That enforces rather than contradicts what I was saying. If someone wants to show sympathy for Bangladeshi workers, removing their only competitive advantage by law would just make them all unemployed so isn't quite the humanitarian gesture it might look.
Would it be impossible to implement some kind of law that said that if a product is sold in a country, the workers who made it must be paid that country's minimum wage?
It would do wonders for the UK garment industry. If, for example, Bangladeshi garment workers had to be paid the British minimum wage for clothes sold in Britain, then the competitive advantages of offshoring the manufacture of clothes would be removed. Might as well make them in the UK again and dispense with the costs of shipping them halfway round the world.
Of course, it would also make the clothes a lot more expensive and serve to highlight just how hard up, relative to the UK average, a lot of families in this country really are. The news for them would be that formerly cheap clothes from the likes of Primark or the local supermarket would now be priced at mid-market level, so if you want something new to wear you probably can't afford it anymore. Instead, it's an exciting opportunity to rummage through other peoples' castoffs in the charity shops.
There's an important question here. For most of us, if our clothes cost twice as much and we kept them for twice as long, would we really be worse off?
We'd be morally better off if we paid the slave labour we keep out of sight the going rate
It is quite interesting to see, around the world, how invariant the productivity cost of labour is. That is, the actual labour cost against stuff produced.
With some exceptions - mainly things like the garment industry, where simple skills combine with automation - this is a function of education, cultural, legal stability, societal structures etc.
An old favourite - in the 1980s, the Economist found that German steel workers cost 19x as much as their Indian counterparts. The German workers were making 22x as much steel, though.
The whole get-a-PHd-for-50p-a-day thing is exaggerated and is long gone, in any case. Chinese wages have rocketed for example - many have come acropper assuming that outsourcing is cheaper, just because. Much of their advantage now is being current incumbent...
If you imposed UK minimum wages on imports, then, quite simply you would be closing off imports from the non-first world. You would be launching a trade war with most of the human race.
Amyatt, described as "a very sensible and agreeable English gentleman", is remembered for one of the most famous quotes from the Scottish Enlightenment. He once observed to William Smellie, the editor of the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, that "Edinburgh enjoyed a noble privilege not possessed by any other city in Europe". When asked what he meant by that, Amyatt replied:
"Here stand I at what is called the Cross of Edinburgh, and can in a few minutes take fifty men of genius by the hand"
Time for the Left to structurally analyse every comedy show of the last half century using the Intersectionality training from last week's (online) seminar at the University of Plate Glass Meadows.
It is possible to care about different issues simultaneously, you know.
I'd say yes to the round of golf with Donald Trump. For the bantz.
I could dine off the anecdotes from that at parties for the rest of my life.
Lol, definitely. You would need to make sure you could win, though, even if his foot iron is deployed. He's notorious for cheating at golf, which is of course much worse ethically than anything he could do as President.
I wonder if the first episode of Blackadder II will pass muster, where Blackadder falls for what he thinks (despite it being obvious not the case) is his male manservant, given the exended scene of the doctor mocking him for possibly being gay. He wasn't the good guy in the scene, but one cannot be too careful.
I am gay and I do find that scene somewhat cringeworthy, but I wouldn't want it banned. It was of its time, and most of that show is still great fun (though FWIW if you were being a hardcore SJW killjoy you could write the whole thing off for its comic dismissal of the oppression of the working class by the feckless aristocracy.)
Generally speaking there's too much of a rush to judgement and the atmosphere around these issues is far too censorious. We need better to distinguish between situations where people make mistakes of which they repent, where there are honest differences of opinion on difficult topics, and where people are wilfully offensive and discriminatory. This whole culture wars bollocks involves people branding each other as members of the latter category whenever they say something that doesn't fit *precisely* into their own worldview. It's crude and destructive and I wish it would stop.
About the only thing to be said in favour of Chinese-style despotism is at least one of the first acts of the speculative dictator thereof would be to put Twitter behind an impenetrable firewall, never to be seen again.
That the Establishment is weak and has no self confidence has been self evident for a while.
But why is he bemoaning that weakness?
I thought the whole point of the Glorious Brexit Revolution was to defeat "the establishment" and reinstate the rule of the white working class, like it used to be, in the good ole times.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Time for the Left to structurally analyse every comedy show of the last half century using the Intersectionality training from last week's (online) seminar at the University of Plate Glass Meadows.
It is possible to care about different issues simultaneously, you know.
Yes it is, but how much time and energy should be focused on some things as a priority is a matter for debate, since I don't think public attention or effort is boundless myself. Yours is also not an attitude shared by many, since not demonstrating a care for one thing would be regarded by plenty as not caring about it.
Amyatt, described as "a very sensible and agreeable English gentleman", is remembered for one of the most famous quotes from the Scottish Enlightenment. He once observed to William Smellie, the editor of the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, that "Edinburgh enjoyed a noble privilege not possessed by any other city in Europe". When asked what he meant by that, Amyatt replied:
"Here stand I at what is called the Cross of Edinburgh, and can in a few minutes take fifty men of genius by the hand"
I wonder if the first episode of Blackadder II will pass muster, where Blackadder falls for what he thinks (despite it being obvious not the case) is his male manservant, given the exended scene of the doctor mocking him for possibly being gay. He wasn't the good guy in the scene, but one cannot be too careful.
I am gay and I do find that scene somewhat cringeworthy, but I wouldn't want it banned. It was of its time, and most of that show is still great fun (though FWIW if you were being a hardcore SJW killjoy you could write the whole thing off for its comic dismissal of the oppression of the working class by the feckless aristocracy.)
Generally speaking there's too much of a rush to judgement and the atmosphere around these issues is far too censorious. We need better to distinguish between situations where people make mistakes of which they repent, where there are honest differences of opinion on difficult topics, and where people are wilfully offensive and discriminatory. This whole culture wars bollocks involves people branding each other as members of the latter category whenever they say something that doesn't fit *precisely* into their own worldview. It's crude and destructive and I wish it would stop.
About the only thing to be said in favour of Chinese-style despotism is at least one of the first acts of the speculative dictator thereof would be to put Twitter behind an impenetrable firewall, never to be seen again.
A thoughtful view. Not welcome.
Personally I come at some of these issues acknowledging that due to history and culture we're not in a place where issues of gender, sexuality and race etc are unworthy of comment or that there are no issues to address, I cannot simply dismiss things by believing that they are better now than they used to be, but I have this lingering concern that we presently are becoming so hyper aware of specific charactertistics that it becomes a little self defeating. It feels like we are creating ever more tribes with their own sub-tribes rather than working toward some utopian star trek future of all peoples in harmony. Heck, even star trek doesn't have that anymore.
I don't know what the solution is, and to get change sometimes there needs to be disruption aggression, but some of the aggression at present feels a little inefficiently directed, and one note with all sins being equally outrageous.
But at the end of the day the more aggressive will win, as I don't have the will to fight it.
Would it be impossible to implement some kind of law that said that if a product is sold in a country, the workers who made it must be paid that country's minimum wage?
It would do wonders for the UK garment industry. If, for example, Bangladeshi garment workers had to be paid the British minimum wage for clothes sold in Britain, then the competitive advantages of offshoring the manufacture of clothes would be removed. Might as well make them in the UK again and dispense with the costs of shipping them halfway round the world.
Of course, it would also make the clothes a lot more expensive and serve to highlight just how hard up, relative to the UK average, a lot of families in this country really are. The news for them would be that formerly cheap clothes from the likes of Primark or the local supermarket would now be priced at mid-market level, so if you want something new to wear you probably can't afford it anymore. Instead, it's an exciting opportunity to rummage through other peoples' castoffs in the charity shops.
There's an important question here. For most of us, if our clothes cost twice as much and we kept them for twice as long, would we really be worse off?
We'd be morally better off if we paid the slave labour we keep out of sight the going rate
It is quite interesting to see, around the world, how invariant the productivity cost of labour is. That is, the actual labour cost against stuff produced.
With some exceptions - mainly things like the garment industry, where simple skills combine with automation - this is a function of education, cultural, legal stability, societal structures etc.
An old favourite - in the 1980s, the Economist found that German steel workers cost 19x as much as their Indian counterparts. The German workers were making 22x as much steel, though.
The whole get-a-PHd-for-50p-a-day thing is exaggerated and is long gone, in any case. Chinese wages have rocketed for example - many have come acropper assuming that outsourcing is cheaper, just because. Much of their advantage now is being current incumbent...
If you imposed UK minimum wages on imports, then, quite simply you would be closing off imports from the non-first world. You would be launching a trade war with most of the human race.
The next decade is likely to see middle class service sector jobs outsourced to cheaper countries in the same way that working class manufacturing ones were.
Attempts to stop it will be made under the guise of 'maintaining standards'.
That the Establishment is weak and has no self confidence has been self evident for a while.
But why is he bemoaning that weakness?
I thought the whole point of the Glorious Brexit Revolution was to defeat "the establishment" and reinstate the rule of the white working class, like it used to be, in the good ole times.
Part of his cunning plan was that Farage would be injecting new vitality into the enervated Establishment.
Poor old Nigel, not even the shock jock post left.
Would it be impossible to implement some kind of law that said that if a product is sold in a country, the workers who made it must be paid that country's minimum wage?
It would do wonders for the UK garment industry. If, for example, Bangladeshi garment workers had to be paid the British minimum wage for clothes sold in Britain, then the competitive advantages of offshoring the manufacture of clothes would be removed. Might as well make them in the UK again and dispense with the costs of shipping them halfway round the world.
Of course, it would also make the clothes a lot more expensive and serve to highlight just how hard up, relative to the UK average, a lot of families in this country really are. The news for them would be that formerly cheap clothes from the likes of Primark or the local supermarket would now be priced at mid-market level, so if you want something new to wear you probably can't afford it anymore. Instead, it's an exciting opportunity to rummage through other peoples' castoffs in the charity shops.
There's an important question here. For most of us, if our clothes cost twice as much and we kept them for twice as long, would we really be worse off?
We'd be morally better off if we paid the slave labour we keep out of sight the going rate
It is quite interesting to see, around the world, how invariant the productivity cost of labour is. That is, the actual labour cost against stuff produced.
With some exceptions - mainly things like the garment industry, where simple skills combine with automation - this is a function of education, cultural, legal stability, societal structures etc.
An old favourite - in the 1980s, the Economist found that German steel workers cost 19x as much as their Indian counterparts. The German workers were making 22x as much steel, though.
The whole get-a-PHd-for-50p-a-day thing is exaggerated and is long gone, in any case. Chinese wages have rocketed for example - many have come acropper assuming that outsourcing is cheaper, just because. Much of their advantage now is being current incumbent...
If you imposed UK minimum wages on imports, then, quite simply you would be closing off imports from the non-first world. You would be launching a trade war with most of the human race.
The next decade is likely to see middle class service sector jobs outsourced to cheaper countries in the same way that working class manufacturing ones were.
Attempts to stop it will be made under the guise of 'maintaining standards'.
I work in high end IT - its been tried a number of times.
The productivity cost keeps on wacking the managers in the back of the head.
Yes, I can get developers for x% of London wages. But it doesn't work out cheaper. In fact, one company where I worked, which had development sites around the world, actually worked out the real cost of software development. Cheapest to most expensive -
1) London / Eastern Europe
The first 2 were basically a dead heat
2) US 3) Canada 4) India
India was dead last on every metric. When you go and see how things work there, it is easy to understand.
The biggest issue in London is getting the really good people.
Comments
One of my first tastes of comedy was that episode of Fawlty Towers. It was before we had a video, my Dad had it on LP.
There's no difference at all between chucking episodes of Fawlty Towers in the dustbin due to a dated script and banning all future performances of Macbeth because it contains an antisemitic line. Most people are sophisticated enough both to enjoy a piece based on its artistic merit and to comprehend that it may feature elements which are of its time and would not be included in a more contemporary work. Watching an episode of a 1970s comedy that's rude to the Germans and contains the odd dated racist remark might make a lot of people cringe, but it's hardly going to promote those behaviours in a modern population which, generally speaking, quite likes Germany and finds racism abhorrent.
Those who either aren't that sophisticated or who simply find the offensive element too repulsive to be tolerated have the choice to refrain from watching altogether.
Sounds like everyone wants to keep him (if for different reasons).
There was also that episode of The Good Life where Margo wanted some new neighbours gone (I forget why) and was initially pleased they were being replaced by a nice middle class couple, but the ending gag was her horror as they turned out to have an asian/middle eastern name (I don't recall the exact details) You won't get far with that kind of attitude.
I kind of like being able to acknowledge flaws in things, even ones I wouldn't have seen as a flaw at the time, whilst still . I recall an episode of Brooklyn Nine-Nine a few years ago where Ace Ventura comes up, and a character notes it was, to them, a classic and one of their childhood favorites and that it only gets overly transphobic right at the end. I thought it made its point without being too preachy in its delivery.
She's no more a woman than I am in bizarro world.
To be fair, if people want to buy the DVDs they can, being able to watch whatever you want, whenever you like on tv is such a new thing that most of the people who are upset by them not being available wont notice, or know how to watch them, anyway!
I miss 2006.
Time for the Left to structurally analyse every comedy show of the last half century using the Intersectionality training from last week's (online) seminar at the University of Plate Glass Meadows.
With some exceptions - mainly things like the garment industry, where simple skills combine with automation - this is a function of education, cultural, legal stability, societal structures etc.
An old favourite - in the 1980s, the Economist found that German steel workers cost 19x as much as their Indian counterparts. The German workers were making 22x as much steel, though.
The whole get-a-PHd-for-50p-a-day thing is exaggerated and is long gone, in any case. Chinese wages have rocketed for example - many have come acropper assuming that outsourcing is cheaper, just because. Much of their advantage now is being current incumbent...
If you imposed UK minimum wages on imports, then, quite simply you would be closing off imports from the non-first world. You would be launching a trade war with most of the human race.
Ok, we can keep the telephone sanitisers. But not the bloody “professional services” crowd.
Generally speaking there's too much of a rush to judgement and the atmosphere around these issues is far too censorious. We need better to distinguish between situations where people make mistakes of which they repent, where there are honest differences of opinion on difficult topics, and where people are wilfully offensive and discriminatory. This whole culture wars bollocks involves people branding each other as members of the latter category whenever they say something that doesn't fit *precisely* into their own worldview. It's crude and destructive and I wish it would stop.
About the only thing to be said in favour of Chinese-style despotism is at least one of the first acts of the speculative dictator thereof would be to put Twitter behind an impenetrable firewall, never to be seen again.
I thought the whole point of the Glorious Brexit Revolution was to defeat "the establishment" and reinstate the rule of the white working class, like it used to be, in the good ole times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4
This thread has been swabbed.
Personally I come at some of these issues acknowledging that due to history and culture we're not in a place where issues of gender, sexuality and race etc are unworthy of comment or that there are no issues to address, I cannot simply dismiss things by believing that they are better now than they used to be, but I have this lingering concern that we presently are becoming so hyper aware of specific charactertistics that it becomes a little self defeating. It feels like we are creating ever more tribes with their own sub-tribes rather than working toward some utopian star trek future of all peoples in harmony. Heck, even star trek doesn't have that anymore.
I don't know what the solution is, and to get change sometimes there needs to be disruption aggression, but some of the aggression at present feels a little inefficiently directed, and one note with all sins being equally outrageous.
But at the end of the day the more aggressive will win, as I don't have the will to fight it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8ZHXGHEfHM
Attempts to stop it will be made under the guise of 'maintaining standards'.
Poor old Nigel, not even the shock jock post left.
The productivity cost keeps on wacking the managers in the back of the head.
Yes, I can get developers for x% of London wages. But it doesn't work out cheaper. In fact, one company where I worked, which had development sites around the world, actually worked out the real cost of software development. Cheapest to most expensive -
1) London / Eastern Europe
The first 2 were basically a dead heat
2) US
3) Canada
4) India
India was dead last on every metric. When you go and see how things work there, it is easy to understand.
The biggest issue in London is getting the really good people.