The treaty of Union is just that , supposedly freely signed and can just as easily be dissolved. It is exactly the same as the EU treaty which UK did not need any permission to leave. Under international law if the people vote on a mandate for independence and England says no it will be in breach of International law and will have no chance not to agree at very worst to another referendum, personally I think as per previously agreed by Westminster that if a majority vote on an independence vote in an election then it is valid and will win in international courts. We will see soon enough.
I'm afraid that comparison isn't valid. The EU is an intergovernmental organisation and any of the states parties can leave if determined to do so (and have always had that ability, even before a formal mechanism was created under the Treaty of Lisbon to facilitate departure.) The UK didn't subsume itself into a federation when it joined, any more than Germany, Denmark or Hungary did.
Scotland is neither a sovereign state (England and Scotland both ceased to be such voluntarily in 1707,) nor a colony, and thus it cannot as a matter of law (domestic or international) demand independence unilaterally. Now, in practice, if sentiment in Scotland were overwhelmingly in favour of independence then I am sure that Scotland would get it, firstly because the UK Government is not an occupying power in Scotland and would have no wish to be perceived to be acting as one, and secondly because it probably would come under sustained international pressure under such circumstances. But those conditions do not presently exist, and absent those there will be no foreign support for a UDI and great resistance to it from within Scotland itself.
Which brings us back to the second referendum. The principle has now been established that Scotland can indeed vote to leave the UK, but only through a plebiscite in which the majority of Scots who express a preference say yes to independence. The ability to call a legitimate referendum - i.e. one that won't be immediately challenged and struck down in the Scottish courts - is reserved to the UK Parliament, which is under no legal obligation to concede a referendum on each and every occasion that the Scottish Parliament asks for one.
Thus the Scottish Government can ask for another referendum to be held, but is going to have to wait until the UK Government is willing to concede one, or has its arm twisted by sheer weight of support amongst the Scottish people as a whole - though my best guess is that it won't come to that. Again, assuming another pro-independence majority is returned to Holyrood in 2021, then Johnson may well relent; if he does not then I'm almost certain that an opportunity will come at some point in the not-too-distant future, either from Labour doing well enough in a future General Election to get into office with SNP votes at Westminster, or when we're a decent stretch closer to "a generation" having actually passed.
Besides, it is by no means certain that future Conservative Prime Ministers will be so committed to maintaining the Union with Scotland when its departure would greatly strengthen their party's Parliamentary position: if Scotland became independent tomorrow then the Tory Commons majority would increase to about 130 at a stroke, a huge advantage and not very far short of the 1983 landslide. Many Conservative MPs in England and Wales who are less wedded to the Union than some of their colleagues can count and will be well aware of that.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
65% of Swiss people have German as first language, French is the second most widely spoken, Italian third, and Romansh (distantly related to French and Italian) is fourth.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
WOKE WOKE WOKE
Do you remember Phillip going through a libertarian phase at one point? I do, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
I am Libertarian. I'm not suggesting The Simpsons should be banned from hiring Hank Azaria as Apu. I am suggesting they're making the right decision for their own reasons. That's a libertarian solution. People making their own choices not having them forced on them.
I've specifically and repeatedly said casting people in such roles should be allowed (eg for a show wanting to cause offence like South Park).
Libertarian doesn't mean not having beliefs, it means having people make their own choices. As The Simpsons are doing. They're choosing to do this nobody is making them do it.
When I first watched the film "Short Circuit" as a kid, I had no idea Fisher Stevens (who played Ben, the Indian bloke) was white. But even after I learnt he was white, I still enjoyed watching the movie whenever repeated on TV
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
WOKE WOKE WOKE
Do you remember Phillip going through a libertarian phase at one point? I do, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
You could not make it up , a libertarian that discriminates and censors only white people.
I never said that.
If a company wants to hire only Indians to play an Indian character I understand that.
If a company wants to hire only whites to play whites I understand that.
How is that inconsistent? If the race isn't relevant to the character it shouldn't be relevant to the choice of actor but if it is I respect a companies right to choose.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
65% of Swiss people have German as first language, French is the second most widely spoken, Italian third, and Romansh (distantly related to French and Italian) is fourth.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
No.
And if a company said they were hiring only blacks to play Kunta Kinte then would you object to that?
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Actually, this whole passage from 1984 is superbly prescient.
Orewell is describing Shouty Woman in the video below
"He was a man of about thirty, with a muscular throat and a large, mobile mouth. His head was thrown back a little, and because of the angle at which he was sitting, his spectacles caught the light and presented to Winston two blank discs instead of eyes. What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word."
"Just once Winston caught a phrase-’complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism’- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quackquack-quacking. And yet, though you could not actually hear what the man was saying, you could not be in any doubt about its general nature. He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought- criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army, he might be praising Big Brother or the heroes on the Malabar front-it made no difference. Whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure INGSOC"
Oh that IS original and thought provoking - a bit of Orwell.
How about a bit of Turgenev:
"So ... you were convinced of all this and decided not to do anything serious yourselves." "And decided not to do anything serious," Bazarov repeated grimly. ... "But to confine yourselves to abuse?" "To confine ourselves to abuse." "And that is called nihilism?" "And that is called nihilism," Bazarov repeated again, this time with marked insolence.
Except it doesn't. What it captures is keyboard warriordom. Of which there is loads on the "anti-woke" right.
See here - depending on who's around and what time of day it is.
It captures very well those who posture about slavery in central London but wont go and protest at the Mauretanian embassy.
No it doesn't. Not especially. You're projecting.
Why do you think these protestors have nothing to say about modern slavery?
Whats worse, actual slavery or some old statue with links to a practice civilised nations banned centuries ago?
Why do protesters seeking to highlight a big issue not at the same time attempt to highlight other big and possibly bigger issues? The answer - which seems rather obvious - is focus and bandwidth. Which begs a question in return for you. Why did you ask me this? Is it because you do not like the issue that IS being highlighted and thus want to (i) deflect attention away from it and (ii) tar the people doing it as hypocrites? I sense it might be.
Nope, not interested in deflecting - I do think they are hypocrites though
Tackle actual slavery
Its almost like slavery isn't actually the issue for some of the organisers.
Imagine that.
The issue for most of the protesters is anti-black racism, now and historical. Very harsh - and imo unfair and borderline absurd - to cast doubt on their motives purely because they are not at the same time leading the charge against all forms of what can be deemed modern slavery.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
65% of Swiss people have German as first language, French is the second most widely spoken, Italian third, and Romansh (distantly related to French and Italian) is fourth.
Ladin?
Ladin is only spoken in northern Italy, but is related to Romansh.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
It's certainly a very strong accent, so imagine say a Londoner trying to understand Rab C Nesbitt.
The revelations about Trump are going to keep coming over the next few months, its going to be a constant drip about him. And they going to come from every angle and source.
For the un-initiated, his core vote (c42%) cannot get him elected and there is every sign that those outside that core who signed on in 2016 are not going to vote for Trump in anywhere near the same numbers.
It is going to take a huge hit on Biden or his campaign for him to lose.
If you are on the GOP, start worrying about Congress.
It's imo one single revelation. Or rather a truth now dawning on an evergrowing number. That Donald Trump is unfit to be President.
The reasons why that is so are going to keep on coming. I don't know how many people have noticed the shift but Trump and his team cannot get on the front foot right now and their efforts have decidedly shifted into a series of rear guard actions whilst they burn the files. As things move on and Trump's loser trajectory remains as is, those who have kept counsel will start pushing more stuff out for public view.
I've always held that he would not get a second term. I am also of the view that he will end up in court and probably in jail once the protections of his current post are lost. Then again I have been of that view since before the guy even got elected.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
It's certainly a very strong accent, so imagine say a Londoner trying to understand Rab C Nesbitt.
Ah, now you're getting into the thorny issue of whether Scots should be considered a dialect of English or a separate language!
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
AIUI that issue stems from the under-representation of non-white people in the arts. If that didn't exist then I think a lot of these arguments, certainly when it comes to voice performances, wouldn't happen. More generally there's a fine line between a legitimate concern for inclusion and respect for minority groups and pointless wokery.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
WOKE WOKE WOKE
Do you remember Phillip going through a libertarian phase at one point? I do, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
You could not make it up , a libertarian that discriminates and censors only white people.
I never said that.
If a company wants to hire only Indians to play an Indian character I understand that.
If a company wants to hire only whites to play whites I understand that.
How is that inconsistent? If the race isn't relevant to the character it shouldn't be relevant to the choice of actor but if it is I respect a companies right to choose.
You are happy for them to sack the current actor who is white just so some ideological flimflam can be put in place and an Indian who may be crap is put in his place just to cover political correctness. They are not doing it out of choice after 30 years , they are being pressurised by halfwits to do it.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire an Indian actor to portray an Indian character? I don't, do you?
The revelations about Trump are going to keep coming over the next few months, its going to be a constant drip about him. And they going to come from every angle and source.
For the un-initiated, his core vote (c42%) cannot get him elected and there is every sign that those outside that core who signed on in 2016 are not going to vote for Trump in anywhere near the same numbers.
It is going to take a huge hit on Biden or his campaign for him to lose.
If you are on the GOP, start worrying about Congress.
It's imo one single revelation. Or rather a truth now dawning on an evergrowing number. That Donald Trump is unfit to be President.
Anyone who did not realise that at least 5 years ago must be pretty dumb
In future, this will be seen as one of the great tragedies of the American right, the Republican Party, and perhaps America in general
At a time when American ideals are under attack as never before, and America herself is threatened in a way we have not known for a century, the Republicans decided to install a ridiculous, self-loving moron as president. A man incapable of dressing himself, when the nation needed a man to defend Liberty.
We’re all just grateful you never went into politics!
Actually, this whole passage from 1984 is superbly prescient.
Orewell is describing Shouty Woman in the video below
"He was a man of about thirty, with a muscular throat and a large, mobile mouth. His head was thrown back a little, and because of the angle at which he was sitting, his spectacles caught the light and presented to Winston two blank discs instead of eyes. What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word."
"Just once Winston caught a phrase-’complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism’- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quackquack-quacking. And yet, though you could not actually hear what the man was saying, you could not be in any doubt about its general nature. He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought- criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army, he might be praising Big Brother or the heroes on the Malabar front-it made no difference. Whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure INGSOC"
Oh that IS original and thought provoking - a bit of Orwell.
How about a bit of Turgenev:
"So ... you were convinced of all this and decided not to do anything serious yourselves." "And decided not to do anything serious," Bazarov repeated grimly. ... "But to confine yourselves to abuse?" "To confine ourselves to abuse." "And that is called nihilism?" "And that is called nihilism," Bazarov repeated again, this time with marked insolence.
Except it doesn't. What it captures is keyboard warriordom. Of which there is loads on the "anti-woke" right.
See here - depending on who's around and what time of day it is.
It captures very well those who posture about slavery in central London but wont go and protest at the Mauretanian embassy.
No it doesn't. Not especially. You're projecting.
Why do you think these protestors have nothing to say about modern slavery?
Whats worse, actual slavery or some old statue with links to a practice civilised nations banned centuries ago?
Why do protesters seeking to highlight a big issue not at the same time attempt to highlight other big and possibly bigger issues? The answer - which seems rather obvious - is focus and bandwidth. Which begs a question in return for you. Why did you ask me this? Is it because you do not like the issue that IS being highlighted and thus want to (i) deflect attention away from it and (ii) tar the people doing it as hypocrites? I sense it might be.
Nope, not interested in deflecting - I do think they are hypocrites though
Tackle actual slavery
Its almost like slavery isn't actually the issue for some of the organisers.
Imagine that.
The issue for most of the protesters is anti-black racism, now and historical. Very harsh - and imo unfair and borderline absurd - to cast doubt on their motives purely because they are not at the same time leading the charge against all forms of what can be deemed modern slavery.
They are highly selective and in most cases are therefore racist themselves, picking and choosing the bits they like to whine about whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.
Come on you Trump fluffers, explain how this will be good for Trump?
I sometimes wish John McCain hadn't torpedoed the repeal of Obamacare. Because I simply can't see how Trump would be re-elected if he'd simply abolished it.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
It's certainly a very strong accent, so imagine say a Londoner trying to understand Rab C Nesbitt.
Ah, now you're getting into the thorny issue of whether Scots should be considered a dialect of English or a separate language!
The revelations about Trump are going to keep coming over the next few months, its going to be a constant drip about him. And they going to come from every angle and source.
For the un-initiated, his core vote (c42%) cannot get him elected and there is every sign that those outside that core who signed on in 2016 are not going to vote for Trump in anywhere near the same numbers.
It is going to take a huge hit on Biden or his campaign for him to lose.
If you are on the GOP, start worrying about Congress.
It's imo one single revelation. Or rather a truth now dawning on an evergrowing number. That Donald Trump is unfit to be President.
The reasons why that is so are going to keep on coming. I don't know how many people have noticed the shift but Trump and his team cannot get on the front foot right now and their efforts have decidedly shifted into a series of rear guard actions whilst they burn the files. As things move on and Trump's loser trajectory remains as is, those who have kept counsel will start pushing more stuff out for public view.
I've always held that he would not get a second term. I am also of the view that he will end up in court and probably in jail once the protections of his current post are lost. Then again I have been of that view since before the guy even got elected.
I agree totally. One Term President. Never looked anything but. And, yes, I do hope his future involves some orange jumpsuit.
Maybe Trump's master plan is to lose so incredibly, stunningly badly that it can't help but look like the election has been rigged in some way. Then dig his heels in and watch the shit hit the fan.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Maybe Trump's master plan is to lose so incredibly, stunningly badly that it can't help but look like the election has been rigged in some way. Then dig his heels in and watch the shit hit the fan.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
It's certainly a very strong accent, so imagine say a Londoner trying to understand Rab C Nesbitt.
Ah, now you're getting into the thorny issue of whether Scots should be considered a dialect of English or a separate language!
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
WOKE WOKE WOKE
Do you remember Phillip going through a libertarian phase at one point? I do, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
You could not make it up , a libertarian that discriminates and censors only white people.
I never said that.
If a company wants to hire only Indians to play an Indian character I understand that.
If a company wants to hire only whites to play whites I understand that.
How is that inconsistent? If the race isn't relevant to the character it shouldn't be relevant to the choice of actor but if it is I respect a companies right to choose.
You are happy for them to sack the current actor who is white just so some ideological flimflam can be put in place and an Indian who may be crap is put in his place just to cover political correctness. They are not doing it out of choice after 30 years , they are being pressurised by halfwits to do it.
They're not sacking anyone. He's already resigned from the role from his own free choice. And he voices dozens of other characters so I'm sure he's not getting sacked.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire an Indian actor to portray an Indian character? I don't, do you?
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
If I might throw my two pennies worth on this matter, I think it depends upon context. As a general rule, I would say that performances that might primarily be regarded as art can be cast colourblind; those that might be regarded as re-enactment or drama-documentary should pay close attention to what is known historically.
Most people are pretty sensible about this sort of thing. Nobody nowadays would be bothered by a staging of one of Shakespeare's history plays, e.g. Henry V, with a partially or entirely black cast. If you were making a drama-documentary about 15th century England, on the other hand, and you filled it with black people then it would look silly.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire an Indian actor to portray an Indian character? I don't, do you?
Looking again at Shouty Woman berating Dignified Man by the Emancipation Statue, I wonder if one of the side-effects of the Frenzy will be a reordering of the US education systen crisis and the government is defunding Humanities in favour of STEM
Rather embarrassingly, I studied Humanities at Brighton University as a 35 year old. In retrospect it was like an undercover mission into the wokiest of wokesville, a glimpse into the future at what Corbynism/BLM would be like. Teachers boycotting Tescos because it was Israeli, legitimising anti Israel sentiment at every opportunity, teaching Marxism as the truth, telling stories of evil Tories, quoting The Guardian as Gospel, refusing to believe a word that had been written in a right of centre paper...
Not a million miles from 2015 Tory posters views on here in 2020!
This implies you stuck out like a sore thumb. And yet I bet you didn't. So how can you explain that contradiction?
I did stick out like a sore thumb, so there's no contradiction to explain
Ah OK, fair enough. No, there isn't a contradiction there then.
But there's another oddity. On this account you would be (quite literally) the only person in history to have been turned into a UKIP voter by a surfeit of education.
Not true. I know several.
Extreme Woke education DOES have this effect on some people. It makes them very anti-Woke. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Not many go the whole hog and become UKIPpers (tho a few do), quite a lot are turned into Conservatives
I see a lot of graduates, albeit mostly in the job interview process. And I've done this for twenty odd years now.
I have noticed certain changes. And I've asked people about some of the things in Universities.
Now, maybe it's because I only see economics, finance, business, science, engineering, computing and philosophy students (and not sociology and critical race theory), but I've not actually noticed much (if anything) in the way of wokeness. Sure, people are broadly left of centre, and sure the Brits are mostly pro-EU, but most seem otherwise fairly normal.
The only area where there seems to have been a massive change in attitudes in terms of gay rights. Everyone who's twenty years old has a dozen gay friends, while I probably knew just two or three openly gay people at University.
Perhaps I'm being over optimistic. But when I was at University, by far the loudest most vocal group was Socialist Worker. I'd get a dozen leaflets to events, mostly anti-American and anti-Zionist and anti-Conservative (not a lot of positive thinking going on really...). Any wall of posters was dominated by Socialist Worker. But like Twitter is was representative of... well... only a very small minority of students.
Now, I'm not actually at University. And I probably only see the 65% of students who want well paid jobs in finance, and not the 35% who'd rather not bathe and would instead rail against injustice they don't understand. But I'm struggling to see the world as having changed as much as you think.
Perhaps I simply have more young friends than you.
Incidentally, I agree with Stuartinromford that a LOT of political correctness (certainly in earlier incarnations) was and is simply good manners. When I was young I heard anti-gay jokes and I kind of tolerated them simply because every one seemed to tolerate them.
Now I would reject them entirely, and vocally. This is clearly a good thing.
However, to me it seems foolishly blinkered to deny that a righteous movement for civility towards and equality for minorities has taken on a more aggressive, overtly political tinge, which potentially endangers liberalism in the traditional sense.
And perhaps it's also true that the young friends you have would - had they been born in 1975 rather than 1995 - have been members of the SWP and gone on demonstrations against Israel and globalisation and America and a million other things. (Does anyone even remember the anti-globalisation protests in London in 1999?)
And the revolting youth have always been in the business of deplatforming. When I was at Cambridge, then Home Secretary Michael Howard was due to speak to CUCA in a college room at St Johns. There were massive protests and the College caved and refused to allow the room to be used, citing "public order concerns". Eventually, and with much secrecy, he managed to get a room at Jesus and speak.
The earnest young are always revolting against something. Quite often there's some validity in their concerns. Sometimes there isn't. And this time it's "racial injustice" and statues of people who might (or might not) have been in the slave trade or are simply old. But really, the young are just keen to scream and shout about something, and really you should be pleased that they've moved on from "Fatcha".
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
But we can live with it?
A less diverse cast? Sure, but then we'll get complaints about a lack of BAME characters
Hire from the relevant group if you can and it works. Otherwise don't.
There's a risk of overthinking this as well as becoming overstimulated by it.
Apart from specific historical situations the ethnic origin of the actor should be irrelevant so it should always be the best (affordable) actorvforvthebjob.
The revelations about Trump are going to keep coming over the next few months, its going to be a constant drip about him. And they going to come from every angle and source.
For the un-initiated, his core vote (c42%) cannot get him elected and there is every sign that those outside that core who signed on in 2016 are not going to vote for Trump in anywhere near the same numbers.
It is going to take a huge hit on Biden or his campaign for him to lose.
If you are on the GOP, start worrying about Congress.
It's imo one single revelation. Or rather a truth now dawning on an evergrowing number. That Donald Trump is unfit to be President.
Anyone who did not realise that at least 5 years ago must be pretty dumb
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
Nope, never intended to settle in 5 of them. Defined 'tours' in each country, no intention ever to settle.
Dictionary definition:
Immigrant = "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country."
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire an Indian actor to portray an Indian character? I don't, do you?
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
If I might throw my two pennies worth on this matter, I think it depends upon context. As a general rule, I would say that performances that might primarily be regarded as art can be cast colourblind; those that might be regarded as re-enactment or drama-documentary should pay close attention to what is known historically.
Most people are pretty sensible about this sort of thing. Nobody nowadays would be bothered by a staging of one of Shakespeare's history plays, e.g. Henry V, with a partially or entirely black cast. If you were making a drama-documentary about 15th century England, on the other hand, and you filled it with black people then it would look silly.
It depends what you're trying to do.
Hamilton is an interesting example. Hamilton was white but Hamilton the musical has been made with a deliberately black cast and it has received rave reviews. I've not seen it yet myself but I believe it's coming into Disneyplus soon and I intend to watch it when it does.
Companies in the Arts should have artistic and creative licence to discriminate where they see fit as it being relevant to what they want to do.
The are issues with modern identity politics. However the 'woke' moniker coming from the anglo-american right currently is generally redundant, as modern conservatism in both Britain and America is absolutely and equally suffused with abrasive, personal identity-led illiberalism at the moment. The only person I've found convincingly using the term as distinguishing, and about something very specific, is Barack Obama, where he was talking about twitter "cancel culture".
Twitter cancel culture is becoming increasingly intertwined with corporations, as I mentioned earlier.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
Nope, never intended to settle in 5 of them. Defined 'tours' in each country, no intention ever to settle.
Dictionary definition:
Immigrant = "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country."
OK, Expat in 5 and immigrant in one, if you indeed intended to return to England from the other 5 and not just go on to one of the other ones and have no intention of returning to England.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire an Indian actor to portray an Indian character? I don't, do you?
Yes I do.
That makes you a racist!
No it doesn't. The arts have always been a reasonable exemption from racism - if it's relevant to the role.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
If I might throw my two pennies worth on this matter, I think it depends upon context. As a general rule, I would say that performances that might primarily be regarded as art can be cast colourblind; those that might be regarded as re-enactment or drama-documentary should pay close attention to what is known historically.
Most people are pretty sensible about this sort of thing. Nobody nowadays would be bothered by a staging of one of Shakespeare's history plays, e.g. Henry V, with a partially or entirely black cast. If you were making a drama-documentary about 15th century England, on the other hand, and you filled it with black people then it would look silly.
Raving loony common sense. Careful. The wokaphobic antiwokerati will be after you now. You'll be harassed, pursued and driven off the blog. Then doxxed and reported to your employer. Could lose both your peace of mind and your livelihood.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
But we can live with it?
A less diverse cast? Sure, but then we'll get complaints about a lack of BAME characters
Hire from the relevant group if you can and it works. Otherwise don't.
There's a risk of overthinking this as well as becoming overstimulated by it.
Apart from specific historical situations the ethnic origin of the actor should be irrelevant so it should always be the best (affordable) actorvforvthebjob.
Absolutely.
But if it's relevant to the role one of the criteria for best can be ethnicity.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Scots is a language , it has several dialects but it is most definitely NOT a dialect of English , completely and utterly NOT.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Surely Swiss German refers to Schwytzerdütsch? Everyone speaks Hochdeutsch with their own accent.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Scots is a language , it has several dialects but it is most definitely NOT a dialect of English , completely and utterly NOT.
But it still features some commonalities with the English language, as "Schwytzerdütsch" does with High German. That's what I was getting at. I should add, though , that the 'near unintelligibility' goes for the spoken, not as much for the written form.
edit: and I should add, that many, if not most, Schwytzer hold similarly strong views about their tongue being a distinctly different language rather than merely a dialect, as you and many Scots do with regard to your lingual homestead.
As the old linguists' adage goes "a language is a dialect with an army".
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
If I might throw my two pennies worth on this matter, I think it depends upon context. As a general rule, I would say that performances that might primarily be regarded as art can be cast colourblind; those that might be regarded as re-enactment or drama-documentary should pay close attention to what is known historically.
Most people are pretty sensible about this sort of thing. Nobody nowadays would be bothered by a staging of one of Shakespeare's history plays, e.g. Henry V, with a partially or entirely black cast. If you were making a drama-documentary about 15th century England, on the other hand, and you filled it with black people then it would look silly.
Id broadly agree with this, there is nothing intrinsically offensive or negative about actors playing different types of people. It can be done with consideration, thought and respect, it can be done lazily perpetuating stereotypes but without any negative intent or it can be done deliberately to offend and belittle. Each example is different, but there should be no mainstream ban or barrier for people playing characters outside of their race.
After all the reality is we are all part of a melting pot. What roles would be open to someone whose grandparents where Chinese, Norwegian, Nigerian and Chilean for example? None? They would be waiting a very, very long time for a writer to fit them in.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
65% of Swiss people have German as first language, French is the second most widely spoken, Italian third, and Romansh (distantly related to French and Italian) is fourth.
Ladin?
Ladin is only spoken in northern Italy, but is related to Romansh.
Ladin?
Isn't that what the ancient Romans spoke when they had a cold?
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Scots is a language , it has several dialects but it is most definitely NOT a dialect of English , completely and utterly NOT.
But it still features some commonalities with the English language, as "Schwytzerdütsch" does with High German. That's what I was getting at. I should add, though , that the 'near unintelligibility' goes for the spoken, not as much for the written form.
edit: and I should add, that many, if not most, Schwytzer hold similarly strong views about their tongue being a distinctly different language rather than merely a dialect, as you and many Scots do with regard to your lingual homestead.
As the old linguists' adage goes "a language is a dialect with an army".
I will let you off then PS, it has some Germanic roots as well
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
Looking again at Shouty Woman berating Dignified Man by the Emancipation Statue, I wonder if one of the side-effects of the Frenzy will be a reordering of the US education systen crisis and the government is defunding Humanities in favour of STEM
Rather embarrassingly, I studied Humanities at Brighton University as a 35 year old. In retrospect it was like an undercover mission into the wokiest of wokesville, a glimpse into the future at what Corbynism/BLM would be like. Teachers boycotting Tescos because it was Israeli, legitimising anti Israel sentiment at every opportunity, teaching Marxism as the truth, telling stories of evil Tories, quoting The Guardian as Gospel, refusing to believe a word that had been written in a right of centre paper...
Not a million miles from 2015 Tory posters views on here in 2020!
This implies you stuck out like a sore thumb. And yet I bet you didn't. So how can you explain that contradiction?
I did stick out like a sore thumb, so there's no contradiction to explain
Ah OK, fair enough. No, there isn't a contradiction there then.
But there's another oddity. On this account you would be (quite literally) the only person in history to have been turned into a UKIP voter by a surfeit of education.
Not true. I know several.
Extreme Woke education DOES have this effect on some people. It makes them very anti-Woke. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Not many go the whole hog and become UKIPpers (tho a few do), quite a lot are turned into Conservatives
I see a lot of graduates, albeit mostly in the job interview process. And I've done this for twenty odd years now.
I have noticed certain changes. And I've asked people about some of the things in Universities.
Now, maybe it's because I only see economics, finance, business, science, engineering, computing and philosophy students (and not sociology and critical race theory), but I've not actually noticed much (if anything) in the way of wokeness. Sure, people are broadly left of centre, and sure the Brits are mostly pro-EU, but most seem otherwise fairly normal.
The only area where there seems to have been a massive change in attitudes in terms of gay rights. Everyone who's twenty years old has a dozen gay friends, while I probably knew just two or three openly gay people at University.
Perhaps I'm being over optimistic. But when I was at University, by far the loudest most vocal group was Socialist Worker. I'd get a dozen leaflets to events, mostly anti-American and anti-Zionist and anti-Conservative (not a lot of positive thinking going on really...). Any wall of posters was dominated by Socialist Worker. But like Twitter is was representative of... well... only a very small minority of students.
Now, I'm not actually at University. And I probably only see the 65% of students who want well paid jobs in finance, and not the 35% who'd rather not bathe and would instead rail against injustice they don't understand. But I'm struggling to see the world as having changed as much as you think.
Perhaps I simply have more young friends than you.
Incidentally, I agree with Stuartinromford that a LOT of political correctness (certainly in earlier incarnations) was and is simply good manners. When I was young I heard anti-gay jokes and I kind of tolerated them simply because every one seemed to tolerate them.
Now I would reject them entirely, and vocally. This is clearly a good thing.
However, to me it seems foolishly blinkered to deny that a righteous movement for civility towards and equality for minorities has taken on a more aggressive, overtly political tinge, which potentially endangers liberalism in the traditional sense.
And perhaps it's also true that the young friends you have would - had they been born in 1975 rather than 1995 - have been members of the SWP and gone on demonstrations against Israel and globalisation and America and a million other things. (Does anyone even remember the anti-globalisation protests in London in 1999?)
And the revolting youth have always been in the business of deplatforming. When I was at Cambridge, then Home Secretary Michael Howard was due to speak to CUCA in a college room at St Johns. There were massive protests and the College caved and refused to allow the room to be used, citing "public order concerns". Eventually, and with much secrecy, he managed to get a room at Jesus and speak.
The earnest young are always revolting against something. Quite often there's some validity in their concerns. Sometimes there isn't. And this time it's "racial injustice" and statues of people who might (or might not) have been in the slave trade or are simply old. But really, the young are just keen to scream and shout about something, and really you should be pleased that they've moved on from "Fatcha".
For an intelligent man, you can be very myopic.
I remember the SWP and Fatcha-haters, I remember the students who hounded Roger Scruton out of a job, so I can hear the clear echoes of the past in the present.
The difference is that this new Woke Frenzy is much more widespread: it reaches into the media, into the corporate world, into the arts, everywhere. It's not just soap-dodging students. Crucially, this time everything is amped up by social media: that transforms the whole process, and dials the anger up to 11.
And it is happening in the middle of a Plague.
This time really is different.
And now I really MUST go and attend to my thirst. Good evening
The tenor of your posts hardly suggests a thirst that has been neglected.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.
There's a rather significant difference in that good luck finding any Klingons offended by being stereotyped by how they're portrayed.
An Indian playing a role like Apu can tell the writers he objects to a scene because it is inappropriate or stereotyping in a way Azaria simply can't.
Bollox, he is paid to read a script and act a part, if he does not like it he should GTF and let someone who wants paid to get the part.
Bollocks.
Good actors always give feedback to the scripts they read. If the writers want to insist the words get read as written they can but good writers listen to good feedback.
My favourite example of an actor changing the script is a simple one from Empire Strikes Back when Leia says "I love you" to Han Solo and he says "I know". The script was originally that he'd say "I love you too" but Harrison Ford said that doesn't suit Solo and "I know" is a better line ... and I certainly was!
Harrison Ford changed one word, I am convinced. Sure he gave the director a good telling to about stereotyping him as a lovestruck teenager , told him him how inappropriate it was for Hans to speak like a big jessie boy and forced him to strike out those 3 words. You need to go and lie down in a dark corner.
No you do. It's not the end of the world to have actors give feedback, they do it regularly.
The Simpsons can easily afford to hire an Indian actor to voice Apu. They're not short of cash.
And it's not like it's South Park. If South Park wants someone to impersonate, badly, someone else that's a different matter. You watch that knowing it's trying to be offensive.
But what if the actor who voiced Apu was actually the best person at voicing Apu? What if there's an Indian guy who is the best at voicing west African characters? What if there is a West African actor who is weirdly brilliant at doing posh white women? Should they all be forbidden from doing the work they are good at?
Once you disallow one kind of voiceover, because of inappropriate racial background, then you surely, in the end, disallow them all.
That would be a shame because it would mean we'd lose Edna Mode from the Incredibles
It is the thin end of the wedge, only fat people can play fatties , only baldies can play baldies , only big ears , one legged , one arm , etc , they will need to change actors half way through films if they get injured and lose any body parts.
Nobody's suggesting that, you're making up nonsense! 🤦♂️
If the show is written and directed by white people and they want to get a black actor or actress to do the voiceover for a white character then there's no harm in that in my eyes. The difference is Apu isn't being written and directed by Indians who happen to have a white person voicing him. They've had no Indians involved with the script or character development and that was a weakness that has been identified and now they're addressing it.
The Elizabethans thought it was best to have men play female roles as it was inappropriate for a woman to be on the stage. We've moved on from that and it's not caused society to collapse. We'll move on from this and life will go on.
Your brain is mush, you are happy to discriminate against white people but not against anyone else. I have heard and seen some bollox in my days but your knickers must be fankled so far up your bollox it has addled your brain.
Acting has always been a field with discrimination in it. When was the last time you saw a field good Christmas movie where Santa was played by a black woman?
Have you seen Kunta Kinte played by a white woman
Have you seen Panto Dames played by women?
If the Woke Gestapo ever turn their attention on the British pantomime tradition, it would last about 5 minutes
Do you think it's acceptable for a company to say they only want to hire a white actor to portray a white character? I do, do you?
If the character in question was a cartoon character, I think non-white actors would feel quite aggrieved to be barred from auditioning, and I can't say I'd blame them.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
65% of Swiss people have German as first language, French is the second most widely spoken, Italian third, and Romansh (distantly related to French and Italian) is fourth.
Ladin?
Ladin is only spoken in northern Italy, but is related to Romansh.
Ladin?
Isn't that what the ancient Romans spoke when they had a cold?
I have to go.
Well there is a view that Ladin is the closest contemporary language to informal spoken Latin.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Robert, I know I was just having some fun. I have been an expat in the USA 3 times myself, if I remember correctly it was on B2 visa and my wife was not allowed to work. I have been an expat in England several times as well
So the Unwokies' outrage has gone from statues the existence of which they were unaware of historical figures of which they'd never heard, through a film which they'd never seen of a book they'd never read to a kids' cartoon they don't watch. It's almost like all that stuff is completely unconnected to what's going on in their panicked wee breasties.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Surely Swiss German refers to Schwytzerdütsch? Everyone speaks Hochdeutsch with their own accent.
That might depend on the intention of the speaker. The English expression "Swiss German" might refer to "Schweizer Deutsch" or to "Schwytzerdütsch", which are clearly distinct from another. And I should probably add that there is a notable difference between merely speaking High German with a Swiss accent and speaking "Schweizer Deutsch". It really is kind of complicated, especially because so many people's identities are so strongly entangled with the language they are immersed in.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Life doesn't always run according to plans. Many people who plan to move temporarily for a job end up staying permanently, and many people who plan to move permanently end up moving back, or somewhere else.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Precisely!
I was an expat when I was a child. I went to school overseas and we moved due to my dad's job and we were only ever on a temporary visa and always going to return. I returned coincidentally just before I started university which incidentally led to an almighty argument with my university which wanted to charge me overseas student fees. We had to prove we were only overseas temporarily and simply having returned to the UK wasn't all that was needed.
There is a difference between expat and immigrant.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Life doesn't always run according to plans. Many people who plan to move temporarily for a job end up staying permanently, and many people who plan to move permanently end up moving back, or somewhere else.
Though if you are on a non immigrant visa in the USA you are not staying unless you can get a green card.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Precisely!
I was an expat when I was a child. I went to school overseas and we moved due to my dad's job and we were only ever on a temporary visa and always going to return. I returned coincidentally just before I started university which incidentally led to an almighty argument with my university which wanted to charge me overseas student fees. We had to prove we were only overseas temporarily and simply having returned to the UK wasn't all that was needed.
There is a difference between expat and immigrant.
An immigrant is someone who goes to live somewhere better?
You've drifted onto the right side of history again, I see.
Your entire theory of the grand march of woke down the ages is based on gaps in your historical knowledge. During the latter part of the 19th century, following the events of the Morant Bay uprising, British society became increasingly more racist and ethnocentric, lead by figures like Dickens, Carlyle, and the theories of Darwin. I am not applauding this trend, but I am recognising it. Societal trends, as history has shown, are more likely to be cyclical than one-way, and if we keep this in mind, we're more likely to be sensible and tolerant, and aim for genuine kindness and the betterment of humanity, rather than jumping on a bandwagon racing toward dribbling vegan obsolescence.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Surely Swiss German refers to Schwytzerdütsch? Everyone speaks Hochdeutsch with their own accent.
That might depend on the intention of the speaker. The English expression "Swiss German" might refer to "Schweizer Deutsch" or to "Schwytzerdütsch", which are clearly distinct from another. And I should probably add that there is a notable difference between merely speaking High German with a Swiss accent and speaking "Schweizer Deutsch". It really is kind of complicated, especially because so many people's identities are so strongly entangled with the language they are immersed in.
Schweizerdeutsch and Schwytzerdütsch are synonyms in my experience, and Wikipedia agrees.
You've drifted onto the right side of history again, I see.
Your entire theory of the grand march of woke down the ages is based on gaps in your historical knowledge. During the latter part of the 19th century, following the events of the Morant Bay uprising, British society became increasingly more racist and ethnocentric, lead by figures like Dickens, Carlyle, and the theories of Darwin. I am not applauding this trend, but I am recognising it. Societal trends, as history has shown, are more likely to be cyclical than one-way, and if we keep this in mind, we're more likely to be sensible and tolerant, and aim for genuine kindness and the betterment of humanity, rather than jumping on a bandwagon racing toward dribbling vegan obsolescence.
Given the numpties running about nowadays Lucky we have little chance of kindness and betterment of humanity, it is one way traffic in the other direction.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Agreed.
However the Daily Mail crowd on the Costas would have kittens if they were referred to as immigrants rather than expats.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Life doesn't always run according to plans. Many people who plan to move temporarily for a job end up staying permanently, and many people who plan to move permanently end up moving back, or somewhere else.
Though if you are on a non immigrant visa in the USA you are not staying unless you can get a green card.
I think the L1 + green card application in country route is quite common for professionals.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
But we can live with it?
A less diverse cast? Sure, but then we'll get complaints about a lack of BAME characters
Hire from the relevant group if you can and it works. Otherwise don't.
There's a risk of overthinking this as well as becoming overstimulated by it.
The people overthinking it are those changing the status quo, the side you have taken
Why shouldn't the status quo change?
The status quo has changed throughout all of history. What's so divinely special with now that we draw the line here and no further?
The status quo was supposedly meant to change in order to move towards equality not segregation. I thought the goal was that skin colour would be less important, not more. I think we should all be able to mock each other, not put up safe spaces for some, whilst others are fair game.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Precisely!
I was an expat when I was a child. I went to school overseas and we moved due to my dad's job and we were only ever on a temporary visa and always going to return. I returned coincidentally just before I started university which incidentally led to an almighty argument with my university which wanted to charge me overseas student fees. We had to prove we were only overseas temporarily and simply having returned to the UK wasn't all that was needed.
There is a difference between expat and immigrant.
An immigrant is someone who goes to live somewhere better?
No. An immigrant goes to live somewhere permanently. That's the difference. That some people use the wrong word doesn't change that the words have different meanings.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Agreed.
However the Daily Mail crowd on the Costas would have kittens if they were referred to as immigrants rather than expats.
So?
If they're using the wrong word they're illiterate oafs. Doesn't mean expats do not exist. They're not expats though if they've moved permanently to the Costas.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
So the Unwokies' outrage has gone from statues the existence of which they were unaware of historical figures of which they'd never heard, through a film which they'd never seen of a book they'd never read to a kids' cartoon they don't watch. It's almost like all that stuff is completely unconnected to what's going on in their panicked wee breasties.
The jihad against wokeism has been waged for much longer than the statue-topplers entering the stage. The battlegrounds change sometimes, there is no shortage of finding new ones, every once in a while.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
I am unsure why in this brave new world, the fat, the oafish, the woke, the gay, or even the greedy, should not feel aggressed against when they are mocked, or their differences humorously observed, in fiction. The logical conclusion is that comedy is no longer an allowable art form.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Life doesn't always run according to plans. Many people who plan to move temporarily for a job end up staying permanently, and many people who plan to move permanently end up moving back, or somewhere else.
Though if you are on a non immigrant visa in the USA you are not staying unless you can get a green card.
I think the L1 + green card application in country route is quite common for professionals.
You are right William , I said B2 but that is tourist , it was indeed an L1 I had and on my last one could have gone for a green card but chose to return home in the end, enjoyed all of my 3 stays there but glad I chose not to stay permanently.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
But we can live with it?
A less diverse cast? Sure, but then we'll get complaints about a lack of BAME characters
Hire from the relevant group if you can and it works. Otherwise don't.
There's a risk of overthinking this as well as becoming overstimulated by it.
The people overthinking it are those changing the status quo, the side you have taken
Why shouldn't the status quo change?
The status quo has changed throughout all of history. What's so divinely special with now that we draw the line here and no further?
The status quo was supposedly meant to change in order to move towards equality not segregation. I thought the goal was that skin colour would be less important, not more. I think we should all be able to mock each other, not put up safe spaces for some, whilst others are fair game.
Absolutely! I agree with that. I want more equality, skin colour to be less important, to be able to mock each other and safe spaces are bullshit. Cultural appropriation is bullshit too.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Precisely!
I was an expat when I was a child. I went to school overseas and we moved due to my dad's job and we were only ever on a temporary visa and always going to return. I returned coincidentally just before I started university which incidentally led to an almighty argument with my university which wanted to charge me overseas student fees. We had to prove we were only overseas temporarily and simply having returned to the UK wasn't all that was needed.
There is a difference between expat and immigrant.
An immigrant is someone who goes to live somewhere better?
No. An immigrant goes to live somewhere permanently. That's the difference. That some people use the wrong word doesn't change that the words have different meanings.
So someone who goes somewhere permanently but then leaves after a year is an immigrant, but someone who goes somewhere temporarily and stays for ten years isn’t?
Comments
Scotland is neither a sovereign state (England and Scotland both ceased to be such voluntarily in 1707,) nor a colony, and thus it cannot as a matter of law (domestic or international) demand independence unilaterally. Now, in practice, if sentiment in Scotland were overwhelmingly in favour of independence then I am sure that Scotland would get it, firstly because the UK Government is not an occupying power in Scotland and would have no wish to be perceived to be acting as one, and secondly because it probably would come under sustained international pressure under such circumstances. But those conditions do not presently exist, and absent those there will be no foreign support for a UDI and great resistance to it from within Scotland itself.
Which brings us back to the second referendum. The principle has now been established that Scotland can indeed vote to leave the UK, but only through a plebiscite in which the majority of Scots who express a preference say yes to independence. The ability to call a legitimate referendum - i.e. one that won't be immediately challenged and struck down in the Scottish courts - is reserved to the UK Parliament, which is under no legal obligation to concede a referendum on each and every occasion that the Scottish Parliament asks for one.
Thus the Scottish Government can ask for another referendum to be held, but is going to have to wait until the UK Government is willing to concede one, or has its arm twisted by sheer weight of support amongst the Scottish people as a whole - though my best guess is that it won't come to that. Again, assuming another pro-independence majority is returned to Holyrood in 2021, then Johnson may well relent; if he does not then I'm almost certain that an opportunity will come at some point in the not-too-distant future, either from Labour doing well enough in a future General Election to get into office with SNP votes at Westminster, or when we're a decent stretch closer to "a generation" having actually passed.
Besides, it is by no means certain that future Conservative Prime Ministers will be so committed to maintaining the Union with Scotland when its departure would greatly strengthen their party's Parliamentary position: if Scotland became independent tomorrow then the Tory Commons majority would increase to about 130 at a stroke, a huge advantage and not very far short of the 1983 landslide. Many Conservative MPs in England and Wales who are less wedded to the Union than some of their colleagues can count and will be well aware of that.
If a company wants to hire only Indians to play an Indian character I understand that.
If a company wants to hire only whites to play whites I understand that.
How is that inconsistent? If the race isn't relevant to the character it shouldn't be relevant to the choice of actor but if it is I respect a companies right to choose.
And if a company said they were hiring only blacks to play Kunta Kinte then would you object to that?
I've always held that he would not get a second term. I am also of the view that he will end up in court and probably in jail once the protections of his current post are lost. Then again I have been of that view since before the guy even got elected.
There's a risk of overthinking this as well as becoming overstimulated by it.
Emma Thompson?
So you're whinging about nothing really.
Most people are pretty sensible about this sort of thing. Nobody nowadays would be bothered by a staging of one of Shakespeare's history plays, e.g. Henry V, with a partially or entirely black cast. If you were making a drama-documentary about 15th century England, on the other hand, and you filled it with black people then it would look silly.
And the revolting youth have always been in the business of deplatforming. When I was at Cambridge, then Home Secretary Michael Howard was due to speak to CUCA in a college room at St Johns. There were massive protests and the College caved and refused to allow the room to be used, citing "public order concerns". Eventually, and with much secrecy, he managed to get a room at Jesus and speak.
The earnest young are always revolting against something. Quite often there's some validity in their concerns. Sometimes there isn't. And this time it's "racial injustice" and statues of people who might (or might not) have been in the slave trade or are simply old. But really, the young are just keen to scream and shout about something, and really you should be pleased that they've moved on from "Fatcha".
Dictionary definition:
Immigrant = "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country."
You've drifted onto the right side of history again, I see.
Hamilton is an interesting example. Hamilton was white but Hamilton the musical has been made with a deliberately black cast and it has received rave reviews. I've not seen it yet myself but I believe it's coming into Disneyplus soon and I intend to watch it when it does.
Companies in the Arts should have artistic and creative licence to discriminate where they see fit as it being relevant to what they want to do.
Twitter cancel culture is becoming increasingly intertwined with corporations, as I mentioned earlier.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
At a time when healthcare is even more in the spotlight because of the virus to go after that smacks of total arrogance and detachment from reality .
The healthcare issue was pivotal in the mid terms and helped the Dems take the House.
But if it's relevant to the role one of the criteria for best can be ethnicity.
The sleaze and corruption, "one rule for them" is what will slowly destroy this Government in time.
I should add, though , that the 'near unintelligibility' goes for the spoken, not as much for the written form.
edit: and I should add, that many, if not most, Schwytzer hold similarly strong views about their tongue being a distinctly different language rather than merely a dialect, as you and many Scots do with regard to your lingual homestead.
As the old linguists' adage goes "a language is a dialect with an army".
After all the reality is we are all part of a melting pot. What roles would be open to someone whose grandparents where Chinese, Norwegian, Nigerian and Chilean for example? None? They would be waiting a very, very long time for a writer to fit them in.
Isn't that what the ancient Romans spoke when they had a cold?
I have to go.
PS, it has some Germanic roots as well
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
The status quo has changed throughout all of history. What's so divinely special with now that we draw the line here and no further?
It really is kind of complicated, especially because so many people's identities are so strongly entangled with the language they are immersed in.
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/06/27/exclusive-tories-may-have-allowed-virus-to-run-rampant-for-a-year-before-taking-action/
I was an expat when I was a child. I went to school overseas and we moved due to my dad's job and we were only ever on a temporary visa and always going to return. I returned coincidentally just before I started university which incidentally led to an almighty argument with my university which wanted to charge me overseas student fees. We had to prove we were only overseas temporarily and simply having returned to the UK wasn't all that was needed.
There is a difference between expat and immigrant.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizerdeutsch
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer_Hochdeutsch
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
However the Daily Mail crowd on the Costas would have kittens if they were referred to as immigrants rather than expats.
If they're using the wrong word they're illiterate oafs. Doesn't mean expats do not exist. They're not expats though if they've moved permanently to the Costas.