Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
I'm ok with that. what do they say about Tarzan?
Or "Charlies Angels".
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
Mr. Alistair, psychopaths can make excellent leaders (there's an intriguing theory that most psychological disorders are actually beneficial on a species-wide basis).
What's the suggestion?
Edited extra bit: never mind, comment below answers it.
Same for other 'disorders', such as autism and others on the spectrum.
Had a very interesting chat with a top surgeon at GW last night about evolutionary benefits of disorders, such as thalassemia and sickle cell trait, i.e. conditions with high morbidity but low mortality, and how they can propagate within a population living with another endemic parasite, such as malaria, even if they confer only a tiny survival benefit to the individuals with the condition over the general population. He pointed out that it happens the other way around too - sometimes the external pathogen helps with an internal disorder, such as when certain strains of Salmonella preferentially infect cancer cells, thereby slowing the cancer.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
It'd be pretty easy - the biggest issue is hardly central to events, so it's no big deal.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
Once Biden is confirmed as President elect by the Electoral College on Monday the focus will shift to 2024 and Trump has a clear lead amongst Republican primary voters for the 2024 GOP nomination if he decides to run again.
Hence GOP congressmen, wary of a primary challenge from a Trumper, have been reluctant to break ranks of him so far, though more will likely move from next week once constitutionally Biden is President elect, even if only to state that there is no way under the constitution Biden will not be the next President
Plus, once Trump is in prison they will feel that can quit supporting him one presumes.
I don't see how Trump can go to prison. Even in New York I think you'd struggle to find twelve random people all of whom didn't buy his BS.
Sad to say my sense is also that Donald Trump will not see the inside of a prison cell. That feels like a Not Happening Event to me. I think his star will fade quite quickly, though, once stripped of the trappings of the presidency. Which will be so great. Just not hearing from or about the ghastly man and his ghastly politics all day and every day will be a sweet new dawn. He's been the worst part of my life for 4 long years.
Really? You must lead a happy, fortunate and contented life. Congratulations. I can think of a very long list of things over the last 4 years that have been worse parts of my life than Donald Trump.
Well it's true that the last 4 years have been free of trauma for me and mine. If there'd been really bad stuff like that going on, Donald Trump and his antics would have been relegated into the minor placings. But as it is, yes, I kid you not, he's been like a constant dark cloud sitting right above my head, and often enveloping it, even on the sunniest day.
Well, as I say, congratulations on your good fortune. I really don't like Trump. He is amoral, misogynist, racist, corrupt and he has done considerable damage to US democracy, not least since November 5th. But I struggle to think of anything that he has done that has had a direct impact on me and mine.
In contrast my wife had an operation, a child suffered badly from depression, I have had a trip to hospital myself, my brother has lived a half life with a terminal condition, my son has been denied exams two years in a row and a chance to shine, the implications of lockdown caused real financial concerns and it is now causing a non medical depression caused by a lack of holidays, family trips and socialising. Don't get me wrong, there have been lots of good things as well and I am not complaining. I am just struggling to imagine the leader of a different country impacting on me to such a material extent.
Ok. First, my ongoing best wishes for all of that and in general. But you talk about feeling depressed and one thing about depression is it's different for everybody and the reasons for it are never invalid, regardless of whether others find them strange or not.
So, me and Trump, it really has knocked me for six. That such a person could first of all have been elected to POTUS, and then have his quite unspeakable behaviour humoured and enabled and tolerated and downplayed for so long by so many, has been a massive problem for me. I found it really hard to accept and for 4 years, which is quite a long time, it made the world appear a less appealing place to me. It affected my mood significantly. Nothing clinical, not even close to that, but when I've felt low in recent times, the reason for it has often had something to do with him - not simply him per se, but what the Trump phenomenon was telling me.
It's not a question of validity, but the fact is, you are using someone else's behaviour as a reason to feel bad, and that is your choice - just as it would be your choice to focus away from Donald Trump, and on something that makes you feel good. If life in all its variety and splendour is a buffet, you are currently deliberately feasting on the things you hate. And looking over at other people on other tables and in other queues, and being outraged about what they're choosing to eat. I'm not going to ask you to be any different, because that would imply that I want you to be different for me to feel better - and I don't. However, you may wish to ponder whether you prefer feeling bad, or good, and take steps in your chosen direction.
That`s a great post. You do write some good ones at times.
Just "at times" - don`t want you getting too excited.
You say "currently deliberately feasting on the things you hate". Very good. You thought about every word there didn`t you. A lot`s in those 8 words. Finding victims, discovering grievance, reveling in it, being defined by it, manufacturing offense, hectoring others. The left as a mental state.
Very good.
I found it to be vacuous drivel, I'm afraid.
PS: But each to his own. Will 14 Dec be "Hot Tub Day" at Betfair, do we think?
Well - I`m pleased to report that my wife`s hot tub fixation appears to have receded slightly. No mention now for over a week. I`m keeping my head down.
BF has not updated its news release re: settlement since 27/11 - heavily hints at 14th, but no actual cast-iron commitment. I`m hopeful, though I think it will actually be the 15th.
Think so too. If they go any longer they'll be running a market on something quite different to who won the election.
Back to hot tubs: it`s a truth universally acknowledged that hot tubs are naff. Obviously.
But what about this one below. Wood-fired. It`s a beautiful thing. Still naff??
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
Though the film takes the position that the British Officers in question were "Not The Good Guys", and their behaviour is supposed be the proof of this.
Some good news: what you have just experienced or are about to (if you are in the UK) is the earliest nightfall of the year. This doesn't make it the longest night because mornings keep getting worse till the end of the month, but mornings suck anyway.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
I'm ok with that. what do they say about Tarzan?
Or "Charlies Angels".
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
and what's "One Way to Denmark" all about? I can think of several.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
It's more the brownfacing in the film.
Tangentially one stat that recently blew my mind, the father of the current King of Saudia Arabia was born 145 years ago.
Edit - I know that's only twenty years more than our Queen's father, but it was still an eye opener.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
Though the film takes the position that the British Officers in question were "Not The Good Guys", and their behaviour is supposed be the proof of this.
Oh, absolutely. Lean is depicting a group of racists ... and so they talk like racists & behave like racists.
The book, the film (& Lawrence) are pro-Arab.
In fact, TE Lawrence was so staunchly pro-Arab he could have acted as Jeremy Corbyn's Spokesman on the Middle East.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
Change it to 'The Darn Busters'?
According to the book of the same name by Paul Brickhil which covers the whole history not just of that raid but 617 squadron to the end of the war (and is well worth reading) at the celebratory dinner they had later the menus read "The Damn Busters".
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
I'm ok with that. what do they say about Tarzan?
Or "Charlies Angels".
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
and what's "One Way to Denmark" all about? I can think of several.
A down-on-his-luck Welshman travels across Europe with one crazy goal: to get himself arrested and sent to a Danish prison where the beds are warm and the water is hot.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
Though the film takes the position that the British Officers in question were "Not The Good Guys", and their behaviour is supposed be the proof of this.
Oh, absolutely. Lean is depicting a group of racists ... and so they talk like racists & behave like racists.
The book, the film (& Lawrence) are pro-Arab.
In fact, TE Lawrence was so staunchly pro-Arab he could have acted as Jeremy Corbyn's Spokesman on the Middle East.
Indeed - an ridiculously pro-Lawrence as a defender-of-the-Arabs as well.
The facts were somewhat different. In fact some have argued that Allenby was more sensitive to the feelings and aspirations of the locals... just that he didn't play dress up...
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
It's more the brownfacing in the film.
Tangentially one stat that recently blew my mind, the father of the current King of Saudia Arabia was born 145 years ago.
Edit - I know that's only twenty years more than our Queen's father, but it was still an eye opener.
That is unfair ... there is a really great role for a then unknown Egyptian actor, Omar Sharif.
It was the movie that made Sharif a global star.
David Lean did usually use ethnic actors when he could.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
I'm ok with that. what do they say about Tarzan?
Or "Charlies Angels".
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
and what's "One Way to Denmark" all about? I can think of several.
A down-on-his-luck Welshman travels across Europe with one crazy goal: to get himself arrested and sent to a Danish prison where the beds are warm and the water is hot.
Wouldn't "Erste(r)" be more appropriate? I'd thought "zuerst" was an adverbial form, more typically translated as "firstly" or "at first" or "to begin with" in English?
Although I suppose it depends what exactly the poster wishes to convey :-)
To wade into the German Grammar debate with my time expired O level German, isn't the adverbial form correct? The implied verb is "to go" so the modifier should be an adverb.
Wouldn't "Erste(r)" be more appropriate? I'd thought "zuerst" was an adverbial form, more typically translated as "firstly" or "at first" or "to begin with" in English?
Although I suppose it depends what exactly the poster wishes to convey :-)
To wade into the German Grammar debate with my time expired O level German, isn't the adverbial form correct? The implied verb is "to go" so the modifier should be an adverb.
Erster! (Ich bin erster!) Is right. I think.
You do have to be a bit careful with German grammar. JFK once announced: "Ich bin ein Berliner!" [Literally, I am a (popular type of) German hot-dog.]
It should have been "Ich bin Berliner" - I am from Berlin.
I'm sure everyone knew what he meant though, just as I'm sure that in normal everyday German 'Erst' would do just fine for First.
I was told he was saying he was a doughnut. never bothered to check though.
It seems to a myth that the Berlin papers were full of cartoons of talking donuts, after the speech.
Berliners use the word Berliner to mean a man from Berlin or people from Berlin. In other parts of Germany, Berliner can either mean a man from Berlin or people from Berlin or a jam doughnut(s). There is never confusion as to which meaning is being used, so no-one in Germany ever thought that JFK was saying "I am a jam doughnut".
What is odd is that the Berln word for jam doughnut is Pfannenkuchen=pancake?
Wouldn't "Erste(r)" be more appropriate? I'd thought "zuerst" was an adverbial form, more typically translated as "firstly" or "at first" or "to begin with" in English?
Although I suppose it depends what exactly the poster wishes to convey :-)
To wade into the German Grammar debate with my time expired O level German, isn't the adverbial form correct? The implied verb is "to go" so the modifier should be an adverb.
Wouldn't "Erste(r)" be more appropriate? I'd thought "zuerst" was an adverbial form, more typically translated as "firstly" or "at first" or "to begin with" in English?
Although I suppose it depends what exactly the poster wishes to convey :-)
To wade into the German Grammar debate with my time expired O level German, isn't the adverbial form correct? The implied verb is "to go" so the modifier should be an adverb.
Erster! (Ich bin erster!) Is right. I think.
You do have to be a bit careful with German grammar. JFK once announced: "Ich bin ein Berliner!" [Literally, I am a (popular type of) German hot-dog.]
It should have been "Ich bin Berliner" - I am from Berlin.
I'm sure everyone knew what he meant though, just as I'm sure that in normal everyday German 'Erst' would do just fine for First.
I was told he was saying he was a doughnut. never bothered to check though.
It seems to a myth that the Berlin papers were full of cartoons of talking donuts, after the speech.
Berliners use the word Berliner to mean a man from Berlin or people from Berlin. In other parts of Germany, Berliner can either mean a man from Berlin or people from Berlin or a jam doughnut(s). There is never confusion as to which meaning is being used, so no-one in Germany ever thought that JFK was saying "I am a jam doughnut".
What is odd is that the Berln word for jam doughnut is Pfannenkuchen=pancake?
I wonder how realistic it is to think Trump will be a candidate in 2024.
Once he is out of the WH I would expect his impact and influence to fade. But he has made a career out of division and maybe he can keep it going for another four years.
...
3. Ambitious Republicans will want to take over the mantle of Trump-ism. Will Trump be prepared to hand over to someone who shares his beliefs? Or is he self centered enough to try and belittle and destroy anyone who he sees as competition? ...
Ah, the age old question: Donald Trump - generous team player or egotistical a***hole? Will we ever get the solid evidence that allows us to answer the ultimate conundrum with confidence?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
I'm ok with that. what do they say about Tarzan?
Or "Charlies Angels".
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
and what's "One Way to Denmark" all about? I can think of several.
A down-on-his-luck Welshman travels across Europe with one crazy goal: to get himself arrested and sent to a Danish prison where the beds are warm and the water is hot.
i thought they didn't like lockdowns.
Probably hoping to be sentenced to a "2 week circuit breaker" followed by total freedom, rather than out on licence.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
I'm ok with that. what do they say about Tarzan?
Or "Charlies Angels".
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
and what's "One Way to Denmark" all about? I can think of several.
A down-on-his-luck Welshman travels across Europe with one crazy goal: to get himself arrested and sent to a Danish prison where the beds are warm and the water is hot.
Wouldn't "Erste(r)" be more appropriate? I'd thought "zuerst" was an adverbial form, more typically translated as "firstly" or "at first" or "to begin with" in English?
Although I suppose it depends what exactly the poster wishes to convey :-)
To wade into the German Grammar debate with my time expired O level German, isn't the adverbial form correct? The implied verb is "to go" so the modifier should be an adverb.
Wouldn't "Erste(r)" be more appropriate? I'd thought "zuerst" was an adverbial form, more typically translated as "firstly" or "at first" or "to begin with" in English?
Although I suppose it depends what exactly the poster wishes to convey :-)
To wade into the German Grammar debate with my time expired O level German, isn't the adverbial form correct? The implied verb is "to go" so the modifier should be an adverb.
Erster! (Ich bin erster!) Is right. I think.
You do have to be a bit careful with German grammar. JFK once announced: "Ich bin ein Berliner!" [Literally, I am a (popular type of) German hot-dog.]
It should have been "Ich bin Berliner" - I am from Berlin.
I'm sure everyone knew what he meant though, just as I'm sure that in normal everyday German 'Erst' would do just fine for First.
I was told he was saying he was a doughnut. never bothered to check though.
It seems to a myth that the Berlin papers were full of cartoons of talking donuts, after the speech.
Berliners use the word Berliner to mean a man from Berlin or people from Berlin. In other parts of Germany, Berliner can either mean a man from Berlin or people from Berlin or a jam doughnut(s). There is never confusion as to which meaning is being used, so no-one in Germany ever thought that JFK was saying "I am a jam doughnut".
What is odd is that the Berln word for jam doughnut is Pfannenkuchen=pancake?
Presumably it's the type of Pfannenkuchen that Berliners were known for. The Berliners would simply call it a Pfannenkuchen, while people elsewhere would call it a Berliner Pfannenkuchen or, for short, a Berliner. Etymologically speaking, there's no particular reason that a pancake has to be flat!
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
I'm curious: would you censor a film like "Pulp Fiction" or "Blazing Saddles"? I can see the argument that the word in question is not required at all for the plot in "The Dam Busters" and in now understood to be much more offensive than it was then, whereas the offensive nature of the word is deliberately explored in the other two.
On this topic one of my favourite books is "Three Men in a Boat" and in the original version the word is used, but in later editions he changed it when it was pointed out that the word was offensive.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
For people being warned that might be movies made 5-10 years ago, and cover a wide remit of things. I feel like saying it's historical along with the warnings about depictions and language gives a better idea of what people can expect - probably that there's racist stuff in it, people in brownface etc - than just that its outdated, which you could put on a move from 10 years ago for having gay jokes. An outdated movie from 1990 and an outdated one from 1940 probably need very different expectation setting, so playing up the historical element, whilst leaving in that language and depictions may offend, just seems more effective. You cannot be specific for every film of course, but you might be in the mood for a big budget but problematic epic, or a rom com which is a bit unwoke, and emphasising the time is a good red flag.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
You said would you be comfortable filming it though - and I would.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
For people being warned that might be movies made 5-10 years ago, and cover a wide remit of things. I feel like saying it's historical along with the warnings about depictions and language gives a better idea of what people can expect - probably that there's racist stuff in it, people in brownface etc - than just that its outdated, which you could put on a move from 10 years ago for having gay jokes. An outdated movie from 1990 and an outdated one from 1940 probably need very different expectation setting, so playing up the historical element, whilst leaving in that language and depictions may offend, just seems more effective. You cannot be specific for every film of course, but you might be in the mood for a big budget but problematic epic, or a rom com which is a bit unwoke, and emphasising the time is a good red flag.
There are some old films which probably do need to come with some fairly strong warnings though: "Triumph of the Will" and "The Clansman" are both very important films historically, but the content...
Seems perfectly reasonable to me? Didn't we come to some agreement this was a good compromise.
Not sure about the phrase 'outdated attitudes' as a descriptor since which particular attitudes are the outdated ones (presumably some of the attitudes in the film remain ok), so maybe just saying 'This historical film contains attitudes, language and cultural depictions which some may find offensive' or some other slightly more mealy mouthed sentence, but it's semantics at this point. People can still see it, and those who might get triggered have been warned off, no worries.
Personally, have been reading some late 19th, early 20th century stuff lately, which can make for the awkward times with some terminology.
I don't particularly support the 'outdated' word either, I'd swap it for something like 'historical' or 'contemporaneous'. But over all, provided the thing isn't censored I'm not too bothered.
I still think i'd censor The Dam Busters though.
The problem with 'Lawrence of Arabia' is probably the racist slurs used by the British Officers in the Mess.
Well, everyone in early 20th century Arabia considers slavery to be perfectly normal, but a fairly well-read viewer should assume that was the case.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
It is no secret that I suffer bouts of depression and my "cure" is to be around people. I am finding Covid very difficult
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
You said would you be comfortable filming it though - and I would.
I said today. I meant set in today as well as filming it today, sorry if that wasn't clear.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this of course is that it creates a false image of the past - one that is sometimes jarring. It was notable that Mad Men strove for authenticity by having just about every single person in the series smoking (almost none of the actors actually smoked so they used herbal cigarettes to provide the effect). And it really did make the whole thing seem more authentic.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this of course is that it creates a false image of the past - one that is sometimes jarring. It was notable that Mad Men strove for authenticity by having just about every single person in the series smoking (almost none of the actors actually smoked so they used herbal cigarettes to provide the effect). And it really did make the whole thing seem more authentic.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
Well said, yes editing the past is not OK. You're right too, smoking is almost used deliberately now to symbolise the past.
What is the ultimate Brexit deadline, am I to assume it is the 31st December.
Probably, but if the outline of a deal is done by then I expect both sides will be happy to have a few extra days or weeks to get all of the legal stuff done for ratification.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this of course is that it creates a false image of the past - one that is sometimes jarring. It was notable that Mad Men strove for authenticity by having just about every single person in the series smoking (almost none of the actors actually smoked so they used herbal cigarettes to provide the effect). And it really did make the whole thing seem more authentic.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I was just reading a really great online article from Sean Gabb about films set in the ancient world, and just how many film makers get wrong the way people thought and acted. He cites among others, the scene in Spartacus where Crassus is trying to persuade a young slave to have sex with him - which is utterly absurd. If Crassus took a fancy to a young man, he'd tell him to go up to his bedroom, remove his clothes, and wait for him.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this of course is that it creates a false image of the past - one that is sometimes jarring. It was notable that Mad Men strove for authenticity by having just about every single person in the series smoking (almost none of the actors actually smoked so they used herbal cigarettes to provide the effect). And it really did make the whole thing seem more authentic.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I'm not quite as sure how bad it is to remove images of smoking: if the only reason they were smoking in the first place was due to product placement then I would certainly have no problem with it if (and I realise this is a big if) it could be done subtly.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
Some of us don't get to make love every day but are still in need of human contact. I wasn't saying any of that for sympathy and I am sure that there are many on this board that have suffered more serious things. What I describe is life and worrying a lot about what that idiot in the White House is up to today does not form a big part of it. But I respect @kinabalu feels differently and that is a part of life too.
On Covid I am now going to Edinburgh at least 1 night a week and having 2 days working in the library which is my equivalent of an office. I really need to meet and see people, to discuss my work, their work, the football, whatever. I take the view it is essential. I get much more work done and I improve my mental health. We are social creatures and we need social contact.
At this time of the year there would normally be a lot of parties, going to pubs, meals out, shopping trips etc etc. Its a grim end to a grim year. Bring on the vaccines.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this of course is that it creates a false image of the past - one that is sometimes jarring. It was notable that Mad Men strove for authenticity by having just about every single person in the series smoking (almost none of the actors actually smoked so they used herbal cigarettes to provide the effect). And it really did make the whole thing seem more authentic.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I was just reading a really great online article from Sean Gabb about films set in the ancient world, and just how many film makers get wrong the way people thought and acted. He cites among others, the scene in Spartacus where Crassus is trying to persuade a young slave to have sex with him - which is utterly absurd. If Crassus took a fancy to a young man, he'd tell him to go up to his bedroom, remove his clothes, and wait for him.
WTAF were the Irish meant to do to stop the Nazis? About the only meaningful way they could have made a difference was to allow the British to use Cork and Cobh harbours, which would have been a violation of neutrality. Not forgetting the British willingly gave up their rights in Queenstown et al harbours precisely to secure Irish neutrality!
If we'd had the two week firebreak we would be in the position where Drakeford is now which is even worse.
Thanks to taking the time to try the Tiers we found out that the original Tier system didn't work, took a 4 week lockdown that did and put in stricter Tiers as a result afterwards.
So how is taking time to consider all the evidence as we did a bad thing?
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
For people being warned that might be movies made 5-10 years ago, and cover a wide remit of things. I feel like saying it's historical along with the warnings about depictions and language gives a better idea of what people can expect - probably that there's racist stuff in it, people in brownface etc - than just that its outdated, which you could put on a move from 10 years ago for having gay jokes. An outdated movie from 1990 and an outdated one from 1940 probably need very different expectation setting, so playing up the historical element, whilst leaving in that language and depictions may offend, just seems more effective. You cannot be specific for every film of course, but you might be in the mood for a big budget but problematic epic, or a rom com which is a bit unwoke, and emphasising the time is a good red flag.
There are some old films which probably do need to come with some fairly strong warnings though: "Triumph of the Will" and "The Clansman" are both very important films historically, but the content...
I managed to see Veit Harlan's 1940 version of Jud Süß in a museum in Potsdam a few years ago. I doubt it can be seen outside the rarefied atmosphere of a film museum.
It seems that The Birth of the Nation (aka the Clansman) is available on DVD on amazon.
Looking at the 5* reviews that read "Very historical picture, love it", you begin to wonder whether it should be.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this of course is that it creates a false image of the past - one that is sometimes jarring. It was notable that Mad Men strove for authenticity by having just about every single person in the series smoking (almost none of the actors actually smoked so they used herbal cigarettes to provide the effect). And it really did make the whole thing seem more authentic.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
Tell you what though, I haven’t had a cigarette since the 20th Century, but this year has sorely tempted me at times.
At the election a year ago, he swore to voters that he could “absolutely guarantee that we’ll get a deal”. Failure to deliver will be a starkly personal defeat. He is the one who claimed that the chances of not getting an agreement were “vanishingly small”. He is the one who asserted: “There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal.”
And he is the one who said a no-deal Brexit “would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible”.
As one former Conservative cabinet minister puts it: “Those promises are hung around his neck. He can paint no deal as defiance, but he can’t present it as a win.”
Boris Johnson has a choice to make. He can strive to secure the thin deal available. That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been, but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out. Or he can whistle Rule Britannia as he drags his country into the abyss while trying to explain why he has inflicted a disaster on Britain that he swore could never happen. Whichever decision he makes, he will own it. All of it.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
For people being warned that might be movies made 5-10 years ago, and cover a wide remit of things. I feel like saying it's historical along with the warnings about depictions and language gives a better idea of what people can expect - probably that there's racist stuff in it, people in brownface etc - than just that its outdated, which you could put on a move from 10 years ago for having gay jokes. An outdated movie from 1990 and an outdated one from 1940 probably need very different expectation setting, so playing up the historical element, whilst leaving in that language and depictions may offend, just seems more effective. You cannot be specific for every film of course, but you might be in the mood for a big budget but problematic epic, or a rom com which is a bit unwoke, and emphasising the time is a good red flag.
There are some old films which probably do need to come with some fairly strong warnings though: "Triumph of the Will" and "The Clansman" are both very important films historically, but the content...
I managed to see Veit Harlan's 1940 version of Jud Süß in a museum in Potsdam a few years ago. I doubt it can be seen outside the rarefied atmosphere of a film museum.
It seems that The Birth of the Nation (aka the Clansman) is available on DVD on amazon.
Looking at the 5* reviews that read "Very historical picture, love it", you begin to wonder whether it should be.
Thanks for the correction: it wasn't something I really wanted to look up on Google...
I see VAR missed a foul in the build up to the goal.
#FUCKVAR
Generally I am in favour VAR, but I did enjoy the Europa League group stage without.
The problem is this. To begin with it was all about clear and obvious errors (except offsides, of course). The approach was to ask "can you see why the ref gave it/didn't give it?", and the answer was invariably yes despite the TV replay giving clear evidence that it was the wrong decision. Now we've gone in to re-refereeing mode and the problem is that when you do the right thing once you have to do the right thing every time. I can see why the VAR thought that Fulham should have had a penalty, but they should also have disallowed the Fulham goal for the shove on Salah.
What it comes down to is that refereeing a football match is actually quite difficult. For years the referees organisation used to come out with stats about how good their refs/assistants are. But it was nonsense; there are lots of wrong decisions in any football match. And whereas I think DRS has made cricket better, I don't think the same can be said about VAR simply because even with TV replays it is often difficult to make a decision. It won't happen, but I think football would be better off to just ditch it (with the possible exception of serious foul play, for which I think VAR does, or at least should, work).
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
It is no secret that I suffer bouts of depression and my "cure" is to be around people. I am finding Covid very difficult
I am also finding it hard. And I am quite used to isolation, working alone, and so on.
I am sure simple lack of human touch is part of the problem. My mood improves immeasurably after warm, affectionate physical contact. Quite a few friends are buying cats and dogs for the first time in their lives.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
I realise that I am one of probably a small minority, but as a relative introvert I have found lockdown to be, on the whole, a positive experience. The reduction in social obligations has been very welcome, and the noise from the nearby pub which used to keep us awake at the weekend is no more. I'm happy with my own company most of the time, as is my partner, but we enjoy intimacy and closeness with one another.
Having said that, I do have my limits, and I also look forward to going out for a proper meal again and being able to travel. And I'll be very pleased for our teenage children when the lockdown/tier system ends - it's been much tougher for them, but they've impressed me very much with the sacrifices they've made. They'll deserve a big party when things are normal again.
At the election a year ago, he swore to voters that he could “absolutely guarantee that we’ll get a deal”. Failure to deliver will be a starkly personal defeat. He is the one who claimed that the chances of not getting an agreement were “vanishingly small”. He is the one who asserted: “There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal.”
And he is the one who said a no-deal Brexit “would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible”.
As one former Conservative cabinet minister puts it: “Those promises are hung around his neck. He can paint no deal as defiance, but he can’t present it as a win.”
Boris Johnson has a choice to make. He can strive to secure the thin deal available. That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been, but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out. Or he can whistle Rule Britannia as he drags his country into the abyss while trying to explain why he has inflicted a disaster on Britain that he swore could never happen. Whichever decision he makes, he will own it. All of it.
I have begun to suspect you must be the wretched Andrew Rawnsley, given the frequency with which you quote the man.😁
At any rate, your hero-worship of Andrew Rawnsley is the prettiest & most touching romance on pb.com -- excepting only that of HYUFD and the Conservative Party.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this o
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I was just reading a really great online article from Sean Gabb about films set in the ancient world, and just how many film makers get wrong the way people thought and acted. He cites among others, the scene in Spartacus where Crassus is trying to persuade a young slave to have sex with him - which is utterly absurd. If Crassus took a fancy to a young man, he'd tell him to go up to his bedroom, remove his clothes, and wait for him.
Was that the TV series or the film?
The film. Actually, the TV series was spot-on in depicting upper class attitudes towards slaves in the ancient world (it was wildly inaccurate in depicting the fighting abilities of gladiators without armour. What made Spartacus so formidable was that he trained his followers to fight like regular soldiers). In the series, if you fancy a slave, you just take him or her without further ado.
I see VAR missed a foul in the build up to the goal.
#FUCKVAR
Generally I am in favour VAR, but I did enjoy the Europa League group stage without.
The problem is this. To begin with it was all about clear and obvious errors (except offsides, of course). The approach was to ask "can you see why the ref gave it/didn't give it?", and the answer was invariably yes despite the TV replay giving clear evidence that it was the wrong decision. Now we've gone in to re-refereeing mode and the problem is that when you do the right thing once you have to do the right thing every time. I can see why the VAR thought that Fulham should have had a penalty, but they should also have disallowed the Fulham goal for the shove on Salah.
What it comes down to is that refereeing a football match is actually quite difficult. For years the referees organisation used to come out with stats about how good their refs/assistants are. But it was nonsense; there are lots of wrong decisions in any football match. And whereas I think DRS has made cricket better, I don't think the same can be said about VAR simply because even with TV replays it is often difficult to make a decision. It won't happen, but I think football would be better off to just ditch it (with the possible exception of serious foul play, for which I think VAR does, or at least should, work).
The problem with VAR is the lack of Umpire's Call in DRS. For an offside for instance do a width of the football thick for the line. If you're offside by a cm then it stats as Linesman's Call. If it's clearly wrong then reverse it.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
It is no secret that I suffer bouts of depression and my "cure" is to be around people. I am finding Covid very difficult
I am also finding it hard. And I am quite used to isolation, working alone, and so on.
I am sure simple lack of human touch is part of the problem. My mood improves immeasurably after warm, affectionate physical contact. Quite a few friends are buying cats and dogs for the first time in their lives.
The only ones I know who really enjoyed the first, full lockdown were my two cats who got to sit on my lap a lot more.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
Some of us don't get to make love every day but are still in need of human contact. I wasn't saying any of that for sympathy and I am sure that there are many on this board that have suffered more serious things. What I describe is life and worrying a lot about what that idiot in the White House is up to today does not form a big part of it. But I respect @kinabalu feels differently and that is a part of life too.
On Covid I am now going to Edinburgh at least 1 night a week and having 2 days working in the library which is my equivalent of an office. I really need to meet and see people, to discuss my work, their work, the football, whatever. I take the view it is essential. I get much more work done and I improve my mental health. We are social creatures and we need social contact.
At this time of the year there would normally be a lot of parties, going to pubs, meals out, shopping trips etc etc. Its a grim end to a grim year. Bring on the vaccines.
Absolutely. And this is why I don’t buy the idea that Working From Home is the new paradigm. People want to get out and meet other people. They NEED to. So they will.
And ditto, this has to be the worst build-up to Christmas ever. It’s like we’ve gone straight from late October to a never ending February. In a gulag.
WTAF were the Irish meant to do to stop the Nazis? About the only meaningful way they could have made a difference was to allow the British to use Cork and Cobh harbours, which would have been a violation of neutrality. Not forgetting the British willingly gave up their rights in Queenstown et al harbours precisely to secure Irish neutrality!
I agree, that's unfair. Dublin would have been bombed to bits, had they joined in. Thousands of Irish joined the fight, and Irish emergency services raced up to Belfast when it was bombed. What was wrong was the failure of the Irish government to honour those who had joined the fight, in some cases penalising them.
I see VAR missed a foul in the build up to the goal.
#FUCKVAR
Generally I am in favour VAR, but I did enjoy the Europa League group stage without.
The problem is this. To begin with it was all about clear and obvious errors (except offsides, of course). The approach was to ask "can you see why the ref gave it/didn't give it?", and the answer was invariably yes despite the TV replay giving clear evidence that it was the wrong decision. Now we've gone in to re-refereeing mode and the problem is that when you do the right thing once you have to do the right thing every time. I can see why the VAR thought that Fulham should have had a penalty, but they should also have disallowed the Fulham goal for the shove on Salah.
What it comes down to is that refereeing a football match is actually quite difficult. For years the referees organisation used to come out with stats about how good their refs/assistants are. But it was nonsense; there are lots of wrong decisions in any football match. And whereas I think DRS has made cricket better, I don't think the same can be said about VAR simply because even with TV replays it is often difficult to make a decision. It won't happen, but I think football would be better off to just ditch it (with the possible exception of serious foul play, for which I think VAR does, or at least should, work).
The problem with VAR is the lack of Umpire's Call in DRS. For an offside for instance do a width of the football thick for the line. If you're offside by a cm then it stats as Linesman's Call. If it's clearly wrong then reverse it.
That would be fine for offsides, and I think the current system is incredibly harsh on the assistants, but it isn't like that for fouls. Salah was fouled and it was clear and obvious. The problem is that human nature kicks in and they don't want to to be changing decisions left, right and centre.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Which managed it better, the SNP in Scotland or Labour and the Lib Dems in Wales?
Seems the Tories are being criticised for not doing what Labour and the Lib Dems did - but Labour and the Lib Dems don't seem to have got a better result. Quite the opposite in fact.
So what's wrong? The Tories seem to have managed the second wave better than almost any other western European nation and better than Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 🤷🏻♂️
If we'd had the two week firebreak we would be in the position where Drakeford is now which is even worse.
Thanks to taking the time to try the Tiers we found out that the original Tier system didn't work, took a 4 week lockdown that did and put in stricter Tiers as a result afterwards.
So how is taking time to consider all the evidence as we did a bad thing?
There's a graph in the paper that shows it wonderfully well.
But here's two bits that stood out.
As a result, more than 1.3 million extra infections are estimated to have spread across the country. We heard evidence that one intensive care ward in Manchester became so overwhelmed that patients were left to die without the life-saving care they needed......
..The next day in the Commons, Wednesday, October 14, Sunak hit back, accusing Labour of being “detached from reality” and being irresponsible for not acknowledging “the economic cost of a blunt national lockdown”. This was little more than two weeks before the government would perform a U-turn and announce a lockdown.
WTAF were the Irish meant to do to stop the Nazis? About the only meaningful way they could have made a difference was to allow the British to use Cork and Cobh harbours, which would have been a violation of neutrality. Not forgetting the British willingly gave up their rights in Queenstown et al harbours precisely to secure Irish neutrality!
And which nation does he think was in the war to save 6m, or any other number of, Jews anyway?
WTAF were the Irish meant to do to stop the Nazis? About the only meaningful way they could have made a difference was to allow the British to use Cork and Cobh harbours, which would have been a violation of neutrality. Not forgetting the British willingly gave up their rights in Queenstown et al harbours precisely to secure Irish neutrality!
They did allow our flying boats on Lough Erne to overfly Donegal which gave them an extra 100 miles operational range over the Atlantic.
At the election a year ago, he swore to voters that he could “absolutely guarantee that we’ll get a deal”. Failure to deliver will be a starkly personal defeat. He is the one who claimed that the chances of not getting an agreement were “vanishingly small”. He is the one who asserted: “There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal.”
And he is the one who said a no-deal Brexit “would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible”.
As one former Conservative cabinet minister puts it: “Those promises are hung around his neck. He can paint no deal as defiance, but he can’t present it as a win.”
Boris Johnson has a choice to make. He can strive to secure the thin deal available. That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been, but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out. Or he can whistle Rule Britannia as he drags his country into the abyss while trying to explain why he has inflicted a disaster on Britain that he swore could never happen. Whichever decision he makes, he will own it. All of it.
But, in all likelihood, the number of people who will change their vote either way is relatively small, so he will survive unscathed.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this o
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I was just reading a really great online article from Sean Gabb about films set in the ancient world, and just how many film makers get wrong the way people thought and acted. He cites among others, the scene in Spartacus where Crassus is trying to persuade a young slave to have sex with him - which is utterly absurd. If Crassus took a fancy to a young man, he'd tell him to go up to his bedroom, remove his clothes, and wait for him.
Was that the TV series or the film?
The film. Actually, the TV series was spot-on in depicting upper class attitudes towards slaves in the ancient world (it was wildly inaccurate in depicting the fighting abilities of gladiators without armour. What made Spartacus so formidable was that he trained his followers to fight like regular soldiers). In the series, if you fancy a slave, you just take him or her without further ado.
Some good news: what you have just experienced or are about to (if you are in the UK) is the earliest nightfall of the year. This doesn't make it the longest night because mornings keep getting worse till the end of the month, but mornings suck anyway.
At the election a year ago, he swore to voters that he could “absolutely guarantee that we’ll get a deal”. Failure to deliver will be a starkly personal defeat. He is the one who claimed that the chances of not getting an agreement were “vanishingly small”. He is the one who asserted: “There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal.”
And he is the one who said a no-deal Brexit “would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible”.
As one former Conservative cabinet minister puts it: “Those promises are hung around his neck. He can paint no deal as defiance, but he can’t present it as a win.”
Boris Johnson has a choice to make. He can strive to secure the thin deal available. That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been, but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out. Or he can whistle Rule Britannia as he drags his country into the abyss while trying to explain why he has inflicted a disaster on Britain that he swore could never happen. Whichever decision he makes, he will own it. All of it.
But, in all likelihood, the number of people who will change their vote either way is relatively small, so he will survive unscathed.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to remove smoking from films or TV programmes that can be seen by anyone under 16 in both the US and UK. The issue with this o
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I was just reading a really great online article from Sean Gabb about films set in the ancient world, and just how many film makers get wrong the way people thought and acted. He cites among others, the scene in Spartacus where Crassus is trying to persuade a young slave to have sex with him - which is utterly absurd. If Crassus took a fancy to a young man, he'd tell him to go up to his bedroom, remove his clothes, and wait for him.
Was that the TV series or the film?
The film. Actually, the TV series was spot-on in depicting upper class attitudes towards slaves in the ancient world (it was wildly inaccurate in depicting the fighting abilities of gladiators without armour. What made Spartacus so formidable was that he trained his followers to fight like regular soldiers). In the series, if you fancy a slave, you just take him or her without further ado.
Comments
And Capra's ridiculous films (like "It's a Wonderful Life") teem with xenophobia and racism. Capra graduated from "Jap-hunting" in the 1940s to "Commie hunting" in the 50s.
I'd say of that Sky Movie schedule, "Lawrence of Arabia" is by far the best movie.
Had a very interesting chat with a top surgeon at GW last night about evolutionary benefits of disorders, such as thalassemia and sickle cell trait, i.e. conditions with high morbidity but low mortality, and how they can propagate within a population living with another endemic parasite, such as malaria, even if they confer only a tiny survival benefit to the individuals with the condition over the general population. He pointed out that it happens the other way around too - sometimes the external pathogen helps with an internal disorder, such as when certain strains of Salmonella preferentially infect cancer cells, thereby slowing the cancer.
If no: it is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
F1:
https://twitter.com/robwattsf1/status/1338156854124417028
Tangentially one stat that recently blew my mind, the father of the current King of Saudia Arabia was born 145 years ago.
Edit - I know that's only twenty years more than our Queen's father, but it was still an eye opener.
The book, the film (& Lawrence) are pro-Arab.
In fact, TE Lawrence was so staunchly pro-Arab he could have acted as Jeremy Corbyn's Spokesman on the Middle East.
The facts were somewhat different. In fact some have argued that Allenby was more sensitive to the feelings and aspirations of the locals... just that he didn't play dress up...
It was the movie that made Sharif a global star.
David Lean did usually use ethnic actors when he could.
What is odd is that the Berln word for jam doughnut is Pfannenkuchen=pancake?
On this topic one of my favourite books is "Three Men in a Boat" and in the original version the word is used, but in later editions he changed it when it was pointed out that the word was offensive.
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
Set in the past is historical not today.
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
#FUCKVAR
#LegendaryModestyKlaxon
I was just reading a really great online article from Sean Gabb about films set in the ancient world, and just how many film makers get wrong the way people thought and acted. He cites among others, the scene in Spartacus where Crassus is trying to persuade a young slave to have sex with him - which is utterly absurd. If Crassus took a fancy to a young man, he'd tell him to go up to his bedroom, remove his clothes, and wait for him.
23:59:59 CET
He's screwed up the pandemic worse than Mark Drakeford.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/48-hours-in-september-when-ministers-and-scientists-split-over-covid-lockdown-vg5xbpsfx
On Covid I am now going to Edinburgh at least 1 night a week and having 2 days working in the library which is my equivalent of an office. I really need to meet and see people, to discuss my work, their work, the football, whatever. I take the view it is essential. I get much more work done and I improve my mental health. We are social creatures and we need social contact.
At this time of the year there would normally be a lot of parties, going to pubs, meals out, shopping trips etc etc. Its a grim end to a grim year. Bring on the vaccines.
If we'd had the two week firebreak we would be in the position where Drakeford is now which is even worse.
Thanks to taking the time to try the Tiers we found out that the original Tier system didn't work, took a 4 week lockdown that did and put in stricter Tiers as a result afterwards.
So how is taking time to consider all the evidence as we did a bad thing?
It seems that The Birth of the Nation (aka the Clansman) is available on DVD on amazon.
Looking at the 5* reviews that read "Very historical picture, love it", you begin to wonder whether it should be.
At the election a year ago, he swore to voters that he could “absolutely guarantee that we’ll get a deal”. Failure to deliver will be a starkly personal defeat. He is the one who claimed that the chances of not getting an agreement were “vanishingly small”. He is the one who asserted: “There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal.”
And he is the one who said a no-deal Brexit “would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible”.
As one former Conservative cabinet minister puts it: “Those promises are hung around his neck. He can paint no deal as defiance, but he can’t present it as a win.”
Boris Johnson has a choice to make. He can strive to secure the thin deal available. That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been, but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out. Or he can whistle Rule Britannia as he drags his country into the abyss while trying to explain why he has inflicted a disaster on Britain that he swore could never happen. Whichever decision he makes, he will own it. All of it.
What it comes down to is that refereeing a football match is actually quite difficult. For years the referees organisation used to come out with stats about how good their refs/assistants are. But it was nonsense; there are lots of wrong decisions in any football match. And whereas I think DRS has made cricket better, I don't think the same can be said about VAR simply because even with TV replays it is often difficult to make a decision. It won't happen, but I think football would be better off to just ditch it (with the possible exception of serious foul play, for which I think VAR does, or at least should, work).
I am sure simple lack of human touch is part of the problem. My mood improves immeasurably after warm, affectionate physical contact. Quite a few friends are buying cats and dogs for the first time in their lives.
Having said that, I do have my limits, and I also look forward to going out for a proper meal again and being able to travel. And I'll be very pleased for our teenage children when the lockdown/tier system ends - it's been much tougher for them, but they've impressed me very much with the sacrifices they've made. They'll deserve a big party when things are normal again.
At any rate, your hero-worship of Andrew Rawnsley is the prettiest & most touching romance on pb.com -- excepting only that of HYUFD and the Conservative Party.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
And ditto, this has to be the worst build-up to Christmas ever. It’s like we’ve gone straight from late October to a never ending February. In a gulag.
Seems the Tories are being criticised for not doing what Labour and the Lib Dems did - but Labour and the Lib Dems don't seem to have got a better result. Quite the opposite in fact.
So what's wrong? The Tories seem to have managed the second wave better than almost any other western European nation and better than Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 🤷🏻♂️
But here's two bits that stood out.
As a result, more than 1.3 million extra infections are estimated to have spread across the country. We heard evidence that one intensive care ward in Manchester became so overwhelmed that patients were left to die without the life-saving care they needed......
..The next day in the Commons, Wednesday, October 14, Sunak hit back, accusing Labour of being “detached from reality” and being irresponsible for not acknowledging “the economic cost of a blunt national lockdown”. This was little more than two weeks before the government would perform a U-turn and announce a lockdown.
The time we'd have saved if he'd shared that with the rest of us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yzY-HUvavU
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1338150957834788866?s=19