politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time to take a Biden landslide seriously

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

TimT said:

"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?

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

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.

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

TimT said:

"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.

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Trump is trying to throw the election on purpose?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

That appointment is going to send the Corbynites into a spin, she chaired Owen Smith's leadership campaign lol.

Well played Keir, well played.

brokenwheel said:

malcolmg said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

That will change the world for sure.

The funny thing is the likely effect will be for shows to reduce the breadth of representation, you aren't going to hire an actor for every single intersection so you just won't have those characters at all.

Floater said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

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"

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/NineteenEightyFour/part1sec5.html

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel)

Rather captures the SJW mentality.

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?

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

CorrectHorseBattery said:

That appointment is going to send the Corbynites into a spin, she chaired Owen Smith's leadership campaign lol.

Well played Keir, well played.

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

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.

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

Star Trek is ******. Good luck finding any Klingon actors.

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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?

It's more an illustration of the Wokeists' irremediable stupidity. The job of an actor is - by definition - to pretend to be something they are not, not to actually be that thing.

That's why film studios don't cast actual crime-fighting vigilante billionaires to play Batman, or mass-murdering psychopaths to play the Joker, they get an actor who can convince us that they are that character using their skill and talent.

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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!

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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?

It's more an illustration of the Wokeists' irremediable stupidity. The job of an actor is - by definition - to pretend to be something they are not, not to actually be that thing.

That's why film studios don't cast actual crime-fighting vigilante billionaires to play Batman, or mass-murdering psychopaths to play the Joker, they get an actor who can convince us that they are that character using their skill and talent.

Here's a proposal. Let's allow businesses and creators to make their own decisions in this area. They are well placed to do it.

Black_Rook said:

Malmesbury said:

On COVID case data. To inform the debate.... I went to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ and got this -

This is for confirmed cases in England, just selecting the data for today

Which just goes to show how remarkably inefficient the data gathering apparatus of the health service actually is. That chart would appear to suggest that it's not just deaths that happened months ago that they're only just getting round to adding to the statistics (today's NHS England death count includes a fatality from April 21st.) Some of those positive tests date all the way back to March.

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

kyf_100 said:

malcolmg said:

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

On the question of a statements validity depending upon who wrote it, it depends upon both the statement and who wrote it. Some statements are objective but some are subjective.

Take the rather simple statement "I am a woman" - if Cyclefree writes that then I believe it. If LadyG writes it I don't.

Or if someone here posted medical advice - from most people I would take it with a pinch of salt but if it came from Foxy I'd take it more seriously.

I am defiantly non-binary, and have been since the age of 3, so I am not offended by your remarks

WTF is non-binary

Decimal. As in, there's at least ten of him now...

Hmmm.... not decimal......

https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-base-infinity-number-system-look-like-and-what-would-100-mean-in-that-system

I always wondered if you could create a number system based around prime numbers. So the "columns" would be 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, etc. Could you create a set of rules that would allow you to count and do calculations in a meaningful way.

But then I usually remember I have a business to run and employees to traumatise.

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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.

MattW said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Take the rather simple statement "I am a woman" - if Cyclefree writes that then I believe it. If LadyG writes it I don't.

Are we still on the "what does the G stand for" sweepstake?

My theory is that it is Lady Glugalot, who along with Lord Glugalot played by our hero himself, will star in a new Frankie Howerd tribute film "Up the Vineyard" by Sean T Productions.

TimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

TimT said:

"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.

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

TimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

TimT said:

"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.

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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?

It's more an illustration of the Wokeists' irremediable stupidity. The job of an actor is - by definition - to pretend to be something they are not, not to actually be that thing.

That's why film studios don't cast actual crime-fighting vigilante billionaires to play Batman, or mass-murdering psychopaths to play the Joker, they get an actor who can convince us that they are that character using their skill and talent.

Here's a proposal. Let's allow businesses and creators to make their own decisions in this area. They are well placed to do it.

BluestBlue said:

Floater said:

kinabalu said:

Floater said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

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"

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/NineteenEightyFour/part1sec5.html

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel)

Rather captures the SJW mentality.

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

That's really not fair at all on the poor dears - I'm sure they'll get around to it in a few hundred years, once they've dealt with all the urgent cases from the 18th and 19th centuries..

isam said:

malcolmg said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

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.

malcolmg said:

brokenwheel said:

malcolmg said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

That will change the world for sure.

The funny thing is the likely effect will be for shows to reduce the breadth of representation, you aren't going to hire an actor for every single intersection so you just won't have those characters at all.

Exactly, they are as thick as mince.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

malcolmg said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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.

Yokes said:

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.

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Ij7ElJnqM

malcolmg said:

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Ij7ElJnqM

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.

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

malcolmg said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

isam said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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?

It's more an illustration of the Wokeists' irremediable stupidity. The job of an actor is - by definition - to pretend to be something they are not, not to actually be that thing.

That's why film studios don't cast actual crime-fighting vigilante billionaires to play Batman, or mass-murdering psychopaths to play the Joker, they get an actor who can convince us that they are that character using their skill and talent.

Here's a proposal. Let's allow businesses and creators to make their own decisions in this area. They are well placed to do it.

... and let's close down any discussion of said decisons? That's the progressive way!

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Ij7ElJnqM

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.

NickPalmer said:

Malmesbury said:

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

LadyG said:

I agree with you that Cultural Marxism has been adopted by some alt-right loons ...

...BUT there really IS a kind of cultural Marxism, which seeks to radically change society

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

malcolmg said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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.

Stuartinromford said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

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.

But there's a very effective, very conservative and Conservative playbook in this situation.

Embrace the necessary change, squeeze out the Marxism, tint it blue if possible.

Like with gay marriage.

So for the statues "let us have a conversation about where to put these statues, how to narrate them properly for the future so we can acknowledge the good and bad in all of us yada yada..." In other words, the sort of thing that ought to have happened in Bristol years ago, but didn't.

The trouble with that approach is that you don't get to play culture warrior yourself. There are people- including the government- playing with forces they don't understand.

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

malcolmg said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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.

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

brokenwheel said:

Andy_JS said:

"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."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53201667

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Ij7ElJnqM

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.