Cancel Culture

[Carl the Llama]

7 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said:

 when will it end. That N word, many of black ethnicity shall I say use it on a daily basis these days, makes a mockery of the whole thing even further.

Why is that?

[lcfcsnow]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Why is that?

How many rap artists for instance use the word in their songs? They made many younger people more aware of the term, not fawlty towers. Are all those going to be banned and stop being available to listen to? I am not a big fan of rap music but you can't ban fawlty towers and ignore these rap songs by black artists, alot which go further than a mentioning of the N word here and there. Abusive, rape, guns etc lyrics, this is ok I assume. Is it one rule for them and another for us now?

[Lionator]

18 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said:

when will it end. That N word, many of black ethnicity shall I say use it on a daily basis these days, makes a mockery of the whole thing even further.

It doesn't work like that. The word has traditionally been used by white people to degrade black people, that's why it's wrong. 

 

The issue for me with Fawlty Towers isn't if that word is wrong to use, surely everyone can agree on that. However the removal takes away people's opportunity to think about it.

 

Social change doesn't happen by censorship but by conversation and education. 

[lcfcsnow]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The issue for me with Fawlty Towers isn't if that word is wrong to use, surely everyone can agree on that. However the removal takes away people's opportunity to think about it.

It's a common word amongst black people of a certain age now, it's here to stay and thanks to rap music for glorifying it. I think alot of young people are going to continue listening that and using it in their vocabulary, and probably haven't even heard of Fawlty Towers.

[Lionator]

11 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said:

How many rap artists for instance use the word in their songs? They made many younger people more aware of the term, not fawlty towers. Are all those going to be banned and stop being available to listen to? I am not a big fan of rap music but you can't ban fawlty towers and ignore these rap songs by black artists, alot which go further than a mentioning of the N word here and there. Abusive, rape, guns etc lyrics, this is ok I assume. Is it one rule for them and another for us now?

The whole point of the Black Lives Matters movement is that it has been one rule for them, and another for us. Us (white) people get the good end of the stick. Black people don't. People just want equality.

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, lcfcsnow said:

It's a common word amongst black people of a certain age now, it's here to stay and thanks to rap music for glorifying it.

https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2011/straight-talk-about-the-nword

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

21 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I see both love thy neighbour and till death us do part are still on you-tube, as is that  episode of Fawlty towers, there again you tube are not there to be PC. This is all just media bullshit to stir the shit, why did they have to tell us a particular episode of Fawlty towers has been banned from being aired, why not just not show it again and don't say anything, it's not as if 10 million people were sat there waiting for it to be shown for the 100th time on uk gold is it!

 

Because (rightly or wrongly) companies / people want to be publicly seen to be taking some sort of action - social media provides the perfect stage for this, and there must be a worry that such an important message could become diluted or performative as we veer towards gestures done for decent PR and online engagement rather than any discernible good (see Starbucks).

In this case I actually agree with the decision to take the episode down and to (hopefully) throw an edited version into circulation - I doubt anybody would have made a fuss had no statement been released, and the cynic in me thinks it was done for some positive spin. But, there's a counter-argument that it was important for UKTV to explain the reasons why they made their decision.

 

On a similar note, the video yesterday of the actors over-egging scripted sentiment was the emptiest, and least sincere thing I've ever seen – it was like Aaron Paul was playing it for laughs. The more absurd these platitudes become the more the movement risks alienating the people that need educating the most.

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said:

How many rap artists for instance use the word in their songs? They made many younger people more aware of the term, not fawlty towers. Are all those going to be banned and stop being available to listen to? I am not a big fan of rap music but you can't ban fawlty towers and ignore these rap songs by black artists, alot which go further than a mentioning of the N word here and there. Abusive, rape, guns etc lyrics, this is ok I assume. Is it one rule for them and another for us now?

When it comes to using a word historically employed by white slave owners to dehumanise black people it kind of is, yes.  To massively oversimplify it it's like the difference between your mate calling you a cvnt and a random stranger calling you one.

[Finnegan]

Regards Fawlty Towers use of the N bomb, think its important to remember Gervais' talks about this, explaining the difference between the subject and the target of the joke. 

 

In this instance, black people and a racial slur may be the subject but it should be abundantly clear that racists are the target. 

 

It's oddly ironic that someone would want to censor a scene that mocks an old racist because they don't like that the language he used was racist. 

 

You'd think you'd want more negative depictions of racists, not less. 

[urban.spaceman]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Regards Fawlty Towers use of the N bomb, think its important to remember Gervais' talks about this, explaining the difference between the subject and the target of the joke. 

 

In this instance, black people and a racial slur may be the subject but it should be abundantly clear that racists are the target. 

 

It's oddly ironic that someone would want to censor a scene that mocks an old racist because they don't like that the language he used was racist. 

 

You'd think you'd want more negative depictions of racists, not less. 

100%. The problem is these people (the professionally outraged, not BAME people) don't give a shit about context. Context harms their cause.

[BKLFox]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If their personal history has nothing to do with the current matter, absolutely, imo.

 

And that is the difference between Floyd and and slave owners whose statues are being targeted.

yes but this has now grown into where do you stop as highlighted with all the TV, book & historical character references , when i mention up on a plinth i mean that in the generic sense. There are pictures of floyd depicted as an angel martyr i am saying he was/is/should not.

If someone was to compile a list of 50 celebrities that raised 'x' funds for charity & those 50 would then be remembered with name in lights so to speak & ,say, Jimmy Saville's total put him in that 50 he would not be chosen due to his past convictions despite there not being a clause in their saying there name will go up in lights but only if they didn't abuse minors.

Floyd had a violent crimal past which would have made many lives a misery regardless of colour but are you saying its ok to have his name in lights & depicted in the way it is because he didn't traffic in human beings?

[Captain...]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Regards Fawlty Towers use of the N bomb, think its important to remember Gervais' talks about this, explaining the difference between the subject and the target of the joke. 

 

In this instance, black people and a racial slur may be the subject but it should be abundantly clear that racists are the target. 

 

It's oddly ironic that someone would want to censor a scene that mocks an old racist because they don't like that the language he used was racist. 

 

You'd think you'd want more negative depictions of racists, not less. 

The racist might be a figure of fun, but instead of being called out for being a racist he is pandered to and placated.

 

I'm all for satire but that particular one just doesn't work any more by modern standards. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Floyd had a violent crimal past which would have made many lives a misery regardless of colour but are you saying its ok to have his name in lights & depicted in the way it is because he didn't traffic in human beings?

I'm saying that his past has nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding his death (unless one wants to push the angle that he somehow had it coming because of that past), so it's irrelevant to the current discussion, unlike the unsavoury aspects of the people whose statues are being targeted.

 

So looking at this situation *alone*, yes, i would say he deserves to be a standard bearer for addressing the systematic and institutionalised police malpractice that exists in too many places in the US and should be treated as such.

[UniFox21]

We're at a worrying point in society currently, we can't simply continue to go around silencing views we disagree with. Online discussions are a great example currently, if anyone posts a view you find the extremists of either end of the spectrum throwing hate at the poster, when in fact a civil conversation would allow all parties to educate themselves.

 

The censoring of media sources containing, what is now deemed, racist content or humour is almost trying to erase the history and progression of society. Pretending these things didn't happen won't help us learn from these issues. 

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The racist might be a figure of fun, but instead of being called out for being a racist he is pandered to and placated.

 

I'm all for satire but that particular one just doesn't work any more by modern standards. 

 

 

But Basil Fawlty isn't an admirable character and its not set in 2020.

 

He's a nasty, selfish, cowardly bigot himself and its set in times where racism was more commonly open. Why change or hide that depiction? 

 

It's like the current trend of making sure there's better diversity in casting when making basically any production, even historical ones. If you're making some historic drama and you're casting a disproportionately high number of ethnic minority actors just to be woke in 2020, what you're ACTUALLY doing is painting racism out of history and pretending the world used to be a better place than it was. 

 

I even feel uneasy now with the BBC and Netflix in particular leading the charge in having the most racially diverse casts possible, where as many families and partnerships as possible are multi racial and nobody sees colour because everything's perfect. 

 

On the one hand its great that the industry sat up and listened when it was called out for its institutional racism but on the other hand, do you not risk hiding the the real world behind a facade of social justice that we still don't live up to? 

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The racist might be a figure of fun, but instead of being called out for being a racist he is pandered to and placated.

 

I'm all for satire but that particular one just doesn't work any more by modern standards. 

I do not see how Basil Fawlty could ever be regarded by anything other than a figure of denigration. He has no charms, and is ridiculous, a earlier day Victor Meldrew if you will (Yet far funnier)

The lessons from the past are still relevant and our rolling window on ethical behaviour should and will persist I am sure, but this underlies much of the current outrage (Yet remains irritatingly largely irrelevant to George Floyd and what his death should mean).

Namely, the past is a teacher, the lessons we learn there may seem faux, and they may seem irrelevant, but they are not, and to think so leaves the future with known and preventable perils.

 

This space left intentionally blank for raging against slippery slope arguments (cough cough @leicsmac )

[Pliskin]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

But Basil Fawlty isn't an admirable character and its not set in 2020.

 

He's a nasty, selfish, cowardly bigot himself and its set in times where racism was more commonly open. Why change or hide that depiction? 

 

It's like the current trend of making sure there's better diversity in casting when making basically any production, even historical ones. If you're making some historic drama and you're casting a disproportionately high number of ethnic minority actors just to be woke in 2020, what you're ACTUALLY doing is painting racism out of history and pretending the world used to be a better place than it was. 

 

I even feel uneasy now with the BBC and Netflix in particular leading the charge in having the most racially diverse casts possible, where as many families and partnerships as possible are multi racial and nobody sees colour because everything's perfect. 

 

On the one hand its great that the industry sat up and listened when it was called out for its institutional racism but on the other hand, do you not risk hiding the the real world behind a facade of social justice that we still don't live up to? 

Finnegan, so well put. 

 

I briefly mentioned this earlier, it is almost tampering with history and that is even worse that changing it. Lets use Downton Abbey as an example, a near complete white cast, set in a setting where it would have been all if not entirely white in the area, if we were to change this to a more diverse cast then it would not truly represent the times, any young person from an different ethnic group watches it may get a false idea of what historical Britain looked like. 

 

Then take call the midwife, they include story lines of diversity and how members of the black community were integrated into society (I must admit I haven't really watched it closely so if anyone is more clued up feel free to correct me). But you can see the context there. If you are producing something that is historical it needs to be true, otherwise you're running the risk putting the wrong message out. 

 

This is why the reaction to this movement is so vital, by all means take statues down, burn books and erase T.V shows. But be prepared then to have frank discussions with your kids and the younger general population about the truths of our history, I am not confident the school will offer in depth enough lessons, so teaching and learning will need to be done by those who have experience and knowledge. Totally removing, hiding or even altering how history looks is dangerous particularly when dealing with racism. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Whilst not condoning his racist language, which always made me uneasy, I always found The Major to be quite a sympathetic and sad character because he clearly has dementia.

[ealingfox]

34 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

But Basil Fawlty isn't an admirable character and its not set in 2020.

 

He's a nasty, selfish, cowardly bigot himself and its set in times where racism was more commonly open. Why change or hide that depiction? 

 

It's like the current trend of making sure there's better diversity in casting when making basically any production, even historical ones. If you're making some historic drama and you're casting a disproportionately high number of ethnic minority actors just to be woke in 2020, what you're ACTUALLY doing is painting racism out of history and pretending the world used to be a better place than it was. 

 

I even feel uneasy now with the BBC and Netflix in particular leading the charge in having the most racially diverse casts possible, where as many families and partnerships as possible are multi racial and nobody sees colour because everything's perfect. 

 

On the one hand its great that the industry sat up and listened when it was called out for its institutional racism but on the other hand, do you not risk hiding the the real world behind a facade of social justice that we still don't live up to? 

 

But in many cases increasing the diversity of casting on historical programming is actually increasing the historical accuracy, people just dont realise that either because of ignorance or because of the conditioning that stems from decades of whitewashing.

 

Look at how the usual suspects burst into tears because ONE black person appears in the Tube scene in Darkest Hour, at a time when thousands of black people lived in London. This was dismissed as virtue-signalling and all that bollocks despite being a more accurate depiction than if everyone had been white.

Edited 12 June 2020 by ealingfox

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, lcfcsnow said:

It's a common word amongst black people of a certain age now, it's here to stay and thanks to rap music for glorifying it. I think alot of young people are going to continue listening that and using it in their vocabulary, and probably haven't even heard of Fawlty Towers.

And Samuel L Jackson.

[fuchsntf]

Lets ban Hollywood and every Single film....!!!

Lets Wake up Tomorrow and forget and hide history....!!

Since a child I have abhored Racism, and  any sort of discrimination,...

The Colonial Empires Royal or Govts,were just has rotten to their own people, beat ,killed ,cast out...(this is still no excuse for any modern/historical racism),

The media(by searching every cranny) the white do-gooders,Chasing every direct or indirect,statues,movement of Historical past,will do more harm,than service.

It will create nonsical ,irresponsible opposite reactions in education and society intigration....

 

This moment in time I Welcome and Shout Thank god,we have a chance as a Human W.wide society,to look ourselves in the eye,& accept,recognise,understand

Our failings and responsibility to our Fellow humans....

But..!!!!  Not to forget the Racism und Discrimination of Empires of the Past & present ,through African & Asian lands...

some "great " African Empires-History were suppressed (Not even taught) through  historical-moderntimes, even from within.

old Slave-routes,full of racist backgrounds ,are still exsistent Plus many on going Civil unrests/wars are based on tribal/racist ideology...

 

I Studies Anthropology und Civilizations of the past,which included old  Slave and Product routes,Plus the settling of peoples..!!

We believe tribal /old religious clashes ,unrest ,discrimination is a fact that Followed us through our peoples histories,where has Racism only Really started to pop

Its ugly head in stages after & during the slow Fall of the Roman Empire...

 

Some Good research & Reading on past civilisations, outside the classical Asian,Egyption,Persian,Roman,European Colonial empires....

 

The Land of Punt / The Kingdom of Kush / Kingdom of Aksum / Carthaga

 

More modern,but before white colonialismus kicked off....

Mali  / Songhai / Zimbabwe Empires....

Then across the Americas,there were Civilizations well before the well known Aztecs/Incas/Mayans....

 

Racism and much of our  discrimination,seems to be an absurd immature modern-history  ( pendemic) in the Western world..!!

 Asian History has its  own stories,and across Asia cast-system/ideology Spring throughout their Civilizations & religious growth...

 

I also  believe the racist History of the USA,has totally a different base,und white-supremacy  movement  has other Silent Party lobbies..

 

Trying to attack and cancel out modern cultures,is just blind extremitism,

so a positive " movement & action"  &  Good cause,will just die in the muddy waters..!!

 

Just a Side note, its Coming across in TV & seems ironic,that the so called demonstrators in the UK attacking the Police and destroying property...are white..!!

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 June 2020 by fuchsntf

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm saying that his past has nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding his death (unless one wants to push the angle that he somehow had it coming because of that past), so it's irrelevant to the current discussion, unlike the unsavoury aspects of the people whose statues are being targeted.

 

So looking at this situation *alone*, yes, i would say he deserves to be a standard bearer for addressing the systematic and institutionalised police malpractice that exists in too many places in the US and should be treated as such.

Clearly whether or not Floyd had a string of convictions makes no difference to whether the police who arrested him on this occaision unlawfully killed him.  I think the coverage has been careful not to bring up his criminal history, but I suspect they will enthusatically cover it when the trial comes along and the police use it to suggest they were in fear of their lives when the arrested him, and if they had loosened their "restraint" of him.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Clearly whether or not Floyd had a string of convictions makes no difference to whether the police who arrested him on this occaision unlawfully killed him.  I think the coverage has been careful not to bring up his criminal history, but I suspect they will enthusatically cover it when the trial comes along and the police use it to suggest they were in fear of their lives when the arrested him, and if they had loosened their "restraint" of him.

Oh, I'm sure that is the first place any defence argument would go.

 

And I hope, for the sake of a lot of people, that the jury and the public at large don't buy that particular BS "justification" that the defence lawyer tries to feed them (because there is nothing whatsoever to suggest he might have put their lives under threat) and as a result the issue at large fails to be addressed.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm saying that his past has nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding his death (unless one wants to push the angle that he somehow had it coming because of that past), so it's irrelevant to the current discussion, unlike the unsavoury aspects of the people whose statues are being targeted.

 

So looking at this situation *alone*, yes, i would say he deserves to be a standard bearer for addressing the systematic and institutionalised police malpractice that exists in too many places in the US and should be treated as such.

Bit in bold is curious and his death is extremely sad. However, rather than deify George, should we not be doing the opposite to the police officer (s) involved? I do of course see the benefit of rallying behind the unlawful killing, it is a point of unification which will hopefully lead to a better world. Not trying to be a d:ck or degrade the campaign, but the officers did more bad than he did good I would suggest, yet their coverage has gone to compete silence (from where I sit anyway).

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Bit in bold is curious and his death is extremely sad. However, rather than deify George, should we not be doing the opposite to the police officer (s) involved? I do of course see the benefit of rallying behind the unlawful killing, it is a point of unification which will hopefully lead to a better world. Not trying to be a d:ck or degrade the campaign, but the officers did more bad than he did good I would suggest, yet their coverage has gone to compete silence (from where I sit anyway).

Interesting point.

 

I think that part of the focus has shifted from the cops in question to the prejudice-related flaws within the system itself - hence the calls for general police reform. And that's good, because Floyd and the cops who killed him are merely one symptom of that sickness.