Options

Daily Mail - most condescending roll of toilet paper

13

Comments

  • Options
    MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    Kirkfnw wrote: »
    This I find amusing;

    Daily Mail is quick to report on the "criminal" activities of Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, Carol Thatcher - the parents of the children who starred in a Channel 4 series...

    Yet they gave away a free DVD this Saturday of The Dam Busters. This is a movie in which someone's pet dog, who happens to be black - is named "N****r". It has been dubbed as "trigger" in newer versions, but the Mail still gave away the uncut edition with the ethnic slur. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgePEO7GUtE

    Let's get this all into perspective.

    Its thanks to the Dambusters - and other people that fought against the Nazis - you have the right to post on this forum. If the Germans had won the war most Jews, black people, gays and travellers would have been gassed to death in concentration camps. That's real racism - not some throw away line in a movie which is fifty years old!

    I for one therefore will not allow political correctness from the pampered of today to prevent people learning about how and why we have the freedoms we have - as well as the horrors that were prevented by people like those who fought in the Dambusters raid.
  • Options
    KirkfnwKirkfnw Posts: 1,613
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    Let's get this all into perspective.

    Its thanks to the Dambusters - and other people that fought against the Nazis - you have the right to post on this forum. If the Germans had won the war most Jews, black people, gays and travellers would have been gassed to death in concentration camps. That's real racism - not some throw away line in a movie which is fifty years old!

    So what you're saying is it's ok to use the word "n****r" at any opportunity? Because we won the war?
  • Options
    SofaSlobSofaSlob Posts: 2,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    Let's get this all into perspective.

    Its thanks to the Dambusters - and other people that fought against the Nazis - you have the right to post on this forum. If the Germans had won the war most Jews, black people, gays and travellers would have been gassed to death in concentration camps. That's real racism - not some throw away line in a movie which is fifty years old!

    I for one therefore will not allow political correctness from the pampered of today to prevent people learning about how and why we have the freedoms we have - as well as the horrors that were prevented by people like those who fought in the Dambusters raid.

    But if the Germans had rid the world of all those minority groups then there would be no need for what you call "political correctness" therefor leaving us freer.
  • Options
    SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    Let's get this all into perspective.

    Its thanks to the Dambusters - and other people that fought against the Nazis - you have the right to post on this forum. If the Germans had won the war most Jews, black people, gays and travellers would have been gassed to death in concentration camps. That's real racism - not some throw away line in a movie which is fifty years old!

    I for one therefore will not allow political correctness from the pampered of today to prevent people learning about how and why we have the freedoms we have - as well as the horrors that were prevented by people like those who fought in the Dambusters raid.

    I don't agree.

    Racism starts and escalates with 'throw away lines.'

    And freedom of speech works both ways, or are you suggesting that the 'PC Brigade' should not be able to exercise theirs?
  • Options
    StarpussStarpuss Posts: 12,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Can we not just watch these things and see them in their historical context?

    That was how it was then but, thankfully, it is not that way now.

    We have evolved the language and our sensibilities.
  • Options
    MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    Kirkfnw wrote: »
    So what you're saying is it's ok to use the word "n****r" at any opportunity? Because we won the war?

    What I am saying its you need to put things into perspective. You are effectively saying ban an entire film from 50 years ago which celebrates defeating evil vicious racist genocidal murderers because there is one racist word used in it. Get a grip and some perspective!
  • Options
    pickwickpickwick Posts: 25,739
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    What I am saying its you need to put things into perspective. You are effectively saying ban an entire film from 50 years ago which celebrates defeating evil vicious racist genocidal murderers because there is one racist word used in it. Get a grip and some perspective!
    ...Or alternatively, as the OP actually says, they could use the otherwise-identical version where the dog's name has been changed.

    What was that you were saying about perspective?!

    (You do know most of the German army were just normal people, right? And, for that matter, what "ban" means?)
  • Options
    Smile PolitelySmile Politely Posts: 203
    Forum Member
    I can't understand the animosity on here towards this paper.

    You can't be trying very hard then.

    As long as you aren't black, Muslim, gay, a single mother, a liberal, an immigrant, a student, in an unmarried relationship, a teenager, or fat, then the DM is definitely the paper for you. Otherwise don't bother.
  • Options
    stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't see a problem with the movie... I imagine, however, that were he alive today Mr Gibson would have called his dog something else.

    However, while we're on the subject of the Mail's hypocrisy, let's not forget that last week their front page linked to a graphic picture of a man's distended anus! (Safe link- just goes to DS thread discussing the accidental Goatse).

    Now, that may not have been deliberate, but someone at the Mail made an error of judgment or was lax in their security, allowing it to be "published". Someone should be suspended for three months, really. And the buck should stop right at the top. Filth, I tell you! Filth!
    You can't be trying very hard then.

    As long as you aren't black, Muslim, gay, a single mother, an immigrant, a student, in an unmarried relationship, a teenager, or fat, then the DM is definitely the paper for you. Otherwise don't bother.

    Unless you're likely to be scared by being told that 99% of the things you do in your daily life will definitely give you cancer.
  • Options
    deltadelta Posts: 1,179
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bloody daft all this about words becoming offensive. It is only a crazy minority who create these situations. I am not offended by 'golliwog' or '******'. The latter is a colour - a shade of brown, where's the problem? My skin is pinkish, call me pinky if you want to. No-one chose to be the colour they are and as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter - we are all human beings. (Well, most of us are anyway). Let's remember, human life began in what is now Africa, so we are all decended from black parentage.

    The dog in the original film was called '******', so what - it's a dog anyway. And editing Enid Blyton's books for using similar words s ludicrous, they should remain as written, why change them? That to me is far more offensive as is the thought that I am being controlled by a few fanatics and cannot read what I want to.
  • Options
    deltadelta Posts: 1,179
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    delta wrote: »
    Bloody daft all this about words becoming offensive. It is only a crazy minority who create these situations. I am not offended by 'golliwog' or '******'. The latter is a colour - a shade of brown, where's the problem? My skin is pinkish, call me pinky if you want to. No-one chose to be the colour they are and as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter - we are all human beings. (Well, most of us are anyway). Let's remember, human life began in what is now Africa, so we are all decended from black parentage.

    The dog in the original film was called '******', so what - it's a dog anyway. And editing Enid Blyton's books for using similar words s ludicrous, they should remain as written, why change them? That to me is far more offensive as is the thought that I am being controlled by a few fanatics and cannot read what I want to.

    Excuse me, who edited my reply and why? Big brother exists! Dual standards here, why allow one word and not the other, when both words should not be censored anyway?
  • Options
    MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    delta wrote: »
    Excuse me, who edited my reply and why? Big brother exists! Dual standards here, why allow one word and not the other, when both words should not be censored anyway?

    Just tell the moderators you are a gangsta rapper from a deprived estate in south London - you'll be able to use this word all you want then while also making nasty homophobic comments at the same time.:rolleyes:
  • Options
    deltadelta Posts: 1,179
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Never mind the Daily Mail, the Sunday Post has a character named Fat Bob in the Oor Wullie strip. Shock, horror! Mind you it is a decent family paper published in Scotland where I guess there is more common sense - or have I opened another can of worms...?
  • Options
    SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    delta wrote: »
    Bloody daft all this about words becoming offensive. It is only a crazy minority who create these situations.

    The silent majority you speak of, who apparently believe that finding certain words offensive is daft, is usually just a noisy minority.

    Most decent folk would happily refrain from using a handful of expressions which are considered racial slurs.
  • Options
    kobiashimaruxkobiashimarux Posts: 8,619
    Forum Member
    I wish this paper would go bust. I dont read any of them really. All garbage and lies.
  • Options
    KirkfnwKirkfnw Posts: 1,613
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    delta wrote: »

    The dog in the original film was called '******', so what - it's a dog anyway.

    If I called you "******" as a nickname would that be acceptable then? Because it's only a pseudonym?

    No, the word should never be used.
  • Options
    SentenzaSentenza Posts: 12,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Sopranos , Goodfellas are full off ethnic slurs ban em all!

    Jesus wept
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,566
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Kirkfnw wrote: »
    If I called you "******" as a nickname would that be acceptable then? Because it's only a pseudonym?

    No, the word should never be used.



    We are talking about a 50 year old film.
  • Options
    RadiomaniacRadiomaniac Posts: 43,510
    Forum Member
    As the Dam Busters was a true story, I assume the dog's real name was used. It would be ridiculous to pretend it was something else.

    It's like pretending Hitler never existed, because he was also offensive.
  • Options
    Richard46Richard46 Posts: 59,834
    Forum Member
    Kirkfnw only a few days ago you where saying on another thread in the context of the n***** word;
    Kirkfnw wrote: »
    Why would I not be able to use the word as satire? Or in a jovial context? Are you banning anyone from using a word because you don't like it?

    also;
    Kirkfnw wrote: »
    In this day and age, the n-word is used quite a bit by the race it is supposedly racist against - even when it is used as a term of endearment. So make your minds up people, stop the stupid double standards.

    I am surprised therefore that within a few days you started this thread, perhaps you are winding everyone up, perhaps you have some logic to your position. Has it changed?

    Where are you coming from, do you know?
  • Options
    SofaSlobSofaSlob Posts: 2,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's like pretending Hitler never existed, because he was also offensive.

    The Daily Mail would love that as then they could pretend that they didn't support him.
  • Options
    TrumpyBumsTrumpyBums Posts: 400
    Forum Member
    SofaSlob wrote: »
    The Daily Mail would love that as then they could pretend that they didn't support him.

    Did they really do that or is it an urban myth?
  • Options
    Speak-SoftlySpeak-Softly Posts: 24,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We are talking about a 50 year old film.

    We're talking about a dog, which makes the racist argument ridiculous.
  • Options
    Richard46Richard46 Posts: 59,834
    Forum Member
    We're talking about a dog, which makes the racist argument ridiculous.

    Perhaps the OPs recent and very rapid conversion to the importance of racially sensitive language has made him over enthusiatic to the cause.

    See my post #71 above.

    on the other hand perhaps you are all being wound up.
  • Options
    RadiomaniacRadiomaniac Posts: 43,510
    Forum Member
    Richard46 wrote: »
    Kirkfnw only a few days ago you where saying on another thread in the context of the n***** word;



    also;



    I am surprised therefore that within a few days you started this thread, perhaps you are winding everyone up, perhaps you have some logic to your position. Has it changed?

    Where are you coming from, do you know?

    Well caught out! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.