Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 What are you all on about. Jesus , it’s football banter, football banter is offensive , always has been , so what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: No but I’m certainly not in favour of denying that it never ever happened by censoring historical accounts of what was said at the time either. People need to see how unacceptable those things were when they were said which certainly won’t happen if you edit history like it never happened. There's a big difference between eliminating it, and privately owned media companies deciding it isn't the most appropriate for a contemporary audience. Stuff gets changed or dropped all the time. We are not at a cultural loss for Little Britain falling out of favour, for example. There is plenty of media, old and new, exploring historical issues. Often from a perspective you simply wouldn't have published back then, as it was the wrong way of thinking. Have you seen how Disney has changed their animations over the years? They practice a large amount of self-censorship, are we losing the context of their work? Children are taught Walt pointed with two fingers, as he was always smoking, and that has been photoshopped out. Generally, the people saying we are editing history, neglect that we're also uncovering the other side of that story. Highlighting for example, that the British Empire was built on exploitation, rather than simply glorifying how great Blighty was. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 And in case you were wondering - Hibs fans - on heroin so have HIV. Bring syringes to throw at games. Dundee United fans , known as Arabs , and gypsy peg sellers. Bring clothes pegs to games. Aberdeen fans , unhealthy liking for sheep. Bring blow up sheep to games and sometimes set fire to them. Football fans are not politically correct . Thankfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Roxanne said: Is that what they say at football matches now? I’m going to throw acid over you? And that’s banter is it? Have you considered that is the reason why we have to have these barmy rules and laws now? Because some dickheads think it’s banter? Sheesh. No one throws acid at football matches , did I say that ? Stupid woman. Symbolic you idiot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Roxanne said: Football fans bring HIV infected syringes to throw at football matches and you are glad they are not politically correct? Kill me now. You miss the point , probably never been to a game , it’s symbolic you idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: To my mind one is a definite malicious act and one is a threat to act maliciously. This is where it gets murky. In sending nude pics something unpleasant and directly threatening actually happened. Threatening to attack someone? Well there is no act. It is often likely a stupid thing said on the spur of the moment that the person would never ever actually act on. They can’t be the thought police. There's a difference between thinking something, and telling someone you're going to do them actual harm. The latter is a crime in itself, you're trying to provoke, intimidate or cause distress. You're not just thinking it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said: If a contemporary audience is that stupid that they can’t work out historical fact from current reality we really are going to end up re-editing history. So what next? Footage of people in Hawaiian shirts taking the rustic train to Pontins Dachau because broadcasting footage of what really happened 75 years ago might be upsetting to Millennials? That's a straw-man argument and you know it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Anyone said: Our culture so accept it or fuck off. How sad that anyone should have to live a life where that passes as culture. I hope the tax payer is not supporting these people to breed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 I hate cauliflower cheese , is that a hate crime? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 1 minute ago, pongo said: How sad that anyone should have to live a life where that passes as culture. I hope the tax payer is not supporting these people to breed. You are such a one. What makes you so fucking perfect. And it is culture you cunt. You might not like it but it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, pongo said: How sad that anyone should have to live a life where that passes as culture. I hope the tax payer is not supporting these people to breed. And you quoted me out of context but being the cunt you are I’m not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 Oh pongo and Roxanne are either related or doubling up as bullies lol like I give a shit , bring it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 Just now, offshoremanxman said: No it isn’t. You have failed to state any real case to support your view. Quite simply, there is a difference between crass cheap laughs, and accurate representation of historical views. One goes far more towards reinforcing entrenched, outdated beliefs. Normalising behaviours and attitudes that simply wouldn't fly now. Something like Little Britain falls into this category. It really doesn't fit anywhere, and it's new enough, it's not a historical loss. A lot of what is actually happening is more nuanced, and appropriate. For Gone With The Wind, HBO simply adds a disclaimer and introduction, explaining the context for the film. Mad Men is another example, much more recent media, but it uses blackface. The episode is introduced with why those scenes are there, and how they are representative of attitudes of the era in which it was set. The Mad Men disclaimer in question: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 40 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: No but I’m certainly not in favour of denying that it never ever happened by censoring historical accounts of what was said at the time either. People need to see how unacceptable those things were when they were said which certainly won’t happen if you edit history like it never happened. Is any one saying that happens? Who is censoring historical accounts? What most of the objections seem to be is that historical accounts are being un-censored and the papers are screaming about people saying completely accurate things about Rhodes or Churchill or whoever. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 12 minutes ago, Anyone said: And it is culture you cunt. You might not like it but it is. Bathroom mold is a culture too. But I prefer Bach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.