RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Oct 9, 2018 10:47:18 GMT
I don't mean to be rude, but some of this thread just really comes accross as the stereotypical oldtimers who believe everything used to better in the past. If people remember Monty Python, you could also be glad that at least they have some unmitigated humour to enjoy there, instead of going on to the next complaint, "but what about...". What if "the young people of today" simply aren't interested to see those shows "in context"? Some things reach a new audience, some don't. It's always been like that, not just television or music. E.g. 19th century literature is no different: Those penny dreadfuls were read by more people than Austen or Dickens! And it was especially in the past, may I remind you, that only highbrow culture was valued, and other stuff not deemed worth saving. Again, if someone wants to see these programs, most are still there. Just not on prime time television, but you can buy hours and hours of Benny Hill on DVD. It's a shame if a good thing is forgotten, but I think it's very silly to cry "history's being rewritten" if this is simply how it's always been with genres and movements. So I suggest you use your pensions to either buy the Benny Hill collection, which by the way promises that it's unadulterated; or, alternatively, reserve two balcony seats at a certain theatre with a frog and a bear.
|
|
|
Post by petercheck on Oct 9, 2018 11:42:55 GMT
Every thing WAS much better in the past. Mind you, I thought that even as a 6 year old. I was born in 1963 (so not quite a pensioner), and I clearly recall disliking Elvis Presley's 'Suspicious Minds' because it was nowhere near as good as his earlier stuff which I'd learnt from my parents' record collection (still love Elvis but hate that song!).
Incidentally, someone died of laughter at a local theatre when seeing Tommy Cooper in the '70s. I worked there a few years back, including a night when Michael McIntyre played there. I nearly died too... of boredom. No-one was in danger of dying from laughter that night.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Oct 9, 2018 12:02:58 GMT
I don't mean to be rude, but some of this thread just really comes accross as the stereotypical oldtimers who believe everything used to better in the past. If people remember Monty Python, you could also be glad that at least they have some unmitigated humour to enjoy there, instead of going on to the next complaint, "but what about...". What if "the young people of today" simply aren't interested to see those shows "in context"? Some things reach a new audience, some don't. It's always been like that, not just television or music. E.g. 19th century literature is no different: Those penny dreadfuls were read by more people than Austen or Dickens! And it was especially in the past, may I remind you, that only highbrow culture was valued, and other stuff not deemed worth saving. Again, if someone wants to see these programs, most are still there. Just not on prime time television, but you can buy hours and hours of Benny Hill on DVD. It's a shame if a good thing is forgotten, but I think it's very silly to cry "history's being rewritten" if this is simply how it's always been with genres and movements. So I suggest you use your pensions to either buy the Benny Hill collection, which by the way promises that it's unadulterated; or, alternatively, reserve two balcony seats at a certain theatre with a frog and a bear. Even in the 19th century there were serious novels that outsold Dickens, but are practically unknown these days outside of Victorian literature circles. Jane Austen was practically forgotten for years until her novels went out of copyright & started to be sold cheaply to be read on long distance train journeys. It's just a case of how niche things are, I guess a lot of classic TV channel schedule planners will think some series won't attract enough audience to justify buying the rights, but will sell well enough on DVD. I'm a fan of anime & this very rarely if ever gets on TV, but can be found on DVD or many streaming sites.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Oct 9, 2018 16:03:38 GMT
Every thing WAS much better in the past. Mind you, I thought that even as a 6 year old. I was born in 1963 (so not quite a pensioner), and I clearly recall disliking Elvis Presley's 'Suspicious Minds' because it was nowhere near as good as his earlier stuff which I'd learnt from my parents' record collection (still love Elvis but hate that song!). Incidentally, someone died of laughter at a local theatre when seeing Tommy Cooper in the '70s. I worked there a few years back, including a night when Michael McIntyre played there. I nearly died too... of boredom. No-one was in danger of dying from laughter that night. Nope. Like a "best of" CD/DVD, we've forgotten anything below mediocre. As a non-smoker I think I'd find life very hard in the sixties. Cars didn't have safety belts. Nobody knew asbestos was bad for you. Shops had limited opening hours. Cuisine was quite limited. VHS is basically rubbish compared to DVD and anyway all equipment was insanely expensive. As for vintage television, I hadn't really thought about it, but you've never had so much possibilities to rewatch your favourite shows as today. Almost all programs (and the exceptions are ever growing fewer) can now be ordered or streamed. Last century you would have to be very lucky in tape trading if you ever wanted to watch a show again that you didn't see or record. Some older programs you wouldn't even know existed. And actually, there was PC then as well, only of a different kind, namely the mary whitehouse type of censorship. No jokes about god, gays, or authority, no violence. For the record, I do know plenty of examples of unjustly forgotten programs myself too, and sometimes for completely different reasons totally unrelated to correctness. That doesn't make it an attack on culture or a rewriting of history. Maybe I simply never caught people sneering at the past, that's quite possible. It may sometimes be sad and shortsighted, but it doesn't actually hurt people if, say, the Minstrels are never shown again. However, I am very suspicious if some of these "defenders of white culture" and opponents of PC actually care, or if aren't only trying to push their own agenda. The type of philistine that you simply can't imagine ever reading a book.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Oct 9, 2018 18:07:24 GMT
Annoying things about TV today? Mmm, my latest pet hate is having to go into people's houses to fix their broadband and remain professional while Jeremy Kyle is on. Not easy my friends, not easy at all........
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Oct 9, 2018 21:29:55 GMT
I don't mean to be rude, but some of this thread just really comes accross as the stereotypical oldtimers who believe everything used to better in the past. If people remember Monty Python, you could also be glad that at least they have some unmitigated humour to enjoy there, instead of going on to the next complaint, "but what about...". What if "the young people of today" simply aren't interested to see those shows "in context"? Some things reach a new audience, some don't. It's always been like that, not just television or music. E.g. 19th century literature is no different: Those penny dreadfuls were read by more people than Austen or Dickens! And it was especially in the past, may I remind you, that only highbrow culture was valued, and other stuff not deemed worth saving. Again, if someone wants to see these programs, most are still there. Just not on prime time television, but you can buy hours and hours of Benny Hill on DVD. It's a shame if a good thing is forgotten, but I think it's very silly to cry "history's being rewritten" if this is simply how it's always been with genres and movements. So I suggest you use your pensions to either buy the Benny Hill collection, which by the way promises that it's unadulterated; or, alternatively, reserve two balcony seats at a certain theatre with a frog and a bear. It's quite offensive that you can't argue your case without implying that anyone who is against censorship is probably an old closet racist and white nationalist. You yourself have engaged in some stereotyping of "oldtimers". Maybe it's the opposite and the bigots are the people who are in favour of this ever-creeping censorship which you have decided is "the right thing" for broadcast TV and the rest of us? But perhaps it isn't right? Maybe a healthy society is one where we can all laugh at ourselves and are challenged and that makes us stronger in the longer term? Do you think that "no-platforming" people like Germaine Greer is "the right thing"? I don't. And it seems to me that isn't so different from banning things from broadcast TV and cutting out bits. Why should people have to pay a premium to see things that you have decided are "wrong", instead of them being broadcast to licence fee payers? Increasingly this distinction between DVD, YouTube and terrestrial broadcast seems to make no sense. You assume that all this stuff will continue to be available on DVD and YouTube but it's quite possible it won't be ten years from now as demands for censorship get louder and maybe things will be spotted more easily by zealots on streaming services? There is no reason to assume that demands won't go further. Maybe we should ban One Foot In the Grave from terrestrial TV, Harry Enfield's "old gits", Albert Steptoe and Alf Garnett as they are all "offensive" portrayals of older men? The Carry On's must be on borrowed time. Men in drag is already in the cross hairs. The future may be that you can't see any of these outside of the BFI in London. You can present it as just getting rid of stuff enjoyed by dinosaur bigots but it is a narrowing of culture which is impoverishing society. I'm confused about your comment about "no jokes about gays" in the "Mary Whitehouse" era. Are jokes about gays a "good" or "bad" thing? There have been jokes about gays since the silent era. Stan Laurel made a comedy. What about the Steptoe episode "Any Old Iron"? And numerous other examples. What I find offensive too are the ever-changing goalposts. One year something is banned and offensive and the next "someone somewhere" has arbitarily decided that now it's fine and must accept it. All of which definitely has applied to gays and the Carry On films too over the years. As for VHS versus DVD, well it's debatable. There is a certain integrity to VHS when it comes to things like film grain, noise from studio cameras and titles. At times MPEG2 artifacts can be annoying. I know from my own transfers than the maximum DVD bitrate is incapable of capturing certain scenes from VHS without introducing artifacts. Digital noise reduction is part of MPEG2 and extra is applied in some cases which can create quite horrible effects. If you look at BBC iPlayer. Standard definition streams are pretty much on a par with VHS but with added compression artifacts on occasion and possibly with poorer quality audio depending on the bitrate. I would say that Freeview standard definition has usually been on a par with VHS quality or poorer due to artifacts. Three or four hours on a tape at best quality versus one hour on a DVD or you have to reduce the quality to fit on more. Not really progress is it?
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Oct 10, 2018 0:06:52 GMT
It's quite offensive that you can't argue your case without implying that anyone who is against censorship is probably an old closet racist and white nationalist. You yourself have engaged in some stereotyping of "oldtimers". Maybe it's the opposite and the bigots are the people who are in favour of this ever-creeping censorship which you have decided is "the right thing" for broadcast TV and the rest of us? But perhaps it isn't right? Maybe a healthy society is one where we can all laugh at ourselves and are challenged and that makes us stronger in the longer term? Do you think that "no-platforming" people like Germaine Greer is "the right thing"? I don't. And it seems to me that isn't so different from banning things from broadcast TV and cutting out bits. Why should people have to pay a premium to see things that you have decided are "wrong", instead of them being broadcast to licence fee payers? Increasingly this distinction between DVD, YouTube and terrestrial broadcast seems to make no sense. You assume that all this stuff will continue to be available on DVD and YouTube but it's quite possible it won't be ten years from now as demands for censorship get louder and maybe things will be spotted more easily by zealots on streaming services? There is no reason to assume that demands won't go further. Maybe we should ban One Foot In the Grave from terrestrial TV, Harry Enfield's "old gits", Albert Steptoe and Alf Garnett as they are all "offensive" portrayals of older men? The Carry On's must be on borrowed time. Men in drag is already in the cross hairs. The future may be that you can't see any of these outside of the BFI in London. You can present it as just getting rid of stuff enjoyed by dinosaur bigots but it is a narrowing of culture which is impoverishing society. I'm confused about your comment about "no jokes about gays" in the "Mary Whitehouse" era. Are jokes about gays a "good" or "bad" thing? There have been jokes about gays since the silent era. Stan Laurel made a comedy. What about the Steptoe episode "Any Old Iron"? And numerous other examples. What I find offensive too are the ever-changing goalposts. One year something is banned and offensive and the next "someone somewhere" has arbitarily decided that now it's fine and must accept it. All of which definitely has applied to gays and the Carry On films too over the years. As for VHS versus DVD, well it's debatable. There is a certain integrity to VHS when it comes to things like film grain, noise from studio cameras and titles. At times MPEG2 artifacts can be annoying. I know from my own transfers than the maximum DVD bitrate is incapable of capturing certain scenes from VHS without introducing artifacts. Digital noise reduction is part of MPEG2 and extra is applied in some cases which can create quite horrible effects. If you look at BBC iPlayer. Standard definition streams are pretty much on a par with VHS but with added compression artifacts on occasion and possibly with poorer quality audio depending on the bitrate. I would say that Freeview standard definition has usually been on a par with VHS quality or poorer due to artifacts. Three or four hours on a tape at best quality versus one hour on a DVD or you have to reduce the quality to fit on more. Not really progress is it? And I find it offensive that you put words in my mouth and twist what I said. I did not call anything wrong. I said some of the people kicking up the biggest fuss can have their own agenda which often has very little to do respect for that work of art (be it high or low). If you don't believe there's any link to racism at all, then take a look at the countries where some politicians are busy promoting or protecting national values. A lot of them are very shady and corrupt characters who promote anything but freedom of (ex)press(ion). I hope you're not just keen on unemcumbered jokes unless pensioners are stereotyped. I even put a there to give a clue that I wasn't entirely serious. But there was a definite atmosphere of nostalgia for the past on the previous page. Now can you imagine that black people might find it a little weird if the B & W Minstrel show was suddenly repeated on national television? Because I can. However I can today legally buy Birth of a nation, Triumph of the will, and Mein Kampf. Are they terrestrial television? No, you got me, they aren't. But neither are hundreds of other films and series, some of which deserve better, and often the reasons have nothing to do with "conditioning". So I am not all that impressed by your fears that in ten years time who knows what might be illegal. Frankly I find it a bit silly, or at least, I would worry harder about more material things like public services going pear shaped, i.e. how about literal impoverishment. And in some places, your story is exactly and precisely the gut feeling that others use to get to you... and before you know it, the guy that you voted for is taking children away from their parents and dismantling your consumer protection. I'm being perfectly serious here.(As for VHS, don't you remember how people used to copy it for tape trading? One or two copies down the line and it was horrible.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Leach on Oct 10, 2018 1:19:10 GMT
Like others have said, the ridiculous practice of showing snippets of the programme at the beginning like a trailer or even more annoying when a report is left half way through accompanied by the phrase "More of this story later" as though we would switch over if they finished the article then, Coming up in part 2 - Then spoil it by showing key moments of the next section. Stupidly long weather forecast's, Shaky cam, multiple camera angles edited every couple of seconds - Rant over (for now)
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on Oct 10, 2018 1:38:24 GMT
I don't like how a lot of the "some celeb travels to some other countries" programmes don't spend very long on each location. They travel halfway round the world, go to some beautiful city... and spend about 4 minutes of screen time on it before whizzing off to somewhere else. A couple of years ago I remember one with someone like Dara O'Briain or Rory McGrath or someone of that ilk. It's an hour programme and just before the final commercial break starts we're told that he's going to visit a tribe that's hardly had any contact with anyone else, then the commercial break ends and there's about 10 minutes of the show left. Our star meets the tribe, tries on some 'funny hats' and takes part in a dance or something, and then the show ends. The lost tribe section lasted about 7 minutes. What's the point of going all that way only to give it such a short amount of screen time? Clip shows that source their footage from youtube. 30 worst reality tv show moments, 30 most outrageous talk show moments, 30 moments that rocked the 80's etc... Apparently they have the talking heads part because then it qualifies as critique and they're allowed to use the clips for free, or something like that. So it's already cheap, but made even cheaper because almost every clip is from youtube (and it shows). Then another thing that annoys me is in those aforementioned shows, whenever they show an obscure clip from a foreign tv show they'll cut to the celeb talking about it familiarly "Ah yes, I remember when...blahblahblah". No you don't remember it! You literally saw it for the first time 5 minutes ago when they showed you the video! Another annoying thing is in clips shows when the clip has been cropped top & bottom to make it widescreen, and then had the sides cropped to make it 4:3 again, so you're looking at the middle part only. Plus you're watching it on widescreen so it's got black bars down the sides to replace the part that should have been there but was cropped. And you get bonus moron points if the bars down the sides contain a stretched defocussed version of the main picture. Nobody should do this ever, it's so distracting. Just black bars please. I remember when Doctor Who returned in 2005 how it was often quite hard to make out dialogue because of loud 'background' music ( & to a lesser extent sometimes indistinct verbal performance - but nothing to do with it not being 'rp') - whereas the original is almost always crystal clear. For the latest Dr Who episode I've seen comments praising the music for being better than previous series. I never noticed it apart from the end theme which was quite good, harking back to the older versions of the theme - except for the unneccesarily loud percussion that sounded like someone bashing away on an old typewriter.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Oct 10, 2018 10:07:21 GMT
It's quite offensive that you can't argue your case without implying that anyone who is against censorship is probably an old closet racist and white nationalist. You yourself have engaged in some stereotyping of "oldtimers". Maybe it's the opposite and the bigots are the people who are in favour of this ever-creeping censorship which you have decided is "the right thing" for broadcast TV and the rest of us? But perhaps it isn't right? Maybe a healthy society is one where we can all laugh at ourselves and are challenged and that makes us stronger in the longer term? Do you think that "no-platforming" people like Germaine Greer is "the right thing"? I don't. And it seems to me that isn't so different from banning things from broadcast TV and cutting out bits. Why should people have to pay a premium to see things that you have decided are "wrong", instead of them being broadcast to licence fee payers? Increasingly this distinction between DVD, YouTube and terrestrial broadcast seems to make no sense. You assume that all this stuff will continue to be available on DVD and YouTube but it's quite possible it won't be ten years from now as demands for censorship get louder and maybe things will be spotted more easily by zealots on streaming services? There is no reason to assume that demands won't go further. Maybe we should ban One Foot In the Grave from terrestrial TV, Harry Enfield's "old gits", Albert Steptoe and Alf Garnett as they are all "offensive" portrayals of older men? The Carry On's must be on borrowed time. Men in drag is already in the cross hairs. The future may be that you can't see any of these outside of the BFI in London. You can present it as just getting rid of stuff enjoyed by dinosaur bigots but it is a narrowing of culture which is impoverishing society. I'm confused about your comment about "no jokes about gays" in the "Mary Whitehouse" era. Are jokes about gays a "good" or "bad" thing? There have been jokes about gays since the silent era. Stan Laurel made a comedy. What about the Steptoe episode "Any Old Iron"? And numerous other examples. What I find offensive too are the ever-changing goalposts. One year something is banned and offensive and the next "someone somewhere" has arbitarily decided that now it's fine and must accept it. All of which definitely has applied to gays and the Carry On films too over the years. As for VHS versus DVD, well it's debatable. There is a certain integrity to VHS when it comes to things like film grain, noise from studio cameras and titles. At times MPEG2 artifacts can be annoying. I know from my own transfers than the maximum DVD bitrate is incapable of capturing certain scenes from VHS without introducing artifacts. Digital noise reduction is part of MPEG2 and extra is applied in some cases which can create quite horrible effects. If you look at BBC iPlayer. Standard definition streams are pretty much on a par with VHS but with added compression artifacts on occasion and possibly with poorer quality audio depending on the bitrate. I would say that Freeview standard definition has usually been on a par with VHS quality or poorer due to artifacts. Three or four hours on a tape at best quality versus one hour on a DVD or you have to reduce the quality to fit on more. Not really progress is it? And I find it offensive that you put words in my mouth and twist what I said. I did not call anything wrong. I said some of the people kicking up the biggest fuss can have their own agenda which often has very little to do respect for that work of art (be it high or low). If you don't believe there's any link to racism at all, then take a look at the countries where some politicians are busy promoting or protecting national values. A lot of them are very shady and corrupt characters who promote anything but freedom of (ex)press(ion). I hope you're not just keen on unemcumbered jokes unless pensioners are stereotyped. I even put a there to give a clue that I wasn't entirely serious. But there was a definite atmosphere of nostalgia for the past on the previous page. Now can you imagine that black people might find it a little weird if the B & W Minstrel show was suddenly repeated on national television? Because I can. However I can today legally buy Birth of a nation, Triumph of the will, and Mein Kampf. Are they terrestrial television? No, you got me, they aren't. But neither are hundreds of other films and series, some of which deserve better, and often the reasons have nothing to do with "conditioning". So I am not all that impressed by your fears that in ten years time who knows what might be illegal. Frankly I find it a bit silly, or at least, I would worry harder about more material things like public services going pear shaped, i.e. how about literal impoverishment. And in some places, your story is exactly and precisely the gut feeling that others use to get to you... and before you know it, the guy that you voted for is taking children away from their parents and dismantling your consumer protection. I'm being perfectly serious here.(As for VHS, don't you remember how people used to copy it for tape trading? One or two copies down the line and it was horrible.) Misrepresenting someone's position as if it's at the very extreme end of the spectrum and implying they are a far right voter to try and "shame" them into silence and close down discussion is illiberal and nasty. But not unusual these days and it's generally those who think they're somehow progressive and forward thinking who do it. It's actually the modern equivalent of book burning and mob tactics (see Twitter). I'm sorry to say people on the left are some of the worst for doing it. At no point did I call for the Black And White Minstrel Show to be on TV as a general repeat. You're name checking Birth of a nation, Triumph of the will, and Mein Kampf! Which guy I voted for? The fact I don't agree with Germaine Greer being no-platformed should give a clue. I simply believe that too much is being censored and too many people are being silenced and that makes for an unhealthy society. Public service broadcasting is the last place there should be censorship of this kind. I think it's doomed unless it changes.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Oct 10, 2018 12:27:30 GMT
Misrepresenting someone's position as if it's at the very extreme end of the spectrum and implying they are a far right voter to try and "shame" them into silence and close down discussion is illiberal and nasty. But not unusual these days and it's generally those who think they're somehow progressive and forward thinking who do it. It's actually the modern equivalent of book burning and mob tactics (see Twitter). I'm sorry to say people on the left are some of the worst for doing it. At no point did I call for the Black And White Minstrel Show to be on TV as a general repeat. You're name checking Birth of a nation, Triumph of the will, and Mein Kampf! Which guy I voted for? The fact I don't agree with Germaine Greer being no-platformed should give a clue. I simply believe that too much is being censored and too many people are being silenced and that makes for an unhealthy society. Public service broadcasting is the last place there should be censorship of this kind. I think it's doomed unless it changes. Misrepresenting is what you are doing, because you are for several posts now identifying me as advocating censorship. In fact I never passed any judgement on any program; I even called it annoying and shortsighted. Go ahead, if you don't believe me, read back, and quote me wherever I did. You missed those points because you were too taken up with your idealization of the past. But sooner or later you still have to decide what you'd do with more outlying cases like the BW Minstrel Show. Come on, is it really tantamount to book burning if you don't want that generally repeated (on terrestrial television)? And the point of those three extreme examples was that if I can legally access that kind of stuff, then I'm not really all that worried that maybe there'll be a ban on Benny Hill or something like that. Oh never mind, I've already made that point twice now and you're not interested in any nuance, so you just go back to your windmills of how your culture is being erased. I'm glad you're not overreacting or blowing things completely out of proportion.
I'm sorry too that there is so much garbage on TV today, it's just that I don't see bookburning lefties as the main cause of that. Maybe you could try watching the news and see what goes on in the world.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Oct 10, 2018 13:52:39 GMT
Misrepresenting someone's position as if it's at the very extreme end of the spectrum and implying they are a far right voter to try and "shame" them into silence and close down discussion is illiberal and nasty. But not unusual these days and it's generally those who think they're somehow progressive and forward thinking who do it. It's actually the modern equivalent of book burning and mob tactics (see Twitter). I'm sorry to say people on the left are some of the worst for doing it. At no point did I call for the Black And White Minstrel Show to be on TV as a general repeat. You're name checking Birth of a nation, Triumph of the will, and Mein Kampf! Which guy I voted for? The fact I don't agree with Germaine Greer being no-platformed should give a clue. I simply believe that too much is being censored and too many people are being silenced and that makes for an unhealthy society. Public service broadcasting is the last place there should be censorship of this kind. I think it's doomed unless it changes. Misrepresenting is what you are doing, because you are for several posts now identifying me as advocating censorship. In fact I never passed any judgement on any program; I even called it annoying and shortsighted. Go ahead, if you don't believe me, read back, and quote me wherever I did. You missed those points because you were too taken up with your idealization of the past. But sooner or later you still have to decide what you'd do with more outlying cases like the BW Minstrel Show. Come on, is it really tantamount to book burning if you don't want that generally repeated (on terrestrial television)? And the point of those three extreme examples was that if I can legally access that kind of stuff, then I'm not really all that worried that maybe there'll be a ban on Benny Hill or something like that. Oh never mind, I've already made that point twice now and you're not interested in any nuance, so you just go back to your windmills of how your culture is being erased. I'm glad you're not overreacting or blowing things completely out of proportion.
I'm sorry too that there is so much garbage on TV today, it's just that I don't see bookburning lefties as the main cause of that. Maybe you could try watching the news and see what goes on in the world. You should focus on the subject instead of trying to undermine the other person's character. Even in your latest post you try to portray me as someone ignorant who doesn't watch the news or know what is going on in the world and who idealises the past. Just stop. It's unpleasant, not a grown up way to have a discussion (though widespread now). Just because someone thinks Arthur Askey films could be shown doesn't mean they want to see the Black and White Minstrel Show on BBC1. You talk about nuance but you constantly go back to the most extreme example. It's possible to think that things have just gone too far without being a Nazi. Many who are genuinely on the left (rather than being the sort of neoliberal control freaks we have had in government for years) are not in favour of censorship. In the same way as they are not racists but some voted for Brexit, contrary to the cartoonish media portrayal. Anyway, I'm leaving this here before it creates more of a flare up.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Oct 10, 2018 14:27:55 GMT
Anyway, I'm leaving this here before it creates more of a flare up. Probably for the best, because you can't answer my questions anyway (except by accusing me of what you do yourself). But you wrote a bit more than just a lament on how good programs are sadly no longer repeated; that, I couldn't have argued with. I've also never said that you were a nazi or a racist, so there's no need to keep insisting that you aren't one.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Oct 10, 2018 15:35:53 GMT
Anyway, I'm leaving this here before it creates more of a flare up. Probably for the best, because you can't answer my questions anyway (except by accusing me of what you do yourself). But you wrote a bit more than just a lament on how good programs are sadly no longer repeated; that, I couldn't have argued with. I've also never said that you were a nazi or a racist, so there's no need to keep insisting that you aren't one. In a post above mine you referred to "racisty" people. In reply to me you then wrote: "I severely distrust some of the people who stand up "to defend their culture from attack". It is quite clear what you meant by this "othering" of someone. You also referred to "stereotypical oldtimers. You seem to be unable to write anything without turning it into a sly personal attack on the character of the poster. It is pathetic.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Oct 10, 2018 22:41:48 GMT
In a post above mine you referred to "racisty" people. In reply to me you then wrote: "I severely distrust some of the people who stand up "to defend their culture from attack". It is quite clear what you meant by this "othering" of someone. You also referred to "stereotypical oldtimers. You seem to be unable to write anything without turning it into a sly personal attack on the character of the poster. It is pathetic. Hey, why aren't you gone yet then? Still blaming me while committing the same offense yourself? What part of "some of" made you think I meant you? I had in mind the type of people who e.g. defend confederate symbols in the US... (you heard of Charlottesville perhaps) or who pretend that one cinema not showing the ubiquitous "Gone with the wind" is the beginning of The End Of Civilization As We Know It. And what I wrote was: I don't mean to be rude, but some of this thread just really comes accross as the stereotypical oldtimers who believe everything used to better in the past. And frankly you aren't doing much to disspel that impression, given that you seem to have left your reading glasses in your room and ascribe me views that I didn't give, avoid key questions, and only keep on hammering that the young people of today must see your favourite shows, which are living on borrowed time, on terrestrial television, whether they want to see them or not - and that you are not a racist. You may continue to accuse me of character assassination, but these are all points that you've actually argued. I can only conclude that if what I said hurt you so much, then it must have hit closer to home than I thought. And that is unfortunately not a compliment.
|
|