Political Correctness Wins Against Historical Accuracy: Dambusters Dog gets a name change.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**halonachos**

Polonius, you have no idea about how many times I've been called a smart ass or any other variation of that word. I'm kind of used to it, but ooh, you called me clever! That was a nice thing to say. Thank you Polonius, I appreciate that.

I'm not too sure if I follow political correctness though, its the institution that believes offensive words and practices should be eliminated. Like getting rid of the n-word for example, I don't want that though. I want it to be so that anyone can say anything.

You know those "don't say gay" commercials, like the one with Wanda Sykes in it? That's political correctness because they want to eliminate the word's use. We have a culture that tells us we shouldn't say certain words because it could offend people when we believe in the first amendment, instead of having some sort of self-censorship I would like to see the removal of the beliefs that cause the self-censorship.

**Mannahnin**

Political Correctness is essentially self-censorship. I self-censor whenever I am more polite in criticizing a coworker than I would be with a personal friend. Everyone self-censors when they choose not to express themselves and their innermost thoughts freely in front of any given group. Whether it's choosing not to tell your boss that you think his idea is stupid, or choosing not to use offensive words in front of the people those words directly denigrate.

If Wanda Sykes or George Takei choose to point out when people are being offensive jerks, that can be a good thing. Part of society is reacting to offensive things and encouraging people not to be jerks.

Sometimes people overreact too, and that's part of why there's a backlash against Political Correctness. The other reason is because some people (like straight white dudes, such as myself) are in a privileged position and used to enjoying the perquisites of that privilege, such as talking crap about other people, and they don't like to lose that privilege.

**Polonius**

halonachos wrote:Polonius, you have no idea about how many times I've been called a smart ass or any other variation of that word. I'm kind of used to it, but ooh, you called me clever! That was a nice thing to say. Thank you Polonius, I appreciate that.

I assumed that being a smartass was your goal. So, you know, goal achieved. You'll find that you need to step up your game as life moves on, but upsetting minorities is god's work.

I'm not too sure if I follow political correctness though, its the institution that believes offensive words and practices should be eliminated. Like getting rid of the n-word for example, I don't want that though. I want it to be so that anyone can say anything.

Well, no, PC is the idea that in order to gain, keep, or avoid losing support amongst a group certain language should be used. When you hang out with a neo-nazi bowling team, the term "african-american" would be offensive.

The actual PC movement is based on the idea that words and terms are hurtful, both in a historical context and in current useage. There are certainly fringes that would want to somehow remove a word from the vernacular, but most want, more than anything, the recognitiion that the words are hurtful.

And that's what a lot of anti-PC people seem to forget. It's not about restricting speech, it's about the understanding of the effects of speech. The result is the same, but nobody wants to ban an epithet because they want to control how people talk. They want to ban it because of the effect it has on people.

A broader approach is that when referrring to people, one should be respectful, and one way to show respect to a group is to use the term they wish to describe them.

You know those "don't say gay" commercials, like the one with Wanda Sykes in it? That's political correctness because they want to eliminate the word's use. We have a culture that tells us we shouldn't say certain words because it could offend people when we believe in the first amendment, instead of having some sort of self-censorship I would like to see the removal of the beliefs that cause the self-censorship.

there is a lot packed into this, and it's charming in it's earnestness.

The first amendment is about governmental interference. I have the right to be unfettered by law from calling a minority any slur I choose. I support your god given right to be a racist tool.

And yes, we have a culture that tells us what we can and can't, or should or shouldn't, say. That's how culture works. It extends past you and your circle of freinds, and encompasses a lot of people. And a lot of people don't like hearing swear words on network TV, or hearing minorities referred to by racial slurs.

There is also the theory, which I think has a lot of merit, in that words have meanings. They can be complext, they can shift, and they aren't always easy to pin down, but they have meanings. The very fact that many racial slurs have powerful connotations of hate is what makes them worth having in the language, as that makes them symbolic.

Choosing to use those words, without being aware of their history and the effect it will have, is at best naive and insenstivie and at worst anatagonizing. The words itself are used to express the beliefs. Which is why, when I'm with a gay friend that knows me, he doesn't care when I'll describe an unpleasant situation as "gay." He knows I'm not homophobic, so doesn't mind. But not everybody knows that I'm not homophobic, so a term used in that way could easily be construed as such.

You also get into the idea that language shapes thought. Calling people by slurs instead of with positive language reinforces negative feelings about those groups.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Sometimes people overreact too, and that's part of why there's a backlash against Political Correctness. The other reason is because some people (like straight white dudes, such as myself) are in a privileged position and used to enjoying the perquisites of that privilege, such as talking crap about other people, and they don't like to lose that privilege.

It does seem that people in the majority seem to value the use of slurs more than the people in the minority. It's so weird...

**dogma**

halonachos wrote:
But it was never practiced.

It doesn't matter.

Well, no, it does matter. If you know the word, and don't use it, then there's probably a reason for it, and that reason is likely political correctness.

**halonachos**

Polonius, you can say all you want about Political Correctness and what it should mean but the actual definition says that is the institution that seeks to elminate behavior and vocabulary that may offend a person's political sensibilities.

I don't seek to eliminate derogatory terms because at one point and time most of those words meant something else.

I don't use the N-word, as I stated before, because I have had no cause to do so, words such as dumb ass are sufficient most of the time. Now if someone made me sufficiently angry then I probably would. Seriously, if somebody bumped into me and made me mess up painting my model would it be reasonable for me to shout the N-word? Not really, if a cashier takes my order incorrectly is the N-word the first thing that comes to mind? The answer is no, there are so many insults and varying levels of insults that can be used appropriately at different levels; dummy, moron, and so on and on you know.

Now if I got shot in the chest I would probably say it.

**Polonius**

halonachos wrote:Polonius, you can say all you want about Political Correctness and what it should mean but the actual definition says that is the institution that seeks to elminate behavior and vocabulary that may offend a person's political sensibilities.

I would be interested to see that definition.

I don't seek to eliminate derogatory terms because at one point and time most of those words meant something else.

A small handful, the same way that Ejaculation used to mean an excited utterance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation_(grammar)

Not that words don't have meanings and value, but how do you get past what they mean now?

I mean, how useful is the word "peckerwood" really to a discussion of ornithology? I had to look it up to see what it meant other than "poor white trash."

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
I am not, so are many others.

Really? If you were to address a group of people, say employees, you would refer to them with epithets?

Well, you might, but even if you were to do so you would be doing in order to elicit a particular political effect, which may or may not be correct. Unless you weren't smart enough to consider the politics of the situation important.

You are labouring under the delusion that political correctness is synonymous with positive social interaction, this is simply not bourne by the facts either in how it is defined or how it is applied. Political correctness is a specific political-linguistic movement with its own style and culture independent of previous attempts to define norms for societal conduct.

dogma wrote:
The absence of the existence of a term has nothing to do with its applicability. If it did, then translating the word for "jump" in Ancient Greek into "jump" would be a farce.

The absence of the term is also marked by the absence of the doctrine accompanying it. We had concepts for polite interaction long before we had doctrines over non use of words like black in 'blackboard' renamed to 'chalkboard'. Political correctness introduces forms of offense that simply were not offensive prior to its introduction.

dogma wrote:
You very clearly don't understand what "fair" or "equality" means. "Fair" means in accordance with whatever standard of justice the speaker wishes, and equality follows from equal treatment according to a standard. If that standard is "don't be a sexist man" and all men are treated in a way which punishes them for sexism, then the standard is applied equally.
And that's all before you start thinking about progressing to those states, and not actually being in them right now.

You unwittingly defeat your own argument.
I understand 'fair' and 'equal', both those terms have a neutral meaning. Equality has an absolute definition: two equals two, political equality need not be equal, and fairness can be redefined. As indicated in my previous posts on this subject (including those you write off as irrelevant rant). Part of the damage regarding poltical correctness is how it can be used to redefine fairness on the grounds that it is considered of itself to be progrssive and even, even when it favours preferential treatment of one group overr another through the dialectic.
While political posturing and propoganda are as old as politics, political correctness has a seperate distinct methodology, which helps define it as a distinct movement in dialectic doctrine, and seperate it as a specific code of conduct for human interaction rather than a definitive term for positive human interaction.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Irrelevant rant.

You're just upset because you had to do something you didn't like, and are now calling anything you don't like "politically correct". Its yet another entry in a long list of reasons that I consider you not worth speaking to.

Here we come to the crunch. I give a personal experience account, purely as an example, and it is received as a personal hangup, which is not the case. I disagree with political correctness for far more than my own personal experiences. I prefer to give my expereinces because I am freer to describe them than the experiences of others I see meet or hear about who have similar tales. Were my experiences isolated it would behoove me to simple consider them as such, isolated incidents that do not show a pattern. Sadly this is not the case. In any event I heavy emphasise on the general nature of political correctness rather than my own testimony, and so mentioned it here once, while speaking about political correctness in general terms at length.
You see I can argue calm rationally. Sadly it doesn't appear you can, but cause you just cannot help but be rude and obnoxious. You resort to trying to redefine others arguments into simple matters of want or hate without good reason, and showing how quickly you are trapped by the same by your own hate speech justified by the above.
It all comes back to your usual retreat of ad hominem attacks when twisting or ignoring arguments fails to progress a disagreement as fast as you would like.
After long experience of your misbehaviour I cant say I expected better from you, I do however attempt to remain on topic and to refrain from being rude in turn to you in spite of your obnoxious rhetoric. However you do reply rather a lot for someone who considers me 'not worth speaking to'. Rather contradictory that, perhaps you are just lashing out blindly, is your psyche so shallow you cannot control yourself? If so perhaps its time you learn to grow up.

**halonachos**

Polonius wrote:
halonachos wrote:Polonius, you can say all you want about Political Correctness and what it should mean but the actual definition says that is the institution that seeks to elminate behavior and vocabulary that may offend a person's political sensibilities.

I would be interested to see that definition.

I don't seek to eliminate derogatory terms because at one point and time most of those words meant something else.

A small handful, the same way that Ejaculation used to mean an excited utterance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation_(grammar)

Not that words don't have meanings and value, but how do you get past what they mean now?

I mean, how useful is the word "peckerwood" really to a discussion of ornithology? I had to look it up to see what it meant other than "poor white trash."

Peckerwood meant 'poor white trash'? That must be some northern colloquialism or slang.

I got that definition from Merriam-Webster himself, had to dig him up to ask him, but it was worth it. Any which way I find it, its always avoidance or removal of terms and actions that may offend.

**Orlanth**

Mannahnin wrote:Political Correctness is essentially self-censorship. I self-censor whenever I am more polite in criticizing a coworker than I would be with a personal friend. Everyone self-censors when they choose not to express themselves and their innermost thoughts freely in front of any given group. Whether it's choosing not to tell your boss that you think his idea is stupid, or choosing not to use offensive words in front of the people those words directly denigrate.

If Wanda Sykes or George Takei choose to point out when people are being offensive jerks, that can be a good thing. Part of society is reacting to offensive things and encouraging people not to be jerks.

Sometimes people overreact too, and that's part of why there's a backlash against Political Correctness. The other reason is because some people (like straight white dudes, such as myself) are in a privileged position and used to enjoying the perquisites of that privilege, such as talking crap about other people, and they don't like to lose that privilege.

The trouble with this viewpoint is the political correctness is not necessarily self-censorship. It can be only if one is mentally tied into the political culture of political correctness, via training or otherwise. Otherwise the censorship may well be external. Self-censorship comes essentially from the idea 'I should not say this because its wrong and it might cause offense', external censorship might follow along the lines of 'I should not say this because I am liable to reap negative consequences'. While both require a personal choice to censor the former is a state of mind achieved by following a particular culture, the latter is a foreign imposition of will and does not reflect the individuals true choices.

Political correctness holds its own form of threat, it also holds a social code as to who can say what they is entirely arbitrary. A good example being the idea that ther N-word is an insult in some poeples mouths, and a term of endearment or community in others. The same word can be liberally promoted or lead to shame - as is the case here. This particular culture is unique to modern politcal correctness and helps indicate how it is a seperate movement different and distinct to other forms of standards for social interaction.

Proponents of political correctness can have good copy in trying to pass of their doctrine as polite interaction per se, however this is grossly unfair and disempowers, perhaps deliberately those who disagree with its cultural outlook. One can be polite and utterly reject political correctness. This by extension means that you can be delierately and intentionally polite, yet have offence taken nonetheless if one or other parties follows political correctness and the other does not.

**Mannahnin**

Orlanth, I disagree with your thesis.

I don't think Political Correctness is a new phenomenon, although the way it is presently labeled is fairly recent. I can agree with you that it's not always self-imposed. Often (like George or Wanda) other people are telling you that a given expression or phrase is inappropriate. But that's not necessarily oppressive. That's just part of human society. We communicate with each other about acceptable or offensive or harmful behavior, including speech, and we try to come to some accord and mutual agreement under which we can interact harmoniously.

I don't think it represents a unique or insidious threat. For the most part even the most zealous and annoying purveyors of it are merely trying to reduce the number of instances in which weaker or marginalized groups are consciously or unconsciously put down through derogatory language. Sometimes their attempts to do that are heavy-handed and dumb in their execution. Some years ago I did some reading on the Romany, the Gypsies, because I was interested in them, and I learned that the word "gypped" a synonym for cheated or swindled, is a slur against them. So I stopped using it and encouraged others not to do so. I was a teenager at the time, so I'm sure sometimes I was rude or clumsy in how I expressed it, but the essential point was trying to reduce the use of a racial slur. Which virtually everyone I corrected didn't even KNOW was a slur, but which I'm sure would have been felt by anyone of Romany heritage who heard them use it.

**Orlanth**

Mannahnin wrote:Orlanth, I disagree with your thesis.

I don't think Political Correctness is a new phenomenon, although the way it is presently labeled is fairly recent. I can agree with you that it's not always self-imposed. Often (like George or Wanda) other people are telling you that a given expression or phrase is inappropriate. But that's not necessarily oppressive. That's just part of human society. We communicate with each other about acceptable or offensive or harmful behavior, including speech, and we try to come to some accord and mutual agreement under which we can interact harmoniously.

I don't think it represents a unique or insidious threat. For the most part even the most zealous and annoying purveyors of it are merely trying to reduce the number of instances in which weaker or marginalized groups are consciously or unconsciously put down through derogatory language. Sometimes their attempts to do that are heavy-handed and dumb in their execution. Some years ago I did some reading on the Romany, the Gypsies, because I was interested in them, and I learned that the word "gypped" a synonym for cheated or swindled, is a slur against them. So I stopped using it and encouraged others not to do so. I was a teenager at the time, so I'm sure sometimes I was rude or clumsy in how I expressed it, but the essential point was trying to reduce the use of a racial slur. Which virtually everyone I corrected didn't even KNOW was a slur, but which I'm sure would have been felt by anyone of Romany heritage who heard them use it.

We don't exactly see eye to eye on this, fair enough.
The recent labelling in my mind is the political correctness, from your comments you see it as something larger. However the larger 'theoretical' political correctness from my perspective doesnt fully exist in manistream society. A social code of conduct requires proliferation to work. The early forms of political correctness as it was first coined in the early 70's are not really relevant as they had no real influence, thus until it gained influence enough to work on society it shouldn't be included as a factor of societal culture as a whole. Therefore 'recent' political correctness embodies the culture of political correctness, with its preceding history being just an embryonic form within (primarily) the feminist movement.

The second point you raise is (paraphrased) a reasonable appeal that even the most zealous are attempting to improve the lot in society of disadvantaged people. This could well be the case, however the motive for teaching the doctrine and may or may not be about empowerment depending on the individual. by its definition and how it is utilised politcal correctness will almost walys work to the benefit of those considered 'disempowered', by eliminating negative language and challenging practices. This indeed was what I was taught. However the bugbear can appear in the methodologies for enfcoring politcal correctness and also the consequences for those sections of society not considered disadvantages.
If politcal correctness is applied at face value then it will elevate the disadvantaged to the level of the poltical/social majority. However it can also be managed to replace them as a new elite, which can have politcal dividends and thus be poltically desirable.
In this i see a real danger, but by no means will I accuse every practitioner of poltically correct doctrine guilty of, many problably the vast majoirty are attempting to use the doctrine as a means of bettering society for all. If that is all there was to it, it would suffer littel objerction excrpt from hardened bigots. as it happens many people have a fear or wariness of political correctness, which is a shadow of the other application of the movement.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
You are labouring under the delusion that political correctness is synonymous with positive social interaction, this is simply not bourne by the facts either in how it is defined or how it is applied. Political correctness is a specific political-linguistic movement with its own style and culture independent of previous attempts to define norms for societal conduct.

No, utter nonsense. And, before you say it, no, I'm not making an argument. I'm flat-out stating that you are incorrect because there is no other possible response to someone who has imagined a thing into existence. Maybe there was a political movement in England that you call "PC" but the reality is that "PC" extends far beyond that movement, if it exists or existed.

Orlanth wrote:
The absence of the term is also marked by the absence of the doctrine accompanying it.

Even if there was no doctrine, the word still apply. Politically correct has a meaning which extends beyond the cliffs of Dover. It can, and has, been generalized by many people; you simply like using it as an epithet.

Orlanth wrote:
Part of the damage regarding poltical correctness is how it can be used to redefine fairness on the grounds that it is considered of itself to be progrssive and even, even when it favours preferential treatment of one group overr another through the dialectic.

That's not damage. That's what politics is.

Orlanth wrote:
While political posturing and propoganda are as old as politics, political correctness has a seperate distinct methodology, which helps define it as a distinct movement in dialectic doctrine, and seperate it as a specific code of conduct for human interaction rather than a definitive term for positive human interaction.

No, you're fabricating a pejorative. As I've said, this is normal for you, and why I don't reply to you if you don't first reply to me.

Orlanth wrote:
Were my experiences isolated it would behoove me to simple consider them as such, isolated incidents that do not show a pattern.

That's false. There are many reasons for you to consider your experiences as not being isolated that have nothing at all to do with honest consideration.

Orlanth wrote:
Sadly it doesn't appear you can, but cause you just cannot help but be rude and obnoxious.

Though I am at fault for saying things you believe to be rude or obnoxious, I have no interest in adjusting my behavior for a random person in England of whom I am not fond.

Orlanth wrote:
You resort to trying to redefine others arguments into simple matters of want or hate without good reason, and showing how quickly you are trapped by the same by your own hate speech justified by the above.

No, it isn't redefinition, its reduction. Its a nuanced form of RAA that I rather like, and so use very often. It isn't hate speech, its my appraisal of what is being said. I'm not an emotional person, its not how I function in these conversations, were I speaking now this would be deadpan.

Orlanth wrote:
It all comes back to your usual retreat of ad hominem attacks when twisting or ignoring arguments fails to progress a disagreement as fast as you would like.

I have not used an ad hominem attack in this thread, and I almost never use them. When I do, they are of the legitimate kind. Yes, they can be used legitimately.

Orlanth wrote:
However you do reply rather a lot for someone who considers me 'not worth speaking to'.

I can count on one hand the number of times that I've replied to one of your posts without first being replied to. I do occasionally find what you have to say sufficiently wrong to be worth correcting.

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
You are labouring under the delusion that political correctness is synonymous with positive social interaction, this is simply not bourne by the facts either in how it is defined or how it is applied. Political correctness is a specific political-linguistic movement with its own style and culture independent of previous attempts to define norms for societal conduct.

No, utter nonsense. And, before you say it, no, I'm not making an argument. I'm flat-out stating that you are incorrect because there is no other possible response to someone who has imagined a thing into existence. Maybe there was a political movement in England that you call "PC" but the reality is that "PC" extends far beyond that movement, if it exists or existed.

Some imagination. For a start the negative politicisation of political correctness goes beyond the UK, its global. A good example (by no means exhaustive) is the 'that's racist meme'.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Part of the damage regarding poltical correctness is how it can be used to redefine fairness on the grounds that it is considered of itself to be progressive and even, even when it favours preferential treatment of one group over another through the dialectic.

That's not damage. That's what politics is.

You just dont get it. Its damage actually, politics can be honest, however offering preferential treatment for one group in an limited resource pool means taking elsewhere, using a dialectic to support that usually if not always results in a victim being found as well as a beneficiary. When victims highlighted under points of doctrine very bad things tend to happen to them..
I have been stating that political correctness is a weapon in the toolbox of malign politics, inadvertently you stumble upon agreeing with me. Where political correctness supports honest concern for equality is not my concern, once its politicised it can become a tool of repression.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Were my experiences isolated it would behoove me to simple consider them as such, isolated incidents that do not show a pattern.

That's false. There are many reasons for you to consider your experiences as not being isolated that have nothing at all to do with honest consideration.

Care to explain why, denial in itself is not an answer.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Sadly it doesn't appear you can, but cause you just cannot help but be rude and obnoxious.

Though I am at fault for saying things you believe to be rude or obnoxious, I have no interest in adjusting my behavior for a random person in England of whom I am not fond.

Orlanth wrote:
It all comes back to your usual retreat of ad hominem attacks when twisting or ignoring arguments fails to progress a disagreement as fast as you would like.

I have not used an ad hominem attack in this thread, and I almost never use them. When I do, they are of the legitimate kind. Yes, they can be used legitimately.

So you think you have a license to troll. Ok, moving on.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:A good example (by no means exhaustive) is the 'that's racist meme'.

And the fact that you can recognize, and dismiss, it as a meme is also politically correct.

Orlanth wrote:
Its damage actually, politics can be honest...

Giving more of X to group Y is not necessarily dishonest. This is why I called you naive, and why I'm withholding a choice of certain other words.

Orlanth wrote:
...however offering preferential treatment for one group in an limited resource pool means taking elsewhere, using a dialectic to support that usually if not always results in a victim being found as well as a beneficiary.

Good job, you've "discovered" economics.

Orlanth wrote:
When victims highlighted under points of doctrine very bad things tend to happen to them.

And you took a politics class, good job.

Orlanth wrote:
I have been stating that political correctness is a weapon in the toolbox of malign politics, inadvertently you stumble upon agreeing with me.

No, that's not what I've been saying. I said that political correctness is a tool, I never said that it was malign.

How do you think nations are made?

Orlanth wrote:
Where political correctness supports honest concern for equality is not my concern, once its politicised it can become a tool of repression.

You're being political right now the only difference between you and your hypothetical PC conspirators is the label.

Orlanth wrote:
Care to explain why, denial in itself is not an answer.

None of them are flattering, if you wish them given voice, you need to say so explicitly (and I'll still need to PM you).

Well, one is alright:

1: You made a mistake.

Orlanth wrote:
So you think you have a license to troll. Ok, moving on.

No, I simply know what "ad hominem" means.

**Orlanth**

Stopped feeding troll.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:Stopped feeding troll.

I'm not trolling, I am expressing my honest assessment of your position in this thread.

Even if I were trolling,you wouldn't have stopped feeding me, because you posted.

Anyway, thanks for the concession, I'm glad we could agree that you were wrong the entire time. I hope to come to similar agreements in the future.

**purplefood**

Negative personal comments on/about other users are against the rules.

We're borderline or a little over it with the two debating parties, but they're heated/rude at about the same level and managed to carry on a dialogue (not completely degenerating into insult) despite it, so the Mods have left it be for now. No need to stick in comments about either of them as a person, thanks. -Mannahnin

**sebster**

ArbeitsSchu wrote:The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it.

Films are not historically accurate. They can't be. They can't be because they are made for modern audiences, who watch them in a totally different context to how those events took place, and told as a narrative, which doesn't allow the creators to stop the narrative to explain that although something might appear offensive to us, it was really just a product of the time and we shouldn't be drawing any conclusions based on our modern understanding.

Good storytelling, especially in film, cuts things that aren't relevant. In this way a whole staff of men might be turned into a single gestalt entity represented by one minor character, and secondary stories will be cut.

For example, the film about Oscar Wilde's life didn't go into much detail in his involvement in the aestheticism movement, and instead just showed he was an important figure in the arts, then got on with telling the story of his marriage, divorce, homosexual relations and eventual prosecution. Whereas a film about the aesthetics movement mightn't bother to mention Wilde's greater life at all, and just show his role in that movement.

You don't cloud a story with unecessary distractions. In this day and age, the name of that dog is an unecessary distraction.

Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone.

If they're irrelevant and distracting to the story, then yes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I'm sorry, but if I ever make a story about history I'll make sure to rename everything to be less offensive.

No-one is saying that every possible source of offense should be removed . That's you inventing stuff so you can sit on a little soapbox. Stop it.

People are saying that distracting and unnecessary parts should be removed to focus on the story.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Just irate.

I like movies about historical events to be as close as possible.

Then you understand little about how storytelling a real world, highly complex and highly contextualised thing as a military operation, might work on the big screen.

Go look up the very long list of errors made in the first movie, the number of parts invented as complete fiction just for the sake of the narrative.

I doubt that would happen, just as much as the N-word prevented people from enjoying Pulp Fiction.

The n-word was a big part of the tone of Pulp Fiction. The dog's name is an irrelevant bit of trivia to the dambusters operation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Seth's pretty good. If anything convinced me of that, it was when Quagmire ripped into Brian.

That's one of my favourite monologues, and the major reason I've kept given family guy a chance even as it's gotten more and more preachy, and more obvious and lazy in it's leftwing politics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Well, it won't be getting my money. Sure they'll lose a whole $10 and that's like spitting in the ocean, but oh well personal feelings and what not.

That's pathetic.

It presumably never bothered you that the original film invented a whole subplot about RAF bureacracy just to make the chief designer look more impressive. It presumably never seemed to bother you that they pretended that the strategy of bombing dams was the inspired genius of that same designer, when it was identified by RAF long before the war started. It presumably never bothered you that the raid achieved little, but was portrayed in the movie as a magnificent success?

But calling a dog a racial epithet? That's important enough to not see a movie.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:A white guy who steals a car is as much a crook as a black guy who steals a car and a white guy who saves somebody's life is as much a hero as a black guy who saves a person's life. Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin, a white guy who saves an evil guy's life is less of a hero than a black guy who saves an innocent person's life of course.

And here we see the fantasy of the poor oppressed white man. Who's so oppressed and picked on that all he's left with is vast majority of the nation's resources, and almost all the top positions in government and business.

It is a mind eating fantasy. It gets so bad it leads to people saying that won't see a movie about a dambusting military operation because they changed the name of one character's dog.

**halonachos**

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:A white guy who steals a car is as much a crook as a black guy who steals a car and a white guy who saves somebody's life is as much a hero as a black guy who saves a person's life. Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin, a white guy who saves an evil guy's life is less of a hero than a black guy who saves an innocent person's life of course.

And here we see the fantasy of the poor oppressed white man. Who's so oppressed and picked on that all he's left with is vast majority of the nation's resources, and almost all the top positions in government and business.

It is a mind eating fantasy. It gets so bad it leads to people saying that won't see a movie about a dambusting military operation because they changed the name of one character's dog.

First of all, I have no idea where I'm presenting some sort of fantasy of a poor oppressed man when I was saying that two people of different races doing the same thing in the same context are of the same character. You were reading far too much into it sebster, perhaps just trying to find something to argue about.

At the second part, mostly I'm not going to see the movie because it supports political correctness which is an institution I do not support.

**sebster**

halonachos wrote:I do enjoy the sound of bomber planes but for me the siren from the Stuka is more exciting, at least in movies.

And stukas were outdated, too slow to perform their role effectively.

Yet you won't see that any comment from Nazi commanders about that as they raid the British at Dunkirk, because it would be distracting and only serve to dilute the narrative. A bit like a dog being called by a racial slur.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Actually, as I said I don't use the N-word out of fear established when I was younger. That and the spanking I got when I said it in front of my parents.

But not because it might needlessly cause someone offence?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:First of all, I have no idea where I'm presenting some sort of fantasy of a poor oppressed man when I was saying that two people of different races doing the same thing in the same context are of the same character. You were reading far too much into it sebster, perhaps just trying to find something to argue about.

You said that a black person who does a heroic thing will get more credit for it than a white person who does a heroic thing. That's a ludicrous fantasy.

At the second part, mostly I'm not going to see the movie because it supports political correctness which is an institution I do not support.

It doesn't support political correctness. That's you hyperfocusing on a trivial element of the film, for the sake of a crusade against an entirely fictitious thing.

**Albatross**

Well, really.

Who do I have to fellate around here in order to be able to watch a WWII film about the heroic exploits of the RAF, in which the main protaganist's pet animal is named N***er?

It's political correctness gone mad. Still, perhaps they'll see sense and call the dog Jungle Bunny, or something. I might go and see it then.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Relevant to the characters and setting, and not used as the name of an inferior, non-human creature.

Your flat out wrong there mate. Dogs are clearly superior to human beings.

True dat.

**Polonius**

Sebster: don't forget the #1 rule of OT: nobody is more opressed than white christians!

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:Sebster: don't forget the #1 rule of OT: nobody is more opressed than white christians!

Wait I thought the #1 rule was rum superior, gin inferior?

**Kilkrazy**

Don't you diss my gin. It's the number one summer drink this year.

**filbert**

What about Pimms?

**Frazzled**

filbert wrote:What about Pimms?

Pimms?

**reds8n**

http://www.anyoneforpimms.com/

..

... " summer " ... ?

**Frazzled**

blocked at work

**reds8n**

laugh a minute where you work eh ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimm's

Pimm's is a brand of fruit cups, but may also be considered a liqueur. It was first produced in 1823 by James Pimm and owned by Diageo since 2006. Its most popular product is Pimm's No. 1 Cup.

History

Pimm's was first produced in 1823 by James Pimm, a farmer's son from Kent who became the owner of an oyster bar in the City of London, near the Bank of England. Pimm offered the tonic (a gin-based drink containing quinine and a secret mixture of herbs) as an aid to digestion, serving it in a small tankard known as a "No. 1 Cup", hence its subsequent name. Pimm's began large-scale production in 1851 to keep up with sales to other bars. The distillery began selling it commercially in 1859 using hawkers on bicycles. In 1865 Pimm sold the business and the right to use his name to Frederick Sawyer. In 1880 the business was acquired by future Lord Mayor of London, Horatio Davies, and a chain of Pimm's Oyster Houses was franchised in 1887.[1] [2]
Over the years Pimm's extended their range, utilizing a number of other spirits as bases for new "cups". In 1851 Pimm's No. 2 Cup and Pimm's No. 3 Cup were introduced. After World War II, Pimm's No. 4 Cup was invented, followed by Pimm's No. 5 Cup and Pimm's No.6 Cup in the 1960s. In 1946, the corks were replaced by twist-off bottle caps.[1]
The brand fell on hard times in the 1970s and 1980s. The Oyster House chain was sold and Pimm's Cup products Nos. 2 to 5 were phased out in the 1970s due to reduced demand. In 2005, Pimm's introduced Pimm's Winter Cup, which consists of Pimm's No. 3 Cup (the brandy-based variant) infused with spices and orange peel. In 2006 the Pimm's Company brand was bought by Diageo.[1]
[edit]Contemporary advertising and use
The brand experienced a revival following a 2003 advertising campaign featuring a humorous classic upper-class Hooray Henry called Harry Fitzgibbon-Sims[3] (portrayed by Alexander Armstrong) with the catchphrase It's Pimm's O'clock!,[4] somewhat mocking their own traditional advertising and appeal. Diageo's 2010 campaign features a more diverse range of characters representing different elements of the Pimm's cocktail (Pimm's No.1 being an Englishman in red and white blazer, lemonade being three young women in yellow, ice represented by a mature man), coming together to the theme tune of classic 1970s British television show The New Avengers.[5]
Pimm's is most popular in Britain, particularly southern England. It is one of the two staple drinks at Wimbledon, the Henley Royal Regatta, and the Glyndebourne opera festival, the other being Champagne. A Pimm's is also the standard cocktail at British and American polo matches.[1]
[edit]

There are six Pimm's products, all of which are Fruit cups, only Cups #1, #3 and #6 are still available at present. The essential difference among them is the base alcohol used to produce them:[1]
Pimm's No. 1 Cup is based on gin and can be served both on ice or in cocktails. It has a dark tea colour with a reddish tint, and tastes subtly of spice and citrus fruit. It is often taken with "English-style" (clear and carbonated) lemonade, as well as various chopped fresh ingredients, particularly apples, cucumber, oranges, lemons, strawberry, and borage, though nowadays most subtitute mint. Ginger ale is a common substitute for lemonade. Pimm's can also be mixed with champagne (or a sparkling white wine), called a "Pimm's Royal Cup". Its base as bottled is 25% alcohol by volume.
can also be purchased as a pre-mixed fortified lemonade (Pimm's & Lemonade) in 250 ml cans or 1-litre bottles, at 5.4%.
Pimm's No. 2 Cup was based on Scotch whisky. Currently phased out.
Pimm's No. 3 Cup is based on brandy. Phased out, but a version infused with spices and orange peel marketed as Pimm's Winter Cup is now seasonally available.
Pimm's No. 4 Cup was based on rum. Currently phased out.
Pimm's No. 5 Cup was based on rye whiskey. Currently phased out.
Pimm's No. 6 Cup is based on vodka. It is still produced, but in small quantities