aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 5, 2009 20:41:42 GMT
(I've left out gay porn. I don't know anything about it. Or not much.)
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Dec 5, 2009 21:15:03 GMT
No, he was refering to the wheelchair thing (it was a strange thing - a kind of framework, which put her head at normal head height, though she didn't have any legs). But for him the wheelchair thing seemed to be her - at least that's what it seemed from what he said. You know - gesturing, and saying "That" - she was secondary. And people in wheelchairs reckon that they want to be seen, not the wheelchair, don't they? The idea of anti-racism (etc) legislation is still bad to some people, or it was the last time I was listening to phone-ins. And back then (3 years back) people were complaining about wheelchair ramps on buses, as "They're never used." (That bloke may even have said somethking about PC, I can't remember; but that was the implication - that bus companies only have them to look good, not for any practical reason.) I've been on biuses when they've been used, and you grumble a bit - but you grumble a bit at everything on a bus. I do see your point, though. There are some Conservative Historians (well, Andrew Roberts) who disagree with the liberal idea of history being a constant progress - you know, votes for women, Welfare State, The Race Discrimination Act, etc. I suppose I would like to think it is a long progress - I'd prefer to live now than the 50s, and the 50s rather than the 30s; and you could go back as far as you like - well, to the 1700s anyway. And even that seems better than the 1600s, and the 1500s. So that would mean that the more recent liberal laws would have happened anyway. So I don't know. I do know that it has taken ages for equal pay and disabled rights to be taken seriously. Porn is fantasy, and that is rarely PC - have you ever read Nancy Friday's books? I've never said Look at the tits on that, not seriously - I'd be as likely to say something similiar about a man. My favourite porn is 70s French, which is mainly about strong women (actually, a lot if not most porn - especially if you leave out modern Gonzo (where the cameraman is a character), is about women. Porn fans are not interested in the sexual awakening of a young man, for eg, or the sexual adventures of an older woman. The mens' roles in these films are not that important; and they get paid a lot less than the woman, as well. Sorry, I've gone on too long. (And messed up my brackets.) Ah now....this is getting good.....but where to start! The wheelchair thing. Don't confuse ignorance with callousness,Aubrey. To understand illness or disability you really have to experience it,as sufferer or carer,I suppose.That driver might well have had a different attitude if he went home to a wheelchair-bound family member. And many people were,are and always will be afraid of illness.I don't think any amount of PC legislation will change that. And grumble.....yes we all grumble.On the bus,on a radio phone-in,on a messageboard.It's very therapeutic,isn't it! I've never come across the idea that historical progress is liberal. Everything progresses...evovles....quite regardless of politics,surely. I love your "I've never said Look at the tits on that, not seriously" as though the qualification makes it OK. ;D And if porn is rarely PC then aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite in condemning others for a lack of it in other spheres? And yes,I did realise that (straight)porn fans are interested in the women.Young women,that is.The chaps are there as surrogate sh*ggers for the viewers,are they not? Yes definitely non-PC
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 6, 2009 12:10:28 GMT
Not just young women. There is a lot more to porn than teens. ;D
I've seen pieces saying that gay porn is fine, but that straight porn is by definition exploitative and bad. I don't think you can have it both ways; either it's all bad or it's not all bad.
I don't know that men identify with the men in porn films; I don't, and from the comments I've seen, most porn fans seem to think that the male actors are jerks.
"Look at the tits on that." Surely the reason for saying something, the way it's said, the person you're saying it about, can make a difference to the words themselves? I think I might even have said it to my mother, and she would probably have said it to me; at least, there's no reason why we wouldn't say it (and we would be as likely to say it about a man - you know, a tubby bloke wandering about without a shirt on). She knows that I would not say it about a woman with big breasts - actually, that's not something I would find especially attractive anyway.
The wheelchair thing. You might not change attitudes by laws, but a law about wheelchairs on buses would have meant that the woman and her family would have been able to get a ride, whatever the driver thought. This was a Saturday, and the stop they were at was served by only one route (ok, there was another one, but that had two stops before it turned round); they'd have had to walk half a mile to get another route, which might not have taken them where they'd wanted to go. Even the next bus would have taken half an hour - it was a lousy route on Saturdays, that one. (You can see that I'm a bus nurd, can't you?)
I hadn't noticed that my assumption about things always getting better was a liberal fallacy until a Conservative pointed it out. I think he objects to the idea of liberal progress being seen as almost a law of nature. Well, tough. (I'd point you to where he said it, but I don't remember when it was - a few years ago, though - maybe 15.
There used to be a thing (back to porn again, I'm afraid) - and maybe still is, for some people - of women - good feminists - being upset by their fantasies. They lived according to their beliefs, but their fantasies wouldn't be constrained, and this was kind of worrying (if you look in Nancy Friday's books - if you don't know, she used to collect and publish fantasies, mainly women's - there's all sorts of stuff). But then, it's just fantasies, and they're not real. What you see in porn is not real either - even Gonzo stuff (which pretends to be real) is mostly set up beforehand. The fantasy of porn would usually vanish if the camera pulled back far enough to show the film crew, all stood round doing their job and probably wanting to get away and have a fag. So, the un PC-ness is just in the fantasy, not in the reality, which is just people working.
And in any case, the plots of a lot of porn feature films are about strong, decent women trying to live as well as they can. There is nothing un-pc about that, is there? Not unless you think that showing sex is automatically un-pc.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2009 13:14:04 GMT
Good post, aubrey. You're right about the fantasies being ungovernable by PC.
I happen to think that a lot of social/economic PC actually follows the trend, though, not creating it. And then it starts to get up people's noses, so it actually becomes counter-productive cos people don't like being lectured by the holier than thou brigade.
They are a growth industry. We're not creating any REAL wealth any more, just inventing jobs for paper-pushers .
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 6, 2009 13:23:45 GMT
Good post, aubrey. You're right about the fantasies being ungovernable by PC. I happen to think that a lot of social/economic PC actually follows the trend, though, not creating it. And then it starts to get up people's noses, so it actually becomes counter-productive cos people don't like being lectured by the holier than thou brigade. They are a growth industry. We're not creating any REAL wealth any more, just inventing jobs for paper-pushers . Where are these jobs that you and Sinistral keep talking about? How do you get them? Who are the holier than thou people? Surely people are only defensive if pulled up because they use an "UnPC" term eg changing the terminology people use, remember when people with Cerebal Palsy were called spastic and that was a term of abuse. Look how the greetings card industry have altered the wording on their cards .... Seasons greetings, Happy Holidays, cards with happy Christmas in various languages, cards that cover the major winter festivals .... good comercial sense BUT if a local council trys anything is seem as PC gone mad
|
|
|
Post by arealfarmer on Dec 6, 2009 13:28:48 GMT
Good post, aubrey. You're right about the fantasies being ungovernable by PC. I happen to think that a lot of social/economic PC actually follows the trend, though, not creating it. And then it starts to get up people's noses, so it actually becomes counter-productive cos people don't like being lectured by the holier than thou brigade. They are a growth industry. We're not creating any REAL wealth any more, just inventing jobs for paper-pushers . Where are these jobs that you and Sinistral keep talking about? How do you get them? Who are the holier than thou people? Surely people are only defensive if pulled up because they use an "UnPC" term eg changing the terminology people use, remember when people with Cerebal Palsy were called spastic and that was a term of abuse. See the Guardian jobs section ............ but then you probably did .
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 6, 2009 13:32:59 GMT
I love the adverts for Halal Turkey at this time of year
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 6, 2009 13:40:04 GMT
See the Guardian jobs section ............ but then you probably did . And I did not find any advertised in the UK
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Dec 6, 2009 13:44:39 GMT
Reminds me of the restaurant in downtown Tel Aviv {near Jaffa} that offered koscher bull's testicles. I never met a koscher bull.
As for festivals, the Israelis have the sense to celebrate them all.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 6, 2009 14:01:56 GMT
But what about other forms of PC?
When Michael Richards out of Seinfeld did his "Racist Rant" on stage there was a hell of a lot of fuss - people saying that we should boycott Seinfeld DVDs, etc (not a chance, sorry). But when clips were shown on news programmes, the words that were bleeped out were not the words that the fuss was about, but just the swearing (which no one had minded). So the TV companies were being very pc in one way, by trying not to offend people who don't like swearing. They did not care a damn about offending people who don't like racist language.
There are words that will never be spoken on prime time tv. They are not the racially offensive words that we all know, and that you'd think would have been stopped by pc. They are just the regular swear words (that we also all know). I've heard the racial stuff said on TV, and quite early - in quotes admittedly (though the swear words that are not used are so bad that not even quote marks can protect them).
I'd say that is pc from a right wing point of view, since it tends to be right wingers who object to swearing the most (and who don't mind racist language so much).
Actually, I would not ban or bleep any word. And there is no word that I will not say - though I do choose my company (in the same way that I don't swear in front of people who I don't know, or who I know don't like it).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2009 15:04:24 GMT
That's precisely my standpoint, too. Aubrey I don't need a rule book to tell me how to interact with folk. Comes naturally.
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 6, 2009 15:34:10 GMT
More right wing pc - the euphemisms used by Govts and the military to say things that would not sound good in a democracy - Classification instead of Censorship - all the different words they have for types of killing - that kind of stuff.
And is it pc that means that we don't really get to see what goes on inside slaughterhouses? The only film that is ever shown is shot secretly - probably illegally - because companies that own slaughterhouses and everyone else connected with the meat industry reckon that it would be bad for business for us to see what they do. They're probably right; but is that a good enough reason?
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 6, 2009 15:34:59 GMT
I don't need a rule book to tell me how to interact with folk. Comes naturally. BUT falling foul of "the rule book" ie terms of service, (proboards), or terms of use (BBC) Can led to a ban. Were you banned from BBC message boards? Was it to do with the way you interacted with folk? Is it why you are so against political correctness?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2009 18:09:29 GMT
No, it was to do with a clique of gels repeatedly catpeeing my posts that had already gone through premod and so had been judged OK for publication on the boards. They even boasted about it in public. Why did they do it? Because they could, the sad saps, it was all sanctioned by the RULES.
Why do you haunt us, specialperson? Because you can and we don't stop you, that's why.
Gedda life instead of blathering about rules, you bureaucrat.
Get back to the public sector, this is PRIVATE enterprise here. Is that what bugs you so?
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 6, 2009 18:28:38 GMT
Where are these jobs that you and Sinistral keep talking about? How do you get them? Who are the holier than thou people? Surely people are only defensive if pulled up because they use an "UnPC" term eg changing the terminology people use, remember when people with Cerebal Palsy were called spastic and that was a term of abuse. See the Guardian jobs section ............ but then you probably did . Private sector jobs have silly titles as well. Everyone's at it. It doesn't mean that the job itself is pointless.
|
|