You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
some sort of conspiracy no doubt
what are you wittering on about ? conspiracy ?????? who said that ? just stating a fact about social darwinism and its effect on political and social attitudes. a reasonably well accepted theory of historians and halfwits alike.
keeping the dog's name challenges the pc attitudes that you are defending and that merely help to hide the reality of our cultural legacy which make the job of fighting real racism harder. something that bothers me more than you obviously.
"some sort of conspiracy no doubt"what are you wittering on about ? conspiracy ?????? who said that ?
Well me........there was a clue with my name being at the top of the post.
oh right so you're going to make up things yourself, pretend that i've said them and accuse me of being pc ❓
this stuff's getting weird. 😯
pretend that i've said them
No, I didn't pretend that you had said it. I threw in the "some sort of conspiracy no doubt" suggestion myself.
Of course it was absurd, as absurd as your suggestion that changing the dog's name doesn't show the [i]"connection between the British and the Germans"[/i] and an attitude which in [i]"no small way contributed to the racial policies of the nation being bombed".[/i]
It was designed primarily to wind you up, and judging by the amount of question marks it received, I suspect it was fairly successful.
Can someone put a spoiler alert on this - knowing the dog dies ruins the film
The Germans lose too.
[img] 
[/img]
edit - yada yada yada
I think for greater authenticity the dog's name should be changed to Digger.
or maybe a white lab called wigger
It dies? How does it die - I don't remember that bit.
Why in these fighting films do people always pick on Germans - seems unfair to me.
Should have called it Rex or Rover, then no-one would have noticed.
or maybe a white lab called wigger
That's it. Thread over. You win.
How does it die - I don't remember that bit.
Hit by a racist driver in a car.
Don't be daft, "Rover" wouldn't have worked.
It was the codename for breaching the dam:
[i]"Rover"
"You're breaking up. Repeat please, over"
"Rover"
"No, sorry, we're just getting 'Rrr', over"[/i]
Authenticity is very important, in the original film the trains were shown to be running on the wrong sides of the tracks, this gives completely the wrong impression about the German railways
it still altering history is it not?
No.
It. Is . A. Film.
And the previous film will still exist. No secret, no Stalinist rewriting of history. Just a newer version of a fictionalised film. Was history altered when the 2008 version of Funny Games was released, including some differences from the 1997 version?
No, because it is a film. The true story, of which each film is a fictionalised account, is still the true story. History has not altered.
History has not altered.
Umm, yes that is true. But when people talk about rewriting or altering history, they don't literally mean building an operational time machine, going back to an event and altering the timeline to cause the present to move into an alternate universe.
Exactly! Like everyone now thinks that German trains ran on the left track during the war!
Some interesting debate on here, as ever.
It's always amused / baffled me that any word can be "offensive" in and of itself. Words aren't offensive, they're just a collection of letters.
"****" isn't offensive, in and of itself. It's a contraction of "****stani." It was used innocently, as an adjective, with no malice intended. When I was growing up, the local Asian-run corner shop was the "**** shop" to differentiate from the off-licence store which was the "offy" etc. It was, simply, a distinguishing characteristic of that shop. There was no racism implied any more than calling the fish & chip shop "the chippie" carried any malice towards potatoes.
At around the same time however, it was a word that was bandied about with hatred and prejudice by some people, often preceded in a sentence by 'effing' and followed by an accusation of illegitimacy. Fast forward ten years, this is now what everyone hears irrespective of context.
Just like "****," it's no longer a collection of words, it's become a symbol. It now represents something specific, [i]irrespective of actual intent.[/i] With apologies to Godwin, look at the swastika as an example of this sort of phenomenon; this is a symbol that's several thousand years old (pre-Neolithic IIRC) and has had many positive meanings in various cultures (good luck, healing, etc) before the Nazi party adopted it. Today, it would be hard to display it as, say, a Buddhist symbol without getting an adverse reaction from people.
Today, it's hard to see "****" as anything other than a racist slur, because that's now what it symbolises. It's still just a word though; if it was inherently racist, then black people wouldn't be able to use it either. (I'd respectfully suggest that this isn't 'irony' any more, incidentally, but simply 'because they can').
"****" isn't offensive, in and of itself. It's a contraction of "****stani."
Perhaps so, but it's not a term the ****stani community used to refer to themselves. That indicates that it's not really a term they were comfortable with
It. Is . A. Film
Personally, I was outraged when they renamed Bobby Bruce Banner to be David in the TV version of The Incredible Hulk.
Perhaps so, but it's not a term the ****stani community used to refer to themselves. That indicates that it's not really a term they were comfortable with
Point the first, it doesn't indicate anything of the sort. It may or may not be true (and to be honest, either of those states would be a rash generalisation anyway; all of them think the same thing, really?) but you can't simply infer that based solely on their own usage of words. I don't refer to myself as an Angle, but I wouldn't give a tuppenny toss if anyone else did.
Point the second, that's not true. I live in East Lancashire in an area which has an above average Asian population, and I hear the kids calling each other "****" on a daily basis. Presumably they're being ironic.
Well, we're not going to get anywhere but...
The Angle analogy doesn't really work because it's never used in a derogatory and offensive way. Maybe a closer analogy would be if very referred to you as a ****. Would you be OK with that? Some kids outside call each other **** on a daily basis too.
Perhaps if you think that the term **** is harmless, you should join in with the kids outside and call them **** too.
Generalisation, yes, I don't mean everyone in the ****stani community. Rash, no. Why do you think it is rash?
Crikey ... 🙄
There are four kinds of people (maggots) that relates to this sort of issue:
1. The one that want to be offended.
2. The one that offends.
3. The one that just see it as it is.
4. A mixture of all the above.
So let's have a go at each of these maggots.
1. If they want to be offended they will seek a reason to be offended regardless. Might even go ape shite, so no matter what shite is being shown/said they will see/want a reason to be offended.
We can call them maggots that swim in shite but dream of being a butterfly.
2. These are the mirror image of no.1 but on the opposite end. They want to offend their counterpart because they cannot live without each other. In a way if no one take their bait they would be bored stiff and would even find other issues to bait.
We can call them maggots that eat shite but thought they are having 3 stars Michelin food.
3. These are the group that implicitly support either of the above two but could not be arsed to take part. So they just sit there to watch with encouragement. Either way it's just entertainment.
We call them the maggots that is floating above the shite but could, at anytime, dive into the shite if they are pressed.
4. These are the ones that have the ability to morph according to self perceived importance. They like to swing but then when the shite become too pungent they jump out, leaving themselves clean to eat shite for another day.
We call them the maggots with multiple shite taste because they love all the shite yet cannot handle all the shite in one go. Because they fear drowning in shite.
Shite, the order of the day!
😆
It wasn't an analogy that I'd particularly given a lot of thought to or intended to be nit-picked apart, so sure, bad example perhaps. It was solely to help demonstrate that the conclusion you were drawing was flawed.
Maybe a closer analogy would be if very referred to you as a ****. Would you be OK with that?
We-ell. If someone called me a ****, it would entirely depend on context; who said it and what their intent was. If I knocked a pint over my pint and a mate called me a daft **** then that's an entirely different situation to a stranger wandering over and calling me one for no particular reason. Which I guess is what I was getting at. The word is a symbol but not offensive out of context, it's just a word. I've called myself one on a fairly regular basis.
Perhaps if you think that the term **** is harmless, you should join in with the kids outside and call them **** too.
I think perhaps "harmless" is the wrong word here. It's not harmful. It is however inappropriate, because irrespective of my meaning, one will be assumed. Such is the symbolism it represents. I could call an Asian gentleman a "****" without intending any racism or malice whatsoever, however I would never actually do so because I know that regardless of my actual intentions it will always be assumed that I intended it as a slur.
It's a funny thing, is language.
We-ell. If someone called me a ****, it would entirely depend on context; who said it and what their intent was. If I knocked a pint over my pint and a mate called me a daft **** then that's an entirely different situation to a stranger wandering over and calling me one for no particular reason. Which I guess is what I was getting at. The word is a symbol but not offensive out of context, it's just a word. I've called myself one on a fairly regular basis.
Then we are fairly close. Everyone using the term **** is much like the stranger walking over, but not quite. But just think about it in terms of everyone always referring to you as 'that ****'. You might get used to it and learn to tolerate it but i doubt you'd ever think it was OK. So whilst you and everyone else meant no harm, it was done anyway.
I think perhaps "harmless" is the wrong word here. It's not harmful. It is however inappropriate, because irrespective of my meaning, one will be assumed. Such is the symbolism it represents. [b]I could call an Asian gentleman a "****" without intending any racism or malice whatsoever, however I would never actually do so because I know that regardless of my actual intentions it will always be assumed that I intended it as a slur.[/b]
And it has always been thus
It's a film. It's not a film about racism. If it was a film about racism, or with something to say about racism, then altering this detail could be seen as wrong.
Like that [b]one[/b] publisher who released [b]one[/b] special edition of Huck Finn with the word **** changed. That changes the message of the book. (It is still being printed as originally written, so stop getting all up yourselves about that particular myth).
Really, they are changing the dog's name because the word resonates with centuries of opression and discrimination (more so now than it did at the time of the original), and they don't want that to overshadow a nice story which in no way related to racism. What would be the point?
It's a film. It's not a film about racism. If it was a film about racism, or with something to say about racism, then altering this detail could be seen as wrong.
Exactly. I honestly can't believe people are whinging about this. Absolutely ridiculous.
See also Jock, Taffy, Paddy, Scouser, Gypsy, etc etc etc etc
Any slang word describing a group of people [i]can[/i] be taken as a slur. Context is important.
And it has always been thus
Really? Were people from ****stan always offended by having their origin shortened from ****stani to ****? I don't know but I doubt it.
To my mind "****" became unacceptable as people started using it in hate speech (and misusing it to mean anyone from Asia). Then suddenly we started getting told off for saying it by our parents (who had previously used it themselves).
In much the same way I don't really mind folk calling me Jock, but if there was a suddenly a huge rise in anti-Scottish sentiment and it started getting used in sentences like "effing Jocks, why don't they go back up north?" etc then I'd probably take exception to it.
think about it in terms of everyone always referring to you as 'that ****'. You might get used to it and learn to tolerate it but i doubt you'd ever think it was OK.
This may be true. However, if I were to assume that every time I heard it it was intended as an insult, that would be my failing.
There's a lot of bigoted knuckle-draggers in this world, be they white, black, or green with purple stripes. Doesn't make it right to assume that everyone is - you're as bad as they are when you do.
Truth is, I've never cared what colour someone is. I don't believe that having a bit of a tan means you should be treated any differently, be that negatively or positively. Even back at school in the mid 80s where racism was practically mandatory (on both sides), I never subscribed to that way of thinking.
People hear words rather than listening to meanings, and it makes the whole process of communication a bloody nightmare. I got chastised for using the term "coloured" the other day, apparently this now is in the list of 'bad' words. News to me, I was using it specifically because I thought it was an acceptable word. FFS. In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter what term I use, what should be important is context and intent. That fact that it does causes more problems than it solves.
Really? Were people from ****stan always offended by having their origin shortened from ****stani to ****? I don't know but I doubt it.
Why do you doubt it?
See also Jock, Taffy, Paddy, Scouser, Gypsy, etc etc etc etc
Quite. I know the etymology of a couple of those (the river Taff and Lobscouse stew) and they're wholly innocent. Can't comment on the others, but they're seemingly largely acceptable in the right context; someone on here got called a Jock earlier today and the world didn't end.
This may be true. However, if I were to assume that every time I heard it it was intended as an insult, that would be my failing.
Of course, you are right. But still it is not a name you would use to refer to yourself. And whilst you would be able to recognise that most often it was said without malice, you would still rather that they didn't use the term. Honest.
There's a lot of bigoted knuckle-draggers in this world, be they white, black, or green with purple stripes. Doesn't make it right to assume that everyone is - you're as bad as they are when you do.
Yes, I agree which makes it difficult when you see those who you know are not malicious behave in the same way as those who are and so validate their actions, in fact giving them licence for their malicious behaviour.
Why do you doubt it?
Common sense?
The first ****stani guy comes over from ****stan, learns English, integrates with the community. He meets Dave and says "hi, I'm Tahir, from ****stan." Dave introduces Tahir to his mate Brian, "hey, Brian, have you met Tahir, he's a ****." Tahir replies "what?! How dare you, you racist bastard!"
To suggest it's inherently racist is nonsensical. It's held as a racist term because we palefaces spent a decade or two cementing it as one.
FFS!
To my mind "****" became unacceptable as people started using it in hate speech (and misusing it to mean anyone from Asia).
People used to called Turkish people ****s??? Wow, the more I know the more I realise how little I know.
Tahir replies "what?! No! it's ****stani"
Dave: Yeh, whatever, but I'm gonna call you ****, regardless of what you call yourself.
Brian:Yeah, ****, that's what you are.
Tahir: No, but it's not ****, it's...
Brian & Dave: We don't care
Tahir: You racist bastards
Why do you doubt it?
Okay let me put it another way, if anyone was offended [u]just[/u] by having ****stani shortened to **** then they were over-sensitive and should have had a word with the Scots, Turks, Poles, Brits, Aussies, Windies... etc etc 🙂
It's not a film about racism.
Perhaps not. But the Nazis are generally considered racists. And the Brits the pure good guys. Watching the original raises a talking point about moral relativism and the changing face of racism. An interesting point that has been discussed at length here but that is lost by this change.
they don't want that to overshadow a nice story
That's the biggest irony. It's a story about brave young men sacrificing their lives in a bombing raid which kills over 1,500 people, most of whom were POWs or civilians. It's not really a nice story at all. 😕
People used to called Turkish people ****s??? Wow, the more I know the more I realise how little I know.
Yes, soon you'll catch up with the rest of us
But still it is not a name you would use to refer to yourself.
I thought we'd established that this wasn't the case?
whilst you would be able to recognise that most often it was said without malice, you would still rather that they didn't use the term. Honest.
Yep, fair comment. I think that's a slightly different situation though.
...giving them licence for their malicious behaviour.
That's an interesting point, actually. If we did theoretically manage to get away from this "automatic offence" situation, would that then give the intellectual proletariat something to hide behind? Hm.
Tahir replies "what?! No! it's ****stani"
Dave: Yeh, whatever, but I'm gonna call you ****, regardless of what you call yourself.
Brian:Yeah, ****, that's what you are.
Tahir: No, but it's not ****, it's...
Brian & Dave: We don't care
Tahir: You racist bastards
That's not really [i]racism [/i]though, is it. That's like me objecting to being called Al when my name's Alan.
would that then give the intellectual proletariat something to hide behind? Hm
Difficult to hypothesise the situation, but I don't think they particularly want to hide
That's not really racism though, is it. That's like me objecting to being called Al when my name's Alan.
I suppose it depends on why the choose to ignore his wishes. But given that the community being ignored has race in common, then yeah, racist or near as dammit
Racist!
if anyone was offended just by having ****stani shortened to ****
dont think they have an inherent dislike of contractions of the english languageit was the manner in which it was used and what it meant.
I assume we can all agree a contraction to **** would be fine if it were not for the fact it was used an abusive and racist term unlike all the others which are just lazy contractions.
****, is this [i]still[/i] going?
*logs off again*
I suppose it depends on why the choose to ignore his wishes. But given that the community being ignored has race in common, then yeah, racist or near as dammit
Well, for a start, commonality doesn't imply causation. If they were ignoring those wishes because of race (ie, they didn't like brown people), that would indeed be racism. If they were ignoring those wishes simply because they just wanted to use a simple nickname and didn't see what the problem was, that's not racism irrespective of any common traits. It's pig ignorant, perhaps, but it's not racist.
Anyway. Arguably, this bizarre little model we've built has no foundation in actual events. Have the Asian community actually ever objected to the term in isolation as you suggest, or is it actually the case (as I suspect) that they'd prefer that we didn't use the term simply because it's subsequently come to be favoured by racist halfwits?
****, is this still going?*logs off again*
I'd like to sincerely and wholeheartedly apologise on behalf of whoever it was who forced you to open and read a thread that clearly disinterested you, and would like to thank you for your eloquent and valued contribution to the discussion.
Politcal correctness once again gone insane. Next Mel Brooks will be sending a couple of diggers off to check for quicksand.
Well, I know the chinese community don't like the term chink or chinky, and that's not so such a hot racial issue as the term ****. It's difficult to separate the two really. But i'll accept it may not be strictly racism (next Simon Cowell TV series?) and that it is clearly ignorance.But ignorance of cultural and racial differences and sensitivities is a bit racismy
It's difficult to separate
This is kinda where I was going. It's all a bit tricky. It's all a bit [i]unnecessarily[/i] tricky.
next Simon Cowell TV series?
Actual LOL there. (-:
Next Mel Brooks will be sending a couple of diggers off to check for quicksand.
[s]"Oh, de Camptown ladies sing dis song...."[/s] "I get no kick from Champagne...."
I don't understand why political correctness is a 'bad thing'. What do you loose by not being able to use bigoted language without being called a bigot?
Is it political correctness in this case? Or is it more pragmatic (but mundane) than that? They want their film to be seen by as many people as possible. Having a dog called **** will make people not go on principle. Change the name, make more money.
Or they're going for a PG rating. By not changing the name that would be impossible.
Plus the film isn't about the dog.
Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race
I think that some peoples thoughts on racism differs somewhat on this thread I wholeheartedly agree with graham s, if it is said or meant as derogatory then yes it is racist if not then it is people being oversensitive
It would have been a lot easier if they'd just called the dog "coon" and be done with all this "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" fallafel about digger/**** etc.
I don't understand why political correctness is a 'bad thing'. What do you loose by not being able to use bigoted language without being called a bigot?
What you lose is the ability to speak naturally without someone assuming you mean something you don't just because the last person to use the same words was a halfwit. Ultimately, we're going to run out of words.
Having a dog called **** will make people not go on principle.
Speculation. Will it? Really? Name me one person who's never watched the original on principle.
It would have been a lot easier if they'd just called the dog "coon"
Short for "raccoon" obviously.
I wholeheartedly agree with graham s, if it is said or meant as derogatory then yes it is racist if not then it is people being oversensitive
Graham S is the one being massively oversensitive. Who honestly gives that much of a shit about changing one letter of the name of a dog in some film? 🙄
I'm genuinely amazed that anyone would think they [i]wouldn't[/i] change it tbh.
What you lose is the ability to speak naturally without someone assuming you mean something you don't just because the last person to use the same words was a halfwit. Ultimately, we're going to run out of words.
Hmm... political correctness can be annoying, but a lot of it is pretty much made up by newspapers or 'my mate told me' stories down the pub - and regardless, surely it's an improvement on society being openly bigoted? Obviously not in some people's eyes.
if it is said or meant as derogatory then yes it is racist if not then it is people being oversensitive
The fact is they have connotations which obscure the intent behind their use. And I've never been in a situation where I need to use either '****' or '****'. Maybe that's just me...
if it is said or meant as derogatory then yes it is racist if not then it is people being oversensitive
Sometimes you can't tell the difference and it's just unpleasant
I used to work with a guy who owned a particularly boisterous Labrador called Mugabe.
Upon asking why he chose that name for his pet, he replied 'it's cos he's black and he's a bastard'
Is that racist? Possibly. Funny all the same though.
What you lose is the ability to speak naturally without someone assuming you mean something you don't just because the last person to use the same words was a halfwit. Ultimately, we're going to run out of words.
Rubbish.
Obviously...although it was more the coonhound angle I was coming from.:)
this is so funny. people complying "its PC gone mad" and getting all offended about nothing
the only people being offended here are those complaining about the name change. its really very simple. it does not affect or alter the story in any significant way and it means that there will not be a row in the US about it detracting from the commercial potential of the film. its just a pragmatic decision of no great consequence
What you lose is the ability to speak naturally without someone assuming you mean something you don't just because the last person to use the same words was a halfwit. Ultimately, we're going to run out of words.
Well we wont really run out of words though we may run out of intentionally pejorative or insensitively used words.
Every time somebody shouts "its PC gone mad"... I hear "I am a thwarted bigot" dunno why.
I want to shout " its PC living with mental health issues"
surely it's an improvement on society being openly bigoted?
I'm not entirely convinced that a natural stance of "bigoted unless proven otherwise" is entirely an improvement. I grow weary of having to pick my words ever so carefully whenever I refer to someone with a bit of a tan, only to be told I've got it wrong anyway.
Fair do's 🙂
Rubbish.
Well, I can't possibly disagree with such a well-constructed argument.
I grow weary of having to pick my words ever so carefully whenever I refer to someone with a bit of a tan, only to be told I've got it wrong anyway.
It must be awful for you - much worse than the open racist abuse endured by ethnic minorities in the past I'm sure. You poor thing.
Well we wont really run out of words though we may run out of intentionally pejorative or insensitively used words.
Well, no, we won't run out of words, of course. I was being silly for humorous effect.
I'd disagree with the latter half of that, though; you've got it backwards. We won't run out of intentionally pejorative words, ever, because we're so very good at creating them; we're exponentially more likely to run out of acceptable ones.
What you lose is the ability to speak naturally without someone assuming you mean something you don't just because the last person to use the same words was a halfwit. Ultimately, we're going to run out of words.
I grow weary of having to pick my words ever so carefully whenever I refer to someone with a bit of a tan, only to be told I've got it wrong anyway.
The reason it's rubbish is because (and I'm assuming here) you wouldn't use '****' to refer to someone 'with a bit of a tan' in normal conversation because people would think you a bigoted halfwit.
It must be awful for you - much worse than the open racist abuse endured by ethnic minorities in the past I'm sure. You poor thing.
Gosh. If I were German, would you have me apologising on behalf of the Nazis?
I can't begin to imagine how that must have been for them, and I wish it wasn't the case. However, I didn't do it, and I strongly object to the implication that I'm somehow racist by association solely because some bugger else was.
The reason it's rubbish is because (and I'm assuming here) you wouldn't use '****' to refer to someone 'with a bit of a tan' in normal conversation because people would think you a bigoted halfwit.
This is correct. Their conclusion would be wrong, however. That's their failing, not mine. Regardless, I choose not to run the risk of being misunderstood where possible.
Gosh. If I were German, would you have me apologising on behalf of the Nazis?
What on earth are you talking about? I'm suggesting that your slight awkwardness about what to call a black person isn't really a big deal (can't say it's bothered me that much when I've made similar faux pas in the past) and the current 'PC gone mad' situation is largely a great improvement on the past.
Might I suggest those who are bothered by the name change get themselves over to the Daily Mail article comments on the subject, they would feel right at home.
I can't even begin to define my outrage at this ridiculous editting of the dog's name!- Alison, Lincolnshire, England, 10/6/2011 16:55
She must really struggle with every day life if this outrages her that much.
m suggesting that your slight awkwardness about what to call a black person isn't really a big deal
I don't disagree, in the grand scheme of things. But then, I never said it was.
the current 'PC gone mad' situation is largely a great improvement on the past.
Well. Thinking about what you're saying (and thinking about what you're thinking) is a good thing. Getting legged up unintentionally because you've accidentally used a word that's taboo this week doesn't help anyone.
To be fair using the 'wrong' word can be easily remedied
Naif: Anyway so this coloured guy comes up to me...
Pauline: Don't say coloured, it's no longer acceptable. You should say Pink
Naif: Really? I didn't know that.
Naif: Anyway so this Pink guy comes up to me..
Pauline:That's better, now shall we go and have sex?
She must really struggle with every day life if this outrages her that much.
Either that or she lacks the intellect to express herself.
Great FAIL in that Daily Fail article right at the start:
The Dambusters dog N****r will be renamed Digger
Somewhat amusing self-censoring...
To be fair using the 'wrong' word can be easily remedied
If only that were true.
Naif: Anyway so this coloured guy comes up to me...
Pauline: Don't say coloured, it's no longer acceptable. You should say Pink
Naif: Really? I didn't know that.
Naif: Anyway so this Pink guy comes up to me..
Jennifer: Pink? You can't say 'pink,' we prefer the term 'melanin challenged'
Naif: Oh, er, right. So, this melanin challenged guy...
Dave: Melanin challenged? What the hell are you on about?
Naif: Well, er, differently pigmented?
Dave: Why didn't you say so? We say 'coloured' these days. Racist.
Naif: Oh FFS.
Vaguely amusing examples aside, the problem with all this (and I'll grant you, it's a relatively small problem) is that it makes communication difficult. What's acceptable today isn't acceptable tomorrow because the goalposts keep moving, and for those of us who don't want to cause unintentional offence we end up walking on eggshells whenever we say anything.