Old ADUK...oh dear

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
waremark
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:23 am

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby waremark » Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:19 pm

Great response from Insanity, I read Dave's post the same way. I have been keeping my mouth shut because I know my prejudices are potentially offensive! Dave, maybe the time has come for you to do the same?

User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Swindon

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:14 pm

TripleS wrote:Silk didn't write that: I did.

Now fixed. Apologies.
Nick

TripleS
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Briggswath

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby TripleS » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:26 pm

akirk wrote:Some interesting thoughts about age and views etc...
- as you get older your perspective and view on life changes
- I think there is no doubt that you need life experience and time / age to get the perspective an older person has
- however, what no-one has been able to define is which perspective is correct (that of youth / that of the older generation)
- perhaps in reality we need both, and therefore both are right?
- I think that when you are younger you need that perspective, without the optimism and energy, the self-belief and enthusiasm who would go forwards into life and build their life, their community, their society?
- But when you are older and a little more world-weary, perhaps a little more cynical and cautious, then those views help balance the raw energy of youth

so it is in having different views that actually as a society we benefit - it is why as someone who is 44 (and therefore at their peak and always right :D) I enjoy spending time with teenagers / young twenties and seeing new and different perspectives, a belief that the world can and should change - but equally I enjoy spending time with those 20 years older and understanding their wisdom and views on life...

where I think that we (society) are possibly getting it wrong is where one group (whether majority, or increasingly minority) insists that to respect them as people everyone else must agree with their views - that is so wrong it is scary - to have that approach is hypocritical, it means that they don't respect in the other direction - but sadly we seem to have governments without the understanding to prevent that and increasingly unless you agree with a minority's views you are considered to be out of order - not so, you can respect their right to have their own views, without agreeing with them...

and surely that is a part of what we understand on here, when we talk about driving, yes there is established wisdom, but equally there can be many ways of achieving the same end - we respect each other and hopefully learn from a difference of views... so when it comes to discussions like the one above, we shouldn't be looking for agreement of views - simply respect for each other - which on the one hand can mean hearing something you are not comfortable with, but acknowledging that it is not directed personallly, and on the other, perhaps leaving something unsaid at times... Sadly with the medium in which we communicate that former is easier, the latter much harder as we don't know fully the people reading... However I think that actually we have a great balance on here so personally I would hope that we all carry on posting, sometimes making mistakes, but moving forward as a community...

Alasdair


Well said, Alasdair.

As far as I'm concerned none of us wishes to cause offence here, though with the best will in the world it will happen sometimes. By the same token I hope those who might be inclined to take offence do their best to avoid doing so. Let's unwind a bit, eh?

TripleS
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Briggswath

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby TripleS » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:04 pm

waremark wrote:Great response from Insanity, I read Dave's post the same way. I have been keeping my mouth shut because I know my prejudices are potentially offensive! Dave, maybe the time has come for you to do the same?


Heh, I wouldn't have thought you'd have prejudices, Mark, any more than I do. All we have are rational views, do we not? ;)

Yes, Insanity's post is very good indeed - and that's not being patronising either! There is much we can agree on, and he has been very fair in confirming that.

All I'm trying to do is to suggest that all opinions are valid and we should all be free to express them, but we should also be willing to keep them under review and be prepared to adjust them in the light of new and better knowledge.

When Insanity says that young people will have greater knowledge of the LGBT community and their feelings rather than will the older generations, I don't doubt that is true. Having recognised that, I imagine the LGBT community will tend to look at things from the viewpoint of their own community, and their own feelings and interests, whereas the older generations are more likely to have concerns about where we as a society are going in overall terms. No matter how clear and valid are the feelings within each of those two groups, that amounts to a considerable difference of perspective.

I'll now shut up - for a short while. 8-)

P.S. Actually, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been chopped off by now.

waremark
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:23 am

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby waremark » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:39 pm

TripleS wrote:
waremark wrote:Great response from Insanity, I read Dave's post the same way. I have been keeping my mouth shut because I know my prejudices are potentially offensive! Dave, maybe the time has come for you to do the same?


Heh, I wouldn't have thought you'd have prejudices, Mark, any more than I do. All we have are rational views, do we not? ;)

!!!

My children who are all in their twenties open my eyes to the fact that others don't always share my rational views. They accuse me of prejudices. Particularly in the area under discussion.

TripleS
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Briggswath

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby TripleS » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:38 pm

waremark wrote:
TripleS wrote:
waremark wrote:Great response from Insanity, I read Dave's post the same way. I have been keeping my mouth shut because I know my prejudices are potentially offensive! Dave, maybe the time has come for you to do the same?


Heh, I wouldn't have thought you'd have prejudices, Mark, any more than I do. All we have are rational views, do we not? ;)

!!!

My children who are all in their twenties open my eyes to the fact that others don't always share my rational views. They accuse me of prejudices. Particularly in the area under discussion.


Ah, but are they right to accuse you of having prejudices?

Anyhow it's up to you to sort 'em out, er, in a manner of speaking. :lol:

Our Michael will be 52 this summer, but he tolerates me very well, all things considered. :roll:

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby Strangely Brown » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:19 pm

TripleS wrote:Here's a more difficult one - though I'm not sure that it should be:
In the 1953 film "The Dam Busters", Wing Commander Guy Gibson had a black dog which he called Nigger. That is a fact, but am I now in trouble for simply reporting that fact, including mentioning the dog's name? Do we not see how ridiculous this has become?


It was also the codeword that Gison used to report a successful dam breach. So the film now has not only an important character missing, but also an important historical element. Papering over the parts of history that you don't happen to like is no better than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la.

Gibson's dog wasn't only one either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_(dog)

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby Strangely Brown » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:39 pm

Is offence given, or is it taken?

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?" -- Stephen Fry

I do not have any general desire to upset people. In fact, I tend to find my life flows along much more easily and I get what I want far more often if I don't. I do, however, object to having to stop and think about which particular words or phrases I use just because there _might be_ someone who _might_ overhear a conversation that is none of their business and _might_ take offence on behalf of some unknown fourth party who _might_ take offence themselves were they to hear it first hand, even if it was nothing to do with them either. We, as a society, appear to have given birth to a type of person who is serially offended by pretty much everything and appears to go out of their way to find offence in just about anything.

Some of us will have been brought up with the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Whatever happened to that?

TripleS
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Briggswath

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby TripleS » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:03 pm

Strangely Brown wrote:
TripleS wrote:Here's a more difficult one - though I'm not sure that it should be:
In the 1953 film "The Dam Busters", Wing Commander Guy Gibson had a black dog which he called Nigger. That is a fact, but am I now in trouble for simply reporting that fact, including mentioning the dog's name? Do we not see how ridiculous this has become?


It was also the codeword that Gibson used to report a successful dam breach. So the film now has not only an important character missing, but also an important historical element. Papering over the parts of history that you don't happen to like is no better than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la.

Gibson's dog wasn't only one either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_(dog)


Hmm, interesting references, Mark, thank you.

Correction: for 1953 read 1955. Memory again!

Whinge time:

Is it just me, but do others also find it easier to hear what the actors are saying in the old films? I know I do.

With a lot of modern films I find it difficult to catch all the dialogue, and I don't think my hearing is seriously defective. The reasons appear to me to be that the actors do a lot of mumbling, muttering and whispering, overlaid with breathy noises but not much clear speech.

Then there is the question of incidental music, which might be appropriate, but this is often too loud in relation to the dialogue. Then there are scenes filmed in noisy surroundings which again might be necessary within the plot, but they ought to at least make sure the actors speak clearly so that we can tell what they're on about.

American films seem to have had these failings for many years, and some of the more recent British films seem to be similarly bad.

D'you know, with a bit of encouragement I could easily become quite a grumpy old sod. :D

fungus
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby fungus » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:49 pm

TripleS wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote:
TripleS wrote:Here's a more difficult one - though I'm not sure that it should be:
In the 1953 film "The Dam Busters", Wing Commander Guy Gibson had a black dog which he called Nigger. That is a fact, but am I now in trouble for simply reporting that fact, including mentioning the dog's name? Do we not see how ridiculous this has become?


It was also the codeword that Gibson used to report a successful dam breach. So the film now has not only an important character missing, but also an important historical element. Papering over the parts of history that you don't happen to like is no better than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la.

Gibson's dog wasn't only one either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_(dog)


Hmm, interesting references, Mark, thank you.

Correction: for 1953 read 1955. Memory again!

Whinge time:

Is it just me, but do others also find it easier to hear what the actors are saying in the old films? I know I do.

With a lot of modern films I find it difficult to catch all the dialogue, and I don't think my hearing is seriously defective. The reasons appear to me to be that the actors do a lot of mumbling, muttering and whispering, overlaid with breathy noises but not much clear speech.

Then there is the question of incidental music, which might be appropriate, but this is often too loud in relation to the dialogue. Then there are scenes filmed in noisy surroundings which again might be necessary within the plot, but they ought to at least make sure the actors speak clearly so that we can tell what they're on about.

American films seem to have had these failings for many years, and some of the more recent British films seem to be similarly bad.

D'you know, with a bit of encouragement I could easily become quite a grumpy old sod. :D


Having lost some of my high pitch hearing about 15 years ago due to a virus attacking the inner ear, I sometimes have difficulty hearing conversation. The main problems are not so much local accents, but poorly pronounced words, eg. not sounding consonants, and in particular the fact that, and I'm not being agist here, many younger people talk too fast. My daughter who is 33 this year is a prime example of this. She just doesn't seem to have enough time to blurt out all that she has to say.

Nigel.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests