Old ADUK...oh dear

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
fungus
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby fungus » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:51 pm

:roll:
fungus wrote:
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. :roll:

Nigel.

TheInsanity1234
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby TheInsanity1234 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:38 pm

Strangely Brown wrote: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?

Because people finally realised that actually, verbal abuse is incredibly damaging to someone's mental health. I've been bullied in the past for being overweight, and it took me a long time to move on from it. I suffered from very bad self esteem and I had absolutely zero confidence when interacting with others, and preferred to disappear into the anonymity of the internet, or the seclusion of a book.

It's only in the last few months that I got myself together, lost some weight and worked on building up my confidence.

TripleS wrote: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.

I am glad we can agree on things.

TripleS wrote: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.

Says the one who comes from a generation which utterly destroyed our economy... ;)

But seriously, I'd argue that the younger generations are also concerned about where society is going. It is after all, the young 'uns that have to live in it for however many years they'll live for, whereas the older generations can look forwards to expiring in a few years :twisted:

TripleS wrote: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.

Please don't, your opinions are lovely, they provide a source of much amusement :P

(Only joking. As you say, all opinions are valid, and I would hate to prevent anyone from expressing their opinions just because I'm loudmouthed and can argue for hours on things).

I am happy to put my hands up and admit that I may have dragged things on for longer than they should've, but at the same time, I'm not surprised the thread hasn't been chopped, as it is encouraging lively debate with a good amount of opinions being exchanged!

fungus wrote:
TripleS wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote:
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. :roll:

Nigel.

None of that bothers me at all.

Try being profoundly deaf for 18 years, and come back to me with your complaints :P

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby akirk » Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:00 pm

Not chopping the thread because it is proving to be remarkably civil...
And actually it can sometimes be through discussion like this where we explore views, sometimes at quite a personal level, but in a constructive way, that actually friendships and community grows which is healthy...

And in a personal note for Insanity, there is think a lot of respect on here for your maturity in posting etc, so let's build that confidence!

Alasdair

TheInsanity1234
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby TheInsanity1234 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:12 pm

I'm quite a lot more confident now, and after receiving confirmation from Hearing Dogs UK that they shall supply me with a Hearing Dog for university, I'm becoming quite a bit more confident being who I am, and I'm basically not the same person that I was in June of last year. I've been coming on in leaps and bounds, but that was also helped by me losing more than 2.5 stone in weight (over the last 1.5 years or so) and reaching a point where I'm actually happy with how my body looks (but I'm going to continue losing weight as I'm still slightly overweight).

In general, 2015 has proved itself to be an important year, and I'm fully relishing the chance to make 2016 even better.

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby akirk » Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:13 pm

Good :)
Alasdair

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby Strangely Brown » Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:10 pm

TheInsanity1234 wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote: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?

Because people finally realised that actually, verbal abuse is incredibly damaging to someone's mental health.


Consistent, targeted abuse is one thing. Hearing something and taking offence because you don't like it is something else. Hearing something and taking offence on behalf of someone else because they may not like it is something else entirely.

There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. It so happens that I am offended by things that I see and hear on a daily basis, not least by people taking offence. Oh, the irony.

martine
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby martine » Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:32 pm

akirk wrote:And in a personal note for Insanity, there is think a lot of respect on here for your maturity in posting etc, so let's build that confidence!

+1
Martin - Bristol IAM: IMI National Observer, Group Secretary, Masters (dist), DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)

ancient
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby ancient » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:18 am

Interesting thread drift!
There seems to be an assumption that older posters have not been exposed to LGBT issues or verbal bullying; which is interesting: Did this all start (as some people -not here- assume paedophilia did :roll: ) in the last thirty years? Or perhaps older folk have indeed met these issues but have different ways of dealing with them? Older people may perhaps have been through the same hormonal confusions as the current crop but have a longer perspective on how much that matters in life?

As for the Brighton school questionaire: As a teenager those questions would not have helped me, any more than (from six y/o) "You're a pretty lad. Do you have a girlfriend yet" helped. The one option that would help (IMO) is remarkable for its absence. I'll leave it to the end of the post, to see who can guess it before reading to there... A clue is the information in the article "The survey says that children's answers "may be used in Government reports, presentations and publications."".

Regarding the importance that is currently given to the opinions of the young: Since we are a culture which respects Science and wish to base policy on Science rather than on some wooly 'beliefs', should we not be taking the scientific evidence into account? :P Modern research into brain development is showing that, rather as children under 8 (ish) don't have the part of their brains that processes relative speed fully developed (an important issue when driving - just to keep on topic for the board), the parts of the brain which deal with long-term consequences are not fully developed until 22 (ish). Of course this doesn't mean that some 20 y/os can't be better at judging consequences than some 40 y/os (the differences between individuals are large), but on a population basis, 20 y/os have less ability than those whose brains are fully developed (before we start destroying them whilst disregarding consequences, of course).

Oh... The reply that is missing from the Brighton school's multi-choice? It is "That is none of your business, keep your nose out".

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 1043
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Flatlands

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby jont- » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:21 am

ancient wrote:Since we are a culture which respects Science and wish to base policy on Science rather than on some wooly 'beliefs', should we not be taking the scientific evidence into account?

Really? What evidence brings you to that conclusion? ;) There are areas (drugs policy for starters) where knee jerk reactions are still the order of the day :(

ancient
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Old ADUK...oh dear

Postby ancient » Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:12 pm

jont- wrote:
ancient wrote:Since we are a culture which respects Science and wish to base policy on Science rather than on some wooly 'beliefs', should we not be taking the scientific evidence into account?

Really? What evidence brings you to that conclusion? ;) There are areas (drugs policy for starters) where knee jerk reactions are still the order of the day :(

I would disagree, the drugs policy isn't a knee-jerk reaction: It is simply policy-based evidence ;) .


Note that they do evidence the policy, just that the evidence is somewhat 'adjusted' to fit the preconceptions.

Also, I didn't say the policy makers are cultured :P just that our culture purports to base policy on Science. The fact that this is generally given (at least) lip service to, opens such decisions to ridicule that would not be available were this not a cultural given. The new "recommended alcohol intake" of course suffers from the same.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests