Removing TV Shows Because Of Racism | Page 2 | Vital Football

Removing TV Shows Because Of Racism

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13556
  • Start date
Baghdad_Rob said:
While most people define racism as "the act of treating people different based upon the colour of their skin", in social justice terminology racism is defined as "treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin from a position of power".

Since SJWs will argue that white people hold all the power and black people are the oppressed with no power then therefore black people can't be racist.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/09/can-white-people-experience-racism-12340542/

https://www.elitedaily.com/life/culture/dear-white-people-why-black-people-cant-be-racist/1960206

https://archive.voice-online.co.uk/article/can-black-people-be-racist

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/between-the-lines/article/2018/8/10/gao-who-can-be-racist/

For as long as there are those arguing that only one skin colour can be racist and the other can't be, there will always be race related tension. It is only when people stop caring about skin colour and realise people can be buttholes regardless of race, gender, sexuality and treat people on the merits of their personality rather than unchangeable features they were born with will humanity move forward.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but it does not mean that we should not think about how race and power interact with one another. For example, if we were down in the middle of 1960's Johannesburg, it would not be very satisfying to say "well, we're all racists aren't we?" The Han Chinese are quite comfortable in their racism. Look at our history; it's fucking obvious we're superior to the these white parvenus who we let take advantage of us for a brief moment in history. And as for the Africans; have you ever tried to get them to build a high speed railway? Seriously.

At the risk of getting shouted at, I'd say that the liberalism associated with primarily white empires and developed states has been both willfully blind to the racial consequences of how its principles have been applied and MORE open than other power cultures to reflecting on this and trying to do something about it. You may say it is right that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, but that too is putting us on a pedestal, and one I am less and less sure we can afford to be on.
 
I'm not keen on banning stuff in general but let's not pretend that there is a good deal of offensive stuff out there. I don't believe it's possible to avoid offending anybody but it's surely agreed that gratuitous offence is unnecessary and nasty.

Love Thy Neighbour was out of time in its own time and to describe it as anti racist is to defy reality. It's not a new trick to create a character, who is allowed to say the "unsayable" because it's a satirical take. I occasionally watched that programme with my father in law, who was enthusiastically racist. He laughed his head off at racial slurs and felt more comfortable doing so because the black character was allowed to be smart.

Most of the "banning" of old programmes involves their being stood down from streaming platforms, often temporarily. It isn't done because a load of offended snowflakes, lefties, woke Guardian readers, or any other imagined group have campaigned for it to be done. It's done for vaguely commercial, defensive, PR reasons by executives and is readily undone when the spotlight moves on.
 
Last edited:
valenciagill said:
It's not difficult to predict that things may get out of hand , but BLM/Antifa aren't the brightest of folk.
Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Have Antifa called for the banning and censorship of tv programmes? When and where did this happen? Antifa isn't even a proper organisation, just a loose coalition, so I find it hard to believe they've put out any kind of statement about this.
 
Buddha said:
Yeah, you may be right. I was hopeful. I always try to be. The way this has been latched onto by the political correctness fascists is very disappointing.

I still maintain that the Colston statue toppling was (or at least should have been) something different to all this bullshit now happening in the wake of it.

Actually, it's all pissed me off quite considerably!
Click to expand...

Actions and consequences Buddha.
That was part of my basic training years ago and has always stayed with me.
I apply it to most decisions I make in my life.
It drives my missus mad when I say, hold on, let’s think this through.😉
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
While most people define racism as "the act of treating people different based upon the colour of their skin", in social justice terminology racism is defined as "treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin from a position of power".

Since SJWs will argue that white people hold all the power and black people are the oppressed with no power then therefore black people can't be racist.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/09/can-white-people-experience-racism-12340542/

https://www.elitedaily.com/life/culture/dear-white-people-why-black-people-cant-be-racist/1960206

https://archive.voice-online.co.uk/article/can-black-people-be-racist

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/between-the-lines/article/2018/8/10/gao-who-can-be-racist/

For as long as there are those arguing that only one skin colour can be racist and the other can't be, there will always be race related tension. It is only when people stop caring about skin colour and realise people can be buttholes regardless of race, gender, sexuality and treat people on the merits of their personality rather than unchangeable features they were born with will humanity move forward.
Click to expand...

How about Robert Mugabe. He very much occupied a position of power. Very much treated people differently regarding the colour of their skin.

He encouraged black Zimbabweans to violently seize white-owned farms.
 
jokerman said:
"As a classic white middle class person who has led a very privileged life ..."

I say ban 58, and not for his privilege but for the offense he has given to our sensibilities. I say this, of course, as a white middle class male person. I could try to say it as a black, upper class woman, but I'd be lying -to myself as much as anyone else.

Other than that, I agree with him entirely on why banning is bad, and would be prepared to defend his right to express himself as a the bearer of a series of gendered socio-political identities, although probably not to the death.
Click to expand...

Totally agree - ban 58 and wipe all his Prediction League results out. That way I will be the winner (by default) although we may need another poll :cup:
 
jogills said:
I'm not keen on banning stuff in general but let's not pretend that there is a good deal of offensive stuff out there. I don't believe it's possible to avoid offending anybody but it's surely agreed that gratuitous offence is unnecessary and nasty.

Love Thy Neighbour was out of time in its own time and to describe it as anti racist is to defy reality. It's not a new trick to create a character, who is allowed to say the "unsayable" because it's a satirical take. I occasionally watched that programme with my father in law, who was enthusiastically racist. He laughed his head off at racial slurs and felt more comfortable doing so because the black character was allowed to be smart.

Most of the "banning" of old programmes involves their being stood down from streaming platforms, often temporarily. It isn't done because a load of offended snowflakes, lefties, woke Guarddian readers, or any other imagined group have campaigned for it to be done. It's done for vaguely commercial, defensive, PR reasons executives and is readily undone when the spotlight moves on.
Click to expand...

I found LTN awful at the time. The give and take between the white slob and the handsome black, the sensible women, the slob getting his comeuppances, and yet some how all weighted to sanction attitudes of which I want no part.

And I don't trust the people who produce and put these shows on (and take them off). Trimmers and limelight seekers every one. You can't tell me Johnny Speight didn't play on both sides of the fence. I watched Blazing Saddles the other night -as Minneapolis blazed as it happens. Let them laugh ironically, let them laugh straight, just as long as they laugh and watch. But I would not ban them, and am still happy to say From Death Us Do Part and Blazing Saddles are both good and very funny.
 
shotshy said:
Actions and consequences Buddha.
That was part of my basic training years ago and has always stayed with me.
I apply it to most decisions I make in my life.
It drives my missus mad when I say, hold on, let’s think this through.😉
Click to expand...

I can definitely be too impulsive sometimes.
 
GRSGimmer said:
Totally agree - ban 58 and wipe all his Prediction League results out. That way I will be the winner (by default) although we may need another poll :cup:
Click to expand...

I thought nibbles won that poll? Despite mine and ChrisWhos best efforts.........
 
I don't know why people are referencing "Love thy neighbour"? I'm 49, and I've never seen it, and I don't recall it being on since I've been watching TV? The issue is regarding modern programmes that can now be considered offensive (e.g. Bo Selecta and Little Britain). Some of it is patently ridiculous (e.g Papa Lazarou in League Of Gentleman).
 
ThreeSixes said:
I don't know why people are referencing "Love thy neighbour"? I'm 49, and I've never seen it, and I don't recall it being on since I've been watching TV? The issue is regarding modern programmes that can now be considered offensive (e.g. Bo Selecta and Little Britain). Some of it is patently ridiculous (e.g Papa Lazarou in League Of Gentleman).
Click to expand...

People are only talking about them because old episodes have been removed from streaming platforms. It doesn't surprise me that you have never seen Love Thy Neighbour and that rather suggests removing it served to draw attention to something that was passing over the horizon.
 
ThreeSixes said:
I don't know why people are referencing "Love thy neighbour"? I'm 49, and I've never seen it, and I don't recall it being on since I've been watching TV? The issue is regarding modern programmes that can now be considered offensive (e.g. Bo Selecta and Little Britain). Some of it is patently ridiculous (e.g Papa Lazarou in League Of Gentleman).
Click to expand...

I think for us oldies, Love Thy Neighbour sticks in the mind because it illustrates the difficulties we're talking about. At one level it's even-handed, even loaded towards the underdogs. Both men use racist terms and behave badly. The white man starts it and is worse than the black man. The two men are more stupid than the two women. And yet at another level, we're in no doubt about who the show leaves feeling comfortable and justified in their outlook.

It was also seriously unfunny.

Lazarou's a good shout along those lines. I didn't get him or find him funny. The violent, exploitative generally ethnic Pop terrorizing his two boys, in contrast, I found both hilarious and terrifying. My wife can't abide Pauline, especially when she intimidates Mickey into not taking a job. She says it hurts watching it.

LofN was full of offence -different bits hitting home with different people. None of this is any reason for taking things off. Leave them on. Call them out. Laugh at them. Call them out and Laugh at them....er Rawhide!
 
I find myself now struggling with all this stuff...

Is it really inappropriate for a male actor to play the part of a woman, vice-versa? Shakespeare had men play the part of women. Should we burn all school GCSE textbooks now? Do we ban Pantomime dames now? Personally, I don’t think it is. I don’t take offence and I doubt women would be offended by it.

Is it inappropriate for the Rabindranaths and Kupoors in Goodness Gracious Me to play the role of the Robinsons and Coopers? Personally, I don’t think so. I like the ridicule.

Is Sacha Baron Cohen out of order for playing homosexual Bruno? I have gay friends who find it funny. I don’t find it funny, but neither do I find it offsensive.
 
Just to show my age,and will only apply to old gits,
What would reaction be to The Black and White Minstrel Show.
 
Trashbat said:
I find myself now struggling with all this stuff...

Is it really inappropriate for a male actor to play the part of a woman, vice-versa? Shakespeare had men play the part of women. Should we burn all school GCSE textbooks now? Do we ban Pantomime dames now? Personally, I don’t think it is. I don’t take offence and I doubt women would be offended by it.

Is it inappropriate for the Rabindranaths and Kupoors in Goodness Gracious Me to play the role of the Robinsons and Coopers? Personally, I don’t think so. I like the ridicule.

Is Sacha Baron Cohen out of order for playing homosexual Bruno? I have gay friends who find it funny. I don’t find it funny, but neither do I find it offsensive.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point 100 posts ago TB
Bonfire of the Vanities
Destroy things some people don’t like and you end up destroying everything.
 
Are the BBC admitting they were a racist organisation and this is their attempt to go down on one knee ?. They have gone from a company that is supposed to report the news without prejudice, to a totally left wing biased broadcaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.