Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Jools Holland really let’s himself go after the new years special.
Yeah I think it's reasonably to expect not to be the center of whatever a person is filming, but being in a shot of someone else filming themselves while in public is a bit much.
Agree to everyone saying he's a bit of a knob head. However I'd argue that that fact doesn't really make a difference to the fact that they had no business telling him to stop filming.
Watch it back. You can see that they were filming. The guy in white who can be seen at about 5:20 has a camera and appears to be filming the piano player. He wanders into the shot again at 6:18 and you can see it in his right hand.
Which puts their preciousness about being filmed into context.
I meant filming (themselves) for some sort of commercial or other professional production. I should have been clearer reading my original post now.
There's absolutely no reason both parties here can't be knob heads. Although no doubt opinions like that aren't allowed on Twitter where your politics must dictate whether you're team China or team Shades Indoors.
It was a live stream so it was on the internet regardless of the Chinese group being there or not.
I've seen his stuff before and he's an odd bloke but they should have just... moved away. They weren't the centre piece of the video, they were just in the background and it would have remained that way if they just fecked off to another part of the massive station.
I’ll go to bat for good people. But he’s just not one of them. He’s a weird dude who melted at the suggestion that not filming strangers is some kind of infringement of his civil liberties. His cameraman kept filming them.
anyone producing any content for youtube should just get in the effin sea.
It was a live stream. I think he might have been alright if he had just brushed it off after the incident, but all the Talk Tv coverage that he courted made it a much bigger incident than it needed to be. It's coming back to bite him in the balls.
Piano man is leaning into this thing and grifting hard now he's seen her can consistently get a million views each time
Islington cancel their semifinal match with MHFC - when they discover the MH actually stands for Munter Hunters and that their social media content matches their name.
What a monumentally ridiculous comment.
Teams should cancel matches against City
Who hurt you?
Tbf I genuinely wouldn't play for a team called "Muntrr Hunters" if only because you know for a fact its going to predominantly be a bunch of insufferable idiots. Also because I have become extremely hopeless at footballl
Don’t see a lot wrong with that, I’ll be honest!
This thread is 9 years old, crazy. PC still ain’t a fad.
Absolutely. From my perspective, it's more a demonstration of why it's still necessary to protest about fundamental principles. I should have made that clearer.
Far from political correctness going mad - it's a reminder of how far we are from "respect" being a minimum expectation.
Incidentally, the clubs are back in the news again today with Camden and Islington United (Candi) refusing to play MHFC in the QF of the Cup. Candi are the current Cup and League title holders.
Initially they were told they'd be disqualified from the competitions for refusing to play, that's now been revoked during "the investigation" into MHFC. What that investigation entails other than looking at the screen captures of their social media accounts, I'm not quite sure
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ott-second-fixture-against-mhfc-over-misogyny
I’m surprised the league even allowed their registration with a name like that. They can’t just be called MHFC surely? They’d have had to submit their full name.Absolutely. From my perspective, it's more a demonstration of why it's still necessary to protest about fundamental principles. I should have made that clearer.
Far from political correctness going mad - it's a reminder of how far we are from "respect" being a minimum expectation.
Incidentally, the clubs are back in the news again today with Camden and Islington United (Candi) refusing to play MHFC in the QF of the Cup. Candi are the current Cup and League title holders.
Initially they were told they'd be disqualified from the competitions for refusing to play, that's now been revoked during "the investigation" into MHFC. What that investigation entails other than looking at the screen captures of their social media accounts, I'm not quite sure
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ott-second-fixture-against-mhfc-over-misogyny
Shame to trash a historic curio, however gruesome.
Harvard will remove binding made of human skin from 1800s book
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/28/harvard-book-human-skin
I saw the Evelyn tables at the Hunterian Museum, 17th century medical training 'vein maps' taken most likely from executed prisoners in Genoa and they were fascinating things. By that same token you'd destroy these and loads of other historic artefacts.
Harvard will remove binding made of human skin from 1800s book
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/28/harvard-book-human-skin
I saw the Evelyn tables at the Hunterian Museum, 17th century medical training 'vein maps' taken most likely from executed prisoners in Genoa and they were fascinating things. By that same token you'd destroy these and loads of other historic artefacts.
Shame to trash a historic curio, however gruesome.
Harvard will remove binding made of human skin from 1800s book
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/28/harvard-book-human-skin
I saw the Evelyn tables at the Hunterian Museum, 17th century medical training 'vein maps' taken most likely from executed prisoners in Genoa and they were fascinating things. By that same token you'd destroy these and loads of other historic artefacts.
100%. Acknowledge that it was barbaric but it's not like it's a statue glorifying it.
I get what you two are saying and part of me agrees. But in the end it’s human remains, forcefully taken, that should be allowed to rest, I guess. It would be different if they had been donated.
Yeah. I hear that. It's a tricky one. I love history because it's really important to acknowledge the horrors of history in the context of societal evolution. Here in Ireland people would rather focus on the 'we don't do that anymore' which is good but I think the horrors of the past are put to best use highlighted and not airbrushed. Not that this is necessarily airbrushing as much as maybe a clumsy attempt to rectify.
You can acknowledge the people now and the brutality of the objects reflects the history of the time and how we've moved on.
When so much time has passed -and oftentimes no-one knows who these people are- you don't have the living family members problem. I agree they need to be exhibited properly, contextualised and not glorified. Flipside being passage of time doesn't allay guilt...
I think it’s mostly an ethical difficulty here. At what point could we argue that our scientifical thirst for knowledge and our desire to preserve memories of the past become more important than a persons right to their own body? I don’t think it’s possible to identify that point in a fair and objective way. Therefore destroying these bindings seems like the only fair solution to me, even though I agree that it’s a drastic step. We definitively lose something along the way if we go into this direction. But as cheesy as it sounds, we also gain a lot if we uphold ethical principles. Especially in cases like these.
Ideally we would do a digital copy or something like that of these bindings to preserve these memories, these warnings of horrors and atrocities. Seems like the fairest compromise to me.
This exactly. In order to learn from the past we shouldn't hide its mistakes, but show them as such; mistakes not to be repeated.
Though I do realise that the same argument I just made could be used for some mummies and the like. It’s a tough one.
Weren't the mummies generally royalty or nobility and signed up to the practice?
There's a big push in museums and the heritage industry currently regarding ethics and human remains, particularly in the US due to issues when it comes to indigenous remains but also in the wider scope regarding consent.
I hear people's thoughts regarding learning from past mistakes but I think that's very different when you start to consider that the past mistake is human skin of a patient that gave no consent for their remains to be used in such a way. Photographs of the piece can be preserved and used as a reminder for example.
I hear people's thoughts regarding learning from past mistakes but I think that's very different when you start to consider that the past mistake is human skin of a patient that gave no consent for their remains to be used in such a way. Photographs of the piece can be preserved and used as a reminder for example.
Well seeing as there hasn't been a string of gruesome unexplained deaths surrounding the book, you'd have to think she's cool with it.
That's fair enough actually.
First owner of the book sounds a completely normal chap.
I don't see much positive about the museums decisions. Feels more like sweeping things under rug and trying to ignore barbaric practices of the past than anything done out of some higher moral principle. Don't see much point in destroying it. If that was my ancestor that feels far more disrespectful than displaying the historical object for what it is.
For me, I don't think photos really have the same effect as seeing the actual object which forces people to think about things in a way a photo might not. At least when I think about high school age me, a photo doesn't do the same thing as actually seeing the physical object.
For me, I don't think photos really have the same effect as seeing the actual object which forces people to think about things in a way a photo might not. At least when I think about high school age me, a photo doesn't do the same thing as actually seeing the physical object.
Most were. But there are cases of accidental mummification, like Ötzi.
They dig up bodies in bogs now and again that are perfectly preserved. I doubt they fancied being ogled behind a piece of museum glass, but if 5000 years has passed we say tough shit. Which tells me somewhere between 200 and 5000 is the sweet spot.
My reaction to reading the article was similar to the point raised by @oneniltothearsenal, that it feels like a way of almost sweeping the barbaric past under the rug rather than confronting it. And then funnily enough, I had a completely different reaction to the related article beside it on the Guardian website about the American Museum of Natural History removing its large collection of human remains.
In both cases the human remains were obtained through non-consensual means, in both cases the institutions are trying to 'return' or find a respectful resting place for them, but I still can't help but feel that Harvard book removal is in some way being insincere about the past, leaving it there would be the more honest stance, while feeling that the Natural History Museum's human remains removal is the right response to reflection on how those bodies were used for eugenics and past crimes.
In both cases the human remains were obtained through non-consensual means, in both cases the institutions are trying to 'return' or find a respectful resting place for them, but I still can't help but feel that Harvard book removal is in some way being insincere about the past, leaving it there would be the more honest stance, while feeling that the Natural History Museum's human remains removal is the right response to reflection on how those bodies were used for eugenics and past crimes.
Why is it insincere?
Removing the skin isn't erasing history in the same way that removing statues during BLM wasn't. It's how you narrate the history after doing such things that determines if it's erased or not.