Students helping students, join us in improving boredofstudies.org by donating and supporting future learners!
want some kfc? you seem a little bit uncivilised...
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why do people try to create racism out of nothing? Its like that movie "Seven", people can convince themselves of patterns in anything if they are crazy enough.I agree. America is currently having a cry about the movie Avatar being racist. They need to stfu imho.
+1That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why do people try to create racism out of nothing? Its like that movie "Seven", people can convince themselves of patterns in anything if they are crazy enough.
I agree. America is currently having a cry about the movie Avatar being racist. They need to stfu imho.
They sort of resembled Africans though.LOL! how is that being racist, they are completely different species anyway, plus its all fiction bullshit, who believes in that, hah! its coz they're blue isn't it? lol
honestly, yanks havent made this much of a deal about racism since jimmy carter was president lol.
They sort of resembled Africans though.
the ad would have recieved a much better reception if it was just a bunch of monkeys, chimps, baboons and gorillaz eating some live chickens
No, apparently, it's 'racist' because the theme of the movie "rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that non-whites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades."
It has been deemed racist because a white man saved the day.
ffs.
And besides, 'the white man' was drawn in a negative light.No, apparently, it's 'racist' because the theme of the movie "rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that non-whites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades."
It has been deemed racist because a white man saved the day.
ffs.
While alot of the positive and progressive eventualities for tolerance of race, sexuality, gender etc fall under the politically correct banner, and sometimes the tabloid media wrongly chastise this, i think the bigger problem is still the PCness seeping into public dialogue and everyday life. You just have to listen to anyone from the Rudd government speaking in public to realise what overly politically-correct, spin-driven language does to political dialogue. e.g. sucks it of any meaning or direct relevance or honesty. This is why people enjoy reading/listening to journalists like Alan Jones (oops did i just call him a journalist) and Annabel Crabb, cos they cut the crap.There are some instances of it being a problem, HC and the KFC affair being two examples that come to mind but for the large part far from political correctness being a problem, advocation of more tolerance or criticisms of rank bigotry are written off as "political correctness gone mad."
It's funny because the main character is Australian.OH cmon I'm against Avatar but not in this way. It's a hollywood and american (yes redundant but the sentence needs it) movie, what were they supposed to use as a main character? An Inuit? Hardly any of them even apply for the entertainment industry.
Politicians from both sides of the aisle (atleast the good ones) speak the way they do because they are in a cutthroat competitive industry where they gain an advantage by doing so. When effectively every Australian citizen is your employer it is only natural you do not polarize or alienate. Notice for all Kevin Rudd's pc he still paid great tribute to John Laws when the troublemaker retired?While alot of the positive and progressive eventualities for tolerance of race, sexuality, gender etc fall under the politically correct banner, and sometimes the tabloid media wrongly chastise this, i think the bigger problem is still the PCness seeping into public dialogue and everyday life. You just have to listen to anyone from the Rudd government speaking in public to realise what overly politically-correct, spin-driven language does to political dialogue. e.g. sucks it of any meaning or direct relevance or honesty. This is why people enjoy reading/listening to journalists like Alan Jones (oops did i just call him a journalist) and Annabel Crabb, cos they cut the crap.
Didn't Foucault write something about how the growing danger is changing from overt social control from the top down to self-censorship? Self-censorship, like ashie0 pointed out, is manifested in political correctness.
People who otherwise have a lot to contribute are forced to dilute the directness of their message.
I suspect there is a lot of rewriting of history involved in the Hawke legacy and indeed that of any prime minister to win an election in the past seventy years whereby their success is attributed to their unorthodoxy. Far from delivering him victory, Hawke's occasional crudeness was an electoral hindrance.But will more direct and genuine language really polarise or alienate the electorate? I think politicians underestimate the public's thirst for seeing the real side of their politicians, like how they talk when they get home and throw the pots and pans around the kitchen as opposed to their rehearsed selves. Everyone totally loved it when Bob Hawke called that guy in the shopping centre a stupid old bugger (I think, i wasn't actually born).
Now that Tony Abbott is leader of the liberal party you can probably see a test run of a frank, straight talking leader of a major party and how it compares to a mild mannered vanilla bland Kevin Rudd in the polls. It will polarise and it will alienate just as it when Mark Latham tried to adopt it in 2004.When i mean PC, i mean just avoiding saying anything controversial, norm-breaking, not-party-approved, not necessarily everyone running around being like "kill all Asians".
I thought you meant Jones and Crabbe's were exceptions and that for the large part you felt people in public life were afraid to be frank and open. If you were suggesting journalists do what politicians are afraid to do its because journalists are only required to interest people, politicians are required to win the trust of people. Not a "I believe you" kind of trust but a "I don't think you are going to do something irresponsible and jeopardize my lifestyle" kind of trust.I don't really get what you're saying with your last point about the journalists, are you agreeing with me? Because I agree with your provided examples.