- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,551
Right here.Agreed by who? Show me where this agreement was made.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Port Adelaide v Carlton - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Port at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 12
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Right here.Agreed by who? Show me where this agreement was made.
We had a great chat.Good for you.
Hope you enjoyed talking to yourself.
Don't be so hard on yourself.A chat that seems to have happened independently of anything I've said.
What other reason is there to annotate Gone With The Wind or remove Little Britain from streaming services?Who says it is?
What are the other reasons? What are the higher objectives?I didn’t offence wasn’t a reason. You seem to be putting up the straw man of “the highest objective”.
Have you been drinking?You tell us. This is your story.
The folks who think it's a good idea to annotate Gone With The Wind or remove Little Britain from streaming services.This is the first I’ve seen “some folks”.
Name them.
What point are you seeking to make here?Who are they?
OK so you contend that the highest objective - at any point - is to avoid offence.What point are you seeking to make here?
These things have taken place so clearly there were people who thought it a good idea. And folks in this thread have defended it, citing the aim of "avoiding offence".
That is not my objective.OK so you contend that the highest objective - at any point - is to avoid offence.
What other objective is there?You haven’t provided proof. Any quotes or statements?
The highest objective you said.That is the objective for people who worry about people being offended.
Yes, for the people who are concerned about that. Clearly that doesn't include me.The highest objective you said.
By all means demonstrate that there is another objective being served - that is, another objective other than avoiding offence.This is based on an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance: either you can't believe there is another reason or you can't think of another reason. I don't know which.
It's self-evident. What other motivation is there beyond the avoidance of offence?So, your argument isn't even made out at this stage. You haven't provided evidence.
See above. Tell me, why would people annotate Gone With The Wind or pull Little Britain other than to avoid offence? What is the other objective being served?If you can get a quote or some sort of statement then we can agree on the basic facts. It might even resolve this argument fully if you can find something like that.
The BBC and Britbox took Little Britain off on Monday. Both outlets said "times have changed" since it first aired.
Both shows include scenes where the comedians portray characters from different ethnic backgrounds.
"There's a lot of historical programming available on BBC iPlayer, which we regularly review," a BBC spokesperson said.
"Times have changed since Little Britain first aired so it is not currently available on BBC iPlayer."
In 2017, Lucas said: "If I could go back and do Little Britain again, I wouldn't make those jokes about transvestites. I wouldn't play black characters.
"Basically, I wouldn't make that show now. It would upset people. We made a more cruel kind of comedy than I'd do now."
See above.You haven't even made out a case that that is why they did any of it.
SURELY they made some sort of statement.
"I wouldn't make that show now. It would upset people."So the creator agrees? What's the problem then?