Do me a big favour then. Visit Bradford or Smethwick and tell the most politically correct joke you can think of in an Indian accent. Let us know how you get on...
Yes and no. Yes, because it was a skit on the way the French are supposed to mis-pronounce English words, and no because it was only really supposed to be one character (Inspector Clouseau) who spoke like that.
But racism is something that's inferred, and so if you mock an American accent then the liberals will be fine with that, but if you mock the Pakistani accent then the liberals, who claim to want absolute equality, will be up in arms demanding you lose your job and are branded a Nazi.
Liberals sometimes cause as many problems as they solve, even though they don't intend to.
BTW, semi on-topic, but I found out something about the Bioshock games (well, Bioshock 1, and I assume it applied to Bioshock 2, too, since the same 'solution' exists in that game). As anyone who's played the great Bioshock, or the masterpiece Bioshock 2 knows, in the two games, you are given the opportunity to save or kill children (little girls), and if you kill them then you get more Adam than if you save them, Adam being something that can get you more powerful and interesting weapons. This is the games' moral choice system, do you kill the little girls, and so gain from that, or save them, and lose out?
But for some baffling reason, killing the girls yields only a small advantage over saving them, as the net difference in Adam isn't great. Plus by saving them, you get some offensive/defensive equipment that you don't get if you kill them. And so saving the girls is almost as worthwhile to you as killing them, which renders the moral choice system almost pointless. We fans of the games could never understand that, but a few weeks back I read somewhere that Ken Levine and his studio, who made Bioshock, originally intended that killing the little girls gave you huge advantage over saving them, but that the heads of the publishing company were worried about the game 'encouraging' the player to kill a child, and so the developers were forced to massively weaken the incentive to kill the little girls.
In a way, it worked out well for me, as I've never been able to bring myself to kill the kids in either game (it's like in Carmageddon 2, you'll happily run over a million humans, but can't bring yourself to run over the dogs) so I'm not missing out on any weapons or abilities. But it is an example, sort of, of games being changed for humanist reasons, and certainly agree with the sentiments of those who changed it, even though I'm not sure how much I agree with them that changing the game was necessary.
BTW, semi on-topic, but I found out something about the Bioshock games (well, Bioshock 1, and I assume it applied to Bioshock 2, too, since the same 'solution' exists in that game). As anyone who's played the great Bioshock, or the masterpiece Bioshock 2 knows, in the two games, you are given the opportunity to save or kill children (little girls), and if you kill them then you get more Adam than if you save them, Adam being something that can get you more powerful and interesting weapons. This is the games' moral choice system, do you kill the little girls, and so gain from that, or save them, and lose out?
But for some baffling reason, killing the girls yields only a small advantage over saving them, as the net difference in Adam isn't great. Plus by saving them, you get some offensive/defensive equipment that you don't get if you kill them. And so saving the girls is almost as worthwhile to you as killing them, which renders the moral choice system almost pointless. We fans of the games could never understand that, but a few weeks back I read somewhere that Ken Levine and his studio, who made Bioshock, originally intended that killing the little girls gave you huge advantage over saving them, but that the heads of the publishing company were worried about the game 'encouraging' the player to kill a child, and so the developers were forced to massively weaken the incentive to kill the little girls.
In a way, it worked out well for me, as I've never been able to bring myself to kill the kids in either game (it's like in Carmageddon 2, you'll happily run over a million humans, but can't bring yourself to run over the dogs) so I'm not missing out on any weapons or abilities. But it is an example, sort of, of games being changed for humanist reasons, and certainly agree with the sentiments of those who changed it, even though I'm not sure how much I agree with them that changing the game was necessary.
Overall I agree it's a terrible idea to dumb down games trying to make them politically correct. But in this particular case I think this was a reasonable choice. Everybody's first impression is that killing girls in this game provides good advantage, but normal people wouldn't even consider killing them anyway, so they won't find out that's not the case. So the moral choice issue still works... Only psychos would kill these girls, but since there's not much advantage in practice, this won't make the game too easy for them, therefore even psychos can still enjoy playing a fair game! :)
Do me a big favour then. Visit Bradford or Smethwick and tell the most politically correct joke you can think of in an Indian accent. Let us know how you get on...
well,
that says more about your fear, hyper-sensitivity and hair-trigger reaction than it does about racism.
I'm a Scot with a Scottish accent.
People take the pi55 out of my accent in where I live in the south of England. And yes, I do work with asians and black people and white people. And yes, we do take the pi55 out of each other (like I'm the minority round here etc), and that does include national sterotypes, and some of it would probably make you cry. In the US and Australia, where I have worked and lived, people made jokes about my accent, and my nationality.
Racist?
nah. You really need to get a grip on what racism is.
You are getting racism confused with insulting people. I wouldn't go to Bradford and insult a stranger for being asian any more than I would go to London and insult a cockney; or a bald person; or a short person.
People with bizarre attitudes like yours are creating problems, not solving them. If this sort of thing upsets you, you must be a very delicate little flower.
But racism is something that's inferred, and so if you mock an American accent then the liberals will be fine with that, but if you mock the Pakistani accent then the liberals, who claim to want absolute equality, will be up in arms demanding you lose your job and are branded a Nazi.m, and lose out?
quite.
Is Rab C Nesbitt racist?
The over-egged Glaswegian accent, drunken violent behaviour...
what about comedy that sets up the posh white home-counties English (there is plenty of that)
I think they made the right call. Imagine playing this!
Daley may be a black man (according to Western labels), but he's not #000000!
lol
#000000 and proud!
how about those music awards, the MO#000000O's
funny thing is your brain can be tricked into thinking white is black, watch a film projected onto a white wall in semi-darkness (I.e. on a sunny day but with curtains partially drawn), anything 'black' will be the same colour as the wall
As cleverer people than me have said, one of the problems is that we describe black and white people as 'black' and 'white' respectively, and this implies that 'black' people are the polar opposite of 'white' people, when one groups is pretty much like another. But terms like 'brown' people, and 'pinkish white, sort of' people don't change much, and just makes the matter a little more complicated. I honestly think the media should stop using the descriptions black or white so much when referring to groups or trying to explain anything to the viewer/readers. You always see/hear/read things like "The majority of blacks...", "Most white people..." ,when so many of the people who you know in that group don't fit into what the newspaper/TV program/etc is saying.
A better idea altogether would be not to call anyone black or white, but call them 'Kevin', 'Mike', "Jim" or whatever their name is. And only apply their skin colour when necessary. Unless his skin colour is green, in which case you've made him angry, and should run away as fast as possible!
The PC brigade would have a field day with Skool Daze and Back To Skool.
There's Angelface who hits other children, Mr Wacker and his cane, Miss Take with her secret stash of Alcohol in her office and someone would probably cry sexism about Hayley's only purpose in the game is to get kissed by Eric in order to reduce his lines.
as for the spelling....OFSTED would not be amused. :)
A better idea altogether would be not to call anyone black or white, but call them 'Kevin', 'Mike', "Jim" or whatever their name is. And only apply their skin colour when necessary.
That's really what prejudice is, mentioning someone's race/colour/sexuality/lifestyle when it's not relevant, or as a negative stereotype.
It isn't Peter Sellers putting on an accent and playing a stupid French detective, he's surrounded by plenty of intelligent French officers, his character isn't a stereotype, it's a character and not a representative of any group of people.
Jim Davison's Chalkie was a negative stereotype of a black man, so it was racist.
Daley appearing as white (#000000 jokes aside :)) was probably an oversight, as he was black in future games (without needing to be #000000), and not really racist. If they'd intentionally made his character in the game white because they didn't think people would buy it otherwise, that would be racist. Obviously they didn't do that.
Ironically, Daley has made at least one dodgy comment on TV about the irish being stupid.
On the subject of liberals, before I get off my soap box, I think people need to really look up what that word means. Especially those that bandy it about as some kind of insult, like the Americans use the word socialism as if it means the same thing as communism.
I think they'll find they are pretty liberal themselves, and the term is just being used as a prejudice stereotype that attempts to group lots of people they disagree with into one easily condescendable bunch.
It's always easier to label people something, makes it easier to look down on them. :) That's why I hate racists. ;)
Comments
So, the pink panther films were racist?
Funny accents are not racist -
Genuine prejudice and discrimintion is racism
Tell you what, speak to an Asian using the same words as that caption. See how you get on.
Do me a big favour then. Visit Bradford or Smethwick and tell the most politically correct joke you can think of in an Indian accent. Let us know how you get on...
Yes and no. Yes, because it was a skit on the way the French are supposed to mis-pronounce English words, and no because it was only really supposed to be one character (Inspector Clouseau) who spoke like that.
But racism is something that's inferred, and so if you mock an American accent then the liberals will be fine with that, but if you mock the Pakistani accent then the liberals, who claim to want absolute equality, will be up in arms demanding you lose your job and are branded a Nazi.
Liberals sometimes cause as many problems as they solve, even though they don't intend to.
BTW, semi on-topic, but I found out something about the Bioshock games (well, Bioshock 1, and I assume it applied to Bioshock 2, too, since the same 'solution' exists in that game). As anyone who's played the great Bioshock, or the masterpiece Bioshock 2 knows, in the two games, you are given the opportunity to save or kill children (little girls), and if you kill them then you get more Adam than if you save them, Adam being something that can get you more powerful and interesting weapons. This is the games' moral choice system, do you kill the little girls, and so gain from that, or save them, and lose out?
But for some baffling reason, killing the girls yields only a small advantage over saving them, as the net difference in Adam isn't great. Plus by saving them, you get some offensive/defensive equipment that you don't get if you kill them. And so saving the girls is almost as worthwhile to you as killing them, which renders the moral choice system almost pointless. We fans of the games could never understand that, but a few weeks back I read somewhere that Ken Levine and his studio, who made Bioshock, originally intended that killing the little girls gave you huge advantage over saving them, but that the heads of the publishing company were worried about the game 'encouraging' the player to kill a child, and so the developers were forced to massively weaken the incentive to kill the little girls.
In a way, it worked out well for me, as I've never been able to bring myself to kill the kids in either game (it's like in Carmageddon 2, you'll happily run over a million humans, but can't bring yourself to run over the dogs) so I'm not missing out on any weapons or abilities. But it is an example, sort of, of games being changed for humanist reasons, and certainly agree with the sentiments of those who changed it, even though I'm not sure how much I agree with them that changing the game was necessary.
Overall I agree it's a terrible idea to dumb down games trying to make them politically correct. But in this particular case I think this was a reasonable choice. Everybody's first impression is that killing girls in this game provides good advantage, but normal people wouldn't even consider killing them anyway, so they won't find out that's not the case. So the moral choice issue still works... Only psychos would kill these girls, but since there's not much advantage in practice, this won't make the game too easy for them, therefore even psychos can still enjoy playing a fair game! :)
well,
that says more about your fear, hyper-sensitivity and hair-trigger reaction than it does about racism.
I'm a Scot with a Scottish accent.
People take the pi55 out of my accent in where I live in the south of England. And yes, I do work with asians and black people and white people. And yes, we do take the pi55 out of each other (like I'm the minority round here etc), and that does include national sterotypes, and some of it would probably make you cry. In the US and Australia, where I have worked and lived, people made jokes about my accent, and my nationality.
Racist?
nah. You really need to get a grip on what racism is.
You are getting racism confused with insulting people. I wouldn't go to Bradford and insult a stranger for being asian any more than I would go to London and insult a cockney; or a bald person; or a short person.
People with bizarre attitudes like yours are creating problems, not solving them. If this sort of thing upsets you, you must be a very delicate little flower.
Anyway. visit Bradford? Why? Its a complete hole.
quite.
Is Rab C Nesbitt racist?
The over-egged Glaswegian accent, drunken violent behaviour...
what about comedy that sets up the posh white home-counties English (there is plenty of that)
some people really need to get a grip
Not that there was that much to start with, but I'd rather keep it thanks.
Well there's the National Media Museum... and lots of decent curry houses :)
(have to stick up for Bradford as I went to uni there, yes it's a bit of a hole but where isn't?)
lol
#000000 and proud!
how about those music awards, the MO#000000O's
funny thing is your brain can be tricked into thinking white is black, watch a film projected onto a white wall in semi-darkness (I.e. on a sunny day but with curtains partially drawn), anything 'black' will be the same colour as the wall
Bob & Marcia - Young Gifted And #000000
Public Enemy - Fear Of A #000000 Planet
Ken Dodd - Hold My Hand (If You're #FFFF00, #000000 or #FFFFFF)
A better idea altogether would be not to call anyone black or white, but call them 'Kevin', 'Mike', "Jim" or whatever their name is. And only apply their skin colour when necessary. Unless his skin colour is green, in which case you've made him angry, and should run away as fast as possible!
Ex-Ocean Software graphic artist -
Download my FREE PDF 'LOAD DIJ DIJ' (180,000+ words): https://ko-fi.com/i/IG2G3BEJZP
ZX Art page: https://zxart.ee/eng/authors/m/mark-r-jones/
https://twitter.com/MarkRJones1970
https://www.facebook.com/OceanSoftwareLtd/
https://www.facebook.com/ultimateptg/
blimey!
good to know that kids with jaundice weren't discriminated against back then
There's Angelface who hits other children, Mr Wacker and his cane, Miss Take with her secret stash of Alcohol in her office and someone would probably cry sexism about Hayley's only purpose in the game is to get kissed by Eric in order to reduce his lines.
as for the spelling....OFSTED would not be amused. :)
That's really what prejudice is, mentioning someone's race/colour/sexuality/lifestyle when it's not relevant, or as a negative stereotype.
It isn't Peter Sellers putting on an accent and playing a stupid French detective, he's surrounded by plenty of intelligent French officers, his character isn't a stereotype, it's a character and not a representative of any group of people.
Jim Davison's Chalkie was a negative stereotype of a black man, so it was racist.
Daley appearing as white (#000000 jokes aside :)) was probably an oversight, as he was black in future games (without needing to be #000000), and not really racist. If they'd intentionally made his character in the game white because they didn't think people would buy it otherwise, that would be racist. Obviously they didn't do that.
Ironically, Daley has made at least one dodgy comment on TV about the irish being stupid.
On the subject of liberals, before I get off my soap box, I think people need to really look up what that word means. Especially those that bandy it about as some kind of insult, like the Americans use the word socialism as if it means the same thing as communism.
I think they'll find they are pretty liberal themselves, and the term is just being used as a prejudice stereotype that attempts to group lots of people they disagree with into one easily condescendable bunch.
It's always easier to label people something, makes it easier to look down on them. :) That's why I hate racists. ;)