Most of the outcry is over the fact that the film is terrible.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/
This was on TV last week, how come there is no massive outcry to the obvious racism in this film, or does it only work one way?
No point trying to get him to bite, he wears his sexism and racism as badges of honour.Well, it would help combat the problem if we only called the actual racists, racists...hey Chris?
Double standards then?Most of the outcry is over the fact that the film is terrible.
Maybe, but that’s where historical context comes in. Like it or not, it still matters.Double standards then?
Maybe, but that’s where historical context comes in. Like it or not, it still matters.
I haven't seen the film, how does it compare to the last few hundred years of black subjugation as a topic to be sensitive about?
As I said, I understand the historical context and why trying to make comparisons to that film as an equivalence is ludicrous, but I still maintain that any reaction to that picture as racist or offensive is ridiculous as well. Context is just as important in the persons intent, not just because someone overly sensitive has become offended.
Can a christian be offended any time a person says they don't like the Church because for hundreds of years the monasteries of the North of England were sacked by the Danes?

2004 ? Hardly a different era is it.Maybe, but that’s where historical context comes in. Like it or not, it still matters.
2004 ? Hardly a different era is it.


Lol, that Abbott impersonation was funny. I'm a bit surprised that he was let in the venue in that get up. They have quite strict rules on that sort of thing at the darts.
Yeah, but there are rules regarding offensive fancy dress.On what sort of thing? They always wear ridiculous outfits at the darts!
Only to s n o w f l a k esBut the whole point is it wasn't offensive![]()
I know. It wasn't to me, but people look to be offended nowadays.But the whole point is it wasn't offensive![]()