Nah - I’m good. Also, I’m pretty sure the oompa lumpas were orange. Like Donald Trump - you don’t look like him do you?
Even Augustus Gloop ain't safe (Dahl being censored)
- Thread starter hyperseven
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Im small and orange and got hair like DT.
Yeah? Me too!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Even Sir Tom Jones' songs are now being censored, the seemingly staunch Welsh rugby lot have their knickers in a twist in case Tom's rendition of Delilah has men knifing their errant partners due to the testosterone rising during one of his still superb performances.
www.theguardian.com
Prince Harry seems not to have a problem here.... Singing away like a good `un. I wonder when the retraction for his none PC performance is insisted upon by the righteous Meghan
www.youtube.com
Bye, bye, bye Delilah: Wales rugby choirs banned from singing Tom Jones hit
The Welsh Rugby Union has removed the song from its Principality Stadium choirs’ playlist due to ‘problematic subject matter’
www.theguardian.com
Prince Harry seems not to have a problem here.... Singing away like a good `un. I wonder when the retraction for his none PC performance is insisted upon by the righteous Meghan
Tom Jones - Delilah (Diamond Jubilee Concert 2012) HD
Tom Jones - Delilah (Diamond Jubilee Concert 2012)"Delilah" is a song recorded by Welsh singer (Tom Jones) in 1968. It was written by Barry Mason, with music...
www.youtube.com
They were orange in the film because even back on 1969 they recognised that making them look like they are described in the book would be problematic.
I think you’ve unknowingly. hit the nail right on the head.
Every time i see a news story like this I keep being reminded of that Chocolate ration scene in 1984, it's freaking chilling and there are a few here that remind me of Parsons
Edit - In fact the fact he was scared of his own kid also reminds me of certain aspects of the modern day.
Last edited:
I think most people find them quite tiring to be honest...
I was amused by radio 4 discussion this morning by a guest dismissing Dahl as children's stories while pontificating, "if it was a classic like Oliver Twist however. .."
A story I believe about exploitation of children, about misogyny and wife beating.
Oh, yes, I get the point.
All fiction will have discomforting aspects for future generations however I don't think that rewriting the language or intent of the wording is a good thing. I suppose they did it with the bible though so there is precedent.
A story I believe about exploitation of children, about misogyny and wife beating.
Oh, yes, I get the point.
All fiction will have discomforting aspects for future generations however I don't think that rewriting the language or intent of the wording is a good thing. I suppose they did it with the bible though so there is precedent.
I think people just want autonomy over how they feel towards things - heck, most people wish they could control how they feel, so it’s always frustrating to be made to feel like you should care about something when you actually don’t.
Personally I feel that ‘food events to highlight our diverse work force’ is where diversity championing can become awkward. Depending on how it is done, it may be considered extremely patronising. I’m sure it isn’t as bad in reality as ‘let’s have curry to celebrate the Indian guy in our team’ but I’ll use that to illustrate the point. Maybe the idea has been introduced to Indian guy and he has said he’s on board but… how does he really feel about it?
If someone said “we are having a fish and chips night to welcome you to our team!” I’d politely go along with it but would probably be rolling my eyes internally.
Also, it just seems such an arbitrary thing to champion for the sake of a work social. A better, albeit less practical way of exploring your workforce, would be for everyone to have an opportunity of introducing to others to what they want to: whether that’s music, food, film, hobbies, heritage, whatever. OK, maybe that means Jimmy brings his Warhammer collection to work to show off which of course doesn’t appeal to everyone, but he shouldn’t HAVE to appeal to everyone - he just needs to be Jimmy. I’d personally much rather get to know him and what he enjoys (whether that’s his heritage or otherwise) rather than limiting it to cuisine. I’m being a bit harsh here as my suggestion is impractical and I do see some value in these ‘food events’… but, again, hopefully you’ll get what I mean.
And maybe, people wouldn’t want to share their love of Warhammer - or don’t care to learn for another’s love of it. Both of these are totally fine.
I just have in my mind this image of a society where everyone is slapping each other on the back and congratulating everyone for being so different and for all of their differences - it’s not inherently wrong, actually it’s a rather wonderful image, save for the obvious: it’s fake.
Last edited:
Very LTTP!
I'm on the fence with it..
Some tailoring of language to keep things more current is fine and why not. But seeing that this is in conjunction with 'Inclusive Minds' makes me think it's for all the wrong reasons.
I remember reading Tom Sawyer, Treasure Island etc as a youngish child and that is precisely what made me think that in the 'old days' people were rather mean to each other and all that did is make me more inclusive and show me society has progressed massively and that is a good thing..
If I wasn't such a critic of what I see as deeply flawed ideologies that literally do the opposite of what they claim to be focussed on and objectively regressing us culturally, then I'd probably assume it's for benevolent reasons.
I'm on the fence with it..
Some tailoring of language to keep things more current is fine and why not. But seeing that this is in conjunction with 'Inclusive Minds' makes me think it's for all the wrong reasons.
I remember reading Tom Sawyer, Treasure Island etc as a youngish child and that is precisely what made me think that in the 'old days' people were rather mean to each other and all that did is make me more inclusive and show me society has progressed massively and that is a good thing..
If I wasn't such a critic of what I see as deeply flawed ideologies that literally do the opposite of what they claim to be focussed on and objectively regressing us culturally, then I'd probably assume it's for benevolent reasons.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
What they should do is just have 2 editions.
Standard Edition.
SJW Edition.
Then people can choose what to read.
It's getting ridiculous that we're trying to expunge the past to imagine it never happened, or that the book was written in a time when this wasn't an issue.
Heck you can't use "white with fear" or "double chins" or other basic expressions now apparently. It's starting to push me towards actually wanting to be more offensive on purpose (of course I won't... but I can understand why people would become entrenched in being more anti-PC).
Standard Edition.
SJW Edition.
Then people can choose what to read.
It's getting ridiculous that we're trying to expunge the past to imagine it never happened, or that the book was written in a time when this wasn't an issue.
Heck you can't use "white with fear" or "double chins" or other basic expressions now apparently. It's starting to push me towards actually wanting to be more offensive on purpose (of course I won't... but I can understand why people would become entrenched in being more anti-PC).
Last edited:
It is probably a good thing that H Rider Haggard and even R L Stevenson are out of print or I assume they are.
The abridged and amended volumes should be marked as such on the cover and not pretend to be the authors entire work.
It's ridiculous because it's not the reason lol
Do you think they want to keep their sales up and keep their books in the mainstream for revenue, or do you think they're on a mission to rewrite history...via childrens books?
Last edited:
yes I stopped listening to their expert at that point
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
If it's to keep sales up (which let's face it is ultimately what it's for) then it's just disingenuous and just virtue signaling - which again highlights my point that it's absolutely ridiculous.
People would still buy the books regardless. Pushing more and more of this amendment / censorship just drives things underground, and creates behaviours of intolerance rather than the opposite.
Children's books are just an example. They've got rid of statues, art work, and other books from university libraries so as to not offend people or whatever reason. Historical books, events, and facts are critically important - they don't mean that we are the same people as we were, but they draw that line in the sand to help us understand/see where we've gone / become. Getting rid of them doesn't make the sins of the past disappear. Keeping this chip on a shoulder for past events is absolutely ridiculous.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree with that assessment. It can't be disingenuous and simply virtue signalling if it is actually helping sales 
Also, this isn't censorship, not even close. This isn't government, this is commercial - where they do well to follow public opinion.
Also, this isn't censorship, not even close. This isn't government, this is commercial - where they do well to follow public opinion.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
I respectfully disagree with that assessment. It can't be disingenuous and simply virtue signalling if it is actually helping sales
If helping sales is the primary drive, but the rhetoric is about "being less offensive" then it clearly is.
I think it's an absolute waste of time and money and really does nothing to add to society.
However yes, we'll agree to disagree and that's absolutely fine, I would vehemently fight for your right to disagree with me regardless of the facts (whether I'm right or wrong).
