What's on your mind?

[GoatmasterGeneral]

In honor of Valentines Day, which my son has reminded me at least 62 times this afternoon/evening is tomorow.

[Dead1]

Makes you wonder about how hygienic healthcare practitioners are when you walk into a toilet that is used by pretty much only doctors and nurses (and me) and there's a number 2 sitting there without any toilet paper.

Not first time either - I walked into the same male toilet after one of the female doctors had just vacated it and there were sanitary products and used toilet paper packed in without any attempt to flush.

I also refuse to use the microwave cause nurses and doctors leave it a splattered mess.

[AlSymerz]

We've just come off 3 years of record high rainfall thanks to La Nina. January was average to shit with little rain and not enough good sun to warrant solar power. Half way into February and we're looking at the driest February on record. Yesterday was 37.8C, it was still 28C at midnight, when I got up at 4am it was 23C and we are going for 41C today. During my walk I could see sheet lighting constantly lighting up the western horizon and it rained on me 4 times with barely enough rain to wet the ground. Still it beats the fuck outta snow!!

 

[Dead1]

Just reading about deindustrialisation in the town of my birth in Croatia (Zadar) which used to have a diversified economy and is now just another tourism/consumer town and it's amazing with the parallel with where I live in Australia (Launceston) which didn't have a war or dodgy privatisation but which still is being turned into a tourism/consumer town. 

 

Most of us serve no more purpose than to consume.   Our ancestors were productive - they worked in making of things be it food or industry.  

Now we work in enabling consumption be it buying stuff made elsewhere or doing things people are now too lazy to do themselves (eg mowing lawns) or having people with too much money gawk at us and whatever interesting things we may have (tourism).

Even worse many now work in the total bullshit nothing industries whose main purpose is sucking up money - eg bullshit training organisations that don't teach people how to do things, consultancies (including latest exercise in waste: diversity consultants), umpteen layers of management, project work, coordinating agencies etc.

Only people that still make things are building contractors whose main purpose is building houses for next batch of consumers imported from somewhere else.

Government props all of this with massive but subtle jobs creation programs.

 

I suspect if you sacked all the people doing pointless work, limited mindless consumption and ran an efficient, environmentally sustainable economy, most of us would be unemployed.

 

[MacabreEternal]

Headed back over to the place I grew up in yesterday (it is not that far away).  From the age of about 13 upwards I frequented the streets of the place, bought my first vinyl records from a (now long gone) record store we had there, drank in every pub/bar and nightclub in the town and have many tales of drunken debauchery that I will keep to myself.  I lived there when I turned 19 up to about the age of 30 in my own house and everything and then when I got divorced had my own pad right in the centre of town in a classic Victorian terrace.

Went back yesterday because my brother in law who was technically homeless has been given a flat (apartment for you overseas folks) after over a year in sheltered accommodation and Mrs Macabre wanted to go help him clean (he has mental health problems as well as some physical disabilities to boot).  His new place is about 4 doors down from where I used to live.  Looking at my old place yesterday it was in a terrible state of disrepair and neglect.  Front door was clearly rotten and the blinds/curtains were all drawn and dirty looking.  Sad to see it that way as it held a high level of nostalgia for me as being my first (and only) bachelor pad.

It was however an indication of the whole town's decline.  Shuttered shop fronts in row upon row with "To Let" signs hopefully plastered over them as if anyone would invest any money in that area nowadays.  The road network in the town centre seemed unnecessarily complex for all but a trickle of traffic through the place.  It was a thoroughly stark  drive through the place to drop of Mrs Macabre and then go back to pick her up afterwards.  Certainly felt a long way from "home" anyways.

Whilst she was at her brother's, I met two buddies and we went for a walk around a nature park on the outskirts of town and then up onto a canal that has seen a lot of redevelopment since I was last there.  For once, I felt they had developed good places instead of millions of houses and apartments the size of matchboxes.  Actually looked like a nice place to live, looking over the canal and onto the nature park (even though far too many cars and people still for my personal taste).  Was good to get somewhere different and get some steps in with some company anyways, shame about the shitty state of the town in general though. 

[FatherAlabaster]

30 minutes ago, MacabreEternal said:

Headed back over to the place I grew up in yesterday (it is not that far away).  From the age of about 13 upwards I frequented the streets of the place, bought my first vinyl records from a (now long gone) record store we had there, drank in every pub/bar and nightclub in the town and have many tales of drunken debauchery that I will keep to myself.  I lived there when I turned 19 up to about the age of 30 in my own house and everything and then when I got divorced had my own pad right in the centre of town in a classic Victorian terrace.

Went back yesterday because my brother in law who was technically homeless has been given a flat (apartment for you overseas folks) after over a year in sheltered accommodation and Mrs Macabre wanted to go help him clean (he has mental health problems as well as some physical disabilities to boot).  His new place is about 4 doors down from where I used to live.  Looking at my old place yesterday it was in a terrible state of disrepair and neglect.  Front door was clearly rotten and the blinds/curtains were all drawn and dirty looking.  Sad to see it that way as it held a high level of nostalgia for me as being my first (and only) bachelor pad.

It was however an indication of the whole town's decline.  Shuttered shop fronts in row upon row with "To Let" signs hopefully plastered over them as if anyone would invest any money in that area nowadays.  The road network in the town centre seemed unnecessarily complex for all but a trickle of traffic through the place.  It was a thoroughly stark  drive through the place to drop of Mrs Macabre and then go back to pick her up afterwards.  Certainly felt a long way from "home" anyways.

Whilst she was at her brother's, I met two buddies and we went for a walk around a nature park on the outskirts of town and then up onto a canal that has seen a lot of redevelopment since I was last there.  For once, I felt they had developed good places instead of millions of houses and apartments the size of matchboxes.  Actually looked like a nice place to live, looking over the canal and onto the nature park (even though far too many cars and people still for my personal taste).  Was good to get somewhere different and get some steps in with some company anyways, shame about the shitty state of the town in general though. 

You describe it well. I've lived in a lot of different dwellings in a few towns and I've been back by some of them. It's always weird; it's never home. Seeing it hollowed out that way must be an extra punch in the gut.

 

[Dead1]

Now they're rewriting Roald Dahl to be more PC.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/20/roald-dahl-industry-classics-parents

[RelentlessOblivion]

They’re minor changes which don’t alter of the original meaning of his work in any way. The publisher clearly just wants to make more money by removing anything which could be considered controversial, considering Americas, or more accurately Republican controlled states’, propensity for banning books this isn’t a surprise.

[AlSymerz]

Interesting enough these changes started happening before the family sold the rights to the books. They've spent 3 years going through all the books to see what needs changing. Some people will blame Netflix for this because they've just acquired the rights to the catalogue but this is not the first change to RD's books. Most of the current changes change the text from what it was changed to in 2001, changes which at the time evoked the same outrage from some people about PC gone wrong.

Some of the changes are hilarious, some are just removing words that today don't make sense. Will it effect how kids grow up? Not at all, most parents don't encourage their kids to read these types of books anyway. Will it upset some people? Of course but most of them want to be upset by something.

Not sure who stands to make the money out of the changes now though given that it was the family that signed the deal to change, but they have now sold the rights. Either way a complete set up republished books will be worth a fortune world wide.

 

[Thatguy]

On 2/20/2023 at 12:40 AM, FatherAlabaster said:

You describe it well. I've lived in a lot of different dwellings in a few towns and I've been back by some of them. It's always weird; it's never home. Seeing it hollowed out that way must be an extra punch in the gut.

Yep. Evocative description. You never want to look at your old home - it's like revisiting memories that make you feel sad. Thatguy thinks memories are over-rated.

12 minutes ago, AlSymerz said:

Will it upset some people? Of course but most of them want to be upset by something.

Life is too short to care about this kind of thing, and personally I never liked RD anyway and never read him to my kids.

[AlSymerz]

2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Life is too short to care about this kind of thing, and personally I never liked RD anyway and never read him to my kids.

This is true, especially since shit gets changed all the time and much of it we don't hear about, but change something that half a dozen kids might see and it's time for outrage!

Dr Seuss had the same treatment not that long ago because the Cat In The Hat was such a naughty feline, and the up roar died down as quick as the news cycle. I suspect this will be the same.

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

They’re minor changes which don’t alter of the original meaning of his work in any way. The publisher clearly just wants to make more money by removing anything which could be considered controversial, considering Americas, or more accurately Republican controlled states’, propensity for banning books this isn’t a surprise.

Well no Blivvie, this is an entirely different motivation. The radical far right (Republicans) wants to ban books that mention our American forefathers being racist or slave owning or genocidal or in some way puts our historical icons in a bad light. They want to whitewash our nation's history.

In this case of Dahl's books the new rights holders are preemptively scrubbing words like "ugly" and "fat" and "stupid" and other now frowned upon 'culturally insensitive' words from the prose "to make them less offensive and more inclusive" just as a precaution to make sure the modern 'woke' left won't become offended and try to 'cancel' them on social media. Apparently hundreds of words, including descriptions of characters’ appearances, races and genders, have been changed or removed in at least 10 of the author’s 19 children’s books. Common words that no one thought twice about when I was a kid are now taught to children that they must avoid uttering them at all costs because they're now seen as 'bad words.'

So for example in 1971 if my 9 year old self had called some other kid a "fat slob" or a "retard" or a "stupid idiot" or a "big pussy" or an "ugly cow" or "a faggot" or used a racial slur on the school yard it wouldn't have been a big deal, no one would have cared, life would have gone on as if nothing had happened. If my 9 year old son did the same thing tomorrow I would be getting a phone call from the principal. He would be reprimanded, disciplined and likely suspended.

[RelentlessOblivion]

slight correction, because it isn’t just America’s history, but is being removed from classrooms now is it? Anything that recognises the LGBT community exists, or acknowledges sex is a thing is also being removed, and while some of that material shouldn’t be taught until the latest stages of high school blanket bands on all materials which reference the subjects we’ve covered here I’m not really appropriate. More to the point though I think it’s probably a good thing we are removing racial and homophobic slurs from mainstream society. Besides, I hardly think changing the line. He was so enormously that it was as if he had been inflated by a giant pump to. He was so enormous. It was as if he had been inflated by a giant pump changes the interpretation that character is fat.

[AlSymerz]

For anyone interested here's the list of changes. It's a long list.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/

Although it was all done with the permission and inclusion of Roald Dahl Story Company (owned by the remaining family) is was written into Puffin's contract when they purchased the rights many years ago that they were able to 'edit as they see fit'.

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

slight correction, because it isn’t just America’s history, but is being removed from classrooms now is it? Anything that recognises the LGBT community exists, or acknowledges sex is a thing is also being removed, and while some of that material shouldn’t be taught until the latest stages of high school, blanket bans on all materials which reference the subjects we’ve covered here I’m not really appropriate. More to the point though I think it’s probably a good thing we are removing racial and homophobic slurs from mainstream society. Besides, I hardly think changing the line. He was so enormously fat that it was as if he had been inflated by a giant pump to. He was so enormous. It was as if he had been inflated by a giant pump changes the interpretation that character is fat.

I'm just vehemently against censorship and book banning in all its forms, be it coming from the left or from the right. I was just pointing out that the left and right have entirely different motivations behind their censorship, and in this case it wasn't as you suggested to keep the far right from banning these books, it was to keep the PC wokies and Karen types from potentially being offended. And to be clear Blivvie, we can't remove words from society, we can only make them taboo, which ends up giving them more power than they deserve.

There must be many hundreds of thousands of books from decades or even centuries ago that contain words that many of us probably wouldn't use or find appropriate today. Personally I would not like to see all the old literary works from years gone by scrubbed clean to modern day standards like this. Who are you or I or any of us to decide which words change the author's intentions? Selectively deleting words like "fat" is fucking stupid. The book is the book. 60 year old books should be left as written. Mark Twain for instance used racial slurs in some of his books. But that was typical for how they spoke 150 years ago. Thse are historical and often revered works of fiction and should be preserved intact as such. Reading Tom Sawyer won't make you a racist. If you don't like it or it bothers you then don't read it. Art should be untouchable. Whatever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me? Words like "fat" and "ugly" and "crazy" and "female" in and of themselves are not offensive words. Especially in the context of fiction where there's no actual victim. I see it as yet another slippery slope. Next thing you know they'll be erasing all the penises from Father Alabaster's artwork. Scrubbing books of innocuous words like this today just gives the nutty right more leverage with which to ban shit in the future. Big Brother is watching.

[RelentlessOblivion]

i’m not disagreeing entirely call Emma, but it isn’t the same, this isn’t the government arbitrarily, deciding what is, and isn’t okay, it’s the publisher, making a business decision. It’s the same reason. Disney decide to cast diverse actors and actresses. Call Mark because they want to maximise their potential audience. for the record, though, I do think it’s stupid to accuse people of being fat phobic for pointing out that someone is living in unhealthy lifestyle 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

23 minutes ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

i’m not disagreeing entirely call Emma, but it isn’t the same, this isn’t the government arbitrarily, deciding what is, and isn’t okay, it’s the publisher, making a business decision. It’s the same reason. Disney decide to cast diverse actors and actresses. Call Mark because they want to maximise their potential audience. for the record, though, I do think it’s stupid to accuse people of being fat phobic for pointing out that someone is living in unhealthy lifestyle 

Alright who is Emma, and why am I calling her? And why do I need to call Mark? Not sure if he's even up yet at 5:15am, unless you meant Doc/Mark who's almost certainly still up at 9:15pm, but in his case I don't have his number.

Disney casting diverse actors is entirely different because they are not censoring an existing work of art, they are creating an entirely new original work of art that's based on a previous work of art which still exists unchanged.

I do understand that the publisher is making a business decision and that they have bought the rights and can do what they want with it now. I just don't like to see censorship of the arts in any way shape or form.

[Thatguy]

Yes I am up, but I think it's just his voice recognition program going berko.

There's plenty of books that are unacceptable to modern society and most of them just fall out of print and so be it. They should not be actively censored or burned. 

But GG is correct that it is a slippery slope to censor certain words and I have to keep reminding myself that my personal distaste for RD does not change this.

[Dead1]

2 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

i’m not disagreeing entirely call Emma, but it isn’t the same, this isn’t the government arbitrarily, deciding what is, and isn’t okay, it’s the publisher, making a business decision. It’s the same reason. Disney decide to cast diverse actors and actresses. Call Mark because they want to maximise their potential audience. for the record, though, I do think it’s stupid to accuse people of being fat phobic for pointing out that someone is living in unhealthy lifestyle 

It doesn't have to be government when it comes to censorship.  Remember in parts of America, Christians groups burn books and music.  Islamic clerics also censor without government intervention

And now we have major media companies doing it to.

Censorship is insidious and once unleashed, it is hard to stop.

 

I am also against tampering of art including literary works for political reasons.    Let it be in its original format as the original artist or author intended it.

I have a 10 year old so Roald Dahl is stoll very much part of my life be it movies or books 

 

As for making money and making thr books more sella le, fuck that shit.  Not everything should be corrupted for sake of making money.

Alsi remenber the PMRC in America in 1980s who tried banning metal.  

 

I have no doubt at some point some fuckwit will decide all metal needs to be banned because it is mysoginstic, violent, toxically masculine etc.

 

It is already happening -eg Taake gigs cancelled both here in Oz and USA cause of fascists masquerading as progressives.

[JonoBlade]

3 hours ago, Dead1 said:

It is already happening -eg Taake gigs cancelled both here in Oz and USA cause of fascists masquerading as progressives.

It is an interesting topic. While censoring Roald Dahl books that were written and available for decades sounds way dumb, there will surely be a line where "banning" a new piece of art or artist because it is just too problematic/inciting violence etc is justified. 

It was super dumb that Pantera were taken off the bill in Austria or wherever as a consequence of Phil's antics from years ago that he profusely apologised for. 

But surely there is a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed, set by reasonable standards, to protect the public. To not have that line is to say, for example, that social media shouldn't be regulated at all and no speech is off limits. 

[zackflag]

Thinking that all metal will be banned because a handful of Taake gigs got cancelled is reaching pretty far.

And besides, that dumbass from Taake brought that all on himself when he went on stage with a swastika painted on his chest. Like, if you're gonna go full provocative edge lord mode than you kinda have to eat the meal that comes with it. Obviously people aren't gonna want to have anything to do with some chud who thinks the Third Reich was cool, that ain't "cancel culture", that right there is actions having consequences. You don't get to pull the victim card because people react accordingly to literal neo-nazi insignia. 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, JonoBlade said:

It is an interesting topic. While censoring Ronald Dahl books that were written and available for decades sounds way dumb, there will surely be a line where "banning" a new piece of art or artist because it is just too problematic/inciting violence etc is justified. 

It was super dumb that Pantera were taken off the bill in Austria or wherever as a consequence of Phil's antics from years ago that he profusely apologised for. 

But surely there is a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed, set by reasonable standards, to protect the public. To not have that line is to say, for example, that social media shouldn't be regulated at all and no speech is off limits. 

It was Germany because 78 years later they're stilll very sensitive, maybe oversensitive, about the whole Nazi thing. But that's understandable I guess. Still you'd have to be some kind of an idiot not to understand how painting a swastika on your chest to be controversial while onstage in Germany (something Taake did) isn't going to go over well. But in Pantera's case the problem is I really don't believe Phil is a nazi or a racist, either personally or through his lyrics. I think it's a huge stretch to suggest that him throwing his arm up to salute the crowd was a Nazi salute. And believe me I'm no big Anselmo defender or even remotely a fan of his or anything, I think he's a shit singer to be honest. But I've seen a few of his interviews over the years and I really don't believe the man's a racist. I could be wrong, but my way of thinking is unless the harmful intent is clear enough to remove any doubt, we need to be willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously incitement to violence and legit hate speech is never justified and should not be tolerated by society, especially on public platforms. But then the question becomes who gets to decide what does and doesn't cross these lines? Prevaling public opinion of the day I guess, but the dumb shit people say on social media or whichever public platform they're using is not what we were talking about here. We're talking about art, music and literature and the right artists should have to express themselves without being censored or blacklisted. Especially without being censored posthumously decades after the fact. Within reasonable common sense limits of course as you've said.

But I mean to censor completely innocuous words like fat, crazy, or female regardless of context across the board is beyond stupid and should not be tolerated either. I suppose almost any word could theoretically be weaponized and used in a hateful manner, but that's why we really need to consider context and intent. Many words like fat, ugly, crazy and female have a variety of socially acceptable uses which have nothing whatever to do with insulting, demeaning or hurting anyone. These are classic children's books we're talking about, and none of these words were being used in an offensive or hurtful context. That's why there's been all the backlash against censoring them. If the offending words in these books had been used in a clearly hateful or demeaning manner then it would be understandable why the rights holders might want to edit or remove them.

I just think common sense should prevail here. This environment we seem to be in now where everyone is so god damned oversensitive about not wanting to get called out for offending anyone is just not healthy or conducive for creating the best art. And I believe in a climate where artists are being stifled and art is being supressed and censored, then we all lose.

[AlSymerz]

1 hour ago, zackflag said:

Thinking that all metal will be banned because a handful of Taake gigs got cancelled is reaching pretty far.

Yeah I agree, they'll have to ban comedy before they ban metal just because of the lyrics.

I don't follow Taake, but I do know Phil's efforts both in an out of Pantera while possibly drunken and misguided show that his apologies mean as much as his stupid chants do when he thinks he can get away with them. Seeing the guy go off his rocker in Sydney in about '04 shows his rants aren't a one off, aren't because of too much wine, but does he actually mean them? Who knows, but I can see why some countries don't want him on stage, however it's not the whole world and there is still plenty of places happy to let them play. The current Pantera tour feeds off publicity, Phil's a racist, Rex is hated, the brothers wouldn't agree, Zakk's not right, Charlie feels judged. The latest Phil shit is just another cog in the wheel of publicity that the media team are rolling with. Phil has weathered this shit before he'll weather it again and it wont hurt the band that much, many already suggest the band has a limited life span anyway.

[markm]

Yeah, and on a adjacent level, as someone who considers himself liberal, my side of the isle pushes the agendas of a few too hard sometimes and it turns people off--like the whole trans thing. I support diversity 100%, just look at my family, but you'd think 30% of the population was trying to have gender reassignment or sex changes whatever the hell it is-like it's this huge minority group and certainly doesn't have to be taught to 3rd graders and it probably isn't but I mean there needs to be some balance on some of this stuff. 

[AlSymerz]

While I kind of agree that 3rd graders don't really need that kind of education when should they get it? It's obvious that many parents don't want to do it, on the other side of the fence many kids are introduced to it earlier than 3rd grade. I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer but I do know that even in high school such education wouldn't have done me or the guys I went to school with any good. Sex education, although completely different back then, was little more than an hour of chit chat about nothing, even the teachers didn't want to do it. We learnt more behind the bus shelter with our mates cheering us on than we did in a classroom.