BBC changing history

I think it is dreadful that characters in cartoons or movies are rarely crippled, while part of the population is. But, of course, only the ruling class deserves to be presented. Yet that is nothing next to the utter lack of characters with cancer and - why not? - chemo-treatment in ancient Rome. How do you expect them to not feel disenfranchised? I never watch a show if it is not about me, or play computer games if they don't include me or similar. Luckily there are loads of dragons in both.

 

Well if the family was indeed deliberately displayed as black even though everybody knew that would be an extremely unlikely one in roman Britain, and they even portrayed outright impossible "black Celts" and barons, then it is plainly obvious that they did it to signal virtue and show how committed they are to the BS version of "diversity", and not to actually teach something. As I said, this is the rule rather than the exception in a world where TV shows are scrutinized to horrendous lengths on whether they are "diverse" enough to satisfy the Twitter / buzzfeed SJW inquisitors. Lots of virtue signaling and "shaming", not much knowledge.

I think it's BS, but I don't particularly care because this is how the (Anglo-Saxon) world is these days. The solution? Don't watch their crap.

 

I don't quite get why you keep saying "virtue signalling" as though it's some sort of argument-winner. Virtue-signalling is something humans do in virtually any social situation.

Yeah, I mean God forbid that some people of color might feel like they belong in Britain because of that video! That outcome must be avoided at all costs!

 

The use of "virtue signalling" has become virtue signalling, just to a specific group.

 

Imo while the goal is positive (inclusiveness, similar) surely the way to do it wasn't this, and thus it backfired. Stuff can backfire because the reactionaries are racist, sure. They can also backfire because the stuff themselves are inherently dumb. And - of course - both happen.

 

I find it is something that insufferable people do. Insufferable people who are not particularly virtuous, but need to signal it to certain audiences (probably to make up for the attention they didn't get from their parents and still don't receive from the opposite sex).

People of color... Christ, the SJW terminology these days.

And we're back to the empty, stupid Anglo-Saxon version of diversity. Displaying a British Roman family as black won't make anyone feel like they belong in Britain. And cartoon characters don't have to have our skin tone for us to identify with them. To assume that black people need black romans (and presumably, black samurais, black medieval knights, black Victorian detectives) to feel "included" is patronizing and ridiculous. Black people in Europe know very well that native Europeans are white and somehow that doesn't bother them in the slightest. We don't have to shelter them from the "horrible truth" that until some 50 years ago, virtually every single person on the continent was white.

 

So then why the hell are you doing it? Your entire stance in this thread has been nothing but virtue signalling to show how committed to Intellectualism you are, while throwing out insults at the "SJWs" to please your reactionary fellow-travelers.

Yes, how dare I use an inclusive term! How dare I!

Mmk, I don't think you're very well-positioned to declare this, but I guess you wouldn't have said it without being able to read minds or something.

Research shows the importance of representation for people of color and women, actually, but why bother with science when you can virtue-signal to your fellow racists?

 

Indeed: The phrase 'Typical family life [in Roman times]' is not exactly interchangeable in meaning with 'The life of a typical [Roman] family' -- unless of course one is semi-literate. Which description unfortunately seems to apply to many 'native' English-speakers in the west, these days, including -- apparently -- copy-writers at the BBC (and of course YouTube-trolls, both above and below the line -- but I think most of us already knew that)...

 

Which fellow travelers? This is a left leaning forum with some (insufferable) far-left buffoons. If I were seeking approval, I wouldn't come here at all. Unlike you and your fellow SJWs who so love circle jerks (to make up for your failed real lives).

Who says it's inclusive, though? You and a bunch of white SJWs (and other American lunatics). I never met a black person offended by the term black. Or an Asian person offended by the term Asian. Or am Indian offended by the term indian.
To me it's just a ridiculous, discriminatory term.

What research? What actual science (and not anti-scientific postmodern crap)?
History, common sense and experience show that people can identify with other people regardless of their skin color. Science says black people are also people, and don't need your racist patronizing.

Moderator Action: The flaming between you two has got to stop. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

I wonder how it is to be surrounded in one's imagination by this guy:

 

Does it make you feel like a big man to say things like this to people about whom you know virtually nothing?

per·son of col·or
noun
plural noun: people of color

1. a person who is not white or of European parentage.

That's why the term is inclusive, luiz, because it's simply a catch-all way of referring to non-whites. It's funny that you lashed out at it apparently without even knowing what it meant, though. Remember what I said about virtue-signalling?

Since we both know you'll simply dismiss anything I come up with as "anti-scientific postmodern crap" (because, again as we both know, "actual science" is only research that fits with your various ideological biases) I'm not going to bother responding.

 

I know more than I wish about SJWs.

I know what it means. What I don't know is why not just say what it means (not white or not European) instead of coming up with yet another bizarre PC term that is solving some non-existing problem. You might even end up creating problems.

Hum, no. Either a study follows rigorous scientific practices or it doesn't. When it does, neither me nor anyone can dismiss it out of hand. When it doesn't, it should indeed be dismissed. I'm afraid that any study that says that black people need black skinned cartoons to "feel included" will fall on the second category, since the BS-meter almost explodes just looking at this subject. But as I said, if it follows rigorous scientific practices, I can only take it in account.

 

Considering how you happily jump in to slap judgemental labels on anyone and everyone while knowing next to nothing about them, I say this is comically hypocrital of you ^^

 

Yeah, I'm thinking about the anti-drug propaganda we were fed in junior high. It was just so fake, with no scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up. Even back then, it was pretty easy to find out that the practically only legal drug in Finland - ethanol - is far worse than most of the stuff that's illegal. The only successful propaganda I ever saw was about violence, and how just a single punch can kill.

edit:

The thing is, you don't have to teach it. It is already in the brain. Just like newborns prefer looking at stuff resembling faces compared to other stimuli.

 

So remember kids, don't drink punch. Just one single punch can kill.

Avoid all the so-called alco-pops, and take your ethanol straight. The way nature intended.

 

Let me guess - you don't do scientific research!

But something tells me that, as I highly doubt you have the expertise necessary to properly understand the methodology of the kind of studies we're talking about here, this is simply code for (as I said) "I will dismiss out of hand any study whose conclusions contradict the stance I've already committed to."

 

Not today, but I've done plenty of it. I authored several scientific papers even.

What "expertise" is necessary? I assure you I'm pretty good at statistics, and a quick glance at the statistical data is usually a easy way to spot BS studies. The standards of humanities studies in the US seem atrociously low (based on anecdotal evidence), but there are some really good ones too. I won't dismiss anything out of hand (unlike you, might I add), because I pride myself in keeping scientific objectivity. That said, of course I'm skeptical of whatever study you might produce on this topic, because it reeks of BS and defies common sense.

 

Concerning statistics, there was recently a short article in Nature about whether the typical "statistically significant" p-value should be changed from 0.05 to 0.005. I think it should, because it would make p-hacking much harder.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-02190-5

I know you're just being funny, but on a more serious note, it's usually not the punch that kills, but the events that follow (like hitting your head against concrete), which I guess, fits both interpretations of the word "punch".

 

I always though of "True White People" as being:
A:Anaemics
B:Vampires

 

Turns out the Ancient Greeks never existed anyway