Politically Correct Bond Moves

2

Comments

  • Posts: 297
    actonsteve wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    What's this fixation on political correctness and when did it become the great Satan of the hating classes? That's progress, plain and simple.

    Agreed. Its basically a force for good.


    Killing , capturing and torturing Jews was politically correct during the Nazi Germany Era but that was basically a force for good according to your previous post.

    Selling your daughter in Iran for your own benefit is politically correct in Iran so thats basically a force for good too I guess according to your previous post.

    Making women cover they're faces and body entirely is politically correct in Iran. so thats a force for good too isn't it?

    Persecuting Chinese who own Bibles in China is politically correct, but I guess thats a force of good too right? ?


    What BS. Go and put something on to cover that naked hate of yours. Or go and desecrate a few corpses. That's become politically correct with some people, too.

  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Kennon I am not supportive of any of those fowl disgusting laws I mentioned, I was merely trying to tell action Steve that just because something is politically correct, does not make it necessarily progressive or good.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    "Political correctness" is itself a political term, generally used by the right against the left.

    It has more to do with speech than acts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm so glad you're on this forum @echo - a voice of reason.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    Why are there so many vicious arguments going on lately, that take it to the absolute extremes and bring up Jewish genocide?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    Thanks, RC7.
  • Posts: 1,492
    actonsteve wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    What's this fixation on political correctness and when did it become the great Satan of the hating classes? That's progress, plain and simple.

    Agreed. Its basically a force for good.


    Killing , capturing and torturing Jews was politically correct during the Nazi Germany Era but that was basically a force for good according to your previous post.

    Selling your daughter in Iran for your own benefit is politically correct in Iran so thats basically a force for good too I guess according to your previous post.

    Making women cover they're faces and body entirely is politically correct in Iran. so thats a force for good too isn't it?

    Persecuting Chinese who own Bibles in China is politically correct, but I guess thats a force of good too right? ?

    WTF?
  • Posts: 2
    Denise Richards in The World Is Not Enough

    1. Besides being a Lara Croft ripoff is about 20 yet with a PHD in Nuclear Science?
    2. Dr Christmas Jones makes Bond look really stupid by saying that only she can defuse a Atomic Bomb!!!!!
    Yet 007 defuses a few bombs in the past EG Goldfinger, Octopussy they were both nuclear.
    So James Bond in most of the Brosnan films is always put to Shame by the woman starting in Goldeneye
  • Posts: 5,997
    Just one thing: Bond didn't defuse the bomb in Goldfinger. Somebody else did.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Gerard wrote:
    Just one thing: Bond didn't defuse the bomb in Goldfinger. Somebody else did.

    Sssssssssssssssst, you are hurting his reasons why Nuclear Physists cannot look hot. They have to fullfill his stereotypical requirements.

    And in OP he saw how to disarm the bomb otherwise it would have been a big mushroomcloud.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Why are there so many vicious arguments going on lately, that take it to the absolute extremes and bring up Jewish genocide?

    I find it so depressing that people cannot tell the difference between quoting something to illustrate a point and being racist or offensive.

    Dressed_To_Kill was trying to make the point that 'political correctness' or however you wish to label it is merely a product of the society, culture and times in which you live.

    He used extreme examples to make his point because they illustrate it more clearly. He might also have used decapitating people in Paris because they were rich, hanging people in Salem on jumped up charges of 'witchcraft' or putting people in prison in the 50s because they were thought to be Communists. All of these things and the ones he mentioned were deemed acceptable at the time and if you said anything against them you were shouted down and denounced yourself.

    And thats why over the top political correctness not only infuriates intelligent people but also worries them as people like Creasy47 fly off the handle at the word Holocaust and anyone who even mentions the word is immediately jumped upon and sent to the gibbet.

    The way to stop things such as the holocaust from happening again is not to just put your fingers in your ears and ban people from mentioning it under any circumstances.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I think there's a misunderstanding of what political correctness means generally. At its most positive, it is about challenging prejudice, discrimintation and bigotry. By challenging the language we use and questioning our assumptions about gender, race, class, disability and religion, we can change attitudes in a good way.

    I have never heard of 'political correctness' being associated with chopping people heads off or other extremist ideologies. This is a distortion of what it normally means.

    However, if political correctness becomes purely about telling people what they can or cannot think then it becomes dangerously close to oppressive and can have negative results. Arguably the police's failure to act sooner on the Rochdale street groomers was due to a fear of being perceived as racist - when political correctness is taken this far it obvioulsy becomes counter productive.

    Generallly tho, PC has been a force for good, certainly in the UK. Casual racism, homophobia and discrimination against minorities has reduced.

    I still think there is a lot more leeway tho for the Bond films to be a little less dry, which doesn't mean not being PC. Why can't Bond sleep around a bit more and have more of a laugh? Most of the sixties women seemed as up for a tumble as Bond was - with some painful exceptions where Bind forces himself onto them. And smoking should definitely make a come back. Regardless of whether you smoke or not, you cannot deny smoking looks cool!


    And why labour the whole female Bond thing so much as they did in some of the PB movies? Why not just let M get on with her job and Bond be himself without groan inducing dialogue about mysogyinist dinosaurs? As for a black Felix, as others have said, he is well cast and a good actor and I don't think his race has been an issue for 99.9% of fans.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote:
    I think there's a misunderstanding of what political correctness means generally. At its most positive, it is about challenging prejudice, discrimintation and bigotry. By challenging the language we use and questioning our assumptions about gender, race, class, disability and religion, we can change attitudes in a good way.

    I have never heard of 'political correctness' being associated with chopping people heads off or other extremist ideologies. This is a distortion of what it normally means.

    However, if political correctness becomes purely about telling people what they can or cannot think then it becomes dangerously close to oppressive and can have negative results. Arguably the police's failure to act sooner on the Rochdale street groomers was due to a fear of being perceived as racist - when political correctness is taken this far it obvioulsy becomes counter productive.

    Generallly tho, PC has been a force for good, certainly in the UK. Casual racism, homophobia and discrimination against minorities has reduced.

    I still think there is a lot more leeway tho for the Bond films to be a little less dry, which doesn't mean not being PC. Why can't Bond sleep around a bit more and have more of a laugh? Most of the sixties women seemed as up for a tumble as Bond was - with some painful exceptions where Bind forces himself onto them. And smoking should definitely make a come back. Regardless of whether you smoke or not, you cannot deny smoking looks cool!


    And why labour the whole female Bond thing so much as they did in some of the PB movies? Why not just let M get on with her job and Bond be himself without groan inducing dialogue about mysogyinist dinosaurs? As for a black Felix, as others have said, he is well cast and a good actor and I don't think his race has been an issue for 99.9% of fans.

    Very well said sir. Especially about the smoking. What sort of society is it that holds up a man who goes round killing people for a living as a role model for children to imitate?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Exactly. Bond the role model - that's the route to total cinematic boredom.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 297
    Kennon I am not supportive of any of those fowl disgusting laws I mentioned, I was merely trying to tell action Steve that just because something is politically correct, does not make it necessarily progressive or good.

    Nobody did that. Steve clearly stated progress was basically a positive thing, as did I. And as far as I can see nobody called for any of the unnecessary examples you've given, or defended them. The fact many of these used to be common practice not exactly long ago in many Western countries should also illustrate the impact and necessity of progress. Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2012 Posts: 6,306
    Kennon wrote:
    Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

    Exactly. And at its root, the "debate" is racist. People on the right don't like having allegedly PC terms like "African-American," "Asian," or "gay" forced upon them, instead of their preferred more offensive terms for those groups. So they counter that by saying that life is worse for all of those groups in, say, Iran, which is completely beside the point as we are not talking about Iran.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

    Exactly. And at its root, the "debate" is racist. People on the right don't like having allegedly PC terms like "African-American," "Asian," or "gay" forced upon them, instead of their preferred more offensive terms for those groups. So they counter that by saying that life is worse for all of those groups in, say, Iran, which is completely beside the point as we are not talking about Iran.

    I have no problem with these labels if thats what people want but then why arent they extended to everyone?

    I refuse to tick the box labelled 'white British' anymore as if everyone else (Black African, Black Carribean, Black other, Asian Pakistani, Asian Indian, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian other, White Irish, White European and on and on) gets a specific box for where they are from then why do I have to be lumped in with the jocks, welsh and N Irish.

    'White other' for me and then I write 'English' in the empty space next to 'other'. If that makes me a racist in some peoples eyes I really couldnt care less.
  • Posts: 297
    echo wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

    Exactly. And at its root, the "debate" is racist. People on the right don't like having allegedly PC terms like "African-American," "Asian," or "gay" forced upon them, instead of their preferred more offensive terms for those groups. So they counter that by saying that life is worse for all of those groups in, say, Iran, which is completely beside the point as we are not talking about Iran.

    I have no problem with these labels if thats what people want but then why arent they extended to everyone?

    I refuse to tick the box labelled 'white British' anymore as if everyone else (Black African, Black Carribean, Black other, Asian Pakistani, Asian Indian, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian other, White Irish, White European and on and on) gets a specific box for where they are from then why do I have to be lumped in with the jocks, welsh and N Irish.

    'White other' for me and then I write 'English' in the empty space next to 'other'. If that makes me a racist in some peoples eyes I really couldnt care less.

    What difference does it make if you are white or black? Do you think I would argue different if I was white? Would you if you were black? Actually, who can tell here anyways?

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Here's my question: if so many politicians are bent what does 'political correctness' even mean?

    For me, this is a thing that makes me go: ummmmmmmmmmmm.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Kennon wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

    Exactly. And at its root, the "debate" is racist. People on the right don't like having allegedly PC terms like "African-American," "Asian," or "gay" forced upon them, instead of their preferred more offensive terms for those groups. So they counter that by saying that life is worse for all of those groups in, say, Iran, which is completely beside the point as we are not talking about Iran.

    I have no problem with these labels if thats what people want but then why arent they extended to everyone?

    I refuse to tick the box labelled 'white British' anymore as if everyone else (Black African, Black Carribean, Black other, Asian Pakistani, Asian Indian, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian other, White Irish, White European and on and on) gets a specific box for where they are from then why do I have to be lumped in with the jocks, welsh and N Irish.

    'White other' for me and then I write 'English' in the empty space next to 'other'. If that makes me a racist in some peoples eyes I really couldnt care less.

    What difference does it make if you are white or black? Do you think I would argue different if I was white? Would you if you were black? Actually, who can tell here anyways?

    Sorry should have specified I meant the box on passport forms, job applications etc.

    I agree it doesnt matter but some people seem to make a career out of telling us it does.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 297
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Here's my question: if so many politicians are bent what does 'political correctness' even mean?

    For me, this is a thing that makes me go: ummmmmmmmmmmm.



    Join the club, feller.

    Kennon wrote:

    Sorry should have specified I meant the box on passport forms, job applications etc.

    I agree it doesnt matter but some people seem to make a career out of telling us it does.

    Perzactly.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 297
    double
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    echo wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

    Exactly. And at its root, the "debate" is racist. People on the right don't like having allegedly PC terms like "African-American," "Asian," or "gay" forced upon them, instead of their preferred more offensive terms for those groups. So they counter that by saying that life is worse for all of those groups in, say, Iran, which is completely beside the point as we are not talking about Iran.

    I have no problem with these labels if thats what people want but then why arent they extended to everyone?

    I refuse to tick the box labelled 'white British' anymore as if everyone else (Black African, Black Carribean, Black other, Asian Pakistani, Asian Indian, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian other, White Irish, White European and on and on) gets a specific box for where they are from then why do I have to be lumped in with the jocks, welsh and N Irish.

    'White other' for me and then I write 'English' in the empty space next to 'other'. If that makes me a racist in some peoples eyes I really couldnt care less.

    I think that's precisely the point. Each person can identify as he or she wants: British, white, human, whatever. Others shouldn't have the right to make that determination for them.

    I mean, why should Native Americans in the US be forced to call themselves "Indians" for all eternity when it was Columbus who got his geography and nomenclature wrong?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    Denouncing it as political correctness is often seen, but seldom in serious debate.

    Exactly. And at its root, the "debate" is racist. People on the right don't like having allegedly PC terms like "African-American," "Asian," or "gay" forced upon them, instead of their preferred more offensive terms for those groups. So they counter that by saying that life is worse for all of those groups in, say, Iran, which is completely beside the point as we are not talking about Iran.

    I have no problem with these labels if thats what people want but then why arent they extended to everyone?

    I refuse to tick the box labelled 'white British' anymore as if everyone else (Black African, Black Carribean, Black other, Asian Pakistani, Asian Indian, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian other, White Irish, White European and on and on) gets a specific box for where they are from then why do I have to be lumped in with the jocks, welsh and N Irish.

    'White other' for me and then I write 'English' in the empty space next to 'other'. If that makes me a racist in some peoples eyes I really couldnt care less.

    I think that's precisely the point. Each person can identify as he or she wants: British, white, human, whatever. Others shouldn't have the right to make that determination for them.

    I mean, why should Native Americans in the US be forced to call themselves "Indians" for all eternity when it was Columbus who got his geography and nomenclature wrong?

    Agree entirely but if youre English you dont get the option. And if you complain about it youre labelled a racist.
  • Posts: 228
    It's refreshing to see someone of your character on here wizard. I completely agree with you.


    White on Black crime is always reported by mainstream news, but you'll rarely see black on white crime reported.

    http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    It's refreshing to see someone of your character on here wizard. I completely agree with you.


    White on Black crime is always reported by mainstream news, but you'll rarely see black on white crime reported.

    http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html

    Are you one of those people that comments on Youtube videos saying "they say they're anti racist, what they are is anti white"?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    @thelivingroyale don't bother with his questionable, and borderline racist posts.
  • Posts: 228
    No
    It's refreshing to see someone of your character on here wizard. I completely agree with you.


    White on Black crime is always reported by mainstream news, but you'll rarely see black on white crime reported.

    http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html

    Are you one of those people that comments on Youtube videos saying "they say they're anti racist, what they are is anti white"?

    no, im one of those people that are sickened by how dirty corporations and big government are now one, and how we as a people are slowly losing our rights.

    If you want real news visit infowars.com
  • Posts: 228
    @thelivingroyale don't bother with his questionable, and borderline racist posts.

    I am not racist, I have nothing against any race including black people. My next door neighbors are black and are some of the most polite people I've ever met. Im just stating that mainstream news is corrupt and never reports or does any journalism on BLACK ON WHITE CRIME.

    The new world order promotes racism between different races and culture because it weakens the strength of us as people in whole. The Global Elite want us to argue about trivial stuff while they continue to rule the world and dominate us.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2012 Posts: 15,718
    how can (questionable) political discussions enter the most random Bond related threads ?
This discussion has been closed.