oojason

FanFiltration said:

Love it 😃

(no pun intended)

Rikter said:

Harmy,

I finally got around to a bit of free time and have been catching up on the OT and related projects and DAMN. I’m so happy to have Star Wars back in my life after the tragic episodes and now that I started to prowl around my old web haunts I’m so glad to see that you’ve done some fantastic work here Harmy! I love the little SE bits and the recolouring.

The Force is strong with this one.

• RiK

The Force is pretty strong with yourself old friend 😃

Word to those Spookies!

puzosep said:

Star Wars first Hungarian TV Premiere from '80s years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkWmhVEVM3U

^ very cool. I love the rawness of the picture quality - very 80’s tv 😃

an oldie, pun-tastic - but still decent…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslJQUMc9yA

I hope you are able to get your pc up & running - or get another soon.

You have certainly contributed here - and look forward to seeing more of your work.

An intriguing project there 😃

skywalkerfan101 said:

Here they are! Old & new combined. The classic front cover of the first set; the more traditional back cover of the new set. I used black backgrounds instead, and made a few alterations and color corrections. Less flashy, and a little more iconic. These covers are my personal go-to choice for my set. If you want to take them, use them well.

These covers can be used for any version of the “Theatrical Cuts,” including the Despecialized Editions (which I personally have), the Silver Screen Edition & the Grindhouse versions of TESB/ROTJ, Puggo Grande, GOUT, etc.

Stunning - and always good to see quality covers that can be used for any set too 😃

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

‘Jerusalem’ the poem (set to music) isn’t literally about the actual city of Jerusalem, it’s about England.

In fact it’s specifically about Jerusalem not being in England 😄 It’s a warning about not being complacent and too nationalistic and it’s sung frequently by people who are complacently nationalistic.

It’s bit like David Cameron professing to his love of The Jam’s Eton Rifles - with Weller remarking that Cameron obviously didn’t understand the song… (‘which bit didn’t he get?’) 😃

Aye, I agree with this take on Blake’s Jerusalem…

http://socialistreview.org.uk/372/blakes-jerusalem

though would equally be open for anything by Transvision Vamp or Half Man Half Biscuit too for a new national anthem 😉

Warbler said:

As for the whether the Queen can vote, I found something here:

http://www.newsweek.com/british-election-can-queen-vote-royal-family-prince-william-kate-middleton-622958

" “Although not prohibited by law,” the U.K. parliament website says, “it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.” "

So it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote.

Yet you said ‘…that they should have the right to vote’ - to which I replied they already have that right to vote, which they do - so the Queen can vote - whether constitutional or not, or considered constitutional or not.

Warbler said:

Well what do you think will happen eventually if they go unrepaired for long enough?

The Royals would have eventually pay the repairs themselves? - as they are on the ones living in them, and are responsible for the upkeep of them - as has been repeatedly said before, no?
 

I think this ends the conversation on the subject as it seems we’re going in ever-decreasing circles here.

Warbler said:

The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.

Well I don’t much about what when on and what it is the Royals were supposed to do but didn’t, nor why they didn’t. I just think the bare minimum should be done to preserve the historic landmarks. If the Royals can do that, fine. If they truly can not, I don’t think the solution is to let them fall apart.

No-one has suggested that the solution is to let them fall apart.

Murry Sparkles said:

Its the same on EBAY UK, no matter how many times you report the listing EBAY do nothing about it, its as if they just dont care. These sellers are making a nice profit from Harmys hard work. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Despecialized-Trilogy-Blu-Ray-/112558196937?hash=item1a34fdc8c9:g:udsAAOSwp4VZlA~V http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Star-Wars-Despecialized-Trilogy-Blu-ray-/112558036843?hash=item1a34fb576b:g:WPsAAOSwIIxZkcax

Seems that ‘pauhannin0’ on ebay has made a bit selling these free edits.

Reported too mate.

yhwx said:

According to this video, £2.60 are saved per person because of the royal family. This is not to discredit anybody’s argument, just thought it’d be interesting to share.

Some would rather everyone’s (sixty million people?) annual contribution go to more worthy causes than a multi-millionaire tax dodger (a voluntary contributory agreement on her behalf - yet the Sovereign Grant income is not taxed) relying on Govt funding whilst increasing her personal fortune throughout - and that’s before the multi-million handouts for maintenance of properties she lives in and is already responsible for, as well as subsidies for other properties and lands.

Though that’s just part of a modernisation process - not the abolition of the Monarchy itself.

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.

As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject.

Just the way people were talking is all. I stand corrected.

Who is talking in this way?

As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law for the Monarchy to currently vote.

I could have sworn the Monarch isn’t allowed to vote in elections.

No, they are allowed vote. I suggest further reading on the subject if you are mistakenly thinking or stating otherwise.

Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…

 

nonetheless, it is obvious where the name comes from.

The title of the anthem is, as has been pointed out already, irrelevant - it is the aspiration and content (which directly refers to England) to which the lyrics and meaning of the song that has importance - and not the title.

Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?

The buildings you listed aren’t just any ordinary historic buildings. They are national landmarks. This isn’t about who currently lives in them, this is about their historic importance. In American importance historic landmarks can get government funding to help preserve them.

It’s not about what historic landmarks in America getting government funding - that is not the benchmark and is somewhat of a false equivalency. The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.

As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.

As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.

No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not still exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject. As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law or right for the Monarchy to currently vote.

Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…

Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.

What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.

The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.

The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…

The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…

It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.

I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…

A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…

Warbler said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.

yhwx said:

oojason said:

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.

Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…

I much prefer to remember…

from a certain point of view, of course…

yhwx said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.

For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.

Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.

Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one so far, but I think I can translate. I think he’s saying it’s ineffectual in that it doesn’t communicate the message you’re trying to send, not that it doesn’t successfully grab media attention. i.e. the media ruckus becomes about sitting and flags and whatnot, and not about your actual grievances, therefore it’s ineffectual.

I haven’t actually formed an opinion on the concept of media grabbing yet. It does seem to be central to the “Stay Woke” thesis – that unless your reminders that racism and brutality exists are adequately loud and outrageous, your protests will eventually turn into background noise and the media (and therefore the majority) will tune them out, fall back into a slumber, and think everything must be fine now. BLM has embraced this and while they’ve clearly gotten some backlash, the media’s focus on police racism and brutality has definitely been longer and more critical recently than during any recent prior protest movement, and I’d say police racism and brutality is actually much less prevalent today than in the years past when it was barely covered at all. So did BLM succeed with confrontational protest tactics? Or is it the fact that almost every citizen carries around a video camera these days and stuff can’t be explained away as easily as it used to? Or a combination. I really don’t know.

The thing I can’t stand about BLM is how the facts don’t seem to matter. They hear about a white cop shooting a black person, and automatically assume it must be racism and the shooting must be unjustified. No looking at the facts, no reasonable doubt. The cop is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes.

There’s seemingly a fair few assumptions from yourself there (unless you have facts for these claims?).

Just what I see on the news. I see them protesting police shootings all the time and not giving a damn about the evidence. Just take a look at Ferguson. The witnesses conflict with each other and the physical evidence at the scene is inconclusive, yet they still want to crucify Darren Wilson because they are so sure he shot Micheal Brown while he had his hands in the air surrendering.

So a few honest questions as someone who is new to this - in a bid to establish some facts…

Do the people in the BLM think and speak with one voice?

I don’t think they are fully unified under one voice, but there is a loose group.

Are BLM often factually incorrect (if thinking and speaking with one voice)?

not exactly. But I do believe many join these protests without having a firm understands of the facts of the cases they are protesting.

Would it not hurt their own campaign for change if they did not look at the facts (or facts known) beforehand?

it would, but they don’t seem too worried about that.

and then later were proved incorrect, and then repeatedly so - as to do so would surely take away the credibility of the organisation if it were continually proven incorrect, no?

the media doesn’t seem to care too much about proving them incorrect. The media seems to care more about sensationalizing these cases.

Does the BLM have a policy of automatically assuming ‘the cop is guilty until proven innocent’ - and if so where is this policy?

I think they have policy of using any shooting they can use to forward their agenda.

All this is not to say that there isn’t a problem of police brutality and with the how they interact with black people. There well might be. But none of these problems excuse presuming any cop guilty until proven innocent.

Ok, nice one - thank you for your replies.

SilverWook said:

I got a question. Do they play an anthem at UK sporting events?

Yes, at English FA Cup Finals and England international soccer games, as well as other sporting events.

(God Save The Queen is usually played when Great Britain is being represented too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen)
 

Soctland and Wales have recently been playing their own anthems on occasion.

Scotland is usually ‘Flower Of Scotland’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anthem_of_Scotland

Wales is usually ‘Land Of My Fathers’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Wlad_Fy_Nhadau

Northern Ireland occasionally plays ‘Londenderry Air’ when it is representing itself - http://www.nationalanthems.info/nie.htm

Ireland (when playing as a united Ireland) - usually plays ‘Ireland’s Call’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland’s_Call

Weirdly, England doesn’t have a national anthem - though we just play ‘God Save The Queen’

Personally God Save The Queen is a shite outdated anthem and would be better replaced by something more inclusive such as Jerusalem, but am sure not everyone in the UK agrees 😉

Bet you’re glad you asked now mate? 😃

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Others, especially those around the world (that are allowed to do so) have no qualms protesting against symbols of their own Govt or country when it is failing it’s citizens, or there is an inequality perceived to be taking place with no-little appetite for change.

You are not going to understand this, but America is different. Here you don’t protest the National Anthem or burn the flag.

Yes, you do (you as in the American people). It has happened, and will likely happen again.

The United States Supreme Court in Texas vs Johnson (1989), and reaffirmed in US vs Eichman (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag. This law is still in place, no?

The raising of awareness for a cause is one of the first and most important steps in the long, slow and difficult road to implementing change. Media suppression or censorship certainly does not help that.

raising awareness in such a shitty way does not inspire me to help them.

People raising awareness in a manner deemed undesirable to you takes prevalence over the cause itself? What of those who campaign for a cause yet do not protest in this ‘undesirable’ manner?

Can it not be a case of ‘I back the cause but don’t agree with how some are raising awareness in this way’?

CatBus said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one so far, but I think I can translate. I think he’s saying it’s ineffectual in that it doesn’t communicate the message you’re trying to send, not that it doesn’t successfully grab media attention. i.e. the media ruckus becomes about sitting and flags and whatnot, and not about your actual grievances, therefore it’s ineffectual.

I haven’t actually formed an opinion on the concept of media grabbing yet. It does seem to be central to the “Stay Woke” thesis – that unless your reminders that racism and brutality exists are adequately loud and outrageous, your protests will eventually turn into background noise and the media (and therefore the majority) will tune them out, fall back into a slumber, and think everything must be fine now. BLM has embraced this and while they’ve clearly gotten some backlash, the media’s focus on police racism and brutality has definitely been longer and more critical recently than during any recent prior protest movement, and I’d say police racism and brutality is actually much less prevalent today than in the years past when it was barely covered at all. So did BLM succeed with confrontational protest tactics? Or is it the fact that almost every citizen carries around a video camera these days and stuff can’t be explained away as easily as it used to? Or a combination. I really don’t know.

Thank you for the reply CatBus, it is much appreciated.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one so far, but I think I can translate. I think he’s saying it’s ineffectual in that it doesn’t communicate the message you’re trying to send, not that it doesn’t successfully grab media attention. i.e. the media ruckus becomes about sitting and flags and whatnot, and not about your actual grievances, therefore it’s ineffectual.

I haven’t actually formed an opinion on the concept of media grabbing yet. It does seem to be central to the “Stay Woke” thesis – that unless your reminders that racism and brutality exists are adequately loud and outrageous, your protests will eventually turn into background noise and the media (and therefore the majority) will tune them out, fall back into a slumber, and think everything must be fine now. BLM has embraced this and while they’ve clearly gotten some backlash, the media’s focus on police racism and brutality has definitely been longer and more critical recently than during any recent prior protest movement, and I’d say police racism and brutality is actually much less prevalent today than in the years past when it was barely covered at all. So did BLM succeed with confrontational protest tactics? Or is it the fact that almost every citizen carries around a video camera these days and stuff can’t be explained away as easily as it used to? Or a combination. I really don’t know.

The thing I can’t stand about BLM is how the facts don’t seem to matter. They hear about a white cop shooting a black person, and automatically assume it must be racism and the shooting must be unjustified. No looking at the facts, no reasonable doubt. The cop is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes.

There’s seemingly a fair few assumptions from yourself there (unless you have facts for these claims?). So a few honest questions as someone who is new to this - in a bid to establish some facts…

Do the people in the BLM think and speak with one voice?

Are BLM often factually incorrect (if thinking and speaking with one voice)?

Would it not hurt their own campaign for change if they did not look at the facts (or facts known) beforehand? and then later were proved incorrect, and then repeatedly so - as to do so would surely take away the credibility of the organisation if it were continually proven incorrect, no?

Does the BLM have a policy of automatically assuming ‘the cop is guilty until proven innocent’ - and if so where is this policy?

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

His argument is that if people and the media stop making a big deal out of it, they will eventually stop protesting the anthem and move on to some other sort of protest.

Yes.

No, the protesters likely won’t - or shouldn’t stop protesting during the anthem - they should keep on whether the media report/censor/ignore it or not - though they may take other different forms of protest too. Media suppression of an incident can help that protest in itself.

We on here may be talking about the sitting thing in the main - but I hadn’t really a clue about any of it (from the UK, not an NFL fan) - did a little research and now I know the reasons why, and researched it further - others will likely do (or have already) the same… and the point of the protest is made.

Others, especially those around the world (that are allowed to do so) have no qualms protesting against symbols of their own Govt or country when it is failing it’s citizens, or there is an inequality perceived to be taking place with no-little appetite for change.

The raising of awareness for a cause is one of the first and most important steps in the long, slow and difficult road to implementing change. Media suppression or censorship certainly does not help that.

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.

If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.

It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.

A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?

Erm… what?

Z6PO said:

oojason said:

LexX said:

What the heck is this?

It’s a micky-take from the lads working on ROTJ - they put in a dragon from the 1981 film Dragonslayer and took a couple of photos for laughs, I think…

It’s THE dragon from Dragonslayer, Vermithrax Pejorative !

And yes, it’s a fun picture from the ILM guys.

😄

I bow to your knowledge of this film, good sir - I was more a Flash Gordon fan at the time.

Though that is one cool name for a dragon - in fact that is one cool name for anything 😃

LexX said:

What the heck is this?

It’s a micky-take from the lads working on ROTJ - they put in a dragon from the 1981 film Dragonslayer and took a couple of photos for laughs, I think…