87 replies · 1,144 views
You're a wee bit uptight, ain't ya? "Urban jungles" = extremely dodgy trope, as it comes with all that baggage about animality, the wild/primitive, etc. In other words, the 'jungle' is raced, and the urban has only become a 'jungle' because the jungle has been imported from some 'dark' elsewhere.
But then you don't have to defend 'owt to me. Especially when (yaaaaawn) you have black friends who agree with you. Word up!
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: "Urban jungles" = extremely dodgy trope, as it comes with all that baggage about animality, the wild/primitive, etc. In other words, the 'jungle' is raced, and the urban has only become a 'jungle' because the jungle has been imported from some 'dark' elsewhere.
I disagree. The phrase 'urban jungle', or 'concrete jungle' has fuck all to do with the people that live there. It's a comment on the piss poor architecture of the 50's*.
Well it is around here anyway. 
* Possibly a bit cruel on the Architects there, most countries were still recovering from the economic impact of WW2 to be able to afford quality mass housing.
AgentWood wrote: call it the urban jungle, call it the inner city. whatever.
and 'word up' is so 1987, dude.
I'm so 1987, love.
Barney Army wrote: I disagree. The phrase 'urban jungle', or 'concrete jungle' has fuck all to do with the people that live there. It's a comment on the piss poor architecture of the 50's*.
Well it is around here anyway.
It's called an urban, or concrete, jungle round your way cos it's inhabited by Northern Monkeys. 
AgentWood wrote: al, i'd think about your own responses on this site if i were you. yes, he is a film instructor, but that's no reason to be personally abusive (we can go into what happened last summer, but that's not going to help matters). and for the record, i encourage dissent in my classroom. i'm not there to teach students what to think but how to learn to think for themselves.
Now, now, I could be here for a hell of an age yet and I don't think I'd ever come up with anything as snide and downright nasty as you managed. But, hey, that's the mark of an intelligent person, right? Throwing their toys out of the pram in such a fashion when something they said is challenged. Well done you.
As for encouraging dissent in the classroom, you teach, like, very little children, don't you?! Martin's pupils are fellow adults.
Al Jarvis wrote:
It's called an urban, or concrete, jungle round your way cos it's inhabited by Northern Monkeys.
Actually the really big ones got flattened years ago and regenerated.... Hulme, Moss Side etc...
Unlike some cities that spring to mind 
Anyway, I'd rather be a monkey than a poofta 
Al Jarvis wrote:
AgentWood wrote: al, i'd think about your own responses on this site if i were you. yes, he is a film instructor, but that's no reason to be personally abusive (we can go into what happened last summer, but that's not going to help matters). and for the record, i encourage dissent in my classroom. i'm not there to teach students what to think but how to learn to think for themselves.
Now, now, I could be here for a hell of an age yet and I don't think I'd ever come up with anything as snide and downright nasty as you managed. But, hey, that's the mark of an intelligent person, right? Throwing their toys out of the pram in such a fashion when something they said is challenged. Well done you.
As for encouraging dissent in the classroom, you teach, like, very little children, don't you?! Martin's pupils are fellow adults.
wow. you still don't understand why what you said last summer was so patently offensive, do you. even after several people tried to explain it to you? you attacked me viciously for explaining the london bombings based upon my knowledge of terrorism (which was later backed up by evidence provided by the metropolitan police). and i mean VERY viciously. and you wonder why i got so upset. i'm the one throwing my toys out of the pram? extraordinary, al. really extraordinary. and it's just not me. you bully people constantly on this board; but i guess you'll never see it, will you. you'll just reply by making a comment that attacks me and be on your way. oh, well. you often have interestng things to say, al, but you do yourself a disservice by constantly putting others' opinions down.
as for who i teach, i teach 6 to 14-year-olds. there isn't much room for debate with the 6-year-olds, but in a gifted classroom full of 14-year-olds, part of the curriculum is fostering debate.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: call it the urban jungle, call it the inner city. whatever.
and 'word up' is so 1987, dude.
I'm so 1987, love.
skinny tie. evidence. now.
AgentWood wrote: wow. you still don't understand why what you said last summer was so patently offensive, do you. even after several people tried to explain it to you? you attacked me viciously for explaining the london bombings based upon my knowledge of terrorism (which was later backed up by evidence provided by the metropolitan police). and i mean VERY viciously. and you wonder why i got so upset. i'm the one throwing my toys out of the pram? extraordinary, al. really extraordinary. and it's just not me. you bully people constantly on this board; but i guess you'll never see it, will you. you'll just reply by making a comment that attacks me and be on your way. oh, well. you often have interestng things to say, al, but you do yourself a disservice by constantly putting others' opinions down.
What was offensive?! Right, the two initial points I picked up were that you suggested 4 men (3 Asian, 1 black) bought RETURN train tickets from Luton to London so as to not arouse suspicion. The inference is there for anyone to see. It's like some secular scene from Crash, isn't it. Oh no, the Muslims have bought one-way tickets: it means they're gonna blow themselves up! Oh, please. Like I said, we don't think like you lot over here. But you still didn't get it, did you?
And then you felt the need to explain the topography of my very own city to me. Just cos you've got an -ology. The targets were soft to say the least. Had they bombed Liverpool Street instead of Aldgate or Baker St instead of Edgware Road (the very heart of Arab London!) they would've induced far more carnage. But, oh no, you're the expert. What you say goes.
You didn't even attempt to justify your points. Just shouted and screamed and told me you'd have my posts deleted if I ever posted again. Even threatening to have my posts deleted from WIM, if you please! You basically attempted a complete character assasination on me, even slagging off my job as 'cushy' (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that) and even - more childishly - slagged off a novel I had posted SEVEN years ago which you've never even read. Where the fcuk did that come from one wonders?!
Truth is, you spend all day with people of maximum age 14. When you say something, they listen. If you try that sort of approach with adults, we tend not to sit down and simply take it.
You said it yourself in this thread. You don't like having your intelligence challenged.
I nicked a DVD copy of Crash off a mate a few months ago and thought it wasn't too bad. Better than the usual shite which comes out of mainstream Hollywood these days but that's not difficult to beat. I notice it was shot in a very similar way to the drugs movie "Traffic" from a couple of years back i.e. seperate story arcs/characters who'll eventually cross paths towards the end.
The risk with any film 'with a message' is that it'll patronise you but I don't think Crash did too badly on that front. Flashing "racism is bad y'all" subliminally between scenes would've been laughable. The Sandra Bullock character was a right bitch wasn't she? Mugging or not...
Anybody seen Syriana yet? I saw the other week and thought it was really entertaining and had a decent stab at questioning US foreign policy on middle-eastern oil. Again, similar to the way Traffic was shot and Clooney's gone up in my opinion for that one 
Al Jarvis wrote: (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that)
Think I've got you beat Al. When I am deployed I work 15 hour days, 6-9 months long, usually get 3 days off and 4 1/2 days (for the whole 9months), and could be woken at any moment intended to work or fight. At least the time goes by fast. Had to digress the situation.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote: (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that)
...and could be woken at any moment intended to work or fight.
I've heard that's standard Viking living, no?
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote: (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that)
...and could be woken at any moment intended to work or fight.
I've heard that's standard Viking living, no?
I'd laugh, but I don't understand the Viking jokes. Are they an inside thing, or are they just flying over my head??? Please explain (though it will probably loose it's humor like all good jokes do when explained).. Sorry,
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: I'd laugh, but I don't understand the Viking jokes. Are they an inside thing, or are they just flying over my head??? Please explain (though it will probably loose it's humor like all good jokes do when explained)..
The Vikings are explained in a one-liner HERE by Roger Lyons.
Any Vikings jokes are down to the alleged drinking and marauding of our forefathers. And are purely coincidental.
Al Jarvis wrote:
What was offensive?! Right, the two initial points I picked up were that you suggested 4 men (3 Asian, 1 black) bought RETURN train tickets from Luton to London so as to not arouse suspicion. The inference is there for anyone to see. It's like some secular scene from Crash, isn't it. Oh no, the Muslims have bought one-way tickets: it means they're gonna blow themselves up! Oh, please. Like I said, we don't think like you lot over here. But you still didn't get it, did you?
al, when terrorists purchase tickets they purchase return tickets. i was watching a documentary on the london bombings where the head of counterterrorism for the metropolitan police went to luton train station car park and noted that every car had a return ticket in the window. he then said what i said: to buy singles would have raised suspicion as they would have had the only car in the lot with a 'single' in the window, thus raising suspicion. it has nothing to do with race.
And then you felt the need to explain the topography of my very own city to me. Just cos you've got an -ology. The targets were soft to say the least. Had they bombed Liverpool Street instead of Aldgate or Baker St instead of Edgware Road (the very heart of Arab London!) they would've induced far more carnage. But, oh no, you're the expert. What you say goes.
al, i used to live in london. remember? terrorists attack symbols. carnage is secondary (although often important), except for with groups who have a manichean worldview, where it is the primary objective (such as shoko asahara and the sarin gas attacks in tokyo). the symbol was the underground--the point, to interrupt transport in london. just like in new york the symbol was the WTC, the financial symbol of the world, and the intent was to disrupt the financial state of america. we now know that kings cross was the main symbol as all trains left from kings cross, a major terminal. the bombings were supposed to have occurred in all directions, but one train left late (the kings cross one) as it had to change drivers and for some unknown reason the fourth bomber decided to take a bus instead (it is surmised that he was to go north).
You didn't even attempt to justify your points. Just shouted and screamed and told me you'd have my posts deleted if I ever posted again.
i did justify my points, al. i used the MO of other terrorists to explain what happened in london and describe a pattern--something which terrorists always follow. but your initial response to my post was extremely vitriolic, and you later said that i sounded like a terrorist apologist. as far as having your posts deleted, this was after the moderators locked each thread and new ones kept popping up, simply to vilify me. it was too much and too upsetting to have threads dedicated to insulting me and telling me that i had no idea what i was talking about.
Even threatening to have my posts deleted from WIM, if you please! You basically attempted a complete character assasination on me, even slagging off my job as 'cushy' (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that) and even - more childishly - slagged off a novel I had posted SEVEN years ago which you've never even read. Where the fcuk did that come from one wonders?!
i don't remember the WIM thing, but perhaps it's true. as far as the rest of it, that was sent to you in an e-mail for which i have since apologised. you yourself have said that people should sort out their problems via e-mail on here. i sent mine in extreme anger and you called me a coward for not posting it. so i did, and then you got upset for me posting it!
al, your original post to me and the constant posts afterwards were filled with hate and personal attacks. others tried to explain that to you, but you didn't understand. also, you don't know what was going on in my personal life at the time to make me so upset (i'm sure you see this as a sign of weakness, 'throwing my toys out of the pram,' if you will, but so be it. i'm not ashamed.). i've made my peace on this issue with conor via e-mail and explained to him what had happened subsequent to the row, although we still disagree passionately about other issues.
i was so surprised you were so cruel (yes, you were cruel), as i thought we got along well in new york. i guess i was wrong. if you disliked me then and dislike me now then that's your prerogative, al. so be it.
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
What? You mean it's not all a dream?
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
What? You mean it's not all a dream?
ahm, i do live in a totally different time zone to you.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
What? You mean it's not all a dream?
Barney Army wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
my life is one non-ending nightmare
very good b a.
AgentWood wrote: i was so surprised you were so cruel (yes, you were cruel), as i thought we got along well in new york. i guess i was wrong. if you disliked me then and dislike me now then that's your prerogative, al. so be it.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree, Christy. I'm not going to continue locking horns with you here publicly.
Peace.
Al Jarvis wrote: We'll simply have to agree to disagree, Christy. I'm not going to continue locking horns with you here publicly.
Peace.
ditto.
AgentWood wrote: p.s. we have a saying in the US: white people feel safer in the country while black people feel safer in the cities. says something, doesn't it.
Same thing is happening here actually... in the last 20 years we had so many immigration in Canada, all the european descent are moving to the subburbs and leave the city to the new comers, and more recently, the immigrants are also moving to the subburbs and the white folks are moving even further...
But I don't think it's a race thing, it's just people wanting to live with their own, just like there is a chinatown in each and every city.
One thing for sure, after one generation, they are definitively part of this country, I have absolutely no issue with anybody adopting our culture and lifestyle, what I have difficulties with is those completly rejecting them... makes you wonder why they moved here in the first place.
Although Canada is a pretty liberal country... supreme court just allowed young siks to wear the kirpan knife in school, when nobody is allowed to bring a knife of course since it's too dangerous... I'm all for liberty, but there is a thin line there...
That said, there is a pretty good chance the next prime minister from Quebec will be gay in 1 year... not sure this could happen at many places YET...
Al Jarvis wrote:
It's an interesting film, but thank fcuk our country ain't like that. If that's a genuine interpretation of race relations in modern America then they appear to be stuck about 100 years behind us. Surely people can't honestly think like that in this day and age, judging virtually everyone by colour alone?! And, fcuk me, but what an awful advert for Los Angeles. Puts you right off going there, if you ain't already been.
All countries have their issues Al, maybe race is an issue in the USA, but it improved a lot over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, despite knowing not much about the issues... I still stugle why religion caused so much harm into Northern Ireland... that's even worst IMHO as it's not even race related, but ideology!
But as I said, I know fook all about it.
We can talk about what we do to indians in Canada, no problem there.. it's pretty stupid IMHO!
Spotnick wrote:
AgentWood wrote: p.s. we have a saying in the US: white people feel safer in the country while black people feel safer in the cities. says something, doesn't it.
Same thing is happening here actually... in the last 20 years we had so many immigration in Canada, all the european descent are moving to the subburbs and leave the city to the new comers, and more recently, the immigrants are also moving to the subburbs and the white folks are moving even further...
But I don't think it's a race thing, it's just people wanting to live with their own, just like there is a chinatown in each and every city.
here it's called 'white flight' and it is a race thing. it started in the 1950s when massive suburbs were built on the outskirts of cities and whites, who made up the majority of the middle and upper classes, moved into these new towns. blacks had moved into northern cities beginning in the 1940s both to find work and to escape jim crow, and racist whites were threatened by this influx of african-americans. before the civil rights act of 1964, blacks were often forbidden from moving into the suburbs, which ensured that they remained all-white. this is part of the reason for the drop in detroit's population from roughly 1,600,000 in 1960 to 900,000 today. in many cities the loss of tax dollars has left impoverished neighbourhoods, poor schools and little infrastructure--along with a mostly non-white, poor population. basically de facto segregation.
Spotnick wrote:
I still stugle why religion caused so much harm into Northern Ireland...
Oh that one is easy....we're a nation of dicks and dicks+god=death. ;)
Steve Campbell wrote:
Spotnick wrote:
I still stugle why religion caused so much harm into Northern Ireland...
Oh that one is easy....we're a nation of dicks and dicks+god=death. ;)
