sanshee
|
Slightly unedifying
Sep 11, 2009, 15:30
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
Why single this man out?
If the govt thinks he deserves a state apology (I'm always sceptical of the point in those, but not the issue here), doesn't every other person who suffered similarly due to the ignorance of yesteryear?
x
|
Moon Cat
|
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 11, 2009, 15:38
|
|
sanshee wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
Why single this man out?
If the govt thinks he deserves a state apology (I'm always sceptical of the point in those, but not the issue here), doesn't every other person who suffered similarly due to the ignorance of yesteryear?
x
Well, in prinicple yes. But not everyone cracked the 'enigma' code and changed the course of the War, plus pretty much laid the modern foundations for that thing you are typing your query on. In terms of other historical, even Wartime figures, Alan Turing is fairly unsung and deserves recognition. Maybe it's a start?
There was a really good BBC4 drama about him last year starring Derek Jacobi. Hope they show it again.
|
pooley
|
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 11, 2009, 16:30
|
|
Moon Cat wrote: sanshee wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
Why single this man out?
If the govt thinks he deserves a state apology (I'm always sceptical of the point in those, but not the issue here), doesn't every other person who suffered similarly due to the ignorance of yesteryear?
x
Well, in prinicple yes. But not everyone cracked the 'enigma' code and changed the course of the War, plus pretty much laid the modern foundations for that thing you are typing your query on. In terms of other historical, even Wartime figures, Alan Turing is fairly unsung and deserves recognition. Maybe it's a start?
There was a really good BBC4 drama about him last year starring Derek Jacobi. Hope they show it again.
KInd of agree with both points - all that suffered the ignorance of yesteryear are due an apology. But, this guy kind of won the second world war for us, and then was treated likeshit.
Difficult one, but an incredible person
|
sanshee
|
Edited Sep 11, 2009, 16:46
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 11, 2009, 16:45
|
Yeah, suppose though it might have been better if some universal condemnation of those attitudes/laws came along side other examples of such high profile victims as himself. Certainly a good way of showing those who need it that sexuality has nothing to do with who a person is, and they still can be good people with it.
However, yer average f-wit may feel somehow vindicated, believing that 'he' didn't deserve that as much as 'others' did.
Ah dunno, maybe too much to ask, but this shouldn't stop here. Let's hope.
x
|
handofdave
|
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 11, 2009, 18:51
|
Obviously the wrongs of the past should be equally condemned no matter if the person was a 'nobody', or a patriotic genius without whom England would have almost certainly have been far more seriously hurt, if not overrun.
No small thing! Probably not good to take an all or nothing approach here. If anything, Turing was evidence that a 'degenerate' is nothing of the sort... he had one of the finest minds of his generation.
Why argue about a correction of past injustices at all? It's most welcome anytime a society finally gets to a place where it can confront its old evils honestly. It's too rare we hear it at all.
|
laresident
|
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 12, 2009, 08:23
|
|
Nicely said. I'll go along with that.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Edited Sep 13, 2009, 01:56
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 13, 2009, 01:55
|
The reason why Apple are so-called is Turing. The original rainbow apple with a bite out was a direct reference to his life and sexual predelictions. The geeks he would care about have already saluted him.
It would have taken Brown's office very little to include "and everyone else persecuted by such ancient laws". Why not?
|
handofdave
|
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 13, 2009, 11:49
|
|
anthonyqkiernan wrote: The reason why Apple are so-called is Turing. The original rainbow apple with a bite out was a direct reference to his life and sexual predelictions. The geeks he would care about have already saluted him.
It would have taken Brown's office very little to include "and everyone else persecuted by such ancient laws". Why not?
It certainly wouldn't have killed 'em to include such language, but they were probably trying to duck conservative anger should they have 'promoted' a 'lifestyle' by inclusion.
Hell, my government only just a few years ago officially apologized for slavery. Took 'em long enough, but better late than never, I suppose.
|
sanshee
|
Edited Sep 14, 2009, 17:34
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 14, 2009, 17:22
|
|
handofdave wrote:
It certainly wouldn't have killed 'em to include such language, but they were probably trying to duck conservative anger should they have 'promoted' a 'lifestyle' by inclusion.
We have openly gay Conservative and other MPs here. Have done for a while now, thankfully it ain't too big a deal to most, although the top one has just been demoted for whingeing about the expenses stuff, which is besides the point.
We also have protective legislation of a sort, however well or not that is implemented, I'm not sure. Same sex marriage, so easy-peasy for em to use this to extend discussion on such an importnat issue.
As I said, I sort of fear the message received for many will be 'some of them didn't deserve it, especially war heroes', so learning and taking from it, nothing really, which is pitiful.
x
|
handofdave
|
Re: Slightly unedifying
Sep 14, 2009, 17:33
|
I could never understand how gays could also be conservative. We've got the 'log cabin' conservatives here... trying their best to fit into the Republican party, who are pretty notorious gay-bashers.
A bit masochistic, if you ask me.
|
