More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11396
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 10 Jun 2017, 8:22pm

Hi,
Not a lot but a bit bored in front of TV :mrgreen:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... tians.html

"BBC drops Anno Domini and Before Christ to avoid offending non-Christians

The BBC has been accused of bowing to political correctness after it emerged that it was discouraging the use of the terms BC and AD for fear of offending non-Christians.
"
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9772
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby 661-Pete » 10 Jun 2017, 8:31pm

This link appears to be nearly six years old. Any reason to 'resurrect' it now?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11396
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 10 Jun 2017, 9:18pm

Hi,
661-Pete wrote:This link appears to be nearly six years old. Any reason to 'resurrect' it now?

Sorry wanted to draw attention to the subject of timeline and its so called offence apparent to NON Christians?
Just happens the link is old.

http://www.historytoday.com/michael-ost ... whose-lord

Its an old link but does that mean we only discuss what is contemporary or in the now................
Subject might be contentious but it does not change the time line origin.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

PH
Posts: 8418
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby PH » 10 Jun 2017, 10:19pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Its an old link but does that mean we only discuss what is contemporary or in the now................

So, it's been six years and no one has noticed. Just how important a story can it have been?

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11396
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 10 Jun 2017, 11:02pm

Hi,
PH wrote:
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Its an old link but does that mean we only discuss what is contemporary or in the now................

So, it's been six years and no one has noticed. Just how important a story can it have been?

Important............to who.?

Its the Tea Shop :)
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

PH
Posts: 8418
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby PH » 10 Jun 2017, 11:32pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
PH wrote:
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Its an old link but does that mean we only discuss what is contemporary or in the now................

So, it's been six years and no one has noticed. Just how important a story can it have been?

Important............to who.?

Its the Tea Shop :)

OK - How contentious can it have been if no one noticed?
Or maybe they did...

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby meic » 10 Jun 2017, 11:40pm

I suppose you have to check which calendar system those dates are from. Possibly they were from the Islamic calendar and that article will not actually be written for another 498 years and at that point all hell will break loose.
Yma o Hyd

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby drossall » 11 Jun 2017, 4:43pm

PH wrote:So, it's been six years and no one has noticed. Just how important a story can it have been?

I noticed (although I'm not sure I'd seen the story). It did feel like a deliberate and systematic erasing of shared history.

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9772
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby 661-Pete » 11 Jun 2017, 7:09pm

Question is, I suppose, how often do we use "AD" which is the more contentious one?

Certainly not for dates since around 1000 - after all when we cite a year as a simple number, like "1066" or "2017", the assumption is obvious.

For years before 1000, it might not be immediately obvious that we are referring to a year, so the "AD" or "CE" becomes necessary. I personally would prefer "CE" - so, for instance, "622 CE" or "79 CE". But - even as an atheist - I wouldn't take exception to "AD". After all the topic is usually going to be history, and shouldn't have any underlying agenda.

For years prior to 1 CE, the suffix "BC" or "BCE" becomes necessary, of course. Since they are so similar, I'd go for "BCE" since there can be no misunderstanding. But once again I'd be happy to recognise "BC" if someone insisted.

But then - I'm not everyone. Someone somewhere is going to make capital out of it. Why provoke?

OK another poser. What was the year immediately before 1CE? Logic dictates that it was 0CE, and the one before that was 1BCE. But I've read that in fact historians place 1BCE immediately before 1CE.

P.S. Just looked up Emperor Augustus's dates: born September 63BCE, died (appropriately) August 14CE, aged 75. A bit of arithmetic therefore shows that the latter assumption is the correct one.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

matt_twam_asi
Posts: 284
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 10:56am
Location: West Sussex

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby matt_twam_asi » 11 Jun 2017, 7:22pm

The PC gawn maaad types take the whole non-issue way too seriously in my view. However....

If we are going to look at replacing BC/AD then why not go with the Holocene calendar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar

* Simple to understand
* Universal to all of humanity
* Easier to link events throughout history on one timeline.

What's not to like? ;)

p.s. There's a fantastic podcast called The Allusionist that dealt with this subject recently, I'd recommend checking it out.

User avatar
ChrisOntLancs
Posts: 527
Joined: 20 Oct 2016, 9:47pm

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby ChrisOntLancs » 11 Jun 2017, 7:32pm

i don't think this is pc, i think it's just... well... there are less christians now. we could vote for the religion or non-religion to base this all on. we could even lie to all non-christians and say the "c" stood for "clocks". i'm an atheist so i'll be a good sport!

EDIT i've spent my life within social circles of the lower left quarter of the political spectrum, the libertarian left, the great unwashed, and in case you were all wondering, this isn't what hunt saboteurs rant about on their day off :lol:

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby drossall » 11 Jun 2017, 11:23pm

661-Pete wrote:OK another poser. What was the year immediately before 1CE? Logic dictates that it was 0CE, and the one before that was 1BCE. But I've read that in fact historians place 1BCE immediately before 1CE.

There's no year zero because, irrespective of whether you prefer CE/BCE or AD/BC, what you are counting is two eras, the one before and the one after. You can't have a year zero, because it wouldn't be in either era.

PaulB
Posts: 384
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 10:35pm

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby PaulB » 12 Jun 2017, 11:27am

drossall wrote:
661-Pete wrote:OK another poser. What was the year immediately before 1CE? Logic dictates that it was 0CE, and the one before that was 1BCE. But I've read that in fact historians place 1BCE immediately before 1CE.

There's no year zero because, irrespective of whether you prefer CE/BCE or AD/BC, what you are counting is two eras, the one before and the one after. You can't have a year zero, because it wouldn't be in either era.


That is why the world celebrated the "New Millennium" on the wrong date! The 21st century began on 1st Jan 2001 and not 2000. Looking at the world today - what was there to celebrate? I have never seen the point of marking the turning of the year because apart from the date, nothing changes.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17913
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby Vorpal » 12 Jun 2017, 11:57am

meic wrote:I suppose you have to check which calendar system those dates are from. Possibly they were from the Islamic calendar and that article will not actually be written for another 498 years and at that point all hell will break loose.

In Iceland, they're more worried about what the Elves think than whether something is PC.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... es-or-else
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: More PC........Old Story Maybe, Could Be Contentious.

Postby Si » 12 Jun 2017, 4:05pm

The correct term to use is BP (Before Present). In this case 'Present' = 1950.....because clever scientists can be pretty stooopid.

BCE - Before Common Era - has been used for years in archaeology, this removed the religious reference from the wording, and still uses the same base date that misrepresents a religious event that may or may not have happened.

But most British archaeologists and historians will use BC and AD as they've not got time for all the faffing about. Although British historians don't tend to bother with much BC for obvious reasons.