Political Correctness Gone Mad?

[Alan Medic]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Some people think the mail is just another paper

> with it's own slant on things, just like any other

> paper

>

> Those people are incorrect

So what is the motive of the DM then SJ, apart from selling papers?

[silverfox]

I've frequently seen it written in American works so it won't be long before it's in common usage here

[Huguenot]

It's CE, silverfox, not ACE.

It seems perfectly reasonable and sensible. AD is wrong anyhow, there's substantial evidence that this Jesus chap wasn't born in year zero.

I can't really believe that silverfox has even used the initials AD when writing a date in the last ten years.

If you rarely leave your front room aside from nipping out for a copy of the Mail, it probably doesn't really matter. However, in China (home to a quarter of the world's population) that calendar is frequently referred to as 'computer time'. AD is never used. Common Era would probably be easier for them to translate and understand. Anno Domini simply does not make sense for us Godless heathens.

Mind you, Mail readers probably think Chinese people should just shine shoes. Hence it probably makes sense to force them to use AD and keep hitting them until they agree?

[silverfox]

It's crap.

Also, when is 'CE' supposed to run from and when will it end? will we still be in 'CE' in a million years time?

the Chinese, Muslims and Jews can have their own references - it doesn't offend me, why should it? eg, they can have as many lunar calendars as they wish and if it's their year of the pig, the year of the rat, the year of the Huguenot, good luck to them. It's better than having hundreds of thousands of year of the common era (again).

[Huguenot]

I don't think it's a question of everyone doing whatever they want - it's about finding a mutually comprehensible solution to ease communication and cooperation.

Clearly if you are by nature uncooperative, this may be low on your list of priorities.

Common Era, like Anno Domini, starts in theory from a completely arbitrary time in history loosely related to a supernatural figure still worshipped by delusional sects.

However, in practice it starts from the last time the date was arbitrarily changed, on the 24th February 1582. It created havoc, because delusional idiots thought the changing of the date stole 10 days from their lives.

I would have thought it's highly unlikely that Common Era with still be counted from then in a million years. Dates are an arbitrary political construct, and so year zero is often applied to dates that have cultural significance.

The French Revolution has a year zero in 1792, and Cambodia has a year zero in 1975.

[mockney piers]

Just to reinforce poor strafer's point that the 'news' story was an editorial clarification by the beeb giving programme makers free reign to use whatever they want, nothing is being banned.

Back on the daft discussion I have to say I'm no fan of CE BCE, as it is rather meaningless in a sort of denying the origins of our calendar sort of way.

Having said that Anno Domini is pretty absurd too (so is the use of Ad Hominem rather than personal but that's another bugbear of mine), but I don't suppose most people saying AD know what it means.

Thinking about it, use of BC or AD (or whatever) is pretty much limited to clarifying stuff about ancient history anyway, noone would say I was born in 1968 AD would they, so really this is a lot of fuss about nothing, affecting a couple of BBC 4 programme makers which nobody (bar me apparently judging by the threats to the channel) watches anyway.

As usual I have no idea what Silverfox is blithering on about. Dinosaurs?! I thought they were a cosmic joke to make scientists believe in the ridiculous theory of evolution anyway ;-P

[silverfox]

The point about dinosaurs dear MP is that they can be said to have been in an era - the age of the dinosaurs etc.

an era has a starting point and an end. what is plainly absurd about 'CE' is it can't be defined, as Huguenot has demonstrated.

Ergo, Anno Domini makes more sense (to labour the Latin) as it can be used indefinitely whereas the common era has to come to an end.

This is the problem with PC, its adherents are idiots.

[Huguenot]

I've been approached a number of times by people requesting to start the calendar from my own birth, but I've turned them down gracefully.

My laptop seems to think the world started in 1905. It doesn't really do dates prior to that. I would have thought Boxing Day 1791 would have been a more logical choice.

I'm wondering what sort of significant date in the future could precipitate another year zero to be generally accepted. Interstellar travel perhaps?

[mockney piers]

So the dinosaurs was the common era, right, and that was their word for it was it?

All time is indefinite, as huguenot tried to say, any definition is an arbitrary thing.

plus, this may be the 2017*th year of your lord, but he ain't no lord if mine.

*I think it's commonly thought he was born in 6 bc.

[mockney piers]

in fact looking at this chronology, Luke has Mary pregnant for about 10 years!! So perhaps just a meaningless arbitrary name is better than AD BC when they are so wrong at describing what they are!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus

[Huguenot]

It seems to me that AD is religious and CE is secular. It comes as no surprise that religious people don't see why everybody can't be religious too, so long as it's their religion.

AD, as with many dating systems, was created to synchronise with other existing dating systems, as does CE.

It does seem a bit colonial to go around claiming that time is defined by 'our Lord'. The fact that AD coincides with the dating system used by the Common Era seems a most inclusive approach that should be celebrated rather than God botherers claiming they have a monopoly.

Silverfox, go ahead and use AD as you wish, but don't expect me to worship your Gods, or in fact have any respect for them at all.

Interestingly enough, years previous to 525 CE are completely fictitious, as the system wasn't devised until then.

[silverfox]

I'm sure a dinosaur knew when it was dinner time - nothing indefinite about that, especially if you were the prey.

[Marmora Man]

It seems to me that AD is religious and CE is secular. It comes as no surprise that religious people don't see why everybody can't be religious too, so long as it's their religion.

I think you're loading this insignificant discussion with too great a weight. While I recognise this is a silly story with no real content and that there is no intention to impose change to the traditional / historic use of language, it still seems unnecessary for anyone to even suggest a change - language will evolve naturally over time if it needs to.

As I see it AD / BC lost any religious significance many centuries ago, and became instead simply convenient shorthand for differentiating before and after what you, correctly, describe as an arbitrary point in time. I don't see AD / BC as an imposition of religious intent or observance. However, if you do then surely any alternative useage carries similar (if opposite & secular) connotation?

As an atheist I can appreciate the language of the King James bible, or the words and music of hymns - doesn't mean I subscribe to, or feel I have imposed upon me, any religious pressure. I don't feel any need to reject these, or seek alternative words and phrases, because I prefer a secular society

[Huguenot]

Absolutely, it is evolving over time - to CE.

I'm afraid that the majority of the world don't worship this God, have no wish to offer him dominion over them, and don't use the term AD.

Time is a secular, universal and mathematical - certainly not religious concept.

'Owning' the calendar was a smart bit of marketing designed to push God. Having a whinge about the passing of this fad is the same as whinging about the demise of cigarette advertising on F1 cars.

Religion is transitory, fragmented and political concept. We have seconds, not archangels. Why should our years be defined by God?

[Loz]

Why should our years be defined by God?

But if CE means the same as AD, isn't that still conforming to the basic religious aspect of the measurement. You are still basing it on the year, accepted by Christianity, of Jesus' birth.

You aren't stopping the years being 'defined by God', just obfuscating it.

[Jeremy]

In the vast majority of cases, the suffix is not needed. The debate is petty and largely irrelevant.

[Loz]

Oh, I agree, Jeremy. It's just I don't get the point of CE/BCE. Seems like a renaming for no good reason, rather than any actual meaningful change.

At least when some people started using UTC instead of GMT there was at least a technical difference.

[Huguenot]

Not obfuscating it, just severing the connection.

AD traces it's lineage back to Roman calendars based on the term of office of consuls - by renaming it Anno Domini instead of Anno Diocletiani it severed the connection.

Common Era defines years by a 'commonality' - a collaborative act of convenience that reflects the most popular existing calendars of the day, predominantly Gregorian.

But as I said, dates are an act of politics. I'd prefer mine to be defined by compromise, rather than a supernatural deity. That may be a technicality, but it's an important one.

[Huguenot]

Also, CE is not renaming it - CE has been in common usage for at least 400 years (in publication) and probably for hundreds of years before that.

It is simply a question of using whichever nomenclature you wish.

[Loz]

Ha! I see some people are defining BCE and CE as "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era".

[Huguenot]

Bloody hell - it's the God squad again! They can't keep their hands off.

I understand that CE was interchangeable with Vulgar Era (Where 'vulgar' meant everyday, or 'common') so 'Christian' Era is most definitely a property grab by religious groups.

[Loz]

I thought 'Vulgar Era' was the early 80's? Or was it the late 70's?

[maxxi]

Does this mean that when I hit my thumb with a hammer I can still shout "Jesus Fucking Christ!" or should I be reverting to "By Toutatis/Belenos/Iovantucarus!" or is there a suitably atheistic equivalent?

I think I shall still use the ac/dc bc/ad way if only so that when explaining it to the young atheists of the future and watching their jaws hit the floor in disbelief I can say "I know! Mad isn't it?"

[katie1997]

And what about that fine publication, 2000AD? Wonder what Judge Dredd would have to say?

Drokk!!!!

[Huguenot]

It depends what you were declaring. Anything fecal or copulatory will suffice I would have thought.

I once knew a man who was described as a swear word in his own lifetime - as in "What the Neil Humphries are you doing with that?"