Probably. But as you know, some people are ever so tenacious.
😀
Assuming the first one is OED I'd call that conclusive.
It isn't the OED. It's what Oxford Press describe as the "Living Dictionary":
The OED and the English dictionaries in oxforddictionaries.com are very different.Oxforddictionaries.com focuses on current language and practical usage, while the OED shows how words and meanings have changed over time.
The OED site is a bit less linkable, but it says Chinky/Chinkie as a meal is [i]"Chiefly Brit. (now usu. considered offensive)."[/i]
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/31790?rskey=ye21PS&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid (not sure if that link will work)
(Oh and OED doesn't list "oriental" as offensive and notes its frequency is 5 out of 8 which is pretty common usage).
"The OED site is a bit less linkable, but it says Chinky/Chinkie as a meal is "Chiefly Brit. (now usu. considered offensive).""
Ta, that seems fairly conclusive to me, although 'usu' seems to allow for continued squabbling for those who want to.
I've never used it and almost never heard it but it's still a shame there's one less word to use.
Gosh! It's like i wrote it!
[quote=CharlieMungus ]that would be swear filter avoidance, resulting in a banning or a warning, surely.
Hmm - I wonder whether using @ to replace "at" in a word in the swear filter would also be "swear filter avoidance" which should result in a ban?
I've never used it and almost never heard it but it's still a shame there's one less word to use.
It's not like we're running out of words to use in the English language is it? Why get upset about "chinkie" falling out of use when perfectly good words like "malefactor" and "caitiff" have fallen out of use because the population is too thick to use them.
Hmm - I wonder whether using @ to replace "at" in a word in the swear filter would also be "swear filter avoidance" which should result in a ban?
but we were discussing the word, so that's ok
"It's not like we're running out of words to use in the English language is it?"
I think adding one word to the vocabulary of racists and removing it from the vocabulary of non-racists is a bad thing.
Wouldn't it be better if all words were non-racist?
perfectly good words like "malefactor" and "caitiff" have fallen out of use because the population is too thick to use them
I've never tried either. Is it noodles or curry?
I don't think you can make words non-racist, for the same reason you can't remove racism through supposed colour blindness.
Anyway is "window licker" offensive, I mean - disabled people often lick windows so it's a purely descriptive term - just like a lot of black people apparently eat chicken....purely deacriptive....not racist at all.
but we were discussing the word, so that's ok
It's probably not, I just CBA to delete it.
(I rarely enforce "swear filter avoidance" myself unless it's particularly blatant / troublesome, TBH. Like I said, I find the notion of words being innately offensive to be a bit odd, but probably that's just the way my brain's wired.)
Do you mind then if I repeatedly refer to this forum as the "Assburgers forum" - I mean....a lot of you are a bit autistic aren't you?
Will I get banned for this?
Like I said, I find the notion of words being innately offensive to be a bit odd, but probably that's just the way my brain's wired.)
It's probably because you have not been subject to that kind of abuse, micro-aggression, othering, essentialism etc and had people tell you that it was ok, because they were not racist, or homophobic or that you were not like the rest of them.
I don't think you can make words non-racist
I'm not sure. There certainly seems to be efforts to reclaim n*****
Not so long ago we'd probably have considered "queer" as offensive and a potential word for the ban list, but its usage has been reclaimed, in part at least, by the LGBTQ community.
So it does seem [i]possible[/i].
just like a lot of black people apparently eat chicken....purely deacriptive....not racist at all.
I've mainly heard the love of chicken thing coming [i]from[/i] black comedians.
Will I get banned for this?
Probably, if you keep pushing your luck.
It's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. - Lenny Bruce
I find this to be true for a lot of words. Keep giving them power and they'll remain offensive. Everything is offensive to somebody. One of the things with democracy, at some point you're probably going to be offended. I wish there were more Chinese people on here so we could get their take on it.
Not so long ago we'd probably have considered "queer" as offensive and a potential word for the ban list, but its usage has been reclaimed, in part at least, by the LGBTQ community.
so maybe it is on its way to being rehabilitated, and when it has been, then it may be used commonly without causing offence. However, it will probably have a slightly different meaning than the ones commonly understood. It's current usage often extends beyond reference to sexual orientation and beyond gender identity
So you'll ban me for being disablist but not racist? 😀
And Graham, if you don't why a white person using that word is inherently offensive then you dint understand the concept of racism vs prejudice.
so maybe it is on its way to being rehabilitated
Fairly far on its way I'd say - but if you'd banned it in the name of [i]"social liberalism"[/i] then you would have left its power with the bigots and the homophobes.
Fairly far on its way I'd say - but if you'd banned it in the name of "social liberalism" then you would have left its power with the bigots and the homophobes.
yes, and if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle
Again, okay for the LGBQT community to use it - not okay for straight people - again realted to power...like the N word.
Simple concept.
yes, and if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle
That would depend how [i]ze[/i] self-identified surely? 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Again, okay for the LGBQT community to use it - not okay for straight people
So what do straight people think that LGBTQ stands for? Or are they allowed to know but just not allowed to say it out loud?
So what do straight people think that LGBTQ stands for?
Are you not in a position to answer that?
Are you LGBT or Q?
Another 13 pages of white middle class men expounding on what is and isn't offensive and / or oppressive? Cool, I must read it, I'm sure there's lots to consider that's never been said before...
Apologies if I've called it wrong, someone point me to the good stuff if I have, I'm not reading it all on the off chance...
The use of "Queer" is interesting (to me anyway) - we've been debating it at work and it seems to be very much an age / generational thing.
By and large the LGBT peeps we've talked to under the age of 40ish are really positive about it, feel empowered, embrace it and proudly identify as "queer" and there's specific reasons why as well as the "reclaiming the power" thing - there's something about LGBT people being put into boxes (e.g. defining themselves as a gay woman when they might want to be more fluid about either gender, sexual orientation or both), identifying as "queer" puts you in the LGBT community without insisting that you box yourself in.
On the other hand, many older LGBT people hear the word "queer" and it's not a sparkly and empowering term, it's a term of abuse they've had spat at them by bigots, sometimes just before being beaten up, harrassed by the police or worse. Those peeps are, strangely, much less positive about using the word.
As a straight guy, I find it difficult - I have colleagues and acquaintances that would refer to themselves as "queer". I'm cool with that, and happy to use the term in their company. But it's a different matter to third parties. If someone asked me to describe J, one of my colleagues, would I say they were "queer" given that they refer to themselves thusly? I'd find that difficult, tbh. I put this to one LGBT person of my acquaintance who understood and said "well just say I'm bi then" - but then, that's me choosing the labels for them and boxing them in, not cool.
Anyway, not the main topic i realise, but it came up and I thought I'd throw my two pennorth in.
That would depend how ze self-identified surely?
Non Sequitur - "she" isnt really used as as an insult..is it.
GrahamS is Randy Marsh from the naggers episode and I claim my 2 cents.
Tom_W1987 - MemberNon Sequitur - "she" isnt really used as as an insult..is it.
Well yes, it is- people intentionally use the wrong gender terms to insult people.
I find this to be true for a lot of words. Keep giving them power and they'll remain offensive
That may be true for swear words. If everyone openly used the word c**t it would just become another word along the lines of any other minor swear words (and not be filtered out on a forum!)
However, if everyone used racist terms for other people I don't believe they become less offensive, in fact I think it makes the problem even worse.
Are you not in a position to answer that?
I am - but apparently it's offensive - so I'd like to know what I'm supposed to say instead.
If someone self-identifies to me as q* then am I allowed to describe them as q*?
Seems a bit odd to reclaim a word from bigots then claim that anyone using it is a bigot, even if they consider themselves an ally.
So what do straight people think that LGBTQ stands for? Or are they allowed to know but just not allowed to say it out loud?
Even that's not straightforward - there are those who assert that the "Q" is for "questioning" as it (a) isn't loaded with all the history of how the word "queer" was used and (b) allows people to identify as siblings of other LGBTQI* people without boxing themselves in...
Seriously, don't ask about the I and the * either - once you get into the intricacies of the LGBTQI* language politics, it really is a bit like going down the rabbit hole. There's one school of thought that says just use "queer" and get rid of everything else..
But it's a different matter to third parties. If someone asked me to describe J, one of my colleagues, would I say they were "queer" given that they refer to themselves thusly? I'd find that difficult, tbh.
if defining J by their sexuality were relevant, Could you say "they define themselves as queer"?
Non Sequitur - "she" isnt really used as as an insult..is it.
It could be I suppose, say in refusing to acknowledge a F>M trans person's gender identity. What is SHE doing in the gents' toilets?
Another one for the filter, hey.
Another 13 pages of white middle class men expounding on what is and isn't offensive and / or oppressive? Cool, I must read it, I'm sure there's lots to consider that's never been said before...
[i]*goes on to write a further 6 paragraphs debating if a word is offensive and/or oppressive*[/i]
😆
say in refusing to acknowledge a F>M trans person's gender identity
Such as an auntie with balls?
Well yes, it is- people intentionally use the wrong gender terms to insult people
Rarely towards women though, people tend use better inaults like "bitch".
"She fell over", as used in football.
Kill me.
Kill me now.
if defining J by their sexuality were relevant, Could you say the define themselves as queer?
quite, assuming that is was relevant, I couldn't be arsed to contrive a reason but that was supposed to be a given. I've thought about that formula "they describe themselves as queer" but, hypersensitive, professionally offended snowflake that I am, I worry that that potentially sounds judgmental - "SHE describes herself as queer" perhaps implying that it's not a description I'm happy with, when fundamentally, I am more than happy with it (I'm not LGBTQI* myself so have no personal angle on it).
Tom_W1987 - MemberRarely towards women though
I know a woman who is known as Dave because she looks like a bloke.
If someone self-identifies to me as q* then am I allowed to describe them as q*?
I suppose this is broadly analogous to "****." A black guy might greet a friend with "'sup, ****?" but if I did the same thing it'd almost certainly end badly.
Queer is a, uh, queer one. It has largely been reappropriated, but I don't think it's a term I'd be comfortable using unless the person I was referring to had expressed the opinion that that's how they wanted to be described. Seems to be the usual case with most of the LGBTetc folk I know TBH, just ask rather than assuming. As you might expect with a diverse group of people, everyone is different.
Such as an auntie with balls?
Now, you're getting it!
"She fell over", as used in football.Kill me.
Kill me now.
Of course.
If a sizeaebke amount of women want to change how they are referred to, eg gender neutral language....I don't mind.
Itd be great for the Daily Mail reaction alone.
We could reintroduce "Thy" under a different role. 
goes on to write a further 6 paragraphs debating if a word is offensive and/or oppressive
to be fair, what I've done is provide some contextual background to one bit of the debate based on a relatively informed position. I'm not seeking to impose my personal view on what is or isn't offensive, I'm relaying what some people have had to say on the matter.
Whether "it's offensive" or not is something I'm always surprised by the vigour of the debate on, cos I reckon it's pretty simple based on dictionary definitions - did that word or deed cause offence? If "yes" then it is offensive, to the person it had that effect on at least.
The debate becomes about whether we're okay with causing offence, whether we are happy to say "well I don't think it's offensive so I'll keep doing / saying it" or whether we might say "well, I don't think it's offensive, but since you do, I'll respect that and not say / do it again" - to me this logic works regardless of the "-ism" being wrestled with.
Now, you're getting it!
No, I really don't think I am. 😕
You're deliberately using a cisgender-specific pronoun to describe my trans / gender-fluid relative, with direct reference to their genitals. And Tom assures us this is fine.
But at the same time I shouldn't use the word "queer" because I'm straight.
Y'know sometimes I think people just decide to be bigots because it's easier!
If you are always going to insult someone no matter what your intention then why not just go for it? At least if you hate everyone you don't have to constantly worry about people getting the wrong end of the stick 😀
You're deliberately using a cisgender-specific pronoun to describe my trans / gender-fluid relative, with direct reference to their genitals. And Tom assures us this is fine.
I'm deliberately using the phrase so that you are able to deconstruct it to see why it might be problematic
You might have noticed that the phrasing is not that which i would normally use in discussions.
