[Closed] Is it racist...

I reckon it's pretty simple based on dictionary definitions

Where do you stand on "oriental" then? 😉

[quote=edlong ]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...

Well I successfully got CM debating appropriate substitutions for "chink of light" and why chink is non-equivalent to a word which is in the swear filter which he wants to use in a way he claims is non-offensive. I don't think we've done that before, but whether you consider it interesting is another matter!

I'm deliberately using the phrase so that you are able to deconstruct it to see why it might be problematic

But Tom says it is NOT problematic because: [i]"she" isnt really used as as an insult..is it.[/i]

So if the forum's two foremost wringers can't decide, what chance does an insensitive ill-educated barbarian jock like me have?

But Tom says it is NOT problematic because: "she" isnt really used as as an insult..is it.

So if the forum's two foremost wringers can't decide, what chance does an insensitive ill-educated barbarian jock like me have?

but you have decided, and responded in quite an enlightened manner.

it doesn't really conflict with Tom's statement as i interpreted'"isn't really used" to mean something akin to 'commonly' or 'often'.

Well I successfully got CM debating appropriate substitutions for "chink of light" and why chink is non-equivalent to a word which is in the swear filter which he wants to use in a way he claims is non-offensive. I don't think we've done that before, but whether you consider it interesting is another matter!

that was no challenge, as you saw at the time, i relish such a game, i think the success was getting you to play despite you first saying that you wouldn't

Well it is, it's just rarely used as one directly towards women. It is indirectly used as an insult - which I mostly forgot because I don't hang out with football fans.

[I]Especially my liberal use of the c-word[/I]

What? [b]C[/b]oatrack?

[I][s]14 pages. [/s][/I]

22 pages.

Edit
[I]jonnyboi - Member

Wow, [s]racists[/s] people can be really obtuse when they want to excuse their behaviour. [/I]

but you have decided, and responded in quite an enlightened manner.

..for a jock? 😉

I didn't realised you played sports

[I]CharlieMungus - Member

I didn't realize you played sports [/I]

See? There you go, making assumptions about forum members.
It'll come to no good!

What "ist" could you now be at risk of being called?

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.

That's not simple at all, it's quite complex. Effectively you're saying that something being "offensive" is subjective. Which it is, because...

The debate becomes about whether we're okay with causing offence,

... offence isn't something that's caused, it's something which is taken.

You can take offence quite justifiably, if someone has said something obnoxious; you can take offence less justifiably, I once had a woman deeply offended at my blatant sexism because I held a door open for her (rather than slamming it in her face, I suppose); and you can choose [i]not [/i]to take offence at something which is "obviously" offensive, such when my mate called me a c-bomb the other day.

The state of something inherently "being offensive" is not clear cut. You can say whether something is likely to cause a large number of people to take offence perhaps, or a small number of people, or a particular demographic.

@cougar

I don't think that makes it too complicated. I just need to ask myself one question "will this thing I'm about to say cause offence to some or all of the people who'll hear it"

If the answer is no then all is groovy

if the answer is yes then I can make a choice to either not say it, or say it anyway, accepting that it will cause offence.

True. But what if the thing you're about to say would cause offence to people who aren't around to hear it? Is that ok too?

"True. But what if the thing you're about to say would cause offence to people who aren't around to hear it? Is that ok too?"

...and what if you're about to *do* something that would cause offence to people if they knew you were doing it. Is that OK?

[I]outofbreath - Member

...and what if you're about to *do* something that would cause offence to people if they knew you were doing it. Is that OK? [/I]

I reckon that would depend on whether it was a Tuesday afternoon or a Friday morning, at the time.

"I reckon that would depend on whether it was a Tuesday afternoon or a Friday morning."

Even suggesting doing it on a Tuesday morning is offensive.

[I]outofbreath - Member

"I reckon that would depend on whether it was a Tuesday afternoon or a Friday morning."

Even suggesting doing it on a Tuesday morning is offensive. [/I]

Ah! But what if I was wearing a leopard skin print bikini, on a Monday afternoon, while waiting at the check out in Morrisons?

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.

As with queer and the LBGT community, if Chinese people chose to use the word Chink or Chinky it would begin to rob it of it's power and racist connotations over time. It also depends on the individual as to whether or not they'd take offence. Then again I'm a white male who has suffered no racism in his life and finds no words offensive. Therefore I'm probably not best placed to decide whether or not a word is offensive or outright racist.

What about numbers, are there any racist numbers?

*looks at 7 with suspicion - I'm on to you!

Solo/outofbreath , can you two [i]please[/i] learn to use the quote button.
It's like reading a transcript of my Nan telling a story.

[I]nealglover - Member

Solo/outofbreath , can you two please learn to use the quote button.
It's like reading a transcript of my Nan telling a story. [/I]

Does your Nan suffer uncontrollable body hair.
I do and combined with a bikini, well, it's down right offensive...

You're seeing pictures now, ain't ya!

Appropriation by ethnic minorities of offensive words doesn't rehabilitate that word for white people to use. Last time I checked the N word is still offensive, appropriating the word is instead about giving those groups a sense of control and pride. That doesn't mean that you are free to use it.

Is that so hard to underatand?

[I]Tom_W1987 - Member

Is that so hard to underatand? [/I]

Evidently so, and yet here we all are, 14 pages, of what exactly?

Nobody is going to change their mind. The offended will remain offended, the educators will try, in vain, to educate.
It won't amount to a hill O'beans.

Carry on!

While we are talking of banning words....

Can we ban people who can happily use the italics button, but refuse to use the quote button that's just 3 doors up ?

No.

I'm surprised you're commenting about offence and being offended in a [i]humorous[/i] way Solo, didn't you have a little incident where other users got banned because you were [i]upset[/i] by what they'd said about you?

Seriously I thought you'd understand how things get taken out of context and would have more sympathy for the potential to upset people?

Hehe. I like that.

Reminds me of this in Sheffield.

[img] [/img]

So it's a purely one-way street Tom? Once a word like "apple", "banana" or "Charlie" is contaminated by an offensive racial connotation then it can never again be used by white people?

But yet, as discussed, some words [i]do[/i] get successfully rehabilitated and appropriation does help with that. "Gay" is frequently used as an offensive insult, for example, but still seems to be okay for straights to use inoffensively. I suspect that's primarily because the LGBTQ+ community have appropriated it.

Can we ban people who can happily use the italics button, but refuse to use the quote button that's just 3 doors up ?

May be because the quote button and all the other options doesn't appear for everyone. It doesn't appear for me so I have to manually type in the word quote and the square brackets every time though.

I still take the time to do it though as I was brought up well.

"Gay" is frequently used as an offensive insult, for example, but still seems to be okay for straights to use inoffensively

Who said it is okay, what have you based that on ?

[I]Terry Wrist - Member

I'm surprised you're commenting about offence and being offended in a humorous way Solo, didn't you have a little incident where other users got banned because you were upset by what they'd said about you?[/I]

On the face of it, you'd think lots of members would lurv to ban others. However, upon further reflection, I wouldn't want that power or that job. Think about that.

In the meanwhile, members get themselves banned. So as much as some members irritate other forum members, it's only by their own hand they are smote by the keepers of the ban hammer.

I hope that clears things up for you.
😉

Evidently so, and yet here we all are, 14 pages, of what exactly?

Nobody is going to change their mind.

So it's a purely one-way street Tom? Once a word like "apple", "banana" or "Charlie" is contaminated by an offensive racial connotation then it can never again be used by white people?

But yet, as discussed, some words do get successfully rehabilitated and appropriation does help with that. "Gay" is frequently used as an offensive insult, for example, but still seems to be okay for straights to use inoffensively. I suspect that's primarily because the LGBTQ+ community have appropriated it.

Perhaps people ahoukd stop tarnishing perfectly good words like "apple" then??? Is that offensive now?

In actual fact, rehabilitating the N word would be like turning Auschwitz into a science park. Both are historical monuments to huge injustices and serve as reminders to us all, one is just literary and the other physical.

It's quite simple, don't be a dick to people. You're going out of your way to make excuses for being a dick.

Reminds me of this in Sheffield.

That makes my eyes hurt!

In the meanwhile, members get themselves banned.

I thought folks only got banned or warned if other folks complain or report a post

Reminds me of this in Sheffield.

That makes my eyes hurt!

Sheffield?

I thought folks only got banned or warned if other folks complain or report a post

You thought incorrectly.

Sheffield?

😆

Who said it is okay, what have you based that on ?

😯

I've based that on what I observe to be the acceptable norms in our society? Which as far as I can tell have been informed by the language used by LGBTQ+ campaigners, prominent acclivous horticulturists and comfortable shoe wearers?

Harking back to the "oriental" argument: if they felt that "gay" was an insult then referring to their community as L[b]G[/b]BTQ+ and campaigning for "gay rights" would be a bit of an own goal.

Perhaps people ahoukd stop tarnishing perfectly good words like "apple" then???

Well absolutely, but if we had control of what bigots say then [i]none[/i] of this would be a problem would it?

(Except perhaps the arguing about who the bigots are of course)

Is that offensive now?

Well "apple" is on the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs ]Wikipedia List of Ethnic Slurs[/url] referenced earlier, along with "banana" and "Charlie" - so I guess so yes. Since the 1970s in fact.

It's quite simple, don't be a dick to people. You're going out of your way to make excuses for being a dick.

I'm really not.

I'm exploring some of the interesting moral and philosophical issues, ambiguities, contradictions and difficulties around offence and language - which I think is the topic of this thread.

"Apple" is used primaitily by Native American Indians in regards to other Native American Indians who are deemed to have lost their cultural identity.

Yup, definately a racist word that - despite it not being a word that is used from a position of social power. Predjudiced and offensive yes, racist no unless a white person uses it as an insult. Which it seems they rarely do.

You still don't get it.

This seems like a "they took our jerbs" argument anyway, you're using "they took our words" to excuse your use of words - and youre blaming the victim for the offence caused.

racist no unless a white person uses it as an insult. Which it seems they rarely do.

Well that's seems like a pretty bizarre rule!

you're ising "they took our words" to excuse your use of words

Not sure where you think I've done that - but it's not my intention.

I may not be the most culturally delicate person in the world, but I'm certainly not in the habit of using racially offensive words.

youre blaming the victim for the offence caused.

No, I'm arguing that intent and context matters a lot.

Last time I checked the N word is still offensive, appropriating the word is instead about giving those groups a sense of control and pride. That doesn't mean that you are free to use it.

What if I'm a white rapper? They get to use the N word. Can I have a comprehensive list (preferably with bullet points) outlining which subsections of society are allowed to use certain words? It's all becoming rather confusing.

I've based that on what I observe to be the acceptable norms in our society? Which as far as I can tell have been informed by the language used by LGBTQ+ campaigners, prominent acclivous horticulturists and comfortable shoe wearers?

Harking back to the "oriental" argument: if they felt that "gay" was an insult then referring to their community as LGBTQ+ and campaigning for "gay rights" would be a bit of an own goal.

FFS - the word "gay" is not offensive when used to mean, er, "gay" but it becomes offensive when that is then used instead as an insult, because for it to work as an insult, you have to accept the premise that being gay is a bad thing.

My friend Jim is gay (accurately describing how he identifies re. his sexual orientation) - not offensive

Jim's car is so gay (suggesting that there is something wrong with his car, that it perhaps isn't 'macho' enough, or is underpowered, or maybe it's sprayed a nice pastel colour) - offensive

Yes it is racist. If someone said this to my sister-in law I would not be happy.

I'm exploring some of the interesting moral and philosophical issues, ambiguities, contradictions and difficulties around offence and language - which I think is the topic of this thread.

It looks like you are doing that so that you can find circumstances or justification for using terminology which many consider to be racist or homophobic.

Indeed, thankyou edlong.