I understand your point Cougar and it's kinda what I was trying to get at earlier too: banning a word from general usage just abandons it to the bigots. And I'm sure that can work. But disarming/reclaiming the word instead takes that power back from the bigots. It's an interesting process.
Not only did I counter this argument a few pages ago (eg Black people still find a white person using the N word offensive, despite it being reclaimed) - but why should they go through the arduous process of reclaiming every word which becomes the new insult of choice.
I may have posted this on here recently, but it's so very appropriate for some of the more obtuse/stubborn posters on here...
A point that has passed us all by: After 11 pages of squabbling this topic was definitively settled. Surely that's unique in STW history? After 11 pages agreement is surely unheard of?
Admittedly we've spent another 5 pages squabbling about other stuff....
Not only did I counter this argument a few pages ago..,
You [i]offered[/i] a counter. I'm not sure it was effective. 😀
If you read what I wrote I said that if you want to ban a word from general usage then "I'm sure that can work".
Yes, it could well be that something as racially charged as the N-word can never ever be reclaimed back.
But language is pretty fluid. I don't see many people gasping these days if you say you were out riding on the moors for instance. So who knows how it'll be in a couple of hundred years?
why should they go through the arduous process of reclaiming every word which becomes the new insult of choice.
To fight racism and bigotry?
if you say you were out riding on the moors
You were WHAT ! *faints*
To fight racism and bigotry?
It's much easier just to make it unacceptable in public or around others.
If you want to be a racist, do it at home. The same goes for religion.
It's much easier just to make it unacceptable in public or around others.If you want to be a racist, do it at home. The same goes for religion.
Most religions have special buildings for the followers, churches, mosques, synagogues etc. We should have a building for bigots where they can go and say racist words to each other. Safely away from the rest of us. After we've lulled them in to attending for a bit, we can simply lock them in. No more racism!
If you want to be a racist, do it at home. The same goes for religion.
Or a church?
We should have a building for bigots where they can go and say racist words to each other
Britain First HQ.
It's much easier just to make it unacceptable in public or around others.
Well no it isn't. It's already unacceptable to say lots of things in public but that doesn't really stop people saying them or make racism go away.
If you want to be a racist, do it at home.
In some ways that seems worse to me.
At least if someone spouts racist guff in public then people can see them for what they really are and react accordingly (i.e. challenge it, disown/unfriend them, whatever).
Most religions have special buildings for the followers, churches, mosques, synagogues etc. We should have a building for bigots where they can go and say racist words to each other. Safely away from the rest of us. After we've lulled them in to attending for a bit, we can simply lock them in. No more racism!
To be fair, that would be a fitting end for humanity before we nuke ourselves or wipe ourselves out with bio-engineered viruses. Round up the racists in a synagogue looking thing, and then have Hipsters in ironic Germanish uniforms set fire to it and then machine gun them - we can be a valuable lesson to future non-human archaeologists.
Well no it isn't. It's already unacceptable to say lots of things in public but that doesn't really stop people saying them or make racism go away.
Better reclaim rape then - maybe teh wimminz can re appropriate it by just learning to enjoy it?
As I said, it's a strange kind of liberal that wants to ban words and curtail free speech.
Stranger still when they start suggesting a Final Solution. 😯
Better reclaim rape then - maybe teh wimminz can just learn to enjoy it?
WTF is wrong with you? How does that follow from [i]anything[/i] I have said?!?
WTF is wrong with you? How does that follow from anything I have said?!?
It doesn't. Not in the slightest.
WTF indeed 😯
In some ways that seems worse to me.At least if someone spouts racist guff in public then people can see them for what they really are and react accordingly (i.e. challenge it, disown/unfriend them, whatever).
I wonder idly whether that's what's been happening since the 80s, util Brexit legitimised it all again.
To be fair, that would be a fitting end for humanity before we nuke ourselves or wipe ourselves out with bio-engineered viruses. Round up the racists in a synagogue looking thing, and then have Hipsters in ironic Germanish uniforms set fire to it and then machine gun them - we can be a valuable lesson to future non-human archaeologists.
😯 well you're a cheery one aren't you! Reclaiming rape? I know this threads gone off on a tangent, but I didn't think we'd end up here.
On a more light hearted note, can you spot the chink in his armour? Lower arm on the guy on the right and near the collarbone on the bloke on the left? See context! If you think this is racist then you're a closet racist!
Edit - other way round, curse you left and right, curse you to hell.
[img] 
[/img]
WTF is wrong with you?
Tom_W is prone to make angry exaggerated claims, the reasons for that are outside the scope of this forum. HTH.
The Frankfurt School's 11 step programme of cultural subversion:
Step 1 : Create Racism Offences . .
To fight racism and bigotry?
can i just clarify, are you saying that you want to fight racism and bigotry by using the word ****?
well you're a cheery one aren't you! Reclaiming rape? I know this threads gone off on a tangent, but I didn't think we'd end up here.
I didn't know that rape was an offensive word....or me conflating racism with rape was offensive.
God.
PC gone mad.
No.
I'm suggesting that one reason people may want to "go through the arduous process of reclaiming" words is to fight racism and bigotry.
i.e. Pretty much the same reasons people might want to go through the arduous process of challenging racist behaviour and language.
And no I don't want to use the n-word. Or rape anyone.
I'm suggesting that one reason people may want to "go through the arduous process of reclaiming" words is to fight racism and bigotry.i.e. Pretty much the same reasons people might want to go through the arduous process of challenging racist behaviour and language.
It's easier to stem things at the source, instead of fighting fires by continually "reclaiming" whatever new word that racists decide to invent.
Isn't it. I think trying to claim otherwise is really, really clutching at straws.
I wonder idly whether that's what's been happening since the 80s, util Brexit legitimised it all again.
Racist politicians legitimised it in the run up to Brexit, not people making it socially unacceptable by disowning or unfriending racists.
As I said, it's a strange kind of liberal that wants to ban words and curtail free speech.
No it's not, most liberals would agree some limit on free speech, they might disagree where that limit is, but must would not support the idea of allowing abusive or hate mongering language
And you wanted to ban all use of the word "chink" regardless of the meaning, intent or context.
I suggested that there was some consistency in the banning of offensive terms. I would be happy to see Chink and Chinky banned, because of their racially charged meaning,might a consequence of that was that there was one less word to describe a small gap, then that would be an acceptable loss
I didn't know that rape was an offensive word....God.
PC gone mad.
Your original post pertained to the act, not the word. Completely different. The word rape can apply to other things and in and of itself is not offensive. This, however
Better reclaim rape then - maybe teh wimminz can re appropriate it by just learning to enjoy it?
Implies the act of raping an individual, specifically women. So, no, not PC gone mad.
Implies the act of rape. Either that or you struggle somewhat with written language.
It implies a crime, using language that can be deemed as offensive in some circumstances is a crime as well.
Now why is it okay to place the onus on the victim in one case (by asking them to rehabilitate the use of words and language) to deal with it but it's not okay to place the onus on the victim in the former?
What? Your argument makes no sense. A word and an act are two entirely different things and not comparable. I don't even know what else to say and that's really strange for me. I'm out 😯
You're equating "choosing to take offence" with "being violently sexually assaulted" in order to build a case about victim blaming?
FFS man, have a word with yourself. Seriously, step away and have a think before you come back.
Words, given historical context have the ability to cause physical harm through alarm, distress and terror.
You not being able to understand that, is a typical symptom of being white and never having grown up with it, or having your parents grow up with it, or stories of slave beatings being passed down through generations.
😆
And now I've offended you lot, which amuses me slightly given your relative disregard for offence so far.
its really illuminating to read the OP then skip to the current page and see where we are at
"lol"?
You're either drunk or disturbed.
And now I've offended you lot, which amuses me slightly given your relative disregard for offence so far.
Ah, the Edinburgh defence.
I wasn't offended, I was disgusted. If you were trolling to provoke a reaction / prove a point, I'm not sure whether that makes it better or worse.
Hey man, look at it this way, I've finally found something you lot are uncomfortable about - it just took getting to rape to get that point. You aren't a bunch of self centred sociopaths after all, I mean it took a while though!
its really illuminating to read the OP then skip to the current page and see where we are at
Because I'm in a totally different time-zone, every blockbuster thread is like that.
If I see the post count is above about 35, I know I'm going to see a circular firing squad of nasty witlessness with lots of quotation and [i]reducto ad hitlerum[/i] which has come completely unmoored from any apparent point. It's always the same people and it always makes me want to go and read delusional reviews of the latest short-travel 29er trail bikes on Pinkbike. I just hope y'all are enjoying yourselves. 🙂
wasn't offended, I was disgusted. If you were trolling to provoke a reaction / prove a point, I'm not sure whether that makes it better or worse.
+1 to this sentiment.
How can a word, a collection of syllables cause physical harm? They can definitely cause alarm, distress and terror, which can manifest with physical symptoms, but they can't physically hurt you, they have no presence or physical form and therefore can't interact physically in order to cause harm.
Unless, are you firing scrabble tiles from a catapult again or using a thesaurus as a blunt instrument?
I wasn't offended, I was disgusted.
To quote Hitches and Fry, so what? Why the whine?
"can't physically hurt you, they have no presence or physical form and therefore can't interact physically in order to cause harm."
Stress can and does physically harm people.
This is too easy.
Why do some people put so much effort in talking shit?
Read in reverse this thread reaches a conclusion as well. Clever stuff
[quote=CharlieMungus ]I suggested that there was some consistency in the banning of offensive terms. I would be happy to see Chink and Chinky banned, because of their racially charged meaning,might a consequence of that was that there was one less word to describe a small gap, then that would be an acceptable loss
That's a slippery slope (yes, I know I've already done that one, but it deserves repeating) which other of Graham's list of words would you like to ban, or is there something particularly special about "chink"? To borrow your own argument, why would chink be banned but not some other word which is deemed offensive when used in a limited context.
As for "acceptable loss", why don't you try doing a search (I even posted some handy links a bit earlier) and see if you can find "chink" being used in a racially charged way. Apart from discussion of whether it was racist I only found it being used in phrases such as "chink of light" or "chink in the armour", and despite your apparent expectations it does get used fairly often in those contexts. Meanwhile you completely failed in your quest to provide an equivalent colloquialism.
Why do some people put so much effort in talking shit?
I doubt it requires any effort on their behalf Tom and CM are always talking shit in order to provoke a reaction. Just look at CMs history he predominantly hunts for threads where he can talk utter crap.
Just look at CMs history he predominantly hunts for threads where he can talk utter crap.
That's a bit mean.
Seems to me that the main point of the discussion was made a long time ago and the only thing keeping to going is a few argumentative dicks. Aracer is correct, in that they've spectacularly failed to prove their point.
The thread still boils down to three things
Racists, racist apologists and ignorance.
Meanwhile you completely failed in your quest to provide an equivalent colloquialism.
Really? I thought Glimmer Of Hope was pretty good.
which other of Graham's list of words would you like to ban
Well as noted before, "Charlie" is an ethnic slur twice over.
And "Mungus" could be a reference to the reported sexual assault of a Black Lives Matter supporter by "Hugh Mungus".
Ban those next I say. 😉
No it's not, most liberals would agree some limit on free speech, they might disagree where that limit is, but must would not support the idea of allowing abusive or hate mongering language
But you're not just doing that, you are also attempting to shut down all discussion about those limits and that language by screaming "racist" at anyone who has the temerity to talk about it while being white.
Trump and Brexit has taught us that isn't a particularly effective strategy.
its really illuminating to read the OP then skip to the current page and see where we are at
I think we're still on topic: the OP was about a Chinese guy who doesn't find "chinky" offensive
So that's the "intent" and reclamation topic right there.
Tom and CM have explained why he isn't allowed to not find it offensive and why he must be a racist or racist apologist to think otherwise.
Empty barrels make the most noise?
But you're not just doing that, you are also attempting to shut down all discussion about those limits and that language by screaming "racist" at anyone who has the temerity to talk about it while being white.
I've not called anyone racist who has not explicitly welcomed it, in fact I've made no uninvited personal slurs, unlike others from whom might expect higher standards. I'm attempting to shut down the discussion as you phrase it,.for which no doubt many would be grateful, because we established in a previous discussion and in this one again that Chinky, in reference to Chinese food or people is an offensive term, so let's not keep having the same discussion in which a small group of us try to convince a new group of people that it is not ok.
Tom and CM have explained why he isn't allowed to not find it offensive and why he must be a racist or racist apologist to think otherwise.
And this exemplifies the problem, after 16 pages, you still seem to have misunderstood want we were saying and made unreasonable inferences
"can't physically hurt you, they have no presence or physical form and therefore can't interact physically in order to cause harm."Stress can and does physically harm people.
This is too easy.
Okay, against my better judgement I'll bite. Selective quoting is brilliant isn't it? I agree stress does cause physical harm, words don't. Words cause the stress (to some people) they can't cause physical harm. You ever been hospitalised by a preposition, pronoun or adverb?
Everything is easy if you wilfully misinterpret it. 🙄
