[quote=CharlieMungus ]unless there is something special about the offensive of profanity which is absent from other offensive terms.
I'll give you a hint - it's something I've mentioned a few times...
Btw, I experienced worse while I was there, and that was only what I could understand being spoken in English.I was asking you to look at your own disbelief regarding my experience.
You claim not to believe it happened, because you don't want to believe it happened and that it didn't bother me.
Evidently there seems to be no room in your paradigm for people such as me.
I actually find it hilarious that you can compare your experiences to systematic oppression stemming from both individuals, the state and the media acting in unison.
Bet you were hashtagging "AllLivesMatter" on twitter as well.
[I]CharlieMungus - Member
but we have no other conduit to the decision makers. [/I]
They're probably out riding their bikes anyway.
😉
I posted the terracotta warrior thing specifically to see if it got reported or caused somebody to blow up. There was a chink, a small fissure or crack in the armour of the statue. If you choose to view that as me being racist, go for it. It was simply an example of a word being used in the correct context, but still deemed to be offensive by some who would more than likely attempt to find offence in everything any way.
That doesn't make it better. There have been more, some reported, but I have no taste searching through for them either. But, given that there were 3 in the last few pages, would you be surprised to discover many more spread throughout the forum?I see no excusing being made
But you deliberately and provocatively chose a Chinese warrior to illustrate the pointI posted the terracotta warrior thing specifically to see if it got reported or caused somebody to blow up. There was a chink, a small fissure or crack in the armour of the statue. If you choose to view that as me been racist, go for it. It was simply an example of a word being used in the correct context, but still deemed to be offensive by some.
Yes I did. However, if I saw that picture in a text book with a description of a chink in the armour I would not assume racism in behalf of the author because, guess what, when I see the word in context that's how I read it. I would like to think that chink as a descriptor is older than and more frequently used than it is as a racial slur.
[I]Tom_W1987 - Member
I actually find it hilarious that you can compare your experiences to syatematic oppression stemming from both individuals, the state and the media acting in unison. [/I]
I'm not surprized by your comments.
Carry on.
I've got to go see the dentist now.
😯
[quote=CharlieMungus ]That doesn't make it better.
No, but it means they fail to meet your criteria for something which is happening "often".
There have been more, some reported, but I have no taste searching through for them either.
What a terribly convenient means to avoid providing any evidence for your assertion.
But, given that there were 3 in the last few pages, would you be surprised to discover many more spread throughout the forum?
Yes, incredibly surprised, because it would mean google is broken.
Yes I did. However, if I saw that picture in a text book with a description of a chink in the armour I would not assume racism in behalf of the author because, guess what, when I see the word in context that's how I read it. I would like to think that chink as a descriptor is older than and more frequently used than it is as a racial slur.
It would seem that within written texts, google suggests that may not be true.
What a terribly convenient means to avoid providing any evidence for your assertion
Well, there was Drac's post, Tomhoward at #124
A quick Google would suggest the word to describe a crack or fissure dates back to somewhere around 1350.
Genuine question - how does google collate how a word is used? They're spying on us and have scanned every text book ever haven't they 😐
The one where he was referencing an old post of hora's which was specifically using the word in a non-offensive context? 😕
I think I'm beginning to understand why you find this so difficult if you think that is an offensive use of the word.
Am I reading this right?
A soft-power combination of moderation, social pressure and Wheaton's Law seem to have been very effective at tackling any overt racism on this forum by getting people to adjust their language and consider others before posting.
That sounds like a really good thing to me. Like something we'd hope to achieve.
So we should ignore that positive result and instead ban the use of innocent but "largely unnecessary words" on here, based on how we think alternate meanings of those words might be used somewhere else??
How does that do anything except feed the [i]"PC garn mad"[/i] brigade?
"A quick Google would suggest the word to describe a crack or fissure dates back to somewhere around 1350.Genuine question - how does google collate how a word is used? They're spying on us and have scanned every text book ever haven't they "
Go back and look at my links that graph the usage of the word Jap and Chink - look at the timelines and how the favoured terms change - look at how the words use is still elevated above it's pre racist pre-1850 usage, massively.
The simple explanation is its use went up due to it being used for racist reasons atound 1860-1880 and has never dropped back to its previous usage levels because of this.
The more complex answer involves you coming up with an explanation for why the non offensive usage has come into vogue.
I know, but the profane is such because it us offensive, unless there is something special about the offensive of profanity which is absent from other offensive terms.
Search me. I suspect this is an Aspie bit of my brain firing, but I said at the outset that I find the notion that any word being inherently "offensive" to be weird. It's just a jumble of letters. Why isn't French Connection UK's logo offensive?
Come to that, why are regular swear words offensive anyway? Who decided that a slang term for female genitalia is more offensive than something like "god damn"? Once of a time, the former could have been been used for a [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grope****_Lane ]street name[/url] whereas the latter might've got you stoned to death.
I accept that mods have no control over it and respect that you admit that it is laughable, but we have no other conduit to the decision makers.
I meant, it's makes for funny reading.
And, yes you do, both tech and Mark's email addresses are well known.
Does anybody understand what Tom is attempting to prove here?
Go back and look at my links that graph the usage of the word Jap and Chink - look at the timelines and how the favoured terms change - look at how the words use is still elevated above it's pre racist pre-1850 usage, massively.
How is that usage collated? How is population taken in to account? Where does it provide a comparison to the word used as originally intended?
There's also a graph that shows a correlation between pirates and global warming.
I've got to go see the dentist now.
You posted that at almost exactly 2:30, known in playgrounds across the land as "Chinese Dentist Time." You racist.
That the non offensive use of the word chink was on its way to its grave until around 1880, when its use exploded due to an influx of Chinese immigrants.
As of yet, no one has produced a consistent argument to support that the non offensive use of the word also increased.
Thus the simple conclusion is that througout the world, the vast majority of the increased use is of the offensive version of the word.
Does anybody understand what Tom is attempting to prove here?
Not even he does.
That the non offensive use of the word chink was on its way to its grave until around 1880, when its use exploded due to an influx of Chinese immigrants.
I'm not disagreeing, but I expect the same may be true of the word "Chinese."
What's your point then? That the word has two meanings? That we should stop using it in its original context just on the slight chance it may offend somebody?
Does the slur also not have different etymology (possibly from ching) and the original is actually a derivative of the word chine? Thus making them two entirely separate words to begin with.
Thus the simple conclusion is that througout the world, the vast majority of the increased use is of the offensive version of the word
Glad we cleared that up, thank god your here.
Mark reported that traffic to STW had increased by 15% since the forum update in December. I'm guessing that Tom, Chewy and CharlieMungus are on the payroll as fifth column trolls.
Why isn't French Connection UK's logo offensive?
It is to dyslexics. 😉
Does anybody understand what Tom is attempting to prove here?
I [i]think[/i] his contention is that although the derogatory definition of "chink" isn't used here, because we've somehow managed to rein in our natural racist ways under fear of moderation, the innocent use of it should still be banned here because Google suggest people in other places used the derogatory one during historic conflicts with China.
Is that about right Tom?
And doesn't that brings us straight back to banning "apple", "banana", "spade", "slope", "nip", etc etc etc which all have offensive meanings in other places?
"I'm not disagreeing, but I expect the same may be true of the word "Chinese"
However, during that period it was used as a term of derision and has been documented as having been so. As was "Jap" during the run up and war itself.
What's your point then? That the word has two meanings? That we should stop using it in its original context just on the slight chance it may offend somebody?
I'm saying there is possibly a case for making the original meaning formally archaic, like other words such as "caitiff".
It is to dyslexics.
Dyslexicist.
Does anybody understand what Tom is attempting to prove here?
Seems like it's just the usual.......that he is cleverer and better than everybody else.
Hope that helps.
[quote=Tom_W1987 ]As of yet, no one has produced a consistent argument to support that the non offensive use of the word also increased.
Thus the simple conclusion is that througout the world, the vast majority of the increased use is of the offensive version of the word.
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=Tom_W1987 ]I'm saying there is possibly a case for making the original meaning formally archaic, like other words such as "caitiff".
I'm not sure you understand how language works. Nobody made "caitiff" formally archaic. Meanwhile non-offensive use of the word "chink" on this forum suggests it is far from archaic.
I'm saying there is possibly a case for making the original meaning formally archaic, like other words such as "caitiff".
You want to get rid of the 9 non-offensive meanings of the word to leave the one that people can get upset about?
No wonder we are at odds. That feels like the total opposite of what I'd like to see happen.
There's also a graph that shows a correlation between pirates and global warming.
And there's this one:
[img] 
[/img]
([url= https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=Chink%2CPirate&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2017&corpus=15&smoothing=3 ]Source[/url])
I'm saying there is possibly a case for making the original meaning formally archaic, like other words such as "caitiff".
Fair enough, I'm glad that's cleared up. I would, however, disagree and keep on using the word as originally intended. It's a perfect descriptor for a small fissure or for the noise created by lightly tapping two pieces of metal together. Just because it was abused by idiots it shouldn't deprive everybody else of a perfectly good word and I doubt it offends when used as described above.
So it seems that the word did once fall into effective disuse - only to be revived....conveniently when people were getting upset about Chinese people.
As for the pirate comments, dont make me do an actual proper test comparing the type of use (is this data available) with the number of immigrants and other variables eg the use of the word Jap. I cant really be arsed.
It is to dyslexics.
Are you taking the piss?
I doubt it offends when used as described above
I have no doubt someone will claim you are wrong about that.
[quote=Tom_W1987 ]As for the pirate comments, dont make me do an actual proper test comparing the use with the number of immigrants and other variables eg the use of the word Jap. I cant really be arsed.
Nobody is making you do anything, Tom. If it helps at all, when I first posted the pirate graph it was an edit - I originally wrote:
correlation != causation
Anyway here's one - [url= https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chink%2Cstrumpet&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cchink%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cstrumpet%3B%2Cc0 ]clearly the increase in the use of "chink" was caused by sexual frustration.[/url]
Okay, you're keen on extrapolating data from Google ngrams as your evidence base, so how about this graph Tom?
[img] 
[/img]
Now I realise racists aren't always the best with grammar, but in published texts wouldn't you generally expect the "Chink" to be capitalised when referring to the nationality or a person, and not capitalised when used to mean a fissure, a sharp sound, a sprain etc?
And if all that usage of "chink" is definitely derogatory then why don't we seem to see a correlated rise in the definitely derogatory terms "chinky" or "chinkie"?
[img] 
[/img]
Didn't Pyramus and Thisbe converse through a chink?
so how about this graph Tom?
Now come on GrahamS, admit it.....
When the results of the Chink/chink graph popped up on your screen, I bet you smiled didn't you 😉
Good point Graham. 😀
So the racist version MAY be used at one quater of the rate in more modern published texts.
It wasn't just Graham smiling 🙂
Although...
I feel like Ive finally gone too far now...
Although...
Yup fair enough, case may not be a great determinator, but it does offer some clues. Both graphs cast a fair bit of doubt on your assertion that growth of the word correlates with Western/Chinese conflicts.
The first derogatory use of "Chink" recorded in the OED entry is 1901, which correlates with the emergence of the capitalised version pretty well. At that time the non-capitalised version was still as widely used as ever, possibly at its peak.
[quote=Tom_W1987 ]I feel like Ive finally gone too far now...
Gosh, no.
That happened ages ago 😉
