[Closed] Is it racist...

Assuming the first one is OED I'd call that conclusive.

Shame nobody posted it 11 pages ago.

first one is not OED, but OED results are in!

Oh, that's not OED either.

"first one is not OED, but OED results are in!"

?

Plus everyone would just start writing "chinkie" anyway.

that would be swear filter avoidance, resulting in a banning or a warning, surely.

Probably. But as you know, some people are ever so tenacious.

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.

-- from https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/oed

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?

"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.

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 - Member

Non 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 - Member

Rarely 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.

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.
😉