Is it racist…

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[/quote]

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 reducto ad hitlerum 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

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. 🙄

You ever been hospitalised by a preposition, pronoun or adverb?

You must not trivialise the stress people endure through verbal abuse, created by prepositions, pronouns, adverbs, verbs and nouns. Yes, in some cases people end up ill as a result.

Well as noted before, “Charlie” is an ethnic slur twice over.

no, Charlie is military slang for the Vietcong, Victor Charlie and slang for cocaine. The word you are thinking of is Gook.

no, Charlie is military slang for the Vietcong, Victor Charlie and slang for cocaine. The word you are thinking of is Gook

“Charlie” is listed on the aforementioned Big Boy’s List of Ethnic Slurs

Charlie

a. (African American, 1960s-1970s) white people as a reified collective oppressor group, similar to The Man or The System.

b. (Vietnam War military slang) Slang term used by American troops as a shorthand term for Vietnamese guerrillas, derived from the verbal shorthand for “Victor Charlie”, the NATO phonetic alphabet for VC, the abbreviation for Viet Cong. The (regular) North Vietnamese Army was referred to as “Mr. Charles”.

So we’re back to who decides what words are too offensive to use and whether the intent or meaning matters at all.

I think most people agree that the meaning of words matter

Perhaps my definition of physical harm differs to yours? Harm to me would constitute cuts, abrasions, wounds, broken limbs and other injuries of that nature. So, no, not trivialising the emotional and psychological damage hateful words can cause in the slightest.

Can we kill this thread with fire now? I think lumping rape in with getting a Chinese takeaway has definitely ended all reasoned debate.

Well done all.

I thought we were never going to make 17 pages and I’d lost my wager.

I think most people agree that the meaning of words matter

Says the man that wanted to ban “chink” regardless of the meaning.

You haven’t clarified where you stand on other dual-meaning words. Should the word “nip” also be banned? Or “slope”? Seems fairly equivalent.

Marmlade Sandwiches for everyone.

Is Robertson’s Ok?

Why do some people put so much effort in talking shit?

🙂

Charlie” is listed on the aforementioned Big Boy’s List of Ethnic Slurs

Charlie

a. (African American, 1960s-1970s) white people as a reified collective oppressor group, similar to The Man or The System.

didn’t realise I was an African American living in the 1960-70’s America. Thanks for clearing that one up.

What was I saying about bell ends a couple of pages ago?

Tom W – I’m guessing you’re an angry young man in your 20s with a violent distrust of liberal values and of air suspension. I hope you can find a way to broaden your outlook.

Says the man that wanted to ban “chink” regardless of the meaning.

I’ve already explained this

That combine with things like this

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.

Make me think either you are not paying attention or are prone to misunderstanding.

didn’t realise I was an African American living in the 1960-70’s America.

I didn’t realise you were a GI in the Vietnam war in the 1950-70s.

According to OED, the derogatory meaning of “chink” goes back at least as far as 1879.

Are older insults okay or worse?

I think that it’s enlughtening that this conversation – like the Trump campaign – only became unaceptable when rape got mentioned or inferred.

Oh and funkmaster, again – more medical ignorance – high levels of stress can be argued to cause a physical injury to the brain as stress can proceed substantial structural changes.

Perhaps my definition of physical harm differs to yours? Harm to me would constitute cuts, abrasions, wounds, broken limbs and other injuries of that nature.

Probably not,but In that case,.I agree words in themselves can not cause physical harm, directly, but that’s a bit meaningless as they can cause great harm which is not physical or result in physical harm, indirectly and so should be used carefully.

So, no, not trivialising the emotional and psychological damage hateful words can cause in the slightest.

Recognising that they’re at least equal to physical harm?