[Closed] Is it racist...

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.

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.

is it a word you want to use? If so, go ahead, use it, knock yourself out, or someone might do that for you

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.

Well C***M**, looks can be deceiving, but I'll try not to be too offended by your assumptions. 😉

then why are you doing it?

Thought I covered that C******? I'm doing it because I find it an interesting and nuanced topic to discuss.

Presumably you do too or you wouldn't be here?

is it a word you want to use? If so, go ahead, use it, knock yourself out, or someone might do that for you

Did I say that, no. As others have already said whether a word is offensive or not comes down to two things, context and whether the individual finds that word offensive. I don't find the N word offensive as I have no frame of reference. I'm a white Yorkshire man. I have friends who are black and don't find it offensive. I would react if I witnessed somebody using the word against another with the intent of causing emotional distress.

In simply pointing to the absurdity of stating who is and isn't allowed to use a word. So, can a white or Hispanic rapper use it?

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

Same here. Mind you, she's French.

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.

Thought exercise:

[i]The word "****" is not offensive when used to mean ****stani 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 a ****stani is a bad thing.[/i]

Why does that not pan out?

In simply pointing to the absurdity of stating who is and isn't allowed to use a word. So, can a white or Hispanic rapper use it?

Are you one of those?

There are some small, often intersectional groups for whom it is difficult to generalise. What does it matter what the answer is? What if i said Yes? What if i said No?

In simply pointing to the absurdity of stating who is and isn't allowed to use a word. So, can a white or Hispanic rapper use it?

[img] [/img]

The word "****" is not offensive when used to mean ****stani

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 a ****stani is a bad thing.

for it to work as an insult, you have to accept the premise that being gay is a bad thing.

And y'know, I'm not certain that's strictly true either. Any old thing highlighting a distinguishing characteristic can get thrown into an insult; "you lanky bastard" for instance - does that imply that there's something wrong with being tall? Or is the catch-all "wrongness" here simply someone being different in some way?

(I'm not expressing any particular view or argument either here or in my previous post BTW, just offering discussion because it's kinda fascinating.)

"you lanky bastard"

You handsome bastard, seems less of an insult because no one would see that as being a negative thing.

Edit, just to be sure, i'm not calling you a handsome bastard, Cougar.

well, I half am.

If you are insulting someone, then you would chose something which you would consider a negative trait, otherwise it would be possibly a compliment

On a recent holiday the Americans we met called us Brits and, by the same token, when referring to ****stanis, called them Paks. Anyone offended here?

Are you one of those?

There are some small, often intersectional groups for whom it is difficult to generalise. What does it matter what the answer is? What if i said Yes? What if i said No?

Does it make them racist to use the word? Considering multicultural hip hop bands like Cypress Hill. Is the mc being racist towards his band mates or is the word okay in the context in which he's using it?

I'm not 'one of those' I'm simply trying to ascertain whether or not the word can be used by people who haven't been affected by its historical use without it being racist. Popular music would certainly point to that being the case.

Do a bunch of middle aged part timer mountain bikers get to decide what words can be used by which people?

It is

Yes, I know it is, that wasn't the point. Rather, why can't we apply the same logic to that word? Is it because "gay" has been reclaimed by homosexual people and thus become 'disarmed'? Or because the public has come to accept that being gay isn't inherently a bad thing?

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

but not offensive to other people, just because certain people are offended by something doesn't mean its wrong or right.

To quote Stephen Fry

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what"

and Christopher Hitchens

"If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.’ In this country, I’ve been told, ‘That’s offensive,’ as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don’t. And I’m not running for anything, so I don’t have to pretend to like people when I don’t.”

Is it because "gay" has been reclaimed by homosexual people and thus become 'disarmed'? Or because the public has come to accept that being gay isn't inherently a bad thing?

Except those who call non-gay things gay.

I think gay is ok to describe gay things, i'm not sure that it ever wasn't. So, i don't really know how much reclaiming has gone on, but if it is used in a derogatory sense to describe something you don't like then it is not ok.

[img] [/img]

You handsome bastard, seems less of an insult because no one would see that as being a negative thing.

Interesting counterpoint. I chose "lanky" as the first thing I could think of that wasn't an insult; yours is positive, mine is not negative.

Are folk predisposed to latching on to any distinguishing feature in an argument? Or is it a way of subconsciously trying to make people think there -is- something wrong with that feature? Or is it an attack on a potential insecurity maybe, touch a nerve or exploit a weakness? Or is it just that some people never grow out of playground name-calling?

Edit, just to be sure, i'm not calling you a handsome bastard, Cougar.

well, I half am.

My parents weren't married when I was born, shouldn't I find that deeply offensive?

My parents weren't married when I was born, shouldn't I find that deeply offensive?

To quote Stephen Fry

There's a hairy Australian (IIRC) comedian who does a stand-up routine on this, I'll see if I can find it.

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.

I think gay is ok to describe gay things,

That's brilliant in its absurdity!

Here you go Cougar - a brilliant comedian

Interesting counterpoint. I chose "lanky" as the first thing I could think of that wasn't an insult; yours is positive, mine is not negative.

but lanky bastard was framed as an insult, and some people see that it is a negative thing, so it would be used in trying to be insulting. i used handsome because it makes the insult sound ridiculous because no one sees handsome as a negative trait

Ah, here. Steve Hughes.

/p>

EDIT: beaten to it! Ta. The full sketch is here and worth a watch (he even mentions bikes):

You think that made you handsome?

Ah, the old 'bait and switch,' well played.

And meanwhile we're not allowed to call someone a bell end on Singletrackworld, even if they're clearly a massive bell end.

Political correctness gone mad.

I think gay is ok to describe gay things ... but if it is used in a derogatory sense to describe something you don't like then it is not ok.

And that would be an example of [b]"intent and context"[/b] - the very thing I've argued for and you've said doesn't matter. 😕

but not offensive to other people, just because certain people are offended by something doesn't mean its wrong or right.

To quote Stephen Fry

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so **** what"

and Christopher Hitchens

"If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.’ In this country, I’ve been told, ‘That’s offensive,’ as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don’t. And I’m not running for anything, so I don’t have to pretend to like people when I don’t.”

Yes, good point because those people who want to carry on using terms like Chinky or **** ar just like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens. I'm sure they would both have supported their argument

Ah, the old 'bait and switch,' well played.

a bit disappointed you didn't see it coming

Like the baby balloon, mostly I've just let myself down.

And meanwhile we're not allowed to call someone a bell end on Singletrackworld, even if they're clearly a massive bell end.

That's "bell" and "end" going into the filter, STW is going to look like a redacted CIA dossier soon.

That is, of course, nothing to do with the choice of words.

Perhaps the relative "offensiveness" of using "lanky" as opposed to "gay" in an insulting way, however mildly, is that being lanky is very, very unlikely to result in someone being disowned by their family, discriminated against in the workplace (and the job market), excluded from social activities, assaulted in the street, murdered, not being treated equitably by the police and, come to that, other public services, vilified in (certain sections of) the press, and in some countries imprisoned or even hanged to death.

This is the aspect of these things that a roomful of middle class affluent white males (of which I'm one) seems to miss for some reason

To save typing, please take the above sentiment as my answer regarding "****" and "****" also.

For future debates, this is also most of the answer to the question "why don't we have straight pride then?"

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.

I was trying to say the same about 400 pages ago. Take the meaning and power away from those who use it to hurt others and you begin to erode the negative connotations. A much better approach than letting the bigots keep it IMO. Slightly different, but reminds me of this stroke of utter genius.

[url= http://www.towleroad.com/2014/11/neonaz/ ]Nazis against Nazis[/url]

That's "bell" and "end" going into the filter

Hey, I've got an idea.

Put all the racial slurs mentioned in this thread in the filter now, it'll make it much more interesting to read.

Yes, good point because those people who want to carry on using terms like Chinky or **** ar just like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens. I'm sure they would both have supported their argument

if I had been using their quotes to defend the use of chinky when suggesting a meal then you would be right but I wasn't.

Make a list of all the racial slurs in this thread so far. And put them in "word replacement list" or whatever it's called.

Make it so they are replaced with popular breakfast cereal names.

This thread would be hilarious to read 😆

Make a list of all the racial slurs in this thread so far. And put them in "word replacement list" or whatever it's called.

Make it so they are replaced with popular breakfast cereal names.

Even better idea.

As long as they don't include the one that turns the milk brown.

but not offensive to other people, just because certain people are offended by something doesn't mean its wrong or right.

To quote Stephen Fry

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so **** what"

and Christopher Hitchens

"If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.’ In this country, I’ve been told, ‘That’s offensive,’ as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don’t. And I’m not running for anything, so I don’t have to pretend to like people when I don’t.”

an ambulance driver

No such thing.

And that would be an example of "intent and context" - the very thing I've argued for and you've said doesn't matter.

It's about meaning.

if I had been using their quotes to defend the use of chinky when suggesting a meal then you would be right but I wasn't.

You were defending the use of gay in a pejorative sense? I'm not sure they would have supported that argument any more.

clearly a very sensitive little soul, got all offended over the language being used!
I'm really not sure on who's behalf he was being offended, but I can't help feeling he's in the wrong job if he gets all bent out of shape by other adults using profane language among themselves, unless he demands an apology every time someone uses naughty words in his hearing.

Dear me, how about a close look at the language you use?

Dear me, how about a close look at the language you use?

How about the gentleman just feels offended and gets on with his day? Nobody died. Are you one of the people that watches a programme on the television in its entirety and then writes to the regulator to complain about it?

It's about meaning.

Is it? The two uses of "gay" you described have the same basic meaning, but the intent differs.

And you wanted to ban all use of the word "chink" regardless of the meaning, intent or context.

Are you one of the people that watches a programme on the television in its entirety and then writes to the regulator to complain about it?

Better that than one who doesn't watch it and complains.

Better that than one who doesn't watch it and complains.

I now have images of somebody reading a synopsis in the Radio Times and getting really vexed.

In a similar context I remember an American politician in the 90's complaining about rock musicians corrupting the youth with their obscene lyrics. Said politician singled out a track by Eels as being obscene and hateful towards women. The track was about Mark Everett losing his sister to suicide and mother to cancer. One of the saddest, most profound songs in his ouvre.

Funny how so called foul language can be used to great emotional effect.

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?

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.