Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 03, 2009, 06:28:37 am
-
in Pakistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7920260.stm)
-
Yeah, I heard about that on the news. Thankfully no one was killed, if I recall correctly.
EDIT: No one on the cricket team, but the bus driver and police officers were killed.
-
Only 2 Paki Civilians and a Police Officer
Being of Sri Lankan descent, this ought to be about the 15th time I've heard since I came home from school 6 hours ago. No wonder most teams don't go near Pakistan anymore.
-
They can't handle Paki RAGE.
-
Can we please avoid using the word paki. The correct term for someone from Pakistan is Pakistani.
-
That is too much syllables and not slur-ish enough for me to say.
-
Well the other option is a perma-ban for racism.
-
They can't handle Paki RAGE.
dumb
That is too much syllables and not slur-ish enough for me to say.
dumber
Well the other option is a perma-ban for racism.
nice
but i prefer to quote asian dub foundation
"why dont you kick the f#*!!er in the head"
as for what is happening in pakistan , it realy is turmoil atm with the Sri lankans taking the brunt for playing what is a very civalised game
this will be a huge disapointment for so many ppl there and has caused the end of international cricket in pakistan for a very long time
-
Well the other option is a perma-ban for racism.
It isn't racism. It's a word which is offensive to some people, like the words ****, cracker, and mankind.
-
Well the other option is a perma-ban for racism.
It isn't racism. It's a word which is offensive to some people, like the words ****, cracker, and mankind.
No, it's definitely racism, but banning over such a thing is just dumb.
No, wait, I just re-read that. You said perma-ban. Seriously, what the ****. I could see a 1 or 2 day ban with repeated use of such slang, but that's flat out stupid. I can't say I particularly like the people in question, but Dilmah hasn't ever done anything wrong, and as for Iamzack... well, good luck changing that. :rolleyes:
By the way, monkey me for this if you like Kara. *shrug*
-
iamzack has it coming and you all know it. She just keeps piling straws and eventually one of them will break the admins' backs.
This is why we can't have nice things, etc.
-
Well the other option is a perma-ban for racism.
It isn't racism. It's a word which is offensive to some people, like the words ****, cracker, and mankind.
No, it's definitely racism, but banning over such a thing is just dumb.
No, wait, I just re-read that. You said perma-ban. Seriously, what the ****. I could see a 1 or 2 day ban with repeated use of such slang, but that's flat out stupid. I can't say I particularly like the people in question, but Dilmah hasn't ever done anything wrong, and as for Iamzack... well, good luck changing that. :rolleyes:
By the way, monkey me for this if you like Kara. *shrug*
Respectfully, I think Kara's in the right. It's a word that, like 'Jap', seems like an innocent contraction -- but it carries as much power to hurt as more familiar racial epithets. There's no need for it.
What makes it worse is that few people are aware of how virulent it can be.
Back on topic, it seems like Pakistan is going to be one of Obama's big challenges. The India/Pakistan cricket game a while back was a step forward...odd to see that sport becoming the arena for such major events. Wish I knew more about it.
-
No, wait, I just re-read that. You said perma-ban. Seriously, what the ****. I could see a 1 or 2 day ban with repeated use of such slang, but that's flat out stupid. I can't say I particularly like the people in question, but Dilmah hasn't ever done anything wrong, and as for Iamzack... well, good luck changing that. :rolleyes:
I told them to stop. I even said please. Any further usage of the word will be dealt with very harshly as a warning was already given indicating what would happen.
Oh and for anyone who doubts it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paki#P
-
Can we please avoid using the word paki. The correct term for someone from Pakistan is Pakistani.
Am I the only one that thinks of PacMan whenever I read that?
--
Well the other option is a perma-ban for racism.
It isn't racism. It's a word which is offensive to some people, like the words ****, cracker, and mankind.
*snip*
Respectfully, I think Kara's in the right. It's a word that, like 'Jap', seems like an innocent contraction -- but it carries as much power to hurt as more familiar racial epithets. There's no need for it.
What makes it worse is that few people are aware of how virulent it can be.
*snip*
....
....
Because being politically correct is a good thing. :rolleyes:
-
....
....
Because not being a dick to people just because they aren't white is a good thing. :rolleyes:
Yeah, political correctness can get silly, but refraining from using a word on par with 'nigger' isn't.
-
I can't say nigger?
-
I can't say nigger?
Assuming that A) people get offended by them and B) you don't want to offend people, then you cannot use racial slurs of any sort. I thought that was common sense, but I guess I was wrong.
-
/me waits to see if kara has the stones...
EDIT: yes, but zack cares not for such things, as she's said herself, and because of that I predict the BanHammer is coming, maybe not today, but eventually.
-
I can't say nigger?
You can.
But it will be the last thing you ever say on these boards if you used it in the same context as your earlier comments. Had this been a story about an African country you'd probably already be gone. I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier cause some Americans don't realise how offensive that term is. Best to avoid using words that you know are racial slurs at all.
Usage of the word nigger is made more complicated by the fact that it's been taken back by black rappers. In those cases they usually spell it with an a. As with all racist comments it's the context that the word is used in that makes it offensive or not. Anyone caught using it in a offensive manner will be out on their ear too.
-
so, is jude offensive since that's what jews were called during the holocaust?
-
Now you're just splitting hairs. Use your own judgmen- wait, wait, no. Um... Do what you think the other members here would do.
-
so, is jude offensive since that's what jews were called during the holocaust?
As with all racist comments it's the context that the word is used in that makes it offensive or not. Anyone caught using it in a offensive manner will be out on their ear too.
-
Would put a whole new spin on the Beatles song if it was.
Anyway, I think that's quite enough off-topic for now. Any further attempts to push the limits by using offensive terms will also be dealt with.
-
For god's sake, they aren't "racist" they are just offensive and not nice and typically used in the context of expressing racist sentiments.
-
you shall be banned for using a word that is racially offinceive in another country. the ADMIN has spoken!
-
For god's sake, they aren't "racist" they are just offensive and not nice and typically used in the context of expressing racist sentiments.
Oh wow. I wonder why these things still aren't allowed.
-
For god's sake, they aren't "racist" they are just offensive and not nice and typically used in the context of expressing racist sentiments.
Fine. You really wanted to push it... Explain what this meant.
They can't handle Paki RAGE.
And if you can't give a good enough non-racist explanation, you're gone.
-
....
....
Because not being a dick to people just because they aren't white is a good thing. :rolleyes:
Call a jack a jack, and a spade a spade. I don't care what your race or your religion is. The second you call something by a different name because someone might take offense is the second that you create bigotry.
P.S. Please don't blatantly ignore the point here.
-
There is a such thing as being too Politically Correct.
But still there are some words you never use. I'm mixed race myself, even though i dont look it. So i have no tolerance for rascism.
I for one agree with Kara that anyone who repeatedly uses racially offensive words even after being warned should be barred from the forum.
-
best way to deal with racism is not to hide it but let people see it. if someone is racist everyone will turn against them, if they are not a racist but sometimes use racist language they will only end up getting harassed by the self righteous with social engineering aspirations.
-
There has to be a punishment element for transgressions. Saying that you shouldn't punish racism is like saying you shouldn't punish theft because everyone will turn against a thief.
-
....
....
Because not being a dick to people just because they aren't white is a good thing. :rolleyes:
Call a jack a jack, and a spade a spade. I don't care what your race or your religion is. The second you call something by a different name because someone might take offense is the second that you create bigotry.
P.S. Please don't blatantly ignore the point here.
Since your original comment was in response to me, BloodEagle, I must say that in this case someone clearly is taking offense.
On a board with a global audience you have to be careful.
I know that if someone said 'Jap' -- a term I used a lot in my youth, playing World War 2 with toy fighter planes, but which I later learned was really offensive -- a lot of people wouldn't bat an eyelash, but at least some HLP members would be dumbstruck and angry.
Besides, it's all in the context. 'Yank' is pretty harmless coming from, say, Kara; but if a very anti-American member referred to you as an 'angry Yank' you'd probably be upset.
-
There has to be a punishment element for transgressions. Saying that you shouldn't punish racism is like saying you shouldn't punish theft because everyone will turn against a thief.
the punishment is social scorn. unless you think the community at large supports racism.
using power to punish those who say things that you don't like is not the actions of a governing body I would support.
also, threadsplit? I don't see this thread making it back to shrilankins getting attacked by Pakistani Islamic extremists.
-
But HLP is not meant to be a social networking site. You can't mod people up or down. There's no way to tell So if you have a single user constantly spewing out racist comments what would you do? Just let them carry on?
As for splitting the thread. I can't really see any sensible way to split it without making the start of this one very strange.
-
There has to be a punishment element for transgressions. Saying that you shouldn't punish racism is like saying you shouldn't punish theft because everyone will turn against a thief.
the punishment is social scorn. unless you think the community at large supports racism.
using power to punish those who say things that you don't like is not the actions of a governing body I would support.
The only way that could work is if people are allowed to flame, which they're not. And I would assume that far fewer people would be here if flaming were encouraged as a means punishment.
-
I, personally, would call them an idiot every time they opened their racist idiot mouth.
as for flaming what constitutes a flame is highly subjective, and once again goes back to my position of using power to manipulate how people act and thing is not a good way to do things, in fact I think you just proved it, by not allowing people to call one and other stupid when they are, you have taken away the group's ability to self regulate, therefore requiring an ever escalating set of increasingly totalitarian controls on what can and can not be said.
-
By doing that you are feeding the troll though Bobboau. And let's face it most racist comments on boards like this are trolls simply to get attention.
-
For god's sake, they aren't "racist" they are just offensive and not nice and typically used in the context of expressing racist sentiments.
I think you just made a self-contradiction. "Expressing racist sentiments" is racism.
Anyways, shouldn't we get this back on topic?
-
By doing that you are feeding the troll though Bobboau. And let's face it most racist comments on boards like this are trolls simply to get attention.
true, but then the individual gets the reputation of being a troll and thus everyone shuns them, unless there trolling results in comedy.
-
Yes but only after fairly massive forum disruption. Look at the pain in the arse Takashi made of himself when he first arrived.
It's all very well to expect social stuctures to deal with the kind of disruptions these things cause but they don't spring up overnight. Furthermore expecting the character of a board to remain the same when something like that is changed is pretty silly. Most people like HLP because on the whole it is a friendly, welcoming place.
I wouldn't want to be associated with the kind of STFU Noob! sort of HLP you seem to want.
-
HLP ... friendly, welcoming place.
:wakka:
-
It is. Strangely enough many newbies comment on that. Lord alone knows where they are coming from. The Nazi bum rape forum perhaps. :p
-
HLP ... friendly, welcoming place.
:wakka:
That why I come. :yes:
Some people like people to leave the forums.
-
Yes, HLP is actually pretty friendly and easy going, certainly more tolerant of new questions or even old questions than it used to be. If you'd have posted 5 years ago that you wanted to start modding and what tools would you need, you wouldn't have got advice, you'd have got flamed for not reading some really obscure references to various editors that were spread out all over the internet ;)
We have our problems, just like everywhere else, but for the main part it's not too bad.
As for the use of colloquialisms, it's not about what is offensive to either British or Americans, it's about what is offensive to Pakistanis. I'm a UK resident, so I can't speak for outside the country, but I do know that just about every Paskistani resident of the UK would take the word 'Paki' as an insult.
Also, what did I miss with the 'Robin Hood' reference?
-
Also, what did I miss with the 'Robin Hood' reference?
The last gasps of the TBP nonsense.
-
Aha.. Probably glad I missed it then :)
-
best way to deal with racism is not to hide it but let people see it. if someone is racist everyone will turn against them, if they are not a racist but sometimes use racist language they will only end up getting harassed by the self righteous with social engineering aspirations.
On the contrary, I don't think calling them an idiot will help. I think you're all missing the point here. Trolls troll to get attention. Ignore them and they'll go away :p
as for flaming what constitutes a flame is highly subjective, and once again goes back to my position of using power to manipulate how people act and thing is not a good way to do things, in fact I think you just proved it, by not allowing people to call one and other stupid when they are, you have taken away the group's ability to self regulate, therefore requiring an ever escalating set of increasingly totalitarian controls on what can and can not be said.
Well said.
-
Oh! We're banning words that are offensive now?
Alright, for a short list, you can start with:
Ivan
Commie
Slav
Red
Redneck
Hillbilly
Yank
Among others. I mean, if we're perma-banning people now for just words, then those are some we can start with. After all, they offend me! Even if you're just making a bad joke or think no one will get offended by it.
Seriously, this is this an absurd level of PC. If someone here started a thread saying "Kill all kikes" or "All spics must die" then you're free to ban them--THAT'S racism.
iamzack made a bad joke and you all should know that. If that meets the new criteria for perma-bans due to racism, then the next person who calls an American a Yank should be banned too, or someone from the UK a Brit...
-
The reason I object to the use of racial slurs – and the reason I have no respect for people who habitually use them – is because they are overwhelmingly used as a tool of oppression. The vast majority of slurs are used against underprivileged minorities, and they serve to reinforce the power of the dominant cultural group and make others feel unwelcome. This is true even in casual usage, even if there is no overt malice behind the statement. They are insidious.
If you happen to be a member of the dominant cultural group, then you are unlikely to ever be marginalized in this way. Try to remember that not everyone enjoys the same privilege.
-
....
....
Because not being a dick to people just because they aren't white is a good thing. :rolleyes:
Call a jack a jack, and a spade a spade. I don't care what your race or your religion is. The second you call something by a different name because someone might take offense is the second that you create bigotry.
P.S. Please don't blatantly ignore the point here.
Since your original comment was in response to me, BloodEagle, I must say that in this case someone clearly is taking offense.
On a board with a global audience you have to be careful.
I know that if someone said 'Jap' -- a term I used a lot in my youth, playing World War 2 with toy fighter planes, but which I later learned was really offensive -- a lot of people wouldn't bat an eyelash, but at least some HLP members would be dumbstruck and angry.
Besides, it's all in the context. 'Yank' is pretty harmless coming from, say, Kara; but if a very anti-American member referred to you as an 'angry Yank' you'd probably be upset.
Well of course I would. I'm a Cajun after all. :D
But that doesn't mean that the term (Yank, in this case) itself is offensive. I.e. there's a big difference between "angry Yank" and 'Yanks should die', one is bigoted/hate-speech and the other is stereotyped. Therein lies the true problem, there's no clear line between stereotyping and bigotry. As there's no clear line, what is and isn't bigotry comes under fire in useless debates like this.
-
Oh! We're banning words that are offensive now?
We're permabanning for racism.
Iamzack's comment was racist. Someone want to explain how it wasn't?
-
The reason I object to the use of racial slurs – and the reason I have no respect for people who habitually use them – is because they are overwhelmingly used as a tool of oppression. The vast majority of slurs are used against underprivileged minorities, and they serve to reinforce the power of the dominant cultural group and make others feel unwelcome. This is true even in casual usage, even if there is no overt malice behind the statement. They are insidious.
If you happen to be a member of the dominant cultural group, then you are unlikely to ever be marginalized in this way. Try to remember that not everyone enjoys the same privilege.
Oh my god... Congratulations on being one of about ten people on the internet who understand this concept. I'm not kidding; I'm going to wake up tomorrow in a slightly better mood for having read this.
-
Oh! We're banning words that are offensive now?
We're permabanning for racism.
Iamzack's comment was racist. Someone want to explain how it wasn't?
I fail to see how it is any different from calling americans yanks, which has been done several times on this site without any mod *****ing about it.
-
Mods are frankly just making this a bigger deal than it should. If you really do care about racist terms or ethnic slurs, then I want the next person who uses an anti-American slur banned.
I really think this is just about iamzack, this just being the last straw. It's just being justified as "she made a racist comment, therefore we will ban her for good."
-
Oh! We're banning words that are offensive now?
We're permabanning for racism.
Iamzack's comment was racist. Someone want to explain how it wasn't?
Your moderating will be the death of this forum, Kara. Why don't you perma-ban when it's actually worthwhile? *cough*trashman*cough*
You honestly can't tell Iamzacks comment was a joke, even if a poor one?
At least he/she/it is actually funny as opposed to some other people around here.
HLP Is the one of the most mature and intelligent communities I know of, and I'm quite sure it's capable of moderating itself.
No, you know what? I'm just repeating what Bobboau said. It's not going to change anything. Let me put it to you this way then; I would've left HLP due to your moderating long ago were it not the last great bastion of the Freespace community.
And let me ask the rest of you a question; Am I the only one? I sincerely doubt that.
Edit: This thread should be split or renamed.
-
*ssmit132 attempts to steer the thread back on topic*
On A Current Affair they said that they thought the shooters were hired by organized crime people. I don't know whether they were postulating or they knew that, because I wouldn't rule out terrorists either.
-
Mods are frankly just making this a bigger deal than it should. If you really do care about racist terms or ethnic slurs, then I want the next person who uses an anti-American slur banned.
No you don't. You're claiming a false level of insult in the term.
Frankly I'm amazed that anyone would have the balls to equate being called a yank with being called a nigger or a paki.
I really think this is just about iamzack, this just being the last straw. It's just being justified as "she made a racist comment, therefore we will ban her for good."
Actually I said I'd ban her for good if she repeated it after being warned that it was a racist term and that such terms weren't acceptable here. If I wanted Iamzack out I would have simply kicked her out.
On A Current Affair they said that they thought the shooters were hired by organized crime people. I don't know whether they were postulating or they knew that, because I wouldn't rule out terrorists either.
What would organised crime have to gain from it though?
-
They can't handle Paki RAGE.
In good humor this can be obviously interpretted without offense. Blame critical correctness for not wanting to offend the masses for the smallest things. I don't see what she said as racist anyway.
Such a stir on a minor thing that doesn't seem like it would persist later into this thread without action.
-
*ssmit132 attempts to steer the thread back on topic*
On A Current Affair they said that they thought the shooters were hired by organized crime people. I don't know whether they were postulating or they knew that, because I wouldn't rule out terrorists either.
Yeah, I heard they were linked to the hotel incident last year.
Well firstly I'm surprised so much discussion erupted over a throwaway line by iamzack and something I said without thinking twice about. I'm not around Pakistani people a lot so I'm not really aware of that whole issue regarding the word....you can be sure it won't ever be a product of my keyboard again. I've really become immune to most racial slurs....being an ethnic minority in this country, and those that do offend me are usually met with a stream of rhyming expletives etc. And don't start with the whole "Well-just-because-you-are-doesn't0mean-we-are" speech, don't worry, I'll think before I speak.
-
No you don't. You're claiming a false level of insult in the term.
Frankly I'm amazed that anyone would have the balls to equate being called a yank with being called a nigger or a paki.
Yank WAS a deragatory term. The song Yankee Doodle was written specifically to insult the American colonists.
The song's origins were in a pre-Revolutionary War song originally by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees" with whom they served in the French and Indian War. The word doodle first appeared in the early seventeenth century to mean a fool or simpleton, and is thought to derive from the Low German dudel or dödel, meaning "fool" or "simpleton".
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Doodle)
-
Was being the operative word. Trying to claim it's offensive now is like trying to equate heck and ****. Yeah it might have been very rude several hundred years ago but now, not so much.
-
It still is used in a deragitory way. So, since you are claiming Paki is bad, I'm going to claim that Yank is offensive and racist too, because it clearly is.
Doing a quick google search of this site I've found several instances of the Y word being used, and I demand that all of those people be perma banned for racism immediately.
-
hear! hear!
this anti-american slander has gone on long enough!
-
One word presented in a non offensive manner started this whole **** storm. And the threat of perma-ban is very over the top. Why not be like "don't say that again". The mere presence of an admin denouncing something in a thread is good enough to get people to stop. If not, then perma-banning seems quite reasonable. This whole thing currently is unreasonable.
How's it going up there in soviet headquarters controlling the newspapers?
-
so, is jude offensive since that's what jews were called during the holocaust?
Isn't Jude still the german word for Jewish people anyway?
-
One word presented in a non offensive manner started this whole **** storm. And the threat of perma-ban is very over the top. Why not be like "don't say that again".
In case you didn't notice that's exactly what I did. I even said please.
The mere presence of an admin denouncing something in a thread is good enough to get people to stop. If not, then perma-banning seems quite reasonable.
Again. What I did. I told Iamzack she'd be permabanned if she used it again after the warning when she announced that she didn't want to use the non-racist term because she wanted something that was more of a slur.
So how am I doing anything different from what you said I should do?
It still is used in a deragitory way. So, since you are claiming Paki is bad, I'm going to claim that Yank is offensive and racist too, because it clearly is.
The work paki resulted in several posts saying that it was offensive. Not just from me but from several other members too. I'm pretty sure anyone using terms like nigger, yid, kike, etc would draw similar complaints too. Yet...
Doing a quick google search of this site I've found several instances of the Y word being used
Did you find a large number of board members immediately claiming the term was racist?
So the word is so offensive that even after numerous postings of the term you don't find anyone offended by the term. I guess they must have all died of apoplexy the second they saw the term! I guess we should ban it for being such a racist term that it's killed every single person it offended or made them so mad that they could never ever post again on HLP! :rolleyes:
Or more likely you're trying to elevate the word Yank to the same level of racism as words that are quite clearly are very offensive. Most people would consider Yank to be on the same level as Limey or Kraut or Aussie. Sure the word can be used in a derogatory context as a flame but most of the time it simply means an American, is done in jest and is not racist.
As I said earlier I find it quite hard to believe that there is anyone on this board who equates being called a Yank with being called a nigger. For you to try to claim that they are equivalent is rather sad. Either you're really naive enough to really believe that they are as bad as each other or you're willing to sink to that level in order to win this argument.
-
Look, guys, it's not difficult: if people are offended by it, don't use it. It's not like the word is required to express your thoughts.
I know that Hellstryker has a personal disagreement with Kara, but the fact is that he (Kara) has been incredibly reasonable and patient.
This whole 'Yank' example is silly because Caucasian Americans are the most privileged group on the planet. As Rian pointed out, no one's going to marginalize or oppress them.
You folks need to consider that the fact that even if you don't find a word offensive, that doesn't mean that other people, in other cultural contexts, won't find it offensive.
-
You also need to remember that the UK is multi-cultural, and that simply because Kara is English, that doesn't automatically mean he has White Anglo-Saxon roots.
-
Thing is that it doesn't matter really what race I am. The fact is that this is a global forum. We're supposed to welcome people of all races. How welcoming is it to come onto a board where people are making racist jokes? Is that really the kind of HLP you people want?
-
so the cricket team got attacked? :P
-
really? :D
-
Thing is that it doesn't matter really what race I am. The fact is that this is a global forum. We're supposed to welcome people of all races. How welcoming is it to come onto a board where people are making racist jokes? Is that really the kind of HLP you people want?
It seems to me that quite a few people don't agree that it is racist. Let's look at the word Pakistan, take out the last 4 letters and you have paki as an abbriviation. Let's look at another word, Britain. Take out the last 3 letters and you get brit. I'm not seeing a difference, especially in the context it was just used. If it was used in a racist context then that would be different, but it wasn't. How is this any different from saying Euro instead of European? It's not, except by hypersensitive people. No one is saying we should let racist retards in.
Look, guys, it's not difficult: if people are offended by it, don't use it. It's not like the word is required to express your thoughts.
That's the issue with political correctness, it is a slippery slope towards censorship and outright thought control. No matter what you will always find at least some people who will be offended by almost anything.
-
The difference is that one is widely understood to be a racist slur and the others are not.
-
It seems to me that quite a few people don't agree that it is racist. Let's look at the word Pakistan, take out the last 4 letters and you have paki as an abbriviation. Let's look at another word, Britain. Take out the last 3 letters and you get brit.
And if Brit was used for every white skinned person regardless of the country they came from wouldn't that make it racist?
It's a pejorative used against anyone with brown skin. I even linked to the wikipedia article on the subject (although it appears that someone noticed and redirected it now).
Paki / Pakki
(Primarily UK and Canada, sometimes New Zealand and India) a Pakistani or South Asian. Within the UK, the term originated in Northern England, where a large number of South Asians arrived in the 1950s and 1960s. It is usually considered offensive when used by a non-Asian in the UK.
So it is absolutely NOT a shortening of Pakistani. I could make much the same argument you're trying to make that I could call anyone from Niger or Nigeria a Nigger.
Had you bothered to actually look up your facts before getting into this argument then you would have known that you were completely wrong.
-
Everyone: Please stop being so sensitive.
-
so how bout em' cricket players?
-
So it is absolutely NOT a shortening of Pakistani. I could make much the same argument you're trying to make that I could call anyone from Niger or Nigeria a Nigger.
Apples and oranges.
Nigger comes from negro, French/Italian/Portuguese for black.
The Paki/Pakistan Brit/Britain dilemma doesn't work with Nigeria, because it doesn't make sense when you take off the last few letters of Nigeria. Then you get (NAI-GIR) not (NIG-GR).
Frankly, this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. Kara did warn iamzack not to use the word, but she only used the word to make a bad joke, which, frankly, wouldn't have been anywhere near funny if she'd used Pakistani.
Should we be using those words? No. Should people be getting ultrasensitive and freaking out over it? No. The reasons I'm sure a lot of Americans here don't flare up everytime we get called Yank here are because:
A) Busy dealing with the fact a lot of people here tend to see us as backwards neocon rednecks
B) Just don't give a damn, because we're not going to get any sympathy anyway
So yes, Yank is an offensive term, Kara. Stop saying it isn't. You trying to justify your argument is like Kosh justifying that Paki isn't a racist term.
-
Yank is about as offensive as limey. It's not in the same league as nigger. Stop claiming it is.
-
Yank is about as offensive as limey. It's not in the same league as nigger. Stop claiming it is.
I guess that makes it okay to use.
-
Yank is about as offensive as limey. It's not in the same league as nigger. Stop claiming it is.
Still it offensive. But we should stay away of those words.
-
I guess that makes it okay to use.
I can't think of many people on this board who have ever been offended by the term, limey. Again, it's about context. I don't see many American's demanding that the New York Yankees change their name.
-
I guess that makes it okay to use.
I can't think of many people on this board who have ever been offended by the term, limey. Again, it's about context. I don't see many American's demanding that the New York Yankees change their name.
Guys, he's obviously correct. The term in question is different from Yank because it's a slur where he's from (the UK). This is a global forum and we all need to get along.
Everyone's trying all this fancy-pants logic to make philosophical points. But we only need second-grade logic here: if it's genuinely hurtful to someone (not pretend hurtful to people who want to score points), don't use it.
-
I guess that makes it okay to use.
I can't think of many people on this board who have ever been offended by the term, limey. Again, it's about context. I don't see many American's demanding that the New York Yankees change their name.
Guys, he's obviously correct. The term in question is different from Yank because it's a slur where he's from (the UK). This is a global forum and we all need to get along.
Everyone's trying all this fancy-pants logic to make philosophical points. But we only need second-grade logic here: if it's genuinely hurtful to someone (not pretend hurtful to people who want to score points), don't use it.
I never disagreed with that in the first place. What I disagreed with was the whole perma-ban thing.
And as for having something "personal" against Karajorma, I simply disagree with the way he runs his forum, and apparently I'm not the only one.
-
It's not 'his'. The admin forum is a loose council without (at least last time I saw it) any kind of serious hierarchy.
Threatening permaban did rather effectively convey the fact that this was a racial epithet on par with those in use in the US. If we all agree it's as hurtful as those, then it should receive the same punishment.
But look, Kara gave a warning, he was understanding that iamzack might not know the full power of the word -- all went well. No abuse of power here.
-
It's not 'his'. The admin forum is a loose council without (at least last time I saw it) any kind of serious hierarchy.
Threatening permaban did rather effectively convey the fact that this was a racial epithet on par with those in use in the US. If we all agree it's as hurtful as those, then it should receive the same punishment.
But look, Kara gave a warning, he was understanding that iamzack might not know the full power of the word -- all went well. No abuse of power here.
By his I didn't mean he ran it entirely. (Although he does seem take on most of the moderating related issues)
-
As a minor nitpick:
"Yankee", in American parlance, refers to someone from the Northeastern US (specifically New England and the Mid-Atlantic states). I've known some Southerners to take umbrage if they are called Yanks.
"Redneck" is more pejorative than "Yankee" tho, and I think that should be mentioned, since I see it more commonly.
I will also say that I don't think iamzack deserves a ban. It was a bad joke, yes, and it was in very poor taste, but a ban seems to me like an overreaction.
*sigh* Innocent people have died and a nuclear state may be starting to crumble (see also Swat capitulation), and we're arguing about a bad joke. Methinks our priorities are a bit skewed. :doubt:
-
I think it's interesting how 7 people were killed in an ambush and all we can talk about is how people's feelings got hurt when someone said naughty words.
-
I think it's interesting how 7 people were killed in an ambush and all we can talk about is how people's feelings got hurt when someone said naughty words.
Dunbar's number in effect.
-
I think it's interesting how 7 people were killed in an ambush and all we can talk about is how people's feelings got hurt when someone said naughty words.
It's amazing that some people think that's all racism is.
I will also say that I don't think iamzack deserves a ban. It was a bad joke, yes, and it was in very poor taste, but a ban seems to me like an overreaction.
I'm starting to think I'm dealing with the hard of thinking here. :rolleyes: A ban would have occurred for any further use of the word, after it was made clear that it was a racist term that was not acceptable on this forum.
How many times do I need to say that?
-
I think it's interesting how 7 people were killed in an ambush and all we can talk about is how people's feelings got hurt when someone said naughty words.
It's amazing that some people think that's all racism is.
I didn't say that. In fact, I didn't mention racism at all. So I'll assume that you were not referring to me.
It is a shame that racism exists, but part of what allows it to exist is this whole concept of people thinking "My goodness, some XXXXXs killed a few YYYYYs. How are people so racist?" That whole train of thought is in itself racist. It's certainly not as bad as killing people, but if we ever want to completely rid ourselves of racism and move on, it needs to be turned into "My goodness, some gunmen killed people. How are people so hurtful?"
Dunbar's number in effect.
I read the Wikipedia article on that and did more Google research and I still don't get it.
-
How many times do I need to say that?
No more, I don't think. This "discussion" has taken 5 pages already. You guys need to relax, you're arguing about a hypothetical situation that may arise if iamzack makes another joke in a similarly poor taste, and because of it coming across as either draconian or slow.
My line on the issue is that if people prove themselves to be incurably racist then a ban is in order. It's not a violation of rights, it's common sense. I don't think one lousy joke is ban worthy, and what's more, neither does karajorma.
-
Frankly, if I were Karajorma, I would've monkeyed iamzack after 8th or so reply, which is when it became clear she was just trying to start an argument, in which she succeeded.
-
It's true that she goes out of her way to cause trouble, but it's not entirely her fault that this got so out of hand.
-
Frankly, if I were Karajorma, I would've monkeyed iamzack after 8th or so reply, which is when it became clear she was just trying to start an argument, in which she succeeded.
Yeah. Cause I'm sure that would have been universally agreed with. :rolleyes:
-
If it wasn't you could just monkey them too :p
-
people's feelings got hurt when someone said naughty words.
This, I believe, is the mistaken understanding of racism that kara referred to. Casual racism is far more than a few “naughty words,” and it has far greater effects than a few hurt feelings. Characterizing it that way is ignorant, disingenuous, or both.
-
This is a debate over what's racist and what's not that could go on until the the cows come home... Ever watch the south park christmas special from season 1? thats what spung to mind just now when thinking over this discussion.
I thinks the best thing to:
1)say is that words considered racially offensive are not allowed and any repeated diliberate use of them when it is know that offence will be caused will result in the perpertrator being banned
2)lock this thread. As i said this is a debate that can go on forever
BTW kara i've set a date for HLP london part VI March 20th if thats alright.
-
This is a debate over what's racist and what's not that could go on until the the cows come home... Ever watch the south park christmas special from season 1? thats what spung to mind just now when thinking over this discussion.
I thinks the best thing to:
1)say is that words considered racially offensive are not allowed and any repeated diliberate use of them when it is know that offence will be caused will result in the perpertrator being banned
2)lock this thread. As i said this is a debate that can go on forever
BTW kara i've set a date for HLP london part VI March 20th if thats alright.
Yeah but I'm not arguing over what qualifies as racism, I'm arguing over what constitutes a perma-ban. A one or two day ban would be just fine in my opinion.
-
This is a debate over what's racist and what's not that could go on until the the cows come home... Ever watch the south park christmas special from season 1? thats what spung to mind just now when thinking over this discussion.
I thinks the best thing to:
1)say is that words considered racially offensive are not allowed and any repeated diliberate use of them when it is know that offence will be caused will result in the perpertrator being banned
2)lock this thread. As i said this is a debate that can go on forever
BTW kara i've set a date for HLP london part VI March 20th if thats alright.
Yeah but I'm not arguing over what qualifies as racism, I'm arguing over what constitutes a perma-ban. A one or two day ban would be just fine in my opinion.
Now that I agree with, I use the word nigger/nigga on a daily basis, but I still see the issue with Paki
Fair enough, it's offensive, but it doesn't constitute a perma-ban on a one-off case. And Kara said with repeated use of the word would result in a perma-ban.
-
I figure this.
First time offence results in a warning
Second offence results in a ban of two-days to a week
third offence results in month ban.
Any further offences result in a perma-ban.
Would that satisfy you?
-
This is a debate over what's racist and what's not that could go on until the the cows come home... Ever watch the south park christmas special from season 1? thats what spung to mind just now when thinking over this discussion.
I thinks the best thing to:
1)say is that words considered racially offensive are not allowed and any repeated diliberate use of them when it is know that offence will be caused will result in the perpertrator being banned
2)lock this thread. As i said this is a debate that can go on forever
BTW kara i've set a date for HLP london part VI March 20th if thats alright.
Yeah but I'm not arguing over what qualifies as racism, I'm arguing over what constitutes a perma-ban. A one or two day ban would be just fine in my opinion.
Now that I agree with, I use the word nigger/nigga on a daily basis, but I still see the issue with Paki
Fair enough, it's offensive, but it doesn't constitute a perma-ban on a one-off case. And Kara said with repeated use of the word would result in a perma-ban.
Yeah but you're black, so that somehow makes it ok or something. :rolleyes:
Reminds me when one black person I know complained about being called African American because he was from India despite having darker skin.
I figure this.
First time offence results in a warning
Second offence results in a ban of two-days to a week
third offence results in month ban.
Any further offences result in a perma-ban.
Would that satisfy you?
Yes, it would satisfy me, but probably not Kara.
-
I think the existing forum guidelines should be followed.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,37583.0.html
-
Frankly, if I were Karajorma, I would've monkeyed iamzack after 8th or so reply, which is when it became clear she was just trying to start an argument, in which she succeeded.
Yeah. Cause I'm sure that would have been universally agreed with. :rolleyes:
It wouldn't? I mean seriously, delibrately baiting the admin in front of the whole forum wouldn't? The first couple pages play out like the time Blackdove decided to test the limits.
Granted, people acted surprised when he ran into the limits too. So maybe you are dealing with the hard of thinking.
-
Yank is about as offensive as limey. It's not in the same league as nigger. Stop claiming it is.
Ok, so in the UK Paki is offensive, I'll accept that since you are from the UK. But in that case you have no right to say Yank isn't offensive, you are not from the US. Don't tell us that a slur against our people isn't offensive. Go the one of the former confederate states and start calling people yankees, then you'll see how "inoffensive" it is.
-
Yank is about as offensive as limey. It's not in the same league as nigger. Stop claiming it is.
Ok, so in the UK Paki is offensive, I'll accept that since you are from the UK. But in that case you have no right to say Yank isn't offensive, you are not from the US. Don't tell us that a slur against our people isn't offensive. Go the one of the former confederate states and start calling people yankees, then you'll see how "inoffensive" it is.
Or better yet, Rednecks, as MB pointed out.
-
No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.
-
No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.
:wtf: Nobody here is trying to justify the use of "hate speech", I simply think a perma ban over it is dumb. But here we have Kara trying to claim "Yank" and "Redneck" aren't offensive when he lives in britain. that's irony for you. :rolleyes:
-
No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.
:wtf: Nobody here is trying to justify the use of "hate speech", I simply think a perma ban over it is dumb. But here we have Kara trying to claim "Yank" and "Redneck" aren't offensive when he lives in britain. that's irony for you. :rolleyes:
Kara wasn't saying they weren't offensive, he was saying that they are not as offensive as the slur for blacks. I wouldn't know because I'm not black, but offhand, I'd agree with Kara on that point.
Regardless of that, it's not okay to use such language because it's demeaning, regardless of where you live.
-
Yank is about as offensive as limey. It's not in the same league as nigger. Stop claiming it is.
Ok, so in the UK Paki is offensive, I'll accept that since you are from the UK. But in that case you have no right to say Yank isn't offensive, you are not from the US. Don't tell us that a slur against our people isn't offensive. Go the one of the former confederate states and start calling people yankees, then you'll see how "inoffensive" it is.
Thats Yankee. As in bumper stickers that read "The only good Yankee is one heading north." He's talking about the British term Yank. If you've seen at least one World War II movie that isn't US centric you can tell the difference. The multi racial status of the States means it isn't a ethnic slur in the same sense as Paki is either. There is no "Southern Ethnic Group" that you are offending by the term Yankee, it's an ideological/historical issue. Technically the only truly American race are people of the tribes.
-
No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.
:wtf: Nobody here is trying to justify the use of "hate speech", I simply think a perma ban over it is dumb. But here we have Kara trying to claim "Yank" and "Redneck" aren't offensive when he lives in britain. that's irony for you. :rolleyes:
Kara wasn't saying they weren't offensive, he was saying that they are not as offensive as the slur for blacks. I wouldn't know because I'm not black, but offhand, I'd agree with Kara on that point.
Regardless of that, it's not okay to use such language because it's demeaning, regardless of where you live.
I'm pretty sure a lot of southerners would take Redneck just as badly as a "African American" (what a stupid term) would take the N word.
-
No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.
:wtf: Nobody here is trying to justify the use of "hate speech", I simply think a perma ban over it is dumb. But here we have Kara trying to claim "Yank" and "Redneck" aren't offensive when he lives in britain. that's irony for you. :rolleyes:
Kara wasn't saying they weren't offensive, he was saying that they are not as offensive as the slur for blacks. I wouldn't know because I'm not black, but offhand, I'd agree with Kara on that point.
Regardless of that, it's not okay to use such language because it's demeaning, regardless of where you live.
I'm pretty sure alot of southerners would take Redneck just as badly as a "African American" (what a stupid term) would take the N word.
I'm pretty sure not. What now?
PS (why are you pretty sure?)
EDIT: BTW,
Outside the United States, Yank or Yankee is a slang term, sometimes derogatory, for any U.S. citizen.
I don't have a ready access to WWII films of any kind, but I don't see much on here about what you said, StarSlayer.
-
I'm pretty sure not. What now?
PS (why are you pretty sure?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#R
"a disapproving and insulting term used to refer to uneducated or poorly educated White persons in the U.S. who are of lower socio-economic status, or live in a rural area"
Well, lesse, if you were in such a position, would you take offense to the said slur?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#R
"a disapproving and insulting term used to refer to uneducated or poorly educated White persons in the U.S. who are of lower socio-economic status, or live in a rural area"
Well, lesse, if you were in such a position, would you take offense to the said slur?
The question wasn't whether they would be offended or not - that's obvious. You said that they are just as offended as black people are when called rednecks or the "N word," which hasn't been demonstrated in the Wikipedia article.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#R
"a disapproving and insulting term used to refer to uneducated or poorly educated White persons in the U.S. who are of lower socio-economic status, or live in a rural area"
Well, lesse, if you were in such a position, would you take offense to the said slur?
The question wasn't whether they would be offended or not - that's obvious. You said that they are just as offended as black people are when called rednecks or the "N word," which hasn't been demonstrated in the Wikipedia article.
Ultimately to solve this stupid debate we'd have to do a poll on blacks and poorer white people living in rural areas. Not going to happen.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#R
"a disapproving and insulting term used to refer to uneducated or poorly educated White persons in the U.S. who are of lower socio-economic status, or live in a rural area"
Well, lesse, if you were in such a position, would you take offense to the said slur?
The question wasn't whether they would be offended or not - that's obvious. You said that they are just as offended as black people are when called rednecks or the "N word," which hasn't been demonstrated in the Wikipedia article.
Ultimately to solve this stupid debate we'd have to do a poll on blacks and poorer white people living in rural areas. Not going to happen.
We can't just use the fact that it's taboo to say the N word and it isn't taboo to say redneck?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#R
"a disapproving and insulting term used to refer to uneducated or poorly educated White persons in the U.S. who are of lower socio-economic status, or live in a rural area"
Well, lesse, if you were in such a position, would you take offense to the said slur?
The question wasn't whether they would be offended or not - that's obvious. You said that they are just as offended as black people are when called rednecks or the "N word," which hasn't been demonstrated in the Wikipedia article.
Ultimately to solve this stupid debate we'd have to do a poll on blacks and poorer white people living in rural areas. Not going to happen.
We can't just use the fact that it's taboo to say the N word and it isn't taboo to say redneck?
Taboos are a form of censorship, which I despise with the very essence of my being.
Of course, that's is a different subject altogether.
So, no sizzler. I'll just shut up. It's pointless debating if we're not going to come to an agreement.
-
So, no sizzler. I'll just shut up. It's pointless debating if we're not going to come to an agreement.
Well we can't come to an agreement if we're not going to debate. :p
-
So, no sizzler. I'll just shut up. It's pointless debating if we're not going to come to an agreement.
Well we can't come to an agreement if we're not going to debate. :p
And as I stated earlier, it's impossible for us to come an agreement due to the fact that neither of us are black or poorly educated (despite the fact that I am relatively poor and live in a rural area :p)
-
And I use the N-word. It shouldn't even be called the N word. Unless of course any one of you say it. It's all about the context really. I mean a Pakistani person referring to another Pakistani person as a "Paki" isn't considered offensive is it? Especially if the two were friends and referring to each other in a friendly manner. If someone calls me a nigger (which is really null and void......but nonetheless, nobody seems to listen at school these days, or be able to tell the difference between a Sri Lankan Kid wearing baggy jeans and 50 Cent), I'll take it depending on the context. As soon as someone tries to say something like "**** you, you stupid punk-ass nigga!" That's when it should become an offensive term. If someone says "Yo sup' Nigga *west-side hand sign*", that isn't an insult. I don't know many Pakistani people so I don't know if they refer to each other by the terms white people use as derogatory in a large movement to rebel against society's norm (don't get me started), but if you see the point I'm making about context, these aren't always racial slurs. If someone here thinks a term used by one of us is a racial slur, then they have a right to stand up and say stop. Well Kara has an issue, so therefore refrain from the word Paki...simple.
So, no sizzler. I'll just shut up. It's pointless debating if we're not going to come to an agreement.
Well we can't come to an agreement if we're not going to debate. :p
And as I stated earlier, it's impossible for us to come an agreement due to the fact that neither of us are black or poorly educated (despite the fact that I am relatively poor and live in a rural area :p)
Well I'm Black. Nigga. *Loads 9mm*
-
I'm pretty sure not. What now?
The term is considered openly derogatory coast to friggin' coast. It was in Virginia, it is in California. You don't even have to be Southern. Therefore I'm pretty sure you're full of it.
And referring to someone as a Yank or Yankee in, say, Vicksburg, is easily worth calling fighting words. So no, it's not racial, but then, it doesn't have to be now does it? (You think I'm kidding, but Vicksburg doesn't celebrate the Fourth of July because the city fell to the Union on that date.)
-
ITT we have no idea how racism works.
As has already been pointed out (and predictably ignored), the power of what we call "hate speech" is its historical weight. It is not simply the act of expressing prejudice that gives these terms their power, it is their use as a tool of intimidation within the context of a society in which a given group of people has been systematically disenfranchised. No matter how angry an American might get at being called a Yank (that's absurd, by the way), there is no context in which Americans as a people have been subjugated. (This is an especially problematic example because there is no "American" ethnic group.) Even if the word is inflammatory, it does not carry implicitly the power relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, nor does the word "redneck." Kara is absolutely right; it's a matter of context, and to decide that all terms of prejudice carry the same power is essentially to pretend that people and cultures interact in a vacuum, devoid of historical repercussions. There's a difference between an assumption based on a category-- which can between any two parties-- and a word intended to perpetuate an ugly history in the here and now. All of us experience the former, but the latter is not a universal.
In summation, I happen to suspect that any American who says they can't laugh off being called a Yank is so full of ****, I don't know how they swallow their food.
EDIT: Well, really in summation, not all prejudice has the historical force of hate speech.
-
ITT we have no idea how racism works.
As has already been pointed out (and predictably ignored), the power of what we call "hate speech" is its historical weight. It is not simply the act of expressing prejudice that gives these terms their power, it is their use as a tool of intimidation within the context of a society in which a given group of people has been systematically disenfranchised. No matter how angry an American might get at being called a Yank (that's absurd, by the way), there is no context in which Americans as a people have been subjugated. (This is an especially problematic example because there is no "American" ethnic group.) Even if the word is inflammatory, it does not carry implicitly the power relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, nor does the word "redneck." Kara is absolutely right; it's a matter of context, and to decide that all terms of prejudice carry the same power is essentially to pretend that people and cultures interact in a vacuum, devoid of historical repercussions. There's a difference between an assumption based on a category-- which can between any two parties-- and a word intended to perpetuate an ugly history in the here and now. All of us experience the former, but the latter is not a universal.
In summation, I happen to suspect that any American who says they can't laugh off being called a Yank is so full of ****, I don't how they swallow their food.
That is, unfortunately, America for you.
-
Oppressor/oppressed racism is almost a self fulfilling prophecy these days. Every time you play the race card, you give power to racism. Why is it so taboo for someone to say 'nigger', unless they happen to be black? It's practically making a mockery of the fact that it's so taboo for anyone else. Why do employers now have to make exceptions for treatment of their employees based on their race, instead of treating everyone equal? The more you try to protect a group from another, the more you enforce the belief that they need it because they're not equal and never will be. I mean for frak's sake, we have a black president now, it's apparent that a minority can accomplish anything in this country, so can we _please_ get rid of all the bull**** aid programs for minorities? That would sure help cut down the deficit.
And, it's inexcusable for someone from America to not be aware of the overtones that the word 'nigger' carried. I would sooner expect someone from another country to be unaware of that, after all wasn't it coined through the slave trade with the Americas?
Btw, I'm taking back 'porch monkey'.
-
Implicit association tests provide strong evidence that there is still broad, pervasive prejudice against Blacks in American society.
Hiring-scenario tests also show that subconscious discrimination is alive and well even in the most well-educated Americans.
This seems to suggest that affirmative action programs are not completely unjustified. I'm not sure what I myself think of the matter.
-
That doesn't mean anything. You didn't specify well educated _white_ Americans, so I'm not sure whether you mean that everyone discriminates a little bit, or that it was only tested on whites. I refuse to believe it's not equally prevalent in almost any race. There's broad, pervasive prejudice for all sorts of races from all sorts of races. You should hear some of the Mexicans I know go on and on sometimes. It doesn't mean that affirmative action is justified, it means people prefer their own kind. What a concept. And why not? Different races are different. This kind of care bear policy is just like the crap that got us into this financial mess we're in now. But you don't have some innate right to a job, or a house, or a PS3, or a big screen, or a shiny new car, or 10+ kids.
-
That doesn't mean anything. You didn't specify well educated _white_ Americans, so I'm not sure whether you mean that everyone discriminates a little bit, or that it was only tested on whites. I refuse to believe it's not equally prevalent in almost any race. There's broad, pervasive prejudice for all sorts of races from all sorts of races. You should hear some of the Mexicans I know go on and on sometimes. It doesn't mean that affirmative action is justified, it means people prefer their own kind. What a concept. And why not? Different races are different. This kind of care bear policy is just like the crap that got us into this financial mess we're in now. But you don't have some innate right to a job, or a house, or a PS3, or a big screen, or a shiny new car, or 10+ kids.
No, the IATs suggest broad prejudice against blacks even by blacks, and differentiated from that against Asians or Hispanics.
I can forward you the papers if you'd like to read them.
'Refusing to believe' without data is generally a bad policy -- it leads to confirmation bias -- but so it goes.
-
No I was refusing to believe that because I've seen so much evidence to the contrary, not a lack of evidence. And I could totally believe that there is black against black prejudice, probably because of the way so many of them seem intent on giving value to the stereotypes. Or the other way around, the ones acting the stereotypes hate the others for not embracing it more and acting too much like the 'white oppressors'. It _still_ isn't a good argument for affirmative action.
-
That holds true for just about group though, not just blacks. If you're from the country and follow the CMT stereotype, then you're alienated in a sense. And regardless of whether you fit the stereotype or not, a fair amount people from the city will assume you're a redneck.
Or if yer not AMURIKIN!!! enough than yoo=kommie
-
"Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."
-
Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html
Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go
Now I think this thread should be locked.
-
I don't think he blew anything out of proportion. Any other admin would probably have done the same thing armed with the knowledge he had about the term.
-
I don't think he blew anything out of proportion. Any other admin would probably have done the same thing armed with the knowledge he had about the term.
I'm sorry but I just can't see goob threatening a perma ban over something like this.
-
I don't think he blew anything out of proportion. Any other admin would probably have done the same thing armed with the knowledge he had about the term.
I'm sorry but I just can't see goob threatening a perma ban over something like this.
Goober doesn't have Pakistani roots or whatever. I understand how it probably made a lot bigger deal to Kara, but a perma-ban down the line for repeated racism is acceptable I believe.
-
Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html
Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go
Actually I think you should be banned for making the racist assumption that I did this cause of the colour of my skin. :p
Simple fact is that I would have done this were I white. I'd have treated the use of nigger in exactly the same fashion. The terms are offensively racist. They have no place on HLP and the party involved was warned not to use them again.
Now I think this thread should be locked.
I find it hillarious that people are similtaniously claiming I'm heavy handed while failing to notice that I've refused to close a debate while it is ongoing.
Furthermore posting something as incendiary as that and then calling for the thread to be closed to prevent a response is a very cowardly move.
-
No matter how angry an American might get at being called a Yank (that's absurd, by the way), there is no context in which Americans as a people have been subjugated. (This is an especially problematic example because there is no "American" ethnic group.) Even if the word is inflammatory, it does not carry implicitly the power relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, nor does the word "redneck."
Actually you're flat wrong about that. There very much is an oppressive tone to them, given how the word Yank came about when we were ruled by the British, whom we later broke away from because of their increasingly oppressive policies/methods.
During the civil war southerners would use the word yank to desperingly refer to the northerners, whom they did view as oppressors. The north devastated large parts of the south towards the end of the war, and considering that many of those states still have confederate battle flags as part of their state flags that makes it very unlikely they have forgetten. There very much is a history of oppression that goes along with that word. Given your reasoning, Yank is offensive as well.
-
As I put it before. How many complaints have you actually seen on here about the use of the word previous to this thread?
-
How you percieve the word is utterly meaningless in the context of discussion. Your perception of it is not at issue and therefore anything you have to say on the subject is totally invalid.
I lived a month in Vicksburg. "Yankee son of a *****" is an insult of grave, your-descendants-will-shun-mine proportions there, easy to start a fight with. An epithet need not carry such connotations as you desire to carry weight. "Kraut" or "Fritz" would considered bad form too, but we don't have many Germans to complain. Are they okay?
Or we could try visiting Mexico. "Yanqui" is not a term of endearment there.
-
Well the word "Yankee" itself isn't racist, as the Anglo-Saxon British used it to refer to their own Anglo-Saxon colonists. It's just a case of ethnocentrism...British called American colonists Yanks just as much as Americans called Canadians Canucks and everyone calls the French frogs.
I personally don't like the whole argument both of you seem to be making, that a word is more offensive because it was used by conquerors. That is exactly what has led to the racial double standard--white people in the US can't call black people niggers, but black people are free to call white people crackers.
Racist terms--actually ethnocentric terms, to broaden it--are all negative, whether coming from the conquerors or the conquered.
-
Actually I think you should be banned for making the racist assumption that I did this cause of the colour of my skin. :p
Oh please, you'd eagerly jump at any excuse to ban me. :p
Simple fact is that I would have done this were I white. I'd have treated the use of nigger in exactly the same fashion. The terms are offensively racist. They have no place on HLP and the party involved was warned not to use them again.
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. You might think racism is wrong. I think it's wrong. But I'm not sure you would feel so strongly about it as to threaten perma banning over it, because you've actually (probably) had to deal with it yourself, and as you've pointed out, that does occur less to white people, especially in Britain, I'd imagine (This is just an assumption as I've never actually been there myself, so excuse me if I'm wrong)
I find it hillarious that people are similtaniously claiming I'm heavy handed while failing to notice that I've refused to close a debate while it is ongoing.
Well, personally I think you just enjoy it, but then as battuta pointed out, I don't exactly have the most wholesome view of you.
Furthermore posting something as incendiary as that and then calling for the thread to be closed to prevent a response is a very cowardly move.
What more is there left to discuss? would you rather leave this open until it erupts in an all out flamewar? The only point of it (from my perspective) was for you to change your policies on the matter, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
-
Kosh: There is a qualitative difference between a conflict and a condition of apartheid, which parallels the difference I tried to make clear in my last post: that between simple hostility and racism. If you think the history of the relationships between the British and their colonists or the North and the South are even vaguely analogous to the history of pseudo-scientifically reinforced dehumanization that black Americans experienced, then I would say you ought to re-examine history. I never said a word like Yank couldn't be inflammatory-- any word can be inflammatory-- but when a white person calls a black person a nigger, they aren't just invoking some historical referent, they're reenacting a dialectic. That's why a racial slur is different from an insult. It's more than an insult; it's a way of normalizing through discourse the objectification of this person on the basis of something that they are utterly unable to renounce or conceal. A black man isn't called a nigger because of a set of cultural, geographic, or political conditions that gave rise to him as an individual; he's called a nigger because he's black. The word is meant to remind him that whatever he does, wherever he goes, and whatever company he keeps, there is nothing he can do to escape this quality that makes him less than a person. Such a word can't possibly carry the same power when used between people within the group to which it applies. That's really just simple logic. This doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about whether it's appropriate for anyone to use the word; it means that part of a racial epithet's power is necessarily based in who is using it.
And nuclear, that's also why racism isn't the same in every direction; you have to be in power before you can systematically rob a group of people of their sovereignty as human beings. What am I supposed to be reminded of when a black person calls me a cracker? The fact that I'm statistically 1/6 as likely to go to prison? That doesn't mean I appreciate being judged on the basis of my appearance-- it might even make me angry-- but there's a kind of social adversity, often very subtle, that I realize I'll never be able to understand.
As I've said in previous debates of this nature, it's not a blame game. Nobody's trying to send anyone on a guilt trip, but racism becomes more insidious when we try to pretend that it's all over.
-
Kosh: There is a qualitative difference between a conflict and a condition of apartheid, which parallels the difference I tried to make clear in my last post: that between simple hostility and racism. If you think the history of the relationships between the British and their colonists or the North and the South are even vaguely analogous to the history of pseudo-scientifically reinforced dehumanization that black Americans experienced, then I would say you ought to re-examine history. I never said a word like Yank couldn't be inflammatory-- any word can be inflammatory-- but when a white person calls a black person a nigger, they aren't just invoking some historical referent, they're reenacting a dialectic. That's why a racial slur is different from an insult. It's more than an insult; it's a way of normalizing through discourse the objectification of this person on the basis of something that they are utterly unable to renounce or conceal. A black man isn't called a nigger because of a set of cultural, geographic, or political conditions that gave rise to him as an individual; he's called a nigger because he's black. The word is meant to remind him that whatever he does, wherever he goes, and whatever company he keeps, there is nothing he can do to escape this quality that makes him less than a person. Such a word can't possibly carry the same power when used between people within the group to which it applies. That's really just simple logic. This doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about whether it's appropriate for anyone to use the word; it means that part of a racial epithet's power is necessarily based in who is using it.
And nuclear, that's also why racism isn't the same in every direction; you have to be in power before you can systematically rob a group of people of their sovereignty as human beings. What am I supposed to be reminded of when a black person calls me a cracker? The fact that I'm statistically 1/6 as likely to go to prison? That doesn't mean I appreciate being judged on the basis of my appearance-- it might even make me angry-- but there's a kind of social adversity, often very subtle, that I realize I'll never be able to understand.
As I've said in previous debates of this nature, it's not a blame game. Nobody's trying to send anyone on a guilt trip, but racism becomes more insidious when we try to pretend that it's all over.
You contradict yourself.
-
Where did he contradict himself?
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. You might think racism is wrong. I think it's wrong. But I'm not sure you would feel so strongly about it as to threaten perma banning over it, because you've actually (probably) had to deal with it yourself, and as you've pointed out, that does occur less to white people, especially in Britain, I'd imagine (This is just an assumption as I've never actually been there myself, so excuse me if I'm wrong)
I'm sure. I don't give a damn if you don't believe me. Maybe you haven't considered the fact that because I likely to be the victim of one kind of racism I might be more inclined to view other kinds similarly harshly? Simple fact is that I will have a go at anyone acting racist. And that even includes someone using racist flames against white people. For the reasons Ford Prefect has outlines I don't believe that simply using the term redneck or yank/yankee are racist in and of themselves. However if someone were to add those terms to their flames they'd be spending a long time away from this board, if not forever.
In fact I'm fairly sure HLP has permabanned someone for using that term in the past. It was back during the 3dactionplanet days so they aren't going to still be on the ban list.
Well, personally I think you just enjoy it, but then as battuta pointed out, I don't exactly have the most wholesome view of you.
I simply don't think it's right to close a discussion I've taken part in because it's far to easy for an admin to start abusing that power and close any discussion that they are losing. Similarly it's cowardly to try to do the same thing by proxy by posting and then immediately calling for the close of a topic.
What more is there left to discuss? would you rather leave this open until it erupts in an all out flamewar? The only point of it (from my perspective) was for you to change your policies on the matter, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Well for a start I wanted to answer the ridiculous, unfounded assertions that you had made about why I didn't appreciate the use of the term.
Ford and Rian seem to be making a very good point about the nature of racism and there's no good reason that discussion shouldn't continue.
But more importantly, if you feel that there is no point to this discussion why are you still posting?
-
Where did he contradict himself?
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. You might think racism is wrong. I think it's wrong. But I'm not sure you would feel so strongly about it as to threaten perma banning over it, because you've actually (probably) had to deal with it yourself, and as you've pointed out, that does occur less to white people, especially in Britain, I'd imagine (This is just an assumption as I've never actually been there myself, so excuse me if I'm wrong)
I'm sure. I don't give a damn if you don't believe me. Maybe you haven't considered the fact that because I likely to be the victim of one kind of racism I might be more inclined to view other kinds similarly harshly? Simple fact is that I will have a go at anyone acting racist. And that even includes someone using racist flames against white people. For the reasons Ford Prefect has outlines I don't believe that simply using the term redneck or yank/yankee are racist in and of themselves. However if someone were to add those terms to their flames they'd be spending a long time away from this board, if not forever.
In fact I'm fairly sure HLP has permabanned someone for using that term in the past. It was back during the 3dactionplanet days so they aren't going to still be on the ban list.
Well, personally I think you just enjoy it, but then as battuta pointed out, I don't exactly have the most wholesome view of you.
I simply don't think it's right to close a discussion I've taken part in because it's far to easy for an admin to start abusing that power and close any discussion that they are losing. Similarly it's cowardly to try to do the same thing by proxy by posting and then immediately calling for the close of a topic.
What more is there left to discuss? would you rather leave this open until it erupts in an all out flamewar? The only point of it (from my perspective) was for you to change your policies on the matter, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Well for a start I wanted to answer the ridiculous, unfounded assertions that you had made about why I didn't appreciate the use of the term.
Ford and Rian seem to be making a very good point about the nature of racism and there's no good reason that discussion shouldn't continue.
But more importantly, if you feel that there is no point to this discussion why are you still posting?
@Fords post: I put it in bold text in his quote, re read it.
The point I was trying to make is you yourself have probably been exposed to racism a far greater deal than I and a lot of people on HLP have. Therefor you probably have a harsher outlook on it, which I honestly think is completely understandable. If you had been born white, things probably would've been a lot different, and your outlook on the matter probably would be more lax. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not trying to say that would've been a good thing, but I still think that perma banning over it is wrong. NGTM posted an excellent example, and is what i personally would do in such a situation were I an admin.
And as for sticking around, I was awaiting your response on the matter. So you're right, there is no further reason for me to be here. I shall now take my leave.
-
The point I was trying to make is you yourself have probably been exposed to racism a far greater deal than I and a lot of people on HLP have. Therefor you probably have a harsher outlook on it, which I honestly think is completely understandable. If you had been born white, things probably would've been a lot different, and your outlook on the matter probably would be more lax.
Again not true. One of my white friends from secondary school was much more strongly against racists than I was, going so far as to beat the crap out of anyone who used any racist terms in his earshot. If you take a look at demonstrations by the anti-nazi league you'll probably notice that many of the people shouting themselves hoarse are white. There are a lot of people who haven't ever faced racism personally but understand why it's wrong and have the desire to stamp it out where ever it raises it's ugly head.
So it's actually quite a racist point of view to try to claim that the only reason I react harshly to racism is because I'm not white.
-
Again not true. One of my white friends from secondary school was much more strongly against racists than I was, going so far as to beat the crap out of anyone who used any racist terms in his earshot. If you take a look at demonstrations by the anti-nazi league you'll probably notice that many of the people shouting themselves hoarse are white. There are a lot of people who haven't ever faced racism personally but understand why it's wrong and have the desire to stamp it out where ever it raises it's ugly head.
Well then good for you and him, but this sparks a whole debate about what qualifies as racism, and what's worse, racist comments or censorship, which I am choosing not to partake in, since it's ultimately meaningless.
So it's actually quite a racist point of view to try to claim that the only reason I react harshly to racism is because I'm not white.
It's not racist at all that your skin color (could) put you in a certain situation, it's simply a fact of life, as is the fact that I live in a rural area with an extremely white majority, so I take a more (unfortunately?) liberal view on the subject. Again, it's all about context.
Were I calling you a "d1rty t3rr0rizt p4k1!!111" That would most certainly be racist.
Now, for real this time, I shall take my leave.
-
Let's go back a step and look at what you posted.
Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html
Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go
There's no qualification there. You attempted to chastise me for blowing it out of proportion based on the fact that I have an Iranian surname. You didn't ask me if maybe that was why. You assumed it was why. That is a racist assumption. You've ascribed a motive to my actions based on my race. Furthermore you continued to assume that you were correct even after I pointed out that I'd be similarly inclined to go after anyone using racist terms regardless of whether or not they are personally relevant to me.
It's already been pointed out that there are degrees of racism. It's not just a case of calling names. Making assumptions about people based on their skin colour is usually racist too. Now while it's not in the same league as being insulting it's certainly nothing to be proud of.
-
As I put it before. How many complaints have you actually seen on here about the use of the word previous to this thread?
Irrelevant. If I said Gook but there were no Asians on the website to take offense to it, does that make it any less bad? I think not.
What am I supposed to be reminded of when a black person calls me a cracker?
That they hate you, the rest is nonsense.
-
Let's go back a step and look at what you posted.
Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html
Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go
There's no qualification there. You attempted to chastise me for blowing it out of proportion based on the fact that I have an Iranian surname. You didn't ask me if maybe that was why. You assumed it was why. That is a racist assumption. You've ascribed a motive to my actions based on my race. Furthermore you continued to assume that you were correct even after I pointed out that I'd be similarly inclined to go after anyone using racist terms regardless of whether or not they are personally relevant to me.
It's already been pointed out that there are degrees of racism. It's not just a case of calling names. Making assumptions about people based on their skin colour is usually racist too. Now while it's not in the same league as being insulting it's certainly nothing to be proud of.
That was a dumb post. I should've gone more in depth with what I meant.
-
I'm continually astounded by Kara's patience in the face of such persistent misunderstanding.
The man gave a warning. People wanted to contest whether there was grounds for such a warning, it went on for pages of potentially really painful personal attacks on him, and he's still letting it go. Heck, his posts aren't even particularly disgruntled.
-
Well I am actually rather annoyed by the whole business. But if someone has a legitmate complaint I'd rather hear it than lock the thread and ignore it.
As I put it before. How many complaints have you actually seen on here about the use of the word previous to this thread?
Irrelevant. If I said Gook but there were no Asians on the website to take offense to it, does that make it any less bad? I think not.
So your defence is that there are no Americans on HLP to be offended by the term Yank? :wtf:
HLP has a large and varied American demographic. To claim that the term is offensive yet they couldn't be bothered to ever post about the fact in the 8 years I've been here is rather strange to say the least.
Yes you can't say that because no one raises an objection a word obviously isn't offensive, there may simply be no one around to be offended. But I'd have a very hard time trying to buy the claim that there is no one around to be offended by derogatory terms towards Americans, Brits or Australians.
-
Honestly at times I have been offended by the perception of Americans on this board. I believe some people went so far as to say that all Americans were by necessity ignorant because we elected Bush. However, Yank is hardly offensive, and I use it to express my nationality all the time.
-
Which is why this debate is never... going... to... end
-
Honestly at times I have been offended by the perception of Americans on this board. I believe some people went so far as to say that all Americans were by necessity ignorant because we elected Bush. However, Yank is hardly offensive, and I use it to express my nationality all the time.
I say American instead of Yank, because, Yank might offend some people.
-
Wow. This is massive. OK, first off, let it be known that I'm all about the permaban for iamzack. She's a troll, and if she wasn't a girl she'd have been banned ages ago. But, from my perspective, nothing untoward or racist was in that original post.
Or more likely you're trying to elevate the word Yank to the same level of racism as words that are quite clearly are very offensive. Most people would consider Yank to be on the same level as Limey or Kraut or Aussie. Sure the word can be used in a derogatory context as a flame but most of the time it simply means an American, is done in jest and is not racist.
See, here in Australia that's exactly what Paki is. Since we're talking about actual Pakistanis, from my, personal perspective that's not offensive. Hell, when the Pakistani cricket team are touring australia, that's just what they're called. Someone mentioned "second grade logic" - I remember a class project to write a song in I think year 4 - one of the songs was about cricket and directly referred tot he Pakistanis as Pakis. If iamzack hadn't gotten smacked down for it, I'd have gotten into the thread and busted out "Paki" all over the place. I'm aware that it can be a racist term in Britain (exactly like kraut can be, incidentally), but I would have meant in a purely contraction-y way, and not intended to get anyone angry. I wouldn't have even considered that anyone would have gotten offended, given the context.
All that aside, Iamzack was politely told to stop and refused. If this'll get her banned I'm all for it.
No irony in a thread lamenting a hate crime that people are gleefully justifying their right to use hate speech because it doesn't offend them. No irony at all.
This wasn't a hate crime. This was terrorism, pure and simple, designed to scare cricket teams away from Pakistan and make people come over to the attackers political view/. Cricket is almost like a religion in the subcontinent, and for a low risk target to attack, this is likely one of the most effective.
-
So your defence is that there are no Americans on HLP to be offended by the term Yank?
Your defence is that just because people HERE are not offended by something makes it non-offensive, and I'm picking holes in it, although perhaps I should have been more clear.
I remember a class project to write a song in I think year 4 - one of the songs was about cricket and directly referred tot he Pakistanis as Pakis.
See, in Australia they teach rascism! lulz. :p
-
I remember a class project to write a song in I think year 4 - one of the songs was about cricket and directly referred tot he Pakistanis as Pakis.
See, in Australia they teach rascism! lulz. :p
It's not that they teach it, it's just the way we live. We're more laid back than most people, I said Paki without the racist connotation even coming near my mind. People refer to me by many racist terms, I'm still hard pressed to find ones that offend me. This would be the total opposite in say, England or America.
-
I just want to say that all you crazy crackers suggesting Southern Americans take offense at the term 'redneck' are off your rockers. Redneck is practically a badge of honor around here. :p
-
I don't understand why Paki is considered racist. Pakistan means literally land of the pure, or with a slighly less literal interpretation, land of the pakis.
Regarding the link karajorma showed at the beginning of the thread, isn't limiting the usage of the word paki to a part of the population (in this case, asians) a form of discrimination or a double standard?
-
I don't understand why Paki is considered racist. Pakistan means literally land of the pure, or with a slighly less literal interpretation, land of the pakis.
Regarding the link karajorma showed at the beginning of the thread, isn't limiting the usage of the word paki to a part of the population (in this case, asians) a form of discrimination or a double standard?
It's not wether it's considered racist or not, if someone here finds it offensive fair enough, then shouldn't we show them some respect?
-
I don't understand why Paki is considered racist. Pakistan means literally land of the pure, or with a slighly less literal interpretation, land of the pakis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6740445.stm
Its first recorded use was in 1964, when hostility in Britain to immigration from its former colonies in the Asian sub-continent, was beginning to find a voice.
Despite being an abbreviation for "Pakistani", its proponents tended to be less discriminating about its application - directing it against anyone with brown skin, be they Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi. Sometimes even non-Asians who happened to have a dark complexion found themselves on the receiving end.
Forty years on, use of the word is still highly sensitive and has the potential to cause great offence.
Regarding the link karajorma showed at the beginning of the thread, isn't limiting the usage of the word paki to a part of the population (in this case, asians) a form of discrimination or a double standard?
Which is why I tend to agree with the opinion at the end of that piece.
The P-word which "encompasses anyone in brown skin... should be consigned to the dustbin of history,"
-
Why do we have this whole discussion on words when it is the intention behind it that matters?
(In other words, please please lock and/or nuke this thread?)
-
Why do we have this whole discussion on words when it is the intention behind it that matters?
(In other words, please please lock and/or nuke this thread?)
Because for some people the word itself is all that matters, not whether or not it was used in an offensive way.
-
Says the man who is trying to convince us that Yank is offensive. :rolleyes:
-
To some people it is, which according to your reasoning is all that should matter.
-
Nope. I never said that simply because the term was offensive it should be banned. Ford Prefect has explained better than I why some racist terms are more offensive than others.
Furthermore as I have pointed out a ridiculously large number of times the context the word is used in is also important. Using it in a racist joke is completely different from using the term Yank as a friendly nickname for American.
So if anyone is trying to make out that it is the word and not the context that is important, it's you.
-
Nope. I never said that simply because the term was offensive it should be banned.
Your arguement was because you think it is offensive and because some other people on this site think it is offensive that makes it offensive, if you don't think it is offensive it isn't, which reeks of double standards and hypocrisy. Blackwolf and some others stated quite clearly that not everyone thinks of it that way. NGHT-MR's example shows quite clearly that in several places in the US the Y word is actually very offensive, but because you don't think it is offensive that makes it not offensive. Right.......
-
You should factor in the fact that the they* don't find the term itself derogatory just having it applied to them. They certainly have no qualms about using it to describe the stuck up godless commie liberals of the north. It would be like running into a Gestapo HQ in 1940 calling them a bunch of Juden. Sure they going to kick my ass but not because I've offended their tender sensibilities about equality.
Furthermore "Yankee" is an idealogical/historical issue rooted back to the War Between the States, not an ethnic issue that is inherent to your person down to your genes. I can move to a different section of the United States and eventually fit in to the point I am no longer easily distinguishable as being a "Yankee." If I were Pakistani its not quite as easy to avoid being called a "Paki." Your not oppressing or dehumanizing Southerners by calling them a Yank, your pissing them off because they hate the north. Thats the fundamental difference, nobody is going to feel like they are a 2nd class citizen because you call them a Yank but if you start singling them out because of their ethnicity they damn well might.
*(as in those folks from the South that find Yankee offensive due to the events back in the 1860s, by no means do I refer to the region as a whole)
-
I don't think that offensiveness of a term can be separated from the context (the people around).
Someone got offended in this discussion ==> the term is offensive
No one in this discussion got offended ==> the term is not offensive (by any proof we have)
When someone gets offended its not a result of logical deduction (if it was, you would choose not to be offended, because it would let you perform better in taking care of that offensive thing). Its a feeling - something that does not exist anywhere outside the person offended. Therefore you can not universally "prove" anything to be offensive, anymore than you can prove anything not to be offensive.
Separated from the context (the people around) its just one more ideological discussion. And its going to fail horribly :P
So, saying that the term "Yankee" is offensive in this forum, in retrospect, when nobody had complained about it before, means you have slipped into that desperate ideological discussion.
-
So, saying that the term "Yankee" is offensive in this forum, in retrospect, when nobody had complained about it before, means you have slipped into that desperate ideological discussion.
If I said something offensive, but no one around me considered it offensive, does that make it any less of a bad thing to say?
-
What a ridiculous discussion.
Some terms are, among reasonable people, recognized as racial epithets, particularly when they are used in a context which displays them as racial epithets (as iamzack did). There is no excuse for it, and personally I tend to think that anyone so ignorant and callous has no place in a community of reasonable individuals.
Did iamzack intend it that way? Perhaps not. But it was used in that context (and no, ironic usage doesn't excuse it). A warning with the threat of a perma-ban if she persisted is perfectly reasonable.
Frankly, I am absolutely astounded at how many people are leaping to the defense of use of this kind of language in any context. And for the people throwing things like "Yank," "redneck" and "Limey" out there as examples as well, grow up. You know perfectly well that there is a significant difference between racial epithets historically associated with oppression along social and racial lines and derogatory names for particular national or regional groups. And if you don't, go ****ing educate yourselves and get back to us.
Anyone who can defend the use of racist terms in any context needs a good smack with history. It displays your ignorance, and it's offensive.
-
So if I called a Canadian a Canuck, that Canadian shouldn't be offended? Or a Frenchman a surrender monkey?
Racist terms are a result of xenophobia and ethnocentrism. Having the ethnicity being slurred against a formerly-oppressed group should give it no extra weight in the "bad words" pool. Just like blacks don't like being called niggers because their ancestors were slaves, I shouldn't be called a cracker because some white people (hell, not even my ancestors) were slave owners.
Same thing goes for nations: labeling the French surrender monkeys because of what happened in WWII is no more justified than labeling all Americans cowboys because of the Bush Administration.
So, no, there's actually no difference. I agree with the rest of your points, though.
-
If I said something offensive, but no one around me considered it offensive, does that make it any less of a bad thing to say?
But how is it offensive when no one considers it offensive? Sure it could be a stupid and cruel thing to say by oridinary norms, but depending on the people around it could be thought as joyful as well. It does not make it any less bad thing to say, you are right there, but that's a whole different topic.
-
So if I called a Canadian a Canuck, that Canadian shouldn't be offended? Or a Frenchman a surrender monkey?
1) I doubt Canadians are going to be automatically offended by the term Canuck. It's often used as a friendly nickname for Canadians. They might be offended if it was used in a derogatory fashion of course. In which case whoever used the term would be flaming\trolling and would be taking a holiday from HLP.
2) MP-Ryan didn't say that such terms can't be offensive. He said that historical context can make a term more offensive. The Surrender Monkey is a good example of an term that is right on the border. It could be used to make a joke that most Frenchmen would find amusing but that would be very tricky. Or someone might use it in a political debate to say that is how the Bush administration viewed the French.
The point is that if you use the term you'd better qualify it well so that no one does find it offensive. Ironic use or not you'd better be very, very careful with that one. It's not a friendly term, if you're not careful to disassociate yourself from that point of view you'll be seen as flaming or trolling and will be spending a while away from HLP.
3) Certain racial epithets are so broadly offensive that it's almost certain that you will offend someone using them. It's hard to make a joke in which the word nigger is a punchline without offending someone and pretty much everyone on this board should be aware of that fact. There are several other racist terms which will get you in similar hot water.
I gave Iamzack a warning cause I'm aware that there are certain parts of the world that don't know how offensive the word is. Had she made the same joke but used the word nigger she'd have been banned for a week to a month rather than warned and perma-banned on a second offense.
-
Ok, fair enough. I'll go with that.
-
The motive of the attackers surely can't be to create terror; one day they will push the limits too far and war will be declared. This attack will just make most people angry/disappointed that they can't have international cricket teams playing in their country.
By the way, I live in Australia, so I'm a cricket fan. I think that if the Australian cricket team were to be attacked, there would be some very angry people in the streets.
-
This attack will just make most people angry/disappointed that they can't have international cricket teams playing in their country.[/color]
Ironically that's how I suspect you could end the danger of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan. Don't talk about freedom of religion, etc. Just point out over and over again that like the Taliban they'd simply ban anything that was fun like cricket.
I suspect that fundamentalists would lose a lot of support very quickly once the general population came to realise exactly what they'd lose the right to do if the fundamentalists won.
-
I suspect that fundamentalists would lose a lot of support very quickly once the general population came to realise exactly what they'd lose the right to do if the fundamentalists won.
Not always. The fundies had great success in places like Algeria where they said quite clearly that they would dismantle democracy and impose a theocracy. It was short lived since shortly after they were deposed in a military coup.
-
I suspect that fundamentalists would lose a lot of support very quickly once the general population came to realise exactly what they'd lose the right to do if the fundamentalists won.
Not always. The fundies had great success in places like Algeria where they said quite clearly that they would dismantle democracy and impose a theocracy. It was short lived since shortly after they were deposed in a military coup.
Well, yeah, but democracy is an esoteric, ephereral thing that you only participate in once every couple of years, that you're told is good for you, that you think is probably good for you, but, in a lot of cases, there's no direct evidence that theocracy wouldn't also be bad for you. After all, you;re religious guy, and your priest/rabbi/immam/whatever is always going on about how good God is - why not get him involved in running the country?
By contrast, cricket is (or was, before security became problematic) on every summer, generally more than once, and you can watch it on TV or listen to it on the radio all year round just about. You know it's good because you go along the games and love it, your family loves it, even your priest/rabbi/immam/whatever loves it. Don't underestimate the power of the game in that region of the world.
-
I don't think it's just that part of the world to be honest. A UK party could claim everyone would be £10,000 a year richer under them but still wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting elected if they were banning football.
-
Good point.