[Grizzly]

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?)

[Kosh]

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.

[karajorma]

Says the man who is trying to convince us that Yank is offensive.

[Kosh]

To some people it is, which according to your reasoning is all that should matter.

[karajorma]

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.

[Kosh]

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.......

[StarSlayer]

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)

[castor]

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
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.

[Kosh]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Nuclear1]

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.

[castor]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Nuclear1]

Ok, fair enough. I'll go with that.

[Enigmatic Entity]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Kosh]

Good point.