Be Excellent To Each Other

Me ma is from County Waterford, yes, and I'm entitled to an Oirish passport.

I do not celebrate St Patrick's day, however, nor do I go around calling myself "Irish". I am an Englishman. Much as Oscar Wilde was...

The American thing of bigging up their ancestry (everyone's an "[insert country here]-American") is a little unnecessary, to my mind. I don't need to play up the fact I'm half Irish or a bit Welsh. I'm proud of my family's history, but I don't need to go on about it.

But when you consider the word in and of itself, it's a perfectly appropriate abbreviation of 'Pakistani'.

Sorry, you're right there, I quoted a bad part of the sentence. I meant to reinforce the fact that banning words for the context in which they're used is silly.

No need to get so uppity, we're having a discussion here.

I am not ignorant of how words are perceived, obviously. I don't go around calling Pakistani's 'pakis', because I personally deem it to be a reasonable abbreviation of a word. I understand which words are considered 'offensive', and thusly I don't use them.

However, my central point is that if you examine the actual words and their literal meaning, they're anything but offensive. Everyone is 'coloured', so there's nothing inherantly racist about it. It's just a word. 'Paki' is to 'Pakistani' as to 'Brit' is to 'British'. The fact 'Paki' is considered racist is unfortunate, as it's a perfectly valid word.

The problem, I think, is the belief that removing 'offensive' words from the PC dictionary will in some way remove the problem of racists and bigots in general, and this is of course nonsense. You won't change attitudes by making some words unspeakable, they'll just start using different words instead until they themselves get banned. I can see a feeble and pointless pattern emerging.

I'd expect that looking anywhere on the internet would lend credibility to my statement.

Edit: By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, comical, I just answered your question.

The entirety of America ladies and gentlemen.

I thought being white meant the absence of colour? Hence we're white and everyone else is coloured.

Funnily this is what's irritating me the most about Mercenaries 2 with the "Swede" character. "This is an emergency! A viking emergency!" he slurs in a texan(?) accent as he hijacks a vehicle. FUCK OFF! YOU ARE NOT A VIKING! YOU ARE NO MORE A VIKING THAN ME!

But we're not white, we're pink-ish (or perma-orange)

I thought white was supposed to be 'all colours'.

However white is a colour, and so we are 'coloured' white. See?

Given our country's history, you're probably *quite* viking though, compared to the global background level of vikingitude.

Just like black people aren't black.

Malc

Aye, but back to words!

What about mullatoes*? Curiously in 'Birth of a Nation' it's that role that is probably presented in the most degrading manner, presumbly due to the inherent ambiguity.

I really don't know if that's as bad as the n- word, mainly because it relies on one knowing what it means.

* Er, correct plural?

In thingymadoodah in the caribbean, tehre were something like 128 definitions of how 'coloured' someone was.

Also, Britiain only really moved to abolish the slave trade to fuck up France's massive percunary advantage from the Carribean.

You upset me, because you're one of these people who argue but fail to read everything you're responding to. I ALREADY SAID I recognise and accept that some words are considered offensive.



See?


Words are nothing but literal meanings in and of themselves. A statement which I've made already.

I understand that words in a particular social context are deemed offensive. I've already said that too.

So your apparent accusation of me being naive or sociopathic is completely non-applicable and more than a bit silly. You're not actually comprehending me. I know that paki is considered offensive and why it is considered so. What I am saying is that, by itself, it's a perfectly valid abbreviation.

You're right in one aspect, I do ignore 'political tensions'. To me that's just people who are ready to take offense at almost anything, regardless of context for no reason, as an excuse for a more deeply rooted problem that has nothing to do with the words used. It's a form of bullshit that does not sit well with me.

I know, let's add in the widespread use of the word "gay" as a negative adjective as well. Let's set this puppy on *fire*.

Without context it is, though.

You turned Goth now Myps?

Gay people are happy to be termed 'gay', as far as I know. I don't know what the official dictionary definitions are like these days, but I'd rather consider it to be a second meaning for an existing word (the word 'gay' previously meaning 'happy, lighthearted'), rather than the replacement of the first definition.

That being the case I can't see how a gay person would be offended if you called them gay. It'd be like calling you male, Chris.

If someone called me 'gay', I wouldn't be offended, I'd just think the originating user is an idiot.

and is the point I've been making from the start. Hnnnnnng.

I absolutely hate the American spelling of 'faggot' (which is 'faget') with every fibre of my being. It sounds even more moronic, somehow.

I am. Its why when I get really wound up I have a terrible urge to rape and burn down villages.

And then build flat-pack furniture.

With extra Mince and a Ginger Beer?

I meant people saying stuff like "Man, that's so gay" when their teacher tells them they have to do homework. Or the control system in a computer game being totally gay. That sort of thing.

Noone has disagreed with that though. I think comical's point was that it's that context itself that makes the word offensive, not anything inherent in those four letters. We're actually all agreeing with each other here.


Given that you've complained about me extrapolating from your posts before, do us the courtesy of not doing the same, eh?

Lets. Neither of the above words have a possible definition beyond that of a racial slur, and were in fact created for that purpose, whereas 'Paki' is a valid word as an abbreviation. If it word was 'Pakidingydingdong', or some other random nonsense that was only ever used in an offensive way, then I might agree with you.

I'm always surprised that people actually hate gay people. I mean, what's there to hate? It's not like gay chaps and chappesses are forcing straight people to do gay sexings with them. And they're not "coming over here taking our jerrrrbs", either. It's as bizarre as racism. There's at least some semblance of reasoning (however outdated and warped) behind people hating the Germans, after all they bombed us first etc etc. But gays?

However, I suspect "gay" as a pejorative term is going to end up as a part of the language divorced from its last meaning, the same way as it moved from just meaning "happy or cheerful" to meaning "homosexual". I'd be willing to bet that in 30 years time no-one will remember that it used to mean "homosexual".

If only we had some Pakidingydingdongs Pakistani persons on the board, we could ask them what the current thinking was.

Quite. My grandad still says 'darkies'. In context too, he was in Nigeria earlier in the year.

Comical, you clearly hate black people, eastern europeans, asians, and south-east asians and martians. You are a massive racist who does everything he can to belittle those of other ethnicities and doubtless you give them a good shoeing whenever you can get away with it. You're a massive, massive cunt.

I hereby ban all of the above words as I consider them offensive.

FTFY

I am going to phone a friend.

PICK ME!

I mean a friend from Pakistan. Unless you are from Pakistan, in which case I will call you. I was going to phone him anyway to arrange something for another friend's birthday, but I am going to ask about the 'Paki' issue whilst I do so.

Racist.

Actually I'd be interested to hear about that, Mimi

Mimi is a lady that has monkey and Zombees and likes Viva Pinata and penguins.

Didn't the public records office in Ireland get destroyed by fire at the start of the last century, basically wiping out all records of people born prior to that time and consequently making it just about the easiest passport to get hold of. There are >40m Irish passports in circulation, allegedly.

More so if he has Scottish ancestry, as that was closest and most readily invaded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tay ... 292265.stm

Now *this* is an example of poor usage

Geographically speaking, certainly....