robinthehood
Hacker
Whos offended? We were discussing the use of a racist term, and that many on this thread feel its acceptable to use it.
Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!
- Thread starter drdel
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Not quite as simple as that, if the person you direct the comment to is offended then it’s offensive.
Surely it’s about knowing your audience.
Impact not intent.
I meant it regards to the final point about Gm not using it as it may offend people.
Not necessarily this term as such. But on many occasions people hold their tongue for fear of being labeled this or that from one person who likes to find offence.
I agree about knowing your audience as such. But don't think someone claiming their offended by something means what's said is always wrong.
People can be equally over sensitive.
Ah, of course. Old people should know better and learn to sit quietly in the corner smelling of wee. A bit of age discrimination creeping in? No, never... everyone knows youngsters know best.
As for the "many are missing," since when did the few decide what the many should do or say? However, often it is the many that should defend the few that can't. In reality there is middle ground in all things.
I tend not to see colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, ageism, religion or assumed intelligence. I just see people as people and look to their personalities as their defining qualities. That doesn't make me right or wrong. My opinion of them is subjective.
If we're going to have a discussion on words and their semantics, i.e. the fundamental concept of the use of a word, you also have to consider its intuitive meaning. Semantics is about what is intuitively meaningful, and not necessarily the black and white meaning. Semantics are easier to pick up in the spoken word, not so much the written. Perhaps one of the best descriptions could be something along the lines of "what a gay day." I see that has being what a happy day. Others might see it differently. Both are right, and more importantly both are not wrong.
Going out for a Chinky brings in what is the intuitive meaning, i.e. going out for a Chinese meal. What the context is doesn't necessarily make it right but nor does it necessarily make it wrong. Equally, you've also got to consider the etymology of the word, i.e. what it means today isn't necessarily what it meant yesterday. The word Chinky, originally, comes from the American term for a Chinese person, but the word evolved to also mean a Chinese meal. Words evolve, along with their fundamental meaning, which leads to changes in their intuitive meaning.
Those that say Chinky, in terms of a meal, is racist could be looked on as those whose language hasn't evolved - that's just a backhanded, devil's advocate point before anyone takes the huff. They see it as a reference to a person, whereas someone else might intuitively see it in the context of a meal, and only a meal. (On a personal level, I see someone from China as Chinese, and you'll never hear me call someone from China anything else other than Chinese)
For all of the above, if someone from China felt the use of the word Chinky in the context of meaning a meal offensive, then its offensive. That doesn't mean the person using it is a racist, nor meant to be offensive.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
If I say something to you and you tell me your offended, I’ve no right to say you’re not, I can explain my intent and you can or cannot accept it, I’ve still got no right to tell you how to feel.
But you could say they are overly sensitive. The majority of the time you'd still be wrong but there are a few people around that cry when someone looks sideways at them - if you know what I mean.
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
Getting offended by something posted on the internet is like choosing to step in dog *** instead of walking around it. 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
That’s rubbish, no different to being offended by seeing or hearing something on TV or reading something in the papers.
It’s being offended on behalf of others is were the trouble begins.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
That’s were it becomes difficult, but directly telling someone they are not offended tends to escalate the situation.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
It leaves the old question - who deems something offensive?
The term in question for example for regularly used on mainstream telly - Alf Garnet I believe used it a lot but it’s now appears to be on a list that mainstream media won’t use and people have lost their jobs when using it.
So what or who defines it as offensive ?
Sorry, rhetorically you could say. Totally agree, don't confront their position but talk about why...
The who defines what is offensive is one 'ell of a question. Unfortunately, changing people almost always follows offence. There is no other way for it to happen.
Who decides? The answer is multi-faceted. The DG of the Beeb might be offended by something and then send an edict down to producers. That only covers what offends him/her. A precedent might be set in the Courts, which leads to legislation. I guess the answer might be anyone, or group of people, who canvas for change.
As for Alf Garnet, you could also add in Benny Hill. I watched some old Benny Hill recently, and cringed. Surprisingly, early Two Ronnies is the same.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
I’m going on conversations I had being an E&D Officer over more than 10 years.
There are those you rightly said will look to be offended by anything and everything, but they had to be treated exactly the same as everyone else.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
There is so much old telly now that gets “dubbed†over lots of offensive words - I guess it even happens in The Dambusters and i suppose there are some programs or films that are no longer broadcast because of the language- Blazing Saddles for example ?
Old Skier
Tour Winner
It's a good job a few on here didn't know what the local eatery inside the wire in NI was called.
SatchFan
Q-School Graduate
Article 50 is actually Singapore Fried Rice Noodles at my local Chinese takeaway.
Firstly, I've been to enough meets and golf clubs to make a very well informed decision on the likely demographic of a UK golf forum. That demographic have been trying to dictate to the rest of the what to say, act, think for what, 500 years now? So I think it's a fair comment. If you were offended, then sorry ðŸ‘ðŸ»
Secondly, the few shouldn't decide. But they should be listened to. The few have been ignored for centuries. If theyre offended, we should have learnt by now to sit up and listen. I think we're in agreement here.
The rest of the post I wholeheartedly agree with, although I probably put a bit more weight to what a word means today rather than its origin, because as you say things change and i try to live in the present.
I did say in a later post that I don't believe Tashy in any way meant offence. But that doesn't mean it shouldnt be highlighted and discussed. If one person reading this thinks slightly longer next time, then great. If not, I'll personally continue offer the same viewpoint because I *think* in doing so I am doing the right thing.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
I enjoyed going to the monthly Welfare Officers meeting at Catterick Garrison just to realise how lucky I was to just be dealing with an Engineer Sqn and not an Infantry Regiment.
When this discussion kicked off, I thought of Guy Gibson's dog. To me, it equates to the (sideways) use of Chinky for a Chinese meal, and in truth I felt a bit uncomfortable with my own position and questioned it. But, equally, the context of its use has nothing to do with describing a person. But I'd never call a dog by that name, which certainly brings into question my use of Chinky to describe a Chinese meal.
I suppose like being uncomfortable with watching Alf Garnet and Benny Hill, we all evolve.
- Status
