I do. But I also find “foreigner” to be offensively used in Taiwan. I suppose the closest analogy I can come up with would be a woman with large breasts being pointed at and called “Big tits!”
Like school on Sunday: No class.[/quote]
I think you guys are getting too caught up in the specific examples. The whole “Paki” thing derailed the thread for two pages, now I expect we’ll have another two pages of “is big-nose offensive?”.
Plainly, it’s up to the listener, not the speaker, just decide if such a word is offensive or not. Since the speaker cannot read the listener’s mind, they should uses names that have the least chance of offending. That is, unless they want to risk being labelled a bigot, which is entirely their right.
Yes, there are people who are offended by every label, and yes there are people who don’t mind being called worse. Blah, blah, blah. Can we at least agree on this?
That’s not derailing. Look at the subject - the thread is called “ethnic slurs”, is it not? Is Paki an ethnic slur? Yes, in certain contexts. Is “big nose” one? Again, yes, in certain contexts. Hence, quit bitching please.
That’s not derailing. Look at the subject - the thread is called “ethnic slurs”, is it not? Is Paki an ethnic slur? Yes, in certain contexts. Is “big nose” one? Again, yes, in certain contexts. Hence, quit bitching please.[/quote]
Alrighty then, what’s the term for “focusing on petty details that don’t even come close to the heart of the matter”? Clearly it’s not “derailing”, and clearly I’m not up on my net lingo. My profuse apologies.
So what would you rather we talked about then? Would you rather we talk just in airy-fairy vagueries? Specific examples and discussion of such can often be just as enlightening with regard to the “heart of the matter” as deliberate discussion of the underlying causes and issues. And considering mankind hasn’t been able to properly address these underlying things in millenia, I don’t think one forum thread is likely to come within cooee of them.
I’m sorry that our conversation here doesn’t meet your exacting standards, and I’m sure we’ll all try harder to make sure our threads never evolve or move along again just to make sure we get your approval.
I think even small things, like being called “big nose” is indicative of larger things, like calling blacks the very bad N word…the ideology is the same IMHO.
I don’t like being singled out because of my looks and like it even less when it’s done to advance some ignorant prick’s racists beliefs.
So what would you rather we talked about then? Would you rather we talk just in airy-fairy vagueries? Specific examples and discussion of such can often be just as enlightening with regard to the “heart of the matter” as deliberate discussion of the underlying causes and issues. And considering mankind hasn’t been able to properly address these underlying things in millenia, I don’t think one forum thread is likely to come within cooee of them.
I’m sorry that our conversation here doesn’t meet your exacting standards, and I’m sure we’ll all try harder to make sure our threads never evolve or move along again just to make sure we get your approval.[/quote]
Someone once called be a “dork head” in grade 3. Is that an ethnic slur?
There, do I fit in now?
Airy-fairy vagueries are one point of view, which I guess I’m offering. Just like hard-boiled commentary about the way the Internet should be run is what you seem to offer.
Anyway, besides bitching, which seems like a really good way to get under your skin, what else did I do to offend you?
I disagree with this. The issue is not so complicated.
I think mankind has solved this problem many times throughout history. Solution: treat people how you would like to be treated yourself. Do unto others, Golden Rule, whatever you want to call it, it’s been come to within a “cooee” many times.
Mind you, this may be a little airy-fairy of me to say, but hey, so what. Go tell the Internet police.
Now those are some efficient slurs. Gets right to the point, I like that.
How do we deal with this word of identifying people who are different from a different country from yourself?
I think we should all just pretend that other countries don’t exist. I mean, what’s the point of acknowledging peoples differences and cultures? We surely won’t benefit from this. We should all pretend we are the same in case people feel they are singled out because of their looks or colours then everything will be fine.
Of course, acknowledgong that people are different, or that they originate from somewhere other than where you are from is bigoted. This is something we must address as people are going to be very offended at this.
Infact, we should all build big walls around our respective countries and ban immigration. That way no one will be offended and every Pecker Head will be happy.
:loco:
If the problem is solved, what are we discussing?[/quote]
What are we discussing? I don’t know. My bitching? Whether or not “Red Menace” is an enthnic slur against American Indians? I could sit here and type flksdfnsdaf for 10 pages and call it a discussion, if you prefer.
To expand on my point, my opinion is that the problem has been solved, however, most people don’t put the solution into practice. Others, most notably DM (when he’s not being sarcastic) seem to think that if we call one word bad, then we’re on a slippery slope to banning the entire language.
[quote=“myury”]To expand on my point, my opinion is that the problem has been solved, however, most people don’t put the solution into practice. Others, most notably DM (when he’s not being sarcastic) seem to think that if we call one word bad, then we’re on a slippery slope to banning the entire language.
Care to add anything?[/quote]
Many people would see that a proposed solution that wasn
[quote=“OutofChaos”]Why do people feel the need to mischaracterize the arguments of those with whom they disagree?
Secondly, do you really think DM believes the end result would be a ban on the entire language?[/quote]
First, because people sometimes read what they want to read and substitute that for thinking. Or because they want to take someone else’s point of view to its logical end. I freely admit I’m guilty of both those. Who isn’t?
Second, no, but it’s difficult to know what he’s talking about at times because of sarcasm. Just like you posed this serious question to me, when I thought I was exaggerating enough to be funny.
[quote=“myury”][quote=“OutofChaos”]Why do people feel the need to mischaracterize the arguments of those with whom they disagree?
Secondly, do you really think DM believes the end result would be a ban on the entire language?[/quote]
First, because people sometimes read what they want to read and substitute that for thinking. Or because they want to take someone else’s point of view to its logical end. I freely admit I’m guilty of both those. Who isn’t?
Second, no, but it’s difficult to know what he’s talking about at times because of sarcasm. Just like you posed this serious question to me, when I thought I was exaggerating enough to be funny.[/quote]
Thank you for straight answers. Yes, I thought you were being funny, but I wanted to make sure. Not everyone who exaggerates is using humor.
This I quite agree with. Not only do people think they said what they meant to say, many people believe that what they read or heard is exactly what was meant. While mistakes like this are common, they are also encouraged. Just try and get a precise, concise discussion going and see how unpopular it quickly becomes.
This one is a little more problematic for me. I’m not certain that ‘mischaracterization’ and extrapolating to a logical end are fellow travelers. I do believe that it is much easier to set up a weak straw man and demonstrate its faults, than it is to get a logical mindset approach around an opposing argument. In other words, it’s easier to oversimplify the opposition than it is to oversimplify our own position.
I believe, based on his postings that DM believes in the equality of words. Thus, if he were to accept an argument for the banning of a word, he would have to be prepared to accept the application of that argument to any and all words. With the diversity of language and cultures, the end result could be the banning of any/all words.
For those who believe that words have power, DM’s argument may appear foolish. Of course you would only curtail the use of ‘hateful’ words, but for anyone who adheres to the concept of equality of words, banning a word or words is unthinkable.
Early on in this thread there was the post
The crux of the issue here is that DM wanted to degrade the person and not just the behavior. The argument is that the deeds are so heinous the perpetrators deserve no respect.
Although there is an earlier opinion that states:
I quite disagree. There is a fundamental agreement among certain Islamic types that I have no right to live and in fact the world would be better off with me dead. That’s a basic, fundamental tenant of their belief. They have no respect for me. Respect of them by me will not resolve anything.
People continue to die because those fundamentalists continue to put their beliefs into action. Restricting my ability, or DM’s ability, to denigrate their actions, and especially them as human beings, is an infringement on the basic right of free speech, an infringement with no valid purpose.
It’s an axiom of Christianity to ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner.’ All well and good if you are so inclined. For me, calculated targeting and indiscriminate killing of the general population is only done by people I loath and despise, and yes, even hate.
(My apologies in advance to DangerMouse if I have mischaracterized his position in any way.)
[quote=“OutofChaos”]
This one is a little more problematic for me. I’m not certain that ‘mischaracterization’ and extrapolating to a logical end are fellow travelers. I do believe that it is much easier to set up a weak straw man and demonstrate its faults, than it is to get a logical mindset approach around an opposing argument. In other words, it’s easier to oversimplify the opposition than it is to oversimplify our own position.[/quote]
I agree, straw men are easy to set up and easy to beat down. However when we only have bits and pieces of real flesh to work with and we still want to say something, using straw to fill in the gaps is necessary.
There is also the issue of intent. Staw men are built with the intention of knocking them down, logical extensions (faulty or not) are made with the intent of furthering discussion. For unless we write pages upon pages to support every statement we make, others are entitled to certain assumptions. However, I admit that the line between the two is thin and that I’m guilty of mixing them up from time to time.
As far as denigrating their actions with ethnic slurs, what’s the point? Free speech or not, how can slurs possibly help end terrorism? In a war, at the front, I can understand using a certain name for your enemy, even if only for efficient communication. But in a public place, any hurt done to the enemy is usually cancelled out by harm done to oneself.
Even military and political leaders do not use such words (in public at least). Why? I suggest because they know that they would only end up harming the cause.
Those rallied by demonization of the enemy are not my allies, no matter how valid the cause.
[quote=“myury”]As far as denigrating their actions with ethnic slurs, what’s the point? Free speech or not, how can slurs possibly help end terrorism? In a war, at the front, I can understand using a certain name for your enemy, even if only for efficient communication. But in a public place, any hurt done to the enemy is usually cancelled out by harm done to oneself.
Even military and political leaders do not use such words (in public at least). Why? I suggest because they know that they would only end up harming the cause.
Those rallied by demonization of the enemy are not my allies, no matter how valid the cause.[/quote]
Now we reach the nub of our basic disagreement, although there is one fine adjustment to your observations I would offer.
Ethnic slurs are not to denigrate their actions. As I said, they are to denigrate them as human beings. That
. However I wouldn’t teach that word to any students from your language tutor site 
