As long as you’re black! 
They only find it offensive if you’re white. Otherwise go for it. You’re being hip![/quote]
Yeah, I don’t get that. I’m Hispanic, but I’d never say hey, Spic bro’ to a fellow Hispanic. I guess I’m just not hip.
As long as you’re black!
They only find it offensive if you’re white. Otherwise go for it. You’re being hip![/quote]
Well that explains why it only makes my wife laugh.
How tiresome…
You don’t have to respect their view, just don’t whine about the “PC police” when they call you rude and ignorant.
The PC stories I was referring to are ones made up by the right-wing press. For example in the UK nursery school kids were apparently banned from singing “bah bah black sheep” for fear offending black people, and told to sign “bah bah colour sheep”-the boring truth is that the teacher was simply looking for a way to teach the kids different colours.
You can do what you like, just don’t be surprised if people are offended. Can I call you a c__t?
[quote=“Mawvellous”]How tiresome…
You don’t have to respect their view, just don’t whine about the “PC police” when they call you rude and ignorant.[/quote]
Since I don’t have to respect their view, and since there’s no rational reason for them to call me rude and ignorant, why shouldn’t I express my contempt for them? I note you didn’t actually tell me who these ‘many people’ are. You clearly don’t know either.
Ah, as opposed to the ones you make up. What disturbs me the most is that your entire argument sounds suspiciously like a religious argument.
What they don’t hear can’t offend them.
Go right ahead, doesn’t mean anything to me. I think it’s one of the most ridiculous words in English, utterly bereft of any force.
Northwest Airlines used to be Northwest Orient Airlines. Now they dropped the Orient. I never knew that oriental was an offensive word really.
But then, “gay” used to mean happy. Now of course, quite something else.
That statement is illogical- I have no clue how people have no rational reason not to call you rude and ignorant because you do not respect their view.
I am not in fact denying your right to call anyone by any name of your choosing, but people also have a right to say that your comments are offensive or ill-mannered. This is not some imagined “PC conspiracy”…
How could I do that? I also know that many people like cheese, if you asked me to tell me who these people are, I could only reply “the people who like cheese.” A redundant question.
Suffice to say the term is now typically avoided when referring to Asian people, this could only be because “many people” view it as ill-mannered or even offensive.
What stories I made up? What religious argument? I only wish that people would stop going on about this mythical “PC brigade”.
Well of course.
It clearly does have force, that is why people do not generally call each other “c__ts”, and if they do people are liable to be offended or even become violent.
That statement is illogical- I have no clue how people have no rational reason not to call you rude and ignorant because you do not respect their view.[/quote]
If people are calling me rude and ignorant simply because I don’t respect their view, that’s irrational. Can you see that?
Actually I deny that I have any right to call anyone by any name of my choosing, and I’m amazed you would suggest otherwise.
I haven’t said it is.
In order for you to claim that ‘many people’ like cheese, you have to actually have evidence of many people liking cheese. Fortunately this information is very easy to obtain, and it is simple to identify who they are. The correct answer is not ‘the people who like cheese’, since that’s begging the question (logical fallacy of circular reasoning). So I’m still waiting for you to identify the ‘many people’ in your original claim.
That’s ‘typically avoided’ by whom?
About these mythical ‘many people’ for whom you’re suddenly unable to provide any evidence whatsoever. How strange.
I didn’t say you had made one. Please read my posts.
I haven’t, so save it for those who are.
So how can you claim it’s offensive?
Ok, another complete non-reading of my post is evident. I said that it doesn’t have any force for me. It only has force for those who choose to give it force. To a Frenchman, ‘merde!’ may have some kind of impact, but for me it’s just silly French person noises (I don’t even know how to pronounce it, or how it sounds, I’ve only read it). Do you see now? You choose to be ruled by those whom you fear. You choose which words offend you, and why. You choose to give people power over you, grovel, then whine when they beat you with the stick you handed them.
The real ‘PC’ nowadays is espousing the same old white male sexist racist bollocks. God 'elp you if you go up against that shower…
It depends which view you don’t respect.
So who defines what is or isn’t acceptable? If people say a certain name, such as “oriental” is offensive, on what basis do you disagree?
So what are you complaining about?
Yes but I cannot identify them except by circular reasoning. Please tell me exactly who the ‘people who like cheese’ are then.
[quote]
That’s ‘typically avoided’ by whom?[/quote]
Well a quick search of this website would reveal that people do not generally use the term “oriental” to refer to Asians. Do you hear foreigners in Taiwan talking about “the orientals”?
[quote]
About these mythical ‘many people’ for whom you’re suddenly unable to provide any evidence whatsoever. How strange.[/quote]
See above.
You said my entire argument “sounds suspiciously like a religious argument” I was asking "which religious argument? How is that not reading your posts?
And tell me, why does my argument sound like a religious argument.
Please note topic of thread.
You: What they don’t hear can’t offend them. Me: Well of course. You: So how can you claim it’s offensive? Me: :loco: Please try and follow the line of discussion.
Yes but words are not just empty sounds, they have meaning in their cultural and linguistic context. If I went round England shouting “c__t” at people, they may be offended, if I hurled some insult in Chinese it would mean nothing to them and they would just think I was crazy for shouting in some incomprehensible tongue.
I am not personally offended by the comments about “orientals”, but I can see why people would be. I defend people’s right to have this reaction, and I think it has nothing to do with the so-called “PC police.”
It depends which view you don’t respect.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Calling people rude and ignorant simply on the basis
On whatever basis I choose.
Did you see me complaining?
If you cannot identify them except by circular reasoning, then they don’t exist. You made them up.
These people (page 2). See? Hard data. Reliable statistics. Facts. That’s what we need to see.
Goodness, this Website eh? That’s representative, of something, but what?
Relevance?
Because you think ‘a religious argument’ refers to one specific religious argument. Here’s a hint, ‘a’ is an indefinite article.
Because it’s not based on logic or reason, it’s irrational and makes an implied appeal to a higher authority for validation.
Please read my posts.
I’m following fine. Please answer the question.
To be more specific, words have meaning to people. We choose the meanings we see in them.
Now you’re getting it. Now tell me how many locals in Taiwan are going to be offended by me using the word ‘oriental’ to describe easterners? How many are even going to have any comprehension of what I said?
But you’re going to crusade vigorously on the part of the unidentifiable masses who allegedly are. That, ironically, is the definition of ‘PC police’.
Again, it depends which view you don’t respect. For example, if you believed that it unnecessary to give up your seat to a pregnant woman on the bus, I would call you “rude and ignorant.”
But that is your opinion, people are entitled to view what you say as offensive.
Try and read back each statement and response.
Well please tell me why Wendy Richard felt the need to apologise for the original comment. Could it possibly be because people took offence?
Right we can measure cheese consumption, but we cannot tell who the many people who like cheese are. Proving that many people hold a given opinion is impossible if it has not been measured before, we have to try and deduce it from observation. However we can safely say that “many” people hold this view, otherwise this issue would not have arisen in the first place.
Fairly representative of English speaking foreigners in Taiwan I would guess. I can’t remember coming across many English speakers who prefer the term “oriental” to “Asian.” Again, I can’t measure these things. We have to deduce things from observation.
You tell me, it was a reply to your point. You cannot simply answer on the basis of my last reply,
I hope you’re not an English teacher. Your grammar is confused.
What?
“An implied appeal to a higher authority for validation.” :roflmao:
I am reading and replying to your posts meticulously. You are just reading my last answer, please read the whole thread.
The question makes no sense.
[quote]
To be more specific, words have meaning to people. We choose the meanings we see in them.[/quote]
Do we? Words are given meaning by their cultural and linguistic context, we cannot simply change that meaning.
We cannot “choose” the meaning, of say the word “dog”, to all English speakers it simply refers to a certain four-legged animal. This applies also to more abstract terms.
[quote]
Now you’re getting it. Now tell me how many locals in Taiwan are going to be offended by me using the word ‘oriental’ to describe easterners? How many are even going to have any comprehension of what I said?[/quote]
That’s irrelevant. Would using the Chinese term yanggui (洋鬼) be inoffensive simply because foreigners may not understand?
I am not “crusading vigorously”. I am just calling for good manners, and for the “anti-PC brigade” (who seem to be far more vocal) to stop pretending that language has no meaning except that which the individual chooses to give it.
I hope you’re not an English teacher. Your grammar is confused.[/quote]
How so, Mawvellous?
It’s good for old folks to keep [color=#0040BF]a[/color] pet.
[color=#0040BF]Which [/color]pet?
Not any particlar pet. Not one specific pet.
Indefinite article.
Perhaps he meant that the way you approached the point sounded like the way some people approach religious arguments, not like a particular religious argument.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]
How so, Mawvellous?
It’s good for old folks to keep [color=#0040BF]a[/color] pet.
[color=#0040BF]Which [/color]pet?
Not any particlar pet. Not one specific pet.
Indefinite article.
Perhaps he meant that the way you approached the point sounded like the way some people approach religious arguments, not like a particular religious argument.[/quote]
He said “what disturbs me the most is that your entire argument sounds suspiciously like a religious argument.”
My reply was “what religious argument?”
“A religious argument” refers to one religious argument, but we have not defined which one as yet so we use the indefinite article.
So the first time we refer to an object we use the indefinite article, afterwards we can use the definite article.
For example: “There is a car parked in front of my house. The car is green.”
The same is someone introduces a new object, it is then perfectly normal for me to ask them to define the object.
“There is a car parked in front of my house.” I might then normally ask “what car?”
The example you give is also the same. It is normal to ask to define the object they introduce with the indefinite article.
[quote=“Mawvellous”]So the first time we refer to an object we use the indefinite article, afterwards we can use the definite article.
For example: “There is a car parked in front of my house. The car is green.”[/quote]
You’re giving examples of the indefinite article used to refer to specific objects, but that is not its only use. The indefinite article is also used to refer to nonspecifics. “Which one is she?” is not a correct reply to “I wish I had a girlfriend.”
Yes, but that is referring to something that you don’t have.
Okay I am no grammar expert. But tell me, why is “what religious argument?” an improper reply to this statement: “what disturbs me the most is that your entire argument sounds suspiciously like a religious argument.”?
I was simply asking him to define what kind of religious argument my argument sounded like. As an avowed secularist, I am a little sensitive to people saying that my reasoning appeals to some kind of higher being.
could mean ‘sounds like it’s being argued based on faith rather than reason’. But I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to clarify.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]
could mean ‘sounds like it’s being argued based on faith rather than reason’. But I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to clarify.[/quote]
Oh I see, it could also be read in that way. Whatever he’s wrong, there is no appeal to a higher being. I am a godless liberal.
The term “Oriental” is actually a quite useful word, and better than “Asian”. It’s more ignorant to use “Asian” to refer to Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Mongolian/Southeast Asian people because Asia is a big continent. When people in North America use the word “Asian”, they are referring specifically to people in East Asia, not Arabs or Turks or Israelites or Indians or Afghans. Now, I suppose that referring to Chinese as “East Asians” is acceptable, as well. But “Asian” is just stupid. “Oriental” makes more sense because it applies specifically to East Asians - Iran and Saudi Arabia aren’t in the “Orient” but they are in “Asia”.
How else are you going to refer to Chinese/Japanese/Thais/Koreans etc.? “Oriental” sounds a hell of a lot nicer than “Mongoloid”.
[quote=“Quentin”]The term “Oriental” is actually a quite useful word, and better than “Asian”. It’s more ignorant to use “Asian” to refer to Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Mongolian/Southeast Asian people because Asia is a big continent. When people in North America use the word “Asian”, they are referring specifically to people in East Asia, not Arabs or Turks or Israelites or Indians or Afghans. Now, I suppose that referring to Chinese as “East Asians” is acceptable, as well. But “Asian” is just stupid. “Oriental” makes more sense because it applies specifically to East Asians - Iran and Saudi Arabia aren’t in the “Orient” but they are in “Asia”.
How else are you going to refer to Chinese/Japanese/Thais/Koreans etc.? “Oriental” sounds a hell of a lot nicer than “Mongoloid”.[/quote]
In UK English, Asian means people from South Asia. Iran and Saudi Arabia were originally in the Orient, but now the term is generally understood to refer to East Asia. The Orient moved east.
I found this from the American Heritage Book of English Usage, makes sense to me.
[quote]Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. Both terms are rooted in geography rather than ethnicity, but where Asian is neutral, Oriental sounds outdated and to many people even offensive. 1
The usual objection to Oriental—meaning “of or situated in the East”—is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not usually made of other terms, such as Near Eastern and Middle Eastern, stemming from the same accident of geography that led the earliest European travelers eastward rather than westward into Asia. The real problem with Oriental is more likely that it comes freighted with connotations from an earlier era, when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires, fabulous cities, and mysterious customs. Such common expressions as “Oriental splendor” and “the inscrutable Orient” testify to the rich—and now generally offensive—associations that have attached to this term in previous centuries. 2
It is worth remembering, though, that Oriental is not an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. It is most objectionable in contemporary contexts and when used as a noun, as in the appointment of an Oriental to head the commission. In these cases Asian (or a more specific term such as Vietnamese, Korean, or Asian American, if appropriate) is the only acceptable term. But in certain historical contexts, or when its exotic connotations are integral to the topic, Oriental remains a useful term.[/quote]
bartleby.com/64/C006/007.html#ASIAN
The forumosa website was started by two people who happen to be of Asian descent, origin, ethnicity, or whatever you call it. The original name was “oriented.com”. If the word is so offensive then why did these two wily orientals choose to use it?
Due to differences of opinion about the best direction to take, they eventually parted ways. The real-life focused organisation kept the Oriented.com name, and the online banter became forumosa. As we all know, this is a play on the old colonial name for Taiwan, and is presumably therefore also disrespectful to Goose Egg’s wife.
Wendy Richards, on the other hand, is probably not equipped to be making informed decisions about what’s offensive to foreigners. They all look the same, come from the same place (“foreign”), and share the same culture. I hear this every day.
I don’t think it’s wrong to enlighten someone a little about their ignorance, and very often they’ll be a bit embarrassed at being caught out, but there’s no need to go overboard and start screaming that someone is a racist just because they don’t know that London isn’t a state in the USA. If you choose to live in a country where there are a lot of people who haven’t figured things out yet you just have to deal with it. It’s the white man’s burden! Or the Asiatics’ burden, depending on where you are.