Different words, silly frog.
That’s slightly different to what you said before. The original argument was that people are right to call me rude and ignorant simply because I don’t respect their view, not because of the specific merits of their view.
Well no one is really ‘entitled’ to view what anyone else says as offensive, but I have never complained about the fact that others might.
I did. I have never complained about any ‘PC conspiracy’.
Of course they did. They were non-Asian people who chose to be offended on the part of as yet unidentified Asian people who were allegedly offended (or who apparently would have been if they’d know about it).
Of course we can. The people in those countries. Ta da! What did you think I was after, names and addresses?
Well yes, so how many of these alleged ‘many’ offended people have you observed?
Logic fail! Fallacy of the non sequitur (in this case the irrelevant conclusion). The conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise, and you have failed to demonstrate that alternative conclusions are invalid. What evidence from the original article do we have that ‘many’ people hold this view? How many offended people are mentioned in the article? You’re simply arguing in a circle, as I identified previously. Ironically, this is typical ‘PC’ logic.
Well guess what? The number of English speaking foreigners on this forum who avoid using the term ‘nostril’ to describe Aztecs is overwhelmingly most of them. I guess that means they avoid it because in Aztec land it’s considered offensive to use the term ‘nostril’ to describe Aztecs! The logic is Mawvellous!
The fact that you can’t find many people on this forum who use the term ‘oriental’ to describe Asians tells us absolutely nothing about whether Asians themselves find this term offensive. You want to deduce things from observation? Great, so do I. My deduction, on the basis of observation, is that when I call Asian’s ‘orientals’ they aren’t offended. I’ll let you know if it ever happens.
It was an irrelevant reply.
Well I’m glad we sorted that out (thanks for explaining it to him DB). A little phrase which is sometimes taught to ESL learners which you may find useful is ‘a for any, and the for this’. It may help you understand and remember the difference between the indefinite article and the definite article.
No you’re not. You’re not even quoting me correctly:
I said nothing about an appeal to a higher being.
I am reading your last answer because it’s your answer to me and what I’m writing about.
Why don’t you think it makes sense?
[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]
This is not under dispute. I’m talking about the personal meanings we ascribe to words, as I explained previously. We choose to be offended or not offended by certain terms. The terms ‘gay’ and ‘queer’ were once grossly offensive to homosexuals. But the homosexual community adopted them, popularized them, chose not to be offended by them, and subsequently defused them. Now any homosexual who is offended by these terms is offended only because they choose to be.
On the other hand, it seems that the African Americans went exactly the wrong way about the word ‘nigger’. By censoring its use by non-Negroes, and retaining its historical offensive meaning, they ensured that it remained a devastatingly powerful term in the hands of their enemies, who clearly care nothing for the censorship which the African American community has attempted to impose. The whole thing backfired completely, and today ‘nigger’ still has all the force it always did.
Why is it irrelevant? If I say ‘Hey there Chinaman!’ to the guy at the 7/11, and he isn’t offended, then is it wrong? Is it wrong simply because you are offended on his behalf, and disappointed that he isn’t offended?
Absolutely! If they can’t understand what it means, then they cannot possibly be offended by it.
Read this thread, please.
No one is ‘pretending’ any such thing. I note that you haven’t denied that you’re arguing on behalf of the unidentifiable Asian masses who are allegedly offended by the use of the term ‘oriental’. Supposedly there are ‘many’ of them, but yet you haven’t presented any evidence of their existence. We do have evidence of white people who think that the term is offensive to Asians, but unfortunately this is evidence for my argument, that silly people choose to decide for other people what words are offensive to them, without any reference to reality (or the actual opinion of those who are allegedly being offended).
DB, ‘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’, yes thanks.
I agree with the people who say it’s pretty much an American thing:
[quote=“George K. Hong”]In the late 1960s, with the heightened racial/ethic awareness of the civil rights movement in the United States, Asian American activists rejected the term Orientals in favor of Asian Americans (Baron & Gall, 1996; Cao & Novas, 1996; Espiritu, 1992). They regarded Orientals as a pejorative term associated with the negative stereotypes of Asians, such as being “inscrutable,” “mysterious,” “exotic,” “passive,” and “despotic” (1996; Cao & Novas, 1996; Espiritu, 1992).
The spearhead of this “Asian American” movement was in California (Baron & Gall, 1996; Espiritu, 1992).
The chapters of the Asian American Political Alliance established at [San Francisco State College and the University of California at Berkeley] started promoting the use of the term Asian American in place of Oriental (Baron & Gall, 1996).
Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, the use of the term Asian american gradually spread beyond California and beyond academia. By the late 1980s, the word Oriental had become a dated term. Calling an Asian American an Oriental may be seen as insulting, insensitive, or, at best, socioculturally uninformed. . . . However, the preference for using Asian American instead of Oriental is strictly a U.S. phenomenon, with its roots in the civil rights movement.[/quote]–Psychotherapy and Counseling With Asian American Clients: A Practical Guide, pages 6 and 7
But I also like this one:
[quote=“Around 1993, Alan Hu”]The upshot is to use whatever word you feel most comfortable with, or that makes your listeners most comfortable, but don’t be surprised if someone takes offense. And in the time you save by not worrying about word-usage, try to make the world a better place.[/quote] modelminority.com/article183.html
Speaking of the '60s: On the old Andy Griffith Show, sometimes if two of the show’s characters were quarreling, a little kid in a cowboy outfit would show up and wordlessly offer the quarrelers his partially-eaten peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich. That seemed to be his sole function on the show. If I had a partially-eaten peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, I would offer it to Fortigurn and Mawvellous.
Nice on CJ.
You introduced the logical distinction between “view” and “merits of view”, people will obviously judge you on your views, which is effectively the same thing as saying they will judge you on the merits of your views.
So you are saying that people have no right to view something as offensive?
I never said you did, but this thread is on that topic. I was talking about that when you decided to reply, I am staying “on-topic”.
How exactly do you know who “chose” to be offended?
A circular argument, which you started by asking the ridiculous question of “who” the many people who hold a certain view are. I cannot measure this, I can only deduce it from observation, including talking to other people and reading.
I have not counted, again a ridiculous question.
Since you think we can measure who likes cheese from statistics of cheese consumption, maybe I can illustrate the point with a different example. We know through our life experiences and observations that many people prefer to eat their cheese toasted, while others prefer not to. Of course no one can identify who has these particular preferences, but I think most people would take this statement as granted. If you ask me “how many” people I observed with this preference, I also cannot answer, simply because I never paid much attention.
Also “many people” is not a precise term-it simply means a large number of people. It is not a huge leap to say that “many people” hold this view, otherwise the issue would not have generated controversy. Of course “many people” hold the opposite view, but you could not identity who they are.
Not exactly. If no one held the view then this issue could not logically have arisen. If only a few people held the view then it also likely would not have arisen.
What other conclusions would you draw?
I have deduced that “many people” hold the view. Sure I cannot prove it, it is only an opinion. But it is a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion.
:bravo:
A throw your toys out of the pram type argument. People clearly do not call Aztecs “nostrils” because no one would know what they are talking about. However English speakers do generally understand what “Oriental” means. So although you may be proud of your “logical argument”, the comparison has no relevance.
CJ’s post below suggests that the rejection of the term “Oriental” in favour of “Asian American” came from Asian American activists. I reasonably deduce that many Asian people do find the term offensive. Note: I am not claiming that “most” Asians hold this view, or even “how many” do.
Where were we?
But my reading of your question was perfectly correct, should we blame your poor writing for framing the statement in an ambiguous way?
I have an idea…what idea? Sounds natural to me.
I am reading everything you say. How am I not quoting you correctly?
You did say this.
Yes but you cannot have a conversation simply on the basis of replying to the last utterance, without any context from the proceeding conversation. Can’t you see this?
They don’t need to hear for something to be offensive. Just like the wife doesn’t need to find out for the affair to be “wrong”. I was confused by your logical distinction.
It clearly depends what term is used and how it is used. “Nigger” may be seen as acceptable in some contexts, but highly offensive in others.
I am not ever aware of the term “gay” ever being “grossly offensive” to homosexuals, “queer” has been “reclaimed” and is often used in the gay community, but most straight people do not talk about “queers”, preferring potentially less offensive terms such as “gay people.”
In certain situations, many people think that the world “queer” is offensive, and so it is avoided.
That’s an interesting point. But if one word is “reclaimed”, the enemies can always use other terms of abuse. If the offensive meaning of “queer” has been neutralised, there are many other words out there homophobic people can use.
Yes I would be offended at your lack of good manners. I would judge you for your poor choice of words.
Well no, but if they found out they could be offended. Chinese speakers again may also be offended by the speaker’s poor manners.
Well, it’s hardly a “crusade”, just some gentle verbal sparring.
[quote]
No one is ‘pretending’ any such thing. I note that you haven’t denied that you’re arguing on behalf of the unidentifiable Asian masses who are allegedly offended by the use of the term ‘oriental’. Supposedly there are ‘many’ of them, but yet you haven’t presented any evidence of their existence. We do have evidence of white people who think that the term is offensive to Asians, but unfortunately this is evidence for my argument, that silly people choose to decide for other people what words are offensive to them, without any reference to reality (or the actual opinion of those who are allegedly being offended).[/quote]
CJ’s post suggests that rejection of the term “Oriental” first came from Asian-American activists. Of course most Asian people don’t speak English and wouldn’t understand the term, but clearly it was rejected by many Asian-Americans.
Also, something doesn’t have to be directed at me for me to find it “offensive.” Most Taiwanese people, with their limited comprehension of English and generally tolerant nature may not find anything “offensive” in the term “Chinaman”, but other English speakers might.
Just like many Taiwanese would object to their compatriots using the term “yanggui”, even if most foreigners didn’t understand.
American and British media are being ruined by special interest groups. Comedy radio in the US are under so much pressure from the Asian groups in particular that they can’t even mention Chinese any more. Complete bullshit hypocrisy when you see how seethingly racist the Chinese are back in China. People love their first amendment rights until someone says something they don’t like, then conveniently they don’t apply. Modern western society is supposed to be based on free speech, and whether or not some of that speech offends special interest groups shouldn’t matter.
it’s been refreshing to actually watch some Little Britain USA, the stereotypes on there are side splitting, and predictably enough,the comments left by the yanks on youtube are even more so hilarious
Thats is why the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of Larry Flint in his porn bisunnes empire. Might offend and that is his right.
Special religious interest groups lost their law suits.
And there are now dark forces (oops!) at play, attempting to re-write the history of the Dambusters! Is nothing sacred?
[quote]Give a dog a bad name: a producer’s conundrum
May 8, 2009
PETER JACKSON’S remake of the film The Dam Busters has become mired in an argument over the name of a character’s dog.
Nigger, a black Labrador, was Wing Commander Guy Gibson’s faithful companion and the mascot of the RAF’s 617 Squadron, which staged the successful bouncing-bomb raids on the Ruhr dams in Germany in 1943.
Jackson, the New Zealand director of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, is the producer of the new version of the 1955 epic that starred Richard Todd, and has said he is determined to remain faithful to the details of the story.
But others working on the film, which is backed by Hollywood studios, have insisted that the dog’s name would be offensive, particularly in the US. The name was mentioned 12 times in the original, and also featured prominently in the book by Paul Brickhill, published three years earlier, on which the film was based.
Stephen Fry, who has been commissioned to write the new script, was asked to suggest alternative names, but David Frost, the executive producer, was reported to have rejected all the options. He was reported to have said: “Guy sometimes used to call his dog Nigsy, so I think that’s what we will call it. Stephen has been coming up with other names but this is the one I want.”
Matthew Dravitzki, Jackson’s executive assistant, told The Dominion Post in Wellington: “To stay true to the story, you can’t just change it. That name is talked about a lot, but we have not made any decision yet.”
In recent television screenings of the original film in Britain, the dog’s name was edited or altered. In a version for US television, it was overdubbed as Trigger.[/quote]
Disgusting!
HG
That would cause confusion in my country, where “Asian” refers to people from the subcontinent.
Anyway, Asian’s ‘orientals’ whats?
PC is out of control in the US.
I teach in an unbelievably PC community (for now…I doubt this will continue for long.) One day, while teaching a Spanish lesson, I uttered the word “fat” in Spanish. One girl in the class went home and told Mommy how she felt “uncomfortable” hearing that, and Mommy called the school and ranted on about how they eat healthy food in that family, and her daughter has a positive body image, and she just doesn’t need to hear that sort of thing in school, boo hoo it’s so damaging to her self-esteem, etc. etc. (Just to be clear, I was NOT saying that any of the kids in the class were fat.) And the best part was when the administrator backed the parent up on this and told the Higher Up that I had “made inappropriate comments in class”.
I’m just about to the point of teaching the rest of the year in pantomime to avoid saying anything else “offensive”.