Ooooh, What happened to the KFC thread?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Azari wrote: »

Sorry, you are the one who is making an absolute fool of himself.

Not least because you start off with "As an impartial bystander" and then come down very firmly as holding an extreme view - that being that a couple of twerps on a forum who claim to know a couple of Japanese who they say find the term offensive should be allowed to dictate what is and what is not a racist term.

You guys need to do better.

Show some evidence that the term 'Jap' is racist in this country.

'Impartial' in the sense that I wasn't involved in the argument and am judging only on the issues. The issues are wholly against you.

Interesting you think everyone who's pointed out that 'jap' is regarded as offensive, even the person with a Japanese partner, are 'twerps'. As you'll dismiss everyone who tells you you're wrong as a 'twerp', there's not much more to be said.

Leif

Azari wrote: »

Both 'ni**er' and 'paki' were once perfectly acceptable words.

Yes they were acceptable. But then so was racism, casual and otherwise. I used to call someone 'Jewish', or 'a Jew', if I thought they were mean. And I used the term 'wog' for an Anglo Indian, in the same way we use the term Frog. I was not racist, or anti Anglo-Indian. That was almost 40 years ago, when we used such terms without thinking. A few years ago I heard my elderly mother use the term 'wog' and I was shocked. I would never (today) use the word, and I know my late mother was not racist, but she was not aware of how such words have become taboo, and quite rightly so in my view. Some political correctness is good, as it is no more than politeness.

I can believe that Paki was once inoffensive, but I cannot believe that the 'n' word (as we now call it) was ever non-racist. Some people did routinely use the word, but only in the context of an assumption that the person referred to was inferior. So I do not think the n word was ever used in a non racist manner. The term 'negro' was routinely used, but again there is too much baggage in that word, and I presume it is rude, and perhaps racist.

Shevchenko01

Azari wrote: »

Or not.
It rather depends on how the police view the incident.

No...it depends on how the victim sees it - this is not an opinion, it is as quoted by the CPS: "Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
It may end up not being prosecuted as such but if the victim perceives it as 'racially aggravated' then it has to be investigated as such.

Azari wrote: »

And I know a couple of black people who dislike being called back. I know a lot more who detest being called coloured.

Sorry Azari, but that's an absurd statement to make - I don't know one Japanese person that wants to be called a "Jap"

Azari wrote: »

You can't just allow a small selection of people to decide these things.

But that is STILL what you are trying to do - perhaps to the opposite effect, but it's the same.

Azari wrote: »

What do we do if goatbreath takes it into his head the 'Scot' is racist and you provide anecdotal evidence that there a a couple of Scots who think the same?
What about 'Brit'?

I'm yet to meet anyone who believes that Jap is acceptable, save present company.

Azari wrote: »

I'm telling people that it's not for you and goatbreath to dictate acceptable word usage. I'm most emphatically not telling people which word they should use.

And I think you are also being told not dictate acceptable/unacceptable word usage by many posters.

Azari wrote: »

Just don't get caught up in the agenda of the sort of people who will label any word racist with no evidence that it has been used in this way to any significant extent.

I don't, as I can and will make up my own mind. I personally feel that referring to someone as "A Jap" or similar is insulting - that's it. I'm not asking you to like it or agree with me but please stop trying to tell me/others that I'm wrong!

Azari wrote: »

LOL, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It really doesn't seem like that - it comes across (unintentionally perhaps?) that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Sublime_2

What KFC thread?

Azari

Shevchenko01 wrote: »

No...it depends on how the victim sees it - this is not an opinion, it is as quoted by the CPS: "Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
It may end up not being prosecuted as such but if the victim perceives it as 'racially aggravated' then it has to be investigated as such.

Investigated to the extent that it's logged as 'possibly racially motivated' and then an officer makes a decision based on the evidence available.

i.e. they must not take a report of a racially motivated offence and log it in some other manner.

Sorry Azari, but that's an absurd statement to make - I don't know one Japanese person that wants to be called a "Jap"
But that is STILL what you are trying to do - perhaps to the opposite effect, but it's the same.
I'm yet to meet anyone who believes that Jap is acceptable, save present company.
And I think you are also being told not dictate acceptable/unacceptable word usage by many posters.
I don't, as I can and will make up my own mind. I personally feel that referring to someone as "A Jap" or similar is insulting - that's it. I'm not asking you to like it or agree with me but please stop trying to tell me/others that I'm wrong!
It really doesn't seem like that - it comes across (unintentionally perhaps?) that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You are just making the same mistake you have made before.

You are equating my refusal to allow a tiny number of people who have a bee in their bonnet to dictate word usage to telling others that they should use a certain word.

That is so wrong it's almost incredible that you can be making the mistake accidentally. It almost seems as if you are doing it deliberately to promote your cause.

Just quote one instance where I have told anyone to use the word.

System

Can I just say I've been to dixeys chicken.

Azari

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

'Impartial' in the sense that I wasn't involved in the argument and am judging only on the issues.

That is not impartial.

If I see someone saying the Earth is flat and join in the argument on the side that it isn't I am not impartial.

Neither were you and your claim that you were just demonstrates your dishonesty and/or muddled thinking.

Interesting you think everyone who's pointed out that 'jap' is regarded as offensive, even the person with a Japanese partner, are 'twerps'. As you'll dismiss everyone who tells you you're wrong as a 'twerp', there's not much more to be said.

They and you are twerps because they and you are making a decision about the meaning of a word and insisting that they and you are correct when neither they nor you have provided any credible, relevant, evidence to support their decision.

Shevchenko01

Azari wrote: »

You guys need to do better.
Show some evidence that the term 'Jap' is racist in this country.

Can you show it isn't...get some of the Japanese you claim to know on here to say it's perfectly acceptable.
Oh, and off

Azari wrote: »

...a couple of twerps on a forum...

Twerp: a silly or annoying person. Wrong on both counts, certainly for me, and I've seen no such traits from goater78, unless of course disagreeing with you makes us such?

And no, I'm not offended but it does tend to point towards a lack of character and poor vocabulary skills if you have to resort to insults, even pathetically mild ones as ‘twerp’. It makes you out to be a somewhat silly and annoying person. Please don't prove that to be the case.

System

Azari wrote: »

Investigated to the extent that it's logged as 'possibly racially motivated' and then an officer makes a decision based on the evidence available.

i.e. they must not take a report of a racially motivated offence and log it in some other manner.



You are just making the same mistake you have made before.

You are equating my refusal to allow a tiny number of people who have a bee in their bonnet to dictate word usage to telling others that they should use a certain word.

That is so wrong it's almost incredible that you can be making the mistake accidentally. It almost seems as if you are doing it deliberately to promote your cause.

Just quote one instance where I have told anyone to use the word.

I'll give you this your craic is good and you're sticking to your gun's however you are coming across as a terrribe racist so really you should stop banging on about it!

Azari

Leif wrote: »

Yes they were acceptable. But then so was racism, casual and otherwise. I used to call someone 'Jewish', or 'a Jew', if I thought they were mean. And I used the term 'wog' for an Anglo Indian, in the same way we use the term Frog. I was not racist, or anti Anglo-Indian. That was almost 40 years ago, when we used such terms without thinking. A few years ago I heard my elderly mother use the term 'wog' and I was shocked. I would never (today) use the word, and I know my late mother was not racist, but she was not aware of how such words have become taboo, and quite rightly so in my view. Some political correctness is good, as it is no more than politeness.

I can believe that Paki was once inoffensive, but I cannot believe that the 'n' word (as we now call it) was ever non-racist. Some people did routinely use the word, but only in the context of an assumption that the person referred to was inferior. So I do not think the n word was ever used in a non racist manner.

Not sure what the point of the above is as you are not really arguing against what I said. All I was trying to point out was that the words were originally just collections of letters or sounds in throats and that their offensiveness was engendered because they were used in unpleasant and racists ways.

In contrast, there is no tradition of people in this country being unpleasant or racist to the Japanese (beyond xenophobes who are equally unpleasant to most foreigners) and hence there is no reason to suppose that a simple abbreviation should be considered racist.

The term 'negro' was routinely used, but again there is too much baggage in that word, and I presume it is rude, and perhaps racist.

This just demonstrates the difficulties we get into if we allow dilettantes to proscribe harmless words.

The fight against racism is an important one and it must not be allowed to be derailed by a few idiots who provide ammunition for real racists to ignore really offensive words on the basis that "someone will try and call you racist no matter what you say".