Classic

rick_chasey

Paul E wrote:

I don't care how it's spelt it's still offensive as it's meant in a derogatory way

If a word that describes something that the "majority" of the people are was used in the same sense there would be uproar about it, you can just picture the headlines.

There's a good south park episode about this issue.

The kids know 'fags' to be harley motorbike types who make ridiculous amounts of noise when passing through places.

The parents naturally think they're being homophobic.

It's a pretty good episode.

Paul E

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paul E wrote:

I don't care how it's spelt it's still offensive as it's meant in a derogatory way

If a word that describes something that the "majority" of the people are was used in the same sense there would be uproar about it, you can just picture the headlines.

There's a good south park episode about this issue.

The kids know 'fags' to be harley motorbike types who make ridiculous amounts of noise when passing through places.

The parents naturally think they're being homophobic.

It's a pretty good episode.

There is a similar one where cartman dresses up as a superhero racoon and he calls himself the "coon"

They knew exactly what they were doing in the episode and it's very well done as is most of their stuff.

sketchley

On the subject of double entendre, here's one of my favourites from Carry on Colombus which isn't that great a film but does have this gem from Julian Clary. 'You have that end and I'll have this one.... 'but you can come up my end any time.'

Paul E

One of my favourites is

Matron: Young chickens may be soft and tender but the older birds have more on them.
Doctor: Yes. And take a lot more stuffing.

DonDaddyD

IMO nigger has only ever had one meaning. Even when black people call each other that dreadful word it carries the same meaning. People have always used that word to identify, address and insult black people.

Gay meant/means happy and has been adopted by homosexuals as way of identifying people of a homosexual orientation. The word has evolved.

Ghey could over time, no matter how ridicuolous, become an actual accepted word found in the dictionary. Unless 'hoover' still only refers to a brand of vacuum cleaner.

Language changes over time. Which is "alright, still".

rjsterry wrote:

cf. Ricky Gervais and his use of the word 'mong'. Apparently it has *nothing* to do with Downs syndrome any more. As someone pointed out, if you just mean 'idiot', then why not use the word 'idiot'.

My take on the Ricky Gervais thing: He knew the term was offensive.

Thing is, Ricky Gervais has made a career on observational humor that pokes fun of peoples differences. He flies close to cuff with his jokes and they are born out of offense. He has made millions pretty much insulting people (his Stephen Hawking sketch). It seems a bit uppity getting upset at him now.

Where do you draw the PC line or the line where something is offensive and something offensive is funny. I suppose the line is where the joke doesn't border simply being mean.

Bassjunkieuk

Sketchley wrote:

On the subject of double entendre, here's one of my favourites from Carry on Colombus which isn't that great a film but does have this gem from Julian Clary. 'You have that end and I'll have this one.... 'but you can come up my end any time.'

Rather amusing :-)

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

IMO nigger has only ever had one meaning. Even when black people call each other that dreadful word it carries the same meaning. People have always used that word to identify, address and insult black people.

Gay meant/means happy and has been adopted by homosexuals as way of identifying people of a homosexual orientation. The word has evolved.

Ghey could over time, no matter how ridicuolous, become an actual accepted word found in the dictionary. Unless 'hoover' still only refers to a brand of vacuum cleaner.

Language changes over time. Which is "alright, still".

The difference is nigger has always been a negative word, gay has been subverted into a negative word, but hey language changes over time, so if that happens and the word you find dreadful (and me before anyone starts) changes meaning is that as okay as gay meaning anything negative according to "the kids" these days.

SimonAH

It can be difficult.

I have a colleague who exhibits casual racism on a level that genuinely makes me cringe. He will often read out texted jokes from his mobile where Raghead, Coon, Nigger and Paki appear in pretty much every one.

Problem is that he's from a white working class family in the South Wales valleys where even today you can go a year and not see anyone of colour - genuinely.

As there is nobody in that community to take offense, nobody objects and therefore it persists to a staggering degree.

Am I remiss in not dragging him to a police station for his racist language? I have remarked on it to him before, but there is no malice and it is ingrained to such an extent that it will never be eradicated. At least not for another generation or two......

Wheelspinner

Great t-shirt slogans #732:

"Heterosexuality is not normal. Just common."

ddraver

Paul E wrote:

The difference is nigger has always been a negative word, gay has been subverted into a negative word, but hey language changes over time, so if that happens and the word you find dreadful (and me before anyone starts) changes meaning is that as okay as gay meaning anything negative according to "the kids" these days.

Fair point, but when school kids (where it most commonly seems to be used, certainly was at my school) use it they 100% mean homosexual cos that's supposed to be bad. The Homophobai at my school was shocking now I think about it - the excuse that none of us actually thought about what we were saying really does nt excuse it. It was interresting that when one guy (a big Jock) came out at around 15-16 (and fair play to him) it stopped at once because we actually realised what we were saying to each other and what we were implying.

sketchley

SimonAH wrote:

It can be difficult.

I have a colleague who exhibits casual racism on a level that genuinely makes me cringe. He will often read out texted jokes from his mobile where Raghead, Coon, Nigger and Paki appear in pretty much every one.

Problem is that he's from a white working class family in the South Wales valleys where even today you can go a year and not see anyone of colour - genuinely.

As there is nobody in that community to take offense, nobody objects and therefore it persists to a staggering degree.

Am I remiss in not dragging him to a police station for his racist language? I have remarked on it to him before, but there is no malice and it is ingrained to such an extent that it will never be eradicated. At least not for another generation or two......

You should challenge him, take him to one side and explain that you understand he means no malice then explain why it is wrong and how it not acceptable language in the office. Tell him other people feel the same way. He may be shocked but if you don't say something who will?

UndercoverElephant

The most homophobic (and coincidentally the hairiest) guy I ever met was the Sister-in-Law's ex-boyfriend. He's now in the latter stages of gender reassignment.

Funny old world, eh?

DonDaddyD

Paul E wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

IMO nigger has only ever had one meaning. Even when black people call each other that dreadful word it carries the same meaning. People have always used that word to identify, address and insult black people.

Gay meant/means happy and has been adopted by homosexuals as way of identifying people of a homosexual orientation. The word has evolved.

Ghey could over time, no matter how ridicuolous, become an actual accepted word found in the dictionary. Unless 'hoover' still only refers to a brand of vacuum cleaner.

Language changes over time. Which is "alright, still".

The difference is nigger has always been a negative word, gay has been subverted into a negative word, but hey language changes over time, so if that happens and the word you find dreadful (and me before anyone starts) changes meaning is that as okay as gay meaning anything negative according to "the kids" these days.

I don't think the meaning of gay has changed to such a degree as to be accepted by society. I think that there are kids out there that use the word as a form of slang without realising it's links or patronisation of gay culture.

I cannot dictate what the meanings of words are changed to. The changing of a words isn't dependent on it being acceptable. Sometimes words change for negative reasons and positive ones. Words change for cultural reasons whether influenced by youth culture or society or anything else..

The definition of the word 'black' in dictionaries 30yrs ago was decidedly more negative and loaded with racial connotations. Just saying...

If in my lifetime the word nigger became positive or its meaning changed and this was widely accepted by society (to a point where younger generations aren't even aware of the previous meaning) in the same way CHAV (Council House and Violent) and Bird has (how many young people actually know that gay means happy?) - then who am I to argue.

The Swastika was and is a good luck symbol but is now synonymous and illegal in some circles. Just saying....

Paul E

When attitudes are changed by people being educated that what they are saying has an effect on people whether they mean to have one or not is when we start to move forward, otherwise the cycle continues into the next generation.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

cf. Ricky Gervais and his use of the word 'mong'. Apparently it has *nothing* to do with Downs syndrome any more. As someone pointed out, if you just mean 'idiot', then why not use the word 'idiot'.

My take on the Ricky Gervais thing: He knew the term was offensive.

Thing is, Ricky Gervais has made a career on observational humor that pokes fun of peoples differences. He flies close to cuff with his jokes and they are born out of offense. He has made millions pretty much insulting people (his Stephen Hawking sketch). It seems a bit uppity getting upset at him now.

Where do you draw the PC line or the line where something is offensive and something offensive is funny. I suppose the line is where the joke doesn't border simply being mean.

Gervais has been down this road before,

He stopped using a bit about ME* as he didn't want to get the "wrong laugh". Apparently that's not a concern anymore.


The term "Ghey" is used to characteristic someone as unmanly or effete alluding to sexuality in the same way as "Poof" or "Queer". The difference is that "Ghey" is used by those who think that Homophobia is wrong or wouldn't want people to think they are homophobic as it's would be unacceptable.




ME* bieing the disease/condition not me. I've never featured in Ricky Gervais' stand up.

DonDaddyD

I'm not an advocate for the use of the word Ghey, I was just pointing out what the OPs son could have meant.

Some people, no matter how wrong, often use the word without meaning to insult gay people. I'm also not defending those people.

Any word could have it's meaning changed over time. Whether an individual accepts said change is subjective.

I've been called 'coloured' by a 80yr old. They had no idea that the word was offensive.

"Sorry DDD, that's what we called your lot, as we were told "black" was offensive"

"DDD, have you ever read black in the dictionary"

[Get's dictionary out]

"Wow, that definition sure has changed. I'm too old for this, back to Songs of Praise"

ddraver

(I did nt know coloured or mong were offensive until quite recently... :oops:

and now you re telling me black is?)

notsoblue

I think more than anything its the intention and sentiment with which the word is delivered.

Also, its possible to say something incredibly offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic) without actually using specific words usually used for offence. Similarly, these words can be used in ways which aren't intended to be offensive.

Besides, anyone who expresses intolerant opinions with regards to race, gender, sexuality etc... tends to just expose themselves as being a bit of a d1ck.

rick_chasey

ddraver wrote:

(I did nt know coloured or mong were offensive until quite recently... :oops:

and now you re telling me black is?)

Ah you're in Holland.

You can say anything you want, there, however wrong or not it is.

clarkey cat

How does the word "Chav" sit with the forumites?

It was going around alot during the riots. Just wondered if its okay or not to use?

MonkeyMonster

is it correct/a good thing etc. to stand up for someone elses "rights" without asking them if they want you to?

rick_chasey

clarkey cat wrote:

How does the word "Chav" sit with the forumites?

It was going around alot during the riots. Just wondered if its okay or not to use?

I'd suggest that depends on what side of the political fence you sit.

Toynbee really goes to town on the word

and here's the telegraph's response; there's nothing wrong with having a go at chavs

rjsterry

Well it's not a compliment, is it? Not far off Pikey in my book, but who knows? Depends on the context as always.

clarkey cat

careful of those splinters, lads.

Headhuunter

clarkey cat wrote:

How does the word "Chav" sit with the forumites?

It was going around alot during the riots. Just wondered if its okay or not to use?

Chav doesn't really demonise a specific race or identifiable minority though, it's like calling someone "stuck up" or something... Gay, nigger, paki etc do target a particular group however. I always though pikey was the same but someone pointed out that it refers specifically to gypsies who it can be argued are an identifiable race in their own right. However I had never heard the expression pikey until it was used in that film by Brad Pitt (forgotten the name..)

clarkey cat

I don't think that's right HH. I think it specifically demonises an identifiable minority.

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

is it correct/a good thing etc. to stand up for someone elses "rights" without asking them if they want you to?

Its not a matter of "rights" though is it? I mean, during the riots there were posts on this forum from people basically saying that it was the fault of blacks. Those people were criticised (and eventually censored) for being hateful morons. The people who did that weren't "standing up for someone else's rights" they were just calling them out on BS.

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

is it correct/a good thing etc. to stand up for someone elses "rights" without asking them if they want you to?

This is an interesting point.

In a former forum life I argued at nausiam about 'discourse' and 'systems of knowledge' etc.

In short, (and i'm not arguing this one - if you don't agree or I'm explaining it badly then you'll have to ignore it), knowledge is relative, and not absolute. There are ways in which you know the world. It is entirely all encompassing knowledge, and can only be 'seen' through literary techniques and, more importantly, hindsight.

For example, Europeans came to know the world in a way that allowed them to conceive of the idea of an Empire, and the idea of white supremacy < the origins of modern day racism towards people of African origin. There are techniques by studying the language people use to establish how these ideas come about, and how people 'know' the world in a certain way.

Now, in short, this way of 'knowing' the world, can, in dominating political situations (like for example, large scale discrimination), become 'appropriated' by those dominated.

E.g. The abitrary nations Europeans created Africa, cutting across the local power bases and communities < which had nothing to do how local power actually worked, had local national revolutions, on those national lines in the '70s. The idea of those nations was appropriated by the locals during their oppression.

The same happens across other binary discriminations. Most commonly in our culture we see women arguing that 'feminists are wrong', and women supporting legislation that largely hurts women. Now, they are part of the 'discourse' (system of knowledge) that means the 'know' women in a particular way - so just because a women says it's OK, doesn't mean it's OK for women.

So, after all that, yes, it is correct to stand up for another group's rights. And that's the (very brief) academic reason behind my answer.

clarkey cat

clarkey cat wrote:
How does the word "Chav" sit with the forumites?

It was going around alot during the riots. Just wondered if its okay or not to use?



I'd suggest that depends on what side of the political fence you sit.

Toynbee really goes to town on the word

and here's the telegraph's response; there's nothing wrong with having a go at chavs

Interesting post Rick - but how does that sit with your above post?

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

How does the word "Chav" sit with the forumites?

It was going around alot during the riots. Just wondered if its okay or not to use?

Chav doesn't really demonise a specific race or identifiable minority though, it's like calling someone "stuck up" or something... Gay, nigger, paki etc do target a particular group however. I always though pikey was the same but someone pointed out that it refers specifically to gypsies who it can be argued are an identifiable race in their own right. However I had never heard the expression pikey until it was used in that film by Brad Pitt (forgotten the name..)

^^Ironic that^^


Gay ain't a race or ethnicity. It's a group of people with a specific sexual orientation. (not saying you're saying Gay is a race/ethnicity).

CHAV ain't a race or ethnicity. CHAV is a term to describe an identifiable minority.

Just saying.