Shmavis Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 What? 'Brit', 'Aussie' and 'Canuck' are offensive now? When did this happen? I used to be in the military and worked with some Commonwealth forces. They called us 'Yanks' and we would call them one of the 3 terms above. No one was offended. I've never worked with Australian soldiers, but the Australians that I've met in civilian life have given me an impression of an easy-going people. I met a New Zealander once, and I guessed, wrongly, that he was Australian by his accent. After correcting me, he said, "S'roight. We're all mates." Now, getting back to the topic of this thread, I'd like to command a Klingon starship. I mean, they can't be all bad if they quote Shakespeare in battle. Right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Another job with lots influence on the course of combat: Bombadier in the Enola Gay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Bone_Vulture: Isn't that exactly what happened here? Wbs used the term "Japs" without a care, and Sergei was offended by it.Actually, Bone_Vulture, I was not the one who used it initially. I was just responding to a post made by someone else. What happened is that ErikinWest used it. DaveH then told him it had negative connotations. I replied that it does not, except for those who are slaves to Political Correctness. Then it continued from there with Sergei's reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: Actually, Bone_Vulture, I was not the one who used it initially. I was just responding to a post made by someone else.It's all Sergei's fault! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Shmavis: What? 'Brit', 'Aussie' and 'Canuck' are offensive now? When did this happen? I used to be in the military and worked with some Commonwealth forces. They called us 'Yanks' and we would call them one of the 3 terms above. No one was offended. Don't worry, Shmavis, they are perfectly fine terms, as are "Jap", "Kraut", Kiwi, etc., as verbal shorthand. It is the responsibility of people on the receiving end to learn and/or understand (but not decide) the intent of their use--it is not incumbent upon the speaker. He already knows what he means. Furthermore, he cannot be a mindreader and determine beforehand every instance of someone being offended. Finally, people who arbitrarily choose to be offended about it without first determining the speaker's intent need to grow up and stop utilizing the 'victim' mentality. :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: It is the responsibility of people on the receiving end to learn and/or understand (but not decide) the intent of their use--it is not incumbent upon the speaker. He already knows what he means.Loistavaa, Jap! Jatka samaa rataa niin kukaan ei ikinä ymmärrä sinua. <font size="2">I could of course try to put that in a way that you would understand, but hey, that's your problem - I already know what I mean.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: From Shmavis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What? 'Brit', 'Aussie' and 'Canuck' are offensive now? When did this happen? I used to be in the military and worked with some Commonwealth forces. They called us 'Yanks' and we would call them one of the 3 terms above. No one was offended. Don't worry, Shmavis, they are perfectly fine terms, as are "Jap", "Kraut", Kiwi, etc., as verbal shorthand. It is the responsibility of people on the receiving end to learn and/or understand (but not decide) the intent of their use--it is not incumbent upon the speaker. He already knows what he means. Furthermore, he cannot be a mindreader and determine beforehand every instance of someone being offended. Finally, people who arbitrarily choose to be offended about it without first determining the speaker's intent need to grow up and stop utilizing the 'victim' mentality. :mad: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Europa: I agree, idiot A breakthrough in foreign relations!, Yay! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Just remember that no-one else, absolutely NO-ONE, knows what you are thinking of when you say 'Jap'. Maybe you mean the Japanese, or the Bulgarians, or your dog, or yourself. And it doesn't matter to others, either, because they have expectations - and in the case of 'Jap', the normal expectation is that you are using that word instead of 'Japanese' because you despise the Japanese and don't want to give them respect by using the proper nomination. So, by insisting - because of your politically-driven anti-PC obsession - on calling the Japanese as something that the Japanese themselves find a slur, you ensure that people will always misunderstand you, no matter if you mean Jap as a term of endearment or not. But I don't think that you have much to say worth understanding anyway, so do what you wish, Jap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Sergei: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by wbs: It is the responsibility of people on the receiving end to learn and/or understand (but not decide) the intent of their use--it is not incumbent upon the speaker. He already knows what he means. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loistavaa, Jap! Jatka samaa rataa niin kukaan ei ikinä ymmärrä sinua. I could of course try to put that in a way that you would understand, but hey, that's your problem - I already know what I mean. Sergei, you have provided an excellent example for discussion purposes. Since I have no idea what you said, I have no reason to be offended, and therefore I am not offended. Should I arbitrarily jump on you because I do not know your intent? No, I should first ask and/or learn what your intent was before I respond at all. Or, if it is not important to me to determine your intent, I should just let it pass unchallenged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 It is always important to determine in what context a word is used in order to determine its intent. For example, "Yank" could be used as "F*ck You, you dirty, stinking , subhuman Yank!" :mad: Or it could be "Hey Yank, can I buy you a beer?" The context is all-important. The use of any word in and of itself, with no context, should not be considered offensive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Sergei: So, by insisting - because of your politically-driven anti-PC obsession - on calling the Japanese as something that the Japanese themselves find a slur, you ensure that people will always misunderstand you, no matter if you mean Jap as a term of endearment or not. Really, how would you know, Sergei? Have you taken a poll? Were you born there/raised there, etc.? If a minority finds it offensive but the majority don't care, why should the use of a word be discontinued? Why should the minority's determination carry more weight than those who feel it's perfectly OK? If no offense is intended by the use of the word, why should the recipient be offended? If Japs can refer to us as "Yanks" or "Aussies" or "Brits" or "Kiwis", why should we not have the same priviledge of verbal shorthand in return? What makes someone's determination that a word is offensive be any more relevant than our own, if we determine that it is not, and we are not using it with malicious intent? Why should the worst interpretation that someone can place on the use of a word carry any more weight than more benign, and also legitmate, uses of the word? Why should I run my life to conform to your standards of right and wrong, any more than you should conform to mine? Why should I not consider it offensive that you somehow think that your interpretation of a word's use is the only correct one, and therefore I must use it only in a way you deem suitable? You wouldn't tolerate it (unless you are a slave to political correctness--are you?), and neither will I. :mad: Think about those questions, Sergei. They will provide you with food for thought, I hope. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 This is the part where the chase turns out to be better than the catch... Sergei, let's just call it a cease fire and let Michael Dorosh handle the incessant steaming, ok? :cool: From now on, I'll refer to anyone using the "Jap" contraction as an "idiot". Problem solved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: It is always important to determine in what context a word is used in order to determine its intent. For example, "Yank" could be used as "F*ck You, you dirty, stinking , subhuman Yank!" :mad: Or it could be "Hey Yank, can I buy you a beer?" The context is all-important. The use of any word in and of itself, with no context, should not be considered offensive. I'd say try your luck with any English speaking member of the Japanese Self Defence Force next time they're in town - and see if you don't get taught the difference between "Yank" and "Jap." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David I Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 What was this thread about? DavidI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 It's kind of amusing to note that the two people who kicked off this subject (ErikinWest and DaveH), are nowhere to be seen..... That's like starting a Bar brawl between two other guys and then walking out as the Bar patrons start to riot behind them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by wbs: If no offense is intended by the use of the word, why should the recipient be offended?Because you insist on using the word that offends them, instead of the neutral word, while fully knowing that it is so. In other words, you insist on offending them. As to words like Yank, Brit, Aussie etc. - you're blurring the issue with apples and oranges. British people generally don't mind being called as Brits, but Japanese in general do take offense of being called as Japs, just like Jews don't like being called as Judes, Polish as Polaks or blacks as Niggers. If it doesn't matter what your audience thinks you are trying to say, then why say it in the first place? After all, the point of saying something is to convey thoughts - and to do so, you try to form the message in a way that is understood by your audience in the way closest to what you originally meant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by David I: What was this thread about? DavidI Insulting newbies, but I'm afraid they all went away so we have to do without. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Sergei: Because you insist on using the word that offends them, instead of the neutral word, while fully knowing that it is so. In other words, you insist on offending them. That would require you to know beforehand that they would be offended, and therefore require you to be a mind reader. It also, as I mentioned before, is incumbent upon the recipient to learn what the intent was, not automatically assume that it is offensive. In your example above, someone who chooses to be offended as their default setting is just being boorish and Politically Correct. If they are able to determine that no offense is meant, then it is innappropriate for them to take offense. If they are unable to determine the intent and automatically ascribe the worst motives to the use of a word, then that's their problem and they can deal with it on their own. I don't have any sympathy for their overly tender feelings. [ February 11, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: wbs ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Sergei: As to words like Yank, Brit, Aussie etc. - you're blurring the issue with apples and oranges. Not at all. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The street runs both ways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: To me the use of the shorthand 'jap' is different from the use of the shorthand 'Kraut', because the former is very closely connected to racist propaganda during WW II. I still think that both are showing a clear lack of respect for the group they describe, but 'Jap', to me at least, has far more aggressive undertones because of the propaganda. Odd -- if asked to rank these in order of likely offensiveness I'd have put them the other way round, because "Jap" is merely a contraction, while "Kraut" involves making a generalisation about the cultural habits (in this case, culinary) of an entire nation. Originally posted by Andreas: That makes it different as a shorthand from 'Brit', 'Aussie', or 'Canuck'. You should hear the way I've heard some Irish people use "Brit", or, interestingly, "Hun" (as a synonym for "Brit"). Originally posted by Andreas: It is also more convenient to say 'nigger', instead of African American, BTW, and you only have to type six letters instead of fifteen. It's only five letters if you use "negro", a word I should have thought quite unexceptionable, but which some people are apparently determined to be offended by. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by David I: What was this thread about? Anything you like, as apparently all meaning is determined by the listener. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by Sergei: Just remember that no-one else, absolutely NO-ONE, knows what you are thinking of when you say 'Jap'. Maybe you mean the Japanese, or the Bulgarians, or your dog, or yourself. But unless you are a raving semiologist of the first water, you are deeply unlikely to imagine that the word could possibly be intended to convey the meaning usually associated with "bedstead", "Margrave", "pomegranate", "bivalve" or "plinth". Originally posted by Sergei: And it doesn't matter to others, either, because they have expectations - and in the case of 'Jap', the normal expectation is The "normal expectation"? On the one hand, it betrays a monstrous ignorance or intolerance of human variety to declare that there is a single universal "normal" expectation that everyone must adhere to in negotiating meaning. On the other, it is grossly logically inconsistent to make any claim to know the expectations of the generality of people at the same time as holding the belief that no-one can ever know what somebody else is thinking. Originally posted by Sergei: So, by insisting - because of your politically-driven anti-PC obsession - on calling the Japanese as something that the Japanese themselves find a slur, you ensure that people will always misunderstand you, no matter if you mean Jap as a term of endearment or not. Despite which, you know, I think I can fairly claim to understand him. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: [QB] ]Odd -- if asked to rank these in order of likely offensiveness Odd, I don't recall anyone asking you to... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 From Andreas, via John D. Salt's post: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Andreas: It is also more convenient to say 'nigger', instead of African American, BTW, and you only have to type six letters instead of fifteen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's only five letters if you use "negro", a word I should have thought quite unexceptionable, but which some people are apparently determined to be offended by. I routinely use "Negro" (or sometimes 'Black'), and "Colored" as well. Certainly there are well-known organizations that proudly use them, such as the NAACP (Nat'l Assoc. for the Advancement of Colored People), the Negro College Fund, the Negro College Women's Assoc. (or something close to that), etc. Another word the PC crowd would like to ban is "Indian" They would prefer the touchy-feely 'Native American'. I don't care if people want to use it, but don't try to make me do so. It is Grammatically Incorrect to use "Native American" to only refer to Indians. By definition, I am a Native American, and so is anyone who is born here. Furthermore, the U.S. Gov't routinely uses the term (Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc.). A recent poll (last year, I think--it was reported in 'USA Today' Newspaper) of Indians found that only 9% of Indians preferred 'Native American'. The rest either didn't care or preferred 'Indian'. The same Poll also found that only 2% of Indians surveyed disliked "Redskin" as used in the name of Washington DC's NFL Football team. The rest either liked it or had no opinion. My point is that those who worship the Great God of Political Correctness frequently blow out of proportion the number of people who they say are offended. Sergei says that the majority of Japs, Poles, etc. are offended by slang National terminology, but are they? How many of each has he spoken to, and how does he know that they are a representative sample? The answer is that he does not and cannot know. He is using generalizations. Is he right? Maybe. Or Maybe not. It's not up to him to claim to be the authority on their behalf, though, as these people can speak for themselves, determine intent, and then decide if they are offended. Edit--Sorry John., if you thought I was responding to you. I was responding to Andreas and it was easier to copy your Post. [ February 01, 2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: wbs ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.