[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The question isn't whether or not each person finds it offensive, though, not really. I personally am not offended by blackface, racist words, racist stereotypes, any other sorts of stereotypes (including ones that apply to me, e.g. about men or about Scottish people). I'm very, very hard to offend I would say. However, not being easily offended on a personal level doesn't mean that you can't try to appreciate that some people ARE hurt, offended and angered by various things and therefore, is it not important to consider the feelings of others? Again I'll say that I'm well aware that it can go too far, there is a line where it becomes ridiculous (as we're seeing on certain academic campuses, etc.) but likewise, there is a line that goes the other way... I sort of feel like we (as a society) are somehow losing the ability to have a feel for what's "too far"... and people are dividing into these two extreme camps where one will take offense at things so minor that it becomes impossible to live a normal existence, and at the same time, the other end of the spectrum is saying "well I've had enough of all of it so I'll just say and do whatever I want" with which, again, things start to become impossible.

Where is the middle ground and why have we lost it? As always, this forum seems to be a bit of a microcosm for this effect. Views seem to be so extreme one way or the other, and frankly, the answer ALWAYS (with all things) lies somewhere in the grey area.

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

That certainly makes sense Jet. A very well expressed valid point.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jet

Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well

A lack of empathy? Usually psychopathic tendencies or narcissistic personality disorder? That can't be the reason there are differing views on this, surely.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

It's an interesting concept and I would say certainly valid in cases where people find themselves getting genuinely "offended on behalf of" others, i.e. Really emotionally upset or angry about the issues being discussed. However, like I said I think it's possible to at least explore these issues and think about / empathise with others WITHOUT being emotionally involved. Surely it's possible to appreciate and want to support people who are upset by something, without getting upset at all oneself, or having it affect the rest of one's day in any way?

I would also say that if it is the case, and people's heavy emotional involvement with "offense" is in part down to projection, then surely that must apply both ways? There are people who get very emotionally wound up and certainly very angry on the flips idea of this, too... I guess in this case you could say "outraged on behalf of the festival organisers". It's sort of the same thing; the specifics of the case don't involve them in any way at all unless they are actually from that area or involved, and yet some people are incensed at the idea of it being "affected by PC" etc... So, might there be a similar element of projection there? People aren't actually annoyed by criticisms of the Zulu carnival, they might be projecting their own feelings of having their own expression shut down or invalidated, and be projecting it onto an event / event organisers that have nothing to do with them... Making it exactly the same "fighting for them for me" escape mechanism?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's an interesting concept and I would say certainly valid in cases where people find themselves getting genuinely "offended on behalf of" others, i.e. Really emotionally upset or angry about the issues being discussed. However, like I said I think it's possible to at least explore these issues and think about / empathise with others WITHOUT being emotionally involved. Surely it's possible to appreciate and want to support people who are upset by something, without getting upset at all oneself, or having it affect the rest of one's day in any way?

I would also say that if it is the case, and people's heavy emotional involvement with "offense" is in part down to projection, then surely that must apply both ways? There are people who get very emotionally wound up and certainly very angry on the flips idea of this, too... I guess in this case you could say "outraged on behalf of the festival organisers". It's sort of the same thing; the specifics of the case don't involve them in any way at all unless they are actually from that area or involved, and yet some people are incensed at the idea of it being "affected by PC" etc... So, might there be a similar element of projection there? People aren't actually annoyed by criticisms of the Zulu carnival, they might be projecting their own feelings of having their own expression shut down or invalidated, and be projecting it onto an event / event organisers that have nothing to do with them... Making it exactly the same "fighting for them for me" escape mechanism?

Sorry, I haven't time to answer this in more depth...
Yes, that’s why I said ‘some people’ - those who take it to extremes and see racism and injustice around every corner. Most of us have a natural empathy for the sufferings of others, but also have a sense of balance and can work out when something is deliberately hurtful or intended to cause conflict and when it isn’t.
We all have a coping instinct in which what we say and do unconsciously ‘feeds’ our minds and emotions to hopefully get us the outcome we need to make us feel better.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the more dangerous and unpleasant the world becomes as a whole, the more PC many people become.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

What a ridiculous notion of course we are, we have sympathy, empathy, compassion, a conscience and free will to express any or all of those.

The suggestion that we are human echo chambers or only interested in what happens in our own circle of trust is a very insular , modern and in the main media driven concept.

I would go as far as to say if you can't express a full range of human emotions for the plight of suffering strangers, then that in itself is indicative of some defective thought and reasoning process.

Do you consider that only those regard themselves marginalised have a reason to care, and if not they don't?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What a ridiculous notion of course we are, we have sympathy, empathy, compassion, a conscience and free will to express any or all of those.

The suggestion that we are human echo chambers or only interested in what happens in our own circle of trust is a very insular , modern and in the main media driven concept.

I would go as far as to say if you can't express a full range of human emotions for the plight of suffering strangers, then that in itself is indicative of some defective thought and reasoning process.

Do you consider that only those regard themselves marginalised have a reason to care, and if not they don't?

That's why I said SOME people, those who go to extremes...and I also said that people aren't THAT wired to others sufferings as much as they are to their own, not that they don't care at all.
It's human nature and called the survival instinct. How many would go to the extreme of dying for a stranger? Not many. How many would donate all their money and belongings to a cause and starve? Not many. No, their own well being is more important to them, right?

Also, people who have true empathy don't leave it behind when they get behind a computer screen. True empathy isn't reserved for certain groups, it should extent to all. A lot is revealed when people are anonymous, like unkindness and nastiness.
There is empathy and then there is over - zealousness and combativeness.

[Beso]

I dont think peoples opinions are extreme at all TS...there aint no hate that i can see on this forum..apart from paedophiles, baby killers and terrorists.

[bots]

it surely must depend on whether the person(s) doing it are honouring the culture or ridiculing it

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it surely must depend on whether the person(s) doing it are honouring the culture or ridiculing it

well I would have thought so but maybe that is too simple in these times? we need the drama! it 's like oxegen

[smudgie]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I would like to think as this is a festive celebration it could be seen thus.

[Crimson Dynamo]

as far as i can gather the odd person thinking you are being racist is not illegal or indeed any reason not to do something

in fact their opinion is not really any of my business?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

as far as i can gather the odd person thinking you are being racist is not illegal or indeed any reason not to do something

in fact their opinion is not really any of my business?

Would it be different if it seemed like the majority of people thought it; or at least, the majority of the race actually affected? I'm not saying that's the case with this specific example, just hypothetically.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would it be different if it seemed like the majority of people thought it; or at least, the majority of the race actually affected? I'm not saying that's the case with this specific example, just hypothetically.

i think that most people can judge when that point arises yes

same way I would not cut in a queue in a shop etc

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its like the word "p aki"

when I was young that was the name of the local shop "the p akis " or "the p aki* shop" but over the years the word "p aki" was used in a negative way and became associated with bad feeling (and to lump all asians as one) so became a word not to be used

Conversely the word "chinky" was and is to a degree used for a Chinese takeaway and now people are like "ooh you cant say that but it was never used in a negative way due probably to numbers and visibility of Chinese people (in Scotland in this example)

I think people just link the 2 words together "p aki, chinky" but in my mind they have very different etymology


So in reference to the question that word to describe a Pakistani became unacceptable due to just that, the majority decrying it so


and interestingly the swear filter agrees with me

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its like the word "p aki"

when I was young that was the name of the local shop "the p akis " or "the p aki* shop" but over the years the word "p aki" was used in a negative way and became associated with bad feeling (and to lump all asians as one) so became a word not to be used

Conversely the word "chinky" was and is to a degree used for a Chinese takeaway and now people are like "ooh you cant say that but it was never used in a negative way due probably to numbers and visibility of Chinese people (in Scotland in this example)

I think people just link the 2 words together "p aki, chinky" but in my mind they have very different etymology


So in reference to the question that word to describe a Pakistani became unacceptable due to just that, the majority decrying it so


and interestingly the swear filter agrees with me

It didn't that's why you had to break that word up.
All I got from your post is 'Oh why can't things be like they were in the 70s and casual racism be acceptable? Bring back Bernard Manning!!'

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It didn't that's why you had to break that word up.
All I got from your post is 'Oh why can't things be like they were in the 70s and casual racism be acceptable? Bring back Bernard Manning!!'

Think his point was that you can't say **** (p-word) but you can say "chinky", showing that one has become a more commonly recognised racial slur.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Think his point was that you can't say **** (p-word) but you can say "chinky", showing that one has become a more commonly recognised racial slur.

They are the same for me whether 'p shop' or 'c takeway' in my experience the people which use those terms will also use them as a racially aggravated descriptor 'effing p' or 'effing c'.
I don't recognise that one is any more or less offensive than the other personally.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They are the same for me whether 'p shop' or 'c takeway' in my experience the people which use those terms will also use them as a racially aggravated descriptor 'effing p' or 'effing c'.
I don't recognise that one is any more or less offensive than the other personally.

Maybe it's different by area, I rarely hear it used in the context of anything but the food and... to be frank... I hear "English" used as a slur far more often (English ****, English bastard, English whatever) so as mentioned before, I think context matters. Or to go back to the earlier example; I hate being referred to as "Scotch" and I'd guess most Scottish people do... but no one takes issue with the term "Scotch Whiskey". Likewise, in my (admittedly limited) experience of Chinese people in Britain, they would not like to be called "Chinkies" but have no issue with people referring to a Chinese meal as "getting a Chinky". Also most of my colleagues refer to it in those terms but would lose their **** (and have done) if they heard any slur like that being used in a derogatory or aggressive way.

It's fair enough to NOT want to call it that for whatever reason... I personally don't either because I'm a bit of a posho in that I don't really use many colloquialisms in general (I don't even call small things "wee" )

And, tbf, if a Chinese person ever said "I'd rather you didn't call it that" I'd expect people to respect that and not just defiantly be like "Tough I'll call it what I want!!" because there's just no need.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Think his point was that you can't say **** (p-word) but you can say "chinky", showing that one has become a more commonly recognised racial slur.

I think they both are where I'm from.

It's probably that the mods haven't come to the point they need to censor the second as it hasn't come up to be used as a slur.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I think they both are where I'm from.

It's probably that the mods haven't come to the point they need to censor the second as it hasn't come up to be used as a slur.

Its so rare that you see Chinese people in general outwith a large city. I never see any anywhere

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its like the word "p aki"

when I was young that was the name of the local shop "the p akis " or "the p aki* shop" but over the years the word "p aki" was used in a negative way and became associated with bad feeling (and to lump all asians as one) so became a word not to be used

Conversely the word "chinky" was and is to a degree used for a Chinese takeaway and now people are like "ooh you cant say that but it was never used in a negative way due probably to numbers and visibility of Chinese people (in Scotland in this example)

I think people just link the 2 words together "p aki, chinky" but in my mind they have very different etymology


So in reference to the question that word to describe a Pakistani became unacceptable due to just that, the majority decrying it so


and interestingly the swear filter agrees with me

Maybe right, though I'm too fresh-faced to remember "the p word" being used as anything other than a derogatory term. "Chinky" is a weird one; when it's used as shorthand for a Chinese takeaway or meal I;d say the etymology is no different to referring to a "chippy". Likewise, the Chinese restaurant next to my work (who we have a close working relationship with... by which I mean I swap them bags of change when they need it and they give me free chicken balls & chips ) has no issue with the term either. It does however become a problem when the actual PEOPLE are referred to as "Chinkies" and I guess that's the difference; nearly had a fight start when someone was referred to as "that wee chinky guy at the front" in a negative context.

Which is something I have some sympathy for, having lived in England for a while. Scotch whiskey? Fine. Scotch pie? No problem. Though I will argue that this is simply "a pie" with no prefix needed .

But when people called ME "Scotch" or "The Scotch guy" it did make me genuinely pissed off . So it's not the word, it's the usage.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Maybe right, though I'm too fresh-faced to remember "the p word" being used as anything other than a derogatory term. "Chinky" is a weird one; when it's used as shorthand for a Chinese takeaway or meal I;d say the etymology is no different to referring to a "chippy". Likewise, the Chinese restaurant next to my work (who we have a close working relationship with... by which I mean I swap them bags of change when they need it and they give me free chicken balls & chips ) has no issue with the term either. It does however become a problem when the actual PEOPLE are referred to as "Chinkies" and I guess that's the difference; nearly had a fight start when someone was referred to as "that wee chinky guy at the front" in a negative context.

Which is something I have some sympathy for, having lived in England for a while. Scotch whiskey? Fine. Scotch pie? No problem. Though I will argue that this is simply "a pie" with no prefix needed .

But when people called ME "Scotch" or "The Scotch guy" it did make me genuinely pissed off . So it's not the word, it's the usage.

agree with all of the above

[bots]

It is all about the usage rather than the words themselves. That's the nature of language and particularly English. Its not what you say, it's how you say it. That's why I think it's wrong to ban words outright. It diminishes our means to express ourselves. There has to be a more refined method of determining whats right and whats wrong, because those wishing to be derogatory will continually latch on to new terms to get their point across, they wont be stopped, and we just end up with fewer words in our vocabulary.

[Livia]

I went to a fancy dress party where someone was dressed up as a member of the SS. I was not insulted. It was a party. He wasn't there to gas Jews, he was there for a party.

When I lived in London, I knew a lot of white people who danced Bhangra. Should they be allowed to wear traditional Indian dress if they're white?

My opinion is that, if you intend to insult and ridicule, then you're racist. If you're having a party, a parade, whatever... and your intention is not to insult and ridicule, then what's the harm?

Kids dressed up as cowboys and Indians for years yet I've never heard anyone complain that it was insulting to Native Americans who, incidentally, per head of capita are the largest ethnic group in the USA to suffer fatal shootings at the hands of the police. I find it interesting that no one's taken up their plight and had a march.