Paki

[Traddict]

I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging undertone
whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I can't think
of other such examples.

Any insight on this?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

The name "Pakistan" (pa:kista:n) was invented by an advocate
of a separate state for the Muslims of India in the early
part of the 20th cent. from the names of the provinces or regions
that were to make today's Pakistan, more specifically former
West Pakistan ("k" represents Kashmir). Also pa:k in Persian
means "pure" and pa:kista:n means "Land of the Pure". This
is readily understood by Urdu speakers as well. Someone coming
from Pakistan is a Pakistani (not a Paki or Pak as there was
never such a group)

"Paki" became offensive because it was used by bigots in Britain.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:15:35 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:52:03 PM UTC+3, Traddict wrote:
> > I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging undertone
> > whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I can't think
> > of other such examples.
> >
> > Any insight on this?
>
> The name "Pakistan" (pa:kista:n) was invented by an advocate
> of a separate state for the Muslims of India in the early
> part of the 20th cent. from the names of the provinces or regions

In a pamphlet published in 1933 by Rahmat Ali

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:20:57 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:15:35 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:52:03 PM UTC+3, Traddict wrote:
> > > I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging undertone
> > > whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I can't think
> > > of other such examples.
> > >
> > > Any insight on this?
> >
> > The name "Pakistan" (pa:kista:n) was invented by an advocate
> > of a separate state for the Muslims of India in the early
> > part of the 20th cent. from the names of the provinces or regions
>
> In a pamphlet published in 1933 by Rahmat Ali
>
> > that were to make today's Pakistan, more specifically former
> > West Pakistan ("k" represents Kashmir). Also pa:k in Persian

Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, balochisTAN

<i> is euphonic and does not appear explicitly in
Urdu script. "Afghania" is the Pashto (Pakhto, "Pathan")
speaking area once called NW Frontier Province.

[charles]

In article <577d3730$0$19737$426a...@news.free.fr>, Traddict

Just off Wood Lane in the late 60s there was a Cash & Carry store run by a
Pakistani. It was knwn as Vendapaki

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Traddict]

"Yusuf B Gursey" <ygu...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : bfbeaa09-28e1-46e6...@googlegroups.com...

Thanks for the historical and linguistic backgrounds!

>> >
>> > "Paki" became offensive because it was used by bigots in Britain.

So it seems to be a matter of who coined the term, rather than of the term
being inherently offensive. The funny thing is this abbreviation is
offensive in a country the very inhabitants of which are often referred to
as "Brits" without it being disparaging in the least.

>

[bill van]

In article <577d48b7$0$19762$426a...@news.free.fr>,

That's consistent, imo. In both cases, it is the intent with which the
word is used that makes it disparaging or not. At the same time, the
perception of that intent by the people to whom the name is applied is
important. I think they generally understand whether they are being
disparaged by the use of a term, but there are probably instances of
misunderstanding.
--
bill

[Yusuf B Gursey]

If "Brits" were coined by anti-British groups, it may have been
considered offensive.

"Yid" is universally considered hate speech, yet it is
the stem of "Yiddish" a German dialect version of
Jüde > Jude from Hebrew Yehuda. It's hate speech because
it was used by Anti-Semitic groups.

"Paki" is considered offensive because it was used
by "Skinheads" in the expression "Paki-bashing".

Before Partition "Pakistan" was just a project of
political groups. There were just Indian Muslims
speaking various languages.


> >

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:39:14 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> "Yid" is universally considered hate speech, yet it is
> the stem of "Yiddish" a German dialect version of
> Jüde > Jude from Hebrew Yehuda. It's hate speech because
> it was used by Anti-Semitic groups.

My grandmother's refugee friends who lived in her building said they spoke
"Jewish," because that's all the word "Yiddish" means in Yiddish, and they
wouldn't think of not translating the term when they were speaking English.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:06:49 PM UTC+3, Traddict wrote:

"Yank" is considered pejorative in the US, used by Southerners
against all Northerners. For that matter their use of "Yankee"
for all Northerners isn't complimentary either.

But "Yankee" could be used as a badge of pride by the descendants
of the settlers of New England.

I don't think the use of "Yank" in British English denoting any
American is complimentary.

> >

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:15:35 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:52:03 PM UTC+3, Traddict wrote:
>> > I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging undertone
>> > whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I can't think
>> > of other such examples.
>> >
>> > Any insight on this?
>>
>> The name "Pakistan" (pa:kista:n) was invented by an advocate
>> of a separate state for the Muslims of India in the early
>> part of the 20th cent. from the names of the provinces or regions
>
>In a pamphlet published in 1933 by Rahmat Ali

While he was living in England. To be precise, at:

3, Humberstone Road,
Cambridge, England.

In fact he is still in England, in Newmarket Road Cemetery, Cambridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Declaration

>
>> that were to make today's Pakistan, more specifically former
>> West Pakistan ("k" represents Kashmir). Also pa:k in Persian
>> means "pure" and pa:kista:n means "Land of the Pure". This
>> is readily understood by Urdu speakers as well. Someone coming
>> from Pakistan is a Pakistani (not a Paki or Pak as there was
>> never such a group)
>>
>> "Paki" became offensive because it was used by bigots in Britain.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Which could lead to the question "Were the founders of Pakistan bigots
because of their rejection of sharing a country with non-Muslims?".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I don't know how frequently it is used these days in BrE, but when it
was in fairly common use "Yank" was just a colloquial equivalent of
"American". The context and/or tone of voice might make it pejorative.

[Traddict]

"Yusuf B Gursey" <ygu...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de

discussion : e944781d-1503-4326...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, but referring to a people using a foreign dialect or language may as
such at least denote xenophobia, whereas "Paki" is the abbreviation of a
regular English word. French, in turn, has the words "crouillat/crouille" to
offensively refer to Arabs, which are derived from Arabic "khoya" ("brother"
= "frère", which BTW can also be an offensive word meaning "Arab" in
French).

[Richard Heathfield]

On 06/07/16 18:15, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
<snip>

> "Paki" became offensive because it was used by bigots in Britain.

Bigots use the definite article "the" far more often than they use the
word "Paki", and yet "the" has not become offensive.

"Used by bigots" clearly isn't enough to get a word on the 'banned' list.

But there shouldn't /be/ a 'banned' list. Everybody should be free to
use whatever words they like (subject to applicable laws, such as
incitement to violence), and everybody else should be free to modify
their opinions of people according to the words they choose and how they
choose to use them.

You see, it isn't words that are offensive, not really. What is really
offensive is some people's /attitudes/ towards some other people. It is
not the two syllables of "Paki" that are offensive. What is offensive is
the attitudes of some people towards those who hail from the country of
Pakistan, and those attitudes would remain offensive no matter what
words are used to verbalise those attitudes.

Very often, words become /considered/ offensive (generally by people who
haven't thought it through) because of an association with a quality or
activity that is considered offensive (whether or not it actually is
offensive).

Take prostitution, for example. People didn't like to use the word
"prostitute", so they coined words like "hooker", "tom", "lady of the
night", "working girl"... And each new term serves, *for a while*. And
then the association becomes more widely known, and now the term must be
discarded and a new one found. We actually use a word /until/ everyone
knows what it means, and then we change it for something new. How daft
is that?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey

New York Yankees? Depends on the usage.

>But "Yankee" could be used as a badge of pride by the descendants
>of the settlers of New England.

True.

>I don't think the use of "Yank" in British English denoting any
>American is complimentary.

And "Limey" is any more acceptable? Remember, in George M. Cohan's
song, "That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming
The drums rum-tumming everywhere."

Again, it depends on usage and the environment in which it is used.

[Richard Heathfield]

If "Paki" is offensive, so is "Brit", and for the same reason. But
neither term is truly offensive, because it isn't words themselves that
offend people. What really offends us is (or should be) the attitudes
that lie behind those words.

Nevertheless, we are judged by what we write (or say). To saw bits off
words in such a cavalier manner is a sign of lazy writing (or, of
course, lazy speaking).

[occam]

The licence plate of the Pakistani ambassador's car in the 70's was 'PAK
1'. This was the source of a lot of hilarity. Thereafter it was changed
to '1 PAK'.

http://tinyurl.com/gwk2o9c

[Ross]

"Jap" springs to mind.
"Yid" (mentioned by Yusuf) is Yiddish for "Jew". In Yiddish it's
not offensive, in English it is.
Words which are not intrinsically insulting may become so. I don't
have any general insights; in the cases I know of, it's
a complex function of the historical/social relations between the
users and the target group.

[Don Phillipson]

"Traddict" <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:577d3730$0$19737$426a...@news.free.fr...

> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging
> undertone whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I
> can't think of other such examples.

The pattern seems familiar. Nigger entered English as a simple loan-word
(from Latin niger or derivatives e.g. Spanish negro) but became in 19th
century America and 20th century Britain first ipso facto contemptuous
and then a term of abuse: so the same word has nowadays become an insult
(perhaps like "crusader" in Arabic.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Some were like that. Rahmat Ali seems to be among them.
Some were latecomers to the idea of partition, for them
it was a last resort in the face of Hindu extremism or
nationalism. Some Indian Muslims remained opposed to
the idea of partition and I had met such an intellectual
and former politician who had remained in India.

After the independence of Bangladesh, there are nearly as
many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. India
is 3rd (after Indonesia and Pakistan) in terms of Muslim
population, followed by Bangladesh. But only 14.2% of the
population of India is Muslim. India once had a Muslim
president, though with little effective power.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

The calque Sali:biyyu:n from Sali:b "cross" is relatively new to
Arabic and to Muslim discourse in general. Contemporary sources
describe them as "Franks" 'ifranj a term to describe any from
Western (Catholic) Europe. The pejorative sense it had was that
of "barbarian" refering to their culture, this clearly excluded
Greeks, Armenians, Copts and Aramaeans and Arab Christians.
Greeks (called Romans, ru:m) were much respected. The Muslim
Crusader era Muslim writers did note the crosses on Crusader
uniforms.

The singular Sali:biyy is a common Arab Christian name given
to boys born on a certain day locally associated with some
miracle involving a cross. It is not confused with "crusader".

OTOH European sources at the time called all Muslims "Saracens"
whether they were Arabs, Turks, Berbers or Kurds.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 7/6/2016 2:56 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> "Yank" is considered pejorative in the US, used by Southerners
> against all Northerners.

Not Southerners I've encountered. "Yank" for "Yankee" to my ear is
purely British and innocuous. I'm sure there must be pockets of
Southerners, Mets and Red Sox fans, and Down East-haters who use it in a
vulgar sense, but that's not at all common.

¬R

[Arindam Banerjee]

If you read M J Akbar and other Indian nationalist Muslims, you will find that their point was that the Muslim elites thought they could get better jobs for themselves and their offspring with Partition. These elites did not mind creating huge problems for the rest, lasting to this day and in the foreseeable future.

Another point they make is that with Partition the Muslims became divided into three groups. A united India would make Indian Muslims a relatively stronger force, for then they would not be divided by politics and geography.

To counter that, the Pakistanis would say "Huskay liya Pakistan, larhke lenge Hindustan". (We got Pakistan laughingly, we will get India with violence).

Thus there have been what I consider civil wars, including terrorism, since 1947, in India with the departure of the direct foreign rulers. So far, the original aspirations of the Pakistanis have not been realised.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Yank" is considered pejorative in the US, used by Southerners
>against all Northerners.

Absolutely untrue. This keeps popping up, but never accompanied by
any attesting examples. As far as I can determine, the only time the
term "Yank" is used is overseas when referring to Americans from any
part of the US.

If a Southerner, not just someone who lives in the south of the US,
uses a pejorative phrase about northerners, it is "Yankee". The term,
in that context, includes people from the far northeast as well as
people from anywhere else that isn't in the South.

Go to some small town in, say, North Carolina where outsiders have
built a golf course and a sprawling second home or retirement
community and the natives of that area will complain that the Yankees
have ruined the town. The "Yankees" in this case might be developers
from Miami or Atlanta or New York.

>For that matter their use of "Yankee" for all Northerners isn't complimentary either.
>But "Yankee" could be used as a badge of pride by the descendants
>of the settlers of New England.

Not "could be", "is".

>
>I don't think the use of "Yank" in British English denoting any
>American is complimentary.
>

While not complimentary, I don't think it's a derogatory as it was
during and immediately after WWII. I think today, if used at all,
it's just an identifier of nationality like "Aussie".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 02:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> I don't think the use of "Yank" in British English denoting any
>> American is complimentary.
>>
> While not complimentary, I don't think it's a derogatory as it was
> during and immediately after WWII. I think today, if used at all,
> it's just an identifier of nationality like "Aussie".

In the UK, "Yank" is indeed just an identifier, like "Aussie". It might
be spoken in a derogatory tone, of course, but so might any word. The
British tend to aim their derogatory terms mostly at certain European
countries: "dago", "wop", "frog", "kraut", and so on. We are less rude
about other European peoples - I can't think of any derogatory terms for
the Poles, Scandinavians, Portuguese, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Slovaks,
Swiss, Austrians, Yugoslavians, etc.

I think we picked up "dago", "wop", and "kraut" from the USA.

The Dutch used to be frogs, but we appear to have kissed and made up at
some point in the early 19th century, and "frog" was redeployed as a
term of abuse for the French.

Two world wars gave the UK plenty of reason to label the Germans with
negative ethnonyms, but we seem to have dealt relatively lightly with
them - "hun", "jerry", and "Fritz" being the most common. When we really
wanted to be rude about the Germans, we just called them Nazis. (Some
people, believe it or not, still do, which troubles me somewhat.)

As far as I can make out, the only slang ethnonym of UK origin that is
really intended to be nasty is "frog", and this reflects the fact that
France has been our mortal enemy for almost a thousand years.

(Breaking news: a gunboat has now been dispatched, and should shortly be
arriving at Calais.)

[Ramapriya D]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+4, Traddict wrote:
> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging undertone
> whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I can't think
> of other such examples.
>
> Any insight on this?

Only in some parts of the world. In India, we've referred to Pakistanis as Pakis for as long as I can recall, and as *nothing* but a simple identifier. We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'. 'Nigger' itself is hilarious because non-blacks regard it as racist whereas blacks address each other as 'nigger' routinely.

Political correctness has gone overboard, little else. I wonder how the former Gov of CA would say his name now - Arnold Schwarzeafricanamerican? ;)

Ramapriya

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya D
<d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+4, Traddict wrote:
>> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging undertone
>> whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I can't think
>> of other such examples.
>>
>> Any insight on this?
>
>
>Only in some parts of the world. In India, we've referred to Pakistanis as Pakis for as
>long as I can recall, and as *nothing* but a simple identifier.

>We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'.

Yes, it is frowned up because it indicates that the speaker is living
in the past. When "Negro" was acceptable it was also acceptable to
have separate drinking fountains.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jul-07 02:51, Traddict wrote:
> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging
> undertone whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I
> can't think of other such examples.
>
> Any insight on this?

Any term can become offensive. The only requirement is the existence of
people who wish to give offence. A term that is an abbreviation will do
as well as anything else. You take some term that used to be neutral,
and make it offensive by using it in an offensive way.

I remember a time when there was some anti-Italian prejudice in
Australia. One of the disparaging words used was "Eye-tie". There's
another abbreviation for you, and someone else has mentioned "Jap".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[charles]

In article <nlkdm7$i7t$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not "the UK's enenmy" - England's. Remember Scotland & France has an
alliance streching back years (Auld Alliance" and Mary, Queen of Scots was
marries to the Dauphin who became King Francis II.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Meanderthal would be polite.
>
> Ramapriya

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-07-06 16:51:59 +0000, Traddict said:

> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to

"come to"? It was already offensive the first time I heard it.

> take on a disparaging undertone whereas it's the mere abbreviation of
> a regular demonym, and I can't think of other such examples.
>
> Any insight on this?

--
athel

[RH Draney]

On 7/6/2016 8:17 PM, Ramapriya D wrote:
>
> Political correctness has gone overboard, little else. I wonder how the former Gov of CA would say his name now - Arnold Schwarzeafricanamerican? ;)

Arnold cheerfully admits that the translation of his surname is "black
ploughman"...when he told David Letterman this, Dave's follow-up was to
ask what the Kennedys thought of having a black ploughman in the family....r

[Dingbat]

In John Masters' book Bhowani Junction, WAC I was pronounced as if spelt <wackeye>.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 05:02, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya D
> <d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>> We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'.
>
> Yes, it is frowned up because it indicates that the speaker is living
> in the past. When "Negro" was acceptable it was also acceptable to
> have separate drinking fountains.

That's faulty logic. The word 'slave' doesn't indicate that the speaker
is living in the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to own a
slave. The word 'noose' doesn't indicate that the speaker is living in
the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to hang people. And so
on. Examples abound.

[Richard Heathfield]

When I was a kid, I learned 'eye-tie', 'jap', 'wop', and all the rest of
them, just like all the other kids did (i.e. by osmosis, because the
teachers never covered stuff like this). What I /didn't/ learn was that
these terms were supposed to be disparaging in some way. (Even 'frog'
seemed innocuous enough.) I just assumed that these were slang labels
attaching to foreign peoples, and harmless in themselves. I further
assumed that these foreign people would have their own, similarly
innocuous, foreign slang words for peoples who were foreign in their
eyes. And you know what? I bet they still do. And I bet they don't
agonise over whether and when to use them.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 06:21, charles wrote:
> In article <nlkdm7$i7t$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> As far as I can make out, the only slang ethnonym of UK origin that is
>> really intended to be nasty is "frog", and this reflects the fact that
>> France has been our mortal enemy for almost a thousand years.
>
> Not "the UK's enenmy" - England's.

Allow me to give the Scexit vote a little boost by claiming that,
currently, "UK" and "England" are effectively the same thing, and have
been since 1701. If we want the Scots to have an opinion, we'll send
them one.

> Remember Scotland & France has an
> alliance streching back years (Auld Alliance" and Mary, Queen of Scots was
> marries to the Dauphin who became King Francis II.

Surrounded, by God!

[Dingbat]

I once, in Austin's Zilker Park, met a lady who claimed to be Scot, settled for centuries in France. Her ancestors had gone to fight with the French, against England.

[John Ritson]

In article <559bc798...@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<cha...@candehope.me.uk> writes

>In article <nlkdm7$i7t$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/07/16 02:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>> > <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> >> I don't think the use of "Yank" in British English denoting any
>> >> American is complimentary.
>> >>
>> > While not complimentary, I don't think it's a derogatory as it was
>> > during and immediately after WWII. I think today, if used at all,
>> > it's just an identifier of nationality like "Aussie".
>
>> In the UK, "Yank" is indeed just an identifier, like "Aussie". It might
>> be spoken in a derogatory tone, of course, but so might any word. The
>> British tend to aim their derogatory terms mostly at certain European
>> countries: "dago", "wop", "frog", "kraut", and so on. We are less rude
>> about other European peoples - I can't think of any derogatory terms for
>> the Poles, Scandinavians, Portuguese, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Slovaks,
>> Swiss, Austrians, Yugoslavians, etc.

There is the rhyming slang for "Yank" - "Septic"

--
John Ritson

[CDB]

On 06/07/2016 12:51 PM, Traddict wrote:

> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging
> undertone whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym,

> and I can't think of other such examples.

"Mex". "Brit", as you say farther downthread; but that is not usually
used disparagingly. To some extent, "Paki" is an insult because South
Asians are insultable in the estimation of those who use it. Look at
the rapid evolution of polite words for "person of recent African
origins": each new term takes on negative associations because
prejudices against that group are real and strong.

> Any insight on this?

One factor that may have greased the slide is the [i] of the ending,
which makes it sound like a diminutive, and therefore possibly an
ethnic or national insult, like "Argie" or "Belgie".

[Ross]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:46:10 PM UTC+12, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/07/16 05:02, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya D
> > <d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >> We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'.
> >
> > Yes, it is frowned up because it indicates that the speaker is living
> > in the past. When "Negro" was acceptable it was also acceptable to
> > have separate drinking fountains.
>
> That's faulty logic. The word 'slave' doesn't indicate that the speaker
> is living in the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to own a
> slave. The word 'noose' doesn't indicate that the speaker is living in
> the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to hang people. And so
> on. Examples abound.

Your logic is at least as faulty. 'Slave' and 'noose' are the only terms
available for real categories (past and present). Slaves never denied
that they were slaves, and their descendants have never denied
being the descendants of slaves. Nooses don't care what you call them.
'Negro', however, is one of a number of terms applied to a social group,
each of them fraught with social and historical connotations. Someone using 'Negro' to refer to present-day African-Americans has either not been
aware of the changes, over the past half century, in how the people
in question want to be referred to, or is choosing to ignore that history.
That is how I understand Tony's point.

The only point where I would take issue with Tony is that he seems
to suggest an intrinsic link between "Negro" as a term of reference
and the discriminatory and oppressive conditions that prevailed
during the time of its use. It can't be emphasized too often that
"Negro", up to the 1960s, was a perfectly polite and respectful term,
used by leaders of the African-American community, and by white people
who in no way accepted separate drinking fountains and the rest.

What happened was that in the 1960s a new generation perceived a great
change in progress, and felt that a new name better fitted the
new reality. By 2016, everybody should know that.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

"Black" came about because the community correctly decided
they should embrace the color of their skin and not regard
it as something negative as the color is otherwise associated
with. "African-American" came about because the community felt
they should be referred by the place of origin of their
ancestors like other communities. But it has not entirely displaced
"Black". People should simply respect what others want to be
called as. Simple as that. If people find some word offensive,
it is offensive.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

It's under the guise of regular formations of adjectives ending
in -i found in Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Hindi (the Semitic
ending is unrelated to the one found in Indo-Iranian though they
sound similar) but it isn't, probably the diminutive you
pointed out.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> People should simply respect what others want to be
> called as. Simple as that.

I agree with that...

> If people find some word offensive,
> it is offensive.

...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
those people/.

I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
it turns out that I can still say it just fine.

If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
not mine.

[1] I'd love to say 'never', but I don't suppose that's true.

[Cheryl]

On 2016-07-07 9:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> People should simply respect what others want to be
>> called as. Simple as that.
>
> I agree with that...
>
>> If people find some word offensive,
>> it is offensive.
>
> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
> those people/.
>
> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
> my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
> example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
> it turns out that I can still say it just fine.
>
> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
> limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
> not mine.
>
> [1] I'd love to say 'never', but I don't suppose that's true.
>

I mostly agree. I don't really care if someone hates me, as long as they
don't act on it in an illegal fashion, for example, by trying to injure
or kill me. I'd rather not, of course, incite hatred or be hated, but
I've never really understood why it's worse to be assaulted by someone
who hates some group you are or are suspected to be a member of than by
someone with some other motivations. Successful prosecutions of those
who assault would punish them and possibly deter others. Someone once
explained to me that the reason we need special hate crimes legislation
is because assaults on members of some groups weren't being investigated
properly, an approach that seems to me to be inefficient at the best and
counter-productive at the worse.

--
Cheryl

[CDB]

On 07/07/2016 8:06 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

Yes, it would be a matter of perception among English-speakers, not a
real connection. And I was speculating, maybe a little wildly.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

I used that reference because it places the use of the word in the
same timeline as the practice. The person using that word today is
mentally in that same timeline.

>What happened was that in the 1960s a new generation perceived a great
>change in progress, and felt that a new name better fitted the
>new reality. By 2016, everybody should know that.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > People should simply respect what others want to be
> > called as. Simple as that.
>
> I agree with that...
>
> > If people find some word offensive,
> > it is offensive.
>
> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
> those people/.
>
> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
> my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
> example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
> it turns out that I can still say it just fine.

It's truly astonishing that such an attitude can still exist, let alone be
expressed publicly, in 2016. This perfectly encapsulates the not exactly
friendly caricature "Colonel Blimp" of the early 20th century.

I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.

Though perhaps it was not deprecated on account of offensiveness, but for
some perhaps legitimate reason, and therefore has nothing to do with the matter.

> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
> limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
> not mine.

No, it is very much your problem. You know the language to be offensive; you
use it; it is therefore your intention to offend.

> [1] I'd love to say 'never', but I don't suppose that's true.

You claim that you don't even know?

[Cheryl]

That is an overstatement as well as a misinterpretation of the previous
statement.

It's an overstatement because you are assuming that there is some
universally agreed standard of offensive language. Language changes over
time and varies among different people at the same time. The level of
"offensiveness" of any term varies considerably depending on who is
using what and in what context, and it is entirely possible for someone
to be offended by the speech of another person who had no intention of
offending.

And I wouldn't interpret "rarely seek to give offence" as "know the
language to be offensive".

--
Cheryl

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:44:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> > People should simply respect what others want to be
>> > called as. Simple as that.
>>
>> I agree with that...
>>
>> > If people find some word offensive,
>> > it is offensive.
>>
>> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
>> those people/.
>>
>> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
>> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
>> my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
>> example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
>> it turns out that I can still say it just fine.
>
>It's truly astonishing that such an attitude can still exist, let alone be
>expressed publicly, in 2016. This perfectly encapsulates the not exactly
>friendly caricature "Colonel Blimp" of the early 20th century.
>
>I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.
>

I have a distant memory that to some people "brainstorm" means an
epileptic fit or a nervous breakdown.

Google to the rescue:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=brainstorm+epilepsy


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027985/Council-bans-brainstorming-replaces-term-thought-showers--fear-offending-epileptics.html

Council bans 'brainstorming' and replaces the term with 'thought
showers'... for fear of offending epileptics

Brainstorming, first coined in the 1890s, was used by psychiatrists
to refer to severe nervous attacks. And although since the 1940s it
has meant a meeting to produce new ideas, councillors are concerned
it may prove offensive to epileptics.

https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/press/facts/brainstorming-offensive

Is the word 'brainstorming' offensive to people with epilepsy?

The word 'brainstorming' is not offensive to the vast majority of
people with epilepsy, according to a survey carried out by Epilepsy
Society in 2005.

The word has been used since the 1940s to describe the method of
problem-solving or generating ideas where all present at a meeting
make spontaneous suggestions. In the last year, it has been reported
in the press that both the Welsh Development Agency and the
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Belfast have
deemed the word brainstorming to be politically incorrect, with
'thought-showers' suggested as a suitable replacement.

However, in the survey, 93 per cent of people with epilepsy did not
find the term derogatory or offensive in any way and many felt that
this sort of political correctness singled out people with epilepsy
as being easily offended.

In separate research, we asked for the views of people with epilepsy
on the matter. One commented:

"I have no objection whatsoever to the term brainstorming. I am sure
the public do not, in any way, associate this with epilepsy so why
should we?"

Our view is that it depends upon the context: if the word is being
used to describe a meeting where participants are suggesting ideas,
then its use is not offensive to people with epilepsy. However, it
should not be used to describe a seizure or the electrical activity
within the brain during a seizure.

>Though perhaps it was not deprecated on account of offensiveness, but for
>some perhaps legitimate reason, and therefore has nothing to do with the matter.
>
>> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
>> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
>> limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
>> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
>> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
>> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
>> not mine.
>
>No, it is very much your problem. You know the language to be offensive; you
>use it; it is therefore your intention to offend.
>
>> [1] I'd love to say 'never', but I don't suppose that's true.
>
>You claim that you don't even know?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Richard Heathfield]

Neither would I. Nor would I accept that language /in itself/ can be
offensive - the offence is in the intent, not in the choice of
individual words. If I choose to offend someone (which is rare), I will
generally do it by selecting individual words that would bring a tear of
joy to even the most politically correct of prudes, and then combining
them in a way that makes my intent crystal clear.

Even the briefest perusal of Mr Daniels's 'contributions' to this
newsgroup will show that he is in no position to be lecturing others on
giving offence. It is for that very reason that I added him to my
newsgroup filters. Doing so resulted in an immediate and significant
drop in the Offensiveness Quotient of the articles in my newsfeed.

I recognise that quite a few people here either can't filter out Mr
Daniels's articles (perhaps because they use a Web interface to Usenet,
such as Google Groups, or because their newsreader software doesn't
support filtering), or have chosen not to do so. And of those people,
some choose to reply to him.

I respect that choice, even though I don't agree with it and even though
it means some of his 'contributions' do appear as quoted text in those
replies.

But when I see those 'contributions', I glance through them in the hope
that he has mended his ways and decided to become a part of the
civilised community that is a.u.e. I am, of course, invariably
disappointed, but maybe one day that will change, in which case I will
be the first to applaud him (or possibly about the nineteenth, since it
might take me some time to find out).

Until that day dawns, Mr Daniels's views on civilised discourse are
about as much use as a Jeffrey Archer book about honesty.

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-07-06, occam wrote:

> The licence plate of the Pakistani ambassador's car in the 70's was 'PAK

> 1'. This was the source of a lot of hilarity. Thereafter it was changed

> to '1 PAK'.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gwk2o9c

There's a small chain of supermarkets in Derby &c called "Pak Foods".

AS the blazing sun rose over a picturesque valley in Pakistan, the
young brothers walked the dusty road to their parents' farm.

The hot, humid scene could not be any further from that of the
streets of Normanton in Derby, but the boys were destined to become
known as the men who started Pak Foods.

<http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/path-dusty-farm-superstore-success/story-11601385-detail/story.html>


--
Some people just have hatred built into them. I don’t know if there
is anything we can do for them... The right wingers of our country
might just have bad genetics. And I’m saying that as a transvestite.
--- Eddie Izzard

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-07-07, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:44:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.
>>
> I have a distant memory that to some people "brainstorm" means an
> epileptic fit or a nervous breakdown.
>
> Google to the rescue:
> https://www.google.co.uk/#q=brainstorm+epilepsy
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027985/Council-bans-brainstorming-replaces-term-thought-showers--fear-offending-epileptics.html
>
> Council bans 'brainstorming' and replaces the term with 'thought
> showers'... for fear of offending epileptics
>
> Brainstorming, first coined in the 1890s, was used by psychiatrists
> to refer to severe nervous attacks. And although since the 1940s it
> has meant a meeting to produce new ideas, councillors are concerned
> it may prove offensive to epileptics.

I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before.

> https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/press/facts/brainstorming-offensive
>
> Is the word 'brainstorming' offensive to people with epilepsy?
>
> The word 'brainstorming' is not offensive to the vast majority of
> people with epilepsy, according to a survey carried out by Epilepsy
> Society in 2005.

...

> However, in the survey, 93 per cent of people with epilepsy did not
> find the term derogatory or offensive in any way and many felt that
> this sort of political correctness singled out people with epilepsy
> as being easily offended.
>

I guess that's because 93% of them haven't heard of that either!


--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:19:15 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> People should simply respect what others want to be
>> called as. Simple as that.
>
>I agree with that...
>
>> If people find some word offensive,
>> it is offensive.
>
>...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
>those people/.
>
>I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
>vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
>my vocabulary for me.

Society has done that for you. You can use any words you choose to
use, but the perception that people have of you is largely based on
the vocabulary you choose to use. That is the point I've tried to
make: you will be judged to be living in the past if you choose to
use "Negro" to describe people.

You will also be suspected of racism if you choose to use "Negro"
where "Black" or some other currently acceptable term is available.
It's because you made that choice that brands you.

What is rather incongruous about your position is that you seem to
welcome being called a "pedant", and a pedant is a person who is
excessively concerned with choosing the right word. A true pedant
would choose the word that is right for the times as well as right in
context and definition.

>If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
>don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
>limits on my speech.

Of course they are. The right they are placing is the right to make
their own determination of sort of person you are. If you tell
someone you couldn't make it to phone because you were taking a shit,
they have the right to think you are a rather crude person. They are
not forbidding you to use the word "shit", but they are judging you by
your choice of words and phrasing.

>As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
>words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
>I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
>nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
>not mine.
>

No, it is *your* problem as well. Your choice of words may determine
how they perceive you, and their view of you is a problem you've
created. You have lost credibility and respect in those people's
minds.

[Adam Funk]

It doesn't help the situation when organizations speaking on behalf of
minority groups try make terminology changes that come across to
others as arbitrary. I'm not saying they don't have good motivations
for doing it, but it encourages the "look, it's political correctness
gone mad" mentality.


--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. --- Whitfield Diffie

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:22:14 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@med.mun.ca> wrote:

>>> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
>>> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
>>> limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
>>> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
>>> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
>>> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
>>> not mine.
>>
>> No, it is very much your problem. You know the language to be offensive; you
>> use it; it is therefore your intention to offend.
>
>That is an overstatement as well as a misinterpretation of the previous
>statement.
>
>It's an overstatement because you are assuming that there is some
>universally agreed standard of offensive language.

Well...that depends on who "universal" applies to. The word
"universal" means everyone, and not everyone considers any word to be
unacceptable. The fact that some people consider "nigger" to be an
acceptable term to use doesn't mean that society in general considers
it to be inoffensive.

The real point is that society in general considers certain terms to
be offensive, and the deliberate use of those terms offends. People
of reasonable intelligence know which terms are offensive to society
in general and avoid using those terms.

If a person is aware that a term is considered to be offensive by
society in general, and uses that term, it can only be considered to
be a provocative choice. The fact that there is no universal standard
that says it is not necessarily offensive is no excuse.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:28:59 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

Yes!

It begets the question "Should we risk offending the 7% who find the
term derogatory or offensive?".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Punctuation error.
...derogatory or offensive"?

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:29:07 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:


>Even the briefest perusal of Mr Daniels's 'contributions' to this
>newsgroup will show that he is in no position to be lecturing others on
>giving offence.

I'll snip most of this, but will gently point out that you have formed
a perception of PTD based on what he has written here. He has made
choices in what to say and how to say things.

You are defending your right to make choices of what words to use.
Those choices determine how you are perceived.

I should point out - with emphasis - that I am not at all comparing
the two of you. PTD deserves his reputation as being offensive; you
are merely retaining the right to be offensive if you so choose. So
far, you haven't.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 16:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:19:15 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> People should simply respect what others want to be
>>> called as. Simple as that.
>>
>> I agree with that...
>>
>>> If people find some word offensive,
>>> it is offensive.
>>
>> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
>> those people/.
>>
>> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
>> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
>> my vocabulary for me.
>
> Society has done that for you. You can use any words you choose to
> use, but the perception that people have of you is largely based on
> the vocabulary you choose to use.

If someone wishes to perceive my word choices as offensive, that's
entirely their choice. But they are probably (indeed, almost certainly)
wrong.

> That is the point I've tried to
> make: you will be judged to be living in the past if you choose to
> use "Negro" to describe people.

And that's fair enough. (To be clear, I /don't/ choose to use the word
'Negro' to describe people; but I reserve the right so to do, provided
only that I do not do so in a way that is against the law of the land.)

How people perceive me is, obviously, at least partly a function of what
I say and how I say it, and the same is true of all of us. I have no
objection to that.

What I object to is being told that I *must not* use particular words
because those words are offensive. And there's a sound practical reason
for this, which I mentioned not so long ago. If there is a term A to
describe some group of people and then A is determined to be
"offensive", it is soon replaced by term B. And, in due course, B is
branded "offensive" too, so it is replaced by term C. And then D, and E,
and so on, right through the alphabet. It's ludicrous.

I now have no idea whatsoever of what the currently approved term is for
any of various ethnic minority groups. For all I know, I could be two or
three words behind the rest of the world. So I might use a word with the
/intention/ of being merely descriptive, and yet be branded 'offensive'
by those who are more concerned with words than with intentions, and
more hung up on Political Correctness than on compassion and humanity.

> You will also be suspected of racism if you choose to use "Negro"
> where "Black" or some other currently acceptable term is available.
> It's because you made that choice that brands you.

No, sir. It's not because of that. It's because other people choose to
react reflexively to individual word choices, rather than take the
trouble to read for comprehension.

> What is rather incongruous about your position is that you seem to
> welcome being called a "pedant", and a pedant is a person who is
> excessively concerned with choosing the right word.

I would say that "pedant" is a word used by people who don't care about
getting it right, to describe people who do. :-)

> A true pedant

...is Scottish. Clearly, then, I'm not a true pedant, at least not
according to you.

> would choose the word that is right for the times as well as right in
> context and definition.

Shifting sands cannot be trusted. (Ooh, is that original? [A quick check
later] Damn, someone beat me to it.)

It's certainly true that language moves with time - but Political
Correctness drives it willy-nilly in inappropriate directions.

>> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
>> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
>> limits on my speech.
>
> Of course they are.

Of course they are what? Do you mean "of course they do have the right
to place limits on my speech"? If so, I disagree.

> The right they are placing is the right to make
> their own determination of sort of person you are.

/That/ right goes without saying.

> If you tell
> someone you couldn't make it to phone because you were taking a shit,
> they have the right to think you are a rather crude person. They are
> not forbidding you to use the word "shit", but they are judging you by
> your choice of words and phrasing.

I have no problem with that.

>> As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
>> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
>> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
>> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
>> not mine.
>>
> No, it is *your* problem as well. Your choice of words may determine
> how they perceive you, and their view of you is a problem you've
> created. You have lost credibility and respect in those people's
> minds.

I'll work an example.

Me: "One of the projects I've been putting off recently is a GUI tool to
make it quicker to crack a particular polyalphabetic cipher devised by a
crackpot in sci.crypt."
Alice: "You hideous monster! You used the C-word! Drug addiction is a
terrible burden to bear, and your callous mockery of it is disgusting. I
ought to tell the police!"

Well, that's Alice's problem, not mine. The word "crack" can indeed be a
slang reference to a dangerous drug, but that isn't what I meant, and
Alice ought to know that the word has a more relevant meaning in this
context. The word "crackpot" may or may not be used for drug addicts. I
don't know. But even if it is, the word has a more relevant meaning in
this context. I may well have lost credibility and respect in Alice's
mind, but she has also lost credibility and respect in mine.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 17:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:29:07 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Even the briefest perusal of Mr Daniels's 'contributions' to this
>> newsgroup will show that he is in no position to be lecturing others on
>> giving offence.
>
> I'll snip most of this, but will gently point out that you have formed
> a perception of PTD based on what he has written here. He has made
> choices in what to say and how to say things.

Yes, of course. It's my right to form an opinion of his posting
behaviour, and it's his right to say what he damn well pleases. Both
rights are important and should be respected. I certainly respect his
right to say what he damn well pleases, but that doesn't mean I have to
respect what he actually says.

> You are defending your right to make choices of what words to use.
> Those choices determine how you are perceived.

That's correct, yes. But they are /my/ choices, and I do not want my
choices to be restricted arbitrarily by other people's preconceptions
about what is or is not offensive.

> I should point out - with emphasis - that I am not at all comparing
> the two of you.

I realise that.

> PTD deserves his reputation as being offensive; you
> are merely retaining the right to be offensive if you so choose.

We *need* the right to offend (that is, to be offensive). It's an
essential part of civil liberty. A few years ago, British comedians were
vocally concerned at the implications of the Racial and Religious Hatred
Bill, which threatened to intrude on the right of satirists to mock
whatever they felt needed mocking. I don't know whether they were right
about the exact implications of the law, but they were certainly right
to be concerned, and they were right to speak up about it. I realise
that this is a "thin end of the wedge" argument, but the removal of the
right to say things that may or will offend certain categories of people
is dangerous because of where it can lead: to the removal of the right
to criticise the leadership of the nation.

Having said that, I'm not overly interested in offending people. I /am/
interested in freedom of speech, though, and I value it above the risk
of offending Political Correctness Officers.

> So far, you haven't.

I'm glad to hear you say so. :-)

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 09:46:07 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 07/07/16 05:02, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya D
>> <d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>> We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'.
>>
>> Yes, it is frowned up because it indicates that the speaker is living
>> in the past. When "Negro" was acceptable it was also acceptable to
>> have separate drinking fountains.
>
>That's faulty logic. The word 'slave' doesn't indicate that the speaker
>is living in the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to own a
>slave. The word 'noose' doesn't indicate that the speaker is living in
>the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to hang people. And so
>on. Examples abound.

For your examples to be valid there would have to be other single
words that could be used to describe the same thing and have the same
connotation. There are no direct synonyms for "slave" or "noose". You
can describe "slave" and "noose" with other words, but you can't
replace them with words that have the exact same meaning.

"Negro" is different from those words. We have "Black" and
"African-American" that mean exactly the same thing, and these words
are currently acceptable.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 17:24:12 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Please ignore that incorrect correction.
My brain wasn't fully engaged.

I must now prepare my mind for semi-sleeping through the Germany v
France soccer match.

[the Omrud]

On 07/07/2016 09:55, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> On 07/07/16 06:21, charles wrote:
>> In article <nlkdm7$i7t$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> <snip>
>>> As far as I can make out, the only slang ethnonym of UK origin that is
>>> really intended to be nasty is "frog", and this reflects the fact that
>>> France has been our mortal enemy for almost a thousand years.
>>
>> Not "the UK's enenmy" - England's.
>
> Allow me to give the Scexit vote a little boost by claiming that,
> currently, "UK" and "England" are effectively the same thing, and have
> been since 1701.

Hmm, perhaps we should tell the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.

--
David

[Richard Heathfield]

"Black", to me, means R0 G0 B0. I doubt whether there is anyone on the
planet that matches that colour spec. "African-American"? Let's see:

"African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who
have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United
States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial
Sub-Saharan African ancestry." - source: uslegal.com (I have no idea
whether that's considered authoritative).

If USLEGAL's definition is correct, then there is no particular reason
why African-Americans need even be dark-skinned, let alone black. Nor is
"African-American" an exact synonym for "negro", the definition of which
does not require citizenship or residency of the USA.

So no, Tony, neither of those terms passes your "exact same meaning"
test. (Sorry.)

[Richard Heathfield]

Don't you think I'm in enough trouble already?

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:47:14 +0100, Richard Heathfield

Actually, they do. You really can't reject "Black" because it isn't
"black" or "African-American" because the people do not have the
origins suggested. The terms have established definitions as having
the exact-same meanings.

We accept that words evolve and acquire new meanings. It's a tide you
can't force back.

If I were to have access to your entire history of writing I'm sure
I'd find "black" used to mean something other than R0 G0 B0. If I'd
point out that you have misused the word by saying, for example, "the
sky was black before the storm" you'd dismiss it as a silly
suggestion.

Step up your game, Richard. Your argument above is trite and
baseless. As was the "slave" and "noose" argument.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

RH Draney wrote:
>
> Arnold cheerfully admits that the translation of his surname is
> "black ploughman"...when he told David Letterman this, Dave's
> follow-up was to ask what the Kennedys thought of having a black
> ploughman in the family....r
>
Arnold was wrong. His surname consists of two parts:
Schwarzenegg + er = a male person from Schwarzenegg.

Schwarzen + egger ("black harrower") is wrong.

_Egge_ = harrow, not plow / plough, which is _Pflug_.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[David Kleinecke]

Hi Rey

What's your take on the last name Kleinecke?

And you better not say "Small Corner".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-07-07 12:14 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> People should simply respect what others want to be
> >>> called as. Simple as that.

> >> I agree with that...
> >>> If people find some word offensive,
> >>> it is offensive.
> >> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
> >> those people/.
> >> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
> >> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
> >> my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
> >> example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
> >> it turns out that I can still say it just fine.
> > It's truly astonishing that such an attitude can still exist, let alone be
> > expressed publicly, in 2016. This perfectly encapsulates the not exactly
> > friendly caricature "Colonel Blimp" of the early 20th century.
> > I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.

Buhler? Buhler? Anybody?

> > Though perhaps it was not deprecated on account of offensiveness, but for
> > some perhaps legitimate reason, and therefore has nothing to do with the matter.
> >> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
> >> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place
> >> limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my
> >> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
> >> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
> >> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
> >> not mine.
> > No, it is very much your problem. You know the language to be offensive; you
> > use it; it is therefore your intention to offend.
>
> That is an overstatement as well as a misinterpretation of the previous
> statement.
>
> It's an overstatement because you are assuming that there is some
> universally agreed standard of offensive language. Language changes over
> time and varies among different people at the same time. The level of
> "offensiveness" of any term varies considerably depending on who is
> using what and in what context, and it is entirely possible for someone
> to be offended by the speech of another person who had no intention of
> offending.
>
> And I wouldn't interpret "rarely seek to give offence" as "know the
> language to be offensive".

He said that he knows that the addressees find his speech offensive, but that
that shouldn't affect his behavior. He called it "a limit on his speech" and
said "I'll say what I damn well like."

It's like someone forced to apologize saying "I'm sorry you think I wronged you"
-- the one who's doing the forcing (the mother, the judge) rightly insists that
the apologizer say "I'm sorry I wronged you."

[Peter T. Daniels]

You are simply wrong, but when did facts ever get in your way?

> - the offence is in the intent, not in the choice of
> individual words. If I choose to offend someone (which is rare), I will
> generally do it by selecting individual words that would bring a tear of
> joy to even the most politically correct of prudes, and then combining
> them in a way that makes my intent crystal clear.
>
> Even the briefest perusal of Mr Daniels's 'contributions' to this
> newsgroup will show that he is in no position to be lecturing others on
> giving offence. It is for that very reason that I added him to my
> newsgroup filters. Doing so resulted in an immediate and significant
> drop in the Offensiveness Quotient of the articles in my newsfeed.
>
> I recognise that quite a few people here either can't filter out Mr
> Daniels's articles (perhaps because they use a Web interface to Usenet,
> such as Google Groups, or because their newsreader software doesn't
> support filtering), or have chosen not to do so. And of those people,
> some choose to reply to him.
>
> I respect that choice, even though I don't agree with it and even though
> it means some of his 'contributions' do appear as quoted text in those
> replies.
>
> But when I see those 'contributions', I glance through them in the hope
> that he has mended his ways and decided to become a part of the
> civilised community that is a.u.e. I am, of course, invariably
> disappointed, but maybe one day that will change, in which case I will
> be the first to applaud him (or possibly about the nineteenth, since it
> might take me some time to find out).

Yet another "killfiler" fails to understand that the tiny snippets he sees have
been carefully selected and ripped from their context so as to appear offensive.

> Until that day dawns, Mr Daniels's views on civilised discourse are
> about as much use as a Jeffrey Archer book about honesty.

Ooh, more parochial references.

[David Kleinecke]

I want to mention one more time the disparaging terms used
for people with developmental disabilities. We have more-or-less
successfully suppressed "moron", "imbecile", "(Mongolian) idiot"
and suchlike terms but "retard" is still in active use.

In this case it is not the disparaged group who are protesting
but those of us, parents and others, who care about them who
object. Much of the previous discussion does not apply.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:30:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2016-07-07, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:44:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> ><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.
> > I have a distant memory that to some people "brainstorm" means an
> > epileptic fit or a nervous breakdown.
> > Google to the rescue:
> > https://www.google.co.uk/#q=brainstorm+epilepsy
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027985/Council-bans-brainstorming-replaces-term-thought-showers--fear-offending-epileptics.html
> > Council bans 'brainstorming' and replaces the term with 'thought
> > showers'... for fear of offending epileptics
> > Brainstorming, first coined in the 1890s, was used by psychiatrists
> > to refer to severe nervous attacks. And although since the 1940s it
> > has meant a meeting to produce new ideas, councillors are concerned
> > it may prove offensive to epileptics.
>
> I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before.

Because in the unlikely event that it ever escaped into popular discourse, it's
certainly obsolete now, and whoever Heathfield is trying to ridicule for
"political correctness" is the figment of some rightwing thought policeman
who went looking for nonexistent "bans" to complain about -- indeed: note the
source. (Remember William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" awards?)

> > https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/press/facts/brainstorming-offensive
> > Is the word 'brainstorming' offensive to people with epilepsy?
> > The word 'brainstorming' is not offensive to the vast majority of
> > people with epilepsy, according to a survey carried out by Epilepsy
> > Society in 2005.
> ...
> > However, in the survey, 93 per cent of people with epilepsy did not
> > find the term derogatory or offensive in any way and many felt that
> > this sort of political correctness singled out people with epilepsy
> > as being easily offended.
>
> I guess that's because 93% of them haven't heard of that either!

And 7% of them read the Daily Mail along with people like Heathfield.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Well said.

[Peter T. Daniels]

^^^^^^

Ooh, is that your invention? Nice!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> "Black", to me, means R0 G0 B0. I doubt whether there is anyone on the
> planet that matches that colour spec. "African-American"? Let's see:
>
> "African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who
> have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United
> States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial
> Sub-Saharan African ancestry." - source: uslegal.com (I have no idea
> whether that's considered authoritative).
>
> If USLEGAL's definition is correct, then there is no particular reason
> why African-Americans need even be dark-skinned, let alone black. Nor is
> "African-American" an exact synonym for "negro", the definition of which
> does not require citizenship or residency of the USA.
>
> So no, Tony, neither of those terms passes your "exact same meaning"
> test. (Sorry.)

The only question is whether he is parroting the US white supremacist racial-
hate-mongers, or comes up with that sort of bullshit all by himself. He hasn't
given much sign of the ability to do the latter.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:48:41 +0100, Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk>
wrote:

>On 07/07/16 18:37, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 07/07/2016 09:55, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 07/07/16 06:21, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <nlkdm7$i7t$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> As far as I can make out, the only slang ethnonym of UK origin that is
>>>>> really intended to be nasty is "frog", and this reflects the fact that
>>>>> France has been our mortal enemy for almost a thousand years.
>>>>
>>>> Not "the UK's enenmy" - England's.
>>>
>>> Allow me to give the Scexit vote a little boost by claiming that,
>>> currently, "UK" and "England" are effectively the same thing, and have
>>> been since 1701.
>>
>> Hmm, perhaps we should tell the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
>
>Don't you think I'm in enough trouble already?

Greetings from here in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:

> "Negro" is different from those words. We have "Black" and

> "African-American" that mean exactly the same thing...

I did not know that all black people were American.
--
Mark Brader | "You can't go around quoting politicians accurately:
Toronto | that's dirty journalism, and you know it!"
m...@vex.net | --The Senator was Indiscreet

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/07/16 19:38, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

> Step up your game, Richard. Your argument above is trite and
> baseless. As was the "slave" and "noose" argument.

Ouch! I think you must have got a D- in word-mincing. :-)

I'm going to do the decent thing and stop this (at least from my end)
before it gets too heated. I will certainly acknowledge that you have a
point, and I also recognise that I haven't put my point as well as
perhaps I should. In short, I'll buy your "trite", but I can't quite
bring myself to fall in with your "baseless".

I'm not /quite/ prepared to say "I was wrong" in this case (and I hope
you will recognise from my history in this group that, when I realise
I'm wrong, I tend to accept the fact - witness, for example, the recent
thread on action and reaction), but I am prepared to say that I should
have given more thought to the matter before embarking on that
particular line of argument.

[Richard Heathfield]

The Irishman now our contempt is beneath;
He sleeps in his boots and he lies in his teeth.
He blows up policemen (or so I have heard),
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third.

(The song also has verses about Wales and Scotland. When F&S sang it on
tour, the Irish and Scots loved it. The Welsh were - uh - less impressed.)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I did invent it. However, I googled and found a few people had got there
before me.

>> term derogatory or offensive?".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 22:54:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk>

I happen to be English by birth and of English, Scottish and Welsh
ancestry (via Australia). And no. All my Australian ancestors went there
voluntarily.

[Richard Heathfield]

Stop me if you've heard this before (and I suspect you may have). The
scene is Australia House, Strand, London, and an Englishman who wishes
to emigrate to Australia is being interviewed by one of the embassy
officials. The list of questions is a long one. All seems to be going
well. Then the official asks: "Do you have a criminal record?" The
Englishman replies: "I didn't know you still needed one."

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/07/2016 7:38 PM, Ross wrote:

> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:46:10 PM UTC+12, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 07/07/16 05:02, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya D
>>> <d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is frowned up because it indicates that the speaker is living
>>> in the past. When "Negro" was acceptable it was also acceptable to
>>> have separate drinking fountains.
>>
>> That's faulty logic. The word 'slave' doesn't indicate that the speaker
>> is living in the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to own a
>> slave. The word 'noose' doesn't indicate that the speaker is living in
>> the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to hang people. And so
>> on. Examples abound.
>

> Your logic is at least as faulty. 'Slave' and 'noose' are the only terms
> available for real categories (past and present). Slaves never denied
> that they were slaves, and their descendants have never denied
> being the descendants of slaves. Nooses don't care what you call them.
> 'Negro', however, is one of a number of terms applied to a social group,
> each of them fraught with social and historical connotations. Someone using 'Negro' to refer to present-day African-Americans has either not been
> aware of the changes, over the past half century, in how the people
> in question want to be referred to, or is choosing to ignore that history.
> That is how I understand Tony's point.
>
> The only point where I would take issue with Tony is that he seems
> to suggest an intrinsic link between "Negro" as a term of reference
> and the discriminatory and oppressive conditions that prevailed
> during the time of its use. It can't be emphasized too often that
> "Negro", up to the 1960s, was a perfectly polite and respectful term,
> used by leaders of the African-American community, and by white people
> who in no way accepted separate drinking fountains and the rest.
>
> What happened was that in the 1960s a new generation perceived a great
> change in progress, and felt that a new name better fitted the
> new reality. By 2016, everybody should know that.
>
I can't agree with your dates, but I was still in England in the 60s
which may have been different from NZ. We had been told that "Negro" was
a bad word in the 50s and it was replaced by "coloured". Then, for some
inscrutable reason, "coloured" was out, and "black" was in, although I
think for a short time, there was no acceptable word.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[John Varela]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:06:32 UTC, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 06/07/16 19:06, Traddict wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Yusuf B Gursey" <ygu...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe
> > de discussion : bfbeaa09-28e1-46e6...@googlegroups.com...
> >> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:20:57 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:15:35 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:52:03 PM UTC+3, Traddict wrote:
> >>> > > I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging
> >>> > > undertone
> >>> > > whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym, and I
> >>> can't > > think
> >>> > > of other such examples.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Any insight on this?
> >>> >
> >>> > The name "Pakistan" (pa:kista:n) was invented by an advocate
> >>> > of a separate state for the Muslims of India in the early
> >>> > part of the 20th cent. from the names of the provinces or regions
> >>>
> >>> In a pamphlet published in 1933 by Rahmat Ali
> >>>
> >>> > that were to make today's Pakistan, more specifically former
> >>> > West Pakistan ("k" represents Kashmir). Also pa:k in Persian
> >>
> >> Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, balochisTAN
> >>
> >> <i> is euphonic and does not appear explicitly in
> >> Urdu script. "Afghania" is the Pashto (Pakhto, "Pathan")
> >> speaking area once called NW Frontier Province.
> >>
> >>> > means "pure" and pa:kista:n means "Land of the Pure". This
> >>> > is readily understood by Urdu speakers as well. Someone coming
> >>> > from Pakistan is a Pakistani (not a Paki or Pak as there was
> >>> > never such a group)
> >
> > Thanks for the historical and linguistic backgrounds!
> >
> >>> >
> >>> > "Paki" became offensive because it was used by bigots in Britain.
> >
> > So it seems to be a matter of who coined the term, rather than of the
> > term being inherently offensive. The funny thing is this abbreviation is
> > offensive in a country the very inhabitants of which are often referred
> > to as "Brits" without it being disparaging in the least.
>
> If "Paki" is offensive, so is "Brit", and for the same reason. But
> neither term is truly offensive, because it isn't words themselves that
> offend people. What really offends us is (or should be) the attitudes
> that lie behind those words.
>
> Nevertheless, we are judged by what we write (or say). To saw bits off
> words in such a cavalier manner is a sign of lazy writing (or, of
> course, lazy speaking).

"Japs" and "Nips" are considered offensive, are they not? Having
been a child during WWII I still have to remind myself to say out
"Japanese".

--
John Varela

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:47:45 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Tony Cooper:
>> "Negro" is different from those words. We have "Black" and
>> "African-American" that mean exactly the same thing...
>
>I did not know that all black people were American.

Those in the "We" area are.

[Richard Heathfield]

Not by me. That is, when I have used the word "Japs" (which isn't
often), I was using it as a neutral ethnonym, not as a pejorative term.
The word "Nips" (short for "Nipponese" IIRC) never really entered my
spoken vocabulary (although I was certainly aware of the word and its
meaning from a fairly early age). "Nips" has, I think, a greater claim
to validity as an ethnonym than "Japs", as "Japan" is exonymic, whereas
"Nippon" is endonymic.

> Having
> been a child during WWII I still have to remind myself to say out
> "Japanese".

Perhaps it's generational, then. When I was playing with toy soldiers in
the late 1960s and early 1970s, it said "Japanese Infantry" on the box,
but I called them "Japs", and so did everyone else I knew, because it
was shorter to say than "Japanese Infantry". It never occurred to me
that anyone might be offended by the term.

In fact, it never ceases to amaze me just how easily some people are
offended, and just how far other people are prepared to indulge these
easily-offended people at all costs.

I think there are far worse ways to insult the Japanese than to call
them "Japs", and one of the more insidious ways was their portrayal in
many films about WW2. There were some honourable exceptions, however,
such as "Midway" (1976, Jack Smight).

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/07/2016 7:55 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> "Black" came about because the community correctly decided
> they should embrace the color of their skin and not regard
> it as something negative as the color is otherwise associated
> with. "African-American" came about because the community felt
> they should be referred by the place of origin of their
> ancestors like other communities. But it has not entirely displaced
> "Black". People should simply respect what others want to be
> called as. Simple as that. If people find some word offensive,
> it is offensive.
>
I agree, but it would help if they didn't keep changing their minds.
Unfortunately, words have a habit of degenerating to pejorative status
over time, and if a group of people is held in contempt by another
group, then whatever word is used is eventually going to be offensive.

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/07/2016 10:52 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-07-07 12:14 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

>>>> People should simply respect what others want to be
>>>> called as. Simple as that.
>>>

>>> I agree with that...

>>>
>>>> If people find some word offensive,
>>>> it is offensive.
>>>

>>> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
>>> those people/.
>>>
>>> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
>>> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose

>>> my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
>>> example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
>>> it turns out that I can still say it just fine.
>>
>> It's truly astonishing that such an attitude can still exist, let
>> alone be
>> expressed publicly, in 2016. This perfectly encapsulates the not exactly
>> friendly caricature "Colonel Blimp" of the early 20th century.
>>

>> I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.
>>

>> Though perhaps it was not deprecated on account of offensiveness, but for
>> some perhaps legitimate reason, and therefore has nothing to do with
>> the matter.
>>

>>> If people are offended by what I say, that is their right, but they
>>> don't (or at least *should not*) have the commensurate right to place

>>> limits on my speech. As long as I don't incite hatred or violence by my

>>> words (which I believe is in any case illegal in the UK), I'll say what
>>> I damn well like. I rarely[1] seek to give offence. If someone is
>>> nevertheless offended by my choice of words, that is *their* problem,
>>> not mine.
>>

>> No, it is very much your problem. You know the language to be
>> offensive; you
>> use it; it is therefore your intention to offend.
>
> That is an overstatement as well as a misinterpretation of the previous
> statement.
>
> It's an overstatement because you are assuming that there is some
> universally agreed standard of offensive language. Language changes over
> time and varies among different people at the same time. The level of
> "offensiveness" of any term varies considerably depending on who is
> using what and in what context, and it is entirely possible for someone
> to be offended by the speech of another person who had no intention of
> offending.

It also varies a great deal from country to country.

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/07/2016 3:15 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 2016-07-07 12:14 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/16 12:55, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>>> People should simply respect what others want to be
>>>>> called as. Simple as that.
>
>>>> I agree with that...
>>>>> If people find some word offensive,
>>>>> it is offensive.
>>>> ...but not this. If people find some word offensive, it is offensive /to
>>>> those people/.
>>>> I extend to everybody else the courtesy that I won't try to choose their
>>>> vocabulary for them, and I reject any attempt by other people to choose
>>>> my vocabulary for me. They try, from time to time. I've been told, for
>>>> example, that "you can't say 'brainstorm' any more". So I tried it, and
>>>> it turns out that I can still say it just fine.
>>> It's truly astonishing that such an attitude can still exist, let alone be
>>> expressed publicly, in 2016. This perfectly encapsulates the not exactly
>>> friendly caricature "Colonel Blimp" of the early 20th century.
>>> I can't imagine why anyone would find "brainstorm" offensive.
>
> Buhler? Buhler? Anybody?

An old-fashioned German word for paramour? Google has not helped me
understand what you are talking about.

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:
>>> "Negro" is different from those words. We have "Black" and
>>> "African-American" that mean exactly the same thing...

Mark Brader:

>> I did not know that all black people were American.

Tony Cooper:

> Those in the "We" area are.

Oh, *that* "we".

But still -- no, actually, they aren't.
--
Mark Brader | "Which humans of that time did here whether this place
Toronto | was cult place already at that time, extracts itself
m...@vex.net | from our knowledge." --from a web site for tourists

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/07/2016 12:14 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> It begets the question "Should we risk offending the 7% who find the

> term derogatory or offensive?".
>

I do like "begets the question". Is that an original?

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/07/2016 1:12 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 09:46:07 +0100, Richard Heathfield

> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/16 05:02, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya D
>>> <d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> We also refer to blacks as Negros which I've heard is frowned upon in the US but not as much as 'nigger'.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is frowned up because it indicates that the speaker is living
>>> in the past. When "Negro" was acceptable it was also acceptable to
>>> have separate drinking fountains.
>>
>> That's faulty logic. The word 'slave' doesn't indicate that the speaker
>> is living in the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to own a
>> slave. The word 'noose' doesn't indicate that the speaker is living in
>> the past, even though it is no longer acceptable to hang people. And so
>> on. Examples abound.
>

> For your examples to be valid there would have to be other single
> words that could be used to describe the same thing and have the same
> connotation. There are no direct synonyms for "slave" or "noose". You
> can describe "slave" and "noose" with other words, but you can't
> replace them with words that have the exact same meaning.
>

> "Negro" is different from those words. We have "Black" and

> "African-American" that mean exactly the same thing, and these words
> are currently acceptable.
>

The problem with "African-American" is that it only describes some of
the people who are black, not even all those in America, so the two
words don't mean exactly the same thing.

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/07/2016 3:29 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:

> I want to mention one more time the disparaging terms used
> for people with developmental disabilities. We have more-or-less
> successfully suppressed "moron", "imbecile"

Who are "we"? I hope the words are no longer used to describe patients
under treatment, but both words are in common use as terms of abuse.
Even though your first sentence hinted at this, I still think you should
have added something like "in psychology" or something.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

David "Shorty" Kleinecke asked:
>
> Hi Rey
>
> What's your take on the last name Kleinecke?
>
> And you better not say "Small Corner".
>
I wouldn't, David. Your surname is not a combination of

"klein" + "Ecke"
but of
"klein" + "-ecke".

It consists of two parts:

"klein" = small, short (said of a person)
and
"-ecke", a variant of "-icke", which is a Low German diminutive /
hypocoristic suffix turning "Klein" into an endearing pet name,
nickname, or a diminutive form of a name.

Thus, "Kleinecke" and "Kleinicke" mean "dear / cute / nice little
fellow" or "shorty."

When your German ancestor was given his name some 500 years ago,
he must have been shorter than average. If he had been taller than
average, your last name would now be "Gross." :-)

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/07/2016 2:39 AM, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> RH Draney wrote:
>>
>> Arnold cheerfully admits that the translation of his surname is
>> "black ploughman"...when he told David Letterman this, Dave's
>> follow-up was to ask what the Kennedys thought of having a black
>> ploughman in the family....r
>>
> Arnold was wrong. His surname consists of two parts:
> Schwarzenegg + er = a male person from Schwarzenegg.
>
> Schwarzen + egger ("black harrower") is wrong.
>
> _Egge_ = harrow, not plow / plough, which is _Pflug_.
>

An "Egge" was famously used for non-agricultural purposes in one of
Kafka's stories - might have been "In der Strafkolonie". I remember "Es
ist ein eigentümlicher Apparat".

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/07/2016 7:12 PM, CDB wrote:

> On 06/07/2016 12:51 PM, Traddict wrote:
>
>> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a disparaging
>> undertone whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a regular demonym,
>> and I can't think of other such examples.
>

> "Mex". "Brit", as you say farther downthread; but that is not usually
> used disparagingly. To some extent, "Paki" is an insult because South
> Asians are insultable in the estimation of those who use it. Look at
> the rapid evolution of polite words for "person of recent African
> origins": each new term takes on negative associations because
> prejudices against that group are real and strong.
>
>> Any insight on this?
>
> One factor that may have greased the slide is the [i] of the ending,
> which makes it sound like a diminutive, and therefore possibly an
> ethnic or national insult, like "Argie" or "Belgie".

My vocabulary grows. I didn't know "Belgie" was insulting. In fact, I
thought it was the official name of the country in Flemish.

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/07/2016 9:21 PM, CDB wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 8:06 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

>> CDB wrote:
>>> Traddict wrote:
>
>>>> I've always wondered why "Paki" has come to take on a
>>>> disparaging undertone whereas it's the mere abbreviation of a
>>>> regular demonym, and I can't think of other such examples.
>
>>> "Mex". "Brit", as you say farther downthread; but that is not
>>> usually used disparagingly. To some extent, "Paki" is an insult
>>> because South Asians are insultable in the estimation of those who
>>> use it. Look at the rapid evolution of polite words for "person of
>>> recent African origins": each new term takes on negative
>>> associations because prejudices against that group are real and
>>> strong.
>
>>>> Any insight on this?
>
>>> One factor that may have greased the slide is the [i] of the
>>> ending, which makes it sound like a diminutive, and therefore
>>> possibly an ethnic or national insult, like "Argie" or "Belgie".
>

>> It's under the guise of regular formations of adjectives ending in -i
>> found in Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Hindi (the Semitic ending
>> is unrelated to the one found in Indo-Iranian though they sound
>> similar) but it isn't, probably the diminutive you pointed out.
>
> Yes, it would be a matter of perception among English-speakers, not a
> real connection. And I was speculating, maybe a little wildly.
>
>
Do we make the same connection with "Iraqi, Somali"? - there are others.

[David Kleinecke]

Thank You

[David Kleinecke]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:29:27 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 8/07/2016 3:29 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> > I want to mention one more time the disparaging terms used
> > for people with developmental disabilities. We have more-or-less
> > successfully suppressed "moron", "imbecile"
>
>
> Who are "we"? I hope the words are no longer used to describe patients
> under treatment, but both words are in common use as terms of abuse.
> Even though your first sentence hinted at this, I still think you should
> have added something like "in psychology" or something.

You snipped the second paragraph which contains the answer.

Here it is again

In this case it is not the disparaged group who are protesting
but those of us, parents and others, who care about them who
object. Much of the previous discussion does not apply.