[retired_sedimohasel]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Daaaaave:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Helarxe:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by saved_by_barry_horne:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Helarxe:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by ceefax the cat:
I thought my friend was speaking Aztec to me the other day, but it turned out he was just telling me that my kettle was "not a proper kettle".

I'm still waiting for a verdict on whether "Jap" is offensive or an abbreviation.

Nip is derogatory according to Wikipedia, though that's often the case with wartime nicknames. </BLOCKQUOTE>

on the wartime theme what about jerry? </BLOCKQUOTE>

And why wouldn't "Kraut" or "Frog" be as bad as "Beaner"? </BLOCKQUOTE>

by and large, it's dependent on culture and class. no one recognises negative stereotypes about the french and germans really so kraut and frog lose their sting. they're also in the same first world status. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to disagree </BLOCKQUOTE>

pfft. you're not going to lose your job or get evicted from your home because of it. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Because of what? Because I'm French? Of course not but a black person won't lose his job or get evicted because he's black either.
My point is that if "Beaner" is considered offensive to Mexican people then Frog should be considered offensive to French people just like Yanks or Gringo should be considered offensive to American people. All I'm asking for is consistency basically, either all are offensive and should be banned or none.

[retired_embartl]

there's a difference between light hearted exchanges of ros-bifs and frogs, and then talking about pakis and nig-nogs tbf.

Context is usually key, but some words with more ingrained connations should be treated more carefully than others.

[retired_princess160]

I'm even going to say that it depends on who says it ie someone who has a history of being a foreign-unfriendly, borderline racist etc. etc. would sooner be seen as a racist for using certain words than others.

[retired_derek]

Originally posted by Brian of Nazareth:
there's a difference between light hearted exchanges of ros-bifs and frogs, and then talking about pakis and nig-nogs tbf.

Context is usually key, but some words with more ingrained connations should be treated more carefully than others.

What Brian said. Completely contextual. Most things said in jest aren't intended as offensive and 99% of the time nobody is going to use a word they know to be grossly insulting.

Maybe somebody should explain to the mod who banned finneys about context because the guy is clearly a window licking basket case.

[retired_leverne]

when you guys were on post mod did it not annoy you that when you posted and it had that message, it took you back to the OP everytime

[retired_sedimohasel]

Originally posted by Brian of Nazareth:
there's a difference between light hearted exchanges of ros-bifs and frogs, and then talking about pakis and nig-nogs tbf.

THAT, I think is racism my friend since you differenciate between people based on their origin. Why would it be fine to make fun of the Frenchs and not the Pakistanis?
To me it sounds like you're insinuating that the "Frogs" are smart enough to understand that it is a joke but not the "Pakis". Either that or you are for some reason putting the French above the Pakistanis.

I'll agree that it all depends on the context though but if the context is the same (i.e: a joke on a forum) then all those terms should be considered equal imo.

[retired_libbyrelr]

Originally posted by Andrew K:
Over here if you attempt to veer off from African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian-American you do so at your own peril. Just about everything else is considered offensive.

A lot of Caucasian families here in Colorado seem to have adopted children from the Far East, and I keep calling them "China babies" much to my wife's annoyance.

[retired_the gizmo]

Originally posted by Meitheisman:
a black person won't lose his job or get evicted because he's black either.

oh to be young and idealistic again

[retired_embartl]

Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Brian of Nazareth:
there's a difference between light hearted exchanges of ros-bifs and frogs, and then talking about pakis and nig-nogs tbf.

THAT, I think is racism my friend since you differenciate between people based on their origin. Why would it be fine to make fun of the Frenchs and not the Pakistanis?
To me it sounds like you're insinuating that the "Frogs" are smart enough to understand that it is a joke but not the "Pakis". Either that or you are for some reason putting the French above the Pakistanis.

I'll agree that it all depends on the context though but if the context is the same (i.e: a joke on a forum) then all those terms should be considered equal imo. </BLOCKQUOTE>

not at all, im talking about the specific words used. Frog is generally used in banter, though obviously when xenophobic feelings are aroused by bellends, ie at sporting events it might be used in more belligerent and aggressive tones.

someone who either bandies the word 'paki' around is generally either quite ignorant or is probably fairly racist themselves - ie it's generally used as a catch-all term for folk of asian descent, ie from bangladesn india etc.

obviously, you're right context is still important and if the term 'frog' offends you, then I can see how you get at that point.

But not to be captain obvious about it, if someone says any insulting word in empassioned rage, then it's going to be offensive regardless.

some facetious examples:

"you f**king french frog twat" = racist

"shall we have a game of footy with the pakis?" = total ignorance, subconsciously racist, probably considers himself superior to those of a different creed, but would always claim he's not.

"oi ya daft nip, give me a beer?!"

"nah, you honky tonky arse, get it yourself" - banter between two people who know each other.

here ends the lesson from captain obvious.

[retired_sedimohasel]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
a black person won't lose his job or get evicted because he's black either.

oh to be young and idealistic again </BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come one, there's a judicial system in place in the US, if a black person got fired for being black he'd surely sue and win.