There is a separate and arguably bigger issue here, regardless of whether a fucking word can or can’t be used to describe an inanimate object. How do you engage in political debate? Do you seek to build bridges, foster understanding, persuade, or do you adopt a narrow and zero-tolerant strategy and scream blue murder because the world really is that simple? It’s particularly pertinent in the wider world of race politics.

While I applaud Ravi’s attitude on live and let live – I am not that magnanimous.

No, no, no. It’s not about being magnanimous, or being holier than Gandhi: it’s about disarming racists.

Nobody can disagree with Jai when he says: “the term ["paki"] is grossly racist and offensive in the context of British society and culture.” – nobody is disputing this fact: that Asians and Whites agreed that the word “paki” is meant to be racist. And here is how it works: a white racist says a 4-letter word, and Asians are supposed to feel deeply offended. Not sure about you, but I feel that we didn’t get a good bargain out of this deal. Get it? That was the mistake of Achilles when during the war, he wore a t-shirt saying: “If you really want to hurt me, try targeting my heels”.

What I find offensive is this idea that in this day and age, where Asians have a far better standing in Britain than 30 years ago, are far more assimilated, dominate academia, where some even earn on average higher than their white counterparts, where our mainstream society sees open displays of racism as revolting, would feel offended by a jerk – make it any jerk – who utters that 4-letter word.

When Jai says: “If you really have no racial prejudice towards Asians and genuinely give a damn about the sensitivities of people from other ethnic groups”, he is (rightly or wrongly) characterising a group of people who should be treated like porcelain, that are so sensitive that you should be really careful of every word you say, because it doesn’t really matter your intention, what really matters is how people will interpret it.

I am not talking specifically about the word “paki”, because that’s easy to avoid. But the anti-racism effort now seems to include over-analysing subtext and going too much on what people feel. This exercise leads to self-censorship, and I think as a society we tend to lose. I certainly would like to read what some say about Christianity and Islam, even though they are considered blasphemous by a few people, and want to censor it. How dare they.

My point is: let’s be more relaxed, shall we? Let’s focus on the real disease here – discrimination that keeps back people on the basis of how they are born, and not get to riled up about school playground tactics such as “name calling”. It’s time to get rid of this “persecuted minority” mindset.

I’d like to think that that sort of stuff was behind us. If I want a Chinese meal from the local Ho Wah, I’d say “let’s get a Chinese”

It wouldn’t even enter my brain to say “lets get a Chinky”

So, I think we own the narrative, not the neanderthals. I’d be quite offended if someone thought otherwise. And neanderthals are probably good folk too. How far do we have to take this? There must be a word that is politically correct for the generic category of white idiots. Oh, yeh, Rednecks.

What did someone say about a circular arguement?

Two factual events:
1) There was an attack in a Mosque in Dayton. There were children who were sprayed with pepper gas.
2) There was a virulently anti-Muslim propaganda DVD distributed in Dayton, Ohio and a number of other States.

That report by Chris Rodda of the Huffington Post did make an unsubstantiated claim that the two events were connected. Yes she did jump the gun by suggesting that the events are connected before they were fully investigated but I did mention that.

My mistake was to take an HP report and post it verbatim. But I won’t be issuing an update on a journalistic article that I didn’t author. Because:
1) I didn’t write the original article
2) A DVD that is designed to incite the worst anti-Muslim sentiment very well may result in real harm to innocents.
3) The investigation has not proved that the events were unconnected.

Finally, I thank SubTory for adding comments. Thats what a blog is for. If I thought writing a post that was corrected was handing “people like SubTory a victory”, then I could have turned comments off.

And thats my last post on this thread.

What about my #144, any thoughts?

We should indeed move on from this. It has not been PP finest hour.

There’s that phrase divide and rule that springs to mind.

This isn’t one that’s worth splitting intellectual hairs over amongst ourselves.

We’re discussing the word Paki.

Now your tactic is to say that I made that conversation up with my Chinese colleague. Nice one…So how can we prove this. Any ideas Sid?

Well, why go for all the trouble of having to prove things, when you can just go on and say it? Consider this post of his. Sid makes this assertion: “The results of this hate campaign [Obsession DVD] has already resulted in an attack with pepper gas at a Mosque school in Dayton, Ohio. A number of children have been hospitalised.” It is remarkable because Sid seemed to know what happened even though the investigation was still under way. And then, once the investigation was over and concluded that it was a 10 year old boy with no apparent hate reason… Sid didn’t bother to update, correct, or anything of the sort. You think you are helping the cause (and I certainly think the DVD is meant to scare voters, further demonise a religious group, and change the election), but you give people like SubTory a victory for calling you out on that. PP should enforce some journalism ethics when reporting and opining current events.

I do not know whether El Cid has a Chinese colleague or not, but the dialogue seemed genuine to me and pretty much in tune with what people I know say. Calling him a liar for giving us one perspective from someone with Chinese ancestry, makes you look very small.

For me ethnic slurs are like geological strata defining politics of their day. They all have a time and place.

For progressives its a challenge to resist other’s attempts to lay another layer to mark current prejudices and own the narrative.

Very simple. I had one single question in this whole dialogue and rather than engagement, all I got was an earful of abuse. But thats classic El-Cid for you – why pore over the difficult bits when a mouthing abuse at the next guy wil do.

I’ve had enough of his aggressive stupidity, so there you go, Refresh – he’s all yours.

I think Jai got it spot on and anyone who thinks the word Paki is anything else but a derogatory racist remark in the UK needs to get their head examined.

On using Wikipedia as a reference to Redneck — gee whiz — since when is that comparable to the N word or Paki. And, I think Jai has eloquently explained the use of the word within the context of how Brit-Asians use it to define racist bigots. So all those who have been trying to sanctimonious towards Jai and Douglas — THEY MEANT RACIST BIGOTS PEOPLE. Get over it. So unless you are a racist it should not really offend you.

I also find the word Chinky derogatory as well. I think its inappropriate and I know some friends of mine would punch someone if they heard the word. I would advise anyone who thinks of using the word not to use it in front of a Brit-Chinese bloke. You just might get punched or kicked.

I for sure would be teaching my toddler son that if anyone calls him a Paki – exactly what he should be doing and nothing pleasant I can assure you.

And, I think someone needs to close this thread because its going in circles and its not really adding much value to the conversation on this site. And some posts are just vocal diarrhoea while having cerebral constipation at the same time.

So can we move on please???

I believe you owe El Cid an apology. How can you question his integrity on a dialogue he was kind enough to share with us? A dialogue which he found persuasive?

That said, neither of you seem to want to let the ‘issue’ rest.

Move on.

Your desperation knows no bounds.

First you smear by accusing me of saying something I didn’t say in #29, and then you invent a position I am supposed to have adopted in #70.

Some people call it controlling the narrative, but I call it being a cunt.

Now your tactic is to say that I made that conversation up with my Chinese colleague. Nice one. Well short of asking my colleague to log on, I can’t prove otherwise. And even if he did, that wouldn’t prove anything either. In fact, for all we know, you might be the dago and I might be the paki.

So how can we prove this. Any ideas Sid?

If I described someone as a Tory, or a Labour supporter, or a member of Greenpeace, what would be your gripe? Describing someone as a Redneck is as accurate, or not, as that.

A response, rather than you retreating into your usual shell, would be useful. I cannot abide folk dropping bombshells and then running away.

Up my arse? You’re just not used to getting it back with double the interest mate.

You’re up your own arse because *you’ve* decided the dago thing is a red herring. You’ve asked a question about the useage of chinky and when the responses are not in accordance to the debate you have framed in your own mind, they are “red herrings”.

Thats not a bad way to debate if you’re the only debatoer setting the issue, the motion and the arguments. Your imaginary conversation with your Chinese friend is case in point. But as you can see, there are real stakeholders and real protaganists in the debate who are not in an imaginary dialogue to prove your point, sorry.

I’m much more fun than that.

Frankly, you haven’t a clue, have you? If I say that Rednecks are extreme, you say it’s my fault?

If you actually do feel, and, for whatever historical or political reasons, feel justified in feeling, racial/ethnic/nationalist hatred towards some group, you should use appropriate language to convey that hatred or disdain.

Apart from the pretty obvious fact that I do consider my language appropriate, whatever that means, I’d deny the idea that there is any appropriate language to describe Rednecks, that doesn’t involve swearing. These are the inheritors of Jim Crow, a sort of medieval re-enactment society writ large. Perhaps you are so open minded that your brain has fallen out, but mine hasn’t, just yet.

Rednecks is a black hole of a definition. It draws in a specific and self identifying group of people. It is indeed a self selecting gravitational field.

You are only a Redneck if you say you are. And that definition, within the gravitational field of the Redneck hole is entirely up to them. They could be otherwise. They could be Nobel prize winners, or artists, or whatever.

It’s always fun to spot people who are transparently the ‘designated non-racist’ of their organisation.

One of the enormous advantages of being retired is not being part of any ‘organisation’. So, what I say is what I think, right, wrong or indifferent.

Kudos for standing up for the Suburban Tory. He probably needs you on his side………

I, on the other hand, am an organisation of one.

http://digg.com/movies/Russell_Crowe_playing_redneck_comedian_Bill_Hicks