It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: intrepid
I'm Canadian. I have a trained beaver
originally posted by: intrepid
I think it's another non-issue. TONS of those lately. My 2 points:
1) Who hasn't used that word?
2) How many even know it's a racial slur?
originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
This supports the assertion that offense is in the context/tone and not in the word itself.
Anyone who got upset about "Redskins" needs to be upset by "gypped". Neither context is hateful or offensive.
The only other option is that we place a numerical value on whether or not a word is offensive.
So how many people need to claim offense for a word to be officially offensive? 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000?
Is it the fault of the gypsies that they lack the numbers to sway popular opinion? Are they forever destined to be an abused and ridiculed minority?
The defense of "she didnt know" or "it's so commonly used" further backs the point that without an offensive context or tone there is no offense.
So to rail against a team named the Redskins yet defend the use of the term "gypped" is ridiculous.
Of course if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NFL team is a wholly anti-native organization named for the sole purpose of deriding the native population then you could prove offensive context and tone. From what I've seen nobody has been able to do that. They point to evidence that the term can be used in such context but not that the organization has been founded in that context. I can point to evidence that "Monday" has been used in an offensive context but that does not mean that Mondays were created for the sole purpose to offend a group of people.
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.
originally posted by: Skyfloating
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.
The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind
originally posted by: Skyfloating
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.
The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind
originally posted by: Skyfloating
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.
The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind