![Neutral :|](./images/smilies/icon_neutral.gif)
wanders off
You're thinking of "Knockers"boudicca wrote:Thought that began with a "k", Unkle Ja-mes?
"At Helene's party, during which her sensational norks are practically on the table among the sweetmeats...." Clive James, The Observer, 22 Oct 1972.
Personally I've never been anywhere near the Caucasusrobertzombie wrote:Not that it matters but do we have any non-Caucasian members?
I'm cunnilingual.James Blast wrote:I'm bi-lingual
Andrew S wrote:...white people are somehow lacking something.
The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.Izzy HaveMercy wrote: I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same.
You are completely right, my point is that the n-word is only derogatory for less than 50 years or so, and as Andrew pointed out, one always comes up with other terms to describe people of a different color or race, just to be on the safe side of 'being a proper human being with a clean conscience'.nowayjose wrote:The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.Izzy HaveMercy wrote: I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same.
But as I told in my post, it's kind of ironic. As we called slaves "negros", in the same way an English would call them black in a non derogatory way (if you can take it as that). Somehow [whoops, i did a racism] adapted from negro, end up refering to a black slave condition which negro didn't meant in the first place.nowayjose wrote:The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.Izzy HaveMercy wrote: I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same.
Ok, fair enough - the word is derogatory. I'll accept that, and I would no sooner call someone who's "culturally diverse" (which apparently means the same as "black" when describing cities like Atlanta) a [word] than I would call a woman a "cnut" or someone in a wheelchair "spastic".nowayjose wrote:The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.
I really need to stop myself from reading comments on the Mail website. Unbearable repetitive bulls**t but horribly addictiveHom_Corleone wrote:In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.
Not sure what to think anymore.....
I was unable to find it anywhere else from googling.Perki wrote:I really need to stop myself from reading comments on the Mail website. Unbearable repetitive bulls**t but horribly addictiveHom_Corleone wrote:In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.
Not sure what to think anymore.....
I find it quite amusing, although I suppose that should depend on why it was stuck there in the first place. Again, it's the terminology I have a problem with. As far as I know, it originated as a golly - the wog presumeably being added later. According to the makers of Robinson's Jam, Robinson made a trip to a South Pacific island, where he saw the children there playing with 'gollies' (dollies) which were made from their mothers' old black skirts and white blouses. He though it would make a good mascot for the company and its popularity took off. Mind you, I read that in 1981, so who knows what Robinson actually called them at the time!Hom_Corleone wrote:In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.
Not sure what to think anymore.....
I don't know, it seems to be having some success with "queer".stufarq wrote:I'm not convinced that groups taking back abusive terms for self-empowerment really works.
There's more genetic difference amongst a random bunch of chimpanzees than within the entire human race. So it's really quite silly to try to distinguish people that way indeed...markfiend wrote:"Race" in terms of humans is a pretty meaningless distinction biologically speaking. There's more genetic differences within any given traditionally defined "race" than there are between them.