Heartland

Obviousman wrote:

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.

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...

True. Good point.

Obviousman wrote:Either way, all these terms, might well be, but personally I just get so irritated by the fact we have to make up new words for whoever every week as people can't handle the others. The worst bit being it's usually someone from outside those groups who thinks to decide those people shouldn't be called like that anymore.

(but of course, sometimes they're not wrong, it's just the sheer number of name changes...)

A case in point. There is a charity in the UK that helps people with cerebral palsy and related conditions. It used to be called "The Spastics' Society". However they decided that wasn't a respectful name and changed the charity's name to "Scope".

It is now fairly common to hear kids calling each other "Scoper" where once they might have said "spaz".

Hom_Corleone wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote:

As caucasians we have no right to use the word

Really? Who decided that then?

You have the right to use any word you want; but be aware some words are offensive to others.

IMO obviously.

Actually it's not a matter of opinion but of national law, depending on where the webserver that hosts this forum is located. Several countries have anti-race-hate laws that forbid the use of certain words.

I think the webserver is currently hosted in the US which doesn't have any such laws, but not so long ago it was hosted in Germany, which does.

When you post to a discussion forum you (the poster) are publishing your text in the country where the server resides and bound by the laws of that country. If that country forbids certain things then you are breaking the law, and, if an extradition treaty exists, could end up being extradited, charged, convicted and imprisoned.

Hence the recent case of a UK hacker being extradited to the US for hacking US military computer systems - he broke a law in the US on a US computer system. He never left the UK but was still subject to US laws. And it can happen the other way round too.

(I work as a web manager for an international publishing company - we're moving our servers from the UK to the US so I need to know these things!)

The man is right. We ship a lot of data around to a lot of different places, some of it incredibly confidential and sensitive (we're talking state secret level here), so we need to be aware of these things too. Data stored on a server in another country is subject to that country's laws, full stop and no argument.

markfiend wrote:

stufarq wrote:I'm not convinced that groups taking back abusive terms for self-empowerment really works.

I don't know, it seems to be having some success with "queer".

And I know one guy who calls himself "a big fat poof"

Yes, but I don't think either term is widely considered to be acceptable outwith the gay community, and both words are still frequently used as terms of abuse. Whereas "gay" itself is very much acceptable and commonplace precisely because everyone gets to use it.
Just a few years ago, if you'd said to someone, "You're gay," it would have been seen as abusive, even if they were. Now many (but still not all) would shrug and agree with you. But if you called someone a poof, it would generally still be seen as a term of abuse, even if they used the word about themselves.

Having said that, a lot of British teenagers these days have started using the word to mean "a bit rubbish", suggesting that things haven't completely changed yet.

stufarq wrote:Yes, but I don't think either term is widely considered to be acceptable outwith the gay community, and both words are still frequently used as terms of abuse. Whereas "gay" itself is very much acceptable and commonplace precisely because everyone gets to use it.

Oh, agreed.

Several countries have anti-race-hate laws that forbid the use of certain words.

I wonder how they listed those words in the bill, without breaking the law themselves? (Life of Brain, Jeh**vah scene springs to mind).

Keep forgetting I live in a free country where free thoughts and free speech are considered so important...

nodubmanshouts wrote: I wonder how they listed those words in the bill, without breaking the law themselves?

They aren't because such a law doesn't exist (to my knowledge, at least not in Europe).

nowayjose wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote: I wonder how they listed those words in the bill, without breaking the law themselves?

They aren't because such a law doesn't exist (to my knowledge, at least not in Europe).

Yes, there is - in fact I think there's an EU level regulation as well as individual national laws. All the laws are generally of the kind that forbid racist insults under the larger umbrella of inciting racial hatred.

In the UK, the laws in question are the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the The Electronic Commerce Directive (Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) Regulations 2007 (prior to that such offences were covered in the Public Order Act of 1986)

And no, they don't have a long list of forbidden words! They outlaw the incitement of racial hatred and that can include publishing (including in a post on an internet forum) language likely to incite racial hatred. Obviously a defendant could argue that the use of a word doesn't incite racial hatred - which is true, it would be considered in the context of its use.

(Again, I work as a Web Manager for a FTSE100 company which has user-generated content on its websites - it's my job to know these things!)

Well, that's pretty different from what you initially said.

Sounds like I could say the N word quite safely (as you now say) in the context of this discussion, whilst saying people should 'go attack race X' (which contains no offensive words) would be illegal.

nodubmanshouts wrote:Well, that's pretty different from what you initially said.

Not really. The original post that prompted this thread would still be suspect and I believe it could fall foul of this law. The term could easily be seen as being used in a derogatory manner in that post (since the Act is a recent one (2006) there isn't much legal precedent as to whether it is within that law or not).

nodubmanshouts wrote:Sounds like I could say the N word quite safely (as you now say) in the context of this discussion, whilst saying people should 'go attack race X' (which contains no offensive words) would be illegal.

I would agree with that - as I said in my post above it would be considered in the context of its use.

However, if you do feel the need to use it I would still suggest referring to it obliquely (as 'the N word' - as you have done above) out of respect of (1) people who do find it offensive and (2) people who browse this forum from work and whose employers' definition of what constitutes an inappropriate site may be different from yours - just like any NSFW pics should be linked to (and flagged NSFW) rather than posted directly in the forum.

I thought this thread was about "Nom"

<-----coat (that's if I can have it back C )

Pista wrote:I thought this thread was about "Nom"

<-----coat (that's if I can have it back C )

Nope, sorry

Pista wrote:I thought this thread was about "Nom"

<-----coat (that's if I can have it back C )

Nom?

OMG WTF LOL ETC!

Now handing it back to the intelligent discussion....

boudicca wrote: OMG WTF LOL ETC!

Now handing it back to the intelligent discussion....

Too late - a mod will come along and split off your Nom thread into another thread, and you'll be responsible for splitting the thread for a third time

!

Oh no no no, I think the blame can be placed squarely with Steve this time!

the Boss already did Nom last week
http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic. ... &start=300
post#305

lazarus corporation wrote:

boudicca wrote: OMG WTF LOL ETC!

Now handing it back to the intelligent discussion....

Too late - a mod will come along and split off your Nom thread into another thread, and you'll be responsible for splitting the thread for a third time

Every other post would warrant it's own thread using that logic Paul.

(1) people who do find it offensive

Exactly. I find the word offensive, and don't use it. Having somebody tell me I can't use it (*), is a different matter.

(*) the exception being that if I'm a guest somewhere (like myheartland.co.uk), its up the moderators to decide whether they will accept such language or not. Its then my choice if I want to be a guest or not.

(2) people who browse this forum from work

Funnily enough, I resisted the urge to check this thread from work today..


Still,

nodubmanshouts wrote:Exactly. I find the word offensive, and don't use it. Having somebody tell me I can't use it (*), is a different matter.

I totally agree.

*wishing we had similar to the First Amendment in UK / EU law.*

Interesting thread. Everything's been said....
I simply do not use words for someone who doesn't like the world whether it is this N word, bleekscheet or goff....

But....how are the people called formerly known as WHIGGERS?

Ozpat wrote:Interesting thread. Everything's been said....
I simply do not use words for someone who doesn't like the world whether it is this N word, bleekscheet or goff....

But....how are the people called formerly known as WHIGGERS?

The Beastie Boys?

Hom_Corleone wrote:

Ozpat wrote:Interesting thread. Everything's been said....
I simply do not use words for someone who doesn't like the world whether it is this N word, bleekscheet or goff....

But....how are the people called formerly known as WHIGGERS?

The Beastie Boys?

Paler-coloured homiez?

IZ.

I was under the impression that when 'Afro-Americans' used the 'N' word they were being derogatory in the same way as when the word is used by a 'White' person.