Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (652485)	4/23/2012 4:13:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580506

If the term isn't intended as a slur, then it isn't a slur as used. There is nothing intrinsic about that combination of letters, or of the sounds when you speak it, that makes it a slur, its a slur if and because its intended to hurt, degrade etc. The term Jap was commonly used in this country during the WWII era but wasn't recognized as a slur until the Japanese let it be known that is offensive to them And after that, most people using it where using it as a slur, so it often was one, and even when it wasn't its not unreasonable to guess that it was meant as one since the odds would be with you. People also got offended by "niggardly", a word with totally separate derivation and meaning from the more inflammatory N-word. The fact that they where offended didn't make it a slur, it meant they misunderstood the definition and derivation of the word, and what the speaker intended. Rather than saying its a slur, you could say such words are offensive, and they are in that people take offense to them. But not in any inherent way. Other people take offense to a different set of words, or to all sorts of ideas. Offensive, using this definition != wrong. But if you know that many people are likely to take serious offense, then its reasonable not to use the words, at least if there are good alternatives.