Oink

I think the phrase says more about the speaker than anything else. He should just be ignored rather than vilified.

Almost Canadian

Do you refer to manholes and the like as personholes or are you an outdated, racist cretin too?

Shard

Personally, I would ban the word "racist" as it very rarely adds anything to a debate, but is quite effective at shutting a debate down. With the exception of the underclass, I don't think racism is prevalent in Britain of Canada. Oprah may disagree with me.

dbd33

I disagree with you, it doesn't bother me at all but I think Canada's rife with institutionalised racism. Still using "bongo bongo land" isn't so much an indication of racism but of muddled thinking. That's who you want in a pan-national multilingual parliament; someone careless with the use of language.

caretaker

[QUOTE=dbd33;10843115]I disagree with you, it doesn't bother me at all but I think Canada's rife with institutionalised racism. QUOTE]
That's true, but I think it's getting better.

Shard

I don't think it is necessarily muddled thinking, more a case of colourful language. There is a short clip of a R4 interview with Bongo Bongo man after he made the comment, and he is trying to make a point about Britain over spending on overseas aid, but the interviewer is only concerned with witch hunting him on the meaning of his silly expression. There's a kind of hysteria these days if anyone makes any kind non-standard comment, and that's to the detriment of the debate.

Zen10

The whole concept of "hate speech" is misguided and anti-liberal. The capacity to offend is not the same as incitement, and offence is integral to free speech and freedom of expression. This shouldn't surprise anyone as the origins of political correctness lie in the Communist movement of the USSR and the doctrine of Stalinism. Saying to a man "You are not allowed to say a certain word out loud" is going to have the exact opposite effect as that desired.

JonboyE

There does seem to be a reaction afoot, not just on this site but on other sites the British frequent. This reaction suggests that it is somehow noble to speak your mind without care to the consequences or consideration of those that hear you. They suggest that others should not be offended by them calling, for lack of a better expression, a spade a spade. And, if someone is offended, it is their fault. Now Zen10 is adding the defense of freedom to their muddleheaded thinking!

To my mind there is not an offensive word in the English language. There are plenty of words that can become offensive when used in a certain way. As ever, it is the intent and the context of words that have the power to cause offense, not the words themselves. I was taught to consider the words I use carefully and, if in doubt, choose words that were less likely to cause offence to the listener. We called it good manners. And, it is definitely the most effective form of communication.

I don't believe this new acceptance of the careless use of words is an advance in personal freedom. I think it is just feeble minded people trying to give themselves license to be *****.

Back on topic. It is disingenuous to suggest that this MEP was not making a reference to peoples who are not as "civilized" as us. It's not something I can be bothered to get worked up about, but it does make him look like a bit of a ****.

Zen10

This here is my point. The original point of Stalinist speech codes wasn't to ban particular words, but particular thoughts. A thoughtful man will have some problems with this, not least a concern about who decides what thoughts are to be banned, and of course the fact that opinion should be free, and corrected with reason, not blanket bans, which never work. The failure of the argument you espouse can be seen in the rise of fascism in Europe, and agencies like the BNP and EDL in Britain which are increasing in popularity directly in response to being told their opinion is banned.

JonboyE

But I am not talking of banning any words or thoughts. Quite the opposite. Words are just words and an individual can think what they want. All I am suggesting is that there is nothing big or clever in saying things that might cause offence without a care.

I don't get how the rise of Fascism can be blamed on politeness.

Shard

A distinction needs to be drawn between saying something in public (to a group) and saying something to an individual. The problem with PC is that is takes "manners" which may be relevant in a conversation between individuals or some kind of direct conversation, and apply it to a general public conversation. In the latter case it is the individual which chooses to be offended as they really don't need to listen. As ZEN says, it really is just a step away from Orwell's concept of thought crime.

JonboyE

Just to get this straight, if you are in a one to one conversation with a black man it is offensive to call him a dumb n*gg*r and a jungle monkey. However, if you are adressing a group of 100 people, 50 white and 50 black, it is OK to call them dumb n*gg*rs and a jungle monkeys because it is their fault if they are offended because they didn't need to listen?

Shard

That's an extreme example designed to provoke a group. Nevertheless, I don't think the individuals should be offended. They should think the person a nutter, they should ignore him, maybe laugh at him, walk away, but not be offended. Being offended only breeds resentment and violence. Look at the football rivalries who are only too quick to take offence at the slightest disrespect.

Editha

I'm just basking in the warm feeling I get from the knowledge that the cretins who have contributed the "a bongo is just a musical instrument" type contributions to this thread have quitted Britain's gene pool.

BristolUK

Which means no actual opposition to what was said, which moves it into an area of respectability that it otherwise wouldn't have, which means the language gains a little more acceptance and greater use etc etc and then in a few small steps we're back to routine use of offensive and negative expressions.