Use of racial/ethnic slurs on this forum

[Greg]

Back in 2017 in the thread about lies I said that it was necessary to lie on my Indian e-visa application form when they asked me to name all of the countries I had visited in the last 10 years with dates (this would be a major undertaking for me as I have travelled widely.)  I listed 7 counties and guessed the dates.  Then I was asked to sign the form which stated with a legal undertaking that "all of the information in the form was true".

I used the term "curry munching bureaucrat" in the context that I did not think it was reasonable for me to spend 5 days going through all of my travel records like some autistic character with scruples, so the "curry munching bureaucrat" in India would just have to accept the 7 countries I listed.

If the bureaucrat was offended at being called a "curry muncher", would that be a sin of racism?  Can we use no colourful metaphors in our language for fear of offending sensitive people?

Are the other one billion Indians who don't deal with e-Visa forms allowed to be offended on his behalf, or only the person at whom the slur is directed.

In short, if I have a black friend who does not mind my calling him "Nigger" and considers it a funny term of endearment, then do other black people in earshot, or who heard about it through a white witness, get to be offended at the use of a word between friends?

I ask, because what use to be considered a great piece of British comedy has now been removed from a TV channel for fear of offending Germans, blacks and others.

[Greg]

Political correctness is infantilism pretending to be kindness.

[Jayne]

Pretending that kindness is political correctness is infantilism.

[Greg]

[coffeeandcigarette]

Sikhs are always carrying a hidden knife and they're insane. Have you ever talked to a Sikh? Pure madness. All Indians are completely out of their mind. We get the SSPX India newsletter sometimes and they are crazy too.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2010/04/police_shoot_man_with_meat_cle.html

Are you saying that the contents of the newsletter is insane? Sounds suspicious...

BTW if you had done any research beyond possibly nosing Wikipedia, you might have found that the knife is a tiny religious symbol. One of a few carried at all times. These also include a comb and a bracelet.

[coffeeandcigarette]

All Indians are completely out of their mind.

Are you serious with this generalization? You sound about three years old.

[queen.saints]

Not to worry, coffeeandcigarettes, this time I'm the one who did zero research, because I've had enough experience with Sikhs and other Indians in real life to know that they are carrying real knives and that their racial personality is clearly unstable. Most of them would admit this themselves, because they rightly know that being crazy gives them a certain je-ne-sais-quoi.

So when you and Jayne said you couldn't think of any reason for hostility towards Sikhs, my first thought was that they end up on the morning news brandishing an ax after often frequenting your place of business. Turns out I was remembering wrong- it was just a meat cleaver.
So, I will modify my hostility from Level Ax to Level Cleaver.

[Vetus Ordo]

The real question should be: it appropriate to use slurs of any kind? Racial slurs are just one type among many insults that people can attack each other with. The truth is that charity should temper all our actions.

So in a good Catholic country like Spain at the zenith of its catholicism, you believe the correct response to finding that your citizens had been taken from the beaches and transported to be raped in a harem in North Africa would be to say.

"Oh, Crikey, those poor misguided Mohammedans have been kidnapping our daughters again.  Let's organise a litany and get the ransom money collected so that when we rescue them they are less raped than they would be otherwise".

I don't think any man with a ball sack would react like that.

If people behave in a savage and barbaric way, then it is perfectly reasonable to use words that reflect the anger that savagery causes in one's heart.

Calling people names and feeding the hatred in our hearts doesn't solve anything. You can fight oppression without defiling your heart. Remember that Christ commands us to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44) and the Apostle forbids us from using foul language (Col. 3:8, Eph. 4:29 et 5:4). The evangelical standard to which we are all called is the cultivation of a pure heart.

Is a pure heart compatible with offending other people on purpose, though they be evil? Or, worse, insulting whole groups of people centuries later who haven't done anything to you?

Deep down, you know the answer.

[Greg]

Wishy washy nonsense.  Men like that don't fight wars or change the world.  Even Jesus lost his temper and swore at people.

[Jayne]

In what world is having conversations, arguments, or commentary on a discussion forum with people whom you have never met on par with family and friends?  I would never consider anyone here, the majority of whom I have never met, to be on the level of friends or family.  On a forum, people are still strangers.  The people I have met in person don't seem the least bit familiar to me when I see them face to face.  It is like meeting a stranger with whom I have passed here and there some times before.

I agree that the relationship between posters is not as close as real-life friends and family, but neither is it the equivalent to being strangers.

You made the analogy that being on the same forum is like being strangers passing on the street.  That is a false analogy.  Everyone on this forum is here because we have chosen to be and we have made a conscious decision to associate with our fellow forum members.  We were not thrown together at random.  We chose this, most of us because we feel we share something in common.

It is, therefore, reasonable for observers of this forum to think that ideas and behaviours of some posters are representative of the group, especially if nobody voices any objections and seems to accept it.

[Jayne]

Not to worry, coffeeandcigarettes, this time I'm the one who did zero research, because I've had enough experience with Sikhs and other Indians in real life to know that they are carrying real knives ...

It is true that Sikhs carry knives as part of their religion.  I have trouble understanding why you think this is such a bad thing.  Many people on this forum have expressed the idea that it is a good thing for people to carry guns.  Why is carrying a knife worse than carrying a gun?

(Yes, I know that one should not bring a knife to a gun fight, but I mean in general.    )

[Bernadette]

It is, therefore, reasonable for observers of this forum to think that ideas and behaviours of some posters are representative of the group, especially if nobody voices any objections and seems to accept it. 

This is as unreasonable as lumping all traditionalists together and saying that we're all sedevacantists. We're not all racists just because a minority of people use racist terms.

[Jayne]

It is, therefore, reasonable for observers of this forum to think that ideas and behaviours of some posters are representative of the group, especially if nobody voices any objections and seems to accept it. 

This is as unreasonable as lumping all traditionalists together and saying that we're all sedevacantists. We're not all racists just because a minority of people use racist terms.

It's obvious that we are not all sedevacantists because people are always arguing about it.  It requires very little observation to see that it is a point of controversy on this forum. What if several people wrote in favour of the SV position and nobody disagreed?   

There is even a saying "silence implies consent" (and there are variations in many languages) because it is so common for people to assume that lack of disagreement means acceptance. 

[Graham]

People here are right to not view a racial slur, especially in a satirical or abstract context, as some showstopping event or critical opportunity to enforce the liberal consensus. It's your family that is apparently being ridiculous about it and that's not my problem, or Greg's or anyone else's

[Vetus Ordo]

Wishy washy nonsense.  Men like that don't fight wars or change the world.  Even Jesus lost his temper and swore at people.

It's disappointing that you find the evangelical counsels "wishy washy nonsense," although not entirely surprising. Changing the world starts precisely with your own heart.

Men who fight just wars have to discipline their hearts and their minds. Any barbarian can hate the enemy, utter vitriol and practice violence. The true man of God, even when he has to kill someone, kills without spite and without hate, wishing that God will have mercy on him. Even non-Christians can do it, so why can't you? It reminds me of the story of Ali who refused to kill a man on the battlefield who was insulting him and spitting in his face. He waited until the next day just to clear his mind and his heart. This is true chivalry and true piety.

As for Christ, He read peoples' hearts and judged their souls, something none of us can do.