Seriong wrote:Norsklow wrote:
Do go on: why does the group have power to determine if it is offensive?
Why should I pay attention to their determination of it?
The people picked that name when they made their own country, and I think they are simply stuck with it, and should put up with it, unless they also decide to re-name their State. In that case, I'd consider it reasonable enough to go along with the new name, provided they don't call themselves KCMG.
( We shan't go into 'tranny' - I simply tend to use first name, or ask what they want to be called, just as you call someone Jack Smith and not 'worker' + a dimunitive is never good form )
(I'm a bit unclear as to what 'Zornik' is)
" why does the group have power to determine if it is offensive? "
A person is able to determine what is offensive to them, just as a group is able to determine what is offensive to them.
"Why should I pay attention to their determination of it?"
In order to have a rational and civil discussion, and not get bogged down in little unproductive sidetracks like this.
"I think they are simply stuck with it, and should put up with it, unless they also decide to re-name their State. In that case, I'd consider it reasonable enough to go along with the new name,"
Now remember, this all started with one person (you) using Zornik in an offensive way, because it is only you, you would simply be thrown out, unworthy of an actual response. If it gained ground, and Zornik became offensive, then it would warrant a change of wording. If say their full name was Zorkinia, then it would be completely justified in saying they are Zorkinians, not Zoniks.
Zornik is a term I just invented. Lets call it Half Guy ( half Zorn ( torn ), German , half -nik, (man) slav ). I had not even thought about it until you asked, you know? EDIT: Bunch of Imaginary people, and relations between one of them and one of me are just TERRIBLE.
I. Who decides what the Group is, and now that we have a group, exactly why should I pay the slightest attention to their concern or concerns?
Their being in a group is an internal matter... their decisions have nothing to do with an outsider.
Just like a bunch of people forming a football team can make rules for themselves... but not for me .
Now remember, this all started with one person (you) using Zornik in an offensive way, because it is only you, you would simply be thrown out, unworthy of an actual response.
Says who? Who would throw me out, and out of where? You are assuming a framework for enforcing these desires of this group - and assumes that I have to pay attention to that.
Paki-Stan. Land of the Paki. Angel-Land, land of the Angel ( people ). Ingerman-land, land of the Ingerman ( near St Petersburg )
As I said before, I quite understand the reasoning with Jap. A word simply invented to have a go at the Japanese. It did not exist before, it was invented as a deliberate insult during a war.
But this does not hold up in the other case. This is their own self-invented term. Someone starts using it in a highly negative mode. Granted... but how does that invalidate the term?
And if it does - does that not also mean that they should stop using the term itself and rename the place Pakistanistan?
And having gone this way - what if someone starts using F**king bl***dy Pakistani?
