nba commentator refers to yi jianlian as "the chinaman"

[JamStone]

France man is not inherently offensive. England man is not inherently offensive.

Therefore, China man is not inherently offensive.

Only when you bring in a 19th Century history lesson does "China man" suddenly become offensive.

Exactly. Which is why it's offensive.

[JamStone]

I could tell that you were serious, that's why I thought about baiting you into a meltdown for a second, but I decided against it. You're one of the best posters on the site most of the time, I got more respect for you than most

Lol thanks for mercy. Don't think I'd go full blown meltdown, but I would definitely keep responding to your posts with seriousness even though I know what you're trying to do...

I'm an ass when it comes to certain debates. I can be a stubborn . Several posters here already know that. Plus, I'm drinking beers right now. You could have caught me at a very weak moment... You still might be able to.

haha

[Allanon]

Exactly. Which is why it's offensive.

I understand why it's offensive due to historical implications.

I just don't agree with people trying to be offended by something as ancient as the 19th century.

They find it offensive, I find them to be sissified overly-sensitive people living in the past.

To each his own.

[mavs>spurs2]

I understand why it's offensive due to historical implications.

I just don't agree with people finding offense in something as ancient as the 19th century.

They find it offensive, I find them to be sissified overly-sensitive people living in the past.

To each his own.

it's only offensive if you're chinese and/or have a small . usually the two go hand in hand. how's that for offensive?

[Agloco]

.........

[Agloco]

What exactly am I trying to impose on others? Can you be more specific?

Sure....

Controlling one's over-sensitiveness and egolatry is also part of acting with common decency, don't you agree?

To which I responded:

Green- I'd agree, and in fact there are many instances where people bite their tongue. My issue is with you imposing this standard on others while not holding yourself to the same. That would be a double standard good sir, and I simply cannot reconcile or compute such nonsense.

i.e.- you'd ask someone to control their emotions, but you cannot reciprocate by ceasing to use your term after its been established that someone finds it offensive.

What was the point of presenting the hypothetical case if now you're saying it's invalid?

Don't you understand the dangers of that theory? Language and vocabulary are precious common heritages, anyone who wants to arbitrarly deem certain words as proper or not, acceptable or derogatory, shall not be tolerated - even if they do it with the best intentions. I'd recommend Prof. Magda Stroinska works or, at the very least, George Orwell's books.

Red- It's only invalid for people who don't find those terms offensive or even unreasonable (ie you and me). For people like the OP, it's very much valid. In my hypothetical scenario, I asked what your response would be to what you would call an "overly-sensitive" person.

Green - I understand the dangers of not respecting someone's feelings on a matter which might be quite sensitive to them. It need not meet the same criteria for you.

Purple- Well now, we've come to the heart of the matter finally. It took long enough for me to dredge it out of you, but you came clean in the end. I'll let your statement speak for itself.

Have a good evening sir.