404 thoughts on “Outrage Greets 2016 World Fantasy Con Program”

1. It really is a “fannish in-joke” if you’re a 120-year-old fan, or really into the history of the the less-savory (but spicier) pulps, like Darrell is. I googled for the pulps he was referring to, and there really were an “Oriental Stories” in the early 30s, and a “Spicy Zeppelin Stories” around the First World War.

   I looked over the program, and reads like something Darrell would write if he weren’t getting many panel suggestions. It reflects his interests in history – HPL, pulps, ancient history, etc. He does seem to try to include panels that survey the field by theme.

   But no, he doesn’t realize the extent to which younger fans (under 40? 30?) not only missed the “classics”, but consciously avoid them because of the authors’ negative personality traits (sexism, racism, etc.). People today aren’t all that interested in the history of the genre.

2. Milt Stevens on August 2, 2016 at 11:26 am said:

   None of these people seem to know the magic words for getting things done your way in fandom. “I volunteer to do the program next year.”

   I am not sure that is a very good idea. Doing programming is a tough call – and only people who have proven experience with it should do it, lest something like that which we are talking about happens.

   Apart from that, my understanding is that hosting a WFC is not easy. The Board for example rejected the application of a group of British fans on the grounds that they were Not The Right People, or something like that.

3. @Aaron Intent is not magic.
   No, but it should be accounted for, and can often be mitigating.

4. Sorry, I was taken in by a fake. The “Spicy Zeppelin Stories” was a joke one-shot by Will Murray in 1989.

5. There’s input from a few more authors like Janny Wurts and Courtney Schafer over at the fantasy reddit thread.

   I was puzzled at the over-abundance of horror for a convention called the World Fantasy Convention, but I had no idea it had so much baggage (see Janny Wurts’ comment).

6. @Jamoche

   80 years? Insert gif of Captain America going “I got that reference – but I don’t expect you to.”

   Somehow I think that Steve Rogers would have been into more wholesome fare than the Spicies or Oriental Stories. Though he would probably have gotten the reference.

   @Bruce Arthurs

   I’m kinda amazed no one’s mentioned the 2004 anthology ALL STAR ZEPPELIN ADVENTURES, edited by David Moles and Jay Lake.

   I remember that anthology, since I submitted to it at the time. Though for some reason, I misremembered that the anthology title was actually Spicy Zeppelin Stories. Probably got it mixed up with Spicy Slipstream Stories, which came out around the same time.

   But echoing what’s been said before, even if it is an in-joke in pulp fandom, it’s still too obscure a reference (not to mention problematic because of the racist connotations of “oriental”) to use in a program aimed at an audience not comprised of pulp collectors.

7. Wasn’t aware “oriental” has become such an emotive word.

   It hasn’t really become one outside of some very narrow echo-chambers. “Oriental” was not a pejorative, but merely is a word that has fallen out of fashion to the extent that saying it has “acquired a patina of racism over the years,” as Bruce Arthurs wrote, is fair to say. The use of “colored” is a reasonably close parallel: Both were standard terms in their eras, and both have non-pejorative root meanings, with “oriental” merely meaning “eastern,” but both are associated to white cultures treating other cultures as different and inferior, and thus fell from modern use. The reasons it has fallen out of favor make good sense, as its past use tended to be a colonialist perspective, and often of exoticizing and fetishizing, and yes, sometimes fear-mongering, widely diverse people and cultures.

   However, treating it like it is or ever was an actual slur is pretty silly, and using it in mock-title form while discussing a panel on pulps shouldn’t be a big deal at all, because that reflects the language of the pulps. It’s referencing the title of a real pulp magazine! If one has a fainting spell over such language, then it’s probably best to avoid all pulps and pulp-references entirely (as there are some genuinely offensive things to find, like those covers linked by Cora above), along with Tintin (some very colonialist and racist depictions), and countless other output, particularly lowbrow writing and art, from other eras. In fact, it might be best to avoid reading anything, and to just cover oneself in bubble wrap and hide in the bedroom, lest the messy world do you harm.

   Unfortunately, context and perspective on the internet tends to be lacking, with the masses seeming incapable of nuance beyond shouting “No-no word!” and working up the requisite outrage. Perhaps the saddest part is the view that one shouldn’t make the effort to understand intent and context before passing judgement, but so it goes.

8. TMP:
   Wasn’t aware “oriental” has become such an emotive word.

   It hasn’t really become one outside of some very narrow echo-chambers.

   You mean Federal law, for example?

9. @Jon Baker:

   It doesn’t matter if Schweitzer didn’t get many panel suggestions – he could (and should) have actively asked other people for input. He did get response from Sarah Pinsker early on as well. I’ve also done programming myself (and will work on it for next Worldcon), and one of the things I’ve realised about it that one needs to look for your own biases as well. If you cannot do so any programming you make will by necessity be flawed or just geared towards certain groups.

   And I can’t agree at all that the young fen of today aren’t interested in the history of science fiction or fandom. Plenty of them are; but they are utterly uninterested in the history as it is currently being told by many old fen. They want to explore – and claim – it on their own.

10. Pingback: World Fantasy Con Programming Mess

11. You mean Federal law, for example?

    Paul, you are making my point for me. It isn’t an “emotive” word to most people outside of echo-chambers, because it’s an old-fashioned neutral term, not a slur, old-fashioned or otherwise. You make my point by demonstrating it was the official term in many Federal laws, not a slur. However, as I already said, it has fallen out of fashion because of the “patina of racism” it has from the negative associations from past use. I think removing it from Federal laws is a great move by Obama! It has no place in modern law, and should certainly be struck from it. That doesn’t make what I stated above any less true.

12. @TMP
    
    “The term ‘Oriental’ has no place in federal law and at long last this insulting and outdated term will be gone for good,” the author of the bill, Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), said in a statement Friday.

    “Insulting?” That doesn’t sound like “old fashioned neutral term” to me.

    But its a day that ends in Y. I’m probably wrong.

13. Washington State banned the use of “Oriental” from use in state documents already in 2002.

14. It’s just a word. Oriental. Means Eastern. Which is the currently fashionable word. As opposed to Occidental, which means Western. But words have emotional connotations, that change over time. Like “and we’ll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home”. Or “I’m all fagged out”. Or whatever. If Asians today feel that “oriental” is offensive, who are we to gainsay that? Maybe they don’t want to be lumped in with Middle Easterners – as in the Middle Eastern archeological society “American Schools of Oriental Research”.

    I once worked for the “International Center for the Disabled”. When it started, it was the “Institute for the Crippled and Disabled”. At the time, “crippled” wasn’t offensive to the disabled. By the 1970s, it was. Fortunately, they found a TLA that matched the existing initials, so they didn’t have to change all the logos.

15. No, but it should be accounted for, and can often be mitigating.

    In this case, it can’t and isn’t. Schweitzer was alerted to the fact that it was a problematic term and waved off the criticism. Whether he “intended” to be offensive or not, he was, and he was told ahead of time that it was a problem.

16. Oh, and it was absolute acknowledged as a slur when it was removed from state legislation in New York in 2009:

    “Allowing derogatory and hateful language to linger in public discourse and gain legitimacy through its inclusion in official State documents is improper and inexcusable. I am proud to have partnered with Governor Paterson and Assemblywoman Meng to ensure that decency prevailed when this legislation became law.”

17. @Paul

    It appears you can only make a point by truncating what I’ve said to avoid the context. In both of my posts, I’ve suggested it is an inappropriate term in modern contexts because it has a patina of racism from negative past use associations, and both times you quoted me you removed the context that would provide this nuance. I likened it to “colored” in my first description, and your own link placed it alongside “Negro,” both of which were standard neutral terms in their contemporary use, but are old-fashioned today. “Oriental” is the same–and old-fashioned neutral term that is avoided today due to past racist associations. None of the three is appropriate in a modern context, but pretending these are slurs is to misunderstand what they were as words. If you get intensely emotional over the reference to “oriental” in the context of pulps, that’s fine, but I stand by my assessment of it not being “emotive” for the most part outside of narrow echo chambers.

18. @Hampus Eckerman

    Did you even read your own link? The author says

    As an aside, the offensiveness of the term Oriental appears to be somewhat generational. My father, who turns 60 this year, still uses the term Oriental to describe people who are Asian. I personally don’t get particularly worked up by the term but don’t use it simply out of habit.

    I assume this means you agree with me? It’s a term that was neutral (as was “Negro,” or did Dr. King use slurs on himself all the time?), but, like “colored” and “Negro,” isn’t appropriate in the modern era. To pretend they were slurs is to misunderstand what they were as words, as I said.

19. And of course oriental was used in a racist context already in the pulps. That is why the word became stained and is not in use anymore. “Neutral” at that time was racist and colonialist.

    And that is not “neutral” anymore and have not been since a long time.

20. Anna Feruglio Dal Dan said:

    Apart from that, my understanding is that hosting a WFC is not easy. The Board for example rejected the application of a group of British fans on the grounds that they were Not The Right People, or something like that.

    Cheryl Morgan says here (in 2013):

    A couple of years ago a group of British fans bid to hold WFC here. Their bid was summarily dismissed by the WFB who apparently deemed that they were not competent to run the convention. Most of those people are involved in running the London Worldcon.

    Anyone interested enough in the topic to read this far in the comments should check out that entire post. The first part details Cheryl’s own experience struggling with the WFC board in the process of helping run the 2009 WFC; the bit I quoted is the segue to listing the various fails of the 2013 WFC.

21. TMP:

    “Did you even read your own link?”

    Yes. Why do you think that was a good question? Because you want to insinuate that only you are educated and all other people live in small echo-chambers? When the opposite seem to be true?

    It was a term that was neutral when racism was neutral. And that is not a good thing. That is why they are slurs today.

22. Yes, those were neutral, commonly used words… when blatant, unquestioned racism was the norm.

    You seem to missing that context and nuance.

    But I guess it’s low brow of us to consider the historical context in which those words and works appeared, and the unquestioned racist culture they were embedded in. Using a word decade after decade in incredibly racist ways – kinda makes the word racist. It may have once been neutral, but things like the pulps and other popular media MADE it emotive and offensive. They can’t claim innocence.

23. @Jon Baker: Or “I’m all fagged out”.

    That’s an interesting one, because I know a lot of older gay men, mostly in San Francisco, who still refer to themselves as “fags”. Once when one of them and I were both visiting Austin for the same event, he asked me if I wanted to go with him and some buddies to a gay bar and “fag out”. I don’t use it, but it can be used.

    But I don’t know of anyone who uses the two-syllable form. The last time I can think when it was used semi-successfully was when Larry Kramer used it for the title of his novel. The title was the least of peoples’ problems with that book.

    Which I should read some day. Love the essays, love the plays, but this got by me. Someday.

24. Serious question: Did Asian people in the west ever use “oriental” to refer to themselves positively? Black people most certainly used both “Negro” and “colored” in that manner.

    It seems to me that makes a difference when looking at the past. In my reading in black civil rights history, modern writers will often deliberately use “Negro” when writing about the past. Typically they explain that usage in a foreword or an afterword, then use it throughout the work without further explanation.

25. @Hampus Eckerman

    I thought it was a good question because you quoted a person named Craig Johnson to demonstrate it is derogatory and hateful, but left out when the author talked about how her Asian (or Asian-American) father still uses the term Oriental and suggested it’s a generational difference. I’d think that would at least let you know my point has merit. Meanwhile, if you think I left out the historical context, go back and reread my first post on it being an “emotive” word or not (@Ken Marable should as well).

    Echo chambers are not about education, but about broadening perspective. Think about what the author in your own link said. I’m fully in favor of the language shift, for the reasons I already described, but that doesn’t mean one has to be ignorant of all context for the outdated term.

26. @John A Arkansawyer

    Serious question: Did Asian people in the west ever use “oriental” to refer to themselves positively? Black people most certainly used both “Negro” and “colored” in that manner.

    Yes, as Hampus Eckerman’s link above mentions,

    As an aside, the offensiveness of the term Oriental appears to be somewhat generational. My father, who turns 60 this year, still uses the term Oriental to describe people who are Asian. I personally don’t get particularly worked up by the term but don’t use it simply out of habit.

    The author of the article is of Asian decent, judging by the name (last name of Liu) and context, and her father obviously did, because he still does today. The use began to fall out of favor beginning in the 70’s by most suggestions. The parallels drawn with “Negro” and “colored,” both in original meaning and being outdated in modern times, are for the most part accurate.

27. TMP:

    A person from another generation might have a hard time keeping up with that words with a racist connotations are no longer acceptable. That doesn’t change that the word today is not neutral. And it doesn’t change that the word today is a slur – which is now also acknowledged in legislation.

    So no, your words do not have merit. Nor your talk about “echo-chambers”. We are all aware of the historic background.

28. WFC sounds tedious as hell to me as a relatively young whippersnapper of 35.

29. “The parallels drawn with “Negro” and “colored,” both in original meaning and being outdated in modern times, are for the most part accurate.”

    Which is actually a good example. If you use the word “Negro” today you are usually called a racist asshole. Newspaper even write “the n-word” instead to avoid this.

    These are outdated words that are slurs today. And should not be used. And that is why people are reacting when the words are used today. As an example, in programming for WFC.

30. Which is actually a good example. If you use the word “Negro” today you are usually called a racist asshole. Newspaper even write “the n-word” instead to avoid this.

    Oh, Hampus, you are illustrating the problem with pretending it’s a slur, rather than an outdated term belonging in the past, perfectly. Newspapers today do not mean “Negro” when they write “the n-word.” They mean the word that was the slur of that era and remains a slur today. That you think “Negro” belongs in the same category as the n-word demonstrates that you very much need to understand the historical context.

    For clarification, when I called it “neutral,” I meant in its contemporary use (that is, the use back then). To use an old-fashioned term like “colored,” “Negro,” or “Oriental” today does not mean the same thing as then, and is not neutral, because they are considered outdated. If someone uses it today, one must look to the context to understand why (hard, I know), because it’s an odd and potentially problematic word choice. It’s quite likely they are trying to harken back to an earlier era, which could be quite racist, or could be something else, depending on context.

31. @Hampus Eckerman: I have never heard of anyone using “n-word” for anything but the six-letter epithet. And as you can see, reputable people still use the word “Negro” from time to time. They’ve de-emphasized it, but it’s still in their official name.

    It is also used ironically by black folks, as well as academically. This last is the point on which I might justify the use of “oriental” in a program title for a convention. I don’t think it’s justifiable here, because I don’t think it’s necessary, but it isn’t horrifying, just tone-deaf.

    I do completely agree with you that these words should rarely if ever be used in newspapers.

32. A person from another generation might have a hard time keeping up with that words with a racist connotations are no longer acceptable. That doesn’t change that the word today is not neutral. And it doesn’t change that the word today is a slur – which is now also acknowledged in legislation.

    Hampus, the author of that article has a 60 year old father, which means she’s probably 20-40, plenty young to keep up with the times. She said, in the quote I already quoted twice, “I personally don’t get particularly worked up by the term but don’t use it simply out of habit.” She epitomizes the people outside of your echo chamber I’m talking about. Very few “get particularly worked up by the term” (the very question of whether it is “emotive,” she perfectly demonstrating my point) even among those who don’t use it out of habit. It’s an outdated term, and I’d never use it without a specific reason, and one which doesn’t belong in something like modern law (something that should reflect modern usages), but isn’t a slur. Save that term for the words that do get emotive responses from a wide swath of people and are intended to insult.

33. “OH, Hampus, you are illustrating the problem with pretending it’s a slur, rather than an outdated term belonging in the past, perfectly.”

    Really, people who do not agree with you are pretending? They are living in echo-chambers? They never read the texts they quote? Everyone else, but you, never understand historical context? In a discussion about insulting words, it is interesting to see how insulting expressions you use toward others.

    I’m done talking to you. I’ll let you stew in your own superiority.

    John:

    Absolutely every word can be used ironically. That doesn’t mean that it is always a good idea to do it. Regarding the n-word, it might be a cultural thing. Here in Sweden, neither of the n-words are acceptable words. But it is not as acceptable as some would think.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/word-negro-2010-census-forms-raises-memories-jim-crow-article-1.457774

34. It is also used ironically by black folks, as well as academically. This last is the point on which I might justify the use of “oriental” in a program title for a convention. I don’t think it’s justifiable here, because I don’t think it’s necessary, but it isn’t horrifying, just tone-deaf.

    Yes, this. If someone wants to disagree on it being funny or justifiable, those points can have solid merit. However, it was clearly an in-joke and also clearly meant to invoke the language of the pulps themselves, with the word being in the title of a real magazine, after all. That’s not worth being outraged.

    A parallel example might be if a sports panel used the title, “The Negro Champion” with the subject being Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion of the world. In his time, Jack Johnson was billed as “the Negroes’ Deliverer” and similar, so a panel title using the word “Negro” would obviously be trying to reference the era–give a sense of the times one is talking about. To be sure, those were very racist times indeed (there were race riots after he won a decisive victory over a white opponent). But it’s not a slur, and in context can make sense to use even though it’s outdated today. Whether such a panel should use the title is valid to discuss, but the context and intent isn’t hard to see, and it certainly doesn’t merit outrage.

    On the other hand, I agree it does not belong in modern things–newspapers not specifically quoting/referencing an earlier era, the law, conversation, etc.–just like the similar other words I mentioned.

35. Really, people who do not agree with you are pretending? They are living in echo-chambers? They never read the texts they quote? Everyone else, but you, never understand historical context? In a discussion about insulting words, it is interesting to see how insulting expressions you use toward others.

    I’m done talking to you. I’ll let you stew in your own superiority.

    Hampus, if you say all of this without even acknowledging (realizing?) that you were very wrong about “Negro” being “the n-word,” then I’m fine that you are done talking to me, because you don’t seem interested in a conversation. Saying you don’t understand the historical context was based on things like that, not any assumption about you personally. Your own article link, written by an author of Asian decent, gave context about “oriental” that you chose to ignore, and that pretty much agreed with me point by point, so I’ll go ahead and stand by the echo chamber idea, too. If these expressions are too insulting to you, I’m sorry, and what words that convey the same ideas should I use?

36. TMP:

    As I said, I’m done talking with you. You can have your own little echo-chamber of comments without me.

37. As I said, I’m done talking with you. You can have your own little echo-chamber of comments without me.

    You do know what an echo chamber is, right? There are quite a few comments here, many of which aren’t expressing agreement with me, and I’m trying to engage directly with those who disagree on the points they themselves make (you know, an exchange of ideas). That’s why I used your own link, and how the Asian American author of that article outlined my point exactly in her aside, to illustrate. Refusing to discuss the points someone disagreeing is trying to make, ignoring outside evidence, and depending on the amplified agreement where everyone just circles around back-patting and agreeing is the nature of an echo chamber. It seems to be what you are seeking, so I’d just own it and embrace the idea, rather than be insulted.

    Should have done this earlier: Have you checked the wikipedia page on ethnic slurs? I know it’s just wikipedia, and I suppose anyone could add the words today, but they list literally dozens of ethnic slurs, and “colored,” “Negro,” and “Oriental” are all missing (the n-word of course is there). So the wiki hive mind seems to back the assessment that these are outdated terms, but not slurs, at least for today.

    Anyway, pro-tip, if you are done talking to me, it’s probably advisable not to address me in a reply comment. I usually interpret that as talking to me and I reply if I have the time and inclination. Alternatively, if you want to engage in a real discussion, I’ll try to check-in if I can.

38. Oriental is on Wikipedias list of ethnic slurs by ethnicity.

    “Oriental
    (Predominantly U.S., used elsewhere) Refers to an East Asian person (of the Orient) and/or their ethnicity; sometimes considered offensive.”

    Also, from Oxford Dictionaries:

    “NOUN

    offensive
    A person of Asian, especially East Asian, descent.
    Usage

    The term oriental has an out-of-date feel as a term denoting people from Asia; it tends to be associated with a rather offensive stereotype of the people and their customs as inscrutable and exotic. In US English Asian is the standard accepted term in modern use; in British English, where Asian tends to denote people from the Indian subcontinent, specific terms such as Chinese or Japanese are more likely to be used.”

39. So good to know that TMP is on the job! Else people might actually want to attend WFC–and even expect not to be insulted.

40. @Hampus Eckerman

    If you actually read what you quote, both from wiki and OED, you get exactly the sense I described in my first post. It’s why they use “sometimes” offensive and “tends to be associated with” (rather than explicitly meaning) the negative associations in their descriptions. I’ll remind you of what I said in my first post on it:

    The use of “colored” is a reasonably close parallel: Both were standard terms in their eras, and both have non-pejorative root meanings, with “oriental” merely meaning “eastern,” but both are associated to white cultures treating other cultures as different and inferior, and thus fell from modern use. The reasons it has fallen out of favor make good sense, as its past use tended to be a colonialist perspective, and often of exoticizing and fetishizing, and yes, sometimes fear-mongering, widely diverse people and cultures.

    How is that not agreeing with the OED saying, “it tends to be associated with a rather offensive stereotype of the people and their customs as inscrutable and exotic”? Also, you REALLY need to give a careful read to your NY Daily news article linked above on “Negro” appearing on the census. All of the responses quoted were thoughtful stuff, and contextualize the word excellently. “Oriental” belongs in the same category. (That is, you very much need to understand it’s not the same as the n-word.)

    However, I do wish to explicitly say point to you on the wiki list. Why they have two similar lists without the same terms (“List of ethnic slurs” and “List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity”), I don’t know, but one had “Oriental” and one did not, and the one that had it did only say “sometimes offensive.” So point to you on that, but I still am pretty comfortable with what I have said. Note what your entry says on “Negro” too.

41. Note what your entry says on “Negro” too.

    Sorry, I meant “colored” in that last sentence. It says under that entry, “Once generally accepted as inoffensive, this word is now considered disrespectful by some. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People continues to use its full name unapologetically.”

42. So good to know that TMP is on the job! Else people might actually want to attend WFC–and even expect not to be insulted.

    bbz, I’m sure the vast majority insulted by the panel title will find something to be insulted by, no matter what, so you need not worry. I just hope there will also be others are willing to discuss context, intent, and nuance, rather than joining in the pile-on because it’s fun to be in an internet mob.

43. I generally stay out of things that boil down to x individual/entity did or said something racist/sexist/tone deaf. It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that I have only so much outrage to spare and it’s already allocated.

    But…upthread @Ken Marable said something that is crucial to this discussion and also tangential to one of the points made in the Piers Anthony discussion earlier in the week (was it only yesterday?): Yes, those were neutral, commonly used words… when blatant, unquestioned racism was the norm.

    I think referencing the norms of the past as if that somehow excuses anything then or now is merely exculpatory and not useful as a point of argument.

44. The money quote from Foz Meadows’s essay:

    If your argument is that genre is an unbiased meritocracy – if that’s what you truly aspire for conventions and awards ceremonies alike to look like, the best works and writers rising to the top regardless of any other consideration – then the presence of homogeneity in your lineup should concern you, because it’s a sign that someone, somewhere is putting their hand on the scales.

    I wish more people understood this, because it’s what cuts the legs out from under every “but those ARE the best stories, and it’s only coincidence that they’re all by white dudes!” argument ever.

    @ StephenfromOttawa: Congratulations, you’re one of today’s lucky 10,000, and now you know. The currently acceptable term is “Asian”, but note that language evolves, and in another 50 years “Asian” may have become problematic and people who want to be polite will all be saying something else.

45. TMP, you seem to have missed the point. “Oriental”, when not used for physical objects like carpets, is an insult, and has been for years.

46. @Hampton Eckerman: This is something I’ve lived, being an American from and living in the South. Not that the North is better, but racism is so intimately twined into our history that you can’t avoid thinking about it. At least, I don’t understand how it can’t drive people’s behavior.

    The word “colored” would get you at least the side-eye, but it’s not fighting words. My favorite current band dropped an anti-racist single today which uses it to refer to racism. Using the n-word wouldn’t have worked. Far from it.

    (Joe Jackson pulled it off, if only barely, on Beat Crazy, with “Battleground”. It helped that his wife was black and they were currently involved with Rock Against Racism, and that from context it was clear what he meant by it. I wouldn’t try it myself.)

    As for “Negro”, I’m pretty sure if it were enunciated clearly, the worst it’d get would be puzzlement. It’s old-fashioned–no, make that out of fashion, which is worse–but it’s never been a slur. If you stuck with it after a first use, it’d become offensive. But you’d have to work at it a little.

47. @ TMP: This is the “But he was a man of his time!” argument, which is a known fallacy. Not to mention that it’s perfectly possible to be aware of the history and culture surrounding a thing and still be able to say that it hasn’t aged well.

    Why are you so heavily invested in proving that everyone else here is wrong? Is it a “they’re all out of step but Jim” thing? Because that’s sure what it looks like from here.

    @ Hampus: Slight correction — the “N-word” is usually a reference not to “Negro”, but to “n****r”. Which was itself a word considered “merely descriptive” during most of the 19th century. We don’t live in the 19th century any more.

48. “Asian” seems awfully unspecific. It’s a big continent. I guess I normally go with specific nationality when I know it. I was surprised by some of the Twitter reaction to the panel title. So I’ve learned something, as Lee points out.

49. TMP: I’m sure the vast majority insulted by the panel title will find something to be insulted by, no matter what, so you need not worry. I just hope there will also be others are willing to discuss context, intent, and nuance, rather than joining in the pile-on because it’s fun to be in an internet mob.

    This is a nice attempt to play the “If you disagree with me, then you’re one of those people who get outraged by anything and everything, and your opinion is meritless!” card.

    However, most of the people here are extremely intelligent (I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to whose facilities might be in question in that area), and they’re not going to allow you to manipulate them in that way.

    I’m not particularly outraged by that many things. However, my attitude is, if a term or phrase is considered racist by the people it describes, then their judgment reigns: It’s racist, and courtesy and humanity require that I not use it. Period. Full Stop. End Of.

    This shouldn’t be a hard concept for a mature, intelligent adult to grasp. I leave it as an exercise for you as to whether you actually fall into that category.

50. @Lee

    Why are you so heavily invested in proving that everyone else here is wrong?

    I believe @TMP is engaged in an activity referred to as “virtue-signalling”.

    I’ve always found Asian to be funny, not the least because a Yank and a Brit will have completely different first impressions about what it refers to, and neither one would be incorrect….

Comments are closed.