Maybe you both should take a break.
It's not a simple question. Until recently, most European countries had very low percentages of immigrants or native born citizens of immigrant descent. It's a fairly recent phenomenon in Europe of open borders and being very acceptable of immigrants that didn't originate from foreign wars (Indians in England for instance).
That said, the Indians in England don't complete throw off the cloaks of their Indian heritage just because they were born in England.
Someone like Dave can't grasp the concept of a country without an ethnicity, because with the exception of native americans (they are immigrants, but from a much longer time ago), all Americans are descendants of another country.
If you are German, that is both your country and your ethnicity. If you are Italian, it's your country and your ethnicity. If you are from the USA, it is your country, but not your ethnicity. So, it's not much different than the Scottish hanging on to their Scottish roots, when they are in fact part of the United Kingdom and in many cases these "Scotts" are living in England or other places outside of their Scottish ancestry.
I've seen very few people criticize an American of Mexican descent from paying homage to their heritage and ethnicity. I'm not sure why that's any different than Americans paying homage to their European ethnicity.
This isn't P&R guys, so let's keep the thread on topic please.
White Americans formed their own dominate culture, they have a national identity.
Mexicans in America did not.
Indians in UK did not.
Those whose current cultural identity is not established will seek to cling to traits and traditions that bond them to others who they can relate to, usually the past. It's a safety thing.
When I hear someone say I am Irish and part German, when in fact they are two or three generations American, like I said, it cracks me up as it is a claim that serves no purpose in my opinion.
Others appear to disagree.
Let's assume for a moment the thread topic was sincere, what do people think about creating a rule that prohibits language that might offend a person or group.
The case that caused this blow up was me using an ethnic (not racist) term, but clearly in context not disparaging a group or poster, but instead paying homage to the Italian men who mastered the art of making pizza.
So, the question, taking the OP at face value, is whether any term that could be deemed offensive to an ethnic group should be banned?
And, taken farther, do we want to censor any term that a group or person might be offended by.
When we started BF, people said they didn't want the draconian rules and censorship that existed on Mania/Broncos Country.
As such, we only outlawed a handful of words. Put in easy to follow rules regarding attacking other posters, etc.
Finally, we setup different guidelines in and out of the lounge. Outside the lounge, the rule is if you heard or saw it on network tv, it's generally acceptable. In the lounge, with the exception of nudity, if you saw it on cable/pay tv, it's generally acceptable.
Those rules were created by the community at large and that's how changes are done as well. So, if the community feels we need more censoring, then this is the place to discuss it.
I think that a case by case basis still needs to apply.
Remember in this case both parties have claimed to be Italian.
Initial, weaz thought T was Asian.
That changes the context immediately.
Another ethnicity, using what is a racial slur should be challenged.
In this case, a lot about nothing.
Jmo
On a forum, you can't have the context you suggest. Take his claim he thought I was Asian, which is something I've never said and runs counter to the many times I've referred to Italian ancestors.
It really comes down to whether we set aside a decade of minimal censorship, and strive to be more politically correct and censor speech that some might find offensive. I would say other than "N" and "C" and a few curses, not many words have been banned.
No rules are perfect, but a lot of time and discussing went into the rules we have now a decade ago, and we landed on the idea of censoring very little, but for when words/terms are used to attack other posters.
We need to decide if that's still the best option for this community, or if we want to define new rules to be more politically correct/sensitive to various people and groups that mighty be offended.
Ironically, I had a pretty severe run in with a mod from another forum who used to post here. The mod was furious that people used the term jap on BF (in the lounge I believe). I explained that we are fairly laid back, which was the communities desire, when it comes to moderating and censoring, and that if it wasn't used to attack another poster, no rule was broken.
Do we want to change that now?
If we want to do it right, maybe a poll? Leave it open for a week or two to make sure everyone who visits even semi-frequently has a chance to weigh in?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)