Monday, January 12, 2009




Are abbreviations offensive?

In the story below they seem to be. "Paki" is a common British abbreviation for a Pakistani. In Australia "Aborigine" is commonly abbreviated to "Abo" and that is held by some to be offensive too
"Britain's Prince Harry apologised today after reports he filmed himself calling an Asian army colleague a "Paki." The News of the World said the recording was made in 2006, a year after the prince was pilloried for wearing a Nazi uniform at a costume party, a gaffe that sparked international outcry. The paper said Harry, 24, and third in line to the British throne, could be heard saying: "Anyone else here ... ah, our little Paki friend ... Ahmed" as he zoomed onto the face of an Asian cadet while waiting at an airport to fly to Cyprus.

A royal spokesman said there had been no racist intent in Harry's words. "Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term (Paki) can be, and is extremely sorry for any offence his words might cause," the spokesman said. "However, on this occasion three years ago, Prince Harry used the term without any malice and as a nickname about a highly popular member of his platoon.
"There is no question that Prince Harry was in any way seeking to insult his friend."

Source

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Off topic: Mr. Ray are you planning to require a person to sign in with Google ID in order to read this blog.
I note that Annie's Inferno now does so?
I don't have a Google ID and don't want one.

Anonymous said...

The term Paki is often used in deregatory fashion.
Taken out of context it could thus easily be misinterpreted (and we all know what the press does with anything said by celebrities, especially royalty, and military people...

Anonymous said...

Baptist Pastor:

Amen!!!

Annie's is off my reading list!

Anonymous said...

Annie was forced to take that action, something she really didn't like doing, because her site was "invaded" by a foul-mouthed, insulting, ultra-leftist, who's only goal was to incite and spray personal insults at everyone who disagreed with him. He totally ignored any and all attempts at rational discourse. Also, her action was decided not by her, but by the regular members of her blog. If that action offends your "sensitivities", then stay here!

Anonymous said...

Yes, I know his/her posting's well! I think it was lhf or something like that, and the postings were definitely meant to do nothing but disrupt. Nothing I can do about it since I don't plan on getting a Google id. Oh and by the way, it doesn't "offend" me, it's just the way it is because of my decision.

Anonymous said...

Also, her action was decided not by her, but by the regular members of her blog. If that action offends your "sensitivities", then stay here! Posted by anon. 2
I am not sensitive but it is contrary to her masthead.
If the 'family' doesn't want others to READ their posts, perhaps they would be better served with IM.

Anonymous said...

You seem to have missed the point Pastor. While her action is contrary to her stated goals, it was her members, (not her) who made the decision to rid the site of the cretin known as hlf. No one there minds their post being read, or discussed, or agrued. It was the personal insults, lack of real interest in discussing anything, and foul language that was objected to.

Annie said...

Actually...

I made the decision to temporarily close the site to anyone without a Google ID because of a threat to "destroy" the blog. I had given all of my guest authors administrative priviliges to change the design, configuration, permissions, etc. at will in the mistaken belief that everyone is honest and forthright. This decision, like our republic with its guarantee of free speech, contains the seeds of its own destruction.

I am a big girl and my readers are all big, grown-up adults. We can deal with insults and invective. I believe that the individual who made the threat to destroy our site does not believe in the notion of private property; but Annie's Inferno is my private property and I am entitled to take any legal action I choose in order to protect it.

Yes, the First Amendment guarantees us free speech; but the Fifth Amendment affirms my private property rights. Also, if the individual who made the threat against my siite made the same threat against a business, a school or a government institution he would be subject to arrest and prosecution for a crime. That crime is called making a terroristic threat.

Anonymous said...

Wow - that discussion really got right of the track...
Back to the story - of course people say all sorts of things when they are with a group of mates. And when that group of mates is a bunch of squaddies you can expect the language to be a bit colourful...
Harry's problem is perhaps more that it is part of a longer history but - as we all already know from earlier posts - a bit of good natured teasing is actually a positive thing and a binding experience.

jonjayray said...

Anonymous comments are fine and will remain so

You can always include your name in an anonymous comment if you want to

jonjayray said...

A google ID is fairly easy to get

Just get a gmail account and use that email address as an identifier

I have always dealt with destructive posts mainly by deleting them but I do sometimes set comments not to be published until I moderate (screen) them.

But it is a long time since I have had to do that

Anonymous said...

I don't believe people who come to a blog (any blog) to have meaningful discussions, and voice their opinions should be subjected to personal attacks and insults, especially from someone who professes to be from the "allegedly tolorent" Left. I understand there are those here who think abusers have some right to do what they do, and are willing to accept the abuse for the sake of, well, i'm not sure why they're willing to accept it, but i'm not one of those. I treat everyone with respect whether i agree with them or not, and i require the same.