A quick check on Wikipedia shows that MIJ wasn't paying much attention in High School.
*shrug* true, dat.
's funny, what I wrote genuinely was how I remember tMoV. Hey ho, I guess my memory sucks. (heh, tell me something I dont know already. Or do I know? I dont remember...
) Anyway, my apologies for writing what turned out to be a load of twaddle. (wouldnt be the first time, i spose...)
anyway: on with the debate
it is the associations and connotations of the word that are offensive.
and the connotations are in the mind of the listener/reader, not necessarily the speaker/writer. If the speaker/writer is deliberately using the word as a racist/sexist/~ist term, then its a different story. However, intent to be ~ist is key. Personally, I had never associated the word "shylock" (and I refuse to censor it. Its not a
f*cking swearword) with racist connotations. Sure, its not something you'd call your friend, but in a situation where someone or something is squeezing every last dime out of someone or something else, I see it as an appropriate, if not particularly complimentary, word to use. Its perfectly possible to offend someone unintentionally, and I think its this kind of offence that we have to guard against. Guard against taking, I mean, not giving. I think insults and slurs should be taken in the context of how they were intended. Essentially, in a situation where someone was offended by someone unintentionally, the weight of blame-for-offence lies with the offendee rather than the offender.
I think you are confusing the similar sounding slur 'Sh*ster' with the above.
unlikely, since I have never head the word "Sh*ster" before.
It's possible that youre misinterpreting my (admittedly somewhat fuzzy) use of the phrase "tight with money". I do not exclusively mean someone who doesnt spend money much. I mean someone who does everything in his or her power to gain and keep money, and who is generally of a "I'll get what's mine" kinda mindset.
I read the the links you put up, and sure, I can see that the Jewish community has a point. Anti-semitism is bad. No arguments from me about that. In fact, anti-any-group-of-people is bad. I just think that (any) folks who take offence where none was intended
might be looking for trouble where in fact there is none. Just to be 100% clear on this: I do not categorise all (or indeed, any) jews this way. I never, ever categorise groups of people. Very important part of my personal life-philosophy, that is. The only people I put into the "over sensitive about word usage and likely to take offence where none is intended" group, is people who are over sensitive about word usage and likely to take offence where none is intended, based on my personal experience of said people.
Aaaaaanyway. Right. I'm sure Ive given Pikey enough ammo to shoot me down with by now. So, Pikey - what say you
ps : holo field's working great, thanks chief
), but I am aware of the anti semitic connotations of the phrase.
