Ben & Jerry's drops fortune cookies from 'Lin-Sanity'

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Chink" can refer to a small gap or slit. Unless your writing about something that may be associated with an asian where race isnt even the topic.

Great reasoning there.
The "chink in the armor" headline referred to Jeremy Lin being a weak link in a particular scenario. ESPN is known for pithy headlines that often include double entendres. Can you put two and two together or not?

So you are trolling?
God help us if he's not.
 
"Chink" in this context would be more analogous to "queer" in that it has multiple meanings. You can't see how the word queer might be totally innocuous until used as a pejorative?
No one uses the word queer anymore except in fantasy books, or novels that take place before the 60s. Using the word 'queer' in any headline today will get you fired.
 
Hulot: I freely admit that I'm white and from the Midwest, and I've heard "chink in the armor" used in real world contexts fairly often my whole life. If you'll knock me out for using an expression common to my background without racial intent, then that's your problem, not mine.

Edit: Or, to put it differently: to read race into something of MY linguistic background is insensitive to me, in its own way.
Since you seem to not understand the malleability of language (we have literature for a reason, think the difference between Hemingway and Joyce), let's put it in a more vulgar example: you grew up in an all-white community and people still walked around using the word "nigger" for black people (and yes, there are still people like this in 2012). You went to New York City and used your language and some black guy punched you out. Obviously you were not being "racist" since you, for you personally, "nigger" was just a neutral term synonymous with "black people". Is he being insensitive to your ignorance?

And in your Midwest, do you yourself have American friends of Asian descent?


100% Mexican.

There goes your argument, huh?
What was my argument that you're assuming? That you're not Asian-American? That being 100% Mexican in Mexico makes you the majority when this discussion is about how the majority (in population and cultural capital) enforces the "otherness" of its minority complement? That this is a very American and American English argument (American as in United States of America)? Sure.
 
I wonder how you feel about this product then:

Nope. Not offended. I've never found that word offensive. Same goes for "wetback".

EDIT for your edit: And that's incredibly stupid. "Spic and Span" is a common phrase. Nobody should be offended over something that isn't intended to be racist. That's just stupid and the product of a PC-obsessed society.
 
Ben & Jerry have done the same thing for all sorts of people. I mean is the Maple Blonde flavor offensive because it refers to a white canadian girl? Gtfouttahere
I'm not talking about Ben & Jerry. I'm talking about the country on the whole and companies on the whole. People walk on egg shells right now because they are scared to death of offending a certain group of people. The next time you're watching television, take note of how all of the commercials feature a perfect rainbow of races. It's so calculated it's disgusting.
 
I'm not talking about Ben & Jerry. I'm talking about the country on the whole and companies on the whole. People walk on egg shells right now because they are scared to death of offending a certain group of people. The next time you're watching television, take note of how all of the commercials feature a perfect rainbow of races. It's so calculated it's disgusting.
What a horrible world in which people try to be considerate. What happened to the good old days when nonwhite, nonreligious, nonmale, nonstraight people knew their place?
 
Since you seem to not understand the malleability of language (we have literature for a reason, think the difference between Hemingway and Joyce), let's put it in a more vulgar example: you grew up in an all-white community and people still walked around using the word "nigger" for black people (and yes, there are still people like this in 2012). You went to New York City and used your language and some black guy punched you out. Obviously you were not being "racist" since you, for you personally, "nigger" was just a neutral term synonymous with "black people". Is he being insensitive to your ignorance?

And in your Midwest, do you yourself have American friends of Asian descent?
Uh, since "chink in the armor" way predates chink as a slur for Chinese people, your analogy simply does not work. There's literally no other meaning to the word "nigger" than the racially derogatory one.

Yes, I understand the malleability of language, and I ask that you not condescend to me, by the way.

And yes, I have had American friends of Asian descent, and I would have no compunction about using the phrase "chink in the armor" with regard to the 'weak link' meaning around them, as I expect adults to have some sense for the context that I create and not treat language as a Pavlovian excuse to fly off the handle in situations where such is not called for. And why does "malleability of language" always go to the person taking offense? Why do people have this belief that somebody taking offense to something means that something was done wrong? Offense is like any other emotion: in some cases it will be justified, in others not. Taking offense to the term "chink in the armor" in a non-racial context is an example of unjustified taking of offense.
 
Youve accepted that 'chink in the armor' is a unoffending phrase. But shouldnt be used with asians. Youve determined that asians should be treated differently from other races.
Thats racist.
So how does this apply to your old argument about the word "queer?" Everyone who thinks it can have an offensive meaning is a homophobe because it means treating gay people differently on the basis of their sexuality?



Ah, yes, the storied "argumentum ad I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" Works every time.
 
Youve accepted that 'chink in the armor' is a unoffending phrase. Except when used with asians. Youve determined that asians should be treated differently from other races.
Thats racist.
Loofy, the problem with your argument is that you're painting with the same broad strokes that some of the very people you're arguing against are.

If somebody were saying, "Man, that Jeremy Lin is a real CHINK in that team's armor, why would anybody ever hire an Asian to play basketball?" then the phrase takes on racist connotations, since the person is using the phrase because they specifically want to disparage him for being Asian.

There's a lot of nuance between, "Chink in the armor can never be racist," and "If the word will offend some people who read it out of context, then it's best to use another word."
 

Vire

DancingJesus
I think what loofy is ineloquently trying to explain is that he doesnt want preferential treatment just because he is a specific minority. Ex: African Americans sitting exclusively at the front of the bus now.
However, I don't think this specific example applies.
 
Loofy, the problem with your argument is that you're painting with the same broad strokes that some of the very people you're arguing against are.

If somebody were saying, "Man, that Jeremy Lin is a real CHINK in that team's armor, why would anybody ever hire an Asian to play basketball?" then the phrase takes on racist connotations, since the person is using the phrase because they specifically want to disparage him for being Asian.

There's a lot of nuance between, "Chink in the armor can never be racist," and "If the word will offend some people who read it out of context, then it's best to use another word."
Did you have to put 'chink' in all caps?
Sure if emphasis is put on chink then I can see how it could be racist. But as far as I know the phrase is being used thats common with every other team or player.

Asians cant have chinks in their armor guys. Thats what I got out of this thread.
 
Loofy, can you please reply to Orayn's question about why you don't take issue with people not using the word "queer"? Because as far as I can see that's as much of a restriction on freedom as what we're discussing here. Probably more actually.
 
Did you have to put 'chink' in all caps?
Sure if emphasis is put on chink then I can see how it could be racist. But as far as I know the phrase is being used thats common with every other team or player.

Asians cant have chinks in their armor guys. Thats what I got out of this thread.
Of course they can. It's just a bit suspect when the person in question is also noteworthy for being a minority representative in a group dominated by other races.

Why don't you get this?
 
Uh, since "chink in the armor" way predates chink as a slur for Chinese people, your analogy simply does not work. There's literally no other meaning to the word "nigger" than the racially derogatory one.

Yes, I understand the malleability of language, and I ask that you not condescend to me, by the way.

And yes, I have had American friends of Asian descent, and I would have no compunction about using the phrase "chink in the armor" with regard to the 'weak link' meaning around them, as I expect adults to have some sense for the context that I create and not treat language as a Pavlovian excuse to fly off the handle in situations where such is not called for. And why does "malleability of language" always go to the person taking offense? Why do people have this belief that somebody taking offense to something means that something was done wrong? Offense is like any other emotion: in some cases it will be justified, in others not. Taking offense to the term "chink in the armor" in a non-racial context is an example of unjustified taking of offense.
You can easily substitute "negro" for "nigger" in my example and it still stands, is the black fellow "insensitive" to you, the persecuted "white" man for calling him a negro, which after all means black?

But this is all just semantics. What you're really exemplifying is majority discourse: that the language you find inoffensive is inoffensive period. Your aggrandizement of your privilege allows you to be arbiter of our communal language. The fact that it offends someone of color means nothing to you because you don't find it offensive, so instead of introspection you accuse "them" of Pavlovian hysteria (also sinister in it's underlying dog metaphor) and of "flying off the handle", implying that "these people" are irrational. Is "PC people" just another euphemism these days?

And the crux of your argument really is that intention is all that matters. If that editor didn't intend to be racist or offensive then he "clearly" isn't. But it happened and people need to understand that there are other people in the world and that America especially is a country of immigrants. Instead of suppression, why can't there be discussion? Why can't you try to empathize with those who would be offended rather than falling to the easy gut reaction of calling it "PC bullshit"?
 
Uh, since "chink in the armor" way predates chink as a slur for Chinese people, your analogy simply does not work. There's literally no other meaning to the word "nigger" than the racially derogatory one.

Yes, I understand the malleability of language, and I ask that you not condescend to me, by the way.

And yes, I have had American friends of Asian descent, and I would have no compunction about using the phrase "chink in the armor" with regard to the 'weak link' meaning around them, as I expect adults to have some sense for the context that I create and not treat language as a Pavlovian excuse to fly off the handle in situations where such is not called for. And why does "malleability of language" always go to the person taking offense? Why do people have this belief that somebody taking offense to something means that something was done wrong? Offense is like any other emotion: in some cases it will be justified, in others not. Taking offense to the term "chink in the armor" in a non-racial context is an example of unjustified taking of offense.
What does the order of the two terms have to do with anything? He (as well as I) come from a background where chink as a slur is more prevalent. You, obviously, come from a place where it is not. In the context of you talking to your friends and using the phrase 'chink in the armour', it is clear there is no racist intent, and people shouldn't be offended. In the case of the headline, the intent isn't so clear (as mentioned numerous times, sports headlines oftentimes employ the use of puns and double meanings). How is it unjustified for people who relate more to chink being used as slur to be offended? Just because it's not the link you would've made? As a person who's been the target of the word, it isn't a tenuous link to make. As a media outlet that reaches out to more people than white dudes in the midwest, ESPN should've known better.

It's amazing to see how accurate that snl skit was. This thread's a mess.
 
Loofy, can you please reply to Orayn's question about why you don't take issue with people not using the word "queer"? Because as far as I can see that's as much of a restriction on freedom as what we're discussing here. Probably more actually.
I replied to jim jams post.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35495289&postcount=254

And it wouldnt even be the same anyways. When someone is called a queer the intent behind his words is obvious. Michael richards obvious.
THATS CONTEXT.
 
You can easily substitute "negro" for "nigger" in my example and it still stands, is the black fellow "insensitive" to you, the persecuted "white" man for calling him a negro, which after all means black?

But this is all just semantics. What you're really exemplifying is majority discourse: that the language you find inoffensive is inoffensive period. Your aggrandizement of your privilege allows you to be arbiter of our communal language. The fact that it offends someone of color means nothing to you because you don't find it offensive, so instead of introspection you accuse "them" of Pavlovian hysteria (also sinister in it's underlying dog metaphor) and of "flying off the handle", implying that "these people" are irrational. Is "PC people" just another euphemism these days?

And the crux of your argument really is that intention is all that matters. If that editor didn't intend to be racist or offensive then he "clearly" isn't. But it happened and people need to understand that there are other people in the world and that America especially is a country of immigrants. Instead of suppression, why can't there be discussion? Why can't you try to empathize with those who would be offended rather than falling to the easy gut reaction of calling it "PC bullshit"?
First of all, recall that there are non-white individuals in this thread disagreeing with you, so what I'm saying has nothing to do with my race, really.

Considering that I've already decried several racially insensitive things in this thread (including the fortune cookies in the ice cream AND the real-world instance of "chink in the armor" that I admitted may have racially insensitive contexts that I'm not aware of since I'm not a sports fan and don't follow ESPN), I fail to see how I'm not being sensitive or introspective with regard to the feelings of others. What I have discovered is that you'd clock me in the nose for using the phrase "chink in the armor" in a context where race didn't matter a whit to either my use of it or to the actual context of what's being said. Believe me when I say that I don't argue from intention. It's demonstrably provable whether or not "chink in the armor" might have racial context to it, and in the instance that I mentioned, it would not.

If anything, the PC reaction is more the gut reaction, since it's the one that paints the word "chink" in broad strokes and refuses to differentiate between its provenance in different rhetorical contexts. I'm arguing for logic and rationality in language and people not letting their emotions rule over their minds, especially if, like you, they would punch somebody they heard using a colloquialism unrelated to race. (I understand that you may have been using hyperbole, but I'm using what you said to make a point.)

I have no problem with the part of PC that says that maybe we should stop calling gay people faggots. I have a problem with the part of PC culture that privileges feelings and sensitivity over rational discourse and the free use of racially unmotivated colloquial language.

Edit: Or, to put it differently - I don't privilege either offense OR non-offense; I look at each instance individually, and if I think the issue in question justifies offense, then I say so. But if somebody were to get on my cast because I went to a film festival and wrote that some Asian director was a "chink in the festival's armor" because they made the worst film there, despite such not being a racial expression in context, I'll start to get annoyed. And BTW, I've already backed down on the ESPN incident in question, though I'd still contend that it's probably just an unfortunate case of somebody using an innocuous title in a medium where people expect dumb puns and jokes, since I'd doubt that, in 2012, a person living in America could use the phrase "chink" to refer to an Asian person and not understand that they were disparaging that person.
 
I replied to jim jams post.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35495289&postcount=254

And it wouldnt even be the same anyways. When someone is called a queer the intent is obvious. Michael richards obvious.
I am jim-jam. Well, not really, but I am when I'm here anyway.

You still haven't actually answered the question though. Why is okay for the public at large to acknowledge that the word queer can be used as a pejorative and behave accordingly, but it's not okay in the case of chink?
 
I am jim-jam. Well, not really, but I am when I'm here anyway.

You still haven't actually answered the question though. Why is okay for the public at large to acknowledge that the word queer can be used as a pejorative and behave accordingly, but it's not okay in the case of chink?
You can tell when queer, faggot, or gay is being used in a disparaging way. 'Dont wear that it looks so gay.'
No one can tell me why the 'Chink in the armor' commentary is racist. Do they make any other references to this personal culture or anything that doesnt have to do with the game of basketball? Apparently the only thing racist about it is that its describing an american whos also of asian decent.
 
You can tell when queer, faggot, or gay is being used in a disparaging way.
No one can tell me why 'Chink in the armor' commentary is racist. Apparently the only thing racist about it is that its describing and american whos also of asian decent.
It has been told to you, but you seem to have ignored it.
 
You can tell when queer, faggot, or gay is being used in a disparaging way. 'Dont wear that it looks so gay.'
No one can tell me why the 'Chink in the armor' commentary is racist. Do they make any other references to this personal culture or anything that doesnt have to do with the game of basketball? Apparently the only thing racist about it is that its describing an american whos also of asian decent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink
 
Im talking about the actual commentary. Gimme specific excerpts of the article that give further proof that this is racial.
We don't have to prove it.

Facts:

1) Chink has different contextual meanings.

2) Headlines often employ puns.

3) Lin is of Chinese decent.

4) Professional writers should be familiar with the variety of meanings in the words they use.

Given these, it doesn't really matter what the guy was thinking. He fucked up, intentionally or not. Oh, well. Someone else could use the job.
 
You can tell when queer, faggot, or gay is being used in a disparaging way. 'Dont wear that it looks so gay.'
No one can tell me why the 'Chink in the armor' commentary is racist. Do they make any other references to this personal culture or anything that doesnt have to do with the game of basketball? Apparently the only thing racist about it is that its describing an american whos also of asian decent.
The problem I have with this is that it's predicated on ignoring the fact that Lins is Asian-American, when as I said earlier there is nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging race/culture when discussing a public figure. In order to ignore the fact that "chink" can be used in a manner which is offensive to Asian-Americans you have to pretend that the person being discussed is not in fact Asian-American.

So... you're the most racist person in this thread.
 
What I have discovered is that you'd clock me in the nose for using the phrase "chink in the armor" in a context where race didn't matter a whit to either my use of it or to the actual context of what's being said. Believe me when I say that I don't argue from intention. It's demonstrably provable whether or not "chink in the armor" might have racial context to it, and in the instance that I mentioned, it would not.
Let me just dissect this. What is the context? You, a non-Asian-American, are playing a game with me, an Asian-American. That's the context. You say something that would be inoffensive where you come from but in my presence, the context in which you actually are, it becomes offensive if I am the "chink" in the armor. Now think of the internet. Usage matters with context.

If anything, the PC reaction is more the gut reaction, since it's the one that paints the word "chink" in broad strokes and refuses to differentiate between its provenance in different rhetorical contexts. I'm arguing for logic and rationality in language and people not letting their emotions rule over their minds, especially if, like you, they would punch somebody they heard using a colloquialism unrelated to race. (I understand that you may have been using hyperbole, but I'm using what you said to make a point.)
First, when you're an oppressed people, emotion is often your strength in a "rational" world (run by those very oppressors), so I don't see where you get this "logic" and "rationality", two abstract concepts used for much good and for much evil in history by those who are able to define and enforce them. And that is exactly what people are trying to do. People are different. No one can deny that. I look different from you and my experiences are different. No one is painting "chink" in broad strokes. You are welcome to use the phrase (as hammy as it is), but don't use it around a group of people who have often been dismissed with the word "chink".

I mean, are you really not getting this? Are you fighting for your and other's "right" to use that "chink" idiom when referring to Asian-Americans? Do you not understand how it can offend? In what context can you really justify calling an Asian-American a "chink in the armor" when you could simply use other words?

I have no problem with the part of PC that says that maybe we should stop calling gay people faggots. I have a problem with the part of PC culture that privileges feelings and sensitivity over rational discourse and the free use of racially unmotivated colloquial language.

Edit: Or, to put it differently - I don't privilege either offense OR non-offense; I look at each instance individually, and if I think the issue in question justifies offense, then I say so. But if somebody were to get on my cast because I went to a film festival and wrote that some Asian director was a "chink in the festival's armor" because they made the worst film there, despite such not being a racial expression in context, I'll start to get annoyed.
If you write that, you are a racist. Sorry.

And BTW, I've already backed down on the ESPN incident in question, though I'd still contend that it's probably just an unfortunate case of somebody using an innocuous title in a medium where people expect dumb puns and jokes, since I'd doubt that, in 2012, a person living in America could use the phrase "chink" to refer to an Asian person and not understand that they were disparaging that person.
Bolded is your bias. Look, I don't follow ESPN or sports. Even if "chink in the armor" is a phrase they often use, context is everything. It is not reactionary or irrational to condemn these symptoms of oppression. Isolated incidents I may forgive but what you don't seem to understand is the systemic racism beneath. Nothing in language is "neutral" since everything has meaning, and more meanings on top of that. I don't understand where you keep pulling this out from (which is why I had brought up literature).

When we had black fountains and white fountains, didn't they work? Why did we need to change that? After all, only feelings were affected, that blacks had to be kept away from whites. Why were black people so emotional about being treated like outcasts?

The problem I have with this is that it's predicated on ignoring the fact that Lins is Asian-American, when as I said earlier there is nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging race/culture when discussing a public figure. In order to ignore the fact that "chink" can be used in a manner which is offensive to Asian-Americans you have to pretend that the person being discussed is not in fact Asian-American.

So... you're the most racist person in this thread.
This is so perfect. Snowman, this seems apposite for your situation too. If you don't get it:
you're trying to efface ethnicity, which is in itself strength for many minority groups, by claiming things as "neutral" (i.e. "White Amerikan" which is not a racial term but rather culture that any race in America can subscribe to).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.