Moderators: hitesh, The Moderator Team
Alexis wrote:According to Webster, Discriminate: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
What wrong with that? Its a way we express our views or descriptions. I mean, like when Im talking to my sister about this lady I saw at the gas station who probably made a scene, I'd say, "There was this chunky black woman with really wack hairdo acting out at Exxon".
Its the way of the world, MM. We all do it. But not everyone talks like that with intentions to insult or make fun of someone different.
The topic of homosexuality is taboo anyway, you cant really expect everyone to accept it without reservations and concern. Religious ideals and ethics come into play when this subject comes up.
Mayavi Morpheus wrote:Is chinki, Jap or paki considered derogatory and racist?
IMO calling a chinese 'chinki' or a japanese 'jap' isnt derogatory. Yellow people is.
Similarly, 'paki' may be a derogatory word for south asians in UK, but outside UK its not derogatory. Paki is short form of Pakistani and aint nuthing wrong in calling a paki a paki or an Indian a yindoo.
Andhraites are called gultis, maharashtrians ghatis, and the tamilians sambar, aint nothing wrong bro.
Ps: Nigga is a derogatory term if used by anyone other than 'bros' , but not many Indians know that its derogatory.
DQ wrote:Alexis wrote:According to Webster, Discriminate: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
agreeing with Alexis, though extending a a bit.
1. Look describing someone unknown to you is ok. Where you are trying to draw a picture.
2. Delibrate branding of people, or calling names during argumentation is unacceptable.
Racist comments are passed all around the globe, not just India. And is one of the major sources of conflicts too.
Be it a small boy playing in the gullys of India calling a muslim "Ja be Paki"
Or branding Indians "Third World" or "Banana culture" while discussing BPO.
If branding is to describe someone you cannot identify by name is ok.
but if it is out of prejudice then Prejudice and discrimination are negative manifestations of integrative power. Instead of bringing or holding people together, prejudice and discrimination push them apart.
Why look far, read most of the posts here and see people getting personal in most of the arguments and trying to discriminate.
DQ wrote:Alexis wrote:According to Webster, Discriminate: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
agreeing with Alexis, though extending a a bit.
1. Look describing someone unknown to you is ok. Where you are trying to draw a picture.
2. Delibrate branding of people, or calling names during argumentation is unacceptable.
Racist comments are passed all around the globe, not just India. And is one of the major sources of conflicts too.
Be it a small boy playing in the gullys of India calling a muslim "Ja be Paki"
Or branding Indians "Third World" or "Banana culture" while discussing BPO.
If branding is to describe someone you cannot identify by name is ok.
but if it is out of prejudice then Prejudice and discrimination are negative manifestations of integrative power. Instead of bringing or holding people together, prejudice and discrimination push them apart.
Why look far, read most of the posts here and see people getting personal in most of the arguments and trying to discriminate.
Alexis wrote:My brother is in the 8th grade. And at school, the trouble-makers call him 'Osama Bin Laden' or 'Saddam Hussein' just to be funny or whatever. We're not Middle-Eastern, but what do these fools know?
Thats discrimination too, even though its in jest. But we cant do anything about it.
Sharjeel wrote:You forget that only the people who are different (japs, nigas, etc) get discriminted. If you were to go to Germany for ex., you would also be given a name, which may or may not be derogatory.
It is in our nature to discriminate, just that some people take things too far. And this issue is more pevalent in uneducated people, and people who do not go out of their homes.
A very good friend calls me 'Saale Mulle' (since I generally am the only Muslim in any group there) whenever she is annoyed with me, so should I think that she is a racist? No!
The point here is that like MM said, people (generally) dont give names to put others down. It is just like a tag for peeps who look and act different.
Alexis wrote:According to Webster, Discriminate: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
What wrong with that? Its a way we express our views or descriptions. I mean, like when Im talking to my sister about this lady I saw at the gas station who probably made a scene, I'd say, "There was this chunky black woman with really wack hairdo acting out at Exxon".
Its the way of the world, MM. We all do it. But not everyone talks like that with intentions to insult or make fun of someone different.
The topic of homosexuality is taboo anyway, you cant really expect everyone to accept it without reservations and concern. Religious ideals and ethics come into play when this subject comes up.
malakpetmasala wrote:Alexis wrote:According to Webster, Discriminate: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
What wrong with that? Its a way we express our views or descriptions. I mean, like when Im talking to my sister about this lady I saw at the gas station who probably made a scene, I'd say, "There was this chunky black woman with really wack hairdo acting out at Exxon".
Its the way of the world, MM. We all do it. But not everyone talks like that with intentions to insult or make fun of someone different.
The topic of homosexuality is taboo anyway, you cant really expect everyone to accept it without reservations and concern. Religious ideals and ethics come into play when this subject comes up.
the topic of homosexuality might be a taboo to the society.... does give them the right to ostracise a homosexual?
Kenny wrote:subconciously
Kenny wrote:malakpetmasala wrote:Alexis wrote:According to Webster, Discriminate: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
the topic of homosexuality might be a taboo to the society.... does give them the right to ostracise a homosexual?
no it doesn't..... but it's the easiest way to pick on them..... i mean, subconciously, people are just looking for something they do wrong.. and that is attributed to homosexuality
maybe not wrong... different is a better word
ppl can't help looking for what is different in their behaviour..... so whatever they do see is attributed to this.
malakpetmasala wrote:the topic of homosexuality might be a taboo to the society.... does give them the right to ostracise a homosexual?
Alexis wrote:malakpetmasala wrote:the topic of homosexuality might be a taboo to the society.... does give them the right to ostracise a homosexual?
People who are extremely idealistic, radical, orthodox, and traditional will definitely frown upon homosexuals. Yes, they will ostracise them.
But who is to say whats right and what wrong? Whats acceptable and whats not?
We all have our own POV's in accordance to our faith, learned and shared norms, standards, and ideals. Its a paradigmatic society with some members who will never bend any rules.
malakpetmasala wrote:Alexis wrote:malakpetmasala wrote:the topic of homosexuality might be a taboo to the society.... does give them the right to ostracise a homosexual?
People who are extremely idealistic, radical, orthodox, and traditional will definitely frown upon homosexuals. Yes, they will ostracise them.
But who is to say whats right and what wrong? Whats acceptable and whats not?
We all have our own POV's in accordance to our faith, learned and shared norms, standards, and ideals. Its a paradigmatic society with some members who will never bend any rules.
i guess we have to emphassis on the word "rules" here. because we are the ones who wrote the book of rules. well... its for sure that who ever wrote it wrote it in their favour... for example, back in the olden days, Brahmins were supposed to have written the rules and the world was ruled accordingly, in modern India, a person of a non brahmin origin penned the rules, which were accordingly favourable to the non upper classes of the community. ya, i guess, it has all got to do with rules and their interpretations.
i guess the society need more education, just to respect the other person for his preferences, be it religion, politics or sex
:? who discriminates on basis of star signs?malakpetmasala wrote:I forgot to add "Starsigns" in the discriminatory groups. Man, 'zodiac signs' is the basis of new age raceism
CtrlAltDel wrote::? who discriminates on basis of star signs?malakpetmasala wrote:I forgot to add "Starsigns" in the discriminatory groups. Man, 'zodiac signs' is the basis of new age raceism
malakpetmasala wrote:CtrlAltDel wrote::? who discriminates on basis of star signs?malakpetmasala wrote:I forgot to add "Starsigns" in the discriminatory groups. Man, 'zodiac signs' is the basis of new age raceism
man, have nt u heard of this before? Chicks dont really wanna socialise with u cos u are of a particular star sign. well, there are a few chicks who stopped talking to me just cos i am a virgo
mebbe thats not the real reason...mebbe u disappointed them......and they use yr star sign as an excuse...malakpetmasala wrote:there are a few chicks who stopped talking to me just cos i am a virgo
CtrlAltDel wrote:mebbe thats not the real reason...mebbe u disappointed them......and they use yr star sign as an excuse...malakpetmasala wrote:there are a few chicks who stopped talking to me just cos i am a virgo
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
{{todos[0].text}}