Do you believe in calling Black people the "N- word" too?

I hear that the use of the "C-word" is common in the UK, so it seems you need

to learn about "cultural differences", because in the States

and on DU, we view the word an intolerable gender slur.

who when last recorded was male.

It was you who referred to women. If you have a link to Shorten having a gender change operation then feel free to provide it.

The "c-word" isn't used for "laughs" here anymore than the

"N-word" is.

No way, no how, no excuse.

As much as I think Christopher Pyne is a fucking wanker out to destroy this country, he wasn't using it as a gender slur. If he'd aimed that at Julia Gillard when she was PM, that would have been a gender slur. As it was, it was a nasty insult that should have gotten him suspended from parliament, but the speaker of the house is notoriously biased towards her own conservative party and refuses to suspend anyone but the opposition.

Here's some more on Christopher Pyne, and the incredible bias of the speaker of the house...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1086552

is still a huge insult to women.

It's commonly used by bogans along the same lines as calling someone a wanker. Calling someone a wanker doesn't mean that the person doing it is saying to them 'you're horrible because you're comparable to a guy having a wank'. Same goes for the c-word (which, btw, is a word I rarely use, but since the budget came out on Tuesday I've used it once to describe the government) coz I have bogan heritage.

In the US, the term is pretty much always closely associated with the body part it describes and almost never used against males. In the UK and most other commonwealth countries, the term's usage is quite a bit farther removed from its etymology. It's become the equivalent, in this sense, of calling someone a "prick."

The term is more offensive to us Americans because our understanding of it is closer to the etymology, so its undeniable misogynist nature is much more "front-of-mind."

Do you fucking hear yourself?

Fer fuck's sake. I said how it's used in Australia. I'm aware that it's different in America, but this isn't America. I'll save the outrage and puking emoticons for the stuff that really matters, like the House having the most biased Speaker in its history, a government that's going to make us pay co-payments to go to a doctor, a government that's slashing education, public services, attacking the elderly, the sick and the young, and where the only winners are big business.

Christopher Pyne deserves a lengthy time-out for his attack on Bill Shorten, but if all you can get out of what's happening in Australia right now is that it's the most fucking horrific thing ever and an attack on women, you need to visit the Australia forum and start to get a handle on priorities when it comes to outrage and anger.

Have a lovely day!

Yes, well done, that is exactly what I said!

You're too late with the ridiculous hyperbole anyway someone's already used that tactic.

Good to know you actually would consider that usage not to be a homophobic slur BTW. At least you're consistent.

I suspect not. I've explained to you that there are cultural differences between here and there, and that the use of that word is one of them. When it's thrown around like the way it was in that clip, it's the equivalent of calling someone a wanker or a fuckwit. It's not done as a gender slur. You want to argue with me on that? Go right ahead. I mean, it's not like I've lived here all my life and heard it used a fair bit or anything.

But thoughtful people don't accept the rationalization.

Like I said, none of the people still defending this as if it is defensible surprise me at all.

You don't like it? Fine. But don't sit there and tell me that it's used the same way in the US as it is here. Because yr wrong.

Feel free to form a SWAT team and hurry over here and tell Australians how they must use language. As Steven said in another post, it's likely you'll get rebuffed with far more colourful language than you ever knew existed...

It was "cultural" ro use 'gay' as a catchall insult referring not to ones sexuality but simply as a very mild insult.

People learned that despite the fact that it wasn't used to actually accuse the target of being homosexual, it was still associating homosexuality with negativity by using it as an insult.

It is no different with the use of female body parts as insults.

I would say that it's shocking that this has to be spelled out here on DU but it really really isn't. And that's very sad.

I have no idea why yr having so much difficulty comprehending that the word's used here differently than it is in the US. It's a simple fact that it is. What do you want Australians to do about it? Stop using it because Americans are offended by it? I don't think that'd go down too well...

I don't think that will go over too well...

wow, this was really enlightening conversation we are having here.

In fact, I distinctly remember pointing out that I'm aware that Americans use it differently and wouldn't ever use that word in the company of Americans because they do find it offensive. How does that translate into wanting Americans to change?

wanting Australians to change?

And when I pointed out how it's used in Australia, I was told off for pointing that out.

But that is neither here nor there.

In Australia does the word have any derogatory female connotation? I'm just asking so don't light a fire under my ass ok?

here is OUTRAGE over the fact that not everyone chooses to be OUTRAGED at the different usage in the UK and Australia.


If you're outraged, then fine. I'll support your right to be outraged.


But don't expect others to feel the same sense of shock and outrage at a word that's actually pretty common over there, and doesn't have the same meaning. And don't try to make anyone who doesn't feel your sense of outrage out to be an evil sexist.

Please point to a post of mine in this thread that you feel may show my outrage, please.

If you can't this is just another occasion of someone applying false narratives to my posts. For what reason, they'll have to ask themselves.

what I clearly posted was:

IF you're outraged...


OK, so you're not.

But someone else apparently is.


So just for the record, it doesn't bother you that some people here aren't getting all foamy mouthed over the use of the *c* word in a country other than the US?

And that it's OK to point out cultural differences without being accused of having severe character flaws?

because we do NOT "expect" them to feel the same sense of outrage -- We simply expect them to RESPECT

the cultural differences of a board which has a MAJORITY American membership ...If they want to use the word

that way in Oz or the UK, fine...For God's sake, if they even showed the simple sense to post it on

on their own forums it wouldn't be so bad, but it was posted in General Discussion and THAT in our view

is inappropriate.

We never thought of it as a slur against the developmentally disabled. It just meant supremely stupid. However, to those outside of the subculture it came across as a slur. When I hear someone from my subculture use it I know what they mean and I'm not offended. However, I've chosen not to use it myself.

IMHO in a world where we don't spend most of our time communicating only in our own specific subcultures it's probably a good idea to consider whether hanging on to vernacular is more important than choosing words that aren't as offensive to those outside of our own culture bubble.

Last edited Fri May 16, 2014, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Several countries (not to mention regions within countries) use English and have their own slang and slurs and different meanings for various words. OP found that a politician in Australia used a word that has a very offensive connotation here and posted it not understanding the cultural difference (Edited to add, the OP commented and indicated that I was wrong about the italicized part). Several folks here piled on also not understanding or caring to understand the cultural difference.

No one responding suggested that the word being discussed is anything other than horrifically offensive here in the US to the point that it should never be used.

Edit #2 - And also to your point, its a good idea not to try to use slang in countries unless you are really familiar with how it will be received.

and it's no longer valid to excuse the usage because it isn't offensive within my own cultural framework. If most of the people speaking my language recognize the term as offensive, what's liberal or progressive about defending its usage?

Some have tried to deflect the argument by bringing up the slang term for cigarette in other English-speaking areas, but they're missing a critical difference. Before it became a slur for gay, that term was used to describe small sticks. Thus the slang use of it for a cigarette makes sense in an etymological sense.

There isn't an innocuous history associated with c***. It's been held as obscene since at least the 18th century.

For anyone who wants to read up on it, I recommend "Expletive Deleted" by the Australian linguist Ruth Wajnryb.

the fact that there are more American speakers of English than British, Australian, and Kiwi speakers of English combined doesn't negate the fact that certain words have different meanings in non-American English, nor does it make the use of words in that context by people who aren't American automatically wrong or horribly offensive in the way Americans insist it must be.

It's just considered more vulgar in the U.S. It's vulgar language period. Has been for centuries. That's not an idle reference -- the term is defined in an 1811 dictionary of vulgar language by Francis Grose as a "nasty name for a nasty thing" while linking it to cunnus, the Latin word for vulva. The term was removed from expurgated editions of Lady Chatterly's Lover even in the mid-20th century. These days, most main stream media in Britain and Australia won't write out the word or utter it in audio.

First off, I don't know how to sugar coat this so I won't, it is pretty arrogant that anyone in the US decides to post something said in Australia between two Australians here on a website and then have folks proceed to use the American meaning of one of the words to pronounce judgement on it and say its a bad thing.

It's only because we are so insular here, cut off from most of the world by two large oceans that some here don't know better than to do such a thing. There are several dialects of German, Spanish, French, Arabic and various other languages. There are different slang and vulgar words in the various dialects. Words that are fine in Spanish spoken in Spain for instance are vulgar in Spanish spoken in parts of Latin America and vice versa. Sometimes, yes, it is joked about but that's it.

Trying to claim one's version of the meaning is more right than another dialects is, to put it nicely, silly. Germans, Austrians and German speaking areas of Switzerland know better than to do this to each other. The various Spanish speaking countries know better than to do this, etc.

The rest of the world would find this argument to be yet another example of American arrogance and provincialism. We don't get to tell Britons, Irish, Scottish, Australians and New Zealanders the 'real' meaning of English words. They don't get to tell us the 'real' meaning of English words. Our meanings are our meanings. Their meanings are their meanings.

In terms of 'Global Communications', of which what is detailed in the OP is not an example, by the way, German, Spanish, French and yes English people who communicate with people of more than one country deal with that by utilizing as standard and non-Slang version of the language as possible. What is called in German "hoch Deutsch" or high German for instance. I'm sure if the Australian Opposition leader were speaking to an international audience, he would have used as non-slang a version of English as possible.

But as I said, he wasn't. He was speaking to another Aussie, face to face, using language he knew another Aussie would completely understand in exactly the way he meant it. It's not our right to apply our meaning of a word he used to try to contravene the Australian meaning of the word and then beat it up. It's the height of arrogance to try and strikes me as a version of a strawman fallacy.

Finally, since you brought up the points, no one said that the word isn't vulgar, not did anyone argue the etymology of the word. There are various English words in various dialects of English that have etymologies that no longer reflect their current meaning. Let's not pretend that this is in any way unique with this word in non-North American English.

There is no excuse and justification for the position some have taken here and certainly no justification to attack fellow DUers (including native Australians who have tried to explain it) for pointing out what is completely obvious. The word simply does not have the same meaning or connotation in non-North American English.

I find the outrage expressed completely manufactured, baseless and ultimately, inane.

and wrote specifically about the history and usage of this word, I'm being North American-centric?

as opposed to the reams of peer reviewed science explaining something totally different.

For instance, as cited in this post below http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4962581

Wog is a pejorative for dark complected people and the example given shows that it's still used with that sense.

The Global mail makes it clear that to use it in every day speech is attractive to some specifically because it's a taboo word.

That leaves the Cambridge Dictionary as the only one of your citations that refutes Wajnyrb. I chose her because I have her book at home (and the c-word is only one chapter in the book, with others dedicated to specific words like 'fuck' and still others are discussions of cross-cultural expletive references.) It's not written for linguists and is accessible easily. A more academic book is Geoffrey Hughes' Swearing. Hughes is South African so again not writing from an American perspective.

Back when there were a lot of Italian and Greek immigrants, words like wog and dago were insulting. Dago dropped out of use years ago, and thanks to 'Wogs Out Of Work' and 'Wogboys' where some comedians of Greek and Italian descent took back the word and made it their own, wog is what I'd consider pretty benign, though of course if someone's saying something like 'go back where ya came from, ya fucking wog!', then it is being used as a bigoted insult. But when a work colleague of mine recently informed us that she was attending a massive wog wedding at the weekend, that wasn't bigoted partly coz it's her family and also coz the word wasn't being used as an insult...

this is an American Progressive board, so I'd suggest you and

some others here realize that, and start showing some of that

cultural "sensitivity" we Americans are so frequently lectured on.



The fact is, you are guests here..You might want to

start acting like it.

I think it's pretty crappy for you to talk down to our friends and allies like that. They have as much right to be here as you or I do.

This is not your website.

and I'm not "talking down" to people, I'm reminding them

of the reality and simply asking them to show some cultural

cultural sensitivity, something I believe you and I would

do if we were permitted to post on an foreign political site.

Again, it's not too much to ask.

No, it's not "my" website, but it is an American PROGRESSIVE

website that was created to discuss American politics, and in that

sense I think they are guests and should show some sensitivity to

to American mores, especially when it comes to perjoritives.

We should be enjoying American privilege.

Sometimes, it works. I'm sure you're not the only one laughing. It's just, why are they laughing?

are all guests of admin here.

He's British, isn't he?

Treat different words.... Thanks for trying to explain it.

as the obligation to respect the province of the 'host' falls first upon the guest.

Have a nice day.

I think you might want to reconsider your stance.

That's probably a Freudian slip of sorts, lol, but I'll let it speak for itself, while reminding you that

DU is the 'host".

Actually, Mis, though I'd love to see the link which concludes that "1/3 of our 'hosts' (sic) aren't Americans",

that still leaves an American majority.

of the American political focus of the board and its majority American membership.

why don't you take it to ATA. Ask them, that since you're an American, if you have some special privilege that makes your opinion trump the opinions of DUers who are in other countries.

and I don't have to "take" it anywhere. I've not been alerted on (at least successfully) so it seems

I've not broken any rules.


I'm afraid we'll have to leave it at that, as I have a nice, sunny day to enjoy.

on DU? I must have missed that. Please provide post numbers and/or links.

to the original complaint, but frankly, I don't give a shit if I'm the only one on this low rated thread

(5,000 views and 6 recs ) who has the guts to point out what others say privately.

The irony here is that it isn't the Foreign DUers who are denying this supposed "privilege", i.e.

the need for cultural sensitivity, it's just a few over PC Americans.

There are three admins to DU. EarlG isn't American and an admin.

Regardless, you're not an admin. You don't get to tell people who is and isn't welcome at DU.

Beyond that, I wasn't telling people "who is and isn't welcome".

I was reminding them of things like cultural sensitivity, board rules, and simple courtesy.

Here's why--you can try to explain the cultural use of a term, you can provide examples, you can provide lectures, essays, articles and snippets from television discussions on the topic, but no matter what you do, there is a subset of people here who will associate your "explaining" with "approval," no matter how often or vociferously you try to disavow any agreement with the conduct.

It's just a no-win. Those looking for a punching bag will zero in on you and excoriate you for failing to roundly condemn--and nothing more. There will be no nuanced discussion. Any expression of understanding of the milieu in which the phrase was used will be taken as cheerleading or endorsement.

Some people refuse to acknowledge that the "Bee" word has changed meaning in USA, to the point where it is no longer censored on network television IN THE MORNING.

I'm afraid Jesse Pinkman brought that word into the common vernacular and it's not going away. I don't expect the "Cee" word to make an appearance quite so easily, but once upon a time, Americans never said "at the end of the day" and now they say it all the time. Language does ebb and flow. Sooner or later, the cee word will appear on American television, cropping up like dandelions in springtime, and we'll have this discussion over, and over, and over, and over again....!!!!

I don't always agree with rq by any means, but that's a ridiculous accusation.

And what do you mean by "the real world"? The word "c**t" is indeed far more offensive in the U.S. than the U.K. or Australia - as others have noted on this thread, there's a distinct cultural difference there.

But if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

but this is an American Board dealing with AMERICAN politics with a majority American membership!

"Christopher Pyne deserves a lengthy time-out for his attack on Bill Shorten, but if all you can get out of what's happening in Australia right now is that it's the most fucking horrific thing ever and an attack on women, you need to visit the Australia forum and start to get a handle on priorities when it comes to outrage and anger"

No, dear, we really don't....What YOU need is to understand the composition of this board and something called "cultural sensitivity".

[url=http://www.smileyvault.com/][img][/img][/url]

I understand why you've given up on words, Maddez, they've clearly been failing you.

Come back when you've improved.

What don't you understand? VC is not condoning just giving it context. Geez.

I DO understand the context and have referenced it several times.

It is you and VC, it seems, who don't understand the point of our objections even

with the understanding of the subject and it's context and I am much too tired

to try and explain it to you again.

I've got to admit being a bit gobsmacked that 'we' appear to believe that a politician firing a really nasty insult at another is more important an issue than the fact that the current govt is trying to dismantle our universal healthcare system and slashing education and forcing people to work to 70 before they can get a govt pension. Oh-kay, it's just that I think the latter three are vitally important things and the former is just a predictable example of how those RW politicians are allowed to run rampant and say what they like in parliament.

This whole thing is like talking to a brick wall. And I'm not even sure what they think they're giving a lesson about, or what they think they're going to change. I guess they could send a bunch of DU juries to Australia to confront brawling bogans on a bus. That'd make the already entertaining bogan bus brawls even more interesting than they already are

Do you intend to tell people in the UK not to use that word that way too because it has a different meaning and connotation here?

Why stop there?

- Lift

- Pissed

- Bash

- Bird

- Blinder

- flannel

etc.

Though I usually call them durries. But back when I was smoking, I sometimes said to another work colleague 'want to pop out for a quick f--?'

While this thread's been entertaining, it's time to head off to bed. When I return, I expect a full list to be ready for me to share with everyone in my part of the world of what words we shouldn't use EVER EVER again

I don't even know where to begin with describing how I feel about that description of women, and seeing my description may possibly contain some very colourful language, I don't think I'll start...

Google the poster, the offensive word, and "academic" you'll come up with all sorts of stuff....


I just really thought you'd apppreciate the irony.