Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hydrapup wrote:
The idiots are winning :(

They've been winning for awhile, unfortunately.

Someone needs to remind them that words have meanings, and context matters.

Parallel parking does not exist for armor vehicles. All on line with chock blocks and drip pans

First thing i thought looking at that picture was "that's awesome....but why are the guns all pointing towards the inside of the base? Maybe there's a British tank they are all aiming at. "

 Bullockist wrote:
First thing i thought looking at that picture was "that's awesome....but why are the guns all pointing towards the inside of the base? Maybe there's a British tank they are all aiming at. "

CPTJake can provide that answer better

Though that's the "travel" mode on aircraft and RO/RO ships

That picture inspired me to learn what a Bore Evacuator was. Thanks for ensuring I learned something today (in addition to all the other job related stuff I crammed into my head).

Me offended, you talk not nice me smart! Me know words!

The chink in the armor is in the people, The quickness in which people get head over heels over a comment on the internet baffles me.

Look at that, another word whose meaning is evolving.

I wonder what they will call it now?

A crack in the armor? offensive to druggies
a bug in the armor? offensive to bugs
a fissure in the armor? offensive to fissures and makes it sound like a big problem.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I hereby demand "white bread" to be renamed to "caucasian bread". STOP RACISM.

Can we have crackers rebranded too?

 Smacks wrote:
What annoys me is that half these words aren't even offensive when used offensively. Like Benedict Cumberbatch in the news for using the word "coloured" -- as if there weren't already enough offensive terms for black people, without making the polite ones taboo as well.

I hope that he did not offend the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. . .
http://www.naacp.org/

I will never confirm nor deny I cause the defect in the Emperor Armor assisting Sanguinius in the fight.....................

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I hereby demand "white bread" to be renamed to "caucasian bread". STOP RACISM.

Can we have crackers rebranded too?

I have heard that "cracker" originally came from the people that were "cracking" the whip during the slavery days and that it really doesn't have anything to do with the whole "crackers are white, like crackers" thing.

No idea if there is any truth to that, but I did read it on the internet and they can't put fake stuff on there.

 Smacks wrote:
What annoys me is that half these words aren't even offensive when used offensively. Like Benedict Cumberbatch in the news for using the word "coloured"

Indeed. Here's a classic newspaper strip that illustrated the point back in 1988.

text removed.

Reds8n



You're a lying sack of gak if you're trying to claim that "Chink" is a "perfectly sensible abbreviation" of anything. What the feth is that supposed to be an abbreviation of? China? Chinese? Nope.

In reference to a person, "Chink" is nothing but an offensive racial slur, no quotes. Trying to pretend otherwise is a straight up lie.

Uh, no..... text removed. Reds8n are definitely racial slurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
What annoys me is that half these words aren't even offensive when used offensively. Like Benedict Cumberbatch in the news for using the word "coloured"

Indeed. Here's a classic newspaper strip that illustrated the point back in 1988.

Bloom County will never stop being relevant/hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I hereby demand "white bread" to be renamed to "caucasian bread". STOP RACISM.

Can we have crackers rebranded too?

I have heard that "cracker" originally came from the people that were "cracking" the whip during the slavery days and that it really doesn't have anything to do with the whole "crackers are white, like crackers" thing.

No idea if there is any truth to that, but I did read it on the internet and they can't put fake stuff on there.

It's one theory. Another is it refers to poor white Southerners, who could only afford soda crackers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You're a lying sack of gak if you're trying to claim that "Chink" is a "perfectly sensible abbreviation" of anything. What the feth is that supposed to be an abbreviation of? China? Chinese? Nope.

Actually yes. I don't think it's a coincidence that If you know it's an offensive term then keep using it. Reds8n and Chinese have the first four letters in common. Before you get on your high horse, and start flaming, please tell me what you would consider a sensible natural language abbreviation of the word Chinese? Something like "Aussie". Please do share.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Uh, no..... see above. Reds8n are definitely racial slurs.

I'm not denying that they are considered racial slurs, everyone knows that. But before they were racial slurs they were clearly just abbreviations, like "Brit" which over time people have deemed offensive.

What a crock of gak. There is NO abbreviation for "Chinese". Chinese people are "Chinese people", that's it.

I decline to entertain further replies with an out-and-out racist like yourself. You are Ignored.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What a crock of gak. There is NO abbreviation for "Chinese". Chinese people are "Chinese people", that's it.

I decline to entertain further replies with an out-and-out racist like yourself. You are Ignored.

I'm not a racist. I'm just pointing out a pattern of language, where words that probably started as natural abbreviations have come to be interpreted as offensive, and are replaced by increasingly more formal expressions to try and cushion their meaning. That is not out and out racism, it is just a fact.

Perhaps one day "Aussie" will be considered offensive, and people will say "There is NO abbreviation for "Australian". Australian people are "Australian people", that's it" and those people will have completely missed the point.

If you can't tell the difference between discussing the evolution of language, and "out and out racism" then you are as bad as the people this topic is about, trying to take offense where none is given. And throwing around the word "racist" until good people are scared to even mention race for fear of being labeled a bigot. You're actually quite a sick and twisted person now that I think about it. I do not think Chink(y) is a "sensible" abbreviation to use in 2015, when it is already considered a slur and steeped in a history of violence and prejudice, but for people in the 1800s who were looking for a shorter word, it is a fairy natural sounding abbreviation, like Aussie (Australian), or WWII Jerry (German).

I'm not sure who is more deserving of contempt - the illiterate bastards who whined about the original tweet, or the enabler who deleted the tweet instead of telling these morons to buy a fething dictionary.

 d-usa wrote:
I have heard that "cracker" originally came from the people that were "cracking" the whip during the slavery days and that it really doesn't have anything to do with the whole "crackers are white, like crackers" thing.

No idea if there is any truth to that, but I did read it on the internet and they can't put fake stuff on there.

Seems that there are a few theories; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_%28pejorative%29

If we accept the one you put forward I have two questions;
1) What race predominantly used whips on their slaves in America
2) Is there actually any doubt as to which race someone is when you hear someone be called a "cracker"?

Amazing true fact :

The very next person who , even in jest, throws around any one of the racial slurs that have so "hilariously" been thrown around earlier in this thread cops themselves not only a vacation from the site but exclusion from this board.

I don't know wat reds8ten said but everything else here seems to of been said in jest. I am of mixed descent and I think it is more offensive to me that people pander to a vocal minority who tell me or others how they should feel and react to words taken out of context. This is rediculous and will only serve to fuel the fires of resent. People should be giving the US army a hard time for changing there tweet this needs to be challenged otherwise a vocal minority will undermine our democracies and freedom of speech. Stating something as racist that isn't is inherently racist please call these idiots out.

Of course, the racial slur meaning of the word was completely irrelevant to the context of the army's tweet, so why are people arguing?
Words can have multiple meanings people.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I think it's wrong to say chinks in armour are a weakness , they can drive tanks as well as anyone else!

Being I am half Asian and certify to drive a M1, M109, Stryker variant vehicles, M113, M577.....I can assure you I am not weak

The real question is how well do you parallel park one?

Roll in, crush the cars in front of you. Back up, crush the cars behind you. Pop a beer.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
First thing i thought looking at that picture was "that's awesome....but why are the guns all pointing towards the inside of the base? Maybe there's a British tank they are all aiming at. "

CPTJake can provide that answer better

Though that's the "travel" mode on aircraft and RO/RO ships

A few reasons, the tanks take up less space in the motor pool this way (gun tubes are not sticking out as far). When you have to move the vehicle around the MP you are less likely to smack the tube into something. The loader's hatch is the primary entrance into the vehicle (TC's and driver's are 'locked' from the inside and the loader's has the ability to lock on the outside with a padlock). The turret in this position allows the driver to get into his position from inside the turret (any other position and he can't). The first two points are the big ones though. Most motor pools have space issues and you don't want the guy bringing in a load of parts on his LMTV driving between rows of tanks with the tubes in the way. You also don't want the driver taking the track to the wash rack to be following his ground guide and smacking things with the tube as he moves around the MP. You very often won't have a guy in the turret when you're just moving the track around the motor pool.

But back on topic...

There is a LOT of political correctness leading to 'interesting' decisions going on right now. 'Because it is right' or 'Because it is wrong' seem to have to make way for 'Because it looks bad' or worse, for 'Because it MAY offend someone'. Risk aversion is making a strong comeback (as if it ever went away) as we transition back to a downsizing 'peacetime' military. The Army should have kept the tweet, perhaps tweeted a link to the definition of the word, and left it at that. Let the folks who look for excuses to be outraged learn they can be outraged without the Army bowing to stupidity.

There are easily times that phrase can be used in a racist manner.

ESPN was guilty of this; they used the phrase to refer specifically to Jeremy Lin, whose turnovers were costly to the game.


The army was referring to, among other things, a literal suit of armor (TALOS/Iron Man). It was not referring to any specific human being, or really even any group of human beings as being that weakness in the armor. It does seem like a case of over reaction, to me, but then I'm not Chinese so maybe I'm just blind to it.

 streamdragon wrote:
There are easily times that phrase can be used in a racist manner.

ESPN was guilty of this; they used the phrase to refer specifically to Jeremy Lin, whose turnovers were costly to the game.


The army was referring to, among other things, a literal suit of armor (TALOS/Iron Man). It was not referring to any specific human being, or really even any group of human beings as being that weakness in the armor. It does seem like a case of over reaction, to me, but then I'm not Chinese so maybe I'm just blind to it.

Well, my daughter is adopted from China, and my two brothers are adopted from Korea. I've dealt with the use of the term when it was meant to be racist. I'm not blind to it. Folks complaining about this use are idiots, troublemakers, or a combination of the two, and should not be allowed to influence anyone.

 reds8n wrote:
Amazing true fact :

The very next person who , even in jest, throws around any one of the racial slurs that have so "hilariously" been thrown around earlier in this thread cops themselves not only a vacation from the site but exclusion from this board.

I wanted to post a link to a video from the big Lebowski on the subject with Walter saying something about the matter but that would seem to cause an outrage.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
White people aren't exactly pink or red either, they are more like beige.

Except for redheads. They're pretty pink.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm just pointing out a pattern of language, where words that probably started as natural abbreviations have come to be interpreted as offensive, and are replaced by increasingly more formal expressions to try and cushion their meaning. That is not out and out racism, it is just a fact.

The thing is, in some cases those abbreviations have been historically used in a derogatory manner, which is what makes them offensive. It's not like people just got up one day and decided 'You know what? I don't like people calling me that anymore!'... The fact that you might perceive it as a logical shortening of the name doesn't make it any less offensive to those who find it offensive.

'Aussie' is a different kettle of fish entirely, in part because it's not generally used in a derogatory fashion, and in part because we shorten everything like that. Saying names with more than two syllables is too much like effort.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Being I am half Asian and certify to drive a M1, M109, Stryker variant vehicles, M113, M577.....I can assure you I am not weak

The real question is how well do you parallel park one?

Roll in, crush the cars in front of you. Back up, crush the cars behind you. Pop a beer.

So, basically on par with any European...



Also, Chinese are the best parallel parkers!

That might be good for the Chinese, but for the brits thats a veritable chasm!

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, in some cases those abbreviations have been historically used in a derogatory manner, which is what makes them offensive. It's not like people just got up one day and decided 'You know what? I don't like people calling me that anymore!'... The fact that you might perceive it as a logical shortening of the name doesn't make it any less offensive to those who find it offensive.

I absolutely agree, and I was never claiming that they weren't offensive. I cannot make that clear enough. It's not like being logical and being offensive are mutually exclusive. I just think it is interesting that shorter words (which are inherently more practical) are the ones that are more likely to end up becoming taboo, whilst longer and more unwieldy phrases are often considered correct. It often seems like the longer and more unwieldy the term the better.

Perhaps it is because abbreviations and contractions are more likely to be used by common people, and so more likely to be used abusively; while long unwieldy terms tend to have a more technical or scientific vibe, so they are more likely to be considered correct. The whole "people of colour" versus "coloured people" thing was a good example of that, since the two phrases not only mean the same thing, but are just different grammatical forms of the same words. Yet the one that is more "natural" ends up being taboo and getting Benedict Cumberbatch plastered all over the news, while the overly elaborate long form is somehow more acceptable.

If you know it's an offensive term then keep using it. Reds8n

I was not "using it", I was talking "about it" in a topic which is about that term. If it's not an appropriate topic for discussion then you should have just locked, but deleting posts and insisting we try to discuss it without saying it, is asinine, and might cause more harm and confusion. No one was using the term abusively or "throwing it about".