ace wrote:Erm, why are you offended by it?
I heard people use it against me in clearly insulting manners one too many times. Like SuperMegatron says, it depends on the context.
Godfearing greay wrote:The context was WWII, so I know that wasn't what's offensive. Were you offended just because it was Sicario saying it?
Sicario's first two posts on the subject were very offensive ones. In light of that, I concluded he didn't use that word as a noun but rather as a derogatory adjective.
Godfearing greay wrote:No, you're wrong. You're right that not all Jews are hardcore devotees, but it's still a safe assumption that someone who is "obviously" Jewish (wearing a yarmulke?) is going to be concerned about keeping kosher. A safe assumption doesn't mean you're going to be right 100% of the time. All it means is you're probably not going to get in trouble if you're wrong.
FETUS was alluding to a generic scenario and didn't mention a yarmulke. As for your own argument, I disagree with you. First of all, if someone is really concerned about getting kosher food they won't go into a run-of-the-mill diner. Second, there are virtually endless ways to approach a religion and therefore an endless amount of reasons one would wear a yarmulke. Besides, I am not trying to correct people's thoughts here, one should be free to think whatever they want. Expressing it, however, is another issue and requires some ground rules (respect, common sense,
logical political correctness) because expression means interaction which can result in offensive situations.
-Azathoth- wrote:You're COMPLETELY overanalyzing this entire situation. That's exactly what caused the diner incident to become more severe than it had to be. You may not be a devout jew, but your take on this such as "it just depends on who is saying it and in what context." leads me to believe you are just as uncomfortable with what happened at that diner as the couple who complained. Why does the word bother you? What evidence is there that the word was used as anything more than a description of a pair of people ordering food? Does making a scene and seeing someone lose their job satisfy you? Are you now a "nazi" (figuratively speaking) in the sense that you were pleased at the misfortune of another over a misunderstanding on what would/could have been your fault, had you been in the couples place?
(prepare for a long winded and equally overly analytical response)
Wow, that was a kickass way of twisting my words and trying to use them against me. Like I already said before, I heard people use that word against me as a derogatory adjective way too many times. I would never create a scene, but I certainly would complain to the waitress and if she didn't apologize I'd talk to the manager. And I also wouldn't have had her fired. If you even bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that in the 8th post of the first page (in an answer to you, no less) I said that firing her was an overreaction and that some kind of sensitivity class would have sufficed.
I also have no idea as to what was the intention of using that word, but I don't need to. Again, like I said before in here, it doesn't matter what intentions were behind that poor choice of word. It just matters if the alluded person feels offended or not, and if he/she does, then is entitled to an apology after explaining why he's offended.
One more thing: I don't appreciate you trying to downplay my feelings by anticipating the quality of my reply as "long winded and overly analytical". It was condescending and insulting, not to mention your completely uncalled for usage of the word "nazi" in order to antagonize me and emphasize your last statement. That was a really stupid, immature thing to do. And where did I analize (let alone
overanalize) things? I only made a statement, then proceeded to answer your replies. I never went on a "what if..." rampage or anything.
SuperMegatron wrote:It depends on the context as to its offensiveness.Kinda like black you can call a person black and its ok but if your tone is negative then the word takes on a different meaning.
My point exactly.
