Using the term Paki

Davelarson

old hippy wrote: »

First of all, I'm not your "mate". Secondly, I've spent a good deal of my life immersed in Japanese culture and history. I know all about the horrors of the past. So does my wife and her family.

It still doesn't give you carte blanche to be a racist. Or crow over the dropping of atomic bombs on civillians.

Mate are you upset? The Japanese waged a war of conquest. The population supported the regime and paid the price. I believe America was justified in using the bomb because it saved more lives in the long run and (more importantly) they were attacked first. As much as you would disagree, expressing these opinions does not make me a racist.

Or do you somehow think Japan was fighting a defensive war? Did they gloss over WWII in equality school?

old hippy

Davelarson wrote: »

Mate are you upset? The Japanese waged a war of conquest. The population supported the regime and paid the price. I believe America was justified in using the bomb because it saved more lives in the long run and (more importantly) they were attacked first. As much as you would disagree, expressing these opinions does not make me a racist.

Or do you somehow think Japan was fighting a defensive war? Did they gloss over WWII in equality school?

I'm tired of dealing with people slamming the Japanese. I'm tired of having to explain why the term you used is racist. I've been doing it for far too many years. I guess the ignorance is in part due to isolation because only an isolated and wilfully ignorant person would use the term & then try to justify his or her ignorance with a potted history lesson.

The US were not justified in using the A bombs. It was one of their experiments, just like Agent Orange and napalm some years later not so far away from Japan. And I say this as someone who's grandad fought in the Pacific War against Imperial Japan.

Now, "mate", since you won't apologise for using that offensive term earlier, I'm going to leave you to your myopic views and head off before I say something that will result in one of us being banned.

Nodin

Davelarson wrote: »

I didn't say anything racist. I don't hate the Japanese or any people. But for people like old hippy the standard response to an opinion they don't like is 'you're racist!' It the same as: criticize the Israeli government you're anti-semitic, criticize feminism, you're misogynistic. Its how they shut down dissent. The irony is that they bang on about how important freedom and equality is. Free speech is great, until someone disagrees with you

You never mentioned criticising governments, you mentioned racism against people full stop. Don't try shifting the goalposts now.

Tony EH

Davelarson wrote: »

The Japanese waged a war of conquest.

Most wars are wars of conquest.

In terms of war, the Japanese have been rather tame considering the 1000's of years worth of war that history has to offer. Yet some people in the west want to continually bring up the same few years as a stick to beat them with. It's a convenient Orwellian two minutes of hate.

Davelarson wrote: »

The population supported the regime and paid the price.

The "population" didn't really have that much of a choice did they? When you're living under a military dictatorship, fudal system, junta, absolutist monarchy, totalitarian state, etc...you don't get to vote out the guys you don't like.

In addition, the war was carried out many, many miles from the home islands. As far as the Japanese at home were concerned, it could well have been on the moon, for all they knew.

Facbook and Twitter didn't exist in 1940's.

Davelarson wrote: »

I believe America was justified in using the bomb because it saved more lives in the long run and (more importantly) they were attacked first.

You clearly know nothing about the situation.

Davelarson wrote: »

Or do you somehow think Japan was fighting a defensive war? Did they gloss over WWII in equality school?

There are many reasons why Japan went to war. Perhaps you should read about some of them before spouting any more.

You really have a bug up your arse about the Japanese.

Davelarson

old hippy wrote: »

I'm tired of dealing with people slamming the Japanese. I'm tired of having to explain why the term you used is racist. I've been doing it for far too many years. I guess the ignorance is in part due to isolation because only an isolated and wilfully ignorant person would use the term & then try to justify his or her ignorance with a potted history lesson.

The US were not justified in using the A bombs. It was one of their experiments, just like Agent Orange and napalm some years later not so far away from Japan. And I say this as someone who's grandad fought in the Pacific War against Imperial Japan.

Now, "mate", since you won't apologise for using that offensive term earlier, I'm going to leave you to your myopic views and head off before I say something that will result in one of us being banned.

Sound mate we'll agree to disagree so. I'll sure we'll meet again in the future.

Davelarson

Tony EH wrote: »

Most wars are wars of conquest.

In terms of war, the Japanese have been rather tame considering the 1000's of years worth of war that history has to offer. Yet some people in the west want to continually bring up the same few years as a stick to beat them with. It's a convenient Orwellian two minutes of hate.



The "population" didn't really have that much of a choice did they? When you're living under a military dictatorship, fudal system, junta, absolutist monarchy, totalitarian state, etc...you don't get to vote out the guys you don't like.

In addition, the war was carried out many, many miles from the home islands. As far as the Japanese at home were concerned, it could well have been on the moon, for all they knew.

Facbook and Twitter didn't exist in 1940's.



You clearly know nothing about the situation.



There are many reasons why Japan went to war. Perhaps you should read about some of them before spouting any more.

You really have a bug up your arse about the Japanese.

I use the Japanese as an example because earlier a poster stated he believed only white people could perpetuate racism. This is nonsense of course and the Japanese were the first example to pop into my head.

Not everything is the fault of evil old whitey. I reject labels like 'white privilege' 'male privilege' as pc nonsense.

And if I'm wrong about the atomic bomb then let me hear you opinion. How should the Americans have concluded the war? An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in catastrophic losses on both sides.

chopper6

[QUOTE=old hippy;87521606]I'm tired of dealing with people slamming the Japanese. I'm tired of having to explain why the term you used is racist. I've been doing it for far too many years. I guess the ignorance is in part due to isolation because only an isolated and wilfully ignorant person would use the term & then try to justify his or her ignorance with a potted history lesson.

The US were not justified in using the A bombs. It was one of their experiments, just like Agent Orange and napalm some years later not so far away from Japan. And I say this as someone who's grandad fought in the Pacific War against Imperial Japan.

Now, "mate", since you won't apologise for using that offensive term earlier, I'm going to leave you to your myopic views and head off before I say something that will result in one of us being banned.[/QUOTE]


You have no problem slamming the Irish though..If people want to dislike a country or it's inhabitants it's thier choice..it is NOT racism though....racism is prejudice against a race *NOT* a country.

Maltese people hate Italians...are they being racist?

English and French people profess to hate each other...is it racism?

No it's not,it's the sort of thing that's being going on for millenia...a mutual distrust of "foreigners" and a common delusion about thier own importance.

You need to get off your high horse and stop insulting people..in my opinion you're the one with myopic views and you've been fighting dirty in defense of them.

Xeyn

chopper6 wrote: »

You have no problem slamming the Irish though..If people want to dislike a country or it's inhabitants it's thier choice..it is NOT racism though....racism is prejudice against a race *NOT* a country.

Maltese people hate Italians...are they being racist?

English and French people profess to hate each other...is it racism?

No it's not,it's the sort of thing that's being going on for millenia...a mutual distrust of "foreigners" and a common delusion about thier own importance.

You need to get off your high horse and stop insulting people..in my opinion you're the one with myopic views and you've been fighting dirty in defense of them.

Bigotry is not any better than racism - you sound like youre attempting to justify bigotry.

chopper6

Xeyn wrote: »

Bigotry is not any better than racism - you sound like youre attempting to justify bigotry.

No,i'm not trying to justify anything,i'm saying is it possible to have a discussion without certain sorts of people wildly casting about with accuasations of racism,bigotry and hatred?

I have a theory...the sorts of (white) people who pitch in with this sort of thing actually feel superior to the people they're "defending"...like they're The Great White Bossman speaking up for the poor,slightly stupid foreigners.

It's a way of purging thier own guilty soul..."If i accuse people of racism it'll assuage my own guilt and superiority".

And knowing that irish people dislike being perceived as racist they equally know there's no real come back to such an accusation.

Although i've heard some *truely* racist,bigoted people rant and rave and foam at the mouth in real life,the meek Hippies walk on by with thier heads bowed in shame and fear.

Xeyn

When someone calls someone out for essentially using bigot terminology and you then go to efforts stating how they are not racists but fail to address how its bigoted instead it does come across as you trying to justify the earlier bigoted ideology.

Thats an interesting theory by the way. Its not really based in reality or any reality I know, but its interesting none the less.

BillyMitchel

Is it coz I is black?

chopper6

Xeyn wrote: »

When someone calls someone out for essentially using bigot terminology and you then go to efforts stating how they are not racists but fail to address how its bigoted instead it does come across as you trying to justify the earlier bigoted ideology.

.

Do you want a loan of a thesaurus?

Tony EH

Davelarson wrote: »

I use the Japanese as an example because earlier a poster stated he believed only white people could perpetuate racism. This is nonsense of course and the Japanese were the first example to pop into my head.

Not everything is the fault of evil old whitey. I reject labels like 'white privilege' 'male privilege' as pc nonsense.

And if I'm wrong about the atomic bomb then let me hear you opinion. How should the Americans have concluded the war? An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in catastrophic losses on both sides.

Unfortunately, you're using all the old hoary cliches re: Japan and they aren't coming across too well.

As for how the Americans should have concluded the war. How about peacefully? The Home islands were completely blockaded, no shipping got in or out with Allied interference. Production on everything was down to an absolute minimum. Every single piece of radio traffic was monitored, to such an extent that the Americans knew, through the Purple decrypts, that the Japanese were looking for a way to sue for peace. The only bone of contention was how the Emperor was going to be treated after the war had ended. As it was, the Allies had no intention of doing anything with Hirohito, or even doing anything with the home islands, which the Japanese would have found very favourable indeed, as there was no illusions amongst the Japanese cabinet on where the war was going.

Yet, there was no indication of these intentions clarified to the Japanese at Potsdam or any time there after.

The reason being, of course, that the war would end without recourse to the bomb.

The Americans used their new weapon on an untested target, during a wartime situation, knowing full well that the war was at an end and the results yielded from such a target would be (and was) indispensable in the post war period.

In addition, it sent out a very strong message to the Russians, who the Americans were lining up in their sights. Their usefulness as allies had run it's course and it was back to old status of enemy for them.

Regardless of where one stands on the use of the Atomic bomb in 1945, I can guarantee you this...if the Japanese or the Germans had used the weapon, no matter at what time-frame or how desperate they were, it most definitely would have been classed as a "war crime."

After the war the Americans admitted that Nation was finished and in all probability, could have held out to November at best.

There was no need to use the weapon at all and certainly no "justification".

Xeyn

chopper6 wrote: »

Do you want a loan of a thesaurus?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Davelarson

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, you're using all the old hoary cliches re: Japan and they aren't coming across too well.

As for how the Americans should have concluded the war. How about peacefully? The Home islands were completely blockaded, no shipping got in or out with Allied interference. Production on everything was down to an absolute minimum. Every single piece of radio traffic was monitored, to such an extent that the Americans knew, through the Purple decrypts, that the Japanese were looking for a way to sue for peace. The only bone of contention was how the Emperor was going to be treated after the war had ended. As it was, the Allies had no intention of doing anything with Hirohito, or even doing anything with the home islands, which the Japanese would have found very favourable indeed, as there was no illusions amongst the Japanese cabinet on where the war was going.

Yet, there was no indication of these intentions clarified to the Japanese at Potsdam or any time there after.

The reason being, of course, that the war would end without recourse to the bomb.

The Americans used their new weapon on an untested target, during a wartime situation, knowing full well that the war was at an end and the results yielded from such a target would be (and was) indispensable in the post war period.

In addition, it sent out a very strong message to the Russians, who the Americans were lining up in their sights. Their usefulness as allies had run it's course and it was back to old status of enemy for them.

Regardless of where one stands on the use of the Atomic bomb in 1945, I can guarantee you this...if the Japanese or the Germans had used the weapon, no matter at what time-frame or how desperate they were, it most definitely would have been classed as a "war crime."

After the war the Americans admitted that Nation was finished and in all probability, could have held out to November at best.

There was no need to use the weapon at all and certainly no "justification".

And you think the Japanese would just have surrendered? Your analysis of 'guys war is bad, why didn't the Americans just make the Japanese surrender peacefully? is pretty infantile. Here's a tip: you have to analysis historical events in context of the times. Do you think the American people would have been happy to allow the enemy to come to peaceful terms? After Pearl Harbour, losing thousands of men, and spending billions of dollars on the war? And if the Japanese or Nazis used the bomb it would have been a war crime for two very important reasons: they were evil regimes and they started the war.

Tony EH

No, what you have just written is infantile.

Davelarson

Tony EH wrote: »

No, what you have just written is infantile.

How so?

Davelarson

old hippy wrote: »

I'm tired of dealing with people slamming the Japanese. I'm tired of having to explain why the term you used is racist. I've been doing it for far too many years. I guess the ignorance is in part due to isolation because only an isolated and wilfully ignorant person would use the term & then try to justify his or her ignorance with a potted history lesson.

The US were not justified in using the A bombs. It was one of their experiments, just like Agent Orange and napalm some years later not so far away from Japan. And I say this as someone who's grandad fought in the Pacific War against Imperial Japan.

Now, "mate", since you won't apologise for using that offensive term earlier, I'm going to leave you to your myopic views and head off before I say something that will result in one of us being banned.

One last thing. I saw your post on the abortion thread where you dismissed Christianity as 'a load of old fairy tales.' So its ok to insult Christians? I can imagine your outrage if I said something similar about Islam or Buddhism. What if I dismiss Shinto as a load of nonsense? Despite all your moralising you're no better than the rest of us.

Congratulations on exposing yourself as a hypocrite mate.

Reekwind

Davelarson wrote: »

How so?

Arguing that a war crime only becomes a war crime when an "evil regime" does it is playground logic of the most ridiculous order

And that's one example from your posts. I could have picked many more

Nodin

Davelarson wrote: »

One last thing. I saw your post on the abortion thread where you dismissed Christianity as 'a load of old fairy tales.' So its ok to insult Christians? .......

He didn't insult Christians, he dismissed their beliefs. Rather a different thing.

Davelarson

Nodin wrote: »

He didn't insult Christians, he dismissed their beliefs. Rather a different thing.

Christians might feel differently. And if I said the same thing about Islam he'd accuse me of spreading hatred.

Davelarson

Reekwind wrote: »

Arguing that a war crime only becomes a war crime when an "evil regime" does it is playground logic of the most ridiculous order

And that's one example from your posts. I could have picked many more

You sound like a deluded moral relativist.

Nodin

Davelarson wrote: »

Christians might feel differently. And if I said the same thing about Islam he'd accuse me of spreading hatred.

...what? that they believe a load of crap? Unlikely. Same with the hindus, Sikhs, jews, hare krishnas and the rest. Its when you start going on about the followers that the problem starts.

Davelarson

Nodin wrote: »

...what? that they believe a load of crap? Unlikely. Same with the hindus, Sikhs, jews, hare krishnas and the rest. Its when you start going on about the followers that the problem starts.

You're making excuses for him now. I'm not offended. I'm not religious and I don't believe in placing limits on free speech, but he has to accept that there are plenty of Christians who would find what he said offensive.

And I don't think he, or most people, would be quite so quick to say the same about other faiths.

Reekwind

Davelarson wrote: »

You sound like a deluded moral relativist.

You obviously don't know what the term means. Suggesting that the moral correctness of an action is dependent on the perpetrator is exactly relativism. For example, a war crime only becoming a war crime when committed by an "evil regime"

Davelarson

Reekwind wrote: »

You obviously don't know what the term means. Suggesting that the moral correctness of an action is dependent on the perpetrator is exactly relativism. For example, a war crime only becoming a war crime when committed by an "evil regime"

I'm not sure about that mate.

By the way I know the allies committed war crimes but these were perpetrated by individual soldiers or units, they were not state sponsored activities like the Japanese or the Nazis.

hsianloon

I can't tell you how hard it is being an 'asian' I'm expected to shoulder the knowledge of every asian culture on my shoulders

I've to agree with some opinions here that I've rarely heard the term paki unaccompanied by the prefix '****ing'

Nodin

Davelarson wrote: »

You're making excuses for him now. .........

Not really. It's nothing I haven't come out with myself.

Nodin

hsianloon wrote: »

I can't tell you how hard it is being an 'asian' I'm expected to shoulder the knowledge of every asian culture on my shoulders

I've to agree with some opinions here that I've rarely heard the term paki unaccompanied by the prefix '****ing'

It's a bit on the broad side as a term allright.

My understanding of the term "paki" is that when heard you traditionally either duck or get your back to a wall. They got dogs abuse in the 70's and 80's, by all accounts.

Davelarson

Nodin wrote: »

Not really. It's nothing I haven't come out with myself.

Ok. Just bear in mind some Christians will find it offensive.

April O Neill II

MadsL wrote: »

Consider...

He's a Dub.

He's a fucking Dub.

He's a Brit.

He's a fucking Brit.

He's a Scot.

He's a fucking Scot.

He's an Aussie.

He's a fucking Aussie.

I've rarely heard anyone use Paki without it being fucking Paki.

Really? I have, lots of times. It's a bit different in Ireland, it didn't traditionally have as negative of connotations as in the UK, at least where I grew up in the west of Ireland. But it has fallen out of favour nevertheless, which is probably for the best.

old hippy

Davelarson wrote: »

One last thing. I saw your post on the abortion thread where you dismissed Christianity as 'a load of old fairy tales.' So its ok to insult Christians? I can imagine your outrage if I said something similar about Islam or Buddhism. What if I dismiss Shinto as a load of nonsense? Despite all your moralising you're no better than the rest of us.

Congratulations on exposing yourself as a hypocrite mate.

I'm not, nor ever will be your mate. What has a load of religious claptrap got to do with your denigrating an entire people, calling them "Japs" and saying they "got what they deserved"? A ludicrous comparison.

All religions are a load of old pony, I've never said otherwise.

Reekwind

Davelarson wrote: »

I'm not sure about that mate

That's fine, I wasn't asking for an opinion. If you're going to accuse someone of relativism then you should know what the term means

By the way I know the allies committed war crimes but these were perpetrated by individual soldiers or units, they were not state sponsored activities like the Japanese or the Nazis.

You say this in a discussion* about attacks that, collectively, caused the deaths of up to a quarter of a million civilians?

*Not that I'm sure how we got here

Sir Humphrey Appleby

They say context is everything and I have never heard the term "Paki" used outside of an insulting and derogatory way, or in a pejorative sense.

Davelarson

old hippy wrote: »

I'm not, nor ever will be your mate. What has a load of religious claptrap got to do with your denigrating an entire people, calling them "Japs" and saying they "got what they deserved"? A ludicrous comparison.

All religions are a load of old pony, I've never said otherwise.

If you're going to hysterically accuse me of spreading hate you better make damn sure you never insult anyone yourself.

Religion is vital component of many people's identity. Dismissing it as a load of nonsense is highly offensive to these people. Not that I'm offended, I'm not religious. But it is satisfying to see your smug self righteousness slip a little and reveal your prejudices.

Enjoy the revelation that you know longer occupy the moral high ground mate.

Davelarson

Reekwind wrote: »

That's fine, I wasn't asking for an opinion. If you're going to accuse someone of relativism then you should know what the term means

You say this in a discussion* about attacks that, collectively, caused the deaths of up to a quarter of a million civilians?

*Not that I'm sure how we got here

To me the term has always meant you can't objectively decide what is 'good' or bad' 'moral' or 'immoral'. Hence you can't say one side in WWII was worse than the other, something that I profoundly disagree with...

You can sit on your high horse 68 years on from events and cast your judgement but the reality is the Nazi and Japanese regimes were immoral and deserved their fates (and if I have to argue this fact on boards I will probably quit and never come back).

pedanticpat

Hi, I travel to work with a Pakistani every day, and the reason why it's not acceptable is because of its use. It's generally preceded by f**king and not meant in a nice way. He doesn't mind me using it, as it's used in a jovial way, but he doesn't like his kids using it.

Reekwind

Davelarson wrote: »

To me the term has always meant you can't objectively decide what is 'good' or bad' 'moral' or 'immoral'. Hence you can't say one side in WWII was worse than the other, something that I profoundly disagree with...

Which would be fine if anybody had argued that. They didn't so get off your straw horse and address the issue at hand

Which is your assertion that the morality of an action depends entirely on the nature of the perpetrator. Or, in this case, that the obliteration of a city via atomic bombs is a war crime if Germany/Japan were responsible but a laudable strategic decision for the Allies. And who said what about relativism?

(Contrast with the more absolute position that sees the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as a war crime regardless of the perpetrator. That is, the 'good guys' are capable of crimes as well)

Davelarson

Reekwind wrote: »

Which would be fine if anybody had argued that. They didn't so get off your straw horse and address the issue at hand

Which is your assertion that the morality of an action depends entirely on the nature of the perpetrator. Or, in this case, that the obliteration of a city via atomic bombs is a war crime if Germany/Japan were responsible but a laudable strategic decision for the Allies. And who said what about relativism?

(Contrast with the more absolute position that sees the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as a war crime regardless of the perpetrator. That is, the 'good guys' are capable of crimes as well)

Well I don't think there's much use in arguing anymore. I think you're a deluded revisionist and you probably think I'm a racist war mongering asshole.

old hippy

Davelarson wrote: »

If you're going to hysterically accuse me of spreading hate you better make damn sure you never insult anyone yourself.

Religion is vital component of many people's identity. Dismissing it as a load of nonsense is highly offensive to these people. Not that I'm offended, I'm not religious. But it is satisfying to see your smug self righteousness slip a little and reveal your prejudices.

Enjoy the revelation that you know longer occupy the moral high ground mate.

Dismissing one's beliefs is a very different kettle of fish to your racism against the Japanese people you have displayed here.

And so, once rumbled and pointed out that it's racism, you decide to bring in comments I made concerning another thread which has nothing to do with this thread. And you still haven't apologised for your use of the racial slur.

Brilliant when the mask slips, eh, Dave?

Davelarson

old hippy wrote: »

Dismissing one's beliefs is a very different kettle of fish to your racism against the Japanese people you have displayed here.

And so, once rumbled and pointed out that it's racism, you decide to bring in comments I made concerning another thread which has nothing to do with this thread. And you still haven't apologised for your use of the racial slur.

Brilliant when the mask slips, eh, Dave?

Whatever mate, keep backpedaling. No one likes a hypocrite.

It might be fashionable to have a pop at religious people, doesn't mean its not offensive. I mean if I'd been through some tough times and found solace in my religion, and some wheezy atheist came up to me and said my belief system was a load of nonsense, I'd tell you where to go.

I think this debate has rambled on long enough. Still it hasn't been in vain, we've established two important facts:

1. I'm a degenerate racist who's crimes are on par with Amon Goeth's
2. You're a slimey, odious hypocrite

It's been fun, but now I have to sort out my plane tickets, heading over to The Netherlands next month to dress up as Black Pete. Have a good one mate.

old hippy

Davelarson wrote: »

the reality is the Nazi and Japanese regimes were immoral and deserved their fates (and if I have to argue this fact on boards I will probably quit and never come back).

Which would sum up your visit here. A dash of racism here, a bit of misdirected anger to an entire people there and a refusal to acknowledge that you appear to be very selective when it comes to war crimes.

Davelarson wrote: »

Whatever mate, keep backpedaling. No one likes a hypocrite.

It might be fashionable to have a pop at religious people, doesn't mean its not offensive. I mean if I'd been through some tough times and found solace in my religion, and some wheezy atheist came up to me and said my belief system was a load of nonsense, I'd tell you where to go.

I think this debate has rambled on long enough. Still it hasn't been in vain, we've established two important facts:

1. I'm a degenerate racist who's crimes are on par with Amon Goeth's
2. You're a slimey, odious hypocrite

It's been fun, but now I have to sort out my plane tickets, heading over to The Netherlands next month to dress up as Black Pete. Have a good one mate.

Yes, the debate which you hijacked in order to pursue your anti-Japanese agenda has gone on a bit, hasn't it?

Name calling, I've seen that before when someone has been rumbled.

And now having made your dubious point, you are running away to black up in the Netherlands. Yes, that makes sense.

Brave lad.

chopper6

Saw a bunch of Japanese tourists(complete with smog masks) crowding into a disabled lift to travel the equivilent of one flight of stairs. The stairs were ten feet to the left of the lift.

Maybe our japanese expert can explain this profound lazyness?

Hoop66

chopper6 wrote: »

Saw a bunch of Japanese tourists(complete with smog masks) crowding into a disabled lift to travel the equivilent of one flight of stairs. The stairs were ten feet to the left of the lift.

Maybe our japanese expert can explain this profound lazyness?

What on earth are you going on about?

Are you trying to suggest that all Japanese people are lazy because you claim to have once seen some Japanese tourists use a lift?

Or is there something else that we are supposed to infer from your post?

chopper6

Hoop66 wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that all Japanese people are lazy because you claim to have once seen some Japanese tourists use a lift?

Where did i mention ALL japanese people?

I said i saw a bunch of them crammed into a lift.

Hoop66 wrote: »

Or is there something else that we are supposed to infer from your post?

Yes...i'm curious as to why A) They'd be wearing smog masks in Dublin and why could they not use the stairs that was right beside them?

LordSutch

Strituck wrote: »

Using the term Paki.

Is never acceptable.

positron

chopper6 wrote: »

A) They'd be wearing smog masks in Dublin

I am no expert but I think Japanese wear masks if they suspect they are unwell - like if they have cold or flu - they are being polite by trying to not to spread the germs by wearing a mask. Again, I am no expert... so..

chopper6

LordSutch wrote: »

Is never acceptable.

Do you know that for many years in the UK cornershops were known as "Pakis" as they were largely owned by Pakistanis?

Likewise you hear lots of people talking about going to the "chinks" to get chinese food.

Context is everything.

positron

pedanticpat wrote: »

Hi, I travel to work with a Pakistani every day.

Oh, sorry about that. :pac:



PS: I am not racist, it's just that I am Indian! Only joking of course, I have nothing against Pakistanis (even though I hate their ISI / military etc).

Bog Standard User

beazee wrote: »

What about the Poles?

esb and eircom have been looking after those for years. they even put them back up after a storm