It is if people ignorantly censor the word as they did with Fake Love. What if someday a Northern Mandarin group /singer’s song becomes a worldwide hit but nee ga is censored?
Whether there’s any written speech code or not, I’d say you’re wrong.
At work, it’s essential that you be able to work together with others to accomplish the business that you’re engaged in. It’s no place for divisive talk that would potentially throw a monkeywrench into your relations with your co-workers.
‘Most,’ certainly. But that still leaves plenty of knuckleheads who lack such understanding.
“You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.”
– Inigo Montoya
Beeping out a naughty word (or something that sounds like a naughty word) on a broadcast isn’t censorship. The unbeeped song is available via other broadcast channels, Youtube, or a dozen other streaming channels. Just because something is created doesn’t mean that private interests need to publish/play/broadcast it as is. When the government gets involved you have a stronger case, but not when private companies do it and not when it’s available unedited elsewhere.
And PC has nothing to do with this, it’s just a side effect of the fact that not everyone understands all the languages of the world. What works in one culture may not translate to another one. The same thing would probably happen if the words in question sounded like “fuck” or “shit”.
I consider comedy different from everyday speech, though.
So what?
The English word ‘niggardly’ refers to someone who is stingy or miserly. When was the last time you heard someone use it in actual conversation? (eg, “Scrooge was a niggardly old man.”) People don’t say it because it’s easy to confuse or misinterpret the meaning. These radio and TV guys have a commercial interest in avoiding content that is going to get them angry letters. What it ‘actually means’ in the native culture is irrelevant.
If it’s not censorship when a private or public entity does it, then what is it? I’m sure the Network Censors would like to know. There’s also Self Censorship which most of us practice on some level, where we don’t say exactly what we’re thinking.
"censor verb
censored; censoring\ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ
Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
censor the news
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
censor out indecent passages"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
I understand and accept censoring something when it’s truly goes against what is socially acceptable, e.g. the ‘N’, certain profanity. But not when it’s because of ignorance of origin and true meaning of the word, and it’s censored because it may be misconstrued by someone, somewhere, sometime.
Is so, they should ban the words, nip, nippy, chink, gook (as in Hangook, which is the proper Korean name for South Korea) and hundreds of other words that may potentially offend Asians and others. This is not limited to the Asian language. There are surely hundreds of words in other in other languages that may be misheard or misunderstand.
Acceptance and understanding begins with hearing words/terms and having an open discussion about them. Censoring (I can’t think of any other appropriate term) them leads to ignorance and lack of acceptance (deeming them non-PC is one example), and understanding of others (ethnicity, culture, social upbringing, etc).
I remember one of my professors using the word “fakir” and everyone gasped as they thought he said something else. Even I was taken aback, even though I knew the word as I thought he said something else. Those fellow students who didn’t know the term meant a religious ascetic Hindu (in this case) still had their mouths wide open until he explained what he really said and what it meant. Another time as he entered the classroom, he exclaimed: “It’s colder than a witches tit!”, and again the younger students (I returned to college in my 30’s) gasped and when the Professor asked if no one had heard the term, I was one of the few who raised my hand. If he hadn’t uttered those words/terms, some of the students would continue to have understanding of the word/term and would continue to be shocked and possibly offended when they heard them from someone else
As I stated above, I used to think manong (uncle/older brother/anyone older than you) and manang (aunty/older sister/anyone older than you) were derogatory terms, because that was the context I usually heard them in. I learned their true meaning when I heard a Filipina friend use it and I asked why she was using a derogatory term for someone she knew. Now that she’s explained it’s true meaning, I’ll use it in the proper context “Ai, manang (older woman), you need help with that?” and get a smile because I’m acknowledging both their culture and status (as an elder).
Yes, it may be unique to Hawaii, but I get a good laugh and often a pat on the back if I exclaim, “ai sus” (Filipino) or “aigoo” (Korean), “ai yah” (Chinese) in the appropriate context.
BTW, as in common when learning foreign languages from movies and conversations with close friends, I also know about a dozen swear words in multiple languages that I would never utter. Just as I try to refrain from using English profanity in speech and text. Again, an example of “self censoring”.
And why would you never utter those words?
I’m alternately, happy, sad, intrigued and disturbed by some of the posts here. But that’s the great thing about forums like this, we’re able to have an open discussion with minimal moderation. I’ve expressed my opinions based on my (perhaps unique) experiences living and growing up in 60’s/70’s Hawaii. I’ll continue to hold my opinions as true to my heart and intentions and know you will hold to your opinions in the same way. Thankfully I won’t be around to see what effects the move towards more PC speech and actions will have on the generation after the next.
Peace!
Not even going to bother actually answering my question?
At a young age, I asked my Dad why he never uttered profanities (at least around me), and he said that using profanity is only for those without the mental ability/capacity to substitute another less offensive word at the moment. There’s a current thread where the OP is seeking a replacement for the word ‘retard’ in his speech.
I’m not questioning nor criticizing the OP’s intelligence, in fact I applaud him for being open in his quest, but I personally choose not to demean myself or others by using words that are usually considered offensive.
Of course, this is all my personal experience and opinions. Boy, I have to create a sig “The opinions of this post are solely that if lingyi and not necessarily acceptable to or understood by anyone else.” 
Nope!
You posted while I was composing the message prior to my last. I’ll leave you (hopefully for real this time) with the last word.
Peace!
Oops…back again!
To clarify, by “…using word that are usually considered offensive”, I mean words that ARE said and meant to be offensive. Not because they’re misunderstood, misconstrued.
This is literally the only thing we are asking for.
The difference is Mark Twain didn’t realize Nigger was derogitory, we do.
You do realize that Mark Twain lived at the same time as Nathan Bedford Forrest?
It’s such a strange argument: people 150 years ago used different language, including well known people, therefore I should be able to drop the n word.
…your dad was fucking wrong. With all due respect.
Says the person that argues that they “firmly believe that non-PC terms and stereotypes based on ethnic and cultural differences are what allowed the various immigrants who spoke no common language to work, play and intermarry, creating the unique local culture of Hawaii.”
So to be crystal clear: you think “non-PC terms and stereotypes based on ethnic and cultural differences” are good for society, but you won’t personally use the word “fuck?”
Fine. If an institution has stated principles about rejecting discrimination and bigotry (or about other moral positions such as abiding by conservative Christian mores, etc.), then they should make those principles explicit in codes of conduct and/or speech, so everybody knows where they stand.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ACLU member and I support vigorous defense of civil liberties. But I also know that a private institution making rules about what its employees/members can do or say as part of their involvement with that institution is not intrinsically an infringement of civil liberties.
Apologies if it’s been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, but it’s a popular observation in some left leaning circles that the more an internet or social media platform emphasizes and enforces completely “free speech,” the more it seems to be taken over by hardcore haters of every minority demographic and by lovers of less than legal or moral pornography.
Funny, that, if true.