So worth avoiding but modded more based on context than as a “stand alone offense”?
I associate the word with a crappy, jingoistic, alt-his, 2016 FPS called Homefront: The Revolution.
The term sounds like a slur and is used as a slur, so what’s the debate? Slurs are/should be SDMB approved?
I have it on good authority that the term has been used at the Pentagon unironically not as a slur. I’m not sure what that means for us. I agree slurs are generally off limits but I am not sure this falls in that category. Nor K.'s seems like it would be okay but again I admit ignorance here.
I’ll just remind people again that Rush Limbaugh uses “Nork” regularly. If you don’t mind that association, well, Nork yourself out.
Personally, I am firmly opposed to ALL disparaging and insulting substitute names for anyone and anything. Such usages are NEVER illuminating, ALWAYS make it clear that the person posting is spouting either propaganda or prejudice or outright lies. It is entirely dishonorable and ineffective behavior in every case.
It is almost always clear from the rest of the post, whether or not the poster intends disrespect, so it is context which will make it clear what the INTENT of the usage is.
Frankly, I can’t see any reason whatsoever to pretend that “NORKS” is a legitimate shorthand. It is not used by ANY well known official group.
If it were up to me (which it obviously isn’t), anyone who posted anything utilizing such obviously derisive substitute names or labels for anyone or anything, would have their posts removed or censored, and be warned to learn how to comport themselves as respectful adults at all times.
There are plenty of ways to make it clear that you disagree with someone completely, without resorting to terminology that even fifth graders would recognize was puerile.That would be a fine standard. I doubt it’d get any support because people on the board like to make fun of others.
Does that apply to USAians? IME, the only people who use that term have a certain political agenda.
Are you puzzled why the term Jap is without question offensive?
I was at the time; I was enlightened. It’s not offensive over here.
While i understand that these two words are not exactly synonyms, in the context of this discussion, i don’t really see a very substantive difference between them, in terms of their effect. “I wanted to demean you, but not insult you” seems like a pretty dumb and self-contradictory thing to say.
As for board rules, i don’t care much either way what decision they make about the use of Norks, but i think it’s a stupid and pointless term.
All of you are blatantly and intentionally offending the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when you refer to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea using the racist slur “North Korea”. Please stop. The racist slur in the title should be replaced by the proper abbreviation derived from DEmocRatic People’S Republic of Korea, aka Derps, as the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea prefer to be called. My God the incivility on this website is unbelievable.
Gotcha. Makes sense (I forgot you weren’t in the USA).
I rather think it is a slur in the UK.
Probably apocryphal: a sportswriter mentioned “chinks in a teams defence”. He was told you can’t say that, it’s a slur on the Chinese. So he went for “gaps” instead - only for it to appear in print as “japs in the defence.”
No, not in my experience: it’s just short for ‘Japanese’, similar to ‘Brit’ or ‘Scot’.
That could be true if the term were being used to refer to the people of the DPRK, but I’ve only ever seen it (or any other slangy variant used to refer to the government of the DPRK, i.e., analogous to “Pubbies” or “Dumocrats.” I defer to the mods’ judgment, of course, but this thread seems inadvertently aimed at protecting a political entity from insult, not an ethnicity.
And certainly, if Nork is off limits, then “North Korean” should be as well. They don’t use the term and would likely find it offensive.
Does the fact that North Korea currently views itself as being at war with South Korea (and by extension the US) make any difference?
What about “DPRK”?
The name ‘North Korea’ is juxtaposed to ‘South Korea,’ neither are their official names; the use of cardinal distinctions for countries are common, have historical precedence, descriptive, politically neutral, and accurate (N/S Yemen, E/W Germany, etc).
“Norks” is a literal sluring and diminutization of “North Koreans;” these two linguistic tricks are used to inject mindless contempt to neutral terms. IMO if the SDMB wants to show contempt for the North Korean Government they shouldn’t use a slur of “North Koreans.”
‘Brit’ or ‘Scot’ are seen as the root forms of longer terms (‘British,’ ‘Scottish,’ ‘Britain,’ ‘Briton,’ ‘Scotland’), while “Jap” “Jappo” etc are not roots (or meaningful), they are diminutives. They are used to degrade. And these derogatory terms do have a history in the west.
I maintain that I’ve never seen the term used to refer to the people of the DPRK (as opposed to the government thereof), and therefore it therefore neither conveys nor is meant to convey any insult to them. Certainly, if you have seen otherwise, I’m happy to be corrected, but this sort of folk etymology doesn’t demonstrate any empirical evidence of racial insult.
In any event, it seems paradoxical to ask the mods to rule that a term we know the DPRK considers disfavored (“North Korean”) is acceptable, just because it has a long history (the inclusion of a cardinal direction is precisely what’s offensive, after all), but a term that a few people here think might be offensive is forbidden, because it sort of sounds like something else that is offensive?