[EatingPie]

I'm going a little out of order. But this is a terrible straw man, and it deserves foremost attention.

Again, you and OP defended your opinions by attacking us with being "political correctness'? That's a good tactic, instead of defending your case; why not just attack them back."

Wow. This is exactly the opposite of what I've done in this thread. Nowhere have I "attacked" you at any point, or made any personal insult. Nowhere have I used the term "political correctness" as a "tactic" without defining it. Nowhere have I simply "attacked you back."

I defined the term Pollitical Correctness as I see it: It is this sole reliance on use of terminology deemed "insensitive" -- rather than looking at a person's heart/intent/motive -- that I define as "Political Correctness." And all of my posts are predicated upon this definition.

However, I've seen you spefically call EricA123 "racist" multiple times, you refer to "poor EricA123" in a derogatory sense, even using profanity (he's an "assh*le"). And continueing from the above citation...

Using 'political correctness' argument as a defense is the same as calling the victim the oppressor. Oh yeah, poor EricA123, he was unfairly treated. It's the same bullsh*t going on this week up in D.C. where Glen Beck reclaimming the Civil Right Movement. It's bullsh*t at its best.

You state that he claims to be a victim, and that it's "bullsh*t." As well as making another non-sequitor by comparing him to a political event.

Also, in response to my posts, you have quoted me wildly out of context, twisting their meaning to something that I did not state, and then laugh at the new meaning you created ("Let me guess Hollywood films are now considered reality. "). You have used derogatory language in response to my statements ("blah blah blah," "Ppplzzzzz,").

As I've said, I have thick skin. I am merely illustrating the fallacy of your argument. It's a straw man of the worse kind. Not only do you misreprsent me, you claim I'm doing the things you yourself are actually doing!

As I stated above, this has nothing to do with "Political Correctness". In order to fight any type of discrimination similar to those that has lead to violents in the past; one have to stay vigilant and watchful for *sshole like the OP. The OP is deemed racist for his follow up comments not just his initial use of the term. My initial respond was with a question mark, "?". Hinting that that might sound racist. If his follow up comments has been different then he wouldn't be label as such.

I am not sure I understand you. Your immediate response to him was the following:

Racist much???

I see no "hinting" at all. In it's most common use, that is a colloquialism stating that he is racist, but phrasing it as a question. It comes from a fallacy known as the "loaded question" or "fallacy of many questions." Even if he were to answer "no," he still admits to being a racist ("no, I'm not a racist much). Colloquially, that phrasing is most often used to say a person is acting a certain way ("XYZ much?" is a way of saying "You're being an XYZ!").

So I return to my definition of Pollitical Correctness: Judging a person on a word versus their intent/heart. And calling someone a "racist" is one of the most common forms of Pollitical Correctness there is. And, as far I can tell, this is exactly what happened.

There is a saying, "The pen is mightier than the sword" or something like "a tongue is mightier than the blade". So my answer to you is yes "words" do matter. How one use the words really count. One can use language to discriminate and oppress without lifting an arm. It was "words" that governments used during war to dehumanized their enemies. It was words that that labeled "African America" as another species to make it acceptable to own another human-being. It was words that Nazi Germany used to portrait "Jews" as vermonts and "rats" in their war time propagandas. It is why words are so important and why we have to be careful when using it.

Yes, indeed, I agree with many of the things you're saying here.

I will now cite a book, Orwell's 1984. One of the ideas conveyed is that changing the language was a way to control people. I agree with this idea. And, as you point out, we have seen it many times in the past. A modern day example is calling a political rival a "Nazi" or "Hitler" as a means of association.

I also believe the PC movement is using the same idea. Change the language. Maybe there is good intention there. I am no longer "black," but "African American." However, as I have stated already, the over-emphasis on words over intent or heart creates more harm than good. On top of this, the catch-all term "racist" is a PC term coming in to use similar to calling a rival a "Nazi."

My answer to you is no it is not. However, when someone find it particular word offensive due to the past historic usage of the term; then one should try not to use it. I find that the OP's own insistent of using the word make him a "prick" at best and a racist based on his followup comments.

I will merely pause here to note, once again, your use of derogatory terms. You are not addressing an argument, you are attacking a person. You incorrectly accused me of doing this (citation at beginning of this post), when you are actually the one using personal attacks.

nI deal and judge things on a case by case basis. All these questions that you just asked is irrelevant to this discussion at hand. In this particular "case", I find it offensive to the people of Japan in general. Don't tell me that Japanese find the term non-offensive. Hence, your question is moot.

You have at least one fallacy here. A non-sequitor. It does not follow that both questions are "moot" because I cannot tell you if "the people of Japan" find the term offensive or not.

And, indeed, you did not answer the question regarding a culture that uses a term and does not consider it an offensive slur. Does that mean it is racist? This is highly relevant, since EricA123 claimed to be from one such culture.

Please note, I have actually never defended the use of the term "Jap." Feel free to re-read my posts and see. I am merely pointing out that the response to the term, calling EricA123 a racist, fits in with the PC mode: It's only the word used that matters, not the heart or intent of use.

n

The OP stated that he's from Europe and the term is used colloquially as non-offensive. However, several others who live in Europe confirmed the term is considered offensive there. So don't used "colloquialism" as his defense.

This is yet another fallacy. They could be from a different part of Europe. They could also be wrong. There were three citations in this thread, all claiming differing levels of offense at the term "jap." The only conclusion that we can make about culutures using this term is that there are varying degrees of "offense" associated with the term, depending on the culture it's used in.

EricA123 may indeed be using the term in a derrogatory manner. He also may not be. But the use of the term alone is not conclusive evidence. (This is not a defense of using the term, it is simply stating that the evidence is inconclusive based on usage alone.)

When I used the "you", I did not intended at you directly. I meant "you" in a general meaning of the word.

I have a very difficult time accepting this answer without further explanation.

This is not the case of overreaching "political correctness". So please don't use that as a defend. This is about how one should be more sensitive when using language that might offend others in a public forum, especially in forum such as Mobileread. It doesn't mean much when you were never a target of the derogatory label and discriminated against.

I still cannot read this as anything by you saying my statements are invalid unless I have experienced discrimination. If this is a general statement (directed at the general "you") please explain how the context bears that out.

Hollywood films are fantasy trying to portrait only one perspective and so are books. Don't tell me you believe everything you read as long as it's published. There are more rubbish published than ever before. Don't think that books are any better.

Once again, you are twisting my words. And, once again, another fallacy. I never stated or implied that "I believe everything I read." Nor does it follow from "more rubbish is published than ever before" that "Gran Torino is rubbish."

-Pie