Nazli: I agree words are powerful, intent is all-important. Let’s hope more people learn some perspective.

phyre: it’s fortunate that the decent humans are the majority – even if it doesn’t feel that way some days

chemboy: people who think try to lord it over other people suck

simon: I agree that’s one of the good solutions, that doesn’t mean the person doing the attacking isn’t a prick

goatsoup: it’s pretty much the same as saying “nigger”

Matthew: I agree that abusers are saying way more about themselves than they realise

E0157H7: it really is “the easy way out” writ large

Simon: that sort of stupidity (and it is stupid) is a far lesser evil than the harassment wreaked by evil, hateful bastards

Alabaster: you hit the nail on the head, although Paki is a loaded term, Bush was doubtless using it out of ignorance, not racism

The word ‘Paki’ has become loaded because it is so often used as a term of abuse, meanings change as people use words. Where I was raised, the word Paki was used to refer to anyone who appeared to be from the approximate area of Pakistan, most often India, and it was always used as a derogatory term. I won’t use it because I know how it will be interpreted by someone who has had to get used to the name of their ancestral homeland (or, more often, the country next to theirs) being used as an insult.

I’m doubt Bush was being racist, so much as ignorant of the way words are used. The guy’s pretty much unaware of anything outside his immediate surroundings, so it’s not surprising. The point is that he should be aware of this stuff. It should.

Blah, my coherence is lacking. I’ll stop now.

The other way of looking at it is that a person who hurls abuse has been routinely abused themselves (if only according to their own perception). As such, they see that others regard this behaviour as acceptable, and that it is hypocritical to not allow everybody to engage in that kind of conduct. As such, even though they realize that it is deeply unpleasant to be on the wrong end of lynch mob humour, intimidation and ridicule, this type of thing is obviously “normal,” and so they’re going to do it, too.

What this doesn’t factor in is that only those in positions of power get to ridicule others, and they will only ridicule those “subordinate” to them, such that they avoid repercussions. I dunno, it’s probably more complex than that, but that’s my first take!

Matt

Like wtf? It’s an abbreviation! Pakistinian loses the “stinian” and becomes simply “Paki”. I can’t see the difference between British and Brit. I’m not going to cry if someone walks up and calls me a Brit…

Somewhat unreleated, but there’s plenty of good reasons to hate someone. Anyone who insults someone (about where they come from or what colour they are) simply has no imagination. It’s kind of like a statement of submission; I’m thick, this is all I can notice.

Anyway, nice video, great seaweedy things. You’ll always be my favourite Lebanese guy representing on YouTube.

@Simon
Yes, often times it is insecurities that cause the sensitivities that we see so much of today. Personally I believe the idea of “political correctness” has turned from a way of showing people how to be civil to each other into a way for people to take out their own fears, illogical hatred, anger and insecurities on others.

However the other side of the coin is that being civil to one another often means trying to avoid doing things that you think might hurt anothers’ feelings. Nice folks will treat you nicely even though they don’t have to. Jerks do the opposite.

To paraphrase Mr. A’s point of view, we all have the right to say whatever we want. However what we do with that right is what differentiates the A-holios from the humans…