A black person may use the N word about themselves ironically or satirically (viz. many rap lyrics) but if a white person uses it then it carries all the racist associations from previous use in that direction.
Same as if I were to refer to myself as a “rosbif” in a joking manner in France, versus a French person calling me that, which is very unlikely to be meant as a joke unless we knew each other extremely well.
The word “garcon” is another (milder) example - it’s becoming less and less acceptable to summon a waiter in a restaurant with that term.
People’s perceptions and understanding change and language changes with them.
When we’re all pals together… someone might start to take a dig at “Brits” and as OH and I are usually the only Brits present… it’s obviously aimed at us… but it’s said with a mischievous grin … and when I gently remind them that I am actually one quarter French, thanks to gramdma born in Paris blah blah blah… I turn the joke on them… as they blanche, swiftly backtrack and say that the don’t think of us as Brits "it’s all them uvvers… " and we all collapse with laughter
What I’m trying to say is that I agree with you… tone of voice, demeanour etc etc can so often change the whole meaning of the spoken word from good to bad and back again… aaaaargh.
No, of course it isn’t OK to use the word ‘Wetback’ to describe a Mexican. Please know that in the context of last night’s conversation I was querying why it is that this website automatically prevents the posting of the N word, but allows the use of ‘Wetback’, which is just as derogatory and offensive as the prevented word. Seems like something of a double standard to me in that one group are protected from insult and another are not. My own view is that all words that have nothing but an offensive meaning should be auto-prevented from being posted.
‘Garcon’ is invariably simply inaccurate as it is plainly obvious that in the vast majority of cases the waiter is not a boy.
Yes of course; I wasn’t suggesting you use it, I was just offering another example of a word that was once commonplace but which is now seem as patronising or insulting.
IIRC from when I was a Moderator on a photographer’s forum, sometimes the list of offensive words is coded into the forum software, sometimes it’s accessible by the forum operator and moderators and can be updated. I don’t know which case applies to Survive France.
I know you said “words that are nothing but derogatory”, but personally I would add the term “snapper” to the list as derogatory to photographers, but then we would not be able to discuss delicious Caribbean fish recipes.
I think ‘Garcon’, back in the day when many restaurants were family run, was very often probably the accurate term to use, bearing in mind that the young lad waiting table was probably the ‘Patron’s’ son.
Interestingly enough, we went out to lunch on Thursday and one of the staff waiting table was a lad of about 15 / 16 years of age. Sort of the exception that proves the rule as so often is the case. Of course I did not call him ‘Garcon’ despite him actually being a boy rather than a grown man, as I find that “Jeune homme” works just fine. I know that term must be OK as it is how our village Tobacconist greets me. (I think he needs glasses.)
One has to be very cautious with censorship, but perhaps AI may one day be able to determine in nano-seconds whether a word is being used inappropriately or not.
‘Red Snapper’ is often on the menu in the Carolinas but I’m sure that it isn’t a Communist Photographer.
I don’t often photograph weddings any more but when I did I found that addressing the bride’s grandfather as “young man” often went down well. Being in the grandfather age bracket myself I could get away with it…
To be honest Robert, all you can infer from the fact that the forum software blocks some terms and not others is that whoever put that feature into Discourse and populated the default list of words (which is neither Cat nor I) either was not aware of the term - I wasn’t until this conversation - or did not think it strong enough.
You cannot draw the conclusion that a word is acceptable merely because it is not blocked on SF
Perhaps similar to my surprise at how many Brits did not know about the need to apply for CdSWA’s and just how many of those left it beyond the deadline… aaargh.
I was very surprised, but it was all very real and, if nothing else, taught me that I should never presume the worst and or judge how others understand things.
I had thought they must be barmy, deliberately evading… and all sorts of bad stuff, but in reality each had a perfectly good reason.
We all lead very different lives… and there are words on this thread which I did not know existed… and I’ll surely forget I’ve read 'em and certainly not use 'em
I’m well aware of that happening. My elderly aunt who has lived in France since the 1960s has virtually no idea about Brexit and the effect that it has had on a lot of people’s lives. Only recently we were talking about her youngest grandson who is at University in the U.K. I said, oh, he must have got a student visa and her response was, don’t be silly, French people don’t need visas to study in England. When I pointed out that it might be useful for both he and his older brother who also studied in the U.K. to get U.K. nationality to open up more opportunities in the future but she couldn’t understand why that would be necessary.
Funnily enough, a friend was asking our advice the other day about the inverse problem. I didn’t think anyone in the UK was unaware of Brexit but apparently he had been hearing about someone who has just bought a house in the South West of France and is planning to move there permanently once their own house is sold. They didn’t know that you can’t just do that any more (without visas, CdS, language etc etc etc)…
While we have been discussing words and phrases coming into and out of current acceptable norms, may I just chuck in one that I particularly disagree with?
It seems that, in England anyway, ‘sleeping with some one’ means having sex. When I first heard it I jokingly referred to my own experience and replied ‘I didn’t sleep a wink’ as to be otherwise critical of the said partner’s performance.
But it is so common now and I remember back in the '70s an Australian mate of mine came to London with his girlfriend and set up home in the west of the capital. I visited them often and, in those pre sleeper cab days, was accommodated with a makeshift bed overnight.
Jim fell ill and spent a long time in hospital, and I continued to stay overnight at the flat, in close proximity to the lady as there was only one very large bedroom. So we were sleeping together but no way in the modern sense. I obviously, now in retelling that experience, have to choose my language carefully.
I think there may well be quite a few like that. Unless they do something where they have to show their residence permit no one is likely to notice. Plus all the ones who have carried on businesses remotely without realising this needs to be set up and declared here.
It’s going to be much harder once EES and ETIAS get started because it will be considerably easier for the authorities to track people who overstay 90 days.
Also, healthcare may become awkward. GHIC is for emergency care and does not cover ongoing or long term health issues. Difficult nipping back to UK every time you’re ill.
and I’ll surely forget I’ve read 'em and certainly not use 'em 