Ed Do you like your cheese?

[Darat]

Agreed, another Brit, I know what a raccoon is but if I hear the shortened version outside a very clear context my first thought would be the racial slur, quite simply the chances that anyone would be speaking about raccoons and not use the full word is vanishingly small.



Agatha, the film you're thinking of is "The Great Outdoors" which I remember as being absolutely hilarious, especially the raccoons. I also recall a book we covered at school in the eighties called "Pardon me, you're stepping on my eyeball" in which one character has a pet raccoon which is burned to death in a passage that I wish I hadn't just remembered...

I'm probably one of a small minority of the UK population that uses "coon" in anything but a derogatory way but that is because I had Maine Coon cats. And when talking to other people owned by Maine Coon cats we tend to say "coons". However I've never not realised that such a usage could be misunderstood so have always been careful outside of that context to use the full name.

 

[angrysoba]

So basically anything or one with the name Coon or Karen should change its/their names.

Rule of So...

 

[Belz...]

The Cambridge Dictionary has literally one definition

It is, wait for it...

That's the first thing people think of in the UK.

I'm not asking for the dictionary definition, Soba. I'm only asking you for a minimal demonstration of your claim that "the word is most likely to be associated with a racial slur". I understand that you think so, and you may be right, but I'd like some indication that you are correct as far as the general public goes.

Also, we're not only talking about the UK, are we?

Then you're wrong.

Which part? That we prefer rational decisions? That rational decisions are usually better? Or that exceptions don't invalidate the rule?

 

[cullennz]

Rule of So...

Fair call. Take out the word so and answer

 

[Darat]

I'm not asking for the dictionary definition, Soba. I'm only asking you for a minimal demonstration of your claim that "the word is most likely to be associated with a racial slur". I understand that you think so, and you may be right, but I'd like some indication that you are correct as far as the general public goes.

...snip...

Are you unaware of how dictionaries are created and kept up to date?

Let's say you are - apart from being documented as the primary use in the UK by the dictionary what type of evidence would you accept?

Ofcom?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/91624/OfcomOffensiveLanguage.pdf

"... Racist language such as ‘coon’, ******** and ‘wog’ were among the most unacceptable words overall; they were seen as derogatory, discriminatory and insulting. Many participants were concerned about these words being used at any time, with their use requiring significant contextual justification. Other words in this category were more open to debate; participants had differing views about their acceptability after the watershed, based on how insulting they were perceived to be. ..."

Also, we're not only talking about the UK, are we?

...snip...

Given the use of "UK" in their posts about this it might indicate they were talking about the UK?

 

[Belz...]

Are you unaware of how dictionaries are created and kept up to date?

Yes, but while it tells me the known and common definitions of a word, it doesn't tell me how a particular groupf of people will interpret that word in various contexts. Angrysoba is describing interpretation, not definition.

Given the use of "UK" in their posts about this it might indicate they were talking about the UK?

So? We've also talked about Australia and the US, and isn't the company Canadian? Why focus on only one fountry?

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not asking for the dictionary definition, Soba. I'm only asking you for a minimal demonstration of your claim that "the word is most likely to be associated with a racial slur".

I already have provided evidence in terms of dictionary definitions and we have had poster testimony here. I've done my bit. You demonstrate this is incorrect or not.

I understand that you think so, and you may be right, but I'd like some indication that you are correct as far as the general public goes.

I'm not funding an opinion poll.

Also, we're not only talking about the UK, are we?

We were when we were discussing the UK, obviously.

Which part? That we prefer rational decisions? That rational decisions are usually better? Or that exceptions don't invalidate the rule?

I gave you examples of childish interpretations being the most likely interpretations, then you asked for examples. I pointed out I had already given them. Now you are saying examples don't invalidate the rule. You have yet to demonstrate that it is a rule. You have merely asserted it. I have shown you that it is common for there to be these things called play-on-words. It's really strange that you are digging in and saying that it is not rational to accept that there could be childish, obscene, offensive interpretations. Don't miss the point now!

 

[angrysoba]

So? We've also talked about Australia and the US, and isn't the company Canadian? Why focus on only one fountry?

Oh FFS! It is partly because you went down that rabbit hole! Don't go down the rabbit hole and then ask us why we are there?

It demonstrates that, guess what,different people come to different interpretations of the same word.

It could also point to the fact that while you may sit there and say, "I can't understand why anyone would think coon is offensive!" that you may be missing an important point which is that not everyone is going to interpret the word coon the way you do, or that somehow your interpretation is necessarily superior, and that this routine of yours of looking down on people who object to the word is not a priori some super-rational position.

 

[Darat]

Yes, but while it tells me the known and common definitions of a word, it doesn't tell me how a particular groupf of people will interpret that word in various contexts. Angrysoba is describing interpretation, not definition.



So? We've also talked about Australia and the US, and isn't the company Canadian? Why focus on only one fountry?

The evidence I presented about the UK use of the word?

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, but while it tells me the known and common definitions of a word, it doesn't tell me how a particular groupf of people will interpret that word in various contexts. Angrysoba is describing interpretation, not definition.

The Offcom link that Darat posted tells you very explicitly how people in the UK interpret "coon".

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/91624/OfcomOffensiveLanguage.pdf

"Coon" appears in this category:

Strongest words (highly unacceptable at all times – strong contextualisation required)

 

[Belz...]

I already have provided evidence in terms of dictionary definitions and we have had poster testimony here.

Come on, man. You know as well as I do that a couple of anecdotes don't cut it. You wouldn't accept that from someone else. As for the dictionary I've explained why it's not what I'm looking for.

I gave you examples of childish interpretations being the most likely interpretations, then you asked for examples. I pointed out I had already given them. Now you are saying examples don't invalidate the rule. You have yet to demonstrate that it is a rule.

You are seriously asking me to show that rational explanations are generally better than childish ones? Really? You're grasping at straws, here.

Oh FFS! It is partly because you went down that rabbit hole!

...what? When did I do that? I've not focused on any single country. You have.

 

[angrysoba]

Come on, man. You know as well as I do that a couple of anecdotes don't cut it. You wouldn't accept that from someone else. As for the dictionary I've explained why it's not what I'm looking for.

What about Darat's link? What would you accept? If you don't accept that, then I can't help you.

You are seriously asking me to show that rational explanations are generally better than childish ones? Really? You're grasping at straws, here.

Nope. In context, the childish one could be the "rational" one.

...what? When did I do that? I've not focused on any single country. You have.

You insisted that people in Britain would draw the conclusion that coon means raccoon, because the word raccoon has the word coon in it. I've been insisting you are wrong.

Again, believe me or not, but if you don't I can't help you.

 

[Belz...]

What about Darat's link? What would you accept? If you don't accept that, then I can't help you.

Very well, I will provisionally accept the dictionary definition, in the absence of any other useful evidence.

Nope. In context, the childish one could be the "rational" one.

No, it could be the correct one, not the rational one. "Rational" and "childish" here are in opposition. As I said you're grasping at straws.

You insisted that people in Britain would draw the conclusion that coon means raccoon, because the word raccoon has the word coon in it

Again: I didn't bring up the UK. I was responding to a comment about the UK but my point applies generally.

 

[Agatha]

We give you UK dictionaries that show that the word is only a racial slur in the UK. You say that's not enough. We've given you several people explaining that we don't shorten the name of the non-native animal in the UK because we only use that as a racial slur, and you say that it's not enough. We give you OFCOM explaining why the word isn't permitted on broadcast media before the watershed, and you still seem to say that's not enough for you to believe that North American usage isn't the same as the UK usage.

Genuine question - what would be enough for you to concede that a word which I don't want to type out means something different in North America than it does in the UK, and that the meaning that is familiar to you is virtually unknown here?

 

[Belz...]

We give you UK dictionaries that show that the word is only a racial slur in the UK. You say that's not enough. We've given you several people explaining that we don't shorten the name of the non-native animal in the UK because we only use that as a racial slur, and you say that it's not enough. We give you OFCOM explaining why the word isn't permitted on broadcast media before the watershed, and you still seem to say that's not enough for you to believe that North American usage isn't the same as the UK usage.

Genuine question - what would be enough for you to concede that a word which I don't want to type out means something different in North America than it does in the UK, and that the meaning that is familiar to you is virtually unknown here?

I've provisionally conceded the point already.

 

[Agatha]

Granted, though your post doing so wasn't there when I started typing mine.

 

[lionking]

Are you unaware of how dictionaries are created and kept up to date?

Let's say you are - apart from being documented as the primary use in the UK by the dictionary what type of evidence would you accept?

Ofcom?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/91624/OfcomOffensiveLanguage.pdf

"... Racist language such as ‘coon’, ******** and ‘wog’ were among the most unacceptable words overall; they were seen as derogatory, discriminatory and insulting. Many participants were concerned about these words being used at any time, with their use requiring significant contextual justification. Other words in this category were more open to debate; participants had differing views about their acceptability after the watershed, based on how insulting they were perceived to be. ..."



Given the use of "UK" in their posts about this it might indicate they were talking about the UK?

And yet I have pointed out that “wog” is not an offensive word in Australia. Perhaps UK sources are not the final word on English language around the world.....

 

[Belz...]

Granted, though your post doing so wasn't there when I started typing mine.

I expected that. Just clarifying.

 

[Agatha]

And yet I have pointed out that “wog” is not an offensive word in Australia. Perhaps UK sources are not the final word on English language around the world.....

Nobody is saying that they are; the conversation moved to UK usage briefly, to show that the North American usage isn't universal. The UK sources presented are only evidence for UK usage.

 

[lionking]

Nobody is saying that they are; the conversation moved to UK usage briefly. The UK sources presented are only evidence for UK usage.

Okay. So some can engage in off topic conversations then. Good to know.