General Discussion - Nelson Piquet [Keep it civilized!]

A few of my own thoughts on this topic:

1. A term is not offensive on its own, it depends on the context in which it is used.
2. Pointing out that a term is offensive in some contexts is in itself not necessarily an attempt to remove that term from a language.
3. Pointing out the original meaning of a term is in itself not necessarily legitimizing its use in all contexts.
4. When celebrities share a statement to the public, that is a broader context than when someone shares the same statement in private.

 

It needs to go both ways. In some circles it seems now fine to attack Christian's and white people, almost like a payback for generations of the past. I don't condone or practice in anyway to try and be offensive. I also believe that people have the right to say what they want, I also don't think people should use that freedom to go out ofbtheir way to upset others.

 

Still... people simply ignore the REAL meaning of the word and how it's used.

Condone the word "nego" is EXACTLY the same of do with the use of "bud" in English. It's hard to debate with people that simply don't care about it.

IMHO, living in society is a constant management of trading space, services and resources (it's THE ethic libertarian principle that is built by the Argumentative Ethics). One simply can't DEMMAND that something is done (or ceased to be) without convincing PEACEFULY the other part that there is a good mutual beneficial reason why.

One example is the word "nego". It's not because a lot of gringos that don't even speak Portuguese and don't know sht about our culture that we will change the use of a word.

Então a negada ae pode até chorar, mas o forró aqui vai continuar! O lenço tá caro, mas o choro é livre!

 

I'd like to use your example. Quick question.

Were you and this english colleague at the time of his remark in the UK or in a country that considered "Paki" derrogatory?
Because if not, it certainly seems like he was trying to impose his dictionary on a culture and society who views and sees the word neutrally, meaning the targets of this word might also not take any offense if they see the word neutrally themselves. (More on that below)

Now if this was in the UK or in a country where the word is derrogatory, then you're absolutely right to omit the word from your own dictionnary and to act with compassion and respect towards people by adjusting yourself to the culture and society you were living in.

The reason I say the above part is that while we see the Internet as being borderless, borders, different countries, different customs, different cultures and different societies still exist and in regards to Brazil and the word nego... it is not a derrogatory word. Sure it has a pejorative meaning but only through negative context (in this case racism, which is not its primary use case).

I don't think anybody here is cool with racism and people have shared their own examples of being targeted. What is being said is that in regards to a country's culture and societies, the people won't be made to change by foreigners trying to impose their views on words that in their own language is not a negative one because societal change needs to come from within to be accepted.

This means that if the brazillian society starts to see the word nego as developing into a mainly pejorative word (a possibility being the word's use being used more and more as a pejorative and their targets speaking out ever louder against its use), then they will start to discuss, they will compare experiences, they will relate, they will opinate and, if necessary, the institutions will change the meanings in an official capacity as society changes. Notice how I am keeping the focus on internal change.

As individuals on the internet we are very strong when united and there have been many examples of borderless societal changes, however, when it comes to a language, change must come from within if it is seen as necessary.

Finally, just a funny showerthought I had this morning. The english language has many examples of words not having the same meaning in english speaking countries themselves.
Compare the following sentence when speaking about American vs British English and see how it relates to our own discussion on the word nego:

"To smoke a fag".

 

I always remember Piquet for this insane overtake.

 

I pay for internet to read posts like this:

People are sooooo eager to keep the bonfires lit that they stopped to care about who is being burned and for why.

We are a society of imperfect people. We can't ask the others to be perfect at the same time that want them to tolerate our flaws. So a old-man in Brazil used a word that, with a lot of effort, can be considered racist while referring to a black boy from a rich family and that is today a billionaire, and people compare the elder one to terrorists, rapists, genocides and all of this "elite of mankind". I can see, after hearing what Piquet (embracing a poodle toy within in his arms) said, Hamilton crying in fetal position while all his word burns and he is swallowed into nothingness, marginalized from society and blablabla bububu mimimi.

About the things that you didn't say because are "conspiracionism"... in the later decades, a fair amount of the so called "conspiracy theories" proved to be very real, specially in the political field. And about post-colonialism, Western people (remembering that despite I've born in Brazil, dad was American and mom is Italian... but I stick with the zukas and live here by choice) could do us the favor to stop trying to "save" the world? Cut their own grass, that is tall enough, before complain about our gardens.

Abração!

 

Could you please explain this more,i try to understand the way you are thinking,but this worries me a lot.Sounds like a speech from Mr. Bolsonaro...and what is the meaning of "zukas"?

 

Zukas = Brazukas = Brazilians

What part, specifically, because I said two different and non connected things in this paragraph.

Where are you from? (it bay be connected with my answer)

 

Thanx Juglador,
I'm from good old Germany,my wife from Georgia (not in the U.S).
And her brother is/was a orthodox preacher and painter in the ukraine,who had to go back to Georgia because of the damned war.All was well till the russians marched in.
So i knew the western/eastern culture a little.
I meant the second part,what i quoted.

 

The first part of the paragraph is about some former "conspiracy theories", as 2030 Agenda, Great Reset, Reset the Table and ESG, that or became reality (as ESG) or are now openly presented by a bunch of very powerful people and you can find information about all of that in great institutions website (that claim authorship over these ideas). But, no, I don't believe in Flat Earth, Reptilians, Elvis never died and this stuff. Only bringing the things that proved to be real.

The second part is about neo-colonialism, that I don't think is something not widely known, but I believe that you were asking about the conspiracy stuff.

About Bolsonaro (that you brought to this discussion): I'm a, Ethic Libertarian and, by default dislike politicians. I don't trust in any state and see all as mobsters, but there are too much lies about him being spread all over the media. I could tell more about it, but I don't think that there is space in this forum to such discussion. Just don't put that much trust on the big media's words.

 

Ok,and save the amazonas,if you can.
Thanx/Danke

 

Amazon is going very fine... don't worry. Have a nice and warm winter

 

Really? I thought it was being deforested at an alarming rate?

 

We were in Australia where the word was commonly used. And nobody was imposing any views on me.
But all of that's irrelevant. I just received some information about the word that I didn't know before.
The geographic coordinates of the soil under your feet makes no difference to how a word may be perceived by someone else.
And simply, using a different word, is fine with me if it helps them to feel OK.

It clearly is difficult for other though who, (although of course don't believe in silly conspiracy theories), simultaneously think that small changes to language are part of some wider movement to remove power from them or something. It's nothing that complicated honestly.

 

So, according to you, someone being interviewed on his home country, using his home language, applying his home slang, within a context of his home culture, has to refrain from using a term because somebody on the other side of the globe with little knowledge of all things mentioned, will do a bad translation, come to an uninformed conclusion, and will be offended?

 

If this person knows that what is being said has a much broader reach than their country, then of course yes, they should

 

Piquet has apologised, admitting he should have chosen his words more carefully. If he thinks that, don't know why anybody should form a different opinion.