You seem to be well bred, so maybe you can answer me this:
on the movies I see tough actors use the word "punkarse" or "punkass".
Does this mean the bloke has kindling shoved in his bum or he's a donkey that carries kindling?
And if I may pose another question, why does the film industry there insist on hiring dark skinned actors that can't utter a sentence without some sort of vulgarity. I would suggest it could have a negative impact on the perception of dark skinned people in general. Maybe the film executives have a reason to promote this image?
I think what they mean by punk ass is that theyre little punk pussies that wont do shit when confronted about something.
according to them, its the "gangzta" way..... i wonder if any of them actually know that the whole gangster scene was created by a bunch of arrogant white guys that would shoot u up with a few machine guns and not just the cheapest 9mm u could afford from a pimp?
(I'm Black). I'm just pointing it out because there's a difference. Are we refering to darker skinned white / hispanic / asian people or are we just afraid to use the word "Black" in reference to people of African descent? :laughing:
It's called writing. The writers and more importantly the funders select what image they want to promote, ie what image gives them the most $$$ and that's what you see on your screen. The fact that you hate it so much and yet continue to somehow see or know of it, is its point in and of itself!!
Punkass... haha... maybe they say that one cause we like it? I know I chuckle just about anytime it's used :laughing:
Hmmm I must admit I would have trouble in the US when it comes to using the
correct term for the various races. It seems the goal posts move a bit,
coloured, negro, black, afro-american, afrikan-american, etc. Over here we
just call people anything and if it is loaded with vitriol you can expect a
smack in the mouth.
It just seems to me that there must be a lot of decent "black" people in the US who are unfairly represented by actors who personify low grade human behaviour. Surely this must breed racism and act as a guide to young black children too?
having said that I tried to watch a show titled "Deadwood", but just couldn't handle the filth uttered by one of the obvious lead actors. He is mediterranian in appearance, but no doubt Irish in the role (as a true Irish friend on mine from Dublin says "there are two types of Americans in this world = those that are Irish and those that want to be". :mrgreen: )
Well, good going, Post # 1000.
haha... I was watching you at 999 and am quite thrilled to have witnessed 1000! :laughing:
Unfair representation? eh.
I guess it's an issue, but not one I care to bother with because the Entertainment industry has sooooooooooo much money and can pretty much do whatever-the-hell it wants (what I choose to watch on the other hand...). Also, if people choose to make their determinations and knowledge of others based on what they see on TV, as against who they interact with in real life, then they deserve a swift knock on the head. In short, they need to "get a life."
I'm a millenium member now! I didn't even notice. Not bad seeing as about three or four months were spent PMing member responses rather than posting.
Now for the real question; can I ever judge a race's behavior based on how
many interactions I have?(ten, one hundred, one-hundred-thousand) Or is any
judging of race unethical altogether?
And Wally; you'll often find that american offensive slang consists of the same second or first part of a word, with a different adjective or noun injected in. i.e,
Dumb - Ass
Punk - Ass
Piss - ant(ass)
Stupid - Ass
Gay - Ass (can't believe I heard this one the other day)
You forgot Jay-G's favorite one:
Sucks ass :wink2:
I believe that judging a race altogether is unethical. Just like judging
people of the same race is unethical. Everybody is different. Even if
they come from the same race or economic background, they are still
different. Each person should be given a fair chance without any
I'm not sure if you got the US meaninig of the word punk but it is generally used to describe an inexperienced, annoying person who usually doesn't make much sense.
So why is my insurance rate with zero infractions so much higher than a 40 year old's with 2 infractions?
.... the Brits really invented punk, didn't they? The yanks obviously
changed it to something totally different.
"Down with the man!"
Punk Music, maybe, but the term as an insult for a weak, wannabe tough guy, has been around for decades.
I'd be more inclined to discuss if I knew where you were going with this...
Punk wasn't just about the music (which has also been around for decades
incidentally - eg the clash '76, Velvet Underground '66, Sex Pistols '75,
The Jam '75 etc etc...). Punk was a lifestyle of rebellion against ....
well anything that seemed right at the time I suppose. It just so happens
that the music is very closely associated with this lifestyle. I'd be very
surprised if this sarcastic term for a "weak, wannabe tough guy" pre-dated
the punk movement. Why would they name a rebellious culture after a
sarcastic insult? I would expect that the Americanism was actually copied
from the other... :2cents:
Of course I wasn't alive at the time, so all my info is 2nd hand.
I managed to find my Dictionary of Slang and this is what it lists:
Late 16C - 1900s = young female prostitute
20c = male prostitute
20C prison slang = young inmate used for sex by older inmates
1910+ US = young criminal or gang member
1920+ US = tramp's younger companion
1930+ = young child
1950+ US = coward, weakling
1950+ US = male prostitute
1970+ = proletarian, complaining at not being allowed to enjoy consumer society delights
Late 19c = second rate, inferior, worthless, unimportant, distasteful
1950+ = weak effeminate
1970+ = anal oriface explorer, poofta, :mrgreen:
Punkass = 1970+ adjective US = second rate, useless
There are some interesting contradictions in there :laughing:
So how reputable is this "dictionary"?
because they have tables that delineate the amount (based on statistics) of risk they are assuming when insuring people of certain ages, sex and quite possibly, race (but i'm not sure about race)
First of all, they don't profile against race (that'd be racial
My point, is that if whites statistically get in more car accidents (percentage wise), why aren't their rates higher than everyone else's?
As a minor, I get shafted by the small number of people that drive recklessly, but such a thing is never implemented via race. I believe researches into the subject are either prohibited or disowned (for lack of a better word).
I can understand how minors versus adults commit a greater percentage of traffic infractions, more so than any race versus another race, but if one race commits less or more than another race, what makes that so much different from discriminating via ages?
BTW - I'm fighting from the opposite's side simply for argument's sake. My opinion is quite different. So, no hard feelings :thumbs: .
I don't know of any historical accounts of people being persecuted because of their age (well, directly anyway ... there was that whole kill all the babies thing in the bible).
However, for racism, there is past history. Therefore there is the precedent - and as such, fairly or unfairly, this means that any racial differentiation would be tarred with the same brush (so to speak).
You can always grow older... besides, your own parents are right along with them supporting the rules, so it's all a moot point.
.... but Michael Jackson grew whiter ... :laughing:
I have a friend who is an actuary and trust me when I tell you anything pertinent is factored into premium calculations. For ethical and social reasons the less likely subsidise the more likely risks.
Is it true what my year 10 maths teacher told me - that actuaries make some serious dough...?