Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chink in the Armor

Rate this topic


Wotan

Recommended Posts

How the hell is "chink in the armor" an ethnic slur? How in god's name is this an obvious attack on Jeremy Lin and an act of racism? I've been familiar this banal cliché and anodyne figure of speech for over 40 years now, and never once heard that it's associated with being Chinese!

Edited by Wotan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chink is an ethnic slur. When the guy used "chink in the armor" in a headline about Lin, it was an (obviously intentional) double entendre, with the ethnic slur meaning of "chink" as the pun.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheering for the guy's firing, it's clearly a PC police over-reaction. But it was a mistake to go for that in a ESPN headline (it would've been OK if he was in a comedy club). An internal memo telling everyone to cut it out would've sufficed, but the headline was indeed out of line. The clever workaround doesn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chink is an ethnic slur. When the guy used "chink in the armor" in a headline about Lin, it was an (obviously intentional) double entendre, with the ethnic slur meaning of "chink" as the pun.

All the news accounts that I've read stated clearly that it wasn't a pun. In certain usages "chink" is an ethnic slur; "chink in the armor" is a familiar expression which never is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the news accounts that I've read stated clearly that it wasn't a pun. In certain usages "chink" is an ethnic slur; "chink in the armor" is a familiar expression which never is.

Right, the double entendre is on the word chink, not "chink in the armor". Chink can mean either a hole, or a racist term.

In this case, it was used to mean hole (as part of the expression), but the headline was also meant to convey the other meaning. I wouldn't normally jump to this conclusion, btw., not even if the subject involved Asians. But with Jeremy Lin, every god damn headline I look at is another attempt at a pun, either on his name or on his race. Obviously this one is too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, the double entendre is on the word chink, not "chink in the armor". Chink can mean either a hole, or a racist term.

In this case, it was used to mean hole (as part of the expression), but the headline was also meant to convey the other meaning. I wouldn't normally jump to this conclusion, btw., not even if the subject involved Asians. But with Jeremy Lin, every god damn headline I look at is another attempt at a pun, either on his name or on his race. Obviously this one is too.

How is it obvious? The writer himself, and all the media reports, state explicitly that it was accidental. No-one denies this. No-one claims that he was trying to be clever or make a pun.

I live in New York, and I've heard that that meaningless figure of speech was used in discussing Jeremy Lin at least three times prominently by major New York media personalities. All were accidental. So why should the innocent be punished? I've used that expression many times myself -- well before I've heard of Jeremy Lin. Am I also a racist, years and decades after the fact?

I also think people are missing the point here. The implicit claim from the politically correct, multicultural, sensitive, diverse, inclusive, democratic, equalitarian, fascist Thought Police is that the phrase "chink in the armor" is itself a slur because it's derived from the degoratory meaning of "chink" (as in Chinese). That's simply untrue. No dictionary or book of etymology corroborates that claim.

Edited by Wotan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it obvious?

Two Jews walk into a bar. They own it. Do you think that's a factual statement, or am I alluding to a stereotype of some sort? The answer to your question is that this is an obvious double entendre the same way it's obvious that what I just wrote is a joke, not a factual statement.

Humor follows patterns that are purposefully non-logical. But they are very obvious patterns. The pattern "mention Jews, imply stereotype" is very easy to recognize. So is "mention Jeremy Lin, allude to his race". It's all over popular media, to the point where SNL did a skit on it. The proof that it's a joke is not a logical connection, it's simply that it fits the pattern.

But that's proof enough.

Btw., to me the excuse is worse than the actual offense. If the excuse were true, then he should be fired, and never allowed into a writing job again, because he's an idiot.

The writer himself, and all the media reports, state explicitly that it was accidental. No-one denies this. No-one claims that he was trying to be clever or make a pun.

For the love of God, how is no one denying that? SNL (which, last time I checked is in New York) wrote and aired a skit on it the next night. And I think their writers can distinguish between deliberate and accidental puns a little better than the local news.

Besides, Ryan and I (the two other posters in this thread besides you) just denied this hours ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SNL is just going along with the mindless and PC crowd. But I've been following this story closely. And I'm still baffled.

Not a single media report that I've read or heard has said (in effect): "The writer or speaker was trying to make a joke -- but now realizes it was in bad taste." Not a single critic that I've read or heard has said (in effect): "The writer or speaker was being clever and making a pun -- but now sees that it was offensive."

The claim that is being made -- however indirectly and dishonestly, with much moral intimidation -- is that "chink in the armor" is a racist espression. But all the linguistic evidence I'm aware of indicates it's an anodyne figure of speech. Not every use of the word "chink" refers to the Chinese.

So why punish someone for an accidental and non-malicious bigoted expression -- when it isn't even a bigoted expression? What could be more evil?

The hatefulnes and malevolence of our world today amazes and depresses me. I guess Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan rule the planet. They are our moral ideals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you still haven't seen the skit.

I watched it today on Hulu.com and it was very funny. Also fairly brave and not at all PC. Still...

Punishing those "chink in the armor" guys was a grave injustice, and I'm surprised and disappointed anyone here even disputes this. Firing and suspending those guys was raw evil.

Today's "toleration" champions are real vermin. They claim to be promoting virtue, brotherhood, and progress -- but they're really authoritarians and enemies of free discussion. They want us to walk on delicate eggshells as we talk and live. They're about as fascist and hatefully, malicously intolerant as you can get.

Most of today's politically correct, multicultural, diverse, inclusive, sensitive, democratic, peaceful advocates and activists are so morally low they might as well join up with some Islamic religious police or Orwell's Thought Police. :angry:

Edited by Wotan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punishing those "chink in the armor" guys was a grave injustice, and I'm surprised and disappointed anyone here even disputes this. Firing and suspending those guys was raw evil.

Chink is an obvious racial slur, and if you put that as the title of an article you can expect to get fired. ESPN's gotta do what it's gotta do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chink is an obvious racial slur, and if you put that as the title of an article you can expect to get fired.

I think you're missing the point. That's not why the headline is a problem. A headline containing the word chink wouldn't automatically be a problem. Chink is a legitimate word, that has a meaning unrelated to the slur.

The problem is due to the specific context of this headline, not the word by itself.

ESPN's gotta do what it's gotta do.

They don't have to fire people over a mistake. There is no objective legal or financial reason why they should've responded this way to the special interest groups'.

Those groups don't have the power to affect ESPN's sponsors or viewership over this. Asian Americans don't care about the PC idiots who "advocate" for their rights by policing speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is due to the specific context of this headline, not the word by itself.

Yeah, I think we've all got that.

Those groups don't have the power to affect ESPN's sponsors or viewership over this. Asian Americans don't care about the PC idiots who "advocate" for their rights by policing speech.

Obviously ESPN thinks differently. They've got more market analysts under their employ than I do.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ESPN headline writer stated specifically on the day that he was fired: "I wasn't trying to be clever or punny." The idea that someone might take offense to it simply didn't occur to him. No one that I've read disputes this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I wrote a sports story stating: "Jeremy Lin is admittedly good at shooting, driving, passing, and rebounding. But he's weak when it comes to defense and turn-overs. These are two flies in his soup."

Would people be justified and correct in assuming I was referencing won ton soup, and thus I was implying that he and all other Chinese people should stick to working in Chinese take-out restaurants -- the only things these people are any good at?

Perhaps also the "fly in the soup" expression legitimately indicates I think of the Chinese as "coolies" who should all be enslaved, while I further support a worldwide dictatorship led by a new Hitler.

Perhaps such is the proper interpretation of my harmless, unthinking, "fly in the soup" metaphor, according to the politically correct monsters who rule our world, and who we should all appease, and passively submit to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously ESPN thinks differently. They've got more market analysts under their employ than I do.

I'd love to see this market analysis you're talking about. Or at least some idea of what it is. Or at least a snippet of actual information suggesting that market analysis was used to make this decision.

Any kind of evidence whatsoever that market analysis has anything to do with the decision to fire this poor guy. Until then, I'm gonna go ahead and doubt it exists. ESPN execs don't go around polling Asians to see if they mind the word chink in a headline enough to want someone fired. They just follow the trending ideology as interpreted by whatever self-appointed special interest advocate makes it onto the news.

Suppose I wrote a sports story stating: "Jeremy Lin is admittedly good at shooting, driving, passing, and rebounding. But he's weak when it comes to defense and turn-overs. These are two flies in his soup."

Would people be justified and correct in assuming I was referencing won ton soup

Won ton soup is not offensive to Asians. Chink is.

But, that aside, yes, if I saw that in an article about Lin, it's out of place enough to assume that the guy is using it to reference Asian food. No sports writer would ever use that kind of language if they're not going for the bad pun.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I wrote a sports story stating: "Jeremy Lin is admittedly good at shooting, driving, passing, and rebounding. But he's weak when it comes to defense and turn-overs. These are two flies in his soup."

Would people be justified and correct in assuming I was referencing won ton soup, and thus I was implying that he and all other Chinese people should stick to working in Chinese take-out restaurants -- the only things these people are any good at?

The SNL skit referred to earlier in the thread was funny precisely because it stuck solely to stereotypes like this; they referenced chopsticks, Chinese food, and other things that are obviously and unoffensively connected with Chinese people. The joke was that we aren't allowed to make the same references with respect to black people; for example, them showing up late or liking fried chicken. These are the harmless kind of stereotypes and associations that we as a society should be able to poke fun at without worrying about political correctness, and that's the point the skit was making.

The words nigger, chink, kike, etc. are not even remotely the same as these type of harmless references. Those are slurs invented and used to convey inferiority, disdain, hatred. They have no place in civilized discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNL skit referred to earlier in the thread was funny precisely because it stuck solely to stereotypes like this; they referenced chopsticks, Chinese food, and other things that are obviously and unoffensively connected with Chinese people. The joke was that we aren't allowed to make the same references with respect to black people; for example, them showing up late or liking fried chicken. These are the harmless kind of stereotypes and associations that we as a society should be able to poke fun at without worrying about political correctness, and that's the point the skit was making.

I don't think that was the point the skit was making. I thought they were mocking ethnic double-standards and hypocrisy.

The words nigger, chink, kike, etc. are not even remotely the same as these type of harmless references. Those are slurs invented and used to convey inferiority, disdain, hatred. They have no place in civilized discussion.

That doesn't change the fact that NONE of the writers were racist, and NONE were using the term "chink" in a racist manner, and NONE of their slimy critics -- for all their deliberate hatefulness and injustice -- even claims as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The words nigger, chink, kike, etc. are not even remotely the same as these type of harmless references. Those are slurs invented and used to convey inferiority, disdain, hatred. They have no place in civilized discussion.

Well, you just used them so I assume you agree with me, but I'll make the point anyway: They can and should be used if the discussion is about hatred (a Mark Twain novel), or some other subject connected to the words (like this discussion, where we are talking about standards) etc. Then they should be used. Including in comedy about said hatred, or in satire about political correctness or censorship (i.e. Lenny Bruce's act).

Also, while it is true that it's inappropriate to allude to the word chink in a sports headline, we shouldn't react as if the guy declared that Hitler had the right idea. He didn't actually say anything damning or racist, he just made an error of etiquette. And still, he was punished as if he committed a cardinal sin. That's more troubling to me than his alleged "racism".

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...