Originally Posted by Limey Linda
However, mine were edited also. and I also apologise for any offence caused. You Sir are a true gentleman. Just as an aside: the term racist is misused 99.9% of the time and we all know the reason why. Just do a Google on the word and select Wikapedia. and read it fully. The language that we both used does not even contraven the EU definition. Needless to say, the misuse of this term is a major problem in the melting pot of the USA. I have no intent to hi-jack this thread thus diverting the important subject matter.
Regards, to all
If you are going to "claim" stuff like that Linda its usually a good idea to get make sure you knowledge is accurate. Whilst google and wiki are unbelievably useful they are not definitive answers. JK probably has his own opinion of what is or is not racist and where he draws the line. However for legal purposes in the UK the issue that he might be concerned with is the Race Relations Act (1976 and subsequent ammendments). The definition used in the act is the definition which in my experience has become popular usage in the UK.
Discrimination in the Act is defined on the following grounds: Race, Nationality including citizenship, Colour [of skin], Ethnic or National Origin. I believe the sampe definition is used in the UK law defining "racially motivated attacks".
Generally speaking the term Racist is used in the UK for any of these (although the Act doesn't use the word Racist itself).
The original thread title did appear to be unfairly tarring all Japanese people as "Bastards" IIRC - in my opinion that may contravene the UK law as racial harrasment (it being "racially" based, on the grounds that Japanese people, were being treated differently on the grounds of their Nationality/Citizenship). I also believe the new title is better, more informative, and more likely to get the attention of your intended "reader". You should thank JK rather than slate him - until he reworded it I didn't even watch the video.
And finally, if the term is "misused" 99.9% of the time as you suggest - then perhaps language has evolved since the definition was created? Another similar example is the term "forensic" which actually means legal - but which has gradually come to mean one specific instance (i.e. forensic science).
We could start a big debate here - but that would detract from the legitiamite purpose of your thread - to highlight mistreatment of some of the ocean's most loved creatures. You can do that (as all the posts that haven't been edited by JK show) without resorting to streotyping.