No. As I have already stated, the correct description is Pakistani.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
So why is Scot allowed as well as Scotsman?
No. As I have already stated, the correct description is Pakistani.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
So why is Scot allowed as well as Scotsman?
So why is Scot allowed as well as Scotsman?
Words change their meaning all the time and all that comes about from the media (and forums) picking up on words like P*k* and repeating the mantra that they're inheritantly racist even when being used as simply a handy shortening of a longer word is what will continue to reinforce them as being offensive. .
Those have never really been used in a malicious way which is why they are not really deamed offensive.I may describe someone as a scot, brit, yank, aussie etc non of which (I think) anyone finds racist so maybe its a skin colour thing as those are all shortenings of countries inhabitants where the majority are white but words shouldn't be and don't have to be racist if over time they were allowed to become accepted abbreviations.
I don't agree with this either however they feel they can get away with it as long as it's the 'a' version as opposed to the 'er' version.I'm also not happy with the dual standard on the n word as while its a word I'd never use myself, I dislike the idea that it can be used by some people (rappers etc) and then deemed to be ok but then again you can't banish a word as easily as over time the masses can change its meaning.
What continues to reinforce their offensive nature is that fact they are still used today in an offensive manner. I agree words change over time, but if there is still a stigma associated with it then it's hard for change to progress.
Those have never really been used in a malicious way which is why they are not really deamed offensive.