But many do, many find it very offensive and take it as a slur. Just search the general forum for one of those endless farang threads.

OK, gotta ask. Out of all of you who think terms like Paki, raghead, wop, dago, etc etc etc are perfectly acceptable terms, how many of you dislike being called farang?

Just curious

There are some words which have offensive connotations, and others which don't, even if they have perfectly innocent sounding origins. It's just the way the words have come to be used over time. E.g. Paki is just short for Pakistan - yet it has come to be an offensive word and so those who are aware of that should avoid using it around people who might take offense. By comparison, "Aussie" is short for "Australian", but is perfectly harmless.

"Farang" is just a harmless nickname that Thais use to mean westerner, so no-one should really dislike being called it.

One reason Farang is not an insult is because we don't take it as one. Blacks in America sometimes call us honkies or white boys or whatever and we just laugh because we know that it is nothing to ashamed of. It's like trying insult someone by calling them "rich, handsome guy".

We get that all the time don't we General?

"Hello rich hansum guy... welcome!"

If a gorgeous girl pays me any attention, at all, I am not one to question - or give a toss - about her motives.

ah, so what if it were a short dark male songthaew driver or your male neighbor who referred to you as farang?

ah, so what if it were a short dark male songthaew driver or your male neighbor who referred to you as farang?

Wouldn't bother me one bit sbk. Just the same as when people call me white eyes and any others that UG mentioned above.

I would however, take great offence if someone called me Aussie

ah, so what if it were a short dark male songthaew driver or your male neighbor who referred to you as farang?

If it was someone I didn't know, and it didn't sound like the reference was made in a derogatory way, who cares ? They could just as easily point and say, the white-assed guy with the really short hair, sexy motorcycle and super-sexy girlfriend, but farang is often easier and quicker to say.

The word can of course be used in a derogatory manner, much the same as the word Paki. Other words though, were made up specifically to be derogatory and belittling, like wop, <deleted>, kike, kraut, chink, etc. I don't think any of those terms was originally meant to be anything other than racist.

Who knows, one day maybe Pom and kiwi will be used and viewed in the same manner as Paki. Maybe someone will come up with a new term to refer to farangs in a less than pleasant way, like Waster.

White

Anglo

Sex

Tourist

English

Rubbish

Or

Fat

Annal

Retentive

Tourist

Then again, the locals probably already have much more derogative (and colourful) ways to refer to various expats.

OK, gotta ask. Out of all of you who think terms like Paki, raghead, wop, dago, etc etc etc are perfectly acceptable terms, how many of you dislike being called farang?

Just curious

There are some words which have offensive connotations, and others which don't, even if they have perfectly innocent sounding origins. It's just the way the words have come to be used over time. E.g. Paki is just short for Pakistan - yet it has come to be an offensive word and so those who are aware of that should avoid using it around people who might take offense. By comparison, "Aussie" is short for "Australian", but is perfectly harmless.

"Farang" is just a harmless nickname that Thais use to mean westerner, so no-one should really dislike being called it.

'Paki' in the UK has never been anything else other than an insult since it was first used in the UK and anyone who tries to say otherwise is being disingenuous. It was usually preceded by 'Go home'. Its nearest US counterpart as far as offensiveness goes is probably 'nigrah'.

As far as Harry is concerned he's just a dumb bimbo who should know better but doesn't.

Sorry he was and is a young man trying his best to "fit in" in a testosterone filled male world where such language amongst that peer group is common place and is taken in the same context as " farang" earlier in the thread.

Now people " outside" that circle, may be offended. When in in the presence of people who may take such offence, I am convinced he and his colleagues would not dream of using such talk, which in private is meaningless and not offensive to them as a group, but being fully aware of their responsibilities, would never be voiced in the public domain where such language may ( would ) cause offence

I am sure in the "staff room" teachers on here call their kids " brats" and probably much worse. Would they use such language in the class room................I think not. Would we all be screaming at them that they are people who should know better and be calling for them to be suspended, if some sneek filmed them in their own rest room, taking a well earned break from their charges ? I'll leave that up to you, I for one, would not be.

Harry was filmed in the company of soldiers who whilst in the company of their peer's, all talk like soldiers. If he was to refrain from being " one of the lads ", the same media hounding him for this would call him an aloof prick and find some attention grabbing A-Hole to denounce him as such. The young man can not win.

ah, so what if it were a short dark male songthaew driver or your male neighbor who referred to you as farang?

Who cares?

ah, so what if it were a short dark male songthaew driver or your male neighbor who referred to you as farang?

Who cares?

Not I.

This topic makes me recall a debate a few years back when the Australian Indigenous population were universally referred to as "Abos", an abbreviated form of Aboriginals.

This was never meant to be insulting, there were other words for that... coons, boongs and the "n" word; but it was decided that it should be eliminated from the language. It's still used though, even amongst the Abos themselves.

It is not PC to say so, but Abos really do look primitive - like cave men. I was really surprised when I actually some in Oz.

They were still in the stone age era when Australia was colonised.

Some particularly moronic Australians sneer at them because they all haven't managed to achieve the standard of civilisation in 200 years that took European people 10,000.

How long have they been given the same education as whites? In the US, the answer would be maybe 20 years.

I am sure in the "staff room" teachers on here call their kids " brats" and probably much worse. Would they use such language in the class room................I think not. Would we all be screaming at them that they are people who should know better and be calling for them to be suspended, if some sneek filmed them in their own rest room, taking a well earned break from their charges ? I'll leave that up to you, I for one, would not be.

But Harry wasn't filmed by "some sneak" - he knew full well that the filming was going on as he was commentating on it and doing a mock phone call to his Grandmother, the Queen of England, on the film.

It seems like the person being referred to by this offensive term didn't mind having this nickname. It sounds a bit strange, perhaps, but it's all banter between soldiers and it's not the business of the general public to poke their nose in. Right...?

Well, normally, yes. But this time it involves the third in line to the throne, and so it's pretty silly behaviour to allow himself to be filmed using this language. Yes, he was in downtime, yes he was messing about with his colleagues & friends - but he was on camera! Someone in his position has to realise that he needs to watch what he's saying and what he's doing. Unfortunate for him, maybe, but this comes with his inherited position.

How long have they been given the same education as whites? In the US, the answer would be maybe 20 years.

There's a lot of criticism of the standard of education they receive now. Many of the reservation type schools don't enforce attendance laws and recently there was an outcry when it was suggested that children who do not attend classes be stopped from using the school swimming pool.

Also there is difficulty getting top quality teachers to work in isolated areas for the type of salary and accommodation packages available.

I am sure in the "staff room" teachers on here call their kids " brats" and probably much worse. Would they use such language in the class room................I think not. Would we all be screaming at them that they are people who should know better and be calling for them to be suspended, if some sneek filmed them in their own rest room, taking a well earned break from their charges ? I'll leave that up to you, I for one, would not be.

But Harry wasn't filmed by "some sneak" - he knew full well that the filming was going on as he was commentating on it and doing a mock phone call to his Grandmother, the Queen of England, on the film.

It seems like the person being referred to by this offensive term didn't mind having this nickname. It sounds a bit strange, perhaps, but it's all banter between soldiers and it's not the business of the general public to poke their nose in. Right...?

Well, normally, yes. But this time it involves the third in line to the throne, and so it's pretty silly behaviour to allow himself to be filmed using this language. Yes, he was in downtime, yes he was messing about with his colleagues & friends - but he was on camera! Someone in his position has to realise that he needs to watch what he's saying and what he's doing. Unfortunate for him, maybe, but this comes with his inherited position.

Oh for the power of hindsight at his or any age.............( and in my case the power to be able to spell )

It should be pointed out that the 'primitive' aborigines had a sophisticated culture which allowed them to survive and thrive in the deep inner areas of the Australian outback for millennia before European technology would develop to the point at which 'sophisticated' Europeans could survive for even short periods of time in the same areas (heavily supported by mechanized and even air-based transport). Furthermore, I believe I recall from my studies that the life expectancy among Australian aborigines- BEFORE the arrival of Europeans- was in the late seventies or early eighties, much higher than every European country until very recently.

But I suppose if they didn't wear a suit and tie, or know which was the salad fork, that just means they were/are barbarians.

I am sure in the "staff room" teachers on here call their kids " brats" and probably much worse. Would they use such language in the class room................I think not. Would we all be screaming at them that they are people who should know better and be calling for them to be suspended, if some sneek filmed them in their own rest room, taking a well earned break from their charges ? I'll leave that up to you, I for one, would not be.

That's not the case in my own staff room, actually- we do have a certain amount of professionalism, and actually our students are fairly decent and likable persons. Of course, I'm aware not all places/students are the same.

OK, this was taken off " Random ", but fits the thread to a "T". ( appreciate being told why ? )

The threat from global warming is a real one, and I fully support all genuine attempts to make a dent in the problem before it is too late.

However, I await to be enlightened on here, how a group of celebs are helping by buying a patch of land between them, to stop the expansion of Heathrow. Now if by keeping an already dangerously overcrowded airport in it's pitifull state is progress, it's beyond me.

Fully appreciate that air travel is a major contributer to the "greenhouse " problem, but if Emma Thomson and Co will put their hand's on their heart's and say they will take a ship to their next Holywood script reading, or go by land ( Donkey, Camel ? ) for their next holiday, I will chip in and buy a patch as well.

As it stands I am sure they all use the air, but wish to be "seen" to be helping stop an expansion which may make said travel safer, more affordable and then hopefully by profits steered into appropriate technology by Govt edicts, more friendly to the world over i must admit a dwindling amount of time.

It should be pointed out that the 'primitive' aborigines had a sophisticated culture which allowed them to survive and thrive in the deep inner areas of the Australian outback for millennia before European technology would develop to the point at which 'sophisticated' Europeans could survive for even short periods of time in the same areas (heavily supported by mechanized and even air-based transport). Furthermore, I believe I recall from my studies that the life expectancy among Australian aborigines- BEFORE the arrival of Europeans- was in the late seventies or early eighties, much higher than every European country until very recently.

But I suppose if they didn't wear a suit and tie, or know which was the salad fork, that just means they were/are barbarians.

There was never any suggestion that they were/are barbarians, the term stone age was used, a common anthropological term to describe societies.

Many Europeans learned to survive in even the harshest terrain quite quickly. It should be pointed out that while explorers like Burke and Wills got into trouble there were many lesser known men who achieved a lot more with lesser publicity. The indigenous people lived mainly around the water holes in this type of desert country and in fact there was a far denser population in the coastal areas.

I cannot comment on the life expectancy prior to colonisation but I would be surprised if it was that high. While the Australian Aboriginal no doubt had, and still has, admirable traits, their supporters in the last century tended to get a little carried away with describing them.

OK, gotta ask. Out of all of you who think terms like Paki, raghead, wop, dago, etc etc etc are perfectly acceptable terms, how many of you dislike being called farang?

Just curious

My wife often introduces me to new acquaintances as "My Farang"/

Not offensive, just common practice.

. Just search the general forum for one of those endless farang threads.

Does General count, in terms of 'rational thought'?

Moss

. Just search the general forum for one of those endless farang threads.

Does General count, in terms of 'rational thought'?

Moss

Now you tell me. I adjusted my way of life, after taking advice from the threads in there. I bought five bars, paid 9m baht sinsod, built 7 houses in my wifes brothers name and then left it all behind, cos someone said that Thailand was getting too expensive. Please tell me i did the right thing

What did you do with all the guns you bought in your wife's name?

Another example of the truth being killed in the name of PC (and another example of crap "journalism").

The headline reads:

Navy commander Tom Phillips suggests sailors wearing bikinis might help boost recruitment.

While the question actually asked was:

Asked by the magazine "if female sailors all had to be hot and had to wear bikinis, would that help recruitment?", Commander Phillips is quoted as responding: "It would certainly get the right demographic of young men in. I'm not sure how feasible it is, however."

Truth or not ? Obviously, having hot women dressed in bikinis would help recruitment. It's pretty much a no-brainer. But it was the "journalist" who made the suggestion, not the commander, and it was the journalist (or his editor) that made the headline read as though it was the commander's suggestion.

Of course, there has to be "PC" reaction to such a statement, despite the fact the commander answered truthfully.

The Federal Opposition and feminists have called for action over the article and Minister for Defence Warren Snowden has described the comments as "utterly unacceptable".

Despite bipartisan attempts to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the defence forces, Liberal MP Bob Baldwin said Cdr Phillips' remarks were "totally inappropriate and absolutely offensive."

Eva Cox, chair of the Womens Lobby Australia, said the article reflected "the Navy's limited view of women as bodies rather than brains".

Of course, not a SINGLE criticism of the magazine that publish the article, it's editor(s) or the person that asked the questions and wrote the article.

(not that they'd be likely to print anything like that in their own magazine of course).

The "News.com.au" headline: Navy commander Tom Phillips suggests sailors wearing bikinis might help boost recruitment

While the original headline from "The Daily Telegraph" read: Sub-standard sex gaffe from top Navy brass

(both articles attributed to the same (female) "reporter").

(original interview was apparently in "Ralph" magazine)

You might like to criticise Australia's right wing "Liberal" party who are attempting to make political hay out of this.

I must say I do enjoy seeing feminists and conservatives in bed together.

Another one for the anti-PCers to howl about.

Little Adolf Hitler Removed Fron Parents.

This looks like a case for the ACLU, and sorry, but they are about as PC as you can get!

Another example of the truth being killed in the name of PC (and another example of crap "journalism").

The headline reads:

Navy commander Tom Phillips suggests sailors wearing bikinis might help boost recruitment.

While the question actually asked was:

Asked by the magazine "if female sailors all had to be hot and had to wear bikinis, would that help recruitment?", Commander Phillips is quoted as responding: "It would certainly get the right demographic of young men in. I'm not sure how feasible it is, however."

Truth or not ? Obviously, having hot women dressed in bikinis would help recruitment. It's pretty much a no-brainer. But it was the "journalist" who made the suggestion, not the commander, and it was the journalist (or his editor) that made the headline read as though it was the commander's suggestion.

Of course, there has to be "PC" reaction to such a statement, despite the fact the commander answered truthfully.

The Federal Opposition and feminists have called for action over the article and Minister for Defence Warren Snowden has described the comments as "utterly unacceptable".

Despite bipartisan attempts to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the defence forces, Liberal MP Bob Baldwin said Cdr Phillips' remarks were "totally inappropriate and absolutely offensive."

Eva Cox, chair of the Womens Lobby Australia, said the article reflected "the Navy's limited view of women as bodies rather than brains".

Of course, not a SINGLE criticism of the magazine that publish the article, it's editor(s) or the person that asked the questions and wrote the article.

(not that they'd be likely to print anything like that in their own magazine of course).

The "News.com.au" headline: Navy commander Tom Phillips suggests sailors wearing bikinis might help boost recruitment

While the original headline from "The Daily Telegraph" read: Sub-standard sex gaffe from top Navy brass

(both articles attributed to the same (female) "reporter").

(original interview was apparently in "Ralph" magazine)

 I wonder how he should have answered that?  "No, we don't want young men who would appreciate a woman in a bikini to join the Navy.  That is not the type of recruit we need to build an effective fighting force. We only want men who have no interest in the opposite sex."