Well, web-fu does kind of vaguely translate as web-artistry with a nod to the original meaning of gongfu/kung-fu. Had we been talking about cake-fu, tea-fu crumpet-fu or sitting-in your-goonie-fu, no-one could have any objections.
Let's stay on the path, though. I think the problem is one of intent. Were I a child of six or so, no-one would question that I would be quite clever to come up with the old gags about Chinese dentists and mountains (you know the ones, and I bet no-one reprimanded you for them at that age) on my own. Because there's no intent to offend and a kind of playfulness with language.
I'd never repeat them in public now, as I know there is a mocking undercurrent to them. Just as I wouldn't repeat the Jim Davidson joke that I found side-splitting [yes, i have done penance, broken glass etc] at that age about black people, telephones and statues.
So, yes, there is an understanding that playfulness with language has its limits when offence might be caused should the intent (fannying about with words and the contexts some word sounds are used in) is undercut by the possibilty that the person doing it is being malicious or offensive.
This is how the wordplay (up there, a long time ago) is different from the many examples of slicing up English phrases into syllables that litters the Barbarian thread (and, if memory serves, many gags about the Old Ones).
Were there barbarians around to object, these could be construed as racist as well.
No-one called me on referring to THE GREAT JESTER BILLEE KANALEE, so I think we're safe. (Just don't do it in the California Governor's office, OK?)
Given that the intent, then, was clearly all about the affectionate, silly and fairly childish idea that you could have a martial art based on enjoying your scran, I'd say it was (until this all blew up and we suddenly became self-aware) harmless and would probably have been perceived as such by anyone who might have been offended by it as, at worst, slightly tiresome. (Can any Asian members let me know if I'm off the mark, please? Since starting this post, I've become interested in my own ambivalence on this, especially that fucking Jim Davidson thing. Brr.)
Ascribing to the posts an intent of racism seems to have lent them a force they didn't have before - unless you were watching for it. Then again, we are open to Google and all the rest, so who knows who'll read it? Oh, I dunno.
Yes, it was mildly amusing until it hit the buffers, and I'm proud of the Tao Nut (ranking alongside the Round Tuit but well below the "doughnut-or-a-meringue" classic). |
