Handbags are offensive?
- Thread starter DMD
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
As I’ve said before, society on the whole decides. It’s quite easy to see what’s acceptable and what isn’t. There’s a plethora of examples of words that were mainstream that are no longer acceptable, either because they are derogatory or because they’ve simply lost meaning. Language shifts with changes in societal attitudes.
My last post was in response to the yawningly inevitable “you can’t even have an opinion anymore” line.
Consequences of saying handbags? Why would anyone, except some sort of weirdo, think there should be?
Your wishy-washy attitude is yawning inevitable.
So in your opinion, 'society' believes saying handbags is a sackable offence.
Parts of society, the parts inhabited by Steven, do. Fortunately the dingbats that inhabit them are very few.
I don't think society has any input in deciding what's right or what's wrong anymore.Minority seems to dictate agenda and seem to have come to the conclusion that were all racist and homophobic or content with alleged poverty levels.
So in your opinion, 'society' believes saying handbags is a sackable offence.
Yes, they do. There were a number on here who frequently questioned the motives of things like climate change activists, BLM etc, mostly incorrectly, but that shows the difference in generations. It’s fine not to get it, but this idea that younger people must conform to ideas and themes from decades before they were born or be considered “soft” or whatever else is ridiculous. Younger generations are, for the most part, intolerant of intolerance. Who needs language that belittles and demonises for no reason other than to demean? Sometimes, it goes to far and this instance is an example of that, but I can see where the BBC are coming from. I don’t necessarily agree, but I can see their point.
What a silly post.
You've yet to say whether you agree that saying 'handbags' is worthy of being sacked. You've also failed to demonstrate who decided that, or how they let anyone know, as I doubt few if any did. That alone blows a gaping great hole in your theory that society decides.
If you'd put the word 'mouthy' before Minority I'd have agreed 100% with you - as it is, you'll just have to manage with 99% agreement.
Right. And who are the minority? Names? Specific groups? Or is that a term like “deep state” or “the man”?
Sorry if this is already posted, but for the sake of completeness...
1. He hasn't been sacked, he's freelance, just not being used until next year.
2. It wasn't just the handbags reference, there were others apparently.
3. He's got history apparently.
“He is taking a break but will be back in the New Year.”
Other comments included him saying "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.”
Mirror Football understands Thompson had previously been sent a written warning about his use of language in 2018.
Thompson will not be used by the BBC again until 2021, but as a freelancer cannot be suspended by the corporation, they have confirmed.
1. He hasn't been sacked, he's freelance, just not being used until next year.
2. It wasn't just the handbags reference, there were others apparently.
3. He's got history apparently.
“He is taking a break but will be back in the New Year.”
Other comments included him saying "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.”
Mirror Football understands Thompson had previously been sent a written warning about his use of language in 2018.
Thompson will not be used by the BBC again until 2021, but as a freelancer cannot be suspended by the corporation, they have confirmed.
And you bemoan my contributions.
Well, enjoy the next twenty years whinging about how it’s not like the “good old days”. Whenever the **** that was.
Feel free to answer the question of the topic, rather than just flapping your tongue from your soapbox.
I think point 1 is a tad selective to say the least, and I doubt the others caused any real 'offence'.
If using the term drama queen is some sort of offence there are a lot on here who would be in trouble. Especially before and after we play QPR.
Idioms are by their very nature linguistically removed from the literal interpretation which spawned them. They sustain meaning via usage which then renders them a separate linguistic entity over time. It really is absurd to reconnect them with their original derivation and serves only to demonstrate the ignorance of those who claim offence from hearing them.
Handbags (at ten paces) has been in common usage within football since at least the mid-eighties and, as Tommo's legal team will quickly establish, holds meaning distinct from being a potentially offensive word due to the offended person assuming he was using it in a way that is derogatory to women.
The phrase Rule of Thumb is similar but more ancient. Potentially this could be much more offensive to women than Handbags but due to the fact that it's original meaning has long fallen out of usage, is not universally understood or isn't easily derived from a mere reading of the words, then no one ever appears to get offended by it.
Words and phrases evolve. Language and meaning changes over time. Getting offended due to not understanding this says more about the offendee than the offender.
Anyway, I'm away to have a really gay old time this afternoon. Hopefully it'll be both sick and wicked.
Handbags (at ten paces) has been in common usage within football since at least the mid-eighties and, as Tommo's legal team will quickly establish, holds meaning distinct from being a potentially offensive word due to the offended person assuming he was using it in a way that is derogatory to women.
The phrase Rule of Thumb is similar but more ancient. Potentially this could be much more offensive to women than Handbags but due to the fact that it's original meaning has long fallen out of usage, is not universally understood or isn't easily derived from a mere reading of the words, then no one ever appears to get offended by it.
Words and phrases evolve. Language and meaning changes over time. Getting offended due to not understanding this says more about the offendee than the offender.
Anyway, I'm away to have a really gay old time this afternoon. Hopefully it'll be both sick and wicked.