amber
New member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
MCA actually
<hr width=100% size=1>
MCA actually
<hr width=100% size=1>
"yachtsmen"
- Thread starter amber
- Start date
Neraida
New member
Re: Next question.
Oh no it hasn't........ I heard the aforementioned turn of phrase for the first time in my life last week and until James clarified that what I heard was not a mistake on my ear's behalf, I was certain that I had misheard.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wanted>Stuff Wanted </A>
Oh no it hasn't........ I heard the aforementioned turn of phrase for the first time in my life last week and until James clarified that what I heard was not a mistake on my ear's behalf, I was certain that I had misheard.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wanted>Stuff Wanted </A>
jhr
Well-known member
Who decides what\'s acceptable?
In general terms, I think we should all decide for ourselves, and when a broad majority of the population are in agreement, it may be necessary to legislate to prevent a virulent minority from deliberately using language to offend. One of the problems with some PC speech, in my opinion, is that the self appointed judges of what is and what is not acceptable tend to be ahead of public opinion on appropriate language - or indeed, to find offense where, in reality, none exists.
It's interesting (though I don't want to create a breakaway argument on another time-honoured wind-up subject) that recent guidelines to Judges, from the Lord Chancellor's office, advise them to avoid using the term "Asylum Seekers" on account of the derogatory slant given to it by usage in the Tabloid papers. They are thus in the crazy situation of being advised not to use a phrase defined, by law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif. "A mad world, my Masters"
Personally, I am looking forward to the day when my waistline will be described as "circumferentially challenged" rather than "fat". /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
In general terms, I think we should all decide for ourselves, and when a broad majority of the population are in agreement, it may be necessary to legislate to prevent a virulent minority from deliberately using language to offend. One of the problems with some PC speech, in my opinion, is that the self appointed judges of what is and what is not acceptable tend to be ahead of public opinion on appropriate language - or indeed, to find offense where, in reality, none exists.
It's interesting (though I don't want to create a breakaway argument on another time-honoured wind-up subject) that recent guidelines to Judges, from the Lord Chancellor's office, advise them to avoid using the term "Asylum Seekers" on account of the derogatory slant given to it by usage in the Tabloid papers. They are thus in the crazy situation of being advised not to use a phrase defined, by law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif. "A mad world, my Masters"
Personally, I am looking forward to the day when my waistline will be described as "circumferentially challenged" rather than "fat". /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
bedouin
Well-known member
That way madness lies
So I can unilaterally decide that I find "white", "married", "employed", "able-bodied", "tax-payer" offensive and so ban their use in relation to me?
I regard that as nonsense. When the accepted "traditional" definition of a word does not have offensive overtones then it should remain in use - anything else is "new-speak" and the realm of the thought-police.
<hr width=100% size=1>
So I can unilaterally decide that I find "white", "married", "employed", "able-bodied", "tax-payer" offensive and so ban their use in relation to me?
I regard that as nonsense. When the accepted "traditional" definition of a word does not have offensive overtones then it should remain in use - anything else is "new-speak" and the realm of the thought-police.
<hr width=100% size=1>
steve_cronin
N/A
Re: Asylum Seekers.....nb
The main reason to object to the modern usage of this term in most instances where it is used, particularly by the media, is that it is technically incorrect. The people to whom it is, in the main applied, are not seekers of asylum but seekers of an alternative economic life in another country.
Not particularly connected but although the individual wants to use the law to gain retribution or vengeance over someone who offends or damages him, the judiciary are evermore just trying to seek peace and pastoral grazing contentment amongst the herd that is our population as they see it.
Steve Cronin
<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
The main reason to object to the modern usage of this term in most instances where it is used, particularly by the media, is that it is technically incorrect. The people to whom it is, in the main applied, are not seekers of asylum but seekers of an alternative economic life in another country.
Not particularly connected but although the individual wants to use the law to gain retribution or vengeance over someone who offends or damages him, the judiciary are evermore just trying to seek peace and pastoral grazing contentment amongst the herd that is our population as they see it.
Steve Cronin
<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
jhr
Well-known member
Re: That way madness lies
You can try deciding that, but I don't think you will succeed, though if somebody tells me that they find a word or phrase offensive, I try to avoid using it as a matter of personal courtesy.
My point was that there comes a time when general consensus about particular words or phrases reaches a level such as to render their use unacceptable to most people, except those who seek to give offense.
It is not enough, imho, for somebody (often self-appointed) to define a particular word as offensive - sexist, racist or whatever. But, the fact that a word may have been acceptable traditionally does not necessarily mean that it remains so. Would you think it acceptable if I were to describe you as "a gay fellow"? Presumably not, but it would have been a perfectly innocuous remark 40 years ago. Similarly, Enid Blyton used to describe her characters as being "full of spunk", but it's not a phrase you will find in many books today.
I would, however, love to be able to ban use of the phrase "tax payer" in relation to myself /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
You can try deciding that, but I don't think you will succeed, though if somebody tells me that they find a word or phrase offensive, I try to avoid using it as a matter of personal courtesy.
My point was that there comes a time when general consensus about particular words or phrases reaches a level such as to render their use unacceptable to most people, except those who seek to give offense.
It is not enough, imho, for somebody (often self-appointed) to define a particular word as offensive - sexist, racist or whatever. But, the fact that a word may have been acceptable traditionally does not necessarily mean that it remains so. Would you think it acceptable if I were to describe you as "a gay fellow"? Presumably not, but it would have been a perfectly innocuous remark 40 years ago. Similarly, Enid Blyton used to describe her characters as being "full of spunk", but it's not a phrase you will find in many books today.
I would, however, love to be able to ban use of the phrase "tax payer" in relation to myself /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
celandine
Active member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
Personally I would never continue reading an article beyond the first usage of "yachtperson". The problem with those that would have us all wearing the mental straight-jacket of p.c., is that they have never heard of synecdoche - 'man' is synecdoche for 'mankind' and has featured as such in the English language for hundreds of years, Eg 'Man cannot live by bread alone.' Why we have ever considered changing this just to please some dungaree-wearing-person with a bad haircut is beyond me.
Mick
<hr width=100% size=1>
Personally I would never continue reading an article beyond the first usage of "yachtperson". The problem with those that would have us all wearing the mental straight-jacket of p.c., is that they have never heard of synecdoche - 'man' is synecdoche for 'mankind' and has featured as such in the English language for hundreds of years, Eg 'Man cannot live by bread alone.' Why we have ever considered changing this just to please some dungaree-wearing-person with a bad haircut is beyond me.
Mick
<hr width=100% size=1>
ruthhobson
New member
Re: That way madness lies
Yes PC does go to far but I think you are right when you describe the way you are trying to act as being a matter of courtesy. And this is a commomon sense approach to what can feel like a minefield.
Words are hijacked and used in an offensive way by others this generally leads to certain words becoming unacceptable, this might be connected to gender or race. The word paki is often teamed with other words - eg Paki go home. So Paki becomes offensive due to the context it is most frequently used in. The same has happened in the past with words associated with women, making phrases that were acceptable 20 years unacceptable now.
Looking at it another way I can use certain language with my girlfriends, girl to girl, but if a man said it - especially one I didn't know, well .... he'd would get a mouthful back.
As for the original question I have no idea! Well nothing constructive. Good Luck.
Ruth
<hr width=100% size=1>
Yes PC does go to far but I think you are right when you describe the way you are trying to act as being a matter of courtesy. And this is a commomon sense approach to what can feel like a minefield.
Words are hijacked and used in an offensive way by others this generally leads to certain words becoming unacceptable, this might be connected to gender or race. The word paki is often teamed with other words - eg Paki go home. So Paki becomes offensive due to the context it is most frequently used in. The same has happened in the past with words associated with women, making phrases that were acceptable 20 years unacceptable now.
Looking at it another way I can use certain language with my girlfriends, girl to girl, but if a man said it - especially one I didn't know, well .... he'd would get a mouthful back.
As for the original question I have no idea! Well nothing constructive. Good Luck.
Ruth
<hr width=100% size=1>
jhr
Well-known member
The original question
I have been giving this matter considerable thought during the afternoon, and have come to the conclusion that the only appropriate gender-neutral phrase that can be used to describe a yachtsman is "undischarged bankrupt". Hope this helps.
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
I have been giving this matter considerable thought during the afternoon, and have come to the conclusion that the only appropriate gender-neutral phrase that can be used to describe a yachtsman is "undischarged bankrupt". Hope this helps.
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
Gunfleet
New member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
jimi - flirting. So good you did it twice.
<hr width=100% size=1>
jimi - flirting. So good you did it twice.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gunfleet
New member
Conrad
axshully Mr Conrad was playing on the prejudice, as I'm sure you know. The point about the 'nigger' is that everyone else has to guiltily watch him drown. What a great story. These things change, by the way - in the Regency period there was an expression 'that's the pot calling the kettle black arse'. The Victorians lost the arse, if you see what I mean, for polite usage and we now follow suit. Grose is fun to read.
<hr width=100% size=1>
axshully Mr Conrad was playing on the prejudice, as I'm sure you know. The point about the 'nigger' is that everyone else has to guiltily watch him drown. What a great story. These things change, by the way - in the Regency period there was an expression 'that's the pot calling the kettle black arse'. The Victorians lost the arse, if you see what I mean, for polite usage and we now follow suit. Grose is fun to read.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Cornishman
New member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
?
<hr width=100% size=1>
?
<hr width=100% size=1>
B
bob_tyler
Guest
Re: Next question.
At a "Social Services" meeting a short time ago, a visitor was asked "How would you like your coffee?" "Black please, no sugar" he answered across the rather large table. There was a deathly hush and the "Chair" exclaimed "You mustn't say that, please say 'without milk' in future.
How crazy is the under-employed and usually useless public sector becoming.
<hr width=100% size=1>
At a "Social Services" meeting a short time ago, a visitor was asked "How would you like your coffee?" "Black please, no sugar" he answered across the rather large table. There was a deathly hush and the "Chair" exclaimed "You mustn't say that, please say 'without milk' in future.
How crazy is the under-employed and usually useless public sector becoming.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Neraida
New member
Re: Next question.
I refer to my post earlier today, the world has gone completely mad.
Last one to the pub is a poof /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wanted>Stuff Wanted </A>
I refer to my post earlier today, the world has gone completely mad.
Last one to the pub is a poof /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wanted>Stuff Wanted </A>
StugeronSteve
New member
Re: Next question.
Bet I get there first, you big girl's blouse.
<hr width=100% size=1>God only made so many perfect heads. The rest got covered in hair.
Bet I get there first, you big girl's blouse.
<hr width=100% size=1>God only made so many perfect heads. The rest got covered in hair.
PhilipStapleton
New member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
Hello sailor ... now, what do you call the helmsperson?
<hr width=100% size=1>
Hello sailor ... now, what do you call the helmsperson?
<hr width=100% size=1>
jhr
Well-known member
Re: Next question.
Bet you don't. I've sabotaged your wheelchair.
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
Bet you don't. I've sabotaged your wheelchair.
<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
StugeronSteve
New member
Re: "yachtsmen"
I have given this much consideration and feel that the term WAFI is probably the most suitable alternative, as in WIND ASSISTED F***KING IDIOT. There must also be an equivalent for stinkies of course, after all we don't want to be accused of using exclusive terminology.
I am seriously worried by all this yachtsperson stuff, lots of cats, dogs, parrots, mice, rats, etc, etc, have been sailing, ever since Noah launched the Ark and they deserve recognition. Any truly PC term has to be non-species specific.
<hr width=100% size=1>God only made so many perfect heads. The rest got covered in hair.
I have given this much consideration and feel that the term WAFI is probably the most suitable alternative, as in WIND ASSISTED F***KING IDIOT. There must also be an equivalent for stinkies of course, after all we don't want to be accused of using exclusive terminology.
I am seriously worried by all this yachtsperson stuff, lots of cats, dogs, parrots, mice, rats, etc, etc, have been sailing, ever since Noah launched the Ark and they deserve recognition. Any truly PC term has to be non-species specific.
<hr width=100% size=1>God only made so many perfect heads. The rest got covered in hair.
Joe_Cole
New member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
I can't help but think that if you are wasting time on getting it politically correct that your article is going to be pretty tedious
<hr width=100% size=1>
I can't help but think that if you are wasting time on getting it politically correct that your article is going to be pretty tedious
<hr width=100% size=1>
Joe_Cole
New member
Re: \"yachtsmen\"
Mike,
It really is outrageous of you to use the name "Cornishman" which will obviously cause great offence to all users of this forum. I am asking Kim to ban you until you start using the more acceptable version "Cornishperson".
Joe
<hr width=100% size=1>
Mike,
It really is outrageous of you to use the name "Cornishman" which will obviously cause great offence to all users of this forum. I am asking Kim to ban you until you start using the more acceptable version "Cornishperson".
Joe
<hr width=100% size=1>