RANT: Some people!

olias

Chav - Dictionary definition (taken from dictionary.com):

Definition: the lower class; uneducated and ignorant people



Olias

voiceofreason

HannahIOW wrote: »

I believe 'chav' is a legitimate, recognised term these days. I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure it started off as a term used by the police, and stood for 'council house and voilent'. These days I don't think it's used to describe poor white people, more to describe those people who choose to be lairy and uncouth for no reason at all.

Recognised by who?

Yes - it's in the OED. But then so is the "N"-word, the "P"-word and another four-letter word beginning with "C". Doesn't necessarily mean you should call people it.

As for what it's used for - aye, it's become a bit of a catch-all nowadays, hasn't it? Used to describe people who indulge in laziness, uncouthness, anti-social behaviour in general and indeed a good proportion of the more unsavoury practices we as humans are capable of.

Which is pretty much my point - if one continually uses a word with connotations of poverty and deprivation (indeed, you say you recognise its origins to partly come from "council house" yourself) to describe anti-social behaviour and unpleasantness, the two eventually become somewhat linked; if these people are "chavs", and if "chavs" come from deprived backgrounds, then poor people must be scum, right?

One then eventually arrives at this situation where the poor are colloquially regarded as an underclass, and talked about, discussed and dismissed as such.

Parallels with use of the "N"-word, anyone?

missile

voiceofreason wrote: »

What a nasty, squalid, offensive word it is. You wouldn't describe a poor black person using the "N"-word, so why would any reasonable, intelligent person use its equivalent to describe poor white people??

The OP did not state their ethnic origin :rotfl:

Chav is a very good name for those ill mannered, missbehaving, white (or whatever colour they may be) trash. But in PC gone mad Britain, it is only a matter of time :eek: till some do goody nerd makes it illegal

voiceofreason

olias wrote: »

Chav - Dictionary definition (taken from dictionary.com):

Definition: the lower class; uneducated and ignorant people



Olias

....which, sadly, is pretty much my point. So, you're saying that "lower class" people are uneducated and ignorant, then? Someone without much formal education is a "chav"? All "chavs" are "lower class"? Please continue, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Grin all you want, kid - you're using lazy, ambiguous stereotypes to treat people like sh*t. You're clearly so much a better person than any shell-suited scrote........

(Interestingly, I wonder what an American dictionary of the mid-late 1800s would have featured as the definition for "Negro"?)

voiceofreason

missile wrote: »

The OP did not state their ethnic origin :rotfl:

Good point

Ok then - pop quiz. I say "chav"; which ethnic origin pops into your head?

missile wrote: »

Chav is a very good name for those ill mannered, missbehaving, white (or whatever colour they may be) trash. But in PC gone mad Britain, it is only a matter of time :eek: till some do goody nerd makes it illegal

"Chav" - or indeed, any descriptive word - is only as good, and as useful, as it's accurate. Despite what people might say, one person's understanding of the term is almost certainly different from another's. There's no single, agreed description, so it becomes a catch-all for the less pleasant aspects of our society.

Now that's no bad thing in itself, having a word to clearly and precisely describe any phenomenon. I would, however, contend that there are already plenty of words in the language to describe "ill mannered, missbehaving[sic], white (or whatever colour they may be) trash" - and plenty without also having the additional "chav" connotations of poverty, poor education and deprivation.

And you - like everyone else who uses this word - know this very well. That's why you use the word, and that's why it's that little bit more wounding than, say, "scrote" or "thug" or whatever.

To use the word "chav" is to dehumanise and disrespect another human being, ostensibly attacking them for their actions while in reality basing the assault largely on factors they may not themselves be responsible for. It's disgusting snobbishness and an anachronism; something which I really felt our society had outgrown and left behind.

As I say - you wouldn't use the "N"-word; why use the word "chav"?

WhiteHorse

Deleted_User wrote:

The ward my GF's relative was in had a fridge which contained snacks and food for patients [...] The person in the bed next to us had their family visit. [...] Not just once, twice...but four times they completely raided the fridge like vultures. Not for their patient, but for THEMSELVES

I have seen exactly the same vile behaviour myself on a ward for patients with severe bowel disease.

WhiteHorse

voiceofreason wrote:

Grin all you want, kid - you're using lazy, ambiguous stereotypes to treat people like sh*t. You're clearly so much a better person than any shell-suited scrote...

So-called liberals become so unpleasant when others decline to fit in with their mode of thinking ...

Rosie75

voiceofreason wrote: »

As I say - you wouldn't use the "N"-word; why use the word "chav"?

"Chav" and "negro" are rather different words, to my mind. "Negro" denotes someone of a particular colour, and because of its historical usage, clearly not in an objective way. "Chav" implies someone who behaves in a particular way. Not every "lower class, uneducated person" in a tracksuit is a chav, by any means. There are also plenty of celebrities who are described as "chavvy", despite having pots of money, so it doesn't seem to necessarily imply poverty. I don't think it's something associated with white people, either. I've heard plenty of people call Ashley Cole a chav. Are we now not allowed to use a specific noun or adjective to describe someone who behaves in a certain way, because "it's not their fault"? Incidentally, I disagree that "chav" is a more offensive noun than "scrote". I find the latter word repulsive. That's the problem with language - different words mean different things to different people, despite the dictionary's attempt to be definitive. If we are to worry about totally erasing negative or offensive implications of words, there would be precious little of them left in the English language.

voiceofreason

WhiteHorse wrote: »

So-called liberals become so unpleasant when others decline to fit in with their mode of thinking ...

Who said anything about liberalism?

voiceofreason

Rosie75 wrote: »

"Chav" and "negro" are rather different words, to my mind. "Negro" denotes someone of a particular colour, and because of its historical usage, clearly not in an objective way. "Chav" implies someone who behaves in a particular way. Not every "lower class, uneducated person" in a tracksuit is a chav, by any means. There are also plenty of celebrities who are described as "chavvy", despite having pots of money, so it doesn't seem to necessarily imply poverty. I don't think it's something associated with white people, either. I've heard plenty of people call Ashley Cole a chav. Are we now not allowed to use a specific noun or adjective to describe someone who behaves in a certain way, because "it's not their fault"? Incidentally, I disagree that "chav" is a more offensive noun than "scrote". I find the latter word repulsive. That's the problem with language - different words mean different things to different people, despite the dictionary's attempt to be definitive. If we are to worry about totally erasing negative or offensive implications of words, there would be precious little of them left in the English language.

If "chav" implies someone who acts in a particular way, as you suggest - please would you be able to explain what this "particular way" is (to you, obviously - different people using words to mean different things, and all that)?

Ah, yes - the old "...plenty of celebrities who are described as "chavvy", despite having pots of money, so it doesn't seem to necessarily imply poverty..." one. Go on, then - explain why they're being described in this way. Wouldn't be nasty snobbishness and a feeling that they're jumped-up nouveau riches and don't deserve the money, would it?

I am not for one second looking to proscribe usage of any word - hell, it's a free country and that! - my point is rather that people should possibly have a bit of a think about what they're saying and think about connotations and what things mean.

I reiterate my point, though; if you're as much of a better person than someone else as you say you are, surely you can find and use a better word than "chav"?