RANT: Some people!

DKLS

voiceofreason wrote: »

You know - I always think that using the word "chav" to describe others reflects terribly on oneself.

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?

There are plenty of ways to describe others' conduct without resorting to lazy knee-jerking - if you're as much of a better person than them as you say you are, surely you can find and use them?

So how would you prefer me to refer to the person I saw behaving in such a way:

White trash
Socially and economically deprived female under the age of 25
Patient
Service user
Scratter
Rough as a bag of spaniels
Young lady
Munter
Robbers dog
Bulldog licking !!!!le of a thistle


Do please advise on the correct terminology so I don't offend in the future.

voiceofreason

DKLS wrote: »

So how would you prefer me to refer to the person I saw behaving in such a way:

White trash
Socially and economically deprived female under the age of 25
Patient
Service user
Scratter
Rough as a bag of spaniels
Young lady
Munter
Robbers dog
Bulldog licking !!!!le of a thistle


Do please advise on the correct terminology so I don't offend in the future.

As I say - if you're that much better then her, you'll come up with something, won't you? Knocking someone with a drink problem - cheap, cheap win.

Do you normally refer to women as "munters" or whatever?

Cor, you're so clearly a superior person to her, aren't you! Well done, you

[Deleted User]

The problem with your argument is that everyone knew what I was talking about when I said 'chav'. It's the best word to describe that sort of behaviour I saw.

The 'N' word etc are not the best words to describe people because there are more accurate words that happen to be more polite and respectable. The key is that 'chav' is an accurate word with a common meaning, regardless of whether it's polite or not.

I'm happy to call them chavs. They were. Ignorant. Rude. Selfish. Since when did anyone suggest that poor = chav. I certainly didn't.

Abbafan1972

On the subject of the original post, I have been in 3 different hospitals and have never once seen a fridge for patients on the ward. Only in a separate kitchen area. I take it the fridge was on the ward, as you were able to see these people take the food?

bap98189

In Scotland we call them Neds. It apparently once stood for Non-Educated Delinquent.

DKLS

voiceofreason wrote: »

As I say - if you're that much better then her, you'll come up with something, won't you? Knocking someone with a drink problem - cheap, cheap win.

Do you normally refer to women as "munters" or whatever?

Cor, you're so clearly a superior person to her, aren't you! Well done, you

Why don't you answer the question instead of being a pedantic and pompous twot.

To answer your question if a women is challenged in the looks and figure dept, indeed referred to as a munter.

voiceofreason

DKLS wrote: »

Why don't you answer the question instead of being a pedantic and pompous twot.

To answer your question if a women is challenged in the looks and figure dept, indeed referred to as a munter.

Quality.

And you're better than this abusive woman in what way, exactly?

Rosie75

voiceofreason wrote: »

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"?

Hang on a minute, where exactly did I say I thought that I was a better person than anyone else? Though for the record, I do think that the kind of behaviour outlined by the OP does actually suggest something not very pleasant about the people involved. I am certain I'd behave better than they did, faced with a fridge full of patients' food. If that makes me arrogant and snobbish, so be it.

OK - to me, since you ask, a "chav" suggests someone who behaves in a rowdy or anti-social way. Nothing to do with being poor, rich, nouveau-riche, etc. More to do with assaulting people, behaving rudely or agressively, falling out of nightclubs drunk with underwear showing, etc - behaviour that, as far as I'm concerned, transcends social class or bank balance.

You say you are not trying to proscribe usage of any word. Please explain, then, in what circumstance you would be happy for us to use the term "chav"?

voiceofreason

Deleted_User wrote: »

The problem with your argument is that everyone knew what I was talking about when I said 'chav'. It's the best word to describe that sort of behaviour I saw.

The 'N' word etc are not the best words to describe people because there are more accurate words that happen to be more polite and respectable. The key is that 'chav' is an accurate word with a common meaning, regardless of whether it's polite or not.

I'm happy to call them chavs. They were. Ignorant. Rude. Selfish. Since when did anyone suggest that poor = chav. I certainly didn't.

I thought "theft" was a pretty appropriate word to describe the behaviour, personally. Others include "rude", "inconsiderate" and "disruptive". None of these have the connotations of poverty and underclass that "chav" carries - and rightly so, as background is irrelevant here, surely.

Is "chav" really an accurate word? I'd say not. People - as we can see from this thread alone! - have different interpretations of the word; the only uniting theme common to pretty much everyone's interpretation is that a "chav" is a person who is somehow below them. This aside, there's no one definition - so where's the accuracy? Where's the precision of definition?

If the "N"-word is an inaccurate, impolite word used to describe those who one feels to be below oneself (here by dint of race), and "chav" is also an inaccurate (see above), impolite word used to describe those who one feels to be below oneself - what's the difference between the two?

Same principle, same usage - so why would any civilised, intelligent person wish to use the word?

DKLS

voiceofreason wrote: »

Quality.

And you're better than this abusive woman in what way, exactly?

Are you a politician/diversity officer?, you seem unable to answer a question.