|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2014 17:55:29 GMT
Why is using "swamped" nasty/inappropriate/wrong? Surely it clearly expresses how some people may feel when there is a "large" influx of foreign nationals to their area. A swamp is a patch of wet, soggy ground that may suck you in or submerge you altogether if you tread on it. It is treacherous and dangerous and you would be wise to do your best to avoid being swamped by it. As a metaphor, it might indeed express feelings of being overwhelmed.But it has no objective meaning. For a politician to use it as though it expressed a fact is at best irresponsible, at worst deliberate fear-mongering.
|
|
|
Post by cleahfarqhuar on Oct 27, 2014 18:11:01 GMT
Why is using "swamped" nasty/inappropriate/wrong? Surely it clearly expresses how some people may feel when there is a "large" influx of foreign nationals to their area. 'Inappropriate used to be a respectable word until the politicos got ahold of ofit. Now is reduced to meaningless along with 'clearly' 'sustainable' , 'vibrant' 'community etc The first rule of the ruthlessly ambitious is to never use the language of the 'populus' (except when seeking re-election) The first rule of the populus is is to disregard every utterance of the oleaginously ghastly Vaz, the proclaimed 'most important Asian in Britain' [/quote]
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 28, 2014 0:38:36 GMT
Why is using "swamped" nasty/inappropriate/wrong? Surely it clearly expresses how some people may feel when there is a "large" influx of foreign nationals to their area. A swamp is a patch of wet, soggy ground that may suck you in or submerge you altogether if you tread on it. It is treacherous and dangerous and you would be wise to do your best to avoid being swamped by it. As a metaphor, it might indeed express feelings of being overwhelmed.But it has no objective meaning. For a politician to use it as though it expressed a fact is at best irresponsible, at worst deliberate fear-mongering. And even Thatcher had to apologise abjectly on TV for using the word in relation to immigration. Not, I think, in deference to 'PC' - but because she realised she had gone much too far, in showing her real prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by cleahfarqhuar on Oct 28, 2014 8:01:33 GMT
And even Thatcher had to apologise abjectly on TV for using the word in relation to immigration. Not, I think, in deference to 'PC' - but because she realised she had gone much too far, in showing her real prejudices. Prejudice!? What on earth are you talking about To witness hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our cities and to use a word that describes the effect of such alien masses upon our culture is certainly not pre-judging anything at all! It is describing (in words that you and others of your ilk do not like) the actuality But our leaders must not express (nor act upon) the fears and wishes of our democratic society must they? They must set an example to the populus that they despise, musn't they [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Oct 28, 2014 8:03:06 GMT
A swamp is a patch of wet, soggy ground that may suck you in or submerge you altogether if you tread on it. It is treacherous and dangerous and you would be wise to do your best to avoid being swamped by it. As a metaphor, it might indeed express feelings of being overwhelmed.But it has no objective meaning. For a politician to use it as though it expressed a fact is at best irresponsible, at worst deliberate fear-mongering. And even Thatcher had to apologise abjectly on TV for using the word in relation to immigration. Not, I think, in deference to 'PC' - but because she realised she had gone much too far, in showing her real prejudices. www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2810308/DAVID-BLUNKETT-Yes-specific-parts-Britain-swamped-migrants-politicians-dare-tell-truth.htmlThe following applies to speech, email, letter, blogs, all forms of communication. Over the years I have learnt that when communicating with people you should use language that is suitable to the situation and the people you are communicating with. Failure to take that into consideration could make you appear "thick" or "common" or the other extreme "superior" or "patronising". When using the word swamped I don't think the mp was talking to the London centric political classes or guardian readers, but to many people to whom the word swamped accurately described their feelings. By restricting or critising the language "normal" people are able to use in the debate, you are again denying them a voice. Apart from Suzy Dent on Countdown, there are probably very few people that know the contains of the OED cover to cover and an accompanying thesaurus. Just because someone doesn't have the verbal dexterity of the political "elite" doesn't mean they can't take part in the debate.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 28, 2014 8:40:53 GMT
Now here is something that we must all think at some time or other (especially when wating for 1 hour in an airport security line) travel.aol.co.uk/2014/10/27/pensioner-arrested-Im-not-muslim-comment-airport-remove-shoes/?ncid=webmail2However most of us are not so stupid as to say what we think , are we? Because we know that there are laws that will criminalise us if we say what we think! Note that the arresting authorities (or the report) are surely wrong Expressing such awful thoughts comes under The State Taxonomy of Criminal Thinkng as Religious Hatred, not Racial Hatred (this glorious example of thought control by Harriet Harman passed /pusillanimously by the Conservtives too!)
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 28, 2014 8:53:27 GMT
A swamp is a patch of wet, soggy ground that may suck you in or submerge you altogether if you tread on it. It is treacherous and dangerous and you would be wise to do your best to avoid being swamped by it. As a metaphor, it might indeed express feelings of being overwhelmed.But it has no objective meaning. For a politician to use it as though it expressed a fact is at best irresponsible, at worst deliberate fear-mongering. As you say swamped can mean 'overwhelmed' or engulfed, buried, deluged, flooded, inundated, overcome, staggered, defeated To suggest that these words hvve no objective meaning is idiotic To go further and suggest that a politico is irresponsible to use that word because it has no objective meaning is exactly the dishonety from you that is so familiar
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 28, 2014 9:37:08 GMT
As you say swamped can mean 'overwhelmed' or engulfed, buried, deluged, flooded, inundated, overcome, staggered, defeated To suggest that these words hvve no objective meaning is idiotic I don't suggest that, though. All the synonyms you suggest have literal meanings in an appropriate context, and are more or less useful in determining objective fact. If something is literally buried, for example, we know that a hole has been dug and the thing has been put in the hole and then covered up again. If someone is defeated, there has been a contest of some kind, and the other party has won.Staggered may refer to an uncertain gait after too much alcohol taken. (Not sure how you'd want to use it here.) But as metaphors in contexts like the we're talking about, they become merely emotive, and do not help us to determine objective fact. Dishonesty does have an objective meaning, and it should be clear to most readers that whatever you think of what I have said, there is nothing in the least dishonest about it.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 28, 2014 9:39:47 GMT
By restricting or critising the language "normal" people are able to use in the debate, you are again denying them a voice. It's the politician's choice of word that's being criticised, not that of ordinary people.
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Oct 28, 2014 10:20:20 GMT
By restricting or critising the language "normal" people are able to use in the debate, you are again denying them a voice. It's the politician's choice of word that's being criticised, not that of ordinary people. But when considering the language used, you shouldn't just consider the speaker, but the environment in which it is spoken and most importantly the audience. Was the speaker using words that his audience could understand and relate too?
|
|
|
Post by cleahfarqhuar on Oct 28, 2014 12:42:41 GMT
As you say swamped can mean 'overwhelmed' or engulfed, buried, deluged, flooded, inundated, overcome, staggered, defeated To suggest that these words hvve no objective meaning is idiotic I don't suggest that, though. Oh yes they do, they are not simply 'merely emotive'! If I say that we are flooded with immigrants and someone does not understand what I mean (because they do no understand metaphors) then it is easily described to them in non-emotive language what what I mean. Because something is expressed in emotional terms does not necessarily mean that it is not factual - nor that 'objective' facts are hidden by such usage Only a fool or someone who is utterly dishonest could fail to understand what is meant by 'flooded by immigrants' [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 28, 2014 14:05:56 GMT
If I say that we are flooded with immigrants and someone does not understand what I mean... It's perfectly clear what you mean, cleefy. Understanding what you mean is not the problem; the problem is that by the introduction of your 'flooding' metaphor you are attempting to state as objective fact what is not fact at all. If you state that a certain number of immigrants have come into the country, or into a certain area; if you tell us that a certain percentage do not speak English; better still if you tell us actual numbers - all this is verifiable. But if you speak of flooding, with its connotations of death, destruction, drowning, you have left the realms of objective fact and are dealing in emotions. Then why not stick to the non-emotive language in the first place? I wonder how many people who've started to think in the sort of terms you use have no real experience of immigration at all, but have picked up the fear-inducing language from the Daily Mail, and people like you and Nick. In the days before UKIP, when the chief source of anti-immigration rhetoric was the BNP, it was noticable that the council wards in Liverpool where the BNP polled most votes were the ones where there was almost no immigration at all.
|
|
|
Post by KissingCrust on Oct 28, 2014 23:34:30 GMT
Would be interesting to hear what he had to say using non-emotive languageJust before Pippa stopped posting he called her "emotional" quite unfairly I thought.
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 29, 2014 0:22:50 GMT
swamping, flooding and gushing were terms Thatcher is associated with (or didn't properly understand), denoting things she disapproved of and assumed others would be frit of. Those are the ones that come to mind, but there are others, probably to be found in E Powell's speeches.
Politicos have a responsibility to reflect their constituents' views, but in a balanced way that doesn't incite hatred and discrimination.
In my experience, Thatcher's use of 'swamping' and 'gushing' (about different things, of course) convinced me she was as prejudiced as my mother - but she shouldn't have been, having been educated. (Oh, Oxford: that explains it.)
|
|
|
Post by cleahfarqhuar on Oct 29, 2014 13:04:11 GMT
swamping, flooding and gushing were terms Thatcher is associated with (or didn't properly understand), denoting things she disapproved of and assumed others would be frit of. Those are the ones that come to mind, but there are others, probably to be found in E Powell's speeches. Politicos have a responsibility to reflect their constituents' views, but in a balanced way that doesn't incite hatred and discrimination. In my experience, Thatcher's use of 'swamping' and 'gushing' (about different things, of course) convinced me she was as prejudiced as my mother - but she shouldn't have been, having been educated. (Oh, Oxford: that explains it.) Aqua you are becoming extremely boring and irrelevant in your uncritical ideological support for mass immigration Never once have you put forward a cogent argument that in support of mass immigration (perhaps because no such cogent argument can be made) yet you continually carp and criticise those that argue against mass immigration - in this case you find their 'language' objectionable as if the language of debate is more important than the subject
|
|