[Politics] A manager uses an inappopriate adjective. Thoughts?

[Pavilionaire]

Anyone whose been to school knows exactly what that word means and why for obvious reasons it’s extremely offensive to use out of context . I would put it up there with the N word it’s that offensive .

So if a naval captain said "The enemy planes flew over and bombed ten of our ships, they all went down in flames, 500 men were killed. It was an absolute holocaust out there" would you find THAT offensive?

 

[MJsGhost]

Regardless of the fact that the dictionary definition allows for usage other than The Holocaust, it’s pretty clear that its primary usage is incredibly sensitive and offensive to a large number of (most?) people.

If he knew that technically he could justify use of the word in that way, he would also have known that it would attract attention and offence by doing so.

Different levels of offence of course, but It’s a bit like calling someone a f***ing cock and then hiding behind the fact that it’s hardly offensive to call someone a copulating male chicken.

The way I see it, he was either smart enough to know the alternative use and therefore smart enough to know how offensive it would sound because of the other; OR he was only smart enough to know the more commonly known definition and therefore was being a massive, attention-seeking **** by saying it.

Either way, he was living up to his reputation of being a nasty cock (and I don’t mean a rooster)

 

[A1X]

I'm pretty sure if I used the word in the same context in my place of work I'd be having to talk to HR pretty soon afterwards to explain myself

 

[Greg Bobkin]

That was naughty. You knew, of course, or guessed from some of the replies.

Now it is out in the open, let's BURN him. Burn in Fire. FIYA! Mash him up.

<sigh>

What it must be like to live a life as a free hit.

You've taken the story from one of the most-widely read websites in the world and it's all over traditional and social media.

Did you really think you would have the chance to make a big reveal - or that the vast majority of people wouldn't know who it was, Harry

 

[herecomesaregular]

Not read the whole thread but perhaps he should have said "a nuclear holocaust". What he's said isn't offensive in any way imo because he said "a" not "the". Of course he was trying to be a smart arse again and coming across as a bellend. Apparently, he has history! But also, some people complaining may be trying too hard to find something to complain about.

 

[JBizzle]

I'm pretty sure if I used the word in the same context in my place of work I'd be having to talk to HR pretty soon afterwards to explain myself

I'll add this to the list of "people saying things that would get normal humans in trouble at work" file, it's the same file as "you can't say anything these days". Basically, they said something sh*tty and they (and other "free speech heroes") are annoyed that there may be consequences.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You've taken the story from one of the most-widely read websites in the world and it's all over traditional and social media.

Did you really think you would have the chance to make a big reveal - or that the vast majority of people wouldn't know who it was, Harry

No, I accept that most would have seen the story (albeit no thread, so maybe not, given that he is a hate figure of enormous proportion), but I wanted to see what those who hadn't seen the story would think without the confirmation bias that would be inevitable were the identity known. And some such folk replied. And my overall impression is correct that it's all a bit m'eh, till the identity of the offender is revealed, and then it is Burn Him time. One poster, whose opinions I value, acknowledged this. It was a bit of curiosity on my part. I can assure you that I'm not David Nixon in disguise

 

[Eric the meek]

I have to be honest.

If anyone else had said it (likely candidates might have been Ian Holloway, Ron Atkinson, Barry Fry etc), I would have thought 'what a dickhead' for being so ill-judged, but forgiven them as they don't know any better.

But as it was Joey Barton, I don't forgive him. I find everything he says and does offensive. I've no idea why people continue to employ him. The man is unemployable.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Put it down to him being not so clever I would be more worried if he was denying the Holocaust happened.

 

[Billy the Fish]

It's a bit like when Pardew said "rape" on MOTD a few years ago. It was absolutely correct in the context that he used it, but ultimately language does evolve over time and holocaust and rape are primarily used in a single context these days which people are bound to be offended by.

My issue is with the way it's reported. The BBC article yesterday said that Barton "compared a football match to the holocaust". Barton did nothing of the sort and the reporter must understand this given their credentials as a journalist. They could at least be truthful and say that he used a word people now find offensive in an unusual context.

Again when Pardew did it they used the same line - Pardew compared a football tackle to rape (in it's sexual context), he didn't, he used it to mean forcibly take which is correct in the dictionary.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It's a bit like when Pardew said "rape" on MOTD a few years ago. It was absolutely correct in the context that he used it, but ultimately language does evolve over time and holocaust and rape are primarily used in a single context these days which people are bound to be offended by.

My issue is with the way it's reported. The BBC article yesterday said that Barton "compared a football match to the holocaust". Barton did nothing of the sort and the reporter must understand this given their credentials as a journalist. They could at least be truthful and say that he used a word people now find offensive in an unusual context.

Again when Pardew did it they used the same line - Pardew compared a football tackle to rape (in it's sexual context), he didn't, he used it to mean forcibly take which is correct in the dictionary.

Errr didn't he say that a full back got raped by a winger? If so, not the correct context.

Both instances are examples of unnecessarily belittling something very serious and if I openly used these terms in the workplace to describe something bad that happened, I would expect a disciplinary process to result.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Errr didn't he say that a full back got raped by a winger? If so, not the correct context.

Both instances are examples of unnecessarily belittling something very serious and if I openly used these terms in the workplace to describe something bad that happened, I would expect a disciplinary process to result.

Yes it is the right context, look it up in the dictionary.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Yes it is the right context, look it up in the dictionary.

Obviously you're a highly distinguished wordsmith

But 99.9% use that word and the one used by Barton to mean a very specific and highly despicable event.

Hiding behind a presumably outdated use of a word which you may still find reference to in a dictionary is pathetic. Using either word to describe football belittles the crime involved

 

[nickbrighton]

It's a bit like when Pardew said "rape" on MOTD a few years ago. It was absolutely correct in the context that he used it, but ultimately language does evolve over time and holocaust and rape are primarily used in a single context these days which people are bound to be offended by.

My issue is with the way it's reported. The BBC article yesterday said that Barton "compared a football match to the holocaust". Barton did nothing of the sort and the reporter must understand this given their credentials as a journalist. They could at least be truthful and say that he used a word people now find offensive in an unusual context.

Again when Pardew did it they used the same line - Pardew compared a football tackle to rape in it's sexual context, he didn't, he used it to mean forcibly take which is correct in the dictionary.

I'm afraid that its now normal for Journalists (well I don't view many as actual journalists any more -more opinionated commentators) to report as fact out of context quotes and events. As in this case he didn't compare it to THE holocaust, or as in the Bissoma interview he didn't say "I am the best in the Premier League" but "in my head I have to consider that am the best" , which is what all top sportspeople have to think, or they wouldnt be there, he clarified that he wasnt the actual best but that doesn't get clicks and likes, or in Bartons case the actual quote isn't comparing anything to The Holocaust, but that wouldn't generate all the outrage and clicks so wouldn't be worth reporting on

This whole issue is nothing more than twisting events to suit a narrative. Its reporting something out of context to create a story that doesn't exist to be able to report on it. It can be a dangerous route to take with far reaching and possibly unintended consequences. On a much larger scale It happened with the Fuel "shortage", take something, report it out of context and out of proportion to its actual importance , and create the story in order to fulfil a preconceived outcome so that you can report on it, or use it to "prove " a different point being a case recently

 

[marlowe]

There is an obvious tendency to latch on to and interpret the words and deeds of those we despise in as negative and condemnatory a way as possible, whereas if those same words and deeds were attributed to someone for whom we felt no animosity our attitude would be far less prejudicial.

A prime example of this is the manner in which Trump supporters, and Donald Jnr in particular, have pounced on the tragic shooting accident involving Alec Balwin. Because of Baldwin's past history of mocking Trump Snr, Trump Jnr is literally revelling in the circumstances of the woman's death at Baldwin's expense. Jnr is so lacking in self awareness that he does not realise that it is his response to the accident that is most worthy of condemnation.

I also remember a time when an acquaintance of mine (not a friend I hasten to add) was convicted of offences against children, much to everyone who knew him's shock and surprise. At the time of this revelation I was talking with another mutual acquaintance of the offender and I became aware of how anything that was previously known of the man was now being retrospectively interpreted in a completely negative light. As the mutual acquaintance was justifiably condemning this man's actions and hidden character he added "and he even used to go down the nudist beach".. I resisted offering my own observation that the man also used to commit the unpardonable sin of wearing black lace up shoes with blue jeans, the filthy nonce!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Obviously you're a highly distinguished wordsmith

But 99.9% use that word and the one used by Barton to mean a very specific and highly despicable event.

Hiding behind a presumably outdated use of a word which you may still find reference to in a dictionary is pathetic. Using either word to describe football belittles the crime involved

We can never know what was going through Barton's mind at the time but I am 99.9% confident it was not a planned attempt to be offensive or provocative. Barton is not hiding behind anything as far as I am aware, and so you are accusing an NSC poster of being pathetic. That is quite unfair!

I am not in any way suggesting that his use of the word was appropriate. If someone had said 'did you really mean to say that, son?' I expect he would have sheepishly rephrased his comment rather than defend Das Reich (which is an actual thing, not just a racist poster on NSC). However the BBC presentation misrepresents what he said as noted above, and the outrage of course hit faux levels immediately.

From comments on this thread it is clear that, when the poster knows that it is Barton, his motive and intent are assumed, based on his history and the widespread loathing for the man, to be malign. That was what I wanted to find out.

As an aside, the BBC report looks like a lazy Daily Mail effort, with the glib misrepresentation to map to the trope. Freddie Starr ate my Hamster. Freddie Starr the vegetarian did not eat a hamster. The story was invented by Max Clifford. And so it goes.

 

[Swansman]

I'm afraid that its now normal for Journalists (well I don't view many as actual journalists any more -more opinionated commentators) to report as fact out of context quotes and events. As in this case he didn't compare it to THE holocaust, or as in the Bissoma interview he didn't say "I am the best in the Premier League" but "in my head I have to consider that am the best" , which is what all top sportspeople have to think, or they wouldnt be there, he clarified that he wasnt the actual best but that doesn't get clicks and likes, or in Bartons case the actual quote isn't comparing anything to The Holocaust, but that wouldn't generate all the outrage and clicks so wouldn't be worth reporting on

This whole issue is nothing more than twisting events to suit a narrative. Its reporting something out of context to create a story that doesn't exist to be able to report on it. It can be a dangerous route to take with far reaching and possibly unintended consequences. On a much larger scale It happened with the Fuel "shortage", take something, report it out of context and out of proportion to its actual importance , and create the story in order to fulfil a preconceived outcome so that you can report on it, or use it to "prove " a different point being a case recently

I agree with pretty much everything you say but want to make a point on the "now normal as journalists twisting reality to create controversy has been a thing pretty much forever, and especially prevalent in the UK for some reason. With plenty of good exceptions, journalists are generally a despicable species.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

We can never know what was going through Barton's mind at the time but I am 99.9% confident it was not a planned attempt to be offensive or provocative. Barton is not hiding behind anything as far as I am aware, and so you are accusing an NSC poster of being pathetic. That is quite unfair!

I am not in any way suggesting that his use of the word was appropriate. If someone had said 'did you really mean to say that, son?' I expect he would have sheepishly rephrased his comment rather than defend Das Reich (which is an actual thing, not just a racist poster on NSC). However the BBC presentation misrepresents what he said as noted above, and the outrage of course hit faux levels immediately.

From comments on this thread it is clear that, when the poster knows that it is Barton, his motive and intent are assumed, based on his history and the widespread loathing for the man, to be malign. That was what I wanted to find out.

As an aside, the BBC report looks like a lazy Daily Mail effort, with the glib misrepresentation to map to the trope. Freddie Starr ate my Hamster. Freddie Starr the vegetarian did not eat a hamster. The story was invented by Max Clifford. And so it goes.

Isn't this fair enough though?

If someone who has previously had an impeccable character says something which is offensive, but there is a possible benefit of the doubt, you'll give it to them that benefit rather than someone with a record such as Barton's. Is there something wrong with reaching that judgement?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I agree with pretty much everything you say but want to make a point on the "now normal as journalists twisting reality to create controversy has been a thing pretty much forever, and especially prevalent in the UK for some reason. With plenty of good exceptions, journalists are generally a despicable species.

Not despicable. Most are decent. They're working in a declining industry and that comes with pressures. Pressure for clicks and to write what their bosses want them to, but we're all targeted to some degree at work

 

[BBassic]

It's really quite impressive how dedicated he is to being the most relentlessly churlish f**kwit he can possibly be.