Advertisements

Blog Archives

Did Amber Rudd offend? (Thursday poll)


Well Ruddy interesting it is too. This week, pseudoconservative Amber Rudd did an eggshell tiptoe on LBC (where news used to come first) talking about mean tweets and why that’s more important than knife crime, and when asked whether she came in for more abuse as a woman she said something like “It definitely is worse if you are a woman and worst of all if you’re a coloured woman. Diane Abbott gets a huge amount of abuse and I think that’s something we need to continually call out” (for the benefit of my readers who learned English properly, that’s modern-illiterate for “I think that is something which we should be continually challenging”. She wasn’t advocating calling out abuse across the street at Diane Abbott all the time, at least I hope not.)

Abbott opens her mouth wide so that Costello can put her ruddy foot in it…

The Shadow Home Secretary concerned then is reported as saying that she was offended to be called a “coloured woman”, that this was “an outdated, offensive and revealing choice of words”, even though she was live on the air and Diane of all people should know that that can result in utterances which are far from what we would like to say. Anyhow, that particular shibboleth has changed since Amber Rudd, who is a little sheltered being a Member of Parliament and a Cabinet member, learned her political correctness. It’s pronounced “chibboleth” now. If you are going to say “shibboleth” then you might as well say “sibboleth” like an ephphin’ Ephraimite. Talking about being “coloured” was encouraged not all that long ago, now it is something that enrages the self-righteous like little else.

Instead of being negative, though, one ought to focus on the positive and identify what Diane Abbott would be perfectly happy to be called, or if not happy, then at least not be needing to be apologised to. What Milady Ambergris ought to have said is maybe a harder thing to assess, though. In the sentence “Abuse is worse if you are a …. woman” referring to what she meant by saying a “coloured” woman, what would you have said?

If you write “black” then you also exclude Islamic, which as we all know is another race, quite different from the Christian race, even though both these religions spanned the world and Mohammed was born not all that far from Israel and looked a bit Jewish by all accounts.

So there you go, you cannot win with the left. Even if you try to play their game by being empathetic to the abuse received by Diane Abbott for being a female with a racial minority appearance, you get trumped for not using the termes du jour.  So what, I ask you, could she have said and what shouldn’t she have said?

Advertisements

Huliganov’s Rant for February – On UK Political Correctness


Original playout date: 6 February 2008
Duration: 2:13

Once again, Huli is not up to date with the rant. First off Huli points out that this is two years into his channel, and this is at the time of uploading here to Huliganov TV already 12 and a half years which is like one eighth of a century.
Read the rest of this entry

An article of ten … Not!


Monty_python_footIt’s interesting, is it not, to consider how many ways the English language has developed for saying that something is not something else.  Now it seems  that to get anywhere these days an article has to have a list of ten items in it. Let’s see if I get much of a readership by jumping on that bandwagon…

1. !=, ≠
In mathematical notation, we have for instance  !=  or if someone wants to go to the trouble of finding the classical symbol ≠ (Unicode numer 2260) then they have a very elegant way of noting “is not equal to” in a mathematical or logical sense.

2. In-, im-, un-

Then we have the classic prefixes, which encapsulate the diglossia in English: un- prefixes grace Germanic roots in the main and in- or im- go with the Latin or French roots (the latter if the root begins with b, p, or m but for some reason not the other labials f and v) However, the cut-off is not strict, because in- can refer to something going into something also. So “information” does not mean a lack of formation – to get back to that idea you can non- or borrow un- from the Germanic stock for it, so for example you could comment that you found this whole article “uninformative”.

http://rcm-eu.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=usenetposts-21&o=2&p=14&l=ur1&category=audible&banner=166J17CGN5N3JAAS3502&f=ifr

3. Dys-, dis-

Or there is disinformation. This dis- is an additional Latin based prefix showing that something has gone off in all directions, or in a wrong direction, with a more common version of that being dys- from Greek, which isn’t fussy about attaching to Latin roots either, so that you get dysfunctional people … Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: