I imagine because of the person/group who proposed it? If she ditches her own plan and then jumps on the Mogg-wagon, wouldn't that make her politically feeble and push the Tory-Brexiters for a vote of no-confidence?
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,863 comments
- 264,305 views
I imagine because of the person/group who proposed it? If she ditches her own plan and then jumps on the Mogg-wagon, wouldn't that make her politically feeble and push the Tory-Brexiters for a vote of no-confidence?
- 13,728
- Adelaide
- Neomone
- 13,728
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'd never say "you're talking bollocks" to someone who was interviewing me for a job. While the meaning is clear, it is both aggressive and obscene. You're correct about the meaning, but the specific choice of bollocks over another word implies a certain level of disdain or dismissal. There's any number of phrases that have the same basic meaning, but which of those you choose to use conveys additional nuance as to the specific meaning that you intend.
If you've chosen your euphemism to be aggressive and obscene over simply saying "that's not right", perhaps look at how you have discussions with people. If that's your go-to "neutral" dismissal, you may not be being perceived as you wish to be, at least outside your local area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks
While your particular geographic area may view the word differently, you're on the internet and the general population tends to take bollocks as a reasonably strong swear. See also, the first entry under "negative uses" in that Wiki article.
For an example that may not have the same regional commonality for you, imagine if I told you that you were "talking bull:censored:". It's very similar. It's unnecessarily aggressive, and it's not something that would commonly be used outside of close acquaintances or people you're actually strongly attempting to dismiss and insult.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That must be an international difference - it's not an obscene word in the UK and even appeared in the bible.
- 28,390
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Impolite, yes - but not obscene.
Meanwhile, back on topic, I'm a little bit skeptical about all these 'positive' words coming out of the EU right now, and both sides (still) seem to be talking as if the other has already capitulated on some major red lines - but, there is going to have to be some form of compromise on both sides and it will be interesting to see what happens... the next two weeks will be vital. Theresa May still needs to gain a whole bunch of support from both sides of Parliament, but a Canada-style deal appears to be the best way forward for the moment.
Meanwhile, back on topic, I'm a little bit skeptical about all these 'positive' words coming out of the EU right now, and both sides (still) seem to be talking as if the other has already capitulated on some major red lines - but, there is going to have to be some form of compromise on both sides and it will be interesting to see what happens... the next two weeks will be vital. Theresa May still needs to gain a whole bunch of support from both sides of Parliament, but a Canada-style deal appears to be the best way forward for the moment.
- 16,431
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Let alone all over the America thread recently.
Nice way to bring the thread back on topic btw @Ten.
Last edited:
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 16,431
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I didn't say it was all over the thread. I said it was all over the thread recently. I'd say three posts in a row counted as that.
- 13,728
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That's the best source you can find for it appearing in the Bible? One that has a man being prosecuted for this totally not obscene in the UK word? One that, as I quoted from Wikipedia, was deemed to be the eighth most severe expletive in research undertaken by the Advertising Standards Authority and the BBC, along with others.
https://web.archive.org/web/2010031...g.uk/Resource-Centre/Reports-and-surveys.aspx
See the research report "Delete Expletives". Just to make sure you got this, it was done in the UK by UK public media organisations.
You'll also note that I never mentioned obscenity. Obscenity is a cultural thing, and it's arguable that there's not much left in the way of obscene language these days when swearing is so commonplace both in society and media. I'd argue that there's at best half a dozen true obscenities left in the English language, words so foul that almost everyone will automatically take offence. Possibly less. I could probably be talked down to one or two without that much trouble.
That doesn't take away from the fact that certain words have strong connotations attached to them. I get that y'all are hard fighting, hard farting, rough neck cussin' cowboys who won't let no man tell you how to be, but you should at least be aware of the general appearance of the language you use.
I find the job interview test to be a telling one. When you're interviewing for a job, you have limited information about the interviewer and their personal style, and you want to give the best impression possible without chance for miscommunication. The language you would choose to use in such a situation is going to be what you would best use to convey a non-offensive and non-argumentative tone.
Do you tell an interviewer that they're talking bollocks while you still want the job? Or is that right before you rip up the contract and walk out the door?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
We're agreed it's not obscene then. It's no ruder than "trump" or "tit", it's just a non-formal word. You must have been in some highly-strung job interviews - I distinctly remember saying in a job interview that one of my projects at a previous employer had turned out bollocks. The panel knew of the project and agreed. All but one of them were ladies, more swear-stereotype busting there.
I was reading in yesterday's Grauniad (paper version, can't find the matching quote on their website right now) that the closest existing version of the current "deal" is Turkey's.
This sky news article says that it’s all but done, but then also goes on to say that;
Which sounds the same as it has done since before the Chequers deal?
It would be rather fitting if we did get a deal similar to Turkey’s. Given that during the build up to the vote Leave told people that literally every single Turkish national was going to move to the U.K. the second they joined the EU
#wooferendum
- 13,728
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Yes. Although you were the one that brought it up in the first place, and I'm still not clear what you think you've shown by this. My argument never mentioned or hinged on bollocks being considered obscene.
No.
There's more nuance to the English language than obscenities, informal and formal. Calling someone a dingleberry isn't obscene either, but it's not exactly informal either.
I see you've also decided to ignore your own public broadcaster and the rest of the objective information I presented that in fact the UK does actually consider it pretty high on the list of swears, above some that will be auto-filtered on GTP. Obviously the list can't be posted here directly, but I'd hoped you'd at least have taken a look.
Good job that's not what I said then.
You didn't tell the interviewer that they were talking bollocks. You referred to an external event that went badly. There's a difference between saying "Australia gave us a bollocking in the cricket on the weekend" and saying "sorry mate, you're talking bollocks". One is a bit of casual swearing referring to a third party; only the most uptight people will bother to note it and it may in fact be the only reasonable way of describing the situation. The other is direct criticism using aggressive language.
Do you really not see the difference? I admit I'm quite surprised, you use language very well and I assumed that you'd be aware of nuances of usage like this. I mean, there's a strong difference between me saying "that last job was a :censored:ing nightmare" and me saying "go 🤬 yourself", right? That's a stronger example, but the same rationale applies. The subject of the statement matters, particularly when you're trying to have a productive conversation with them.
I've sworn in job interviews when it was appropriate, some things require that strength of language to be conveyed correctly. One interviewer asked about the safety culture at my previous work, and that definitely deserved a few strong words to make sure I conveyed just how I felt about how close the boss came to seriously injuring some people.
But I've not sworn at an interviewer, because I feel that would be insane. There's no case in which pointing out that the interviewer is doing their job wrong in any but the mildest of terms is going to be the correct choice, assuming you want the job. I doubt there are many people in the world that would prefer "oh, you're so wrong you complete ninny" to "I'm not quite sure you've got that right".
Sorry, are ladies not able to swear? Or is this you trying to somehow attach some sort of misogyny to me, despite you being the one bringing gender into this? How does the gender of the interviewers have anything to do with anything?
- 28,390
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
OK, I'm going to have to ask you guys to take this conversation to PM.
No more off-topic posts please.
No more off-topic posts please.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The SNP have (unsurprisingly) re-iterated that they would support a "People's Vote" (a referendum in all but slippy-slidey name). Coupled with the increased rumblings between Republicans and Unionists in Northern Ireland (or the North of Ireland, as some insist it should be referred to) I can't help but feel that a deal which is acceptable to the EU will remain unacceptable to 50% of the countries in the UK.
I can't believe that I feel Theresa May is actually the best option for getting a sensible deal right now. With the proper Rightists in the wings to one side and the Corbyn Show gleefully clapping its own back at the other it's hard to imagine a stable enough political landscape to complete a deal and its implementation by March 2019. I find it even harder to believe that I miss the Cameron days right now... but I do.
I can't believe that I feel Theresa May is actually the best option for getting a sensible deal right now. With the proper Rightists in the wings to one side and the Corbyn Show gleefully clapping its own back at the other it's hard to imagine a stable enough political landscape to complete a deal and its implementation by March 2019. I find it even harder to believe that I miss the Cameron days right now... but I do.
- 23,427
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
The James Callaghan/Winter of Discontent era is looking rosy in comparison to the current climate.
- 28,390
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The Telegraph are reporting that Theresa May is to seek Cabinet approval to keep the UK in a Customs Union with the EU...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...sk-cabinet-agree-brexit-deal-keeps-uk-customs
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...sk-cabinet-agree-brexit-deal-keeps-uk-customs
- 16,431
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I'd rather not pay theTorygraph to read the rest of the article but it seems like she's going up against the DUPpers. It'd be poignantly ironic if they were to bring her down (as they appear to be threatening in the article) since they're only in a position of power because of her dumb snap election.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 28,390
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The DUP are idiots.
The things that the DUP have insisted on all along (which I happen to agree with them on, by the way) is that there is no hard border between Ireland and NI and that there is no customs border between NI and the rUK. That means the EU's 'Irish Backstop' plan won't fly, and it also means a No Deal Brexit won't fly either. The only possible solutions that avoid the DUPs red lines, therefore, are ones that keeps the whole of the UK in a Customs Union with the EU (either no Brexit or May's Chequers plan), but the latter has been scuppered by the EU - until now. It now looks like the EU are prepared to formally accept Chequers as the UK-EU legal backstop which will keep the UK in the Customs Union. So the DUP are happy, right? Wrong. Now they are angry because they think that the Chequers plan is "a sell-out". WT actual F?
- 16,431
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
This comment really highlights to me the significance of the lack of any seemingly credible opposition to Mrs. May's comedy regime.
Seems the MET will not be investigating the alleged criminal activities of Leave due to ‘political sensitivities’...
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/br...brexit-campaign-investigations-claiming-polit
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/br...brexit-campaign-investigations-claiming-polit
