Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Before I decide whether to answer, was that said sarcastically? <---- genuine question. I don't do sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 How does that work then? If you have working class parents, surely you're born into the working class according to your statement? Working class boy born into a working class family with working class parents. Boy grows into a man and becomes very rich. Man still from working class background and still middle class. Man's children get paid for education, mix with wealthier people from Birth, likely go to University and become a professional. The children would class themselves as middle class whereas the father is rich working class. That's how I see it. Just read back it's how Cyclone sees it too I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The thing that really disturbs me though is how many people on here are defending the word chav. People are clearly offended by it. I don't remember people arguing over the usage of the word ******, **** or yid for instance. The word is just as offensive as those to some people. If it was aimed at anybody other than the white working/under class it would have been outlawed. Edited: One of those words was even masked by the swear filter. The word was ****** by the way. The difference is that those perjorative terms are based on physical characteristics that can't be changed. Chav is no more similar to those than idiot, moron, scrounger or any other behaviour based insult you can think of. It's acceptable to label someone based on something they can change (behaviour), but not based on something they can't change (race, colour, etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorkerSWFC Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 A new book claims the word "chav" is helping to reignite class war. The journalist Polly Toynbee calls it "the vile word at the heart of fractured Britain". According to some commentators the term "chav" is a coded attack by the middle classes on the downtrodden, poor working class. One contributor to the article above sees it a term of jealousy used by the besuited middle classes against those perceived as younger, more flash who are just out having fun. Personally I'd always thought that the term was used, in part, to describe people who exhibited anti-social behaviour. Not just that they wore burberry and a silly cap and chains, but thay they effed and blinded in the street, gobbed everywhere and assumed an aggressive attitude. Or was I wrong and is it as offensive, as Polly Toynbee seems to think, as calling someone a **** or the N word? Looking at the cars these supposed chav's have got I'd say no, some of them have a lot more money than the average working class bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Working class boy born into a working class family with working class parents. Boy grows into a man and becomes very rich. Man still from working class background and still middle class. Man's children get paid for education, mix with wealthier people from Birth, likely go to University and become a professional. The children would class themselves as middle class whereas the father is rich working class. That's how I see it. Just read back it's how Cyclone sees it too I think. Not exactly. My parents were working class, bus driver and a nurse if it helps. They always supported my education though and I went to university, am well off, have a profession, don't have an identifiable accent, etc... I'm middle class, that's just what I am, but my parents weren't and so as a child I wasn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The difference is that those perjorative terms are based on physical characteristics that can't be changed. Chav is no more similar to those than idiot, moron, scrounger or any other behaviour based insult you can think of. It's acceptable to label someone based on something they can change (behaviour), but not based on something they can't change (race, colour, etc...) I've heard that one before. So if a person can change their social standing then we're free to call them what they want. If it is so easy to get out of poverty why the hell isn't everyone middle class. So is it acceptable for me to use the term Yid, that's got nothing to do with skin colour just location. People can change their location can't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Not exactly. My parents were working class, bus driver and a nurse if it helps. They always supported my education though and I went to university, am well off, have a profession, don't have an identifiable accent, etc... I'm middle class, that's just what I am, but my parents weren't and so as a child I wasn't either. Pretty much how I put it Cyclone. Do you think we're alright to go calling fat people Chunkies, lard arses when we see them on the street? After all they can change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The difference is that those perjorative terms are based on physical characteristics that can't be changed. Chav is no more similar to those than idiot, moron, scrounger or any other behaviour based insult you can think of. It's acceptable to label someone based on something they can change (behaviour), but not based on something they can't change (race, colour, etc...) I disagree as this thread has shown people have lots of different ideas about what chav is. Opinion formers in the national daily newspapers like to engage in chav baiting (probably to amuse their readers) and couln't careless about the niceties of distinguishing between white trash, council estate, low paid or benefit claimants. Lots of people are born poor and stay poor and don't want to change - have no desire to climb the greasy pole, or feel the need to change how they speak. Why should they be punished for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The thing that really disturbs me though is how many people on here are defending the word chav. People are clearly offended by it. I don't remember people arguing over the usage of the word ******, **** or yid for instance. The word is just as offensive as those to some people. If it was aimed at anybody other than the white working/under class it would have been outlawed. Edited: One of those words was even masked by the swear filter. The word was ****** by the way. You've never encountered any black or Asian chavs? There are many of them out there, just follow the lurid designs in shell suits and car conversions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Chav's are rarely working class. generally non working would be closer to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.