Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 We've already proven that not to be true. Unless you think a guy with a £10million lottery win is 'poorer'. He came from a working class background. Had his parents been rich he would have not been labelled as such. You proved that with Charlie Gilmour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I agree with pattern of behaviour but it's only when that behaviour is shown by poorer people that the label chav is used. Why is "chav" worse than "hooray henrys" etc etc? Genuine question.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 When they're famous they know from previous reports. If Charlie Gilmour was observed on the day then people may well have thought he was a chav. What about when not famous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Then it can only be as observed at the time can't it. Which might lead you to erroneously think someone is a chav, when actually they're acting out of character. But does any of that honestly make any difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Why is "chav" worse than "hooray henrys" etc etc? Genuine question.. Not so much now but a couple of years ago it was used to label any bunch of kids stood on a corner on a council estate. There were loads of threads on here about "Just seen chavs at a Bus stop" and other types. Even when it was established they weren't being anti-social the label was used. I've never heard of Hooray Henry. Ultimately it's become the new acceptable insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 He came from a working class background. Had his parents been rich he would have not been labelled as such. You proved that with Charlie Gilmour. No, we proved that Charlie Gilmour acted in that way once, and that Carroll acted in that way all the time. Hence Carroll is a chav and Gilmour isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Then it can only be as observed at the time can't it. Which might lead you to erroneously think someone is a chav, when actually they're acting out of character. But does any of that honestly make any difference? According to you yes. You have just said it is linked to patterns. So why if you only see one incident label someone a chav? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 No, we proved that Charlie Gilmour acted in that way once, and that Carroll acted in that way all the time. Hence Carroll is a chav and Gilmour isn't. How do you know Gilmour's was isolated? It was the first time he was caught that's all. What about all the misbehaving students at the protests? Some of them went to more protests and acted the same way. Did any newspaper label them chavs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Because the behaviour you see at the time is chavy. I think you're trying way too hard to somehow prove that chav is a label only applied (variously) to the poor, those in poverty, the working class, or people with a working class background. And we've variously disproven each of those categorisations. Everyone else agrees that it's a label that defines a certain subset of anti social behaviour, and that generally it's a pattern of behaving like that that attracts the label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Not so much now but a couple of years ago it was used to label any bunch of kids stood on a corner on a council estate. There were loads of threads on here about "Just seen chavs at a Bus stop" and other types. Even when it was established they weren't being anti-social the label was used. I've never heard of Hooray Henry. Ultimately it's become the new acceptable insult. You've never heard the phrase "hooray henry"? Really? I honestly find that difficult to believe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.