Things that annoy me that should annoy me

[BaaLocks]

Trying to catch up on a few here, but here goes:

- Graeme Sounness is actually not a dinosaur, by his own admission he has done a lot to re-educate himself and worked in many areas of football to do so. There are many in the game with a far less progressive views than his. It was actually a shame he was the one who said what he did (I am minded of Ron Atkinson, who did so much for black players but his comments were beyond reproach so maybe not). It was a turn of phrase, not meant as a sexist one imho, but he should have let himself be corrected - that was his error.

- The use of 'man' as a phrase, in cricket or as a coloquialism, will recede - and needs to. I'm not saying we are going to rename it Personchester but they are the quiet indicators that woman do not enjoy true equality. There are phrases that were racist in tone that we used to use (n***er in the woodpile being one) and people back then said "I'm not being racist, it's just a phrase". But we stopped, because it's the right thing to do. Don't sweat it...

- Woke is a vile term, I've never heard used in anything other than a disparaging manner. And I've only ever heard it used by people who seem to fear that they are being directed by others (normally people who seem to want to then direct others). It is a phrase of our time that, on inspection, shows how much many value imposing their view rather than considering others.

- Grown men in football shirts, outside match day, is just wrong (and, for me, only just tolerable on match days - by others, I never do it). But I don't want to stop others doing it, even if I don't like it. That's the difference, I think - I might not like others doing it, it might annoy me, but I'm not on a mission to stop those who choose to do it. Those who use the term 'woke' about others do seem to think they are at risk of being told how to behave, what to say and what to wear - they see challenge to their belief systems as pure threat. It really shouldn't get your blood pressure rising, it should be chance to learn and grow a bit yourself.

- The purpose of this thread (I understood) is to sneer a little in the lightest of terms at those things in life that grind your gears. If you are going to lose your lunch over someone wearing a football shirt (I don't think anyone truly is btw) then you maybe need a few minutes in a dark room on your own.

In conclusion, some (in all walks of life) may benefit from being a little less concerned about imposing views and value systems on others and a little more focused on understanding why people hold those views and whether it really will damage the fabric of their lives to just let it go, smile and let them be happy in their decision.

Grown men in football shirts, however, nahhhhh....

[Gone]

36 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Trying to catch up on a few here, but here goes:

- Graeme Sounness is actually not a dinosaur, by his own admission he has done a lot to re-educate himself and worked in many areas of football to do so. There are many in the game with a far less progressive views than his. It was actually a shame he was the one who said what he did (I am minded of Ron Atkinson, who did so much for black players but his comments were beyond reproach so maybe not). It was a turn of phrase, not meant as a sexist one imho, but he should have let himself be corrected - that was his error.

- The use of 'man' as a phrase, in cricket or as a coloquialism, will recede - and needs to. I'm not saying we are going to rename it Personchester but they are the quiet indicators that woman do not enjoy true equality. There are phrases that were racist in tone that we used to use (n***er in the woodpile being one) and people back then said "I'm not being racist, it's just a phrase". But we stopped, because it's the right thing to do. Don't sweat it...

- Woke is a vile term, I've never heard used in anything other than a disparaging manner. And I've only ever heard it used by people who seem to fear that they are being directed by others (normally people who seem to want to then direct others). It is a phrase of our time that, on inspection, shows how much many value imposing their view rather than considering others.

- Grown men in football shirts, outside match day, is just wrong (and, for me, only just tolerable on match days - by others, I never do it). But I don't want to stop others doing it, even if I don't like it. That's the difference, I think - I might not like others doing it, it might annoy me, but I'm not on a mission to stop those who choose to do it. Those who use the term 'woke' about others do seem to think they are at risk of being told how to behave, what to say and what to wear - they see challenge to their belief systems as pure threat. It really shouldn't get your blood pressure rising, it should be chance to learn and grow a bit yourself.

- The purpose of this thread (I understood) is to sneer a little in the lightest of terms at those things in life that grind your gears. If you are going to lose your lunch over someone wearing a football shirt (I don't think anyone truly is btw) then you maybe need a few minutes in a dark room on your own.

In conclusion, some (in all walks of life) may benefit from being a little less concerned about imposing views and value systems on others and a little more focused on understanding why people hold those views and whether it really will damage the fabric of their lives to just let it go, smile and let them be happy in their decision.

Grown men in football shirts, however, nahhhhh....

What a load of s*** 

[ketteringram]

@BaaLocks 

I'd be interested to know why you think the term 'batsman', in a game of cricket between two teams of men, needs to recede. 

[Mucker1884]

On 02/09/2022 at 22:50, Mostyn6 said:

People (men) that cannot go anywhere without wearing an item of clothing that shows the football team they support! 
 

quite common in holiday resorts, the missus is glammed up, even the kids have scrubbed their faces, but you dad, even in this relatively nice restaurant, are wearing you Couhiging Liverpool training top! Tvat! 

I’ll be wearing my aging Rams training tops (much more discreet than a full on replica shirt) when out and about cycling through the pines of SW France this week. 
Partly because they suit the weather, and my comfort requirements, but mainly because I know damn well nobody else will be wearing one around here!  ?
 

edit:  Also because it’s the only chance I get to show off my allegiance in foreign climes, seeing as I don’t have a Ram permanently inked on my skin!  ?

Edited September 4, 2022 by Mucker1884

[JoetheRam]

The 'culture wars'. Jesus H Christ it's boring.

 

[Day]

Men that wear nothing but Lacoste clothing on holiday.

I have a Lacoste t shirt, yet I can't wear it now without thinking of @Mostyn6 on holiday ???

[FindernRam]

22 hours ago, angieram said:

call out behaviours that are unacceptable to the majority.

In my mind I am the undoubted majority. So my view is paramount.....unless the wife is around of course.

[BaaLocks]

18 hours ago, ketteringram said:

@BaaLocks 

I'd be interested to know why you think the term 'batsman', in a game of cricket between two teams of men, needs to recede. 

I didn't actually say it needed to stop in a game between men, but maybe it can because I can say everything I need to say using phrases such as batter - it really doesn't break my world to do that, if it is important to others. And, in return, why is it so utterly threatening to do so? I'm not out to make others stop using it, doesn't really matter that much to me, call them batsblokes if it makes you happy. But I find it somewhere between amusing and interesting that some seem so strong of opinion about it when it changes their lives not one percent.

Langugage evolves, cultures evolve - I remember a school teacher lecturing us adamantly that he would still call the colour 'n****r brown' because that was what it was, not at all related to race. But forty years later we don't do that, because it is offensive to do so and he was wrong. Many of us remember Robinson's jam, with golliwogs on the side - you could even save up tokens to get one posted to you - the Black & White Minstrel show, Jim Davidson and monkey chants to black footballers. They all seemed acceptable at the time but, like my teacher, they were wrong.

It's the same with terms like these - we think they are OK because they are established in our language but our cultures evolve (thought obviously not for all). We didn't swear on telly forty years ago, now we seldom see a night go by without the f-bomb in one show or other. We only had two genders now some people prefer to be referred to in what we would consider the third person - I couldn't care less if it makes them happy, and I certainly don't want to take the stance of telling someone what they can and can't say about themselves.

Remember, this initial exchange came out of reference to 'wokeism' and how some felt threatened they were being forced to change their ways just coz the loony left wokies demanded it - I'd suggest it's more often the opposite, that the resistance to want to consider why something could benefit from changing is driven by little more than arrogant self belief that their way is the right way. 

It won't change overnight, but it will change in our lifetime. Feel free to bump this message in 2052 if I'm wrong.

Edited September 4, 2022 by BaaLocks

[Boycie]

On 03/09/2022 at 11:18, Mostyn6 said:

I think you miss the point of the thread Angie. It annoys me, I’m not repressing their freedom, just saying it looks classless and chavvy and quite pathetic in some cases. 

I think Angie wears her old 80’s Fly British Midland Rams jersey at the captains table when cruising.?

I think I’ll be cruising for a bruising in a minute mind. ?

[ketteringram]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

I didn't actually say it needed to stop in a game between men, but maybe it can because I can say everything I need to say using phrases such as batter - it really doesn't break my world to do that, if it is important to others. And, in return, why is it so utterly threatening to do so? I'm not out to make others stop using it, doesn't really matter that much to me, call them batsblokes if it makes you happy. But I find it somewhere between amusing and interesting that some seem so strong of opinion about it when it changes their lives not one percent.

Langugage evolves, cultures evolve - I remember a school teacher lecturing us adamantly that he would still call the colour 'n****r brown' because that was what it was, not at all related to race. But forty years later we don't do that, because it is offensive to do so and he was wrong. Many of us remember Robinson's jam, with golliwogs on the side - you could even save up tokens to get one posted to you - the Black & White Minstrel show, Jim Davidson and monkey chants to black footballers. They all seemed acceptable at the time but, like my teacher, they were wrong.

It's the same with terms like these - we think they are OK because they are established in our language but our cultures evolve (thought obviously not for all). We didn't swear on telly forty years ago, now we seldom see a night go by without the f-bomb in one show or other. We only had two genders now some people prefer to be referred to in what we would consider the third person - I couldn't care less if it makes them happy, and I certainly don't want to take the stance of telling someone what they can and can't say about themselves.

Remember, this initial exchange came out of reference to 'wokeism' and how some felt threatened they were being forced to change their ways just coz the loony left wokies demanded it - I'd suggest it's more often the opposite, that the resistance to want to consider why something could benefit from changing is driven by little more than arrogant self belief that their way is the right way. 

It won't change overnight, but it will change in our lifetime. Feel free to bump this message in 2052 if I'm wrong.

I'm more than old enough to remember all of the examples you give. Language does indeed evolve, and always will. A lot of the stuff you talk about there is /was offensive, and it's rightly, (mainly) a thing of the past. I'm struggling though, to see how something like Batsman is offending anyone. 

I'm not threatened by change, just puzzled by some of it. It doesn't break my world either to refer to someone as a batter. Like you, I'm happy to call them anything you like. Though all it's doing is using one word instead of another, when , in this case anyway, I'm not sure what the issue is with the original word.

[Mucker1884]

Men… Loos… hand washing…

No, not that. That’s been done to death!

But those that do wash their hands… or more often than not  just quickly rinse under the tap… and then either because they can’t be arsed, or because the drier isn’t working, or there’s a queue… they proceed to walk away… hands low by their sides… flicking, waving, and generally tsunami-ing wet water everywhere!  Particularly annoying in a crowded area (PPS concourse Loos at HT spring to mind), and excessively infuriating during decent weather, when the vast majority of the victims are wearing shorts, so every single waft of droplets come to rest on the adjacent bare legs!

Gents… just stop being cnuts for two minutes, would ya!  Yer dirty b*******! ?

[ramesses]

On 04/09/2022 at 05:54, ketteringram said:

@BaaLocks 

I'd be interested to know why you think the term 'batsman', in a game of cricket between two teams of men, needs to recede. 

....and what about umpire, fielder, and bowler. It's gender neutrality gone mad.

[BaaLocks]

21 hours ago, ketteringram said:

I'm struggling though, to see how something like Batsman is offending anyone. 

Maybe ask a batswoman?

[ketteringram]

27 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Maybe ask a batswoman?

I'll try to find out, but I'd be amazed if anyone's ever referred to a Batswoman as a Batsman!

[Anon]

On 03/09/2022 at 19:29, TexasRam said:

What a load of s*** 

You misspelled "woke rhetoric".

[Anon]

On 03/09/2022 at 14:10, Kokosnuss said:

Reverse snobbery annoys me, but it's impossible to accurately express and explain why this is without sounding like a snob, and that annoys me.

Some things are quantifiably, objectively, simply of a better quality than others regardless of individual tastes. 

Being accused of being snob because you're able to recognise and point out the difference in quality is a defence mechanism often used by those who either can't, can't afford to, or can't be bothered to learn the difference themselves. See what I mean about it being impossible to say without coming across as a snob!?

Give us the example. You must've had something in mind when you posted this.

Part of me agrees with what you're saying, but I think I'd have a real hard time proving that something is objectively better regardless of individual taste.

[Bob The Badger]

On 04/09/2022 at 15:52, Boycie said:

I think Angie wears her old 80’s Fly British Midland Rams jersey at the captains table when cruising.?

I think I’ll be cruising for a bruising in a minute mind. ?

I don't know her personally, but on seeing her posts on her for a few years I'd have never had her down as the cruising type.

 

 

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, ketteringram said:

I'll try to find out, but I'd be amazed if anyone's ever referred to a Batswoman as a Batsman!

And what about Batman?

Batperson and Robin doesn't have the same ring to it.

[BucksRam]

Just now, Bob The Badger said:

And what about Batman?

Batperson and Robin doesn't have the same ring to it.

Won't be long before there's a Robyn too. 

[Anag Ram]

What about They by Charles Aznavour?