[Closed] Swarm in a tea cup

Nigel Farage has all the bases covered on this;

[img] [/img]

I'd take any opportunity to ridicule Cameron but trying to make a point out of that one sentence is ridiculous and makes Harmen look petty and desperate.

Own goal.

It's dehumanising and is a pretty nasty evocative piece of language- people associate swarm with a bad thing. Which it is, but not for us.

I don't know. Any language which seeks to dehumanise people is dangerous. Then again, people do like to make a fuss. I'd rather we focused on helping these poor people rather than worry about whether they're a swarm or a group or a gang or whatever.
What Cameron wants to do seems more worrying than his choice of words, which may be why he chose to use such a word, distraction...

Harperson trying to win some brownie points by playing to the Guardianista gallary after her mute non-opposition to Tory cuts.

Nice to see she's got her priorities sorted.

Kind of sums up the present labour party perfectly.

Hence the enthusiasm for Corbyn.

Talking about humans like they're insects is pretty shit. It's not really the biggest issue here but I don't think only the biggest issues are worth getting into, we can do both...

fin25 - Member

I'd rather we focused on helping these poor people rather than worry about whether they're a swarm or a group or a gang or whatever.

I don't think it's 2 different things tbh. If you want to focus on helping people, then it makes sense to challenge things which make that less likely, and dehumanising them is designed to do that. Actions are more important than words but words influence actions.

I'd rather we focused on helping these poor people rather than worry about whether they're a swarm or a group or a gang or whatever.

I think you sort of cover it in your post but using the word swarm makes it pretty clear that Cameron doesn't want to help them.

The most striking part of his statement is
[i]
Mr Cameron, who is on a tour of South East Asia, warned that illegal immigrants would be removed from the UK, saying Britain would not become a "safe haven" for migrants in Calais.[/i]

Yes... a 'safe haven' for people. How frightful! Perish the thought! Why on earth, as a supposedly civilised country, would we want to be that?

Read something via FB I think "Labour would be better lead by an out of office email" 😛

munrobiker - Member

I'd rather we focused on helping these poor people rather than worry about whether they're a swarm or a group or a gang or whatever.

I think you sort of cover it in your post but using the word swarm makes it pretty clear that Cameron doesn't want to help them.

Not sure what your point is here Luke, beyond Cameron hating (covered at length elsewhere) he's pretty clear he doesn't want to help them.

My point was that swarm is a word that sets his stall out - I don't want to help these people, they are a problem, a bad thing, sub-human, and this is why the Refugee Council objects to it because it is language that helps support the view that we shouldn't be helping people that need help.

Well, I disagree, it's political correctness.

Cameron knew exactly what he was doing when he used the term, which can hardly be described as neutral.

Ooh, a psychic!

My point was that swarm is a word that sets his stall out - I don't want to help these people, they are a problem, a bad thing, sub-human, and this is why the Refugee Council objects to it because it is language that helps support the view that we shouldn't be helping people that need help.

I disagree that the word swarm is a problem in the context in which it was used. It describes a rapid movement by a large group. We use the word to describe insects because they move rapidly in groups it does not mean that all swarms consist of insects.

Dictionaries back MW up.

People are just using this to pile the hate on Cameron (not that I like him mind).

Doesn't mean I don't think Cameron's a dick. But nit picking about his (as I see it) appropriate use of the english language dilutes the real argument that should be about finding a solution to mass migration.

It does have a scientific meaning, but it also has connotations and conjures and image which is why I think it was used, and why it has faced objections.

cynic-al - Member

Read something via FB I think "Labour would be better lead by an out of office email"

Frankie Boyle, the voice of reason.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/27/labour-is-now-so-passive-it-might-as-well-be-led-by-an-out-of-office-email

Exactly. Harman gets the opportunity to get something into the media on a topic of national importance. And uses that to give Cameron a rather weak lecture on semantics.

Let no-one suggest that Labour is currently more focused on style rather than substantive opposition.

It does have a scientific meaning, but it also has connotations and conjures and image which is why I think it was used, and why it has faced objections.

Precisely. It can't be seriously argued that language has no meaning beyond a dictionary definition.

Pointless really coz none of the immigrants know the meaning of that word. 🙄

He should say something like "BritLand is being invaded" 😆

Here's a quote that accompanied the rescue operation following earthquakes in New Zealand.

[i]"Hundreds of rescuers swarmed over twisted and smoking buildings in a frantic search for survivors after New Zealand's catastrophic earthquake left nearly 400 dead or missing"[/i]

To me the word is descriptive, it's neither negative nor positive.

Talking about humans like they're insects is pretty shit.

....unless you're Ant-Man. or Joe Bones, the Human Fly!

To me the word is descriptive, it's neither negative nor positive.

Context matters. Consider a southern US policeman addressing a young black man as "boy".

Typical political point-scoring. Swarm is frequently used to describe a large group of humans rushing towards something, or over something.
To suggest this is 'dehumanising' shows either deliberate PC grandstanding or ignorance of the English language and how it's used.
It's not unusual for the word to be used when there's a pitch invasion at a football match; "the crowd swarmed onto the pitch", is that dehumanising the supporters?
Pathetic, really.

How do you describe a large group of jobworth PC bureaucratic ZMs scheming off your life?

A parasitic invasion or epidemic? 😆

In a sentence like this ... " The parasitic invasion/epidemic of jobworth PC bureaucratic ZMs have caused hardship to the population ..."

If we're concerned with the language used, I'm surprised no one's as taken as I am by the fact that desperate people fleeing godawful war, disease, pestilence, oppression or whatever things make it seem like a better option to sail across the Mediterranean on something I wouldn't venture onto Derwen****er in, or risk trying to attach themselves to the bottoms of moving lorries and trains as "migrants" these days - 'when i wer a lad' they were "refugees"... as descriptive language I think "refugee" covers some of the background to what's happening at border crossings a little more fully...

pc nonsence. People are reading far too much into this. Muppet has hit nail on head.

"Popped over? Swarmed over more like".

I hate the man for lots of reasons including his deliberate policy last year to withdraw the Mediterranean rescue of migrants on the stated basis that the more who died at sea the more it would discourage others from trying, but this semantic row is just a shallow pointless distraction . I have heard and used swarm in positive negative and neutral contexts.

Name a swarm of insects.

Bet you the vast majority of people would answer locusts. I'm sure Cameron was aware of that, he might be a prick but he's not stupid. I've read comments on Facebook like "put them all a train and blow it sky high, problem solved" and had two different guys from Dover ranting about human rights and how the want-to-be immigrants don't have any and need some "rough justice" to encourage them to leave. When pointed out that they are people too and would you like to swap situations with them then you get the usual "yeah, I suppose you're right" and looking at feet.
Don't get me wrong I don't think this country can sustain uncontrolled immigration, nor do I know what the answer is. Also off on holiday via the chunnel in a fortnight and like everyone else could do without the potential hassle but a lot of people need a sense of perspective. Seems to me this country is in a dangerous place right now and comments like that from Cameron don't help.

Absolute nonsense to object to the word in this context. Not a huge fan of CMD, but this is nitpicking in the extreme.
Thought David Davies came closer...what we need is camps...erm not bad ones, good ones. He skated on very thin PC ice by talking about camps and people that we don't want in our country...R4 classic!!

I met some UKIP fodder in a site outside Calais two nights ago, they were all for strafing and sinking boats. They would have loved "swarm".
Not sure he meant it as it's been taken but it's a word that appeals to scum of a certain bent.

David Davies does need a punch though.

As he actually said "swarm of people", it's slightly redundant for Harman to then tell him to remember that he is talking about people and not insects.

I agree very strongly with the principle that it isn't right to use reductive and de-humanising language when talking about human beings generally, but I think my calibration is less sensitive than Harman's on this occasion.

The below are Hong Kong whingeing about mainland Chinese. The sort of vicious rhetoric that gets thrown around here is a different world from maybe calling some people a "swarm of people", but I think we're mostly agreed that we don't want to go anywhere near this.

[img] ?fit=466%2C473[/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Is it not a bit more insensitive him muttering on about boat people in Vietnam or has history been forgotten.

[img] [/img]

I see your swarm and raise with a virus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33722135

To suggest this is 'dehumanising' shows either deliberate PC grandstanding or ignorance of the English language and how it's used.

It's seeking to reduce English to dictionary definitions that demonstrates ignorance of the language and how it's used.

So people sit in a room waiting for someone to say something, and then try to pull their words apart. Sad sad world. Plus hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What's wrong with using a descriptive word? The PC world is going mad.

I find it odd that you can't use a descriptive word which describe the type of behaviour very well as its offensive, but it's ok to tell the people to bugger off, your not our problem.

If people are getting upset about the use of one word and not the fact that people are suffering then what hope is there for idiots like that 🙄

So people sit in a room waiting for someone to say something, and then try to pull their words apart. Sad sad world. Plus hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What's wrong with using a descriptive word? The PC world is going mad.

A highly PR-savvy person uses the word "swarm" which has negative connotations (most people will think of locusts) and you think it wasn't done deliberately? Don't be so naïve.

So some of us think it's innocent or reasonable or not worth bothering about.

Others think different. Including Harriet Harman.

So some of us think it's innocent or reasonable or not worth bothering about.

You may think it's reasonable and/ or unimportant. But to suggest that it is a neutral term, and not chosen quite deliberately is exceptionally naïve.

Others think different. Including Harriet Harman.

Harriet Harman is a complete muppet though. And she's just pursuing her own tediously predictable agenda. Lets be very vocal about the silly little things that preoccupy the witless, humourless gibberings of North London Guardianista's, while studiously ignoring the huge multitude of great big **** off elephants sat in the room that they're too terrified to even think about, never mind talk about.

ransos - Member
You may think it's reasonable and/ or unimportant. But to suggest that it is a neutral term, and not chosen quite deliberately is exceptionally naïve.

Your patronising is getting irritating. This is your opinion only, not fact - try and realise there is a difference 🙄

binners - Member
Harriet Harman is a complete muppet though.

My point exactly!

Your patronising is getting irritating. This is your opinion only, not fact - try and realise there is a difference

You're free to believe that a PR-trained and savvy PM wouldn't carefully consider his choice of language on this issue. I'm free to believe that you're either naïve or obtuse.

I'm with Al and a few others on this. It's a term used by many folk to describe the way that people move en masse. Folk reading something pejorative into it are simply displaying their own prejudices and pre-conceptions.

I'm with Al and a few others on this. It's a term used by many folk to describe the way that people move en masse. Folk reading something pejorative into it are simply displaying their own prejudices and pre-conceptions.

If you asked a random group of people to do word association for "swarm", most will say "locusts".

ransos - Member
I'm free to believe that you're either naïve or obtuse.

You're also free to not use personal insults.

If you asked a random group of people to do word association for "swarm", most will say "locusts".

Proof?

How many dictionary definitions do not refer to the term being used with people?

[quote=ransos ]If you asked a random group of people to do word association for "swarm", most will say "locusts".And of course you have evidence to support this - a survey you can link to perhaps?

Personally, I'd have thought bees would have been more likely from a UK perspective.

(stolen from another website)

Cynic-al was on the way to the pub, when he encountered a group of black men outside the job centre.

"Why!" He remarked out loud, "What a swarm of indigent swarthy foreigners has arrived in my neighbourhood!"

Luckily, everyone had read the dictionary and no unfortunate interpretation of his words was possible, and everyone laughed.

That's just offensive, now I'm racist?

And of course you have evidence to support this - a survey you can link to perhaps?

Why would I do that? It's given as a dictionary definition, and as we all know, dictionary definitions are the only meaning that language has.

See also mob, pack, rabble, horde.

Waiting for the link to that survey..... you know, the independent proof that it's not just your own prejudices reinforcing this for you.

That's just offensive, now I'm racist?

"Luckily, everyone had read the dictionary and no unfortunate interpretation of his words was possible, and everyone laughed."

Can I just check, this is the [i]same[/i] Harriet Harman who, in the name of free speech, defended the work of the Paedophile Information Exchange?

Personal insults, I'm out.

I must say I thought locust.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's offensive/inappropriate there are some people who have found it a bad word for the situation. If he had simply said "group of people" or "gathering of people" there'd be no problem. Surely it's better to use something that'd cause no offence at all to anyone and focus on the actual problem?

I'm with ransos that Cameron probably used this word knowing the connotations it has in order to garner support for sending them back and keeping them out. And Harman saw this word and completely missed the point of her role as leader of the supposedly centre-left opposition.

I'm not usually Mr PC but using unfortunate wording to help breed contempt for vulnerable people is exactly why political correctness now exists. While the average STW member, like cynic-al or scotroutes, is intelligent enough to know what the exact definition of "swarm" is the average member of the public probably isn't.

Having spent three hours stuck on the slip road at Calais recently, I would suggest that the term (as MW noted earlier) is fairly accurate.

Good job the issue isn't serious so that we can concentrate on one word. The mind boggles.....headlines, headlines...

[quote=munrobiker ]I must say I thought locust.
Anecdote ? data

If he had simply said "group of people" or "gathering of people" there'd be no problem.

I can see your problem though - if you already have that connection in your mind it's difficult to see that others don't and you assume that everyone else makes the same connection.

But would anyone at all make that connection if he'd said something else? Surely no people making any connection is better than some people making a poor connection?

How do you describe a large group of jobworth PC bureaucratic ZMs scheming off your life?

An engarblement?

[quote=munrobiker ]But would anyone at all make that connection if he'd said something else? Surely no people making any connection is better than some people making a poor connection?But if [i]he[/i] doesn't make the connection then you can't assume [i]he'd[/i] think anyone else would. You're suggesting that every word/phrase we speak should be passed through some sort of committee/filter in order to make sure it doesn't cause offence to anyone, anywhere in the world.

Ah, I getcha. I was being a bit slow there.

To be honest, having seen The Thick of It, I sort of think that they do plan almost every word in minute detail.

If you think "swarm" when used in this manner doesn't have negative connotations then presumably you'd be down with "****" as a harmless take-all term for people from the Indian subcontinent.

And pighead, grim, and Adrian Mole think the Aussies have a unique problem with racism 🙄

[quote=zokes ]If you think "swarm" when used in this manner doesn't have negative connotations then presumably you'd be down with "****" as a harmless take-all term for people from the Indian subcontinent. Someone else projecting their prejudices onto others.

Someone else projecting their prejudices onto others.

No druidh, just raising a valid point, which instead of answering, you chose to avoid. If the cap fits....

If you think "swarm" when used in this manner doesn't have negative connotations then presumably you'd be down with "****" as a harmless take-all term for people from the Indian subcontinent.

You presume wrongly.

Everytime I come on this site I read the most ludicrous stuff,but it makes me happy that I don't have to deal with those people in real life,thanks zokes.

ransos - Member

If you asked a random group of people to do word association for "swarm", most will say "locusts".

i thought 'bees'.

i like bees.

+1 for bees and for Scotroutes comments.

Who would be a politician? Crap pay, crap hours and this kind of BS to put up with. Meanwhile, there is a real humanitarian problem to deal with.

There we go you see. No one can see the inherent racism because they've had a cushy white upbringing. 😕

Oh, does this line of argument only work when we're deriding a foreign country?

a real humanitarian problem to deal with.

Are you ill THM? Shouldn't you be doing your "Send the Buggers Back" routine?

[quote=muppetWrangler ]

If you think "swarm" when used in this manner doesn't have negative connotations then presumably you'd be down with "****" as a harmless take-all term for people from the Indian subcontinent.

No I am fine thank, how about you? A bit off colour? Oops, crap choice of phrase.

Which routine is that again? If you read carefully I am much more on the side of free movement of people. So keep the point scoring accurate please.

And now you can't even call a blairite a virus.

PC gone mad

I love the pretentious crap spouted on this website, it never ceases to amaze me how discussion can get to personal insults and calls of racism from the middle class white folks.

keep it up.

This all seems remarkably similar to "we're not booing Goodes because he's black, we're doing it because we don't like him"...

"Nah nah nah, we don't mean it [i]that[/i] way" 🙄

I thought swarm = bees too, or ants but I hate ants( hard workers though,) if pushed I'd have said wasps but locusts come a poor 4th. We don't get many locusts in Yorkshire and anyway they come in plagues in my mind.

Personal insults, I'm out.

Well no, you interpreted that way. The irony seems to have passed you by...