You didn’t. Hence the question. You seem put out that Sky use the term ‘player of the match’ rather than man of the match.
So, question again. How does this change impact on you?
If you don’t understand why this question is important, go make a cup of tea, sit down and have a think about it.
Man hole cover, black board, chairman. All accurate and only renamed to pamper to a tiny extremely vocal minority.
If you call a man hole a person hole you’re an…
Ok.
The change itself doesn’t, but mentioning it impacts me by being engaged by annoying trolls who can’t be placed on the ignore list.
You raised it.
Hey everyone, just a reminder. Don’t ask anyone a questions about their opinions, especially if these questions make them feel a bit uncomfortable, as apparently this is ‘trolling’.
It’s new to me, but we now have to pander to fragile snowflakes.
And you pushed me to answer a question I hadn’t asked.
Snowflake?
Irony at it’s best.
And you pushed me to answer a question I hadn’t asked.
Snowflake?
Irony at it’s best.
[/quote]
No I asked you a perfectly reasonable question to further the debate. If that’s trolling, god help us.
We both know why you asked it, to provoke disagreement.
You’ve displayed multiple previous examples of it for years.
Move along now, I’m busy.
I’ve got a suspicion that most people ignore the majority of stories mentioned in this thread and the only ones who read them are the ones wanting to have their daily outrage while eating cornflakes in the morning.
sorry mate, beer is the breakfast of champions, not cornflakes.
Asking how something impacts you is perfectly reasonable. If you are too fragile to back up your sub-Clarkson moaning with something tangible, that’s not my problem.
Of course I already know the answer to the question. It doesn’t affect you. You’re not inconvenienced, and whether something is called player of the match or man of match has absolutely no impact on you in the slightest.
The only reason to raise it the same reason why anyone complains about these tiny marginal things. Basic unkindness. Using the words player of the match, means nothing to you, but there are people to whom it means so much. There are people out there who feel more included and accommodated within a game that claims to be ‘for everyone’ by such a simple, non-impactful act.
That question that has upset you so much is the starting point for any conversation like this, and I’m sick to the back teeth of people moaning about what you ‘can’t say anymore, without pausing to consider why that might be, and how you might actually be affected.
But y’know. Heaven forbid we actually think about why we think something, and consider whether we’re actually impacted.
You are literally in charge of whether you reply or not.
By the way, Dane raising this has prompted me to question my own attitude, and hence forth I’ll be using the term ‘player of the match’ in the post match polls. Thanks for raising this, mate.
Full English, surely.
My vote is cancel the entertainment awards entirely because they’re just wank advertisements run by the industry for its own benefit. Makes me laugh how entertainers come to the podium to spew 30 seconds of politics before the music drowns them out.
You win an award and you express discomfort at the selection process. You have it too good.
I think you’re confusing the storyline with the actual acting delivery there.
In both cases you could have those films acted in a poor way which is absolutely no reflection on the story whatsoever.
Christ, how to unpick this.
Firstly, no-one is seriously saying you can’t call a black board a blackboard. It’s a board and it’s black. There might be the odd voice on the extreme fringes of the debate going on about it, but no-one is taking that seriously.
Moving on to the others. Firstly, no-body ‘renamed’ these things. There is no central department for the naming of things that is ruling that you can’t use the word ‘chairman’ anymore.
What there is, is a general move in society to more inclusive language that increasingly more organisations and people pay attention to.
Do you understand why it’s preferable to say ‘chairperson’ than ‘chairman’ or ‘postal worker’ rather than ‘postman’?
The language that we use hugely impacts on how we view those jobs and who does them. That creates the circumstances for bias and discrimination in who is appointed and selected for roles.
To continue the thread from the conversation with Dane, aside from having to get used to using new words, are you affected in any way by using the word ‘chairperson’ rather than ‘chairman’?
Women’s climbing is very much different here I think. Skill levels are generally sky high in both genders but the men have more power and that plays a roll in helping them to climb higher grades. However, in my opinion women’s competitive climbing is far more watchable as a novice spectator. More obvious grace, balance and precision to my poorly trained eyes Vs power.
Note I know the guys are equally precise etc. but there is clearly more aggression and power
22 men playing in a mens football match, and the best player can’t be referred to as the man of the match because some people might not feel included.
I despair.
I think this and the manliness thread are the two most pointless on the board. I havent seen a single person accept a different viewpoint or try and compromise. Just state a position then argue about it, usually by attacking personality not the points brought up by posters.
Maybe the only benefit is it gives a place for it to be aired and can stop it seeping into other threads.
Haha. Nope. It’s everywhere.