Lessons in Language

Language changes over time. Words go in and out of fashion and some, such as “gay” completely change their meaning. So when I see the word “unacceptable” being used, I know full well that something innocuous has been said that causes ire amongst the offenderati. “Completely unacceptable” equates to utterly trivial.

Uber has apologised after being accused on social media of sexism in a promotional message sent to customers in Bangalore.

Given the target audience, it was probably well aimed. However, the whole thing has brought about the usual craven apology, thereby strengthening the grip the SJWs have on discourse.

The message urged “husbands” to “let your wife take a day off from the kitchen”, with a discount on its Uber Eats food delivery service.

It said: “Dear husbands, a gentle reminder – today is Wife Appreciation Day.”

Uber later tweeted that the message had been “totally inappropriate”.

“We’ve removed it, and we apologise,” it said on the social media platform.

Uber’s chief brand ambassador, Bozoma Saint John, also tweeted it had been “completely unacceptable”.

What’s completely unacceptable to me is the continuous stream of attacks on freedom of speech by various governments, Islamic terrorists waging war on our way of life aided and abetted by the fifth columnists of the left and the pathetic, craven cowing to these vile arseholes. Yes, that is completely unacceptable, not promoting a day out of the kitchen for wives in a part of the world where they probably are mostly in the kitchen.

The appropriate response to some vacuous moron virtue signalling on Twatter is to tell them in no uncertain terms where they can put their offence.

12 Comments

  1. “and abetted by the fifth columnists of the left and the pathetic, craven cowing to these vile arseholes”

    Think you’ve got that pretty much covered.

  2. I wouldn’t regard the tweet as being sexist so much as being somewhat dated. My wife does a little more cooking than I do because she works part time and is usually home earlier than I am. I do more cooking on the weekends. I would expect that we are pretty normal in this respect. A more appropriate response would have been to laugh and suggest that the writer must be a time traveler from the nineteen fifties.

      • +1 The twatter outrage mob, and now Stonyground, frequently ignore context.

        On “The appropriate response to some vacuous moron virtue signalling on Twatter is to tell them in no uncertain terms where they can put their offence.”

        Yes, yes, yes. They are equivalent to blackmailers: appease and they will be back for more.

        • Oh yes, I missed that didn’t I. I must have been thinking of Bangor. Since we are talking about India I don’t quite see what the problem is, They still make cars and motorbikes from the nineteen fifties there after all.

  3. I get really pissed off with these vile morons attacking the values i grew up with having been born in the fifties. Really seriously pissed off !

  4. I don’t know. I can think of cases where things really are unacceptable and possibly illegal. Not in purely an offence-taking way, but when people act in a potentially criminal fashion and refuse to change a policy even after having it spelt out to them that a law is potentially being broken.

      • Basically, we have a ludicrous situation where the local branch of a UK political party is holding branch meetings about disability policy whilst directly preventing paid-up disabled members from attending the meeting by holding it in a venue with no disability access to the actual room. I’m visually impaired (I carry a white cane) and dyspraxic and teetered very uneasily on the steep stairs. To add to that, a senior branch member with real responsibilities has a severe to profound hearing impairment that causes him to understand almost none of the meeting. I have been ignored repeatedly via email, I have had an angry row about it on a car journey back from a regional hustings. A non-disabled senior branch member (whom I share similar classical liberal beliefs to and hitherto considered a very close personal friend for some years) basically put the onus on myself as a disabled party member to come up with a replacement venue. I believe that this is illegal and morally wrong, not least being terrible business sense for my party. I made a complaint to our spokesman for disability issues and she appeared quite sympathetic. It was mentioned in an issue of the leader’s newsletter but I have heard nothing since. I am very upset – I have been a paid-up member for over a third of the length of the party’s existence. I consider these people my friends.

        I still believe in the same things I always did – free markets, a highly efficient and resourceful welfare state, anti-puritanism and pro-personal freedom, a belief in self-determination for the UK and a vehement dislike of organised religion and a strong belief in secularism.

        I am now unsure which path to take.

Comments are closed.