To think that if you’re told a phrase is offensive, you don’t insist on using it?

[changehere]

Yes, a TAAT. The context is that we explained to mumsnet HQ that the phrase ‘beyond the Pale’ is found eyebrow-raising by many (but not all) Irish people.

The Pale was the name given to an area of Ireland under English rule and those outside that area were considered uncivilised aka ‘beyond the pale’. This is a phrase that is only used with raised eyebrows in Ireland and certainly feels inappropriate, if not offensive, coming from an English person.

Mumsnet use it as part of their racism guidelines as in that they only ban language that is ‘beyond the pale’. Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase. However, they insist on using this phrase to describe whether something is or is not racist.

Given the context, AIBU in requesting that Mumsnet find another phrase in their racism guidelines?

Strongly disagree with user 'almost all Irish people find it offensive'. I don't find it offensive in the least and have never heard it referred to as offensive before and have heard it used by Irish people Inc on national radio/television

Ditto

Indeed, squiggle.

Racecar, I could list a long and depressing list of anti-Irish stereotyping and othering I’ve had directed at me by a small but significant minority of English people in the 21 years I’ve lived here. Much worse outside of London.

change, of course you’re not unreasonable. MNHQ is letting itself down badly on this one. Clearly some minorities matter more than others.and, frankly, I could really do without MNHQ and other posters telling me why something isn’t offensive, which usually means ‘Uh, I haven’t thought about it, and I resent being forced to’.

telling me why something isn’t offensive - to them.

It is subjective. Some folk chose to be offended over other, more current things.

SolveigSleeps me too!!
That’s partly why I also think of it as a prim phrase. I imagine someone turning paler than pale whilst clutching their pearls!

Wouldn’t you? It’s just good manners.

No. Not always. I agree with your basic point, that manners and respect for others feelings are very important, but not the way you initially expressed it (hence my semantic silliness). Context is key.

To pick a MN example: many, many people find saying 'transwomen are not women' deeply offensive. Shouting that phrase at a transwoman in the street would be awful abusive bigotry. Saying it as part of a discussion on biology is not. Many people would have the phrase banned altogether, regardless of context.

I think we should be very cautious policing language. I can see why MN declined your request: the phrase does not implicitly mean what you interpret it to mean and it's never used today to mean that. I think their choice is a reasonable one.

I have never regularly used the phrase "calling a spade a spade" but would have done so in an innocuous fashion, based on the original meaning "to tell it like it is" coined by Erasmus.

However, a poster on Mumsnet raised the issue that as "spade" has become a racial slur in the past century, the phrase has taken on a darker meaning.

So what do I call the thing I dig my garden with? Because that's what it actually refers to.

Who exactly decided phrases like "beyond the pale" or "throw a paddy" are now offensive? Even if they did originate with negative connotations, nobody has used these phrases with any malicious intent for quite literally centuries.

I keep hearing language is continually evolving. If, as it appears, this is not the case, then can I just say that "invite" is a bloody verb, not a noun.

YABU OP because it is only offensive when considered in isolated historical context- and as a phrase itself it does not exclusively refer to what you are talking about.

I think that because the phrase means "outside the boundaries of normality" it can not be deemed universally offensive, although it has then been historically applied in racially sensitive contexts.

Lots of words and phrases that aren't offensive in isolation can be used to cause offence, and take on offensive connotations, but using the phrase in a non racial way is acceptable and language should not be banned because it has been used to describe unpleasant things.

You may associate it with the Pale in Ireland, but technically that's not what the phrase is about.

nobody has used these phrases with any malicious intent for quite literally centuries.

😂😂😂

So thanks you this thread I am now aware of two possible origins of the phrase “beyond the pale”

1. is the English pale in Ireland used to exclude Irish people, and oppressed nation in their own country

2. is the Pale of Settlement used to restrict the residences of Jewish people in Russia.

I don’t know how anyone could know of either of these meanings and still justify the use of the phrase. What is wrong with you people?

Flounces off for a fag

I don't think you are allowed to say that :-)

I'm Irish, have never found the phrase offensive. I'm not sure I know anyone that does.

Almost all people in Ireland would find this phrase offensive.

Eh, do we, now? Irish to the bone here, never found it offensive and have yet to encounter another Irish person who does.

I knew about the origins of the phrase.

have yet to encounter another Irish person who does.

Pleased to meet you, I’m IStandWithPosie

Flounces off for a fag

I don't think you are allowed to say that :-)

Ha ha I know!

Pleased to meet you, I’m IStandWithPosie

The pleasure is mine! Not saying nobody finds it offensive btw but just literally, having spent my entire life living on this island and never having met someone who finds it offensive, I think the claim that almost all Irish people find it offensive is wrong.

Does anyone remember the outrage when Jeremy Clarkson spoke about a bridge and said "there's a slope on it"? The bridge wasn't quite level. Apparently a "slope" is a disrespectful term for an Asian person. I was baffled, never having heard of it!

YABU

FGS, this cretinous culture war.

Throwing a paddy is blatantly offensive and it shouldn’t take more than a second to think why.

There is a noticeable undercurrent of English attitude to Ireland as an immature, less civilised relation. To be indulged, but unimportant.

This matters.

There are many manifestations. Names like Conor and Liam are considered naughty boy names.

The Troubles - a civil war in the UK within living memory - were seen as the Irish not being able to get along and something to do with religion. Not as centuries of British involvement having a major contributing factor.

In Brexit, the border and Good Friday Agreement were not seen as anything to do with the UK or as unimportant. There seems quite frankly astonishment in the government that the EU treats Ireland as an equal member whose concerns matter. Why should it not?

But anyway, my original point is that a phrase with dubious origins should not be used as an official term to describe what is acceptable and what is not. You may say that I shouldn’t be offended by it, but I still haven’t had an explanation as to why MNHQ could not adopt a different term once it is pointed out to them.

BTW - I am not particularly saying the phrase should be banned on mumsnet as I appreciate that many do not know it’s origins.

I do however object to it being Mumsnet’s official phrase in their Talk Guidelines to describe whether something is acceptable. That seems crass.

I'm ambivalent about 'beyond the pale' but I detest 'throwing a paddy'. I think that's a horrible turn of phrase.

You may say that I shouldn’t be offended by it, but I still haven’t had an explanation as to why MNHQ could not adopt a different term once it is pointed out to them.

I'd encourage you to ask MNHQ why they continue to use this phrase

Does anyone remember the outrage when Jeremy Clarkson spoke about a bridge and said "there's a slope on it"? The bridge wasn't quite level. Apparently a "slope" is a disrespectful term for an Asian person. I was baffled, never having heard of it!

Not sure whether this is facetious or not but I'll bite:

There is a difference. Clarkson was explicitly making reference to the racial slur. I would certainly agree that someone calling an Irish person 'beyond the pale' in order to reference the archaic use is being rude.

It's not about how common a phrase is, it's about the intent and the context.

Well I’m Irish and like the posters above have never taken offence at this phrase. Nor have I met anyone else who has. As for your example of Conor and Liam being perceived as “naughty boy” names I’m just lost for words! I must be extremely thick skinned or just totally oblivious,
On a more serious note my English husband has experienced a lot more prejudice in Ireland than I have in my 25 years living in the Uk. Thankfully however that is improving