Hurty words or inciting arson/ murder?
It's clearly not in contention that what she said was vile,dangerous and justifiably punishable. Lots of horrible things are said on the internet about all sorts of things. Bullying, slander, misogyny, racism. But that's not the point. It seems that 'hurty words' is a shorthand reference to a particular sort of horrible thing said on the internet. That was news to me - and seemingly lots of others too...and google.
I also have to say that I literally had no idea at all that this had any sort of hidden meaning.
I did, and it's language specifically chosen as a device to minimise/trivialise incitement. If you can't appreciate that, then I have to wonder what else flies over your head...
If one googles ‘hurty words’ the top link is…..this thread.
To me that rather indicates if it is a trope or a dog whistle, it’s pretty niche and not too well used. It’s past me by and I’d describe myself and waaaay more over-read on current affairs than the average bear.
Or that Google is just tailoring your search results by the sites you spend time on? (that is how the interwebs works now)
Scroll past the first hit on page 1:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/islamophobia-just-hurty-words-says-mayoral-candidate-6gr96j95s
Susan Hall is of course great company for users of the phrase to find themselves in I'm sure.
I’d never heard the phrase before. It took me several* nanoseconds to work out what they were saying.
*Very few actually.
convert
Full Member
Hurty words or inciting arson/ murder?It’s clearly not in contention that what she said was vile,dangerous and justifiably punishable. Lots of horrible things are said on the internet about all sorts of things. Bullying, slander, misogyny, racism. But that’s not the point. It seems that ‘hurty words’ is a shorthand reference to a particular sort of horrible thing said on the internet. That was news to me – and seemingly lots of others too…and google.
Sorry @convert, the bit about arson/murder wasn't aimed at you, just a general comment about the topic. The other post about using another browser was just an fyi as if you use the browser you use to log into the forum it will often prioritise STW "hits". Something I didn't know till fairly recently.
Apologies if the hastily typed posts came across wrong, not my intention my friend but entirely my fault.
"Hurty words on Facebook" was used verbatim by Farage in the wake of the sentencing of the louts who were involved in the August riots.
Up until that point, I had never heard the phrase - especially not in connection with sentencing (for incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence - just for context, you understand).
For a work colleague of the OP to use the exact phrase in connection with relative sentencing for other crimes marks them down as someone who knows the exact context of the original remark.
Irrespective of motive (edgy or deep-seated prejudice) this marks them out as a ****.
After this point it is about degrees of 'ishness'.
if one googles ‘hurty words’
If that's the phrase we're all googling all you need do is specify a custom date range for the search results and I'll you get results from previous decades.
'hurty words on facebook' does indeed come up with nothing if setting the custom date range to prior to it's current frame of reference.
I was aware of the 'hurty words' thing. To me it's one of those cliches that some people use thinking they are cleverly outwitting some form of 'snowflake'
'Adult human female' that's another, and 'well I could identify as an attack helicopter'
Bit of a litmus test for me
If you look up "hurty words" on't Google this thread is comes out up top.
Great result for the STW search engine optimisation
But....does not seem in *that* common a use.
Seems to have started with Nadine Dorries about a year back (2nd hit on the Googles is YouTube clip)
So yeah, for dicks obvs. But I don't think it's matured to the level of phrases like "I'm not racist but..." which single the dunces out reliably
‘well I could identify as an attack helicopter’
"You could, but you can't, because they're ****ing cool".
Or
"They're badass, but you're a fanny so I'm not sure people would believe you".
Are totally appropriate response to that.
There’s at least half a dozen folk on this thread that
... have learned something today. So that's a positive, at least.
Language evolves and it can be difficult to keep abreast of. Once of a time, the politically correct term (as far as I knew) for people who were neither black nor white was "coloured people." Then someone told that it was considered offensive. I had no idea, I was trying to do the right thing. So I don't say that anymore, it makes no difference to me, and I try to gently pass on this wisdom if I hear someone else say it. What they then do with this information is down to them, of course.
(The notion that the preferred term is "people of colour" which are the same words in a different order baffles the absolute piss out of me, but here we are, that's not my call to make. If Dave wants to be known as David then I'll try to remember that.)
it’s pretty niche and not too well used.
I've seen it used several times on local news website comment sections (those places seem to attract the worst of society, possibly as you can post anonymously and change your name to things like 'sinktheboats')
I've also over heard it a few times. It's a comment that immediately marks them out as a rioter/racist sympathiser or a complete idiot that doesn't think.
I was recently on a course that included power stations and we discussed the likelihood of ever needing to work at a coal fired one. I mentioned that they can be converted to biomass wood pellets and therefore it's essentially still valid. A quip immediately came back stating why ship in pellets when we have boat loads of... I don't need to repeat it.
I had a vague recognition that this specific phrase is a part of the trivialisation of appalling behaviour and is a highly inappropriate phrase in the workplace. I'm in the employ of the same organisation as the OP and as we do pride ourselves on being relatively forward thinking and try to set a good corporate example, then this is especially worrying and needed calling out.
I now have a better understanding of the problem, so I'm grateful to MCTD for raising it here, as well as in the workplace.
For Roger_mellie - the term used to describe the employ and the grade of the offensive person is quite specific. I'd guess that they're a 'Senior Officer'. By this stage of advancement in a civil service career, anyone is expected to have the ability to behave as an adult in the workplace.
And for anyone who thinks that HMRC are soft on preventing tax abuse and prosecuting fraud, just remember who has been writing up the tax laws for generations:- those with the most to lose by having an effective policing system with toothy legislation. Which is why the department is less than half the size it used to be...
It can only be “a first offence” if it was deliberately offensive.
no need for an action to be deliberate for it to cause offence, and no need for it to be deliberately offensive to become an Offence either.
Unless you aware of the phrases apparent new meaning then it is irrelevant. I hadn’t got a clue and would object strongly to be told that I was living on the moon.
Actually I still don’t know what the OP has a problem with as I can’t be bothered to find out but I suspect that it is really just a matter of opinion anyway.
any person with even a slightly inquiring mind would think, “oh that is odd, that a perhaps minor level of rudeness has attracted a sanction more serious than tax fraud” that might then cause them to pause for a moment and wonder which stories they have heard recently of people being imprisoned for social media posts. It will not have escaped any vaguely attentive party’s notice that those cases have mostly been in relation to inciting violence on race/religious hate grounds. The offenders (who have been sentenced so far) have all plead guilty suggesting that it’s not really a matter of opinion. On the other hand those who seek to excuse or diminish their offences are using language like “hurty words” or “expressing an opinion”.
So either the original claim is bollocks - and “hurty words” don’t result in prison sentence or it’s a euphemism for inciting racial hatred. Now I appreciate that some of those using that language might not actually have the brain power to realise what the soundbites that are repeating means, but that doesn’t really apply to anyone I’ve met on STW - all of whom are intelligent enough to apply their own thought to who or what is being repeated.
for what it’s worth in my opinion anyone thinking it is ok to use the word “hurty” in an adult context was probably a school bully who thought it was funny to upset others then too.
that doesn’t really apply to anyone I’ve met on STW – all of whom are intelligent enough to apply their own thought to who or what is being repeated
The number of liars on this thread has actually increased since I last posted. If folk tell you that they weren't aware of this phrase and its connotations then you could do worse than simply believe them.
I wasn't aware of the phrase, but I WAS aware that the people getting jail time for social media posts were those most directly inciting hatred and calling for violence on what seem now to be almost completely unregulated social media channels.
"for what it’s worth in my opinion anyone thinking it is ok to use the word “hurty” in an adult context was probably a school bully who thought it was funny to upset others then too."
Mmm, now let's think that through for a second... Are you trying to use your version of hurty words to get people inline??
almost completely unregulated social media channels
Unregulated until the justice system of a country needs to become embroiled at great expense (money and also time/resource) to do some 'after the fact regulating'.
But the point is correct. Messrs Zuckerberg and Musk bear a lot of responsibility for this stuff.
Edit: And it would be nice to be able to say to Musk in particular:
"You may have enough of a platform to disrupt our democracy as a sovereign country, but Twitter (or X) doesn't have a special forces capability like we do. So think on that for a bit".
Well, if you'd said it was a Farage quote, that would have been useful context for those of us who avoid online political "debate".
Keep us updated on any disciplinary action that you become aware of, be interesting to see how it's handled.
I predict an awareness course.
Also, until this thread, I thought a dog whistle was a whistle you used to instruct a dog. Everyday's a schoolday on STW.
I like learnin stuff, me.
I hadn’t got a clue and would object strongly to be told that I was living on the moon.
Blimey, someone's easily triggered!!
I think its a stretch to expect someone who's never heard that phrase or its background context to immediately associate it with a specific set of crimes regarding inciting racial hatred in a particular period of rioting in the UK.
I've never heard the phrase and this place and Strava is the only social media I use which I assume is the reason why. Unless you count arguing over disc brakes on here or something, I don't spend my life in a constant social media malestrom.
I might have auto-associated the phrase with someone of a particular mindset who generally thinks the country's too woke or lefty but not specifically with the crimes referenced up-thread which are very serious in their nature.
As it happens I'd try and avoid the phrase at all costs anyway due to it being totally cringe-inducing but that's a different matter.
Good to see the workplace Stasi alive and well.
Good to see the workplace Stasi alive and well.
Freedom of speech does not and should not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.
I think its a stretch to expect someone who’s never heard that phrase or its background context to immediately associate it with a specific set of crimes regarding inciting racial hatred in a particular period of rioting in the UK
Depends what else people have been jailed for in relation to social media posts, dunnit ? The things you mention are the most recent and highest profile that I'm aware of.
If the individual had just said "...than you do for saying something on twitter" (in their workplace,(apparently as some sort of a leader within it), they'd have been a grade A **** and would deserve whatever they had coming - it still implies that calling for, as a specific example, burning down hotels full of asylum seekers is a minor transgression in comparison to (whatever else they said)
If that phrase came to their mind spontaneously then they'd still be a **** but also "guilty" of using a childish term to trivialise the reaction (grade A+, perhaps).
If they used what apparently is a term favoured by Nige, Tommy & chums (I didn't know) marks them out as whatever is worse than a grade A+ ****.
There’s at least half a dozen folk on this thread that could have used that phrase without it being offensive.
Totally agree that it's possible that guy in OP didn't know the phrase and might not have been using it as coded/diminishing language for incitement to violence, racial hatred etc. Totally possible. I don't think I'd heard the phrase "hurty words" before but I could guess at the implication.
But what would he have been referring to? No one is being locked up for saying "your mum smells like farts" or other hurty words on Facebook. So maybe the guy is just a general bellend for repeating second hand nonsense rumours.
Freedom of speech does not and should not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.
And what consequences should there be to an employee expressing his frustration at the relatively lenient sentences secured by his employer when compared to the exemplary sentences laid down for rash and deeply unpleasant posts on social media? His concern over his organization’s effectiveness is probably why he got promoted.
The number of liars on this thread has actually increased since I last posted. If folk tell you that they weren’t aware of this phrase and its connotations then you could do worse than simply believe them.
But that's not what I'm saying. I fully believe that there are people who have never heard the phrase "hurty words" since they left the playground. What I find hard to accept is that anyone with the intelligence to engage in debate on this forum, hears a statement that you get longer in prison for "hurty words" than tax fraud and doesn't apply ANY thought to what those hurty words or circumstances must have been?
If I said "you get longer in prison for a traffic offence than rape" I think anyone with a modicum of common sense would say, hold on, what was the traffic offence. If you then repeat this phrase without either questioning it or knowing its a gross distortion of the facts then you are either an idiot or trying to intentionally distort perceptions. Anyone here saying they don't understand the connotation of the phrase and therefore its ok to repeat it without thought (its not like its actually normal english that could coincidentally have been used) is either talking crap or creating an alternative reality to justify their lack of thinking.
And what consequences should there be to an employee expressing his frustration at the relatively lenient sentences secured by his employer when compared to the exemplary sentences laid down for rash and deeply unpleasant posts on social media?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on that - a quiet word? Verbal warning? Awareness course? Immediate cessation of chocolate ration? What do you think will be effective?
Also, until this thread, I thought a dog whistle was a whistle you used to instruct a dog. Everyday’s a schoolday on STW.
i really should get out more, same here. just had to go googling it. 2 new phrases learnt in 2 days. as you say, everydays a schoolday.....
And what consequences should there be to an employee expressing his frustration at the relatively lenient sentences secured by his employer
The sentences aren't "secured by" his employer, the conviction might be, but the Post Office Scandal shows its a dangerous game when the organisational culture views winning prosecutions and robust sentences as its priority. If he's involved in fraud investigation his job is to ensure there is good evidence available, not to worry about the outcome of the cases. If he's not invovled in fraud he perhaps just needs the process explained to him - unless the person he was talkign to actually had any useful influence over anything then perhaps he needs to learn who or where its worth his employer's time venting at. HOWEVER that is separate from whether he's seemingly condoning inciting racial hatred on social media by calling it hurty words.
Mark me down as another one who's never heard it until now. If I was going to guess I'd assume hurty words meant calling someone a **** or telling them to **** off. Basically anything involving the harsher swear words.
I'd also think of anyone using the phrase as an utter ****. The sort of person who calls a forklift a stacker truck or replaces any word with a childish equivalent is the exact sort of person I'd describe with hurty words. Not in a million years would I have guessed what the meaning is without this thread to enlighten me.
Now I know the rather narrow definition I wouldn't have reported your colleague, I'd have ripped in to the useless ****er right there and then. Calling out and shaming these pricks is the only way to deal with them.
an alternative reality
The alternative reality created in this thread is one where everyone is reading the comments sections of local newspaper websites.
Reading the way some of the political threads in STW develop, in my simple mind, I'd have thought some of the comments and catty comments made fell into the category of "hurty words". So, as you can see, for me, the expression "hurty words" meant nothing to me in the sense that it being described. Tbh, I could give a ****.
The number of liars on this thread has actually increased since I last posted. If folk tell you that they weren’t aware of this phrase and its connotations then you could do worse than simply believe them.
Well, I did the first follow up, and had absolutely no idea what it was about. I even said what was the context it was said in, as I’d clearly missed where it was offensive. I thought maybe someone had called a trans person a man/woman or something silly like that.
First thing i thought when reading the initial post is was the originator specifically talking about a fraud case, and then doing the weird comparison, rather than the originator belittling the whole riot stuff. Reason i say that is that the only time i've heard about the facebook prison terms lately is when talking about Huw Edwards, and how he didn't get any jail time, whereas posting on facebook for you 3 years, so seems a bit weird to phrase it against fraud, when it's usually always 'pedo/nonce' rubbish that it's used in context about.
Anyway, i'll leave it at that, not going to do the rights or wrongs on the whole thing as i've no clue who did what or their history.
Almost forgot, only time i use 'hurty' is when i'm doing the dad joke regarding the time and toothache!
I'm kinda intrigued by the hatred some here have toward people who use the word holibobs, it's almost as intense as a racist''s hatred toward people from other countries/cultures. What's the point in calling out racists if you're still fostering hatred albeit for people of a different group? Surely the goal is to lessen the amount of hatred in the world?
If folk tell you that they weren’t aware of this phrase and its connotations then you could do worse than simply believe them.
I wasn't aware of it, but it's not exactly difficult to work out.
I wasn’t aware of it, but it’s not exactly difficult to work out.
To be fair, a lot of folk will only know the 'facebook poster ends up in prison' headline, and nothing of the actual incident, there's a hundred headlines i see every day and i probably only get more info on a couple of them, the way the online press is as well, the info you get can be slanted either way just by going to one website over another.
If I was going to guess I’d assume hurty words meant calling someone a * or telling them to * off.
Perfectly possible, sure. But does anyone genuinely believe that you get locked up longer for telling people to **** off online than tax fraud?
I did smile when I saw that 🙂
Any update for us OP - has the offender been reducated yet?
I did smile when I saw that 🙂
The thing here, really, and it's seemingly common with these sorts of cases, is that she'd been up before the beak beforehand and told to knock it off. If you disobey a direct order from the courts then it's only ever going to end one way and there's only one person to blame for that.
Liam Muir, defending, said Connolly ... was distinguished from other offenders using social media in that she had sent the tweet at the heart of the case before any violence against asylum seekers had started.
I'm not sure that calling for violence against asylum seekers before actual violence against asylem seekers started is quite the defence he thinks it is.
Passing sentence, Judge Inman told the court that Connolly's tweet - which was read 310,000 times - was "intended to incite serious violence".
I assume he went on to say "Unlike you... I'm free!"
