There is an almighty media storm atm about Alan Pardew's comments about Essien "raped" another player when it was used in the context of using force to get the ball off him and not even remotely related to anything sexual, Daily Mail, rape counselling organisations saying hearing the term on tv brings back memories for victims of sex crimes, PC zealouts speaking out against Pardew

 

But why is there never any media fuss when the terms...

 

"(insert team here) were ROBBED out there today" is used ?? a very common term in football punditry, surely in the rape context robbery victims would also have memories bought back ? :rolleyes:

 

"(insert player here) is absolutely on fire today" is used ?? I have heard the term several times this season on football matches, surely burn victims and families of people who died in fires would have memories bought back using the word in the context rape was used ? :rolleyes:

 

"(insert team here) were murdered out there today is used ?? again that term is used dozens of times a season, if the Daily Mail and PC zealouts were right surely that would being back memories for murder viictims families ? :rolleyes:

 

Other terms I have heard this season is "massacred" (bring back memories of Dumblane ? :rolleyes: "slaughtered"

 

Political correctness rearing its ugly head in football now <_< -_- -_-

LOL

 

I fully agree Craig. It's getting to the point where it's just getting stupid. I frequently use the world rape in the context of football, and that's not out of disrespect to rape victims, as I think rape is a f***ing horrid crime. But the context it's used in is not offensive at all imo.

Liverpool gang raped Man United whilst their fans masturbated over such a scoreline

Liverpool gang raped Man United whilst their fans masturbated over such a scoreline

 

Pretty much true.

Words like murder and slaughter have been used for an overwhelming defeat for a very long time. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to use "rape" to mean anything other than its true meaning.

 

The English language is a very rich one. We have plenty of words to describe various things. That's why I don't like it when a defeat in a football mnatch is described as a "disaster". A disaster is something like the 2004 tsunami or Hurrcane Katrina, not losing a football match.

That's why I don't like it when a defeat in a football mnatch is described as a "disaster". A disaster is something like the 2004 tsunami or Hurrcane Katrina, not losing a football match.

 

Thank god someone agrees with me.

 

Losing does not equal a tragedy. How is losing a game anywhere near comparable to 9/11?

 

The biggest misuse I hate, though, is "epic". Do people using it to describe things know what it actually means? "Literally" is also hugely misused as well.