Things you hate IV

Another one which boils my piss is "surreal". Meaning, not something out of a Salvador Dali painting (correct) but just 'amazing' or 'a bit odd' (incorrect).

 

It would literally be like a cauldron in the KP if we were to relegate you.

 

Another one I’m not a fan of tends to be more a just a female one, when they say “all the cake” or “all the wine” when describing what they want, or like.

 

I have literally never heard anyone say this. Surreal!

 

I’m not on any social media anymore (which is where it used to annoy me a lot!) but it’s probably more prominent on there in a written sense, rather than actually said so much in actual speech, although it still is.

Edit: Just realised I’m possibly being whooshed with the other references in there

 

There was a whoosh dimension, but it is true that I have never heard it.

 

People who do jobs they don't hate or run businesses built around their passions, moaning because times are tough.

I have done jobs I hate for all my adult life and I've navigated all the slumps and recessions, remaining miserable in my career, but stable.

Stop moaning. You chose happiness. Tough titties.

 

This started when i was a kid. Liz Hurley in THAT DRESS.

 

Even 'amazing!'

'Do you want anything from the kitchen?'
'Oh a glass of water would be amazing.'

Really? An everyday vessel of one of the most abundant compounds on earth would astonish you?

 

Constant vaccine updates which have little value to non scientific Joe Public.

'A Zambian study of 20 people has shown that the Astra Zeneca vaccine reduces the chancs of foot odour in over 75s by up to 17%.'

There's too much stuff coming out on a daily basis which is fuelling unqualified people's confusion about getting vaccinated, which vaccine, how it will affect them etc.

 

This.

The same people moaning that they aren't covered for X Covid-relief scheme or that the scheme isn't paying them what they usually earn, despite taking advantage of their self-employed status to avoid paying the correct amount of taxes for years, through over-expensing/ under-accounting tax liabilities.

 

Unfortunately, the people using these terms in the way you describe are correct nowadays.

The....alternative use of "literally" has been added to the dictionary and "surreal" can be used as "bizarre".

There was actually a great scene on "The Newsroom" talking about the former.



On one hand, I share the frustrations over the meaning over words changing over time as people use them incorrectly.

On the other hand, if this sort of thing never happened the modern English language wouldn't even exist, so I suppose complaining about it is somewhat hypocritical!

 

I take your point but the trouble is, if enough ignorant people start calling a dog a 'cat', eventually it becomes acceptable to refer to dogs as cats and the whole difference between the two is lost. At that point only academics, rather than the general public, can distinguish a cat from a dog. (OK, this is a somewhat flippant example, but the principle holds.)

 

"Webster's Dictionary is any of the dictionaries edited by Noah Webster in the early nineteenth century, and numerous related or unrelated dictionaries that have adopted the Webster's name. "Webster's" has become a genericized trademark in the U.S. for dictionaries of the English language, and is widely used in English dictionary titles. Noah Webster (1758–1843), the author of the readers and spelling books which dominated the American market at the time, spent decades of research in compiling his dictionaries. His first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, appeared in 1806. In it, he popularized features which would become a hallmark of American English spelling (center rather than centre, honor rather than honour, program rather than programme, etc.) and included technical terms from the arts and sciences rather than confining his dictionary to literary words."

Since when have we allowed the yanks to determine amendments to the english language ? They can barely speak it anyway. It's utterly surreal. I am literally burning with rage.

 

I don't think they do mean 'surreal' as 'bizarre' in most cases. I think 'amazing' is closer to the mark.

 

Some changes of word meaning can be very recent. We were watching an early Doctor Who (ISTR it was in colour so it was probably Pertwee era) but I can't remember which one (I'm not that sad) with the Doctor explaining that those blips on the radar screen are alien spacecraft when the operator exclaims "That's fantastic!" not using the modern meaning of the word of really, really good.

 

Here's a football one:

The way players can 'buy' freekicks by simply positioning their body between an opponent and the ball and going down under the inevitable contact. In the last few seasons refs seem to have stopped making a judgement about whether there was any meaningful attempt to challenge for the ball. It's probably always been the way in and around the box but now it happens everywhere on the pitch and it's ******* annoying. It allows inferior players to capitalise on a moment of miscontrol by an opponent, not by winning the ball or by skilfully getting away from them, but just by stopping on the spot and falling over.

And yeah, I know we do it too and hate it then as well.

 

Too true, when did you last see an indirect freekick for obstruction?

 

Sorry I couldn't get a Nicholas Cage one.

 

See the word 'woman'

Yes, I went there.

 

But the news stories feed the loons. Small, contextless titbits that suggest but don't prove anything.

The processes we have at a national level are the best we can rely on. They're not perfect, but they are better than 60m individuals making ill informed choices based on half baked studies over short periods of time.

People turning down one vaccine because they want the other, because they believe that one vaccine will offer immunity whilst the other reduces effects, but one is better for over 65s and the other needs a 2nd dose more quickly and won't prevent you from carrying the virus and infecting others etc.

Far too complex for most plebs, yet they're force fed information they can't understand and then they make bad decisions.

 

This is just one example of how the requirement for refs to judge intent has been gradually taken away over the years in the name of consistency. It similarly applies to tackling and handball. Certain misguided people, largely whipped up by heat-of-the-moment managerial comments, wouldn't accept that different refs might interpret similar incidents differently in different matches. They longed for standardisation of decisions, which is impossible, and so the closest they could get to it is to take the intent element out of the decision. The result is the modern game where real tackling is virtually impossible and penalties are awarded for accidental handball or contact, which encourages players to fall over to gain an advantage. And all this is judged by an official looking at a remote screen to decide not whether there was a foul on a player, but whether he was 'touched'.

 

Yes, that all feeds into it. I just wish refs would (or were allowed to) look at the context of the game when they make these decisions. Last night was frustrating to watch for large periods and this was part of the reason. Masina would miscontrol the ball and so fine, it's up for grabs, and a Wycombe player gets there first. Well played sir. Then said Wycombe player decides he doesn't actually want to be a footballer. It's far too much bother to run with the ball, beat your opponent or try to pass it to a team mate. So instead he just waits for the inevitable coming together, which is always bound to happen, falls to the ground and the ref gives it.

Refs seem capable most of the time of working out the advantage to the player going down when it happens in the box and they tend to err on the side of caution. Outside the box it seems nearly any contact of this nature is an infringement.

 

Appalling statistics here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/britain_diet

- Around 64% of Brits are classed as overweight (compared to 39% of adults worldwide)

- 28% of which are obese

- We are the most obese nation in Europe

- in 14/15, the NHS spent more on weight and obesity-related health issues than the police, fire service and judicial services combined

- in 2020, we consumed an average of 78 litres of sugary drinks per head

I find that last stat absolutely mind-boggling. That's 1.5 litres a week. 1.5 litres of **** in your body.

There are lots of other shocking stats in the article. Just goes to show how very far we have to go until we can turn this problem on its head.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It starts with the parents. The mindset that healthy and nutritious food can't be affordable, doesn't taste good and is too difficult needs to stop is a myth.

 

I was at a conference (EU Spiderman Project) and we, as a courtesy invited the University of Malta's medical school to attend and they were very pleased to act as honourary hosts. They invited us to attend a number of colloquia and seminars one of which was an overview of Malta's public health (past, present and future) where they pointed out that they had by far the most obese children in Europe as the traditional Maltese diet was five largish meals a day (heavy on fried carbs and diary) - a typical argi-peasant-fisherman's diet. This was OK until the present generation of Maltese youth copied their peers spending their free time in McDonalds. They were kept out of population statistics by their tiny population size...

 

People who spot your dog from about 20 yards away and make beckoning type noises towards them. Ok ****head, what exactly are you expecting to happen here, do you want him to stop and wave? Or maybe unclip his own lead and come over and have a chat with you?

 

Isn't it nice that they like your dog?

 

I’m just unsure of the outcome they’re expecting from some distance away, while the dog is on a lead.

 

Yes, but do you really 'hate' this?

What's far worse, imo, are people who back away in fear, give you a wide berth, or pick up their tiny little terrier/daschund etc to protect it. The implication seems to be that the dog is a savage beast and that that the owner is utterly unable to control it.

 

I’m just a very grumpy, anti social person and I dislike having to regularly pull this face at strangers trying to talk to my dog