Were you offended?

You do think of 'swarms' mostly as looking black.

I think the discussion has been good, niggly. What it shows me is how difficult compromise is when people take polarised positions. I still think there's no absolute right or wrong about how the word swarm is used. Context is all. Some people take offence at its use by David Cameron the other day; some people don't take offence because they think one of its many shades of meaning was fine/acceptable/allright/nothing-to-make-a-fuss about for this particular occasion.

Similarly, some people (I'm one of them) do not find a bunch of people being compared to a bunch of bees in the least problematic. Both species are animals on the planet we live on. Both species gather together in large numbers some of the time for various reasons, as do lots of other social species.

Purely as a matter of interest, given the polarised position of some views, I wonder how many of the words with similar meaning would also not have been acceptable to those who think swarm used of people is wrong? See pic (if it's legible). Which of those words would do instead, if any?

Even if one allows that swarm as used is negative, one can't suspect DC of being a racist. Xenophobe maybe, but not racist.

Not on the strength of that one usage of 'swarm'.

An interesting list, thatbags, and from the dictionary, too, so no-one can claim that words are being used to mean something completely different. I'll copy the nouns here in case anyone can't see the (full?) picture -
crowd
throng
mob (now there is an emotive one)
mass
stream
body
multitude (hints of loaves and fishes)
myriad
host
army (sounds very disciplined)
horde (another one to raise the blood-pressure)
pack (and another animal connection)
herd (and another)
flock (who is acting as a shepherd?)
drove
shoal

Lets be constructive instead of destructive. I wonder which of them posters would prefer? "Crowd" "body" and "throng" are too static for this moving swarm of people.

There is a real reason why we should be careful about our words. I have just looked on another forum - very right wing - I would describe it a the Daily Mail of old people's forums, where they have all, not surprisingly, agreed that "swarm" is perfectly acceptable.

A recent post says "A plague overtaking europe, better term than swarm." Now if those of you who think it's fine for politicians to be so careless with their words cannot see shades of the Nazis film “The Eternal Jew” I despair.

I don't really see what some xenophobic and possibly racist person on another forum's views have to do with this thread. David Cameron didn't refer to the influx of migrants as 'a plague' and I'm pretty sure he's not stupid enough to think that would be acceptable.

Ignoring the media, which is always trying to promote itself above all, it seems to me we have a problem with the permissible and comprehensible use of language. Some people might call it censorship. We are reaching the stage now where if a word sounds like another word and someone is upset by it, we can't use it. We can't use a word which is misunderstood by someone else. We can't use a word which is a little colourful. We can't use any figure of speech in case someone misinterprets it. As well as avoiding all the deliberately offensive words, we are inventing new ones. And has anyone else noticed, 'bitch' is now asterisked? Even when it refers to a female dog?

So we should, but a view (from a news helicopter, say) of a lot of people all rushing urgently toward one point is indeed very reminiscent of swarm of bees making for a new home. It doesn't instantly bring to mind the word (or thought) of a plague. Neither are they to be lied to, imprisoned and exterminated in gas chambers when they reach those homes.

A swarm of bees is NOT a plague, in any case. Without bees there would be no fruit, no flowers, no food.

I have been thinking about censorship too, lily. Those choosing the polarised position of the complete unacceptability of the word swarm in the circumstances seem to me to be in favour of censorship to a greater or lesser extent. I am not. I can see what those who object to Cameron's use of 'swarm' are getting at; I just don't agree with them. Disagreements are allowed and should be tolerated with good grace if only because there will always be some.

I really think this has gone overboard. So David Cameron said "swarm", so what. It's not an offensive word, he can't possibly be expected to watch every single word he says. I don't care about "swarm" at all, I wish he'd just send less aid overseas, push up the Defence Budget and help the people in England more!

When the Nazis are brought into a disussion, it is a sign that everyone has run out of other ideas. Perhaps it is time to leave the subject now. I am off for a shower. With any luck there will be no more posts on the thread when I come back (#alwaysanoptimist)

To those of you who dont object to the use of the word,
would you still use the word in your own home to the face of someone who was a migrant who objected to the word?

Just thought of this poem by Les Murray (Sylvia Plath has one called The Swarm as well -much darker-neither the sort of thing DC intended I suspect)

The Swarm
by Les Murray
Of late there has been some loose talk about Australia becoming a republic
— Governor-General Sir John Kerr, 1976

On a stone wall, adrift from their hive
seeking shelter away from the wind
of a bitter blue day, this tight swarm
of brown English bees is adhering.

Poor monarchists, clumped round their queen,
they look like a furry, half-risen
loaf of gingerbread dough, with transparent
mica scales crusted on it: worn wings.

That animal, made up of lives,
drones, queen, dispensable workers —
we feel almost tempted to stroke it
but we know the terror, the venom

in those many clenched loyalists, whose rote
runs simply Some eat the royal jelly:
most do not. This is Right. Work and die.
What is, is, the clustered swarm murmurs.

Oh it is, some cool men with a smoke-pot
might smirk, and box them. Not us, though.
We must love and bypass them, like Nature,
since springtime or freedom would be loose talk indeed.

I dont mean say to them in a nasty way, but in a conversation type way.

Elegran It looks as though your last post was seen as a challenge!

Possibly not if they didn't understand the nuances of the English language, I I have had Japanese/Iranian/German/French/Italian/Spanish friends in the past, all with a good knowledge of English misinterpret certain known sayings, often causing much hilarity on both sides, colloquialisms exist in any language I'm sure. Having said all that I don't regard the word in the context it was used as offensive.

I'm not in the slightest bit offended by the use of the word. Pick up on unimportant issues too often and people start ignoring the important ones [eg Camerons closeness to Rupert Murdoch these days ].

What other words do we suggest he could have chosen?

"descended en masse" (on the tunnel)?

"rushed"?

Mobbed, might be nearer the mark. If you have seen and experienced Calais you will know how intimidating it is.

I am now very clean and tidy, all showered and hair washed, and still there are people rumbling on. I do wish those who state categorically that they have finished commenting would stick to their word and not keep coming back like a terrier to a worn-out bone. Anyone who doesn't understand where the other posters are coming from after nine pages must have solid bone between the ears, or no ability to take in a different viewpoint.

To answer STB, though I don't need to, if the migrant had already objected to being compared to a bee in search of a new home - and if he is a farmer, a gardener, a peasant, or just knows anything about bees that is unlikely - that is not the same as a passerby being "offended". We could all wear gags all the time, of course, or just speak in Janet-and-John words

("The cat sat on the mat.
The cat is not a black cat because the cat would cry if we said she was black.
The cat is not a Persian cat because the cat would cry if we said she was Persian.
The cat is not a Manx coon cat because the cat would cry if we said she was a coon.
The cat is not ginger because the cat would cry if we said she was ginger.
The cat is not a queen because the cat may be a Republican [explanation of Republican and similar political terms in the next book, in words of one syllable only}.
The cat is not tortoiseshell because we must not kill tortoises for their shells.
The cat is not a Havana cat because we must not advertise cigars.
The cat is not a ragamuffin cat because to call her ragged would be abusing her.
Oh look, Janet and John! The cat has caught a little mouse and is playng catch with it. They have fun together!")

Question: We're you offended?
Answer: No

In general terms.
A word or phrase that is not acceptable to say to a person when they are in the room, is not fit to say when they are not there either.

There is nothing wrong with the term 'swarm' when used of a crowd of people. It isn't a question of whether you would use it if the people you were describing were present.

I've done a count. Those who think swarm was a perfectly good word for Cameron to use as when he did use it outnumber both those who thought it in some way offensive and those whose answers I deemed ambivalent, by a margin that leaves no doubt about which 'side' would have won a debate entitled: "This House believes that the use of the word swarm of people is acceptable".