Bling?

Posted by Lewis on December 13, 2004

In Reply to: A suggestion posted by Bob on December 13, 2004

: : : : There is a phrase in my mind that I can never use: [word removed in order to comply with Google's Publisher Policy] rich. It means having superficial wealth: car, clothes, etc., but not house, investments, savings. Does anyone have a similar phrase which would be more suitable for gentile society?
: : : : Sorry if anyone is offended. I hope this will be looked on as academic and not vulgar.

: : : Well, I'm stumped. I recall reading or hearing something about back in the bad old segregation days, black people in American who succeeded couldn't move on up to a better neighborhood. So instead of investing in a home, they might get a better car.

: : ***[word removed in order to comply with Google's Publisher Policy] rich...=FLUSH--H-C Dict of Am Slang--DH

: Let's begin by agreeing that that's a very offensive phrase. Given. Let's now go one step further and say it's a very offensive attitude. Rather than finding another way to express sneering condescension, why not agree that people's possessions do not define them, that there is no argument concerning taste (as the Romans said) and to look down one's nose at those with different taste is an ugly prejudice.

it is all very U/non-U isn't it? describing the nouveau riche, that is. perhaps these days one may speak about 'bling' and 'chav rich'? however, SKI-rich is most offensive (spending kids' inheritance)!

class/culture - call it what you will, but we have to maintain 'standards' - even if those standards are of decency and respect for one's fellow man, whatever his (or her) station in life.

to speak of somebody being "[word removed in order to comply with Google's Publisher Policy]-rich" betrays a certain coarseness of outlook and colourist attitude.

A thought Word Camel 13/December/04
- A thought al 13/December/04
  - Yes indeed DH 13/December/04