Let's Help Rename Shark Attacks!
Last week, shark scientists began a formal move away from referring to shark encounters as 'shark attacks'.
The reasoning, say the scientists involved, is that most attacks aren't attacks at all but, as sharks don't have hands to touch and feel, they test objects with their mouth and the result is a case of curiosity killed the human.
A change in language matters says Dr Leonardo Guida, “because it helps dispel inherent assumptions that sharks are ravenous, mindless, man-eating monsters”,
Sharks, just misunderstood really
Christopher Pepin-Neff goes further saying, "'shark attack’ is a lie." The problem, however, is that while the scientists say 'shark attack' may be misleading they've offered no obvious replacement, and this is where Swellnet readers can help our brethren in the science community.
Let's fill in the gap and come up with terminology that better addresses the event formally known as a shark attack.
Here's a few primers to kick things off:
- Love bite
- Bicuspid cuddle
- Fang dangle
- Northern Rivers kiss
- Grey suit grope
Etc etc..
Comments
Not the usual suspect for the event-formally-known-as-a-shark-attack, but Mako-ver has a nice ring?
taste test
Taste Test
Subcutaneous Sampler
Fisher of Men
Tag you're it
Agro Mouth Hug
Like taste test, or one slice or two.
The Great Embrace
Bump and bite
Chop and chew
Great white cuddlefest
Maybe it should be ALLEGED SHARK ASSUALT if we want to not place blame on the shark until we really know how it feels or what its thinking. Or Shark Slaughter for a fatal attack - you know, because they didn't mean to eat you for breakfast? WTAF!?!
Or a Selachimorpha Touch Up
Should sharks go in for trial of man slaughter? To be equal with human rights? That'd be a sea of grey suits...
Shark hicky
Flossing.
Loving mastication
and people wonder why the general public is losing faith in science and scientists.
only the people who think they know better than the scientists , which are a dangerous minority!
we could rename them "not" man eaters?
It all depends on which scientists you trust brutus, personally I chose the ones staking their entire life's work on speaking out, and the creators of the technology being used. The alternative of trusting the ones who work for government who seek control or corporations who stand to make (and have made) billions seems pretty unattractive by comparison. The only people telling you we are a minority are the media.
I'm curious as to how exactly you arrived at the conclusion we are "dangerous"?
Captain Bitey Pain Odyssey
I reckon that's not a fair reflection of the article. I'm quite happy with "shark bite", as suggested in the second para of that article
#metooth
lol
#victimblaming
Gill, Interrupted
I am more concerned about the lack of research into gender pronoun sensitivities when we refer to Great Whites.
Population growth research has confirmed - no statistically measurable growth in GW population will ever occur.
Behavioural research has confirmed - interactions are always less dangerous than bee stings.
The mitigation issue has been solved.
The GW research grant money clearly needs to be spent on new frontiers.
touche frog!
My daughter asked a couple the other day if she could pat their dog?
"Is it a girl or a boy" she followed up with, and looked confused when one of the dog's owners replied
"We prefer to stay away from gender stereotypes"
WTF, it's a dog ... and my daughter is 5
Jesus H Christ
naughty nibblers!
Cuddly-wuddly fuzzle-snozzle?
Would be perfect for the next shark attack article. The shark, which scientists say is thought to be a 2-3m great white, an endangered animal currently in f*%king plague proportions, came up and gave him a cuddly-wuddly fuzzle-snozzle. The victim is in a serious condition.
Maybe instead of calling them a victim we could rename them a shark enthusiast?
hahaha
I reckon the scientists should stick to science instead of doing politics and “politically correct” shark terminology on shark bites. Is there some sort of government funding for this consultation on correct terminology on shark bites? I hope not!! Is there any scientific evidence that renaming ‘shark attack’ to something more wobbly like ‘little taste test’ of ‘friendly kiss’ or some other euphemism will change shark behaviour or human behaviour? Haha, reminds me of a surf I had in one of the most remote great white spots … my son and I and another guy stood on a small cliff watching some of the best 4-6 tubes you’ve ever seen just peeling through unridden. We stood there just stunned for 5-10 minutes watching and the SA guy with us bailed as he said it looked too sharky - and it did. Well, didn’t that work a treat!! My son and I stood in back-to -back pits on our own for about 1.5 hours before two others turned up and then a third a bit later. There were tonnes of waves. I saw my son - one of the fittest young guys I’ve met - I saw him resting on the beach from barrel exhaustion two or three times that day!! Hooray for the sharks!! Holy crap man, it’s the ocean, it never ceases to amaze me how many people think they can just brush nature aside or “remove it” if it doesn’t suit them. These creatures have been here for billions of years and will still be here billions of years after our “super intelligent” race disappears - yeah, from an evolution point of view we have not been here long at all and we are unlikely to last too long given our environmental record. in that short time people have done an incredible job of causing unprecedented extinctions and plummeting biodiversity- no, no more interference, no more disrespect- we need to learn to live WITH nature and keep things in balance. Quick fixes like culling or mass killings of wildlife are unlikely to be meaningful or sustainable. It just sounds terrible - “surfers” who will kill and interfere with the balance of nature for their own ‘comfort’ - no way man, that is wrong - the web of life is all interconnected- we cant go out crowding shark hangouts and then blame them if something goes wrong. Nature gives no safety guarantees- it never did and it never will, but people are bent on the idea that they can “control” nature - sure they can try, but not with impunity - if we pull out nature from under our feet, then we have nothing to stand on! I would prefer to stop surfing than ruin the beautiful biodiversity of this earth. I’ve had some very close and sometimes scary encounters with the grey suits, but I respect them and could not blame them if I was eaten - a few times I thought I might be. I think I’ve always felt that way. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about people who get bitten or eaten or their loved ones - I do - I just think we have to respect our environment and look at our own behaviour and think more about changing our own behaviour - not trying to change billions of years of evolution. We don’t control sharks but we can control ourselves!!
Wall of text makes me eyes bleed.
What's the TL;DR?
Oral inter-species engagement
Shark Human* Interaction.
Non Physical Shark Human Interaction.
Physical Shark Human Interaction.
Non Lethal Physical Shark Human Interaction.
Lethal Physical Shark Human Interaction.
Or maybe just stick with ‘shark attack’? Surely it’s the most accurate description in some cases?
I propose that large committees of suitably qualified public servants be established to suitably categorise each encounter. One in each state of course. With regional sub-committees.
*Apologies of course to those who identify as other than human. One trusts the scientists will provide a range of appropriate self-identifying nouns when deciding upon the new and better language.
Fish bite ..
Shark attack- forget the semantics
Shark entanglement
Thats the best one! Definitely the most scientific.
Shark Encounters: Not For The Flake-hearted!
.... as imagined in The Daily Telegraph and/or Herald Sun
Lets just call shark attacks for what they actually are ok...Shark Attacks!!!!
Are these the same scientists that say there’s no evidence that GW numbers are up in Oz waters? Or that, if anything, they are in decline?
So what has changed? Why call for new language now?
If the term ‘shark attack’ is a lie now, then it follows it was a lie twenty or thirty years ago. Because nothing has changed.
Why weren’t these white coats agitating for change back in the eighties, the nineties and the noughties?
Has something changed that requires such urgent remedial action? It seems logical to suggest that some quantifiable shift must have provoked this call to arms?
Perhaps the scientists could enlighten us?
Just thinking on the fly...
Perhaps it has to do with the increasing amount of data on encounters, as well as attacks. Way back when, no-one really heard about minor shark encounters, only attacks - and sometimes only if the injury was significant (or fatal).
Now that we're seeing more frequent activity, being able to segment the data into bite sized chunks (boom, tish!) means scientists will be able to analyse it more efficiently.
The scientific community can debate and name change until the cows come home....
But there is not one surfer or ocean user on this blue earth who will identify it for what it really is.....An attack by a shark......In other words "Shark Attack"
Give it up Science Boy...
PAYG Tax Instalments
I propose a scale depending on the ferocity of the interation: Killa-bite, Mega-bite, Terror-bite
Haha, winner!
Yep, seconded.
Mouth Cuddle.
Murder cuddle
Euphemism treadmill. The overuse of a euphemism will eventually devolve its meaning to the extent that itself becomes politically incorrect and will have to be replaced with another euphemism.
Carcharodon Crush
Canoodled by a Carcharias
Doing Your Bit for Gaia, The God We Scientists Quietly Worship
A mostly peaceful encounter
a goodnight kiss
Genuinely impressed at the creatively of the suggestions, framing the removal of body parts from a live human by rows of jagged thrashing teeth in a warm and fun way takes a wacked imagination, love it.
When a shark targets it’s prey it attacks it …..
When a shark mistakenly targets a human as prey it still attacks ….
We must taste horrible as majority of bites are once only then bail ….
The Brussel sprouts of the ocean …..
Where d'ya get that photo Stu - that is a ripper!
Always enjoyed this one when it's popped up. Doesn't look quite as threatening, does it?
I think it looks frickin' terrifying! Particularly so if you look at the nostrils like they are eyes.
Kart at shack...a poor anagram
Norman conquest?
I'd suggest "an inquiry" would be a good name :) ..the incident with Mick Fanning is a classic example .. the shark swam close to him to check him out , the leg rope slipped under his nose and was subsequently bitten through pulling Mick downward. Mick supposedly "punched" the shark yet didn't have a scratch on him. Anyone who knows anything about sharks their skin is like coarse sand paper. If you punched an immoveable object like a large shark with skin like sandpaper you are going to lose skin. Don't get me wrong it was a close encounter and would put the shits up anyone but that one was hyped up beyond sensibility. I have know two people that have had shark encounters one a bodyboarder who was bitten on the thigh by a bronze whaler whilst surfing at dusk on Adelaides far south coast surf beach Waitpinga... his name was Matthew Foale and he died on the beach. We both had a common love of riding custom made f/glass bodyboards. The other is a long term friend of my brothers who was attacked at Cactus Beach (whilst surfing the break Cactus). He was hit from below , thrown from his board and watched while the shark chewed his board. The shark could have easily eaten him but didn't . I have held this board in my hands and been retold the story several times. John B. was resigned to the fact it was just an event and never felt malice for the shark. Multiple other encounters have been recorded at Cactus with only a couple of fatalities. I imagine a common group of factors are associated with real bites or "attacks" such as abundance of fish nearby (bait schools or salmon/tailor) , poor water clarity , post flood conditions especially around river mouths , low light (pre-dawn/post sunset)often the time when crowds are the least too. I have surfed all along the SA west coast (known white shark habitat ) and knew the risks but that is part of the past time ..rather bit by a shark than run over by a bus.
most white shark attacks on the east coast are in clear water between 10am and 3pm in small surf.
MAUL.....to physically attack and badly injure a person (or animal), which often seems to be the outcome of these encounters.
Sharks are predators known to attack their prey from behind.
Even if they fail to distinguish the human form from their normal prey they nevertheless use the same technique to ATTACK their chosen victim.
Or are these scientists saying the sharks are in a different mode when they bite a human ? Can they read and write too ?
I posted this link a while back but it seems fitting for this topic ,
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
pure gold, a golden oldie
la la luaa, la leuaaaa!
The scientists recognise the need for grades of "interaction". That is understandable as some "incidents" are minor and not really attacks. So the issue of language has merit.
BUT I suspect they want to leave out the high grades. Here is the full spectrum of "interactions" for scientific accuracy:
Grade 1. Multiple Smash Bites - where interacting human is torn apart and largely devoured.
Grade 2. Smash Bite and Wait - with intention to create devastating injury with expectation for bleed out with sub grade a) failed due to inaccuracy. b) interacting human escapes with serious wounds c) interacting human bleeds out.
Grade 4. Exploratory or impulse bite with less clear intent to fully eat human but potentially with severe consequences for interacting human.
Grade 5. Exploratory Bump or Repeated Stalking creating substantial concern for interacting human.
Grade 6. Close Sighting by human in water.
Grade 7. Scientist or other human sees shark from safety of boat.
Grade 8. Scientist heroically encounters shark on video on computer screen and sees no threat.
Scientists love classifying, describing and differentiating things etc.
So let them do so with shark interactions rather than hide the truth in some form of newspeak with a single innocuous sounding category.
Perhaps ask Joe from Crescent Head what he thinks, or Tadashi's family or Nick's wife.
Shark mouth job !!
Gutter guzzling?
Equalizing?
Titty tickling?
Palate cleansing?
Taste testing?
Chron dogging?
..tooth picking...
Chew & Spew
A
Tender
Touch
And
Cute
Kiss
Bugger
If a shark bites you then from your point of view it's an attack. I can see where they're coming from with this but I don't think they can see the wood from the trees.
Premeditated bleed-out attempt with intent to consume
(Peter) Benchley-ed
Byron bite
Expanding on my earlier one...
A bloody but mostly peaceful taste-test..
The victims say that authorities should keep the term attack.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/authorities-should-keep…
The use of the term “authorities” is giving too much credibility to the scientists that are trying to change the language.
When journalists go looking for information about sharks they ought to talk to the scientists at DPI and CSIRO. The research scientists at most unis don’t have the resources to do any more than part-time projects, and they try to attract attention and grants to fund the odd trip to the beach or ocean to further their interest in sharks. Their shark research is reading other scientists papers rather than collecting their own data because they don’t have the means to collect their own.
Playing around with words is part of their agitation to remove shark nets. They lose credibility when the say GWS populations are in decline and shark nets don’t reduce attacks. There is no evidence of the first and 8 decades of evidence for the second.
Journalists play with words; scientists should not.
If a dog bites someone on the hand, it is a bite. If a bull terrier savages someone it is an attack.
If a shark bumps someone, it is a bump. If it swims under a board, it is a scare. If it is trodden on and bites, it is a bite. If it swims in unprovoked, bites and thrashes it is an attack.
Research scientists should follow the cues of the scientists at DPI and call all of them incidents. Or they should stop referring to themselves as scientists and instead say they are conservationists, which means they will justify telling lies for the greater good of preserving the environment as it would have existed if humans weren’t part of it.
"which means they will justify telling lies for the greater good of preserving the environment"
That is what frustrates me. They know the GW population has rebounded substantially. It would be totally illogical and against all precedents of wildlife protection in healthy environments if it had not. But there seems to be unsaid agreement amongst "scientists" to underplay the recovery and not admit any increaser in danger to ocean users to further their goals.
In Cape Cod everyone (public, fishermen, surfers media AND scientists) acknowledges there are a lot more Great Whites but I struggle to recall any "expert" admitting that in Australia it seems.
They are damaging their credibility as this thread demonstrates.
Learning interaction
Or
Woops I accidentally cut you to pieces because I have razor blades for fingers.
Newspapers say..
MAULED BY SHARK!
Then...
2...
paragraphs...
down.. girl received minor lacerations from possibly accidentally standing on a wobbygong on a crystal clear beach late morning playing in shallow water.
How about.. ' Girl got nipped on the toe by wobbygong'.
Bitey McShark Face
Shark Biscuit
News Update: A 30 year old male Shark Biscuit has had a run in with a Bitey McShark Face injuries are unsure at this moment, more details in the News at 6pm.
guess it depends on what you motivations are...
Chewed out by a hungry shark if crowds bother you and shark scare for everyone else.
That article is nonsense, in so far as it tries to paint all encounters with the same brush. Clearly, that famous encounter Mick Fanning had in 2015 was not an attack but a great white being curious. However, the encounter Ben Linden faced was correctly called an attack. Brutus, as he was dubbed, was circling the remainder of Ben Linden's body, and when a jetski rider tried to retrieve it, was lunged at by the shark. The shark then took the body. That sounds predatory to me.
Interesting discussion. I'm wondering what the threshold might be for transitioning from 'bite' to 'attack'. For example, I don't see many leads describing a spider or snake 'attack' - although I'm sure the click-baity sites will make that leap at some point when we're all inoculated against their current barrage of sensationalist language.
Is it the size of the animal compared to the victim?
Is it the projected motivation of the animal?
Is it the potential for consumption (partial or otherwise) by the animal of the victim? eg Elephant 'charges'; Bull 'gores'; snake 'bites but Tiger 'attacks'; Bear 'attacks'; Shark 'attacks'
'Grey Nurse' Bodily harm
Naughty Nurse
brutus writes 'only the people who think they know better than the scientists , which are a dangerous minority!'
Who created the coronavirus, brute?
sharks, obviously.
D-rex , I am sure you will tell me that the cornavirus was created in a lab in China......whereas I think it could be a shark conspiracy , to divert attention from their marauding ways , and actually blame the bats !!
Classic redirection from Big Shark.
Not to mention atomic bombs, thalidomide, nerve gases, etc
D-Rex,"Not to mention atomic bombs, thalidomide, nerve gases, etc"....damn when you put it that way , it's all smoke and mirrors with sharks and mother nature ....man makes weapons to annihilate them selves......lets get rid on man and save the planet?
...harnessing electro-magnetic inductioneventually leading to the invention of computers and the internet thereby allowing any dimwitted opinion to be broadcast to the masses. yes those scientists certainly do have a lot to answer for.
sharcrash
Nothing beats a smokescreen to further your cause, boys. This one is up there with the best.
Everyone knows that the GWS breeding program has been designed and implemented by a global cabal of Wave Generation System Technology industrialists. It’s also common knowledge that the same cartel has infiltrated and channels money to groups that oppose shark mitigation measures.
Nice.
Big wave?
More sinister than Big Pharma for sure.
https://imgur.com/a/7HOWGS4 Potential shark I spotted in Torquay surf cam 6 years back
wow
if so, between the clubby ski and shore
Edit: do we get a 'shark season' on the surf coast? WA Sept/Oct was always a nervous time with the beginning of the snapper run. April/May had the salmon.
Yeh sure, and what next;
Rename Rape - to a "Love Tap"
and
Murder to "just a mis understanding between 2 people"
A struggle cuddle.
Quote from scholar "Sharks don't have hands." ("they mouth it") omg that is sooo funny lololol
Cuddle by well rounded sea life.
The wind blows.
Water is wet.
Shit stinks.
And sharks F......ing attack.
They dont tap you on the shoulder and excuse themselves first.
Sheess. Are we going to have to change everything we know to suit new world order, tree hugging, carbon neutral, vegan, gender neutral, non racial specific, non gender specific, hipster f..king c..t who ever took a breath.
Are we even going to be around that long to do that????
Shark Lunch
Ffs it's a prehistoric predator. Anyway can't change it now. Split Enz wrote a song about it in 1980, it's set in stone.
Tim Finn calls it -Slaughter in the water
Cowards Nibble
...it worked for the king hit
Bitey McBite Face
Seeing as it's often put down to a combination of mistaken identity and curiosity, perhaps Spanish Mackerel Inquisition.
Nobody expected that.
No-one ever expects it ay.
I wouldn't have expected it to take six and a half hours to get someone like me to take the bait and post that reply.
close encounter of the worst kind Stu ?
Batman's Lament-
One of cinematography’s highlights of all time …..
Now if only I could get the recipe to Batman’s shark repellent
Holy sardines! Too good.
But surpassed by the Batman/Joker surf off IMO. Batman’s trim to shark repellent deployment is a combo for the ages.
Adam West was effin brilliant.
Ha Ha yes who could forget that scene…
Original Batman series will never be beaten LoL
I'd be getting the full kit- barracuda,whale and manta-ray repellant
Degustation
The English language is littered with euphemisms, we all use them everyday.
As per Wikipedia, 'a euphemism is an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant' often used when dealing with taboo subjects.
eg. 'collateral damage' to describe civilians killed in conflict;
'tired and emotional' to describe drunkeness.
IMO one of the most irritating euphemisms, used incessantly in the media, is, 'passed away'...when someone has died.
Yep. Spot on. 'To die' is a perfectly good verb. Don't need anything else.
Lockdown LOLs much appreciated Farken funny bunch of caarnts
Who ever thought Swellnet would be the 'go to' for a comedy fix?
Swellnet - so much more than just a bunch of dodgy surf cams. Hahaha
This young bloke has the right attitude..
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
'Shark attack'.
I think our scientist friends might be going about this worthy reform in a half arsed manner by focusing solely on the ‘attack’ part of this compound noun. This subclass of fish must be renamed. ‘Shark’ is a loaded word associated with cheats, fraudsters, tricksters, asset stripping hostile takeovers – ‘loan sharks’ for heaven’s sake! I think the word’s disturbing connotations derive not only from the nature of the fish it denotes, but the nature of the word itself. Shark! It’s aurally brutal - like the sound of those jaws and rows of teeth clamping shut. No. It’s gotta go. The scientists need to find something softer, more benign.
Not so long ago I had a thankfully not too close encounter with another apex predator. About a mile (when in Rome) into a solo hike towards a peak in the Beartooth Absaroka Wilderness – Grizzly Bear hotspot in the lower 48 – I heard a rumble in the suddenly moving undergrowth a hundred meters in front of me. I froze immediately and my hand as quietly as possible extracted my bear spray from its holster on my belt. The undergrowth went still and silent. A large form raised itself above the tall thick brush and fixed its eyes on me. The bear was as still as I was as we locked eyes on each other.
After what seemed like forever stare-off, the undergrowth rumbled to life again, and the bear ran off. Up the trail, in exactly the direction I was headed. I didn’t move for about ten minutes, debating whether to continue the hike. Reaching this particular peak had become something of an obsession for me, so irrational stubbornness conquered my fear. Off I went with bear spray at the ready and small rocks in both hands. Like they were gonna help me!
The next mile of the climb was on an exceedingly narrow track cut into the side of a mountain. Straight up one way, straight down the other. If I crossed paths with a bear or a mountain lion I was most likely a gonner. But, as I just had to reach this peak, onwards I went.
There were several trucks (again, when in Rome) other than mine parked at the trailhead, and being a relatively fast hiker, I consoled myself that I would eventually catch up to others. After three quarters of an hour’s hiking, wherein I had envisioned my bloody demise in fashions various, I caught up to a group of others. Normally quite happy with my own company, never was I so glad of the sight of other humans.
Not the least bit impressed by a greenhorn Aussie’s excitable tales about a brush of death with a bear, these locals told me several groups had passed them up the climb. Feeling I had safety in numbers on my side, I intrepidly continued, confident I’d frequently be in sight of others.
As I started the final ‘non technical scramble’ up the north side to the summit, a dense fog descended. I had been told you could see right up into Canada from the peak, now I couldn’t see three feet in front of me. I couldn’t make out the markers in the rocky nondescript terrain that you rely upon this far above the tree line, so I didn’t know where I was gonna end up. And if something made a run for me I wouldn’t see it until way too late. And I wasn’t gonna be able to see a thing from the top – so in any event, I’d risked my life for nothing. But I absolutely had to get to the top, so I damned well kept going.
Eventually I could see the ridge in front of me. Having no markers to guide me, I was off course, still slightly below the summit, but I was nearly there. I’d just have to follow the spine of the ridge upwards. I looked behind me. Still thick fog. Up and over the ridge to the south, it didn’t look much better.
I scrambled up the last few meters of scree and my head rose over the ridge. To my delight the southern side of the peak and beyond was all blue sky and sunshine. Mountains stretched away endlessly to the east towards the Crow reservation in the next valley. To the south I could follow the Yellowstone River for miles as it snaked through Paradise Valley, towards Gardner where the famous Roosevelt Arch announces the entrance to The Park, with the Tetons beyond and into Wyoming.
I walked the last section along the ridge to the top, and stood on the type of marker that memorialises the construction of all the trails in the region during the New Deal. I stayed up on the top for a good hour and let my mind be blown. Totally stoked.
Such was my joy I didn’t think too much about bears on the way down. And if I was gonna get mauled, at least I’d have something to show for it. Well, a good experience, at least.
I imagine most human and shark encounters end the same way as my not so dramatic 'brush' with a bear did. The two end up in close proximity, but in the end there’s no contact and the shark goes away. And sometimes, rarely, they end in bloody injury or death. Most likely, but not exclusively, for the human component.
I’ve never seen a shark while surfing, but if I did I’m certain I’d react much differently than I did during my encounter with a bear.
I’d go into full fear flight mode. I’ve got the George Greenough stuff about how you should paddle somewhere in my head, but I know I’d just thrash madly for the shore. And you wouldn’t get me back in the water for a while. Let alone at that particular spot.
The Grizzly Bear is the land equivalent of the Great White Shark. They are nature’s ultimate killing-machine. If you doubt me, read the prologue of Jack Olsen’s Night of the Grizzlies. It’s brilliant and chilling and terrifying. Read on if you dare. Ursus horribilis indeed.
So why then, in popular culture, are these two equivalent apex predators represented so differently? When we think of the shark we think of Shylock, mafiosos from Goodfellas and The Sopranos, or immoral bankers from the Big Short.
On the other hand I give you Teddy Bears, Cuddly Bears, Yogi Bear, Boo Boo, Paddington Bear, Fozzy Bear etc. Jeez, that big bikie over there looks menacing! Nah, when you get to know him he’s just a big cuddly ol’ bear.
That lean and hungry bloke over there in the Armani suit and slicked back hair. Looks like he’d shiv you then take off with your watch and wallet. Nah, he’s just a friendly old shark when you get to know him! Maybe not.
I ask myself; what’s in a name? Lots, I reply to myself.
That hard nasty ‘k’ that ends shark? The sound of teeth breaking through bones.
Bear is all soft, consonants and vowels. Harmless, comforting. Hell, we Aussies barely (sorry) even hit the ‘r’. It’s why you end up sounding like Greg Norman if you stay there for a while. No one can understand you otherwise.
And pronounced by someone with a good northern American accent, with that strong elongated /r/? Man, that sounds good and warm. Bearrr. Could almost rock you to sleep.
If our brave scientists really want to correct the big lie, and restore the rightful reputation of this particular fish (I won’t use the name), then they must rename it. I don’t know what it should be, I’m not a scientist, but I think whatever our scientists decide, they should mandate a non rhotic pronunciation. Nice and soft. And come up with something warm and fuzzy - like a bear.
Perhaps too, if the current name of the relevant fish has all along been the perpetuation of an egregious lie, then our scientists have proved the theory of nominative determinism. This misunderstood fish has been condemned to take on the characteristics of its name.
Give it a nice name, and it will behave nicely. It’s science. Thank God for our scientists.
it's all to do with the intonation
Thoughtfully written & must have been a hair-raising experience Roker. !! Im sure if a Pointer ever lunged outa the water at me I wouldn't know weather to yell Shiiiiiiiiit!!! or Faaaaaark!!! so I guess it'd be Shaaaaaark!!!. Yes names are often loaded with innumerable preconceptions... maybe "Whitey-Bitey" could be in the running...
- Great White Privilege
- Dietary Dysphoria
- Sustainable Snacking
- Food Chain Reaction
In the future unselfish surfers will be vaccinated against shark 'interactions'. Big Pharma is here to help,,,
Surfing is an inherently risky undertaking. If the experience were ever made completely safe, it would suck. It wouldn't be surfing.
That line by the Hound from the Game of Thrones series comes to mind:
'You dumb bitch, there's no such thing as total safety'.
Seems to me the crux of the issue is to find that right balance of safety concerns for an increasingly popular recreational activity versus a genuine attempt to preserve some semblance of the natural order.
And yet...when one observes mankind's relationship with all other aspects of the natural order (outside of the shark attack controversy), we don't appear to be doing a great job of preservation or balance.
Is it easier for our societies to promote preservation of sharks because this issue hardly jeopardizes the revenue streams of the big players, like say addressing loss of natural habitats for all species, pollution and unsustainable overconsumption and exploitation (especially by the human predators at the top of the economic and political food chain) would?
I guarantee those that tax and regulate us and who are currently massively consuming and profiting will continue to do so. Isn't it funny how they (governments, megacorporations, celebrities, mainstream media and ultra wealthy) are the ones banging on the most about sustainability, 'climate change' (a tautology if there ever was one) and sacrifices.
Their idea of a sustainable solution is all us unwashed proles to stay home locked down eating insects, while God knows what will be repeatedly injected into our bodies.
Surf travel, as we used to know it, will likely be a thing of the past for most.
'Fit for Thee but not for Me'
(Just like folks such as Bill Gates or Jacinda Arden have publicly said they're not planning to take the newfangled experimental vaccine!) The blantant hypocrisy of such belief beggars belief; ultimately, it's in their nature to do so.
Just like it's in the nature of an apex predator to bite other creatures in the water.
Is it possible in that any future media photo's and footage of White Pointers that they can blur their teeth out (like they do with crims on telly) so as not to draw unnecessary attention to their chompers in a way that people might percieve these said chompers to be dangerous and the last thing they may possibly see....in a bite..? Its unfair to the shark to be portrayed that way to the human antagonists!!
Joke we might.
But I think a steady stream of scientific whitewashing newspeak, influencers wanting a groovy meme to push and former professional surfers looking for their last hits of the publicity drug may win in the end. Nets may go. It will be surf at you own risk. Bathe between the flags or not at all.
Our fears are an irrelevance or a mild curiosity to 95% of the population.
Enjoy the next decade. After that the fear / fun equation may shift too far as there may be many pockets of Reunion Island level genuine danger all along our coast. Tourists will be out in boats oohhing and aahing as they do Whale AND White Shark watching.
Tuncurry Tussle
Crescent Cuddle
Sharkality.
https://ibb.co/tDVDSCd
Are we going to get thrown off social media if we continue to call it a "SHARK ATTACK ! "
Shark-a-Snack
chewcuterie board
A taste,
didn't like it so didn't finish the meal,
people taste like shite.
vote grab
might've been done: Bitey Mc Biteface