Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Mrs Steve R
Thanks.
Night night.
Sleep tight.
Don't let the night nurse bite.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
What? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!
Night night.
Sleep tight.
Don't let the night nurse bite.
Capitals? You type in CAPITALS to ME?!
They can be.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/di...iscrimination/
Agreed.
As far as I'm concerned Marler = Terry = Suarez.
If the view is that words never cause harm and its all a PC fuss over nothing (despite context and the lessons of history) then I think it's a sad day.
However, good to know that with a quick apology and the 'banter' defense, everything is OK.
I guess it's all about definitions of racist. To me, racist means discriminating against someone because of the colour of your skin. This discrimination can take the form of physical and/or verbal abuse of someone or not gang them the same opportunity, eg a job.
The two guys involved are both white, British, males so I'm struggling to see how this is racist.
I was born in the 60's and grew up in the 70's watching tv shows at peak family time where proper racist jokes were being made and treated as the norm. Looking back at that stuff in today's context is horrendous, so this incident at the egg appears very tame to people of my age group by comparison.
Fvcking hell there's some dripping sheeps quims on here
^^ Ooh Good Morning Mr Atilla
Definition of racism: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
It is not necessarily about the colour of a persons skin.
^^ Ooh Good Morning Mr Atilla
Morning Dripper
"Race" is defined as a division of humankind with distinct physical characteristics.
So in this context, is "Gypsy" a race? I would argue it isn't.
The danger here is that such nonsense takes focus away from real racism.
I was born in 1959 (my username is a giveaway) and had similar experiences to you of racism in popular culture. I also remember the terms of insult and abuse used by kids that referred to disability or colour or race, and most of it at that age as unthinking. 'Gypo' was used like 'spaz' and like 'dirty arab' and 'mong' and dozens of other terms - often to other able-bodies white kids in the same gang .
I remember seeing on the news if not first hand the landlord signs saying 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs'. I also grew up knowing that white jews and white gypsies (many physically indistinguishable from their white neighbours) were mass murdered in Nazi death camps because they were jews or gypsies.
When I started working for Sheffield Housing Department in the mid 1980s I had to deal with cases of racial harassment and abuse on estates - first as a patch officer and later as a senior manager responsible for policies, procedures and staff training. Traveller families were definitely seen by many of their neighbours as a distinct ethnic minority and in some cases victimised because of that. They were white and with 'English' names, but they stood out and sometimes were assaulted or verbally abused (or their homes vandalised) because of it. The stereotyping of travellers as theives and 'white trash' was common - and often by people who would never abuse other groups on grounds of race or ethnicity or nationality. For some reason they saw gypsies and travellers as fair game. There is some of that attitude on this board too (and much more on another board many of us also visit!). I have always hated and been embarrassed by the 'gypo' chanting at matches.
I agree that in the scheme of things Joe Marler racially abusing Samson Lee, and Lee accepting the apology, is a minor incident if only it hadn't been picked up on the referee's mike. It was heard and discussed by millions of people though. Even if Lee agrees that it was just 'banter' (soon to evolve into 'high jinks' territory?) that was not the view of millions of viewers or of traveller groups. I think Six Nations Rugby bottled it (and bowed again to England pressure) and set a lousy precedent.
On a lighter note I hope there is some sympathy for those (few) of us who seem to be on the same side of an argument as Croesy. It is a strange and unsettling experience. In return I will give my sympathies to those (many) of you who are in the same camp as Goslow!
Totally agree with what you've said there but when we make language taboo, new language appears in its place and the problem continues, just with a new term/phrase.
People will always call each other names, we can either continue to ban the new words and harangue those that use them or wouldn't it be better if we just learned how to deal better with verbal abuse? Grow thicker skin and shrug it off? Because it's not like there will come a day when nobody ever calls anyone names.
In my opinion, setting the incident aside as 'banter' and 'nothing to get worked up about' is the exact correct course of action.
Reacting with violence over name calling is a million times more offensive than the name calling itself imo
Two excellent posts above by Jon and the Colonel.
My point is that if we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion then "Jimmy the jock" will have to be henceforth know as "Jimmy", "Cardiff Irish" will be "Cardiff" and "Taffy in Berkshire" presumably "Man who lives in Berkshire".
Those of you lucky enough to be going to France this summer best be careful not to refer to the local population as "The Frogs"
I assume the chants of "Same old English, always cheating" and "Engerland is full of shit" are to be similarly outlawed.
Banter, or more appropriately in this case, trying to get under your opponents skin to gain an advantage, is an accepted part of competitive sport, provided it doesn't cross a line. As with many things, people's lines are often in different places I guess. We absolutely must kick racism out, not just out of sport but out of society, and trust me we have been very successful in that given the starting point of the 70's, but as I've said, calling someone a "Gypsy Boy" is abuse, but I don't believe it is racial abuse.
Colonel,
As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s I can see where you're coming from in terms of name calling. As kids we regularly used words like ****, wog etc. as part of our vocabulary. We didn't see it as wrong because it was normality to us (I was about 12 before I realised the shop down the road wasn't actually called 'the **** shop') and we didn't really think about the meaning behind the words.
Looking back now I doubt that the black/Asian people were too happy with being labelled with these names - I suspect they tolerated it because they were outnumbered and made to feel like second class citizens so just kept quiet. I guess what I'm trying to say is that ultimately, if it's offensive and used as an insult, then as a general rule people should refrain from using those words. Yes, there's a lot of faux outrage these days at some trivial issues and people do need to focus on the truly awful issues going on in the world but generally we've come a long way and things have changed for the better. If the price we pay for a more tolerant society is numpties on Twitter being offended on someone else's behalf then so be it.
Not having a pop at you for being white ( you honkey) but I suspect if you were black or Asian and had experienced awful racist abuse then you wouldn't find it as easy to just shrug it off and develop a thicker skin. Saying it's only words is easy to do when those words don't affect you personally. After all, if I were to refer to you as Colonel paedophile every time I spoke to you or shouted paedo at you in the street you'd soon get pretty pissed off about it - despite it only being words.
Very easy to say when you're a white male who will have had very little discrimination happen to you in your life.
Words like "******" and "wog" etc aren't just names they have a lot of history behind them and by comparing them to names people are called on the playground you look at best very naive.
Brilliant post
It was brilliant right up until he used the term "numpties", which is incredibly offensive and I feel he should lose his job for using such a derogatory term.
Pipe down Colonel paedophile.
Sorry.
You're not really Croesy are you.
There has to be some protection against the use of 'words' intended to harm, hurt or abuse - including monkey chants and incitement - but it is right that society debates the boundaries, the lines and the definitions. If there is a lack of empathy and understanding and people just apply rules and legal definitions then we really are in trouble. You end up with people being afraid to say certain things in case they break legal or societal rules but without knowing why.
I think the really important issues are context, intent, impact and power relationships. The words themselves change their meaning and effect depending on these things. I have no problem at all with people taking and using racist or homophobic terms and using them as labels of pride to subvert the original meaning: Spurs fans in the 'Yid Army', gay men adopting the label 'Queer Nation' or some African-Americans calling each other 'Nigga' because the intent and impact (and context) is the opposite of the original use. Similarly when the PFA booked Reginald D Hunter for their awards ceremony in 2013 it wasn't the subversive use of racist language in his set that was the problem (and caused the PFA hysterical and panicked meltdown), it was the situation and the context that was wrong. I disagree with David Bernstein - context is important:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...ter-pfa-awards
I think offensive words can be used ironically and as part of a shared language between friends where it is a private 'in joke' - language that in public and in a different context would be abusive and offensive and liable to prosecution. However, I haven't changed my view of the Marler-Lee clash. It was more than 'inappropriate' or 'unacceptable' (given a further twist by Eddie Jones' stupid 'Arthur and Martha' jibe at the WRU) and as a very pubic incident has been badly mishandled.
See, I'm not sure I would get all that pissed off if some nutter in the street started shouting "peado" at me. And I wouldn't be seeking apologies or trying to get him sacked from his job over it. I would assume he's already got problems of his own.
That's a bad example though, the first bit of what you were saying made more sense because at least the insults are based on something. So let's say I was Asian and someone was calling me "****" or something similar. Sure, I wouldn't exactly be pleased about it but I'd at least recognise it for what it is; words. Unless the guy was acting in an especially threatening manner then I wouldn't consider it my problem, I'd consider it his problem.
Isn't that a healthier attitude to have, rather than getting worked up and going on an absurd and futile mission to ban words?
Well that didn't stop you from discriminating against me for simply being a white male. Evidently my opinion is worth less because of it.
That aside, you can say words like "******" and "wog" aren't just names, but... they are. Exactly that. Of course they have the weight of history behind them, we all know that, but what is stopping us all from simply removing that weight in our minds?
By making a huge fuss over name calling we are actually validating their usage, we are telling people who use those terms just how offended we are by those words, which gives them ammunition.
It would be far more sensible in the long term for us all to decide for ourselves that these are just words, names, and not give the name callers the satisfaction of thinking they've landed a blow.
surely this all pales into insignificance now when i see on another thread a bunch of bog trotters are trying to take over the lansdowne pub
Posting Permissions