I think we are talking at cross purposes, I don't think the word "black" is an insult any more than the word white. If I call someone a black c** t it's fairly obvious which word is the insult.
I'm not saying that all black people are c**ts, just the one I'm addressing, who happens to be black.
I know the counter argument would be..why make reference to colour at all. That's a fair point, but is there really much difference if the insult was accompanied by Scouse, Welsh,
Irish..not to mention bald, fat, lanky, ginger.
You make a good point.
Of course the argument is apparently that ginger people have not undergone years of opression like err, the people in the news have.
My counter argument is well, replace "ginger" with a, homophobic slur.
Im still waiting for an answer as to why homophobic slurs are not treated in the same way as racist slurs.
My whole argument is not to bring down the penalty for racist slurs, but to raise the rest to their level. but of course people are choosing to ignore that.
Of course the argument is apparently that ginger people have not undergone years of opression like err, the people in the news have.
My counter argument is well, replace "ginger" with a, homophobic slur.
Im still waiting for an answer as to why homophobic slurs are not treated in the same way as racist slurs.
My whole argument is not to bring down the penalty for racist slurs, but to raise the rest to their level. but of course people are choosing to ignore that.
No one is ignoring anything, you just pick and choose what you hear.
Im still waiting for an answer as to why homophobic slurs are not treated in the same way as racist slurs.
My whole argument is not to bring down the penalty for racist slurs, but to raise the rest to their level. but of course people are choosing to ignore that.
I don't agree that is your whole argument. Most of it has involved bringing random non-existent "what if" scenarios to the table. That is not constructive debate, infact, it borders on needless shit stirring.
It was pointed out to you earlier that people readily see through them enough to understand they are just empty jibes and therefore not offended.
But it seems to be you choosing to ignore what is being put forward, not the other way around. It is only you choosing to be offended.
Feel free to start your own "kick homophobia out of football" if you feel so strongly.
I think we are talking at cross purposes, I don't think the word "black" is an insult any more than the word white. If I call someone a black c** t it's fairly obvious which word is the insult.
I'm not saying that all black people are c**ts, just the one I'm addressing, who happens to be black.
I know the counter argument would be..why make reference to colour at all. That's a fair point, but is there really much difference if the insult was accompanied by Scouse, Welsh,
Irish..not to mention bald, fat, lanky, ginger.
calling me a c**t is an insult. calling me a c**t with reference to my colour makes it a racial insult. The whole "c**t who just happens to be black" excuse is a load of rubbish.
calling me a c**t is an insult. calling me a c**t with reference to my colour makes it a racial insult. The whole "c**t who just happens to be black" excuse is a load of rubbish.
I'm not a footballer, so why are we talking about bans? If you called me a black c**t, the chances are I'd either laugh at you or attempt to knock you out, dependent on the situation. if you called me a gay c**t, I'd definitely just laugh, because I'm not gay.
I haven't avoided anything. Myself and others have repeatedly answered your questions.
We are all in agreement over the unacceptability of the slurs but your point from the beginning has been there needs to be a campaign against them equivalent to the racism one. Most people just rise above it rather than cry over it.
When the futility was explained you've then manouvered to a host of "what if this, what if that" scenarios. Its pointless saying anything other than "they are unacceptable" but I don't see how you can use that answer as justification for starting an initiative to kick it out.
Its like me saying, "what if Distin goes in two footed on Suarez next week"?
Is that worthy of a ban? Yes.
Should we start a campaign to kick two footed tackles out of football? No.
Oh OK, what if Heitinga throws an elbow at Sterling?
And repeat over and over till someone agrees the campaign is necessary.
a serious question, why do you raise the race hate crime above all other hate crimes (the law sees them as equal)?
why should they not all be equal in football?
I have already answered this.
If you are abusing a gay footballer that is homophobic. If you are abusing any footballer by calling him gay it is an attempt at being insulting.
If you are comparing homophobia and racism on the same level then yes they should be treated equally but you aren't. Same with your paedo example, that is just a plain and simple insult, nothing more or less.
I haven't avoided anything. Myself and others have repeatedly answered your questions.
We are all in agreement over the unacceptability of the slurs but your point from the beginning has been there needs to be a campaign against them equivalent to the racism one. Most people just rise above it rather than cry over it.
i do not want a campaign, i just want equality in the punishment received if a player calles another
If you are comparing homophobia and racism on the same level then yes they should be treated equally but you aren't. Same with your paedo example, that is just a plain and simple insult, nothing more or less.
I just wanted to use an example to find where you draw the line, as we have found many people see homophobic slurs as "just an insult".
I want to see why the FA do not attach the same level of punishment for all kinds of verbal abuse.
I honestly cannot see one single difference between a racist or homophobic slur.
Where is the campaign to kick out vile, sickening abuse heard at football grounds, and also, as has been revealed in court - between players on the pitch?
I honestly believe that the current racism campaign is absolutely about to implode, it is about to do more harm to its cause. Lots of people are getting sick of it.
I really cannot understand why its getting so much coverage and campaigns to the sheer detriment of other problems of equal nature.
If we had zero black footballers in the UK i would consider that a massive problem with racism
we have zero homosexual players in the league, we have a massive problem.
where is the campaign about that. where are the t-shirts? surely everyone should be united against all forms of verbal abuse on the pitch and from the fans?
it is clear that i am getting no where, but i am refusing to give up.
please will someone explain to me why racist abuse is different to homophobic abuse - and why one should carry a punishment where 8 games is not enough, and the other carries no punishment whatsoever
I just wanted to use an example to find where you draw the line, as we have found many people see homophobic slurs as "just an insult".
I want to see why the FA do not attach the same level of punishment for all kinds of verbal abuse.
I honestly cannot see one single difference between a racist or homophobic slur.
Well I cant explain it any further than I have. As soon as a gay player is abused by making reference to his sexuality then I will be the first in the queue to agree that it should be treated in the same way as a black man being insulted with reference to his skin colour.
General abuse of players by players will always go on and always has and it's not for us to act as judge and jury.
Comments
You make a good point.
Of course the argument is apparently that ginger people have not undergone years of opression like err, the people in the news have.
My counter argument is well, replace "ginger" with a, homophobic slur.
Im still waiting for an answer as to why homophobic slurs are not treated in the same way as racist slurs.
My whole argument is not to bring down the penalty for racist slurs, but to raise the rest to their level. but of course people are choosing to ignore that.
No one is ignoring anything, you just pick and choose what you hear.
I don't agree that is your whole argument. Most of it has involved bringing random non-existent "what if" scenarios to the table. That is not constructive debate, infact, it borders on needless shit stirring.
It was pointed out to you earlier that people readily see through them enough to understand they are just empty jibes and therefore not offended.
But it seems to be you choosing to ignore what is being put forward, not the other way around. It is only you choosing to be offended.
Feel free to start your own "kick homophobia out of football" if you feel so strongly.
how about calling you a "gay c**t"?
is that worthy of the same ban?
Depends if he is gay.
That'll be hypothetical situation no 33.
ridiculous
how about "paedo c**t"?
these are all terms that should warrent the same outrage on a football field than the racist equivalent surely?
and avoidance #50 on your behalf
http://www.kickitout.org/1048.php
Hypothetical situation no 34.
No, I disagree.
a serious question, why do you raise the race hate crime above all other hate crimes (the law sees them as equal)?
why should they not all be equal in football?
I haven't avoided anything. Myself and others have repeatedly answered your questions.
We are all in agreement over the unacceptability of the slurs but your point from the beginning has been there needs to be a campaign against them equivalent to the racism one. Most people just rise above it rather than cry over it.
When the futility was explained you've then manouvered to a host of "what if this, what if that" scenarios. Its pointless saying anything other than "they are unacceptable" but I don't see how you can use that answer as justification for starting an initiative to kick it out.
Its like me saying, "what if Distin goes in two footed on Suarez next week"?
Is that worthy of a ban? Yes.
Should we start a campaign to kick two footed tackles out of football? No.
Oh OK, what if Heitinga throws an elbow at Sterling?
And repeat over and over till someone agrees the campaign is necessary.
I have already answered this.
If you are abusing a gay footballer that is homophobic. If you are abusing any footballer by calling him gay it is an attempt at being insulting.
If you are comparing homophobia and racism on the same level then yes they should be treated equally but you aren't. Same with your paedo example, that is just a plain and simple insult, nothing more or less.
i do not want a campaign, i just want equality in the punishment received if a player calles another
1) a black c**t
2) a gay c**t
that is all
I just wanted to use an example to find where you draw the line, as we have found many people see homophobic slurs as "just an insult".
I want to see why the FA do not attach the same level of punishment for all kinds of verbal abuse.
I honestly cannot see one single difference between a racist or homophobic slur.
Now its,
So which is it?
I honestly believe that the current racism campaign is absolutely about to implode, it is about to do more harm to its cause. Lots of people are getting sick of it.
I really cannot understand why its getting so much coverage and campaigns to the sheer detriment of other problems of equal nature.
If we had zero black footballers in the UK i would consider that a massive problem with racism
we have zero homosexual players in the league, we have a massive problem.
where is the campaign about that. where are the t-shirts? surely everyone should be united against all forms of verbal abuse on the pitch and from the fans?
please will someone explain to me why racist abuse is different to homophobic abuse - and why one should carry a punishment where 8 games is not enough, and the other carries no punishment whatsoever
Well I cant explain it any further than I have. As soon as a gay player is abused by making reference to his sexuality then I will be the first in the queue to agree that it should be treated in the same way as a black man being insulted with reference to his skin colour.
General abuse of players by players will always go on and always has and it's not for us to act as judge and jury.