So we are agreed it was not white on white, and there was no wrongness. So therefore your response was irrelevant.

I'd disagree. Firstly it refers to the word not to person. Hardaker used a word which was hate speech. It is a word used by people to attack homosexuals. That i think is unarguable.

I've said numerous times that i dont believe Hardaker to be homophobic, nor that there was homophobic intent in what he said.

I think 'hate speech' is a good description of the word, because it makes it clear why it can't also be used as just a random 'frustration' word.

Thats why i use 'hate speech' to describe the word. Because thats what it is. Winding back to find something more palatable to describe the word, is pretending that it isnt used in the very very negative way we both know it is. Even if it wasnt in this instance.

Oh dear

thats your worst effort yet. Why is white on white the definitive factor in that example? Why is it different to say an asian person to a white person? Or perhaps a person of Polynesian extraction to a person of Afro-Caribbean heritage?

I think that's a problem with the language we use to describe this sort of incident. I think there are clear connotations attached to phrases like "hate speech" and "hate crime" that I think have everything to do with motivation. I am not sure a word can, of itself, carry hate. That has to be added by the user, in my opinion.

If we keep these definitions absolute then Zak Hardaker's unthinking use of a word (that we clearly both agree is not an acceptable word in this context and needs to be removed from the vernacular) sits snugly alongside other "hate speech" we might associate with Abu Hamza, Nick Griffin or Fred Phelps. I'm not suggesting that you are intentionally making that link, but it is there. I would maintain that that is not helpful.

Is that all you have all the time? I am right so I will just keep saying it?

The post to me, which was responded to did not include you, but asked regarding white man to white man. My response was would not happen,

You came in with your size 10's, and said "except it has". I pointed out your error, you say on the other page you know, and therefore shown wrong, yet here you are trying to move goalposts again.

You may think you are intelligent and can debate, but to be honest you have being proved the opposite this week, coming across as nothing more than a patronising, arrogant, self righteous, opinionated, egotistical fool.

But the reason we would call it hate speech is precisely because it is used by that type of person to convey hate.
The reason why it is unacceptable is because it is hate speech.

You can't separate the reasons why Hardaker can't use that word, from its use as hate speech. They are entirely the same thing.

If we start from a position that Hardaker didnt intend to say something homophobic or hateful, then the reason he was wrong to use the word he did was because it is hate speech used by others to convey hate and discriminate.

If he were to have intend to say something homophobic and hateful then he wouldnt have been wrong to use that word. He would be a homophobic f1ck but he would have chosen the right word.

To pretend it isnt hate speech, or to try and make the description more palatable, is also does the same thing to those who are to use it in the disgusting ways people like Fred Phelps did.

Hardakers mistake was to use hate speech not to express hate (an emotion we all believe he didnt have) but to express frustration. You can mistakenly use a fork to cut your food. Its still a fork.

Thats all very nice, but still not an explanation of why it is any different for a white man to say it to a white man, as opposed to any other ethnicity to any other ethnicity. Until You can explain why it is different. You can't hide behind the specificity of the example.

I may come across as all those things. I have however managed to not be a bigot hiding behind calling people knob-jockeys and assorted names. (though i admit i did call you a d1ck and for many reasons that was unnecessary) and that at least is an improvement on yourself.

I am not "pretending" it isn't hate speech, I am arguing for a definition of "hate speech" that requires the presence of hatred. Dismissing counterpoints as "pretending" is not a great debating technique.

I am contending that motivation is important. That is why Hardaker's offence (and you will see that I acknowledge an offence) is, in my opinion, very different to the preaching of Fred Phelps. In much the same way that manslaughter is different from murder.

Your fork analogy makes the assumption that my giving credence to motive and intent is mistaken. You are yet to persuade me of that. I duly don't accept the validity of that analogy.

Oh for the love of god I just feel pity for you now......learn when to quit man.

The reason why i used the word pretending was that your first posts on this specific part of the subject were more " yeah it might technically be hate speech, but its not helpful to use it" (paraphrasing of course) if we were both to know it was hate speech, but avoid calling it that. We would be pretending it wasnt.

It is very different from how Phelps would have used it until he thankfully died.

And i agree with your analogy that Manslaughter is different to Murder. But whether you intended to shoot someone in the head, or you did it as a complete accident, you still shot someone.

The word Faggot is a word used to discriminate against gay people. Like the word n1gger is a word used to discriminate against black people. They are tools of discrimination. Thats what they are used for. I can use them simply to express my frustration. It doesnt alter that those words are used to discriminate.

Hate speech is tool to convey hate. It isnt the hate itself. Hate speech is the gun firing the bullet. It is a weapon.

The reason i say that is pretty simple, there are many examples of insidious discrimination and bigotry. People often try to hide discrimination and bigotry in other language. You can be discriminatory and bigoted without using hate speech. You can also use hate speech not intending to be discriminatory or bigoted as we have seen.

Also it fits the dictionary definition of it.

I couldn't give 2 sh*ts about this whole thing.

What hardaker said was wrong, and he was punished.

But do i care someone used an offensive term in the heat of the moment?

No, not really.

Does that make me some kind of ted, awful human being?

Probably, someone on here will make a case for it.

Yes and the dictionary also tells us that faggot can mean....


n
1. a bundle of sticks or twigs, esp when bound together and used as fuel
2. (Metallurgy) a bundle of iron bars, esp a box formed by four pieces of wrought iron and filled with scrap to be forged into wrought iron
3. (Cookery) a ball of chopped meat, usually pork liver, bound with herbs and bread and eaten fried
4. a bundle of anything
vb (tr)
5. to collect into a bundle or bundles
6. (Knitting & Sewing) needlework to do faggoting on (a garment, piece of cloth, etc)

But common sense tells us that isn't what Hardaker was referring to. Same as common sense tells us that labelling the Hardaker incident as hate speech is ridiculous no matter what dictionary spin you put on it.

Discrimination and hate are not the same thing.

What we're arguing about is the need for a more rigorous definition of "hate speech." I think it's necessary so that this debate can remain rational and very emotive language can be avoided where it isn't needed.

I think this boils down to opinion.

There is a pretty obvious difference between pretending that you were using one of numerous definitions of a word when you clearly wasnt. And using the dictionary definition of the word.

I dont think discrimination and hate are they same thing, i think they are often inextricably linked, and more often than not stem from the same place.

Im not sure what changing the definition of 'hate speech' is going to achieve. I think the word faggot is hate speech. I think the word n1gger is hate speech. The dictionary covers that. You think it is a harsh description. Im not sure there is much further to go or much to be gained to be honest.

I think in debates like these removing 'emotive' language is a protection for one side. its a protection from calling bigots bigots and racists racist. It starts off with an unavoidable standpoint that what was said 'wasnt that bad' and undeserving of a strong rebuttal.

Not at all. It's a protection against calling people who aren't bigots bigots (tricky, we're all bigots to some degree, whether we mean to be or not) and people who aren't racists racists. When another description would be more fitting.

It doesn't begin from that standpoint. It begins from a standpoint of not treating all incidents as equal or equivalent and allowing a more nuanced understanding of what's going on. I see almost daily in my job the approach of yelling "racist" or "Nazi" loudly at people. I also see the effects of taking a breath and listening to what those people are saying, thinking and feeling, without too much prejudice, even if it makes me uncomfortable at times to listen to it.

I will leave it to your imagination which works better in the vast majority of cases. Oh, alright, I won't. Suffice to say I meet very, very few people who are just purely, simply and unequivocally, irretrievably racist. For those who are not, removing the label and looking at what underpins the problem and the language they're using is much more effective.

Interesting thread this.

I used to have a real problem with the idea of taboo words. Words that can't be spoken by anyone because of the history they carry. Words like and . Words that you can't even use to quote someone else, can't even be utter in some sort of context. I always thought that any word can be normalised. Be made acceptable if used often enough by people who were not using the word to demean.

But it doesn't work. You could normalise 'faggot' all you want, but it still wouldn't make it any less offensive if some screamed it at a gay couple in the street. All the normalisation does is offer some form of defence to the morons would would scream abuse at people in the street for being different to them. It desensitises others: "he only called him a faggot, what's the big deal".
Hardacre was a silly boy. He said something he knows he should have. Used language that isn't acceptable. Language liable to cause offence and alienation to others. The RFL can't act like this sort of language is acceptable. A ban was inevitable and the correct decision. Whether you are homophobic or not, you can't go around hurling homophobic language at people willy nilly.

I'm a white heterosexual male.

Interesting thread this.

I used to have a real problem with the idea of taboo words. Words that can't be spoken by anyone because of the history they carry. Words like and . Words that you can't even use to quote someone else, can't even be utter in some sort of context. I always thought that any word can be normalised. Be made acceptable if used often enough by people who were not using the word to demean.

But it doesn't work. You could normalise 'faggot' all you want, but it still wouldn't make it any less offensive if some screamed it at a gay couple in the street. All the normalisation does is offer some form of defence to the morons would would scream abuse at people in the street for being different to them. It desensitises others: "he only called him a faggot, what's the big deal".
Hardacre was a silly boy. He said something he knows he should have. Used language that isn't acceptable. Language liable to cause offence and alienation to others. The RFL can't act like this sort of language is acceptable. A ban was inevitable and the correct decision. Whether you are homophobic or not, you can't go around hurling homophobic language at people willy nilly.

I'm a white heterosexual male.

If someone in the street asked you how much your wife charged for anal would you punch them in the face?

If they did that when your wife was present would you punch them?

If Hardaker had asked that question of an opponent and was caught on camera would he deserve a 5 match ban?

Is it only incidents caught on camera that are punishable? If players are able to cite opponents who've abused them what are you going to do for the next 5 weeks when we don't have any players left to play?

That one thing about this incident. James Child said he was offended by the word, thus reported it. Now he's been a referee for a fair few years now....you honestly don't think he heard that word of another gay slur uttered on the pitch over the years? I very much doubt it.

I have genuinely no idea what point you're trying to make here.

As for being caught on camera, yes, to be punishable the incident has to be given some sort of credibility from an independent source. Otherwise you could just make any old rubbish up and get someone banned.

If he heard the slur, saw who made it, the question has to be asked why he didn't act on it at that time.

Exactly, it's more than a bit iffy that he did nothing on the field of play. Not even a telling off or talking to saying to cut that type of language out.

Just been out with wife after work. Picked her up at work, at a blue chip insurance company.

They did a World Cup sweepstake at work. And decorated their desks accordingley.

The guy with Uruguay, had over his desk the country spelled out with the letters on single A4 pages. Except someone took a couple of the U's. Not the first one.

He wasn't happy.

Turns out the person that did it is homosexual, and very open about it. Did it for a laugh. Therefore everyone just laughed.