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.

But still you are missing the point. Hardaker wasn't having a laugh with a few mates in the office he was INSULTING someone.

Actually, I think you are missing the point. Had the countries picked being the other way round, and the other gentleman did it, everything is ok?

The only thing that offends me on this thread is Gotcha's inability to differentiate between the words 'been' and 'being'.

Now your been unfair could of being many other grammatical issue's.

Stop it. I'm getting twitchy...

It's clear some people from Leeds didn't understand it on Thursday evening.

In the second half when some Leeds fans migrated to the Western Terrace the languedge they used after Huddersfield got in front was far worse than Zak Hardaker and the group that were threatening to smash the Huddersfield spectators because we had the temerity to go in front were lunatics !!!

The stewards in the first half pulled two of us stood at the end of a barrier for putting a foot on the yellow line yet they allowed the foulest of languedge and the same people to stand in what we were told was 'a no go area' and listened to the vilest of insults without action.

I have come to Leeds for nearly fifty years most of the time when we had a poor team and got hammered with no problems but because we were beating a 'reserve' team through no fault of our own the abuse started.

Perhaps the problems are wider than just Zak but to hear the same insults used towards us all who are around 60 years of age and the attitudes of the Stewards who ignored them maybe casts light about why Zak thought it was alright at the time as did 'some' Leeds fans and their Stewards !!

Such languedge is just unacceptable!!

Have you reported it to the club?

You weren't with that silly old man who wears the bejewelled middle eastern type hat were you. He made a right prat of himself stood there waving two lots of fingers in the air at the Southstand and mouthing F off when Udders scored. A man of his age should really know better. I'm not surprised parents won't let their kids go to huddersfield games and their crowds are so low.