So if i am black and you called me a rich white man you think it's of no importance? Remind us of what you're arguing over in the first place?



Repeatedly? Really? I mentioned it once before you came up with your is Cod'ead the spokesman for gays comment. But over exaggerate if you must.




Really, how many times have I said I was straight?

Does experience only apply to those who are gay? Does having friends, family, work colleagues, ex-partners who were bisexual mean I'm devoid of experience on the subject?

If you're not gay should everything you say be viewed ignorant due to lack of experience?

I'm fully enjoying your digging of a massive hole though.

Yes, everything you say should be viewed through the prism of this not being an experience you have had yourself, yet strangely feel comfortable in telling someone who has they are wrong.

Did I say he was wrong?

Still won't admit the white man/black man error you made?

Won't answer whether experience only counts for people who are gay?

yes you wrote a long post on the first page arguing against him.

experience of this yes. If you arent gay or bisexual you dont have those experiences. You may have other experiences of something different, but well that's something different.

Yes I debated his points. Did I say he was wrong except on the line he quoted about me from the other thread? No so stop embarrassing yourself.




You said I was DEVOID of experience though? Again your scrambling is quite pathetic.

Yes, you debated his points because you thought they were wrong. Theres not much debate in agreement.


and in this context you are. Don't be a moron and pretend you thought i said you were devoid of experience in anything ever that would be as stupid as it would be boring.

If this were local government Zac would have gone by now, thankfully this is the hard world of commercial enterprise. Most businesses do not like losing their best talent - very bad for business - so they find a way of working matters out. Hopefully this common sense approach will be adopted and we can all move on.

Do you ever actually just take your medicine and admit your errors or just constantly scramble and dig deeper?

There's a real misunderstanding about Homophonia I agree. Homophobia is an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Zaks comments were offensive but not homophobic.

No, Zak's comments were homophobic even if Zak's not a homophobe.

What zak said was wrong, he's held his hands up and apologised, I can understand that people are offended and upset, but people also need to remember that everyone has said things "in a heat of a moment" and regretted it later. IMO a two game suspension and a hefty fine should be coming his way

Do you think that statement came from Hardaker? It does resemble something prepared by managers or lawyers.

No matter what he said this place will have been rife with people with agendas of their own under the guise of being offended. It will have placated some and not others. That's their issue IMO. I noticed the Hull FC fans never came back. I wonder why. It's done, he's apologised and we await his punishment. The faux indignation matters not. Let the RFL do what they've got to do.

Oh.

Problem is, the ones with this disgust/offence/anger/whatever at Hardaker have been fine to have a go at him and especially others like myself.

The OP was one fuelled by the original thread. The OP tried to make out that I said "I have the right not be offended by homophobic abuse"......I clearly did not say this yet he and others have tried to paint people that haven't been offended by this incident as ignorant, misguided, uniformed, privileged, inexperienced homophobes.

BTW a quote I not only didn't make but haven't received an apology upon pointing out as erroneous.....at least Hardaker has done that. Seems you can incorrectly try and paint someone homophobic but a straight man can't call another straight man faggot in the heat of the moment without it being blown out of proportion.

The OP coming as well from a poster who said I should be banned on the other thread. If anything a ban should be the other way round with the amount of times some have labelled people ignorant and homophobic and whatnot on here. I think for people trying to defend people and their choices they should tread carefully with the way they're judging people on here that don't agree with them.

Is that an irrational fear of listening to Gloria Gaynor songs?

I think the issue is that you have stated you are not offended- fine. You have no personal reason to be offended. What you are failing to do is recognise that others ARE offended. Not just bandwagon jumpers as some insensitive souls have claimed - but through their experiences find the comment unacceptable. cod'ead is comfortable with his sexuality and obviously has the strength and the support he needs to NOT be offended- good for him! But as someone who works with youngsters I can tell you that using words like this can be extremly hurtful and damaging to someone trying to understand their sexual feelings.

No I understand others have been offended, but when I or other have claimed not to be offended we get words ignorant aimed at us. It is possible to not be offended by that incident and not be ignorant.

You did claim that people were reacting OTT to this incident- you weren't offended, others were deeply offended, claiming their reaction is OTT could be seen as ignorance by them.
Of course in an ideal world, free of persecution, we should be able to use any words we like without risk of offence. We don't live in an ideal world, we live in one where people are condemned for their sexuality, race, religion and disability-so why not just remove certain words from daily vocabulary which are used in some instances to do so and then we have no need for any offence to be taken.

For me, any argument about whether the word was homophobic is removed when you put the word "f***ing" in front of it. At which point it becomes perjorative.

The issue of offence is a different one. There are lots of places you could use it in jest and nobody would be offended, including around a lot of gay people. I know a few who use "fag" and "gay" as insults. The key to that is that it only works in private conversations. You can't shout it in public, because it does offend some people.

Am I offended by it? No. Should it be shouted in public? No.

I still think, however, that the bigger issue is that a word that people have had to live with as part of homophobic abuse has slipped into casual use. In that sense people advocating huge bans should, in my opinion, be asking whether Zac Hardaker's crime is unusual, or whether getting caught is unusual. I share some people's suspicion that there's some very contrived outrage around this case.

The approach of punishing people for unthinkingly saying naughty things is outmoded and ineffective in my opinion. I'd prefer to use this as a chance to get people to reflect on the connotations of the word 'fag' and make the 'punishment' a bit of community service.

I've seen months and months of work with problematic racist views undone by heavy handed judicial rulings too often. It breeds more resentment, not more understanding.

Personally I agree with you -I don't think a huge ban is helpful in this instance- but given that the RFL have written rules in place I think it will happen. If getting caught using the word is more unusual than using the word then that's something people should reflect on. The club and the RFL should now try to use this incident in a positive way to get people to think about words they allow to casually appear in their vocabulary.

thats surely not irrational?

I'm OK about listening to her stuff now but at first I was afraid, I was petrified.

I am what I am.

Very apt.

Ok – I’ve read the OP a couple of times now and as far as I can tell they’re saying that not being gay is a privilege.

It may be looked at in that way but this is surely contextual?

If not being gay in a predominantly straight society is a privilege then it stands to reason that being white in a predominantly white society is also a privilege. Likewise being able-bodied or Christian or any sector of society where one is in the majority also makes one privileged.

So if you are white and able-bodied you are privileged, but if you are also gay you are not.

How can you be privileged in one respect but not in another?

I’m confused!!