|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 21, 2024 10:42:46 GMT
Is it any more or less bigoted to abuse someone for being larger than average, taller than average, or shorter, perhaps having an extremely short haircut or extremely long hairstyle?
Or, for being ginger haired?
Or even living in a caravan!?
Any form of abuse is wrong, but with some factions of society it feels like they have more protection than others.
But, it's still abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Apr 21, 2024 12:57:52 GMT
Is it any more or less bigoted to abuse someone for being larger than average, taller than average, or shorter, perhaps having an extremely short haircut or extremely long hairstyle? Or, for being ginger haired? Or even living in a caravan!? Any form of abuse is wrong, but with some factions of society it feels like they have more protection than others. But, it's still abuse. So let's take it,one form of abuse at a time. There is no need at to categorise it, as one worse than the other. Which you seem to be advocating |
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Apr 21, 2024 13:47:06 GMT
Is it any more or less bigoted to abuse someone for being larger than average, taller than average, or shorter, perhaps having an extremely short haircut or extremely long hairstyle? Or, for being ginger haired? Or even living in a caravan!? Any form of abuse is wrong, but with some factions of society it feels like they have more protection than others. But, it's still abuse. So let's take it,one form of abuse at a time. There is no need at to categorise it, as one worse than the other. Which you seem to be advocating Homosexuality was legalised in the UK within my lifetime. Gay marriage was only legalised very recently. Tall, small, ginger, fat people have never been criminalised or systematically persecuted. Amazing that some people try and say some "factions" get more protection, as if that's a bad thing. That's me done on this thread before I type something regrettable. UTFG 🌈 |
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Apr 21, 2024 19:29:44 GMT
Embarrassing that people think this sort of thing is acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2024 19:59:13 GMT
I don’t agree with any form of abuse being hurled about - sadly you hear it everywhere though.
At Cheltenham it was deemed a laugh by many about having a party when an opposition player died. I don’t care who the player is … that was appalling.
I don’t know the answer to it - I can’t ever see it improving sadly especially with the way society is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Apr 22, 2024 5:51:08 GMT
Is it any more or less bigoted to abuse someone for being larger than average, taller than average, or shorter, perhaps having an extremely short haircut or extremely long hairstyle? Or, for being ginger haired? Or even living in a caravan!? Any form of abuse is wrong, but with some factions of society it feels like they have more protection than others. But, it's still abuse. I think your comments have come from the right place, however the wording might be a bit confusing. There is definitely a difference between racial and homophobic rhetoric when compared to say questioning if the referees parents were married. There is no place for this in society and some football fans still think it is OK in football. Its just not. I don't really believe that it is up to an individual to fight the cause, I think the stewards and the club need to take the responsibility. If someone around me on the Thatchers starts homophobic and rascist chanting, I couldn't say that I would stand up to it. I do have a sense of personal survival too. The IRA chant is pretty silly, especially the age of the kiddies singing that. Thankfully, most of those 'children' have lived in a world with a peace agreement. As for the referees, I'm sure they 'knock one out' every now and then, so that is very likely to be factually correct. |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Apr 22, 2024 5:53:54 GMT
Is it any more or less bigoted to abuse someone for being larger than average, taller than average, or shorter, perhaps having an extremely short haircut or extremely long hairstyle? Or, for being ginger haired? Or even living in a caravan!? Any form of abuse is wrong, but with some factions of society it feels like they have more protection than others. But, it's still abuse. So let's take it,one form of abuse at a time. There is no need at to categorise it, as one worse than the other. Which you seem to be advocating To be fair to o2 , I would have thought that the opposite was true. "Any form of abuse is wrong." |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Apr 22, 2024 7:03:58 GMT
So let's take it,one form of abuse at a time. There is no need at to categorise it, as one worse than the other. Which you seem to be advocating To be fair to o2 , I would have thought that the opposite was true. "Any form of abuse is wrong." Nobody is disputing that, I think. So why raise other examples in this particular incident? Lets be honest, O2 appears to be claiming that some claim greater protection than others |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 22, 2024 7:09:14 GMT
Is it any more or less bigoted to abuse someone for being larger than average, taller than average, or shorter, perhaps having an extremely short haircut or extremely long hairstyle? Or, for being ginger haired? Or even living in a caravan!? Any form of abuse is wrong, but with some factions of society it feels like they have more protection than others. But, it's still abuse. So let's take it,one form of abuse at a time. There is no need at to categorise it, as one worse than the other. Which you seem to be advocating Unfortunately we can't, or at least that's very difficult to do. In safeguarding, some forms of abuse are more protected than others. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 22, 2024 7:11:26 GMT
To be fair to o2 , I would have thought that the opposite was true. "Any form of abuse is wrong." Nobody is disputing that, I think. So why raise other examples in this particular incident? Lets be honest, O2 appears to be claiming that some claim greater protection than others It's true. Who was there and laughed and joined in with akinfenwa his t*ts are offside...? Sounds like a resounding abuse to me. No one batted an eyelid. No protection in form of fat shaming then. Or now. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Apr 22, 2024 7:33:47 GMT
Nobody is disputing that, I think. So why raise other examples in this particular incident? Lets be honest, O2 appears to be claiming that some claim greater protection than others It's true. Who was there and laughed and joined in with akinfenwa his t*ts are offside...? Sounds like a resounding abuse to me. No one batted an eyelid. No protection in form of fat shaming then. Or now. Your sentiment is a good one. Your example is poor. I have always been challenged by my weight. If someone sang "Your t*ts are offside" to me, I would find that funny. If however, they sang "Who ate all the pies..." then that would water me off. In fact when fans sing that around me, I feel uncomfortably. When Steve Evans was called a weeble, I felt uncomfortable. When we sang "I want to be ginger haired too" I thought that was hilarious. However there is an argument for inherent misogyny in that song which makes it a bit 'awkward'. The treatment of Snakey Taylor at Cheltenham was out of order when lets have a party was sung. However hilarious when "Taylor is a wan...." was sung for 5 to 10 mins continuously. Especially the "oooohhh" between the repeats. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 22, 2024 7:45:33 GMT
It's true. Who was there and laughed and joined in with akinfenwa his t*ts are offside...? Sounds like a resounding abuse to me. No one batted an eyelid. No protection in form of fat shaming then. Or now. Your sentiment is a good one. Your example is poor. I have always been challenged by my weight. If someone sang "Your t*ts are offside" to me, I would find that funny. If however, they sang "Who ate all the pies..." then that would water me off. In fact when fans sing that around me, I feel uncomfortably. When Steve Evans was called a weeble, I felt uncomfortable. When we sang "I want to be ginger haired too" I thought that was hilarious. However there is an argument for inherent misogyny in that song which makes it a bit 'awkward'. The treatment of Snakey Taylor at Cheltenham was out of order when lets have a party was sung. However hilarious when "Taylor is a wan...." was sung for 5 to 10 mins continuously. Especially the "oooohhh" between the repeats. Thanks, g but respectfully disagree... because the thrust of what I'm inferring from your post is: It's ok as it's under a comedic banner. Unfortunately cancel culture negates this. This world generally views abuse abuse, no matter what sentiment behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Apr 22, 2024 8:25:53 GMT
The difference is quite easy, in law we have protected characteristics: www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/protected-characteristics and you as an individual have rights to not be abused or discriminated against because of these. Saying one group has more rights against abuse is completely right if that group has one of these protected characteristics and the other group doesn't. Lets say gay people compared to ginger people. If ginger hair should be added to this list is up to the lawmakers. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Apr 22, 2024 10:25:38 GMT
Your sentiment is a good one. Your example is poor. I have always been challenged by my weight. If someone sang "Your t*ts are offside" to me, I would find that funny. If however, they sang "Who ate all the pies..." then that would water me off. In fact when fans sing that around me, I feel uncomfortably. When Steve Evans was called a weeble, I felt uncomfortable. When we sang "I want to be ginger haired too" I thought that was hilarious. However there is an argument for inherent misogyny in that song which makes it a bit 'awkward'. The treatment of Snakey Taylor at Cheltenham was out of order when lets have a party was sung. However hilarious when "Taylor is a wan...." was sung for 5 to 10 mins continuously. Especially the "oooohhh" between the repeats. Thanks, g but respectfully disagree... because the thrust of what I'm inferring from your post is: It's ok as it's under a comedic banner. Unfortunately cancel culture negates this. This world generally views abuse abuse, no matter what sentiment behind it. The thrust of what I was saying is how it makes that person feel. If that person finds it funny, it's Bants. If the person doesn't then it's bullying. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 22, 2024 11:14:30 GMT
Thanks, g but respectfully disagree... because the thrust of what I'm inferring from your post is: It's ok as it's under a comedic banner. Unfortunately cancel culture negates this. This world generally views abuse abuse, no matter what sentiment behind it. The thrust of what I was saying is how it makes that person feel. If that person finds it funny, it's Bants. If the person doesn't then it's bullying. What if many found Love Thy Neighbour as 'funny'? It ran for many series. Or, Alf Garnett character....? Is that Bantz!? Nope... because racial abuse is a protected abuse. Fat abuse amongst others isn't, but both can be funny and abusive. Can you see the point I'm making? |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 22, 2024 11:31:09 GMT
The thrust of what I was saying is how it makes that person feel. If that person finds it funny, it's Bants. If the person doesn't then it's bullying. What if many found Love Thy Neighbour as 'funny'? It ran for many series. Or, Alf Garnett character....? Is that Bantz!? Nope... because racial abuse is a protected abuse. Fat abuse amongst others isn't, but both can be funny and abusive. Can you see the point I'm making? Misunderstood was Alf Garnett. The programme was clearly anti-racist. Alf was always made to look a fool for his bigoted ways. Meanwhile, the black characters were shown as infinitely cooler, more sensible and more reasonable than mad Alf. Another one of those where the real message was lost in a sea of outrage. Subtlety eh. |
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Apr 22, 2024 12:24:19 GMT
What if many found Love Thy Neighbour as 'funny'? It ran for many series. Or, Alf Garnett character....? Is that Bantz!? Nope... because racial abuse is a protected abuse. Fat abuse amongst others isn't, but both can be funny and abusive. Can you see the point I'm making? Misunderstood was Alf Garnett. The programme was clearly anti-racist. Alf was always made to look a fool for his bigoted ways. Meanwhile, the black characters were shown as infinitely cooler, more sensible and more reasonable than mad Alf. Another one of those where the real message was lost in a sea of outrage. Subtlety eh. Absolutely. Both programmes were satirical, lampooning the ridiculous attitudes of the two white male protagonists. As you refer to, sadly the most worrying aspect of them was that that was lost on too many people. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Apr 22, 2024 12:50:03 GMT
Misunderstood was Alf Garnett. The programme was clearly anti-racist. Alf was always made to look a fool for his bigoted ways. Meanwhile, the black characters were shown as infinitely cooler, more sensible and more reasonable than mad Alf. Another one of those where the real message was lost in a sea of outrage. Subtlety eh. Absolutely. Both programmes were satirical, lampooning the ridiculous attitudes of the two white male protagonists. As you refer to, sadly the most worrying aspect of them was that that was lost on too many people. The brilliant Johnny Speight who wrote the script. Writing in humour which the bigots thought was really funny but without ever realising that so many were laughing at them, not with them. 1965, have we really progressed? Yes there are laws on the Statute Book, but beneath the surface it's still there. These days just swap the Caribbean for a Muslim and you hear and read the same crap. Sadly no Johnny Speight around to satirise the idiots. I always found it funny that Tony Blair's wife, Cheri Booth, was always subject to attack for being a Barrister. People completely ignorant of the fact that her father was Tony Booth who played opposite Warren Mitchell in Till Death us do Part. Born in Liverpool of a working class family whose own father served as a Merchant Seaman in WW2. The Tories and their press hate working class women who achieve. Ask Angela Rayner. Or Warren Mitchell's family who were Russian Jews who migrated here. Brilliant script and acting, exposing indeginous ignorance and bigotry. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Apr 22, 2024 13:46:37 GMT
The thrust of what I was saying is how it makes that person feel. If that person finds it funny, it's Bants. If the person doesn't then it's bullying. What if many found Love Thy Neighbour as 'funny'? It ran for many series. Or, Alf Garnett character....? Is that Bantz!? Nope... because racial abuse is a protected abuse. Fat abuse amongst others isn't, but both can be funny and abusive. Can you see the point I'm making?No, not really. The point I was making is that is Akinfenwe thought it was funny, that is OK. If Akinfenwe thought it was out of order then that is not OK. It is about the person receiving the comment. If they voluntary believe is to be funny, then that's fine. If they are unhappy about the comment, then that is not fine. If a gay person used a gay slur to one of their friends, that is OK. If a heterosexual used that same word, it's not OK. Tim Minchin explains this very well: |
|
|
|
Post by The Equaliser on Apr 22, 2024 13:48:48 GMT
Sadly many people laughed with Alf Garnett, not at him as the show intended.
It appeared to be scripted to make him look the racist fool, however it did not work and many saw him as their racist hero. It failed and he is still lauded today by some as some sort of funny idol. 🤦🏾♀️
|
|
