Dispatches

[Captain...]

I can't believe you would come out with such a sexist comment. Clearly you are too Neanderthal to understand that women fought hard for equality and now in the 21st century they have it.

 

Yes because it is acceptable to hit men.

 

[LanguedocFox]

Yes because it is acceptable to hit men.

 

 

Why?

[Dan]

I find the Knockaert/Mahrez song offensive as it devalues our support into being one of the fad-loving mediocre fanbases.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

To the people who are bringing up slavery and racism etc in defence against accusations of chronic offence-taking, do you realise the hugely arrogant implications of what you're saying?Justifying your sensitivities by comparing your offence to the repulsion felt by anti-slavery campaigners is so self-absorbed. Do you honestly believe you are in the same position as they were? And do you honestly believe that the ending of the slave trade could be best described as a response to it being found "offensive"? Wouldn't that be an embarrassing and insulting misnomer?

 

There is a middle ground here that some people are denying with this false dichotomy. You don't have to be a chronically offended prude to find some of what is chanted at football matches quite distasteful, but at the same time you don't have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazi for not deeming "offence" to be an important factor in decision-making at all.

 

"We can see you holding hands" - this is, at most, mildly distasteful. It's quite boring, predictable, and unimaginative. It is in no way a orchestrated anti-homosexuality campaign or a foundation for mass hatred. The fact that people are "offended" by it is really a red herring. Who cares if you're offended? Being offended does not in and of itself deserve some extra level of entitlement. It's an insult to gay people to take offence on their behalf for such minor and insignificant treatment when they have, within living memory, received such awful treatment from other people far worse than a few hundred blokes trying to be funny at a football match. That genuinely is offensive.

 

On a side note, I work at Brighton Gay Pride each year and, great fun though it is, if you want to see truly "offensive" things I recommend it, you'll see things you can never unsee 

[Voll Blau]

I find the Knockaert/Mahrez song offensive as it devalues our support into being one of the fad-loving mediocre fanbases.

 

Valid.

 

And no-one ever referred to a "Tony Knockaert".

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Valid.

 

And no-one ever referred to a "Tony Knockaert".

 

And everybody pronounces "Tony" in a Manchester accent for some reason.

[shade]

To the people who are bringing up slavery and racism etc in defence against accusations of chronic offence-taking, do you realise the hugely arrogant implications of what you're saying?Justifying your sensitivities by comparing your offence to the repulsion felt by anti-slavery campaigners is so self-absorbed. Do you honestly believe you are in the same position as they were? And do you honestly believe that the ending of the slave trade could be best described as a response to it being found "offensive"? Wouldn't that be an embarrassing and insulting misnomer?

 

There is a middle ground here that some people are denying with this false dichotomy. You don't have to be a chronically offended prude to find some of what is chanted at football matches quite distasteful, but at the same time you don't have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazi for not deeming "offence" to be an important factor in decision-making at all.

 

"We can see you holding hands" - this is, at most, mildly distasteful. It's quite boring, predictable, and unimaginative. It is in no way a orchestrated anti-homosexuality campaign or a foundation for mass hatred. The fact that people are "offended" by it is really a red herring. Who cares if you're offended? Being offended does not in and of itself deserve some extra level of entitlement. It's an insult to gay people to take offence on their behalf for such minor and insignificant treatment when they have, within living memory, received such awful treatment from other people far worse than a few hundred blokes trying to be funny at a football match. That genuinely is offensive.

 

On a side note, I work at Brighton Gay Pride each year and, great fun though it is, if you want to see truly "offensive" things I recommend it, you'll see things you can never unsee 

 

i'd still come back to: "we can see you holding hands" is chanted at people as a smear (banter), you're implying that there is something wrong with two same-sex people holding hands. you wouldn't chant this unless subconsciously or consciously, you believe it's wrong.

 

the actual slur itself, may be relatively mild, but the motivation behind it speaks to something much darker in my opinion.

[Dan]

i'd still come back to: "we can see you holding hands" is chanted at people as a smear (banter), you're implying that there is something wrong with two same-sex people holding hands. you wouldn't chant this unless subconsciously or consciously, you believe it's wrong.

 

the actual slur itself, may be relatively mild, but the motivation behind it speaks to something much darker in my opinion.

 

RACIST

[Captain...]

Why?

 

It isn't, hence the facepalm smiley, the idea that women are now equal to men is still far from the mark, despite lots of progress, the fact that in his equates to women being physically equal is also ridiculous, but to then come out and say that equality means that it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman, is just beyond ridiculous and deserving of a sarcastic post, seeing violence is never acceptable regardless of gender.

[Captain...]

i'd still come back to: "we can see you holding hands" is chanted at people as a smear (banter), you're implying that there is something wrong with two same-sex people holding hands. you wouldn't chant this unless subconsciously or consciously, you believe it's wrong.

 

the actual slur itself, may be relatively mild, but the motivation behind it speaks to something much darker in my opinion.

 

Who can they see holding hands? Why do you assume it is 2 men?

 

If a bunch of away fans were chanting at the block I was sitting in, "we can see you holding hands", I would think they had spotted someone actually holding hands, being it a couple, straight or otherwise and were taking the piss out of the bloke for holding his girlfriends hand at the footy.

 

Obviously it is Brighton so that is where the gay thing comes into it, but really there is no offensive words in there, no reference to homosexuals or bumming, it really is just playground stuff.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

i'd still come back to: "we can see you holding hands" is chanted at people as a smear (banter), you're implying that there is something wrong with two same-sex people holding hands. you wouldn't chant this unless subconsciously or consciously, you believe it's wrong.

 

the actual slur itself, may be relatively mild, but the motivation behind it speaks to something much darker in my opinion.

 

Much darker? It's hardly a dark revelation that straight men often comically deride each other by diminishing their masculinity, sexuality, or virility. Holding hands in this context does this twice because the act itself is a largely non-sexualised, perhaps even feminine display of affection, and the fact that it is with somebody of the same sex is a predictable but common reduction of the recipient's masculine qualities - masculinity being typically defined by sexual potency and inclination towards the opposite sex. I don't think this is "dark" in any way. If you cannot recognise the difference between this and, say, not letting a gay couple buy something from your shop, or pushing anonymous hate-letters through their letterbox, or threatening them with violence, then you're really not thinking straight.

 

There are clearly degrees of appropriateness and acceptability, and "we can see you holding hands" is surely quite low on that scale. 

[Darkon84]

Much darker? It's hardly a dark revelation that straight men often comically deride each other by diminishing their masculinity, sexuality, or virility. Holding hands in this context does this twice because the act itself is a largely non-sexualised, perhaps even feminine display of affection, and the fact that it is with somebody of the same sex is a predictable but common reduction of the recipient's masculine qualities - masculinity being typically defined by sexual potency and inclination towards the opposite sex. I don't think this is "dark" in any way. If you cannot recognise the difference between this and, say, not letting a gay couple buy something from your shop, or pushing anonymous hate-letters through their letterbox, or threatening them with violence, then you're really not thinking straight.

 

There are clearly degrees of appropriateness and acceptability, and "we can see you holding hands" is surely quite low on that scale. 

 

 

Well worded indeed.

[LanguedocFox]

It isn't, hence the facepalm smiley, the idea that women are now equal to men is still far from the mark, despite lots of progress, the fact that in his equates to women being physically equal is also ridiculous, but to then come out and say that equality means that it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman, is just beyond ridiculous and deserving of a sarcastic post, seeing violence is never acceptable regardless of gender.

 

Apologies, Captain: I missed that.

[RumbleFox]

Well, this is certainly an entertaining debate. 

 

To the people who are bringing up slavery and racism etc in defence against accusations of chronic offence-taking, do you realise the hugely arrogant implications of what you're saying?Justifying your sensitivities by comparing your offence to the repulsion felt by anti-slavery campaigners is so self-absorbed. Do you honestly believe you are in the same position as they were? And do you honestly believe that the ending of the slave trade could be best described as a response to it being found "offensive"? Wouldn't that be an embarrassing and insulting misnomer?

 

There is a middle ground here that some people are denying with this false dichotomy. You don't have to be a chronically offended prude to find some of what is chanted at football matches quite distasteful, but at the same time you don't have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazi for not deeming "offence" to be an important factor in decision-making at all.

 

"We can see you holding hands" - this is, at most, mildly distasteful. It's quite boring, predictable, and unimaginative. It is in no way a orchestrated anti-homosexuality campaign or a foundation for mass hatred. The fact that people are "offended" by it is really a red herring. Who cares if you're offended? Being offended does not in and of itself deserve some extra level of entitlement. It's an insult to gay people to take offence on their behalf for such minor and insignificant treatment when they have, within living memory, received such awful treatment from other people far worse than a few hundred blokes trying to be funny at a football match. That genuinely is offensive.

 

On a side note, I work at Brighton Gay Pride each year and, great fun though it is, if you want to see truly "offensive" things I recommend it, you'll see things you can never unsee 

Hello there

 

The thing is, it is very hard to put levels on bad things.  Just because having a "banterish" joke about gay people is not as bad as the slave trade does not mean that it is not bad at all.  I was not comparing the two in terms of which was better or worse but in terms of how things which are deemed completely acceptable by a culture can be one day shown to be the opposite.  I bet 30 years ago people thought that "paki" and "nigger" were just harmless jokes that everyone said but it is only with the gift of hindsight and continued discussion that we can see them for what they are which is, at worst, bigoted hatred worthy of our complete vitriolic bashing or, at best, pathetic and stupid ignorance which is embarrassing to see grown men spout out.

 

My argument these days is not that these things are "as bad" or "not as bad" as the slave trade or the inequality of women but that it is so so so depressing to see a group of grown men/women literally acting like a pack of jibbering, salivating animals and shouting "I've got a foreskin" or "I bet you take it up the arse" to another bunch of grown men/women and I can’t see why saying that you believe this to be wrong should get rounds of "lighten up man, it's banter, it's PC gone mad!!".

 

As I said I just cannot see why grown adults would want to shout such childish (and very hurtful sometimes) comments at other grown adults?  And, as an extension, why other grown adults would waste time and energy defending someone's right to call another man a bender?  Surely there are more worthwhile, useful causes than fighting for the rights of the poor, mistreated moron to have the right to call a gay man a bender like in the good old days and make fun of Leicester cos there's like, loads of pakis n that.

 

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you cannot hope to ban people based on ignorant views but maybe we can hope to make it less likely for people to want to shout abusive chants by having discussions like this.

 

I say again, do you want to fight for the right that a man can stand up at a football match and shout "I bet you take it up the arse" to a whole sea of people because they come from a town that has a well known gay scene?  Do any of us want to be fighting that fight?

 

Up the foxes!!

[Captain...]

Well, this is certainly an entertaining debate. 

 

Hello there

 

The thing is, it is very hard to put levels on bad things.  Just because having a "banterish" joke about gay people is not as bad as the slave trade does not mean that it is not bad at all.  I was not comparing the two in terms of which was better or worse but in terms of how things which are deemed completely acceptable by a culture can be one day shown to be the opposite.  I bet 30 years ago people thought that "paki" and "nigger" were just harmless jokes that everyone said but it is only with the gift of hindsight and continued discussion that we can see them for what they are which is, at worst, bigoted hatred worthy of our complete vitriolic bashing or, at best, pathetic and stupid ignorance which is embarrassing to see grown men spout out.

 

My argument these days is not that these things are "as bad" or "not as bad" as the slave trade or the inequality of women but that it is so so so depressing to see a group of grown men/women literally acting like a pack of jibbering, salivating animals and shouting "I've got a foreskin" or "I bet you take it up the arse" to another bunch of grown men/women and I can’t see why saying that you believe this to be wrong should get rounds of "lighten up man, it's banter, it's PC gone mad!!".

 

As I said I just cannot see why grown adults would want to shout such childish (and very hurtful sometimes) comments at other grown adults?  And, as an extension, why other grown adults would waste time and energy defending someone's right to call another man a bender?  Surely there are more worthwhile, useful causes than fighting for the rights of the poor, mistreated moron to have the right to call a gay man a bender like in the good old days and make fun of Leicester cos there's like, loads of pakis n that.

 

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you cannot hope to ban people based on ignorant views but maybe we can hope to make it less likely for people to want to shout abusive chants by having discussions like this.

 

I say again, do you want to fight for the right that a man can stand up at a football match and shout "I bet you take it up the arse" to a whole sea of people because they come from a town that has a well known gay scene?  Do any of us want to be fighting that fight?

 

Up the foxes!!

 

 

*Unless you iz talking about bummers

[LanguedocFox]

Well, this is certainly an entertaining debate. 

 

Hello there

 

The thing is, it is very hard to put levels on bad things.  Just because having a "banterish" joke about gay people is not as bad as the slave trade does not mean that it is not bad at all.  I was not comparing the two in terms of which was better or worse but in terms of how things which are deemed completely acceptable by a culture can be one day shown to be the opposite.  I bet 30 years ago people thought that "paki" and "nigger" were just harmless jokes that everyone said but it is only with the gift of hindsight and continued discussion that we can see them for what they are which is, at worst, bigoted hatred worthy of our complete vitriolic bashing or, at best, pathetic and stupid ignorance which is embarrassing to see grown men spout out.

 

My argument these days is not that these things are "as bad" or "not as bad" as the slave trade or the inequality of women but that it is so so so depressing to see a group of grown men/women literally acting like a pack of jibbering, salivating animals and shouting "I've got a foreskin" or "I bet you take it up the arse" to another bunch of grown men/women and I can’t see why saying that you believe this to be wrong should get rounds of "lighten up man, it's banter, it's PC gone mad!!".

 

As I said I just cannot see why grown adults would want to shout such childish (and very hurtful sometimes) comments at other grown adults?  And, as an extension, why other grown adults would waste time and energy defending someone's right to call another man a bender?  Surely there are more worthwhile, useful causes than fighting for the rights of the poor, mistreated moron to have the right to call a gay man a bender like in the good old days and make fun of Leicester cos there's like, loads of pakis n that.

 

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you cannot hope to ban people based on ignorant views but maybe we can hope to make it less likely for people to want to shout abusive chants by having discussions like this.

 

I say again, do you want to fight for the right that a man can stand up at a football match and shout "I bet you take it up the arse" to a whole sea of people because they come from a town that has a well known gay scene?  Do any of us want to be fighting that fight?

 

Up the foxes!!

 

 

Very well put: I can't wait to see which halfwits say, "Well yes, I do want to fight for that right. Especially if it involves smacking some woman in the face at the same time."

[RumbleFox]

 

*Unless you iz talking about bummers

You my sir are a wit and a cad and have bested me in debate.  I bow down to you.  Teach me your ways. X

[RumbleFox]

 

*Unless you iz talking about bummers

On a serious note, I am not arguing with his right to say it but just offering an alternate view that I hope is more reasonable and rational. x

[LanguedocFox]

 

*Unless you iz talking about bummers

 

 

I would have thought that went without saying.

[Captain...]

Rumble fox's avatar makes me think of Ian Marshall.

 

Before he joined us he always got stick, it was normally one of 2 chants:

 

"Gyppo" or "Where's your caravan?"

 

Now I never joined in with Gyppo, as I saw it as just being rude, but I thought "Where's your caravan?" was funny. I guess it is in the indirect reference that makes it funny, subtle almost.

 

The same with "We can see you holding hands." as opposed to "town full of queers" which is offensive.

 

It is a very fine line of taste, and obviously some Brighton fans don't agree, but I think there is a difference between making a joke out of something and just calling people names, even when the result is the same.

[Bettsj2]

When all is said and done, unless you're completely stupid, you know very well what is likely to offend someone and what isnt.

Its all about context and if thousands of men in a football stadium chant 'does your boyfriend know you're here?' You know that may cause offence to someone because its sung not as banter (fvcking hate that term) but to wind up the opposition fans just as any song directed at the opposing supporters is supposed to do.

Arguments for 'what is offensive and what isn't' are usually made to justify something that the offender knows is wrong.

I'm not taking the moral high ground as i've chanted all that has been mentioned when we play Brighton, just admitting that I know very well that its offensive but in that moment, I dont really care.

[Guest MattP]

Some real nonsense written in here since last night.

 

I have no idea why people are bringing the words Nigg*r and Pa*i etc into the debate now, no one has condoned the use of this and I think not a single person in the thread has described using those words are completely acceptable in public.

 

Most people now seem to agree (Shade and a couple of others apart) that singing "We can see you holding hands" doesn't equate to homophobia and is gentle ribbing at worst rather than any sort of general nastiness.

 

People are going to have different lines that they draw in the sand but the way some people seem to think that means we have to move it to the further point they can is worrying, pathetic almost and I'd imagine a lot of gays would cringe at the offence taken on their behalf by some of the folk in here.

 

I'm out of this now as I think everything has been covered but I'll leave with a quote from (probably) my favourite gay.

 

[RumbleFox]

Some real nonsense written in here since last night.

 

I have no idea why people are bringing the words Nigg*r and Pa*i etc into the debate now, no one has condoned the use of this and I think not a single person in the thread has described using those words are completely acceptable in public.

 

Most people now seem to agree (Shade and a couple of others apart) that singing "We can see you holding hands" doesn't equate to homophobia and is gentle ribbing at worst rather than any sort of general nastiness.

 

People are going to have different lines that they draw in the sand but the way some people seem to think that means we have to move it to the further point they can is worrying, pathetic almost and I'd imagine a lot of gays would cringe at the offence taken on their behalf by some of the folk in here.

 

I'm out of this now as I think everything has been covered but I'll leave with a quote from (probably) my favourite gay.

 

I am offended by racism. 

 

Is that a meaningless purposeless whine?  i love a bit of Stephen and I know what he means and I agree with it and I agree with what you are saying.  I think the right to offend is massively important but it does not give people the RIGHT to be offensive surely?  I am not saying people must be silenced or not allowed to speak but if someone says something you find offensive you should question it and state reasons why you find it offensive surely? X

[Captain...]

I am offended by racism. 

 

Is that a meaningless purposeless whine?  i love a bit of Stephen and I know what he means and I agree with it and I agree with what you are saying.  I think the right to offend is massively important but it does not give people the RIGHT to be offensive surely?  I am not saying people must be silenced or not allowed to speak but if someone says something you find offensive you should question it and state reasons why you find it offensive surely? X

 

But when there are already clear laws on things like racism, then it isn't a case of being offended, like I'm not offended when someone mugs an old lady, I'm disgusted and condem that action as vile, but I'm not offended if someone says nigger.

[Guest MattP]

I am offended by racism. 

 

Is that a meaningless purposeless whine?  i love a bit of Stephen and I know what he means and I agree with it and I agree with what you are saying.  I think the right to offend is massively important but it does not give people the RIGHT to be offensive surely?  I am not saying people must be silenced or not allowed to speak but if someone says something you find offensive you should question it and state reasons why you find it offensive surely? X

 

Of course you have the right to be offended, and we have the right to say "so fcuking what" and carry on offending.