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.