i was at this game :

paul cooke was playing his first game at the kc after leaving hull fc

he was copping a gobfull, not from 20 fans, but from 15,000 fans

how did cooke react?

did he sook, run to the media afterwards saying he was hurt.

no he had a massive match including kicking a conversion from the sideline after which he stared down the popular stand who were now silent ...

thats what i expect from our players

more like a trojan horse

once they let me into twickenham, ill burn the place down

Is it abuse if you acknowledge it? Or is it just fair comment.

FTR lots of straight men 'take it up the harris' too. Thats only a sexual preference, not a relationship preference. I just thought I'd point this out.

Is there something you want to 'come out' and admit mate??


Dally?


Meet Scooter Nik.........

i would have thought the difference between a mild insult and offensive behaviour would be clear. In fact if there werent a difference, a mild insult and offensive behaviour would be the same thing, but they clearly arent By their very definition one is mild and the other offensive. Taking somebodies lifestyle choice, a choice for 30+years they had to keep secret because of some troglodytes bigoted attitudes and using it as a stick to beat them with is offensive by any sensible measure

oh, so im the arbiter over what is offensive now? Ok, here is a hard and fast rule. Imagine its you, imagine you are in that persons shoes and have lived their life, imagine you have seen their persecutions and discrimination, fear and hate. Imagine you are black/gay/disabled/etc and how you would feel if someone you didnt know came up to you in a pub and said it to you. If you think it would just be banter then its fine, if you would feel hurt of offended it wouldnt. Its called Empathy and most mature adults find it intrinsically within them. If you dont possess it you either have a mental health issue or are just not a very good person

nobody is pretending there arent other issues in the game. But it doesnt mean we accept homophobia as ok
.
Which becomes irrelevant when we remember that he isnt the arbiter of offence. The fact he wasnt offended enough to make official representations is of no consequence to whether or not it was offensive behaviour
Im not self-flagellating, I was already very aware of the fact there are bigots and idiots within our game just like the rest of society.

And it isnt offence by proxy. Im offended by homophobic behaviour because I am offended by homophobic behaviour. I find bigoted and discriminatory behaviour in all its forms offensive because it is offensive. Dont pretend that only gay people can be offended by homophobia, We straight people can and should be aswell. Just like a white atheist like myself can be offended by anti-semitic and racist behaviour.

except it clearly isnt irrelevant or separate. It blows apart the very heart of your idiotic argument. If there is no hierarchy of offence then racism is no worse than homophobia which is no worse than anti-semitism, which is no worse in your crazy world than calling someone a fat w@nker.
Look up w@nker in the dictionary. When used as an insult it used as a general term of abuse. It isnt directed at only those who masturbate. The definition of the word separates the two uses of the word. Surely you arent now denying the duality of meaning of words?

This is a massive distinction between the word w@nker and the word faggot

in fact, Ill explain it a little deeper for you. Words are symblic, there meanings are arbitrary and the fact they mean something specific is only down to convention. That convention on the meaning of words stretches to the times they should and can be used. It also means that when certain words are used in a pejorative way, they do by convention and by definition carry a certain level of offence. Some words were invented and convention of their meaning was always meant to carry a high level of offence. The word itself is meaningless, it is the convention behind it that implies the meaning. Words like faggot where always meant to convey a high level of offence. The convention which created them, created them with the sole purpose of offending. the convention behind singing about someone 'taking it up the @rse' is that to do so (i.e engage in homosexual behaviour) is wrong and as such that person and their lifestyle choice is wrong. If you cannot see how this would be offensive then i cant help but think that you possess some socio-pathic tendencies

why does it matter. According to you there is no hierarchy of offence so calling someone a faggot is no different to saying someone takes it up the @rse which is no difference to calling a black man a and any asian a Paki
yes. People choose all these things. Thats not to say these things are wrong but they have the choice not to be that way. Whilst a gay man will always be attracted to men they dont have to sleep with them. Why they would make that choice i have no idea but they do have it as an option
well at least one person was hurt by the actions of idiots and bigots. Thats enough for me to say id be happy to kick idiots and bigots out of our game. I welcome everyone into our game, except bigots.

Smokey I can't believe you went to that much effort to reply to a topic thats not really worth discussing anyway.

I got bored after the first couple of lines but hopefully you go on to say something along the lines of abusing players because of their race, sexual orientation or any other reason is wrong, but will always happen owing to the fact a lot of supporters are of the opinion that once they have paid their $ or £ at the gate that gives them a free reign to say and do what they like for 80 mins.

had it not been an issue like that i wouldnt have bothered. But hopefully it will sink in

Barry McKenzie has been round the block a few times but I must admit that is a new one on me

I notrice that the old over the hill oversensitive softy who's not tough enough for League scored a try on the weekend in his, what, 4th ever rugby league match? And at Superleague standard too.
Maybe the game's not so hard for RU converts after all eh? If EVEN a past-it 36 year old RU "whiner" can score in the elite league in his 4th game (and not even his 4th full game at that).

good reply Smokey, no doubt it will go way over the heads of many on here though.

I havent decided this at all, Gareth himself has said so

It doesnt matter how Thomas took it. Im offended because i find homophobia offensive. that isnt by proxy, it offends me, because I am offended by bigotry. And it isnt ignorant to say that lack of empathy is indicative of some mental health problems. In fact it is a defining characteristic in some. If that was the case i wouldnt judge you for it, i would hope you get all the help and support you need.
how is it hypocritical to challenge homophobic behaviour? i would do the same for racism, anti-semitism, religious discrimination or any important issue. We just arent talking about them right now because they arent the issue at hand

so then it doesnt matter that Thomas didnt make official representations because other people could, quite naturally be offended by homophobic insults even though they are directed at one specific person. Again it isnt offence by proxy. Its called empathy.

I havent decided this, by its very definition insult someone on the basis they are gay is homophobic. It kind of defines the word. Like any empathetic person i am offended by bigotry and discrimination. You think these things arent that important. that says more about you than me
i think we can take from your desperate avoidance of the issue that you really dont think there is no hierarchy of abuse. And you accept it is complete nonsense to equate racist comments with mild insults. Its just you dont equate racism with homophobia. You think being racist is much more offensive than being homophobic.

I dont need to clarify they hate anything. Whether they are so ignorant as to not know the meaning and offence behind what they are singing has no baring on whether it is offensive or not? And i no the inference was the homosexuality was wrong and offence was intended because of common sense? if not to offend Thomas or pejoratively comment on his sexuality why do you think they were singing it? Were you under the impression they were performing a public service and passing on some important information that we all needed to know through the medium of song?

no, read it again. I said Thomas chose to keep his sexuality to himself because of the fear of the response from bigots. Im pretty sure things like this were part of it. No a gay man shouldnt deny his sexuality. he should be free to do whatever he pleases. But he has a choice to deny it. Why he would want to i dont know, but he has the choice

If i hear something offensive i will be offended. I just dont find jokes about peoples weight carry the same level of offence as homophobia. Just like i dont find jokes about people being bald as offensive as racism. You apparently do

No. You are wrong. You havent comprehended what I said at all. These arent complex things. Its fairly simple.

My indignation is not consistent because i do not believe that A) all offence is equal, and B) all things are equally offensive.

Strangely you seem to have pretended that your argument is actually mine.

Ill put this simply for you. One short sentence you may be able to understand (you see here where i am being patronising? im doing that because i know there is a certain level of offence implied within that. That offence is fairly mild so it can express my frustration at your ignorance. But isnt so offensive as to cause real hurt)

I do not equate mild insults like fatty, w@nker, etc with homophobia or racism.

Your whole argument is based on their being no hierarchy of offence. If this is the case you would be happy to admit you see no difference between calling a black player a monkey and Steve Ganson a fat t0sser

To someone who has a weight problem being called 'Fatty' is possibly every bit as insulting as anything else.

All things are not equally offensive because what one person might find deeply offensive is not necessarily so to another.