The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 You would agree that sometimes words can be demeaning to a particular group of people? You aren't naive enough to disagree with this are you? If you can agree with the above statement then my question to you is "when is it OK to demean another person?" If you agree that it isn't OK to demean someone then why should it be allowed anywhere, much less a place with a wide range of ages, people of all sexual orientations and cultures? Show me where I said its okay to demean somebody.
Beerball Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Show me where I said its okay to demean somebody. Sorry, can't get off that easy. Answer the questions. You said that you are against 'words' being banned. Answer the questions and tell me rationally why you are dead set against this.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 You would agree that sometimes words can be demeaning to a particular group of people? You aren't naive enough to disagree with this are you? If you can agree with the above statement then my question to you is "when is it OK to demean another person?" If you agree that it isn't OK to demean someone then why should it be allowed anywhere, much less a place with a wide range of ages, people of all sexual orientations and cultures? Sorry, can't get off that easy. Answer the questions. You said that you are against 'words' being banned. Answer the questions and tell me rationally why you are dead set against this. You're the one trying to get off easy considering I've explicitly stated IN THIS THREAD: I agree completely that there's no justification for being downright rude. To suggest that I find that behavior acceptable (as Coach Tuesday has) is like saying those who aren't pro-life are pro-abortion. Do groups take offense to words? Yes. Should they? IMHO, no, they should not. Xenophobia, like it or not, is a part of the human condition. Deep in the reptilian sectors of our brains we're wired to be suspicious of those who are different. That suspicion manifests itself in many many ways--some fascinating, some cruel, some downright dangerous. Some people act on it, most don't. If you want to make the argument that tempering rhetoric is the first step in shifting consciousness, fine. But unfortunately, you're not making that argument, because it would actually make for a far more meaningful discussion, one that I'm happy to have. Instead, you're insisting on a stance that I simply haven't made--that opposing an attack on language is the same as promoting/justifying the subjugation of entire groups of people.
Ted William's frozen head Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Hope this doesn't happen here. Brady's mother better start wearing earplugs..
Beerball Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Do groups take offense to words? Yes. Should they? IMHO, no, they should not. Xenophobia, like it or not, is a part of the human condition. Deep in the reptilian sectors of our brains we're wired to be suspicious of those who are different. That suspicion manifests itself in many many ways--some fascinating, some cruel, some downright dangerous. Some people act on it, most don't. If you want to make the argument that tempering rhetoric is the first step in shifting consciousness, fine. But unfortunately, you're not making that argument, because it would actually make for a far more meaningful discussion, one that I'm happy to have. Instead, you're insisting on a stance that I simply haven't made--that opposing an attack on language is the same as promoting/justifying the subjugation of entire groups of people. That is Big Cat's World. Out of touch with reality and full of contridictions.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 That is Big Cat's World. Out of touch with reality and full of contridictions. Care to elaborate? Would love to hear when/where I've contradicted myself in this thread Now, if you roundly reject the "science" of evolutionary psychology, that's your own business. I tend to side with the experts when determining my "reality."
Cash Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Funny, in this politically correct world we live in. Some of the craziest comments are said on the field by the players themselves. When Thurman was in his prime the Packers where playing us at home. Thurman got a late hit out of bounds by Reggie White in front of the Bills bench. What Thurman screamed to Reggie is not printable here on this forum. Now if a fan would scream this out in the stands the consequences would be? Yep ejection. Where do you draw a line? Rules need to be enforced on all sides of the argument.Example: While homosexual slurs are not put up with in the corporate or in the public modern day society. Would a homosexual shouting "breeder" be accepted at a public event? Probably. Truth is its a slur against straight people. Talk about no league action. I'm surprised the Giants punter, and field goal holder after the game winning kick against the 9ers who was on camera screaming "I'm going to the effin Super bowl". replayed a few times without audio but it was very easy to read his lips. But the league did nothing? I'll bet a Giants commentator would have been fired. I don't condone this stuff but where do you draw a line? If your a player is it OK to say racial or homophobic slurs on the field? But, if your a paying fan you cannot? Political correctness needs a lot more refining. When packs of heterophobic gays start beating up straights while shouting "breeder" at them, then you'll have a good argument. What straight person would possibly have their feelings hurt by having breeder shouted at them? What traumatic memories would it bring up? Would the straight person suddenly feel like an outcast? Probably not, since the audience at this public event is probably >90% straight.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 When packs of heterophobic gays start beating up straights while shouting "breeder" at them, then you'll have a good argument. What straight person would possibly have their feelings hurt by having breeder shouted at them? What traumatic memories would it bring up? Would the straight person suddenly feel like an outcast? Probably not, since the audience at this public event is probably >90% straight. From a "feelings" standpoint, you are correct. Tell me which is worse, though: a pack of straight men calling Tom Brady a "f-gg-t," or a pack of straight man using the same word to taunt a known homosexual? Does the word mean the same thing in both instances? I would argue, no, it does not. Nor does it have the same intentions. Yes, in both cases it's an insult to homosexuals. But if you want to take the argument to the extreme: simply yelling "Tom Brady is bad at football!" could be offensive to everyone else who's bad at football. In both cases you're invoking language to suggest that someone, for some reason or another, is inferior. So, at what point are we going to start prohibiting the act of making others feel inferior?
Endless Ike Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 oh please dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restratint.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 oh please dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restratint. just drinking my coffee.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 oh please dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restratint. The Chinaman is not the issue.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 The Chinaman is not the issue. Brilliantly played. But seriously, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian American. Please.
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Might be fun for you to call Brady faggot, queer, homo, but the clear implication is that homosexuality is shameful. Not as shameful as being The Brady. It is not "PC" to prohibit walking up to a black person and calling them a "n---er," just like it is not "PC" to prohibit calling a woman a "c-nt" or, for that matter, screaming "you f-cking a--hole" in a 4 year old's face. This type of thing falls under general common decency and trying to promote a more inclusive, family environment (which has been long overdue at the Ralph). Yeah, it is. Prohibiting such is a restriction on free speech directly implying that others' right to not having their feelings hurt are more important. Personally, I don't think it should ever be prohibited to walk up to a black man and call him a "!@#$". But I also don't think it should be prohibited for that black man to knock the **** out of whoever does it.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Yeah, it is. Prohibiting such is a restriction on free speech directly implying that others' right to not having their feelings hurt are more important. Personally, I don't think it should ever be prohibited to walk up to a black man and call him a "!@#$". But I also don't think it should be prohibited for that black man to knock the **** out of whoever does it. I know, that you know, that the First Amendment does not apply to private events and organizations like the NFL, the Bills, and/or Ralph Wilson Stadium. So when you say you "don't think it should ever be prohibited," I assume you're talking about "against the law" - which is irrelevant for this discussion. I have to think you agree that entertainment venues can and should prohibit certain types of behavior, including highly offensive speech. It's more than certain groups "having their feelings hurt" - it's about attempting to enforce a decency code to promote a more family-friendly environment. Edited January 30, 2012 by Coach Tuesday
The Senator Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Might be fun for you to call Brady faggot, queer, homo, but the clear implication is that homosexuality is shameful. Perhaps that's what you infer (i.e., homosexuality is shameful), rather than it being the intended implication of the taunter. (Personally, I don't see why you'd think it's shameful for two guys to gobble each others' knobs, or give it to each other up the poop shoot!) Let's play your position out. Should it not be prohibited for a fan to scream "ni--er" at opposing teams' black players? Should that be allowed, because it's just a word? Actually, it IS allowed - I hear it at Ralph Wilson Stadium all the time! I suppose the larger question (or digression) is, why is it OK for African-Americans to call each other 'nigga' openly and publicly - and even go so far as to mass market the word in in all of their crap-music - but considered racist if anyone else does? Yeah, it is. Prohibiting such is a restriction on free speech directly implying that others' right to not having their feelings hurt are more important. Personally, I don't think it should ever be prohibited to walk up to a black man and call him a "!@#$". But I also don't think it should be prohibited for that black man to knock the **** out of whoever does it. This is, of course, a correct and succinct distillation of one of those ridiculous and all-too-lengthy off-season threads we'll have to endure until draft-day arrives and OTA's begin... "The thing about the American language is, you can do wonderful things with it...it's a very useful tool for communicating, if you use it the right way, and one of the first rules of communication is that you try to talk to people in the language they can understand. And the words that some people become terrified over, a lot of people spend a fortune trying to keep out of other peoples' lives - with language-bound censorship and so forth - which is wasted, because those words are highly efficient and they get the point across right away - and I'm interested in getting my point across right away". - Frank Zappa Edited January 30, 2012 by The Senator
Ted William's frozen head Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Hope this doesn't happen here. Shouting homophobic vitriol at Brady once a year is just too rewarding. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/england-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-major-league-man-crush-yankee-derek-jeter-article-1.1015014 Scroll down to the 'Tale of the Tape"
HuSeYiN1978 Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Well said. I'm far from gay, but I hate those words. It's sad that this even needs to said in the first place. If you are going to taunt someone, be creative (hey ref, bend over and call the game with you good eye). Unfortunately, the people using this language are too dumb to think of creative things. It's funny that if one athlete gets arrested, the whole league is filled with thugs. But people are sending death threats and hate tweets to athletes (including Jefferson of LSU , a college kid). Seriously, our country is so screwed. You're far from happy? Tom Brady's not gay he's just a very pretty guy with a handsome wife...
Wacka Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 What happened to "Sticks and stones..."? Does this mean we cant call Brady Marcia?
Fan in San Diego Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I wonder if the riot that killed 73 people in Egypt at that soccer game was started with someone yelling a slur at the opposing team. They maybe even called them gay. The result was 73 people got killed and the stadium damaged. This is an extreme example, but a good example that civility and restraint is a good idea at a sporting event.
KD in CA Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 What happened to "Sticks and stones..."? We decided that children would have more self-esteem if we taught them how to be victims and get easily offended instead.
Recommended Posts