Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:14 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i havent in any way argued black is white, simply that you were wrong.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:33 pm  

I don't cate about any of this. It's clearly a witch hunt by fans of other clubs trying to get a player banned, they don't give a rats about homophobia. And the use of the word fag as lots of connotation. Fag like gay means lame if your offended by a simple insult they you need to grow a pair. I was in an Indian restuaraunt once and the waiter taunted one of our group for ordering a prawn cocktail and a chicken korma so the waiter jokingly called him a fag.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:41 pm  

Lots of people seem to think they know exactly what Zak said, who he said it to, what he actually meant, and if the receiver was offended or not. This is ridiculous, from the posts people normally put on here they don't even know what they mean never mind someone else...

Anyone who takes this seriously and is actually offended rather than this faux offence that some are showing needs to grow up a bit. This is not tiddlywinks and as has been pointed out already if anyone involved in the incident was offended they would have done something about it at the time.

If people really want something to get offended about, what about the case in Sudan of the woman on death row simply because she married someone "of the wrong faith". That's worth all the hot air that is being generated not this.

Frankly I think that anyone on this thread who is making a mountain out of a molehill is a "Feckin Faggot"...

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:42 pm  

Lets get this straight.

Nobody thinks they can get an advantage over Leeds if there homophobic fullback gets banned.

He just should be banned. end of.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:47 pm  

chris-hfc wrote:

Lets get this straight.

Nobody thinks they can get an advantage over Leeds if there homophobic fullback gets banned.

He just should be banned. end of.

Your mob couldn't get an advantage if 17 of us off Southstander took to the pitch.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:57 pm  

chris-hfc wrote: Lets get this straight. Nobody thinks they can get an advantage over Leeds if there homophobic fullback gets banned. He just should be banned. end of. Love it when we get a bit of pontification from a Hull resident......

chris-hfc wrote: Lets get this straight. Nobody thinks they can get an advantage over Leeds if there homophobic fullback gets banned. He just should be banned. end of. Love it when we get a bit of pontification from a Hull resident......

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:07 pm  

BillyRhino wrote: Love it when we get a bit of pontification from a Hull resident...... No worse than Lee Radford's "fight" with Ryan Bailey.

BillyRhino wrote: Love it when we get a bit of pontification from a Hull resident...... No worse than Lee Radford's "fight" with Ryan Bailey.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:22 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: I think all this is irrelevant. I think the the question is do we want the image of RL to be one where Homophobic language goes unpunished. Do we allow peoples 'silly little prejudices' to exclude others, and do we want potential fans, players and sponsors to think that our game excludes homosexuals, allows homophobia to be expressed freely within it and go unpunished. Do you we want a 15/16/17 year old kid struggling with his sexuality to think this game isnt for him? Lets not pretend we exist in some progressive nirvana and fat, bald, ginger are the same as homophobic slurs. We have plenty of fatties, plenty of baldies, and even some gingers playing pro RL We have 0 openly homosexual players in our pro game. Statistically we should have at least 30 or 40. Perhaps some gay people dont like being called faggots, dont like seeing others being called faggots and dont want to be involved in a game where a high profile young player (if true) can throw around homophobic slurs, or a game where people can't tell the difference between a word used to bully, attack, discriminate against homosexuals and generic terms of abuse. And here's the thing about language, you have to be careful how you use it. You're now throwing around the term "homophobic". The Oxford online dictionary describes homophobia as "An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia Even IF Zak used that term I don't see how he used it in a homophobic way. I doubt he put any thought whatsoever into the sexual preferences of whatever person he allegedly aimed the comment at. I'll ask again, do you know Zak's sexual preference? Because if he is gay and if he said the term alleged then, by dictionary definition, he is allowed to do so. Bizarre don't you think? Storm in a tea cup this by others allowing themselves to get outraged in behalf those that are not.

SmokeyTA wrote: I think all this is irrelevant. I think the the question is do we want the image of RL to be one where Homophobic language goes unpunished. Do we allow peoples 'silly little prejudices' to exclude others, and do we want potential fans, players and sponsors to think that our game excludes homosexuals, allows homophobia to be expressed freely within it and go unpunished. Do you we want a 15/16/17 year old kid struggling with his sexuality to think this game isnt for him? Lets not pretend we exist in some progressive nirvana and fat, bald, ginger are the same as homophobic slurs. We have plenty of fatties, plenty of baldies, and even some gingers playing pro RL We have 0 openly homosexual players in our pro game. Statistically we should have at least 30 or 40. Perhaps some gay people dont like being called faggots, dont like seeing others being called faggots and dont want to be involved in a game where a high profile young player (if true) can throw around homophobic slurs, or a game where people can't tell the difference between a word used to bully, attack, discriminate against homosexuals and generic terms of abuse. And here's the thing about language, you have to be careful how you use it. You're now throwing around the term "homophobic". The Oxford online dictionary describes homophobia as "An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia Even IF Zak used that term I don't see how he used it in a homophobic way. I doubt he put any thought whatsoever into the sexual preferences of whatever person he allegedly aimed the comment at. I'll ask again, do you know Zak's sexual preference? Because if he is gay and if he said the term alleged then, by dictionary definition, he is allowed to do so. Bizarre don't you think? Storm in a tea cup this by others allowing themselves to get outraged in behalf those that are not.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:43 pm  

G1 wrote:

Even IF Zak used that term I don't see how he used it in a homophobic way. I doubt he put any thought whatsoever into the sexual preferences of whatever person he allegedly aimed the comment at.

And THAT paragraph precisely sums up why something should be done about it.
If people use derogatory terms with no thought whatsoever than that is no better. The thing is - zak SHOULD know better given the stonewall cmpaign he was involved in.
Either hes a nasty homophobe or in ignorance either way it needs addressing

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:52 pm  

chris-hfc wrote:

Lets get this straight.

Who are you calling straight?

BURN HIM.