Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:31 pm  

jools wrote:

get your pants out of your crack - I said IF

Actually, you didn't. I come back to the interesting topic of language.

You said

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

You said "if people" then in a new sentence said Zak, specifically should know better and was either a nasty homphobe or ignorant. You didn't qualify by saying those were the two options IF Zak has used the terms alleged. I'll accept that is what you meant but just shows how we shouldn't necessarily assume we understand the meaning intended by people's words, written or screamed on a rugbv pitch.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:45 pm  

jools wrote:

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

Probably the most ignorance going on is by fans who don't think that sort of language isn't used all the time. I'd hazard a guess that every single club had at least one player who used a homophobic term.....but as you didn't see it then ignorance is bliss.

What if Hardaker when questioned admits to saying but it was a response to a Wire player who had just called him a "fu**ing puff/bender/queer." As we didn't see it would opposition fans say this is also unacceptable or would they say it's Hardaker trying to squirm his way out?

How many of these disgruntled fans, who use the phrase "but I'm offended because I know people who are gay" ( which to be honest is a little patronising that you're offended on their behalf), use colourful language in stands every week with no thought about how others might not like it and find crude and inappropriate in front of kids?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:49 pm  

G1 wrote: Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages. Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield. For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as "a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q=faggot Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggott he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield. I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that? Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal. Great post!

G1 wrote: Firstly, there is no direct evidence yet about what words were said. All those assuming they know what was said by watching the clip would do well to watch the youtube clip I posted on the first couple of pages. Secondly, if he has said the term that is being bandied about then it's not very nice. However, language and offence caused by language is an absolute minefield. For example, the Cambridge dictionary defines the term "faggot" as "a gay man. This word is considered offensive when it is used by people who are not gay" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/faggot_1?q=faggot Now, leaving aside any issues about whether it's acceptable for one demographic to have free use of a word whilst others can't, the term "fag" is often widely used by homosexuals particularly those who proudly have a "fag hag". Does anybody accusing Zak know his sexual preferences? If Zak likes to "take it in the mudwhistle" (urban dictionary definition of faggott) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggott he's got free reign to call anyone on the pitch that, apparently. Like I Said, minefield. I very much doubt any Warrington players were offended by what it is alleged was said. I very much doubt the referee was offended as he took no action and, AFAIK didn't put in his report. So, we know someone, somewhere watched a video and was, apparently, offended. Well, it turns out I am fat and bald. The next time someone on television uses the words "fat" or "bald" should I take offence? Stevo often takes stick on super league broadcasts for his bald head. Should the RFL be policing that? Maybe everyone should grow the f*ck up and realise people, all of us, have silly little prejudices and say things that perhaps we shouldn't be and that is just human nature. Zak has not, AFAIK, allowed any alleged prejudices to influence his actions to the detriment of others. He's not persecuted a minority group. It's alleged he said a potentially derogatory term to someone on a rugby pitch in the heat of battle. Big frikkin deal. Great post!

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:58 pm  

G1 wrote:

Good to see the Hull fans on the thread putting up more of a fight than their team is this year.

If you're referring to my post, then you've misinterpreted. I merely asked if your reaction would be the same if it was a player from another team.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:50 pm  

G1 wrote: 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. Hardaker could be the next Julian Clary. He isnt allowed to use that word on an RL field, it is a homophobic slur. That it is a homophobic slur is not really a debate, it is accepted by pretty much all to be so. Im not even saying Hardaker is homophobic (again if true) simply that a word he used was a homophobic slur. The same as if you sing along to Dr Dre and say the word n.igger it doesnt make you racist. It does mean you used a racist word and nobody would argue there is a place for that word, to be said in anger, on an RL field We are Leeds Rhino's, we are a modern progressive club, we are better than defending this.

G1 wrote: 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. Hardaker could be the next Julian Clary. He isnt allowed to use that word on an RL field, it is a homophobic slur. That it is a homophobic slur is not really a debate, it is accepted by pretty much all to be so. Im not even saying Hardaker is homophobic (again if true) simply that a word he used was a homophobic slur. The same as if you sing along to Dr Dre and say the word n.igger it doesnt make you racist. It does mean you used a racist word and nobody would argue there is a place for that word, to be said in anger, on an RL field We are Leeds Rhino's, we are a modern progressive club, we are better than defending this.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:52 pm  

leedsbarmyarmy wrote:

:CLAP: Great post!

Well it is obvious to everyone what Zak shouted it was F'ing Faggot.

Ask him maybe ?

I don't give a monkeys personally but everyone knows what he shouted if they watched that clip.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:54 pm  

G1 wrote:

Even IF Zak used that term I don't see how he used it in a homophobic way.

Because 'fag' is a pejorative for gay men. That's how you use 'fag' in a homophobic way.

Storm in a tea cup this by others allowing themselves to get outraged in behalf those that are not.

That doesn't negate the fact that using pejoratives against certain groups of people is in direct opposition to the Respect policy of the RFL and therefore leaving the player open to sanction should guilt be established.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:19 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Because 'fag' is a pejorative for gay men. That's how you use 'fag' in a homophobic way.

That doesn't negate the fact that using pejoratives against certain groups of people is in direct opposition to the Respect policy of the RFL and therefore leaving the player open to sanction should guilt be established.

Thanks for being the only smart person in the room. 'fag' is used in a derogatory, homophobic way & when someone uses it they are acutely aware of what the connotations are and therefore they deserve anything handed to them.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:55 pm  

Sick of people saying Zak should be fired cos " If Iwent to work and allegedly called someone a faggot id be sacked".. This is sport, certain rules do not apply. I do not remember anyone calling for Briers to be sacked when he ran up behind Ablett and punched him, pretty certain that would get us normal folk sacked too, or sticking two fingers up at a group of people like Sam did..

Neither of them got into any trouble with the authorities did they...

I have just watched Hollyoaks (I do this so I can watch the sport after 7!) and at about 1850 a scouse lad called a transgender person a faggot. Now if channel 4 believed this was a 'naughty' word surely there would have been warnings, waited till 2100 etc to air the show.

Whilst if he has said that then he needs dealing with, players do have responsibilities but it is not as bad as people are saying.

As a side, I have an Asian friend, he calls me a white honky b*****d and I cal him a p**i. No offense is intended and its a joke between us. If people are offended then they shouldn't be overhearing our conversations. If you are easily offended by swearing then you shouldn't be watching sport..

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:25 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Probably the most ignorance going on is by fans who don't think that sort of language isn't used all the time.

quite possibly the point is that it shouldn't be used all the time which is exactly why it shouldn't be ignored. If someone made a nasty comment about my mixed heritage you can be sure id feel the same. Fortunately those sorts of comments are becoming less frequent - BECAUSE we are trying to eradicate them not accept them as "everybody uses them"