Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 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

Exactly. Ignorance is no excuse. Especially in such a public arena. If in doubt (due to ignorance) best playing it cautiously. Ban should then make him think again the next time if it happens again. Though ideally it shouldn't.

Also I don't think there is a witch hunt going on by fans of other teams, a lot of what is being said is just, it is just being said by some non-rhinos.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:31 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

And maybe I'll apologise for being crass when people stop defending Hardacker.

I love the guy as a player and I don't want to see him on the sidelines, but the lad has a questionable attitude and homophobia is something personal to me and this incident disappoints me.
Not angry as it could be a genuine throwaway comment but I hold this word just as strong as the N word and he should be made an example of.
Do I say this to weaken an opposition side? No, if this was a Wire player id actually be MORE vehement in my condemnation, I was actually holding off a little because it was an opposition player as I feared reactions like sgtwilkos.

I'd just pick you up on two points here:

One, two wrongs don't make a right. Your use of rape as a means of trying to make a point was pretty poor on a lot of levels. I don't think you need to wait for other people to do anything.

But, by the by, I am also curious, given that you are obviously personally attached to this issue in some way: do you think making an example of people (assuming a case where we're dealing with casual homophobias, where offence is caused without that intent) really addresses the problem? I ask mainly as I've been doing some work lately with Show Racism the Red Card, which I always enjoy, and their philosophy is very much based on getting things out in the open and making people think about their attitudes and perceptions, rather than the prevalent "ooh, you can't say that, you must shut up immediately" approach, which just buries the problem without fixing it.

If the disciplinary concludes that a homophobic slur was made, I'm not suggesting they would turn a blind eye and not hand out a punishment. But that on its own isn't going to, in my opinion, do anything more than persuade people you can't say it, eve if you think it, or, more likely, you mustn't get caught saying it.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:31 pm  

Jeez. Who cares. Watch the news there's bigger problems out there. Things are said in the heat of the moment. Clearly Zak isn't a homophobe, he has 2 earrings FFS!

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:35 pm  

jools wrote:

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 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"

I agree with this person.

But I don't think a load of punitive measures are the best way to fix it. They're part of the answer, but IMO a small part.

IMO, one of the main reasons the last legs of the fight against racism are so difficult is that we have spent too long preventing people from talking about their differences and focusing too hard on what they say rather than what they think.

I don't want to see a situation where you just have people thinking "it's naughty to say that, so I'll keep it to myself." Not enough.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:38 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

I agree with this person.

But I don't think a load of punitive measures are the best way to fix it. They're part of the answer, but IMO a small part.

IMO, one of the main reasons the last legs of the fight against racism are so difficult is that we have spent too long preventing people from talking about their differences and focusing too hard on what they say rather than what they think.

I don't want to see a situation where you just have people thinking "it's naughty to say that, so I'll keep it to myself." Not enough.

very true.
A ban is not necessarily the way forward. Education is. If a comment made without thought is the way to get this discussed then let it happen. An apology and greater understanding within the RL community will do more good.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:47 pm  

Give him an 8 match ban and in those 8 weeks he can work at Stonewall.

Win win

You even get him fit for the playoffs

win win win

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:53 pm  

BillyRhino wrote: It's a realistic assessment of the 1.5% as claimed by Office of National Statistics One. Point. Five. Percent. A very noisy 1.5% I'll grant you, aided and abetted in their publicity by those strange individuals who seem a tad overly eager to take offence on behalf everyone. Tell me Codhead, as a Hull lad, would you really have a hissy fit at being called a faggot, or a Pom, or a Limey etc etc, or would you simply respond with a derogatory comment of your own? Well it's not such a big secret that I'm bisexual and spend a lot of time with transpeople, so although I personally wouldn't be bothered if anyone called me a faggot, I do know a lot of people who would be upset. If such insults were thrown in my direction (as has happened on occasion in the past), I have a couple of options open to me: I can ignore the commenter, I can get upset and complain or I can lamp him/her. In the past, options one and three have usually been favoured. Spending the amount of time that I do in the company of and in contact with transpeople, I'd suggest that the figure of 1.5% non-heterosexual is a vast understatement. I never cease to be amazed at the number of guys who engage in sexual activity with transpeople and yet insist that they are "straight". I think getting an accurate fix on the number of non-heterosexual people is fraught with difficulty, simply because of the reluctance of many people to be honest in their answers for fear of peer pressure or that their partner or spouse may find out. As to Hardaker: Did his alleged comments upset me? - no, why should they? Is he a daft lad? - Undoubtedly yes Should he face suspension? - Couldn't give a toss, it just may send a message but wouldn't make a ha'porth of difference in the great scheme of things.

BillyRhino wrote: It's a realistic assessment of the 1.5% as claimed by Office of National Statistics One. Point. Five. Percent. A very noisy 1.5% I'll grant you, aided and abetted in their publicity by those strange individuals who seem a tad overly eager to take offence on behalf everyone. Tell me Codhead, as a Hull lad, would you really have a hissy fit at being called a faggot, or a Pom, or a Limey etc etc, or would you simply respond with a derogatory comment of your own? Well it's not such a big secret that I'm bisexual and spend a lot of time with transpeople, so although I personally wouldn't be bothered if anyone called me a faggot, I do know a lot of people who would be upset. If such insults were thrown in my direction (as has happened on occasion in the past), I have a couple of options open to me: I can ignore the commenter, I can get upset and complain or I can lamp him/her. In the past, options one and three have usually been favoured. Spending the amount of time that I do in the company of and in contact with transpeople, I'd suggest that the figure of 1.5% non-heterosexual is a vast understatement. I never cease to be amazed at the number of guys who engage in sexual activity with transpeople and yet insist that they are "straight". I think getting an accurate fix on the number of non-heterosexual people is fraught with difficulty, simply because of the reluctance of many people to be honest in their answers for fear of peer pressure or that their partner or spouse may find out. As to Hardaker: Did his alleged comments upset me? - no, why should they? Is he a daft lad? - Undoubtedly yes Should he face suspension? - Couldn't give a toss, it just may send a message but wouldn't make a ha'porth of difference in the great scheme of things.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:45 pm  

Jamie101 wrote:

Exactly. Ignorance is no excuse. Especially in such a public arena. If in doubt (due to ignorance) best playing it cautiously. Ban should then make him think again the next time if it happens again. Though ideally it shouldn't.

Also I don't think there is a witch hunt going on by fans of other teams, a lot of what is being said is just, it is just being said by some non-rhinos.

But the thing with that whole "it'll make him think again next time", it's not like he stood there for several seconds thinking of a slur and ending up deciding on that one. In the heat of the moment and the unique setting of a sporting field then his mouth will have blurted out anything.

If people have an accident at home where they hurt themselves do they turn around to check if children are around or do they just on instinct turn the air blue. Some seem to think Hardaker knew exactly what he was saying and thought (and ignored) the implications of the word, personally I'd be surprised if he even remembered saying it after the match until it was brought up.

Do people think Hardaker doing Stonewall will stop another player possibly using such language? In the heat of the moment when it's kicking off do you think they'll go "oh wait, remember the Hardaker incident, I'll call my opponent a fu**ing wa**er instead just in case the Sky cameras are on me."

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:01 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

But the thing with that whole "it'll make him think again next time", it's not like he stood there for several seconds thinking of a slur and ending up deciding on that one. In the heat of the moment and the unique setting of a sporting field then his mouth will have blurted out anything.

If people have an accident at home where they hurt themselves do they turn around to check if children are around or do they just on instinct turn the air blue. Some seem to think Hardaker knew exactly what he was saying and thought (and ignored) the implications of the word, personally I'd be surprised if he even remembered saying it after the match until it was brought up.

Do people think Hardaker doing Stonewall will stop another player possibly using such language? In the he at of the moment when it's kicking off do you think they'll go "oh wait, remember the Hardaker incident, I'll call my opponent a fu**ing wa**er instead just in case the Sky cameras are on me."

This heat of the moment excuse makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall! It's Pathetic!
In the heat of the moment you don't just choose a random word you have never used before do you? You choose a word that's part of your vocabulary- the point is getting people to remove words such as this out of their vocabulary so they don't use it in the heat of the moment.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:06 pm  

Who says he said it to anybody? When I play and stop the ball I often shout at myself.

The key to the argument is the use of the term faggot as an insult. Gay abuse is unique in that you could use it in a derogatory way to either a straight person or a gay person. calling someone gay as an insult implies that makes them inferior, which is not the case.