Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:42 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

Come and work at our place mate, we don't have HR! The directors openly say if we need HR they arnt doing their jobs. We have cake and beer!

Mate - you work in Australia, the commute would be a right bitch.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:54 am  

Fat Boy wrote:

Mate - you work in Australia, the commute would be a right bitch.

You could work on the plane?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:56 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

I "don't have the right not to be offended". Dear boy, I have the right to feel however I want about the situation. Or do we have to follow your opinion? Doesn't the same freedom you're fighting for mean I'm free to think however I want.

i think you read that statement in the wrong way. You can be offended, not offended anything you want.

Again would you be offended/bothered if Hardaker called a player's mum a "sl*t"? That you haven't replied to that part clearly shows that you wouldn't be, yet he's offended someone with his words. Just ones that don't bother you as much, hypocrisy much.

actually i answered it. You dont have the right not to be offended as in You dont have the right to ban anything just because it offends you. You do have the right to an environment free from racism, homophobia and discrimination. You are allowed to be offended, you are allowed to be offensive. You are not allowed to be racist, homophobic or discriminatory.

Its why i will get in to a lot less trouble for calling a black guy a d1ck than a n1gger, a Jew a t0sser than a kike, a middle eastern person a silly billy than a sandnigger, a muslim a c0ck than a raghead, or a person generally a tit, than a faggot.

No but nice try, I didn't say I don't believe them. I inquired into the figures. "2/3rds" and "often" are fairly loose.

yes, you focussed on and questioned the statistics as a means of avoiding addressing the question. 1600 children, 2/3rds of them is 1067. Often means frequently.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:00 am  

G1 wrote: Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggot Not to mention the earlier reference I provided stating the term was acceptable if used by homosexual men. Of course, many traditional dictionaries say it is an offensive term though, interestingly, not a homophobic term. So I've provided a plethora of authorities which say the word may or may not be offensive but you've provided none that say it's homophobic apart from it is because you say it is. That's another thing about language, it can and often does change and words that were not originally offensive can become so and words that were offensive can become less so. The younger generation do use the term faggot in a non offensive way as described in the Urban Dictionary. Think about the word Bitch. Many people now refer to their bitches including women talking about their girlfriends. People have taken ownership of a previously offensive word and taken the offence out of it, like that gay community has done by their own use of the word "fag" (fag hag etc). Think about calling someone or something crazy. Fairly inoffensive but what about the connotations and stigma with the mentally ill? What about calling someone or a situation lame? Would that cause outrage? What about the negative connotations with disability from which that word originates? Southpark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)

G1 wrote: Interestingly, not according to the Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggot Not to mention the earlier reference I provided stating the term was acceptable if used by homosexual men. Of course, many traditional dictionaries say it is an offensive term though, interestingly, not a homophobic term. So I've provided a plethora of authorities which say the word may or may not be offensive but you've provided none that say it's homophobic apart from it is because you say it is. That's another thing about language, it can and often does change and words that were not originally offensive can become so and words that were offensive can become less so. The younger generation do use the term faggot in a non offensive way as described in the Urban Dictionary. Think about the word Bitch. Many people now refer to their bitches including women talking about their girlfriends. People have taken ownership of a previously offensive word and taken the offence out of it, like that gay community has done by their own use of the word "fag" (fag hag etc). Think about calling someone or something crazy. Fairly inoffensive but what about the connotations and stigma with the mentally ill? What about calling someone or a situation lame? Would that cause outrage? What about the negative connotations with disability from which that word originates? Southpark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:08 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i think you read that statement in the wrong way. You can be offended, not offended anything you want.

actually i answered it. You dont have the right not to be offended as in You dont have the right to ban anything just because it offends you. You do have the right to an environment free from racism, homophobia and discrimination. You are allowed to be offended, you are allowed to be offensive. You are not allowed to be racist, homophobic or discriminatory.

Its why i will get in to a lot less trouble for calling a black guy a d1ck than a n1gger, a Jew a t0sser than a kike, a middle eastern person a silly billy than a sandnigger, a muslim a c0ck than a raghead, or a person generally a tit, than a faggot.


yes, you focussed on and questioned the statistics as a means of avoiding addressing the question. 1600 children, 2/3rds of them is 1067. Often means frequently.

Well done on seeing the number someone else put for you.

1600, bit rounded isn't it. Did they have one more kid to interview and say sorry we've reached 1600 now no more.

The things with studies and surveys like these it that they go out looking for the answers they want. Stonewall is hardly going to come back and say we interviewed 1600 kids and only 5% said they had trouble with team sports and acceptance. Doesn't help them make a splash. That's why terms like "often" and 2/3rds are used instead of solid numbers.

(That btw is not me saying the actual figure is 5%, I'm just making an point so no need for any "do you really think the figure is that low" cries of outrage.)

Also 1600 children, sorry but how many children are openly gay back in school?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:10 am  

We had a young lad that worked with us a while ago and he used to refer to anything that was a bit sh*t as 'gay'. He used the term towards software, cars, shoes, in fact anything that he generally disapproved of.

Now he wasn't being homophobic in any sense of the word, it's (apparently) what the young-uns say these days. Weather gay people took offence to it was a different matter, but there was absolutely no homophobic connotations meant, in fact when we raised the point with him he seemed surprised that what he was saying could have been offensive to gay people.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:16 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Well done on seeing the number someone else put for you.

1600, bit rounded isn't it. Did they have one more kid to interview and say sorry we've reached 1600 now no more.

The things with studies and surveys like these it that they go out looking for the answers they want. Stonewall is hardly going to come back and say we interviewed 1600 kids and only 5% said they had trouble with team sports and acceptance. Doesn't help them make a splash. That's why terms like "often" and 2/3rds are used instead of solid numbers.

(That btw is not me saying the actual figure is 5%, I'm just making an point so no need for any "do you really think the figure is that low" cries of outrage.)

Also 1600 children, sorry but how many children are openly gay back in school?

Stonewall didnt do the survey, the University of Cambridge did. Stonewall simply used the statistics, and THIS VERY CLUB put out a press release using those exact words, verbatim.

So now we have impugned the honesty of Stonewall, The University of Cambridge and now seemingly questioned the existence of these 1600 people, is there anything else you would like to do before actually addressing the experiences of these children?

What evidence do you require before these peoples experiences matter? How many kids and how solid do the numbers have to be before you put the victims of homophobic bullying ahead of defending an RL player (allegedly) shouting homophobic slurs out of frustration?

We were happy to say this Leeds Rhinos and England international hooker Shaun Lunt said: ‘Rugby league has always been an inclusive game for all parts of the community. It’s great that the RFL can lead the way with an initiative like this, and we’re happy here at the Rhinos to help promote that message.’

Stonewall Deputy Chief Executive Laura Doughty said: ‘Sadly a recent University of Cambridge survey for Stonewall’s School Report 2012 shows two thirds of gay young people don’t like team sports, often because they face homophobic bullying on the pitch and in the changing rooms. Governing bodies and sport teams can help change that by following the RFL’s and the Rhinos’ lead in tackling homophobia and celebrating equality.’ Lets follow it through.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:19 am  

Fat Boy wrote:

We had a young lad that worked with us a while ago and he used to refer to anything that was a bit sh*t as 'gay'. He used the term towards software, cars, shoes, in fact anything that he generally disapproved of.

Now he wasn't being homophobic in any sense of the word, it's (apparently) what the young-uns say these days. Weather gay people took offence to it was a different matter, but there was absolutely no homophobic connotations meant, in fact when we raised the point with him he seemed surprised that what he was saying could have been offensive to gay people.

and thats probably a very common experience. People use the word 'gay' sometimes just as a synonym for lame, kids call each other fags any time they arent 100% masculine. Mostly without any semblance of homophobic intent. if you were a young gay man then your experience of that word and those attitudes is probably a little different.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:19 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Also 1600 children, sorry but how many children are openly gay back in school?

Stonwall interviewed 1600 children, right. 1.5% (statistically) of whom are gay, that's 24.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:24 am  

Fat Boy wrote:

Stonwall interviewed 1600 children, right. 1.5% (statistically) of whom are gay, that's 24.

no, they interviewed 1600 gay students. Im not sure how much 1576 straight children had to add to a report on the experiences of gay students