Solomona Slurs

[Puja]

As above. Who Shillcock likes to bang is entirely beside the point - using a homophobic slur as an insult is not acceptable regardless of who it's directed at.


The best result to hope for is that it's reminded a few players that it's not acceptable to say and we won't see a repeat for a long while.

Again I'd much rather they simply ban slurs, or just have the refs tell a player to shut up and/or award penalties against an offender. If we're going to ban specific slurs I don't like the idea that the groups being 'protected' are given a victim status, and I don't like other people deciding what I might find offensive.

Digby, no-one's deciding what you might find offensive (assuming you're straight that is). If you're straight, it's not about you - you don't get to decide what LGBT people find offensive. Even if you're gay and feel that a particular word has no power over you, it's still not your call, because the vast majority do find it to be a problem.

Also, protected groups are given a victim status for a pretty good reason - they're being victimised! A straight person doesn't have any concern about part of their identity being chucked around as an insult. A straight person doesn't run the risk of abuse and discrimination under a thin patina of 'banter'. A straight person doesn't worry that, if they reveal they're dating a person of the opposite sex, that they might then be mocked and vilified in the gutter press or that coaches might have prejudices that cause them to choose not to extend contracts. There is a very good reason that there is not a single out professional rugby player in the entire world and that reason is not that gay people don't like rugby.

So yes, they're "protected", because they are a minority that a fair chunk of the majority either hate, disdain, or are happy to ignore the hate and disdain. They need protection until our society adapt enough that gay isn't an insult.

Puja

[Digby]

As above. Who Shillcock likes to bang is entirely beside the point - using a homophobic slur as an insult is not acceptable regardless of who it's directed at.


The best result to hope for is that it's reminded a few players that it's not acceptable to say and we won't see a repeat for a long while.

Again I'd much rather they simply ban slurs, or just have the refs tell a player to shut up and/or award penalties against an offender. If we're going to ban specific slurs I don't like the idea that the groups being 'protected' are given a victim status, and I don't like other people deciding what I might find offensive.

Digby, no-one's deciding what you might find offensive (assuming you're straight that is). If you're straight, it's not about you - you don't get to decide what LGBT people find offensive. Even if you're gay and feel that a particular word has no power over you, it's still not your call, because the vast majority do find it to be a problem.

Also, protected groups are given a victim status for a pretty good reason - they're being victimised! A straight person doesn't have any concern about part of their identity being chucked around as an insult. A straight person doesn't run the risk of abuse and discrimination under a thin patina of 'banter'. A straight person doesn't worry that, if they reveal they're dating a person of the opposite sex, that they might then be mocked and vilified in the gutter press or that coaches might have prejudices that cause them to choose not to extend contracts. There is a very good reason that there is not a single out professional rugby player in the entire world and that reason is not that gay people don't like rugby.

So yes, they're "protected", because they are a minority that a fair chunk of the majority either hate, disdain, or are happy to ignore the hate and disdain. They need protection until our society adapt enough that gay isn't an insult.

Puja

They are deciding what I find offensive if they ban a player for one slur and not another.

[Mikey Brown]

Are you talking about the difference between racial, homphobic and whatever you call Marler’s comments? Or are you including generic insults among those slurs?

Surely the difference as stated before is whether it is based on a prejudice against an entire group of people?

[Digby]

Are you talking about the difference between racial, homphobic and whatever you call Marler’s comments? Or are you including generic insults among those slurs?

Surely the difference as stated before is whether it is based on a prejudice against an entire group of people?

How do you determine how many people an insult is aimed at? And why are we supposing all blocks of people will think/feel in the same way?

[Stom]

Assuming the abuse did occur, it would be good to get some specifics before we hang, draw and quarter him. For starters is Shillcock gay and, if so, does Solomona realise. Is Solomona calling him gay because he’s wingeing like Rob Kearney or because he’s feigned injury like Habana or has he told him that he hopes he dies of AIDS and burns in hell for enternity with all the other gays.
If Shillcock isn’t gay and Solomona is abusing him for wearing colourful trainers and whining about a bit of rough treatment then I’d ban Shillcock. If Shillcock is gay, Solomana knows it and the abuse is personal then ban him. All in all, I’d really like Shillcock to go “yep, I am gay and I ain’t bothered what you say” rather than whine to the ref, and Solomona make a sizeable donation to Stonewall with a suitable amount of publicity and be banned from playing for England*.


*The ban may not be wholly related to the allegeded abuse.

Shilcock's sexuality has no bearing on it.

There's a world of difference between calling someone a fucking arse, cock, etc., and calling them a sexual or racial slur. The first is part and parcel, the second is unacceptable. I would have thought THAT is a pretty clear distinction.

Says you, but I fail to see why you get to set what other people will find offensive

It has nothing to do with offense. It has all to do with prejudice. The use of homosexual slurs may not offend the recipient in the slightest. But if it's deemed acceptable, you're basically saying that being gay is something worthy of ridicule. And while that may not seem like a big deal to you, it sure as hell will to a 16 year old kid struggling with their sexuality.

It doesn't matter if the slur is aimed at someone, it matters that it is said. And deemed not unacceptable. There is a world of difference between insulting someone and insulting a whole group of people, no matter if that is unintentional.

[Digby]

Shilcock's sexuality has no bearing on it.

There's a world of difference between calling someone a fucking arse, cock, etc., and calling them a sexual or racial slur. The first is part and parcel, the second is unacceptable. I would have thought THAT is a pretty clear distinction.

Says you, but I fail to see why you get to set what other people will find offensive

It has nothing to do with offense. It has all to do with prejudice. The use of homosexual slurs may not offend the recipient in the slightest. But if it's deemed acceptable, you're basically saying that being gay is something worthy of ridicule. And while that may not seem like a big deal to you, it sure as hell will to a 16 year old kid struggling with their sexuality.

It doesn't matter if the slur is aimed at someone, it matters that it is said. And deemed not unacceptable. There is a world of difference between insulting someone and insulting a whole group of people, no matter if that is unintentional.

I'm not taking a stance on homosexual slurs, racist slurs, sexual slurs, gender slurs (with apologies for use of the word gender for all the pedants out there)....

I'm saying only I don't think people should be deciding for other groups what is offensive, not least as this offends me, and I'm told we're supposed to be careful about such things.

[morepork]

Is it not established that other groups do in fact find such slurs offensive?

[Mikey Brown]

Shilcock's sexuality has no bearing on it.

There's a world of difference between calling someone a fucking arse, cock, etc., and calling them a sexual or racial slur. The first is part and parcel, the second is unacceptable. I would have thought THAT is a pretty clear distinction.

Says you, but I fail to see why you get to set what other people will find offensive

It has nothing to do with offense. It has all to do with prejudice. The use of homosexual slurs may not offend the recipient in the slightest. But if it's deemed acceptable, you're basically saying that being gay is something worthy of ridicule. And while that may not seem like a big deal to you, it sure as hell will to a 16 year old kid struggling with their sexuality.

It doesn't matter if the slur is aimed at someone, it matters that it is said. And deemed not unacceptable. There is a world of difference between insulting someone and insulting a whole group of people, no matter if that is unintentional.

It’s this, Digby. It’s about the precedent. Not so much the fact that one invidiual may be upset about being insulted.

[Digby]

Says you, but I fail to see why you get to set what other people will find offensive

It has nothing to do with offense. It has all to do with prejudice. The use of homosexual slurs may not offend the recipient in the slightest. But if it's deemed acceptable, you're basically saying that being gay is something worthy of ridicule. And while that may not seem like a big deal to you, it sure as hell will to a 16 year old kid struggling with their sexuality.

It doesn't matter if the slur is aimed at someone, it matters that it is said. And deemed not unacceptable. There is a world of difference between insulting someone and insulting a whole group of people, no matter if that is unintentional.

It’s this, Digby. It’s about the precedent. Not so much the fact that one invidiual may be upset about being insulted.

So it's about a majority minority view?

[Digby]

Is it not established that other groups do in fact find such slurs offensive?

'tis why I'm suggesting they might want to ban slurs

[belgarion]

Would you advocate banning someone for calling an a opponent a 'fat bastard' as being called
fat is seen as a slur against overweight people & bastard is seen as a slur against people born out of wedlock?

[Digby]

Would you advocate banning someone for calling an a opponent a 'fat bastard' as being called
fat is seen as a slur against overweight people & bastard is seen as a slur against people born out of wedlock?

If it's deemed desirable to remove slurs from the game then yes it's gone. Fat shaming and criticising parentage both seem beyond the pale in our brave new world

[morepork]

I don't think fat people have been imprisoned/chemically castrated/lynched/denied social services in recent memory.

[Digby]

I don't think fat people have been imprisoned/chemically castrated/lynched/denied social services in recent memory.

Will this then be the standard for acceptable vs unacceptable abuse?

[Puja]

Again I'd much rather they simply ban slurs, or just have the refs tell a player to shut up and/or award penalties against an offender. If we're going to ban specific slurs I don't like the idea that the groups being 'protected' are given a victim status, and I don't like other people deciding what I might find offensive.

Digby, no-one's deciding what you might find offensive (assuming you're straight that is). If you're straight, it's not about you - you don't get to decide what LGBT people find offensive. Even if you're gay and feel that a particular word has no power over you, it's still not your call, because the vast majority do find it to be a problem.

Also, protected groups are given a victim status for a pretty good reason - they're being victimised! A straight person doesn't have any concern about part of their identity being chucked around as an insult. A straight person doesn't run the risk of abuse and discrimination under a thin patina of 'banter'. A straight person doesn't worry that, if they reveal they're dating a person of the opposite sex, that they might then be mocked and vilified in the gutter press or that coaches might have prejudices that cause them to choose not to extend contracts. There is a very good reason that there is not a single out professional rugby player in the entire world and that reason is not that gay people don't like rugby.

So yes, they're "protected", because they are a minority that a fair chunk of the majority either hate, disdain, or are happy to ignore the hate and disdain. They need protection until our society adapt enough that gay isn't an insult.

Puja

They are deciding what I find offensive if they ban a player for one slur and not another.

No, they're really not. They're saying that picking on a marginalised group is more wrong than picking on fat people (to pick an example from later in the thread). If you are fat yourself, you may be upset by this, but would struggle to argue that you have a worse time in society than gay people.

It is always difficult to draw a solid line and say, "This side is acceptable and this side is not." For a start, it's the English language, and secondly any attempt to is met with nitpicking, pedantry, and sealioning. However, I think it's fairly well established that insults based on sexuality, race, or gender are very definitely on the not acceptable side of the line, so there's really no need to define the exact position of it in this discussion.

What is not an answer is to say, "Because we can't find the exact position of the acceptable/not acceptable line, I don't think anything should be ruled unacceptable."

Puja

[Digby]

Digby, no-one's deciding what you might find offensive (assuming you're straight that is). If you're straight, it's not about you - you don't get to decide what LGBT people find offensive. Even if you're gay and feel that a particular word has no power over you, it's still not your call, because the vast majority do find it to be a problem.

Also, protected groups are given a victim status for a pretty good reason - they're being victimised! A straight person doesn't have any concern about part of their identity being chucked around as an insult. A straight person doesn't run the risk of abuse and discrimination under a thin patina of 'banter'. A straight person doesn't worry that, if they reveal they're dating a person of the opposite sex, that they might then be mocked and vilified in the gutter press or that coaches might have prejudices that cause them to choose not to extend contracts. There is a very good reason that there is not a single out professional rugby player in the entire world and that reason is not that gay people don't like rugby.

So yes, they're "protected", because they are a minority that a fair chunk of the majority either hate, disdain, or are happy to ignore the hate and disdain. They need protection until our society adapt enough that gay isn't an insult.

Puja

They are deciding what I find offensive if they ban a player for one slur and not another.

No, they're really not. They're saying that picking on a marginalised group is more wrong than picking on fat people (to pick an example from later in the thread). If you are fat yourself, you may be upset by this, but would struggle to argue that you have a worse time in society than gay people.

It is always difficult to draw a solid line and say, "This side is acceptable and this side is not." For a start, it's the English language, and secondly any attempt to is met with nitpicking, pedantry, and sealioning. However, I think it's fairly well established that insults based on sexuality, race, or gender are very definitely on the not acceptable side of the line, so there's really no need to define the exact position of it in this discussion.

What is not an answer is to say, "Because we can't find the exact position of the acceptable/not acceptable line, I don't think anything should be ruled out."

Puja

Then they'e exactly telling me what I should find offensive by considering some derogatory remarks acceptable and others not. And I'm not as slim as I was at Uni, these days I've spread out into 34in trousers, and I even have some gut busting 36in trousers but it seems besides the point and fat people are marginalised against, from seats they can't fit into, clothing limitations, some places I've worked they can't fit through the standard security gates and have to head for the wide load entrance, all of which I'm going to assume is more upsetting to a good number of plus sized folk than might be considered by many. And if you do want to mark out some comments as okay and some as not then you're going to have to defend that over and over and over and...

And of course if I'm not being listened to in all this then I'm a marginalised group, so need to be listened to.

[Puja]

They are deciding what I find offensive if they ban a player for one slur and not another.

No, they're really not. They're saying that picking on a marginalised group is more wrong than picking on fat people (to pick an example from later in the thread). If you are fat yourself, you may be upset by this, but would struggle to argue that you have a worse time in society than gay people.

It is always difficult to draw a solid line and say, "This side is acceptable and this side is not." For a start, it's the English language, and secondly any attempt to is met with nitpicking, pedantry, and sealioning. However, I think it's fairly well established that insults based on sexuality, race, or gender are very definitely on the not acceptable side of the line, so there's really no need to define the exact position of it in this discussion.

What is not an answer is to say, "Because we can't find the exact position of the acceptable/not acceptable line, I don't think anything should be ruled out."

Puja

Then they'e exactly telling me what I should find offensive by considering some derogatory remarks acceptable and others not. And I'm not as slim as I was at Uni, these days I've spread out into 34in trousers, and I even have some gut busting 36in trousers but it seems besides the point and fat people are marginalised against, from seats they can't fit into, clothing limitations, some places I've worked they can't fit through the standard security gates and have to head for the wide load entrance, all of which I'm going to assume is more upsetting to a good number of plus sized folk than might be considered by many. And if you do want to mark out some comments as okay and some as not then you're going to have to defend that over and over and over and...

And of course if I'm not being listened to in all this then I'm a marginalised group, so need to be listened to.

You are being deliberately facetious. In no country on earth is there the death penalty for being fat. This country is pretty tolerant and there's still a realistic chance that coming out at work could cost you your job.

No-one is telling you that you have to find something unacceptable. They are telling you that it is unacceptable to them - how you feel about it and whether you agree is entirely up to you.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

This escalated quickly, as has the right to be offended. As I’ve said, wouldn’t it be great if Shillcock went ‘yep, I am gay, what’s your point’ or ‘no, I’m not gay, what’s your point’.

Not sure about the ‘in some countries in Africa/Middle East it’s punishable by death’ or ‘decades ago you could be banged up for it’ arguments. Mainly as we’re not in Africa or the 1920’s and not even close to becoming/returning to either.

I think the fact as to whether Shillcock is gay and whether Solomona knows is relevant. In one instance it’s just a throw away term in another it’s a conscious insult clearly meant to cause offence.

If you want to just decide that any reference to anyone’s sexuality is abusive then I think it’s a pretty blunt tool for an incredibly complex situation, but then I’m white, male, straight and middle class so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion.

However, my biggest disappointment is that nothing was picked up on a mic. The name Shillcock and some sexuality based piss-taking is ripe for some cracking one liners.

[Stom]

This escalated quickly, as has the right to be offended. As I’ve said, wouldn’t it be great if Shillcock went ‘yep, I am gay, what’s your point’ or ‘no, I’m not gay, what’s your point’.

Not sure about the ‘in some countries in Africa/Middle East it’s punishable by death’ or ‘decades ago you could be banged up for it’ arguments. Mainly as we’re not in Africa or the 1920’s and not even close to becoming/returning to either.

I think the fact as to whether Shillcock is gay and whether Solomona knows is relevant. In one instance it’s just a throw away term in another it’s a conscious insult clearly meant to cause offence.

If you want to just decide that any reference to anyone’s sexuality is abusive then I think it’s a pretty blunt tool for an incredibly complex situation, but then I’m white, male, straight and middle class so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion.

However, my biggest disappointment is that nothing was picked up on a mic. The name Shillcock and some sexuality based piss-taking is ripe for some cracking one liners.

If only UG was here. You're all a bunch of shill cocks.

[Mellsblue]

This escalated quickly, as has the right to be offended. As I’ve said, wouldn’t it be great if Shillcock went ‘yep, I am gay, what’s your point’ or ‘no, I’m not gay, what’s your point’.

Not sure about the ‘in some countries in Africa/Middle East it’s punishable by death’ or ‘decades ago you could be banged up for it’ arguments. Mainly as we’re not in Africa or the 1920’s and not even close to becoming/returning to either.

I think the fact as to whether Shillcock is gay and whether Solomona knows is relevant. In one instance it’s just a throw away term in another it’s a conscious insult clearly meant to cause offence.

If you want to just decide that any reference to anyone’s sexuality is abusive then I think it’s a pretty blunt tool for an incredibly complex situation, but then I’m white, male, straight and middle class so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion.

However, my biggest disappointment is that nothing was picked up on a mic. The name Shillcock and some sexuality based piss-taking is ripe for some cracking one liners.

If only UG was here. You're all a bunch of shill cocks.

Imagine a world in which you couldn’t make that pun. I rest my case

[Stom]

This escalated quickly, as has the right to be offended. As I’ve said, wouldn’t it be great if Shillcock went ‘yep, I am gay, what’s your point’ or ‘no, I’m not gay, what’s your point’.

Not sure about the ‘in some countries in Africa/Middle East it’s punishable by death’ or ‘decades ago you could be banged up for it’ arguments. Mainly as we’re not in Africa or the 1920’s and not even close to becoming/returning to either.

I think the fact as to whether Shillcock is gay and whether Solomona knows is relevant. In one instance it’s just a throw away term in another it’s a conscious insult clearly meant to cause offence.

If you want to just decide that any reference to anyone’s sexuality is abusive then I think it’s a pretty blunt tool for an incredibly complex situation, but then I’m white, male, straight and middle class so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion.

However, my biggest disappointment is that nothing was picked up on a mic. The name Shillcock and some sexuality based piss-taking is ripe for some cracking one liners.

If only UG was here. You're all a bunch of shill cocks.

Imagine a world in which you couldn’t make that pun. I rest my case

Well that was kind of my point... Calling someone a cock is only going to prejudice a chicken. And as they are about as capable of thought as Owen Farrell's left to right pass, I think we're safe there.

[morepork]

I don't think fat people have been imprisoned/chemically castrated/lynched/denied social services in recent memory.

Will this then be the standard for acceptable vs unacceptable abuse?

When civil rights are infringed upon, the definition of standard needs to be more nuanced than that toaster boy.

[Puja]

I think the fact as to whether Shillcock is gay and whether Solomona knows is relevant. In one instance it’s just a throw away term in another it’s a conscious insult clearly meant to cause offence.

If you want to just decide that any reference to anyone’s sexuality is abusive then I think it’s a pretty blunt tool for an incredibly complex situation, but then I’m white, male, straight and middle class so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion.

On second thought, you're right in that Shillcock's sexuality would make a difference, in that it would make it worse. It doesn't make it okay if he's straight though, cause the f-word (which I understand is the alleged slur in question) has a phenomenal amount of baggage - at it's lowest level, you're saying that being gay is a horrible insult, at the top level "f*cking f*ggot" is the soundtrack that a lot of gay man have had to being beaten up. Even if everyone on the pitch and within hearing is as straight as a die, it's still not okay to use as an insult, just like if you called a white person a "lazy n*gger".

I will also note that being white, male, straight, and middle class doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion - it just means that you need to be very aware that your opinion stands a lower chance of being right than if you're part of the marginalised group under discussion cause you haven't experienced some of the things those groups go through and thus don't have the same breadth of knowledge. It's like any debate - if you come up against an expert in the field and their opinion differs from yours, you have to look at whether the expert is wrong in their specialist field or if there's something you haven't realised or don't know yet.

However, my biggest disappointment is that nothing was picked up on a mic. The name Shillcock and some sexuality based piss-taking is ripe for some cracking one liners.

This is the most important point to take out of this whole situation. What a missed opportunity and, frankly, this alone shows Solomona isn't international quality.

Puja

[Digby]

You are being deliberately facetious. In no country on earth is there the death penalty for being fat. This country is pretty tolerant and there's still a realistic chance that coming out at work could cost you your job.

No-one is telling you that you have to find something unacceptable. They are telling you that it is unacceptable to them - how you feel about it and whether you agree is entirely up to you.

Puja

I'm not aiming for humour tbh. And I'm not saying you can't have sanctions for people being mean, I'm just suggesting if you want to do it then do it on the basis of treating people equally

[Mellsblue]

I think the fact as to whether Shillcock is gay and whether Solomona knows is relevant. In one instance it’s just a throw away term in another it’s a conscious insult clearly meant to cause offence.

If you want to just decide that any reference to anyone’s sexuality is abusive then I think it’s a pretty blunt tool for an incredibly complex situation, but then I’m white, male, straight and middle class so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion.

On second thought, you're right in that Shillcock's sexuality would make a difference, in that it would make it worse. It doesn't make it okay if he's straight though, cause the f-word (which I understand is the alleged slur in question) has a phenomenal amount of baggage - at it's lowest level, you're saying that being gay is a horrible insult, at the top level "f*cking f*ggot" is the soundtrack that a lot of gay man have had to being beaten up. Even if everyone on the pitch and within hearing is as straight as a die, it's still not okay to use as an insult, just like if you called a white person a "lazy n*gger".

I will also note that being white, male, straight, and middle class doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion - it just means that you need to be very aware that your opinion stands a lower chance of being right than if you're part of the marginalised group under discussion cause you haven't experienced some of the things those groups go through and thus don't have the same breadth of knowledge. It's like any debate - if you come up against an expert in the field and their opinion differs from yours, you have to look at whether the expert is wrong in their specialist field or if there's something you haven't realised or don't know yet.

However, my biggest disappointment is that nothing was picked up on a mic. The name Shillcock and some sexuality based piss-taking is ripe for some cracking one liners.

This is the most important point to take out of this whole situation. What a missed opportunity and, frankly, this alone shows Solomona isn't international quality.

Puja

I can’t agree that you’re only an expert if you’ve been on the end of the abuse. If anything you’re likely to less dispassionate and therefore more emotional about a subject (rightly so) and lose some objectivity. As with everything, everyone’s views need to be taken into account - with those personally involved and well read given more weight, and the more radical voices given less weight. It’s a bit like saying Dewi Morris is an expert rugby analyst just because he played professionally, when half the time he doesn’t even know what the big H at each end of the field is for or, if being serious, a judge less of an expert to pass sentence on a thief than a victim of theft.

On the other hand, I wholly concur with your view that Solomona’s mental capabilities are very much short of what is required to play for England.

With all that said, regardless of where you sit on the issue, it’s unpleasant and bad for the image of the game and should be dealt with accordingly.