RugbyRebels

Molehill Tigs, molehill...

Are there any abusive terms that a player may call his opponents in the heat of the moment these days without sanction?
Is faggot any worse than cu*t, tw*t, fuc*er, motherfuc*er, coc*sucker, nancy boy, gippo, fatarrse, dickhead, wanker, and a host of other endearments?
Maybe players should not be allowed to address their opponents directly to avoid this kind of thing.
Something that increasingly pissses me off much more than the verbals is the patting of an opponent's head when he gives up a penalty. I'd make that an automatic reversal with a penalty against the patter.

Spiffy wrote:Are there any abusive terms that a player may call his opponents in the heat of the moment these days without sanction?
Is faggot any worse than cu*t, tw*t, fuc*er, motherfuc*er, coc*sucker, nancy boy, gippo, fatarrse, dickhead, wanker, and a host of other endearments?
Maybe players should not be allowed to address their opponents directly to avoid this kind of thing.
Something that increasingly pissses me off much more than the verbals is the patting of an opponent's head when he gives up a penalty. I'd make that an automatic reversal with a penalty against the patter.

When the term is used specifically to dehumanise and offend a group of people based on their sexual orientation, then yeah, it can be worse than some others. It's rather curious that you find this to be a wacky concept.

Spiffy wrote: Is f*ggot any worse than cu*t, tw*t, fuc*er, motherfuc*er, coc*sucker, nancy boy, gippo, fatarrse, dickhead, wanker, and a host of other endearments?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, not sure, yes, yes, yes, and probably. It's a pretty bad word.

tigran wrote:He is not homophobic. All in all u lot are making a mountain out of a mouse

I completely get the argument that he is not actively homophobic and that the word popped up in a moment of stress. However, the problem is that *that* word was a part of his armoury in the first place - I would imagine that this ban means he will never say it again (at least on a rugby pitch) and, with that, the world is a better place.

It's the same as if someone said the word n*gger - they might not be racist, but it's still not good that they had that word to hand.


{Mod}I will get up the energy to go through this thread at some point, but can we make sure that, going forward, all of the spectacularly awful words have an asterisk or something in them. I don't particularly want google's advertising spiders to think we want to see Britain First adverts because we're on a page that has a load of iterations of f*ggot and k*ke.{/Mod}

Puja

Puja wrote:

Spiffy wrote: Is f*ggot any worse than cu*t, tw*t, fuc*er, motherfuc*er, coc*sucker, nancy boy, gippo, fatarrse, dickhead, wanker, and a host of other endearments?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, not sure, yes, yes, yes, and probably. It's a pretty bad word.

Both c*nt and twat would depend entirely on whom it's being aimed at. Like, as a general rule of thumb, don't use those terms at women.
Fucker, motherfucker, fat-arse, dickhead and wanker are fine.
Cocksucker can be homophobic, or rather sexist. Depends on whom you aim it at.
Nancy boy is just straight up homophobic, although I don't think it's considered to be as harsh as faggot.
Gippo, I assume is about gypsies. Either way, it's still a pretty shitty term to use.

tigran wrote:He is not homophobic. All in all u lot are making a mountain out of a mouse

You keep saying that, but the fact that his first port of call when someone said something at him was a derogatory term does not reflect well on the guy.

You're all a bundle of sticks.

Puja wrote:

Spiffy wrote: Is f*ggot any worse than cu*t, tw*t, fuc*er, motherfuc*er, coc*sucker, nancy boy, gippo, fatarrse, dickhead, wanker, and a host of other endearments?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, not sure, yes, yes, yes, and probably. It's a pretty bad word.

Puja

Says you. Others will differ

Spiffy wrote:Is f*ggot any worse than cu*t, tw*t, fuc*er, motherfuc*er, coc*sucker, nancy boy, gippo, fatarrse, dickhead, wanker, and a host of other endearments?

Agreed with each of those.
F*gg*t is a homophobic slur and shouldn't be used as an insult (but for meatballs or bits of wood, then fine)
C*nt can be a sexist slur, but is culture dependant, being considered much worse in USA than most English speaking countries. Best avoided when referring to a woman, especially online.
Tw*t same as above, slightly less severe
Fucker is fine
Motherfucker is fine
C*cks*cker is homophobic, generally less severe than f*ggot, could be considered to be slut shaming.
N*ncy b*y is homophobic, generally less severe than f*ggot
G*pp* is "racist" against the travelling community, who are a protected minority, as we all discovered 2 years ago. I'd suggest that it's a more acceptable "racism" as it's choice rather than nature, but still protected.
Fatarse is sizist, which is frowned upon, generally fine in the context of sport, basically you shouldn't discriminate, but you can insult
Dickhead is fine
Wanker is fine

As for the host of other endearments, the basic rule is that if the word is historically used to demean an historically discriminated group, then don't use it. Hate crimes are bad, random insults are fine.

tigran wrote:He is not homophobic. All in all u lot are making a mountain out of a mouse

Basta may or may not be a homophobe, I have absolutely no idea; that's not massively relevant though as he's not being accused of being a homophobe.
However, he is accused of using a homophobic slur to insult an opponent. We have video and audio of him using a homophobic slur (quite a bad one) and is guilty as sin on that charge. This is illegal in France with penalties going up to €45,000 AND 12 months in jail for verbal abuse.

Digby wrote:Says you. Others will differ

yup, they'd largely be wrong, but they do indeed have the right to be wrong. We can disagree on relative severity, but we can't disagree that f*gg*t is homophobic, or that fucker isn't. Of course, that doesn't mean that f*gg*t is always offensive in all contexts; you can still use the term to reference a bundle of sticks, or meatballs; you can still use the terms with a close friends, or within the homosexual community (much like n*gg*r), even then context is all-important and I'd advise caution as it may well trigger someone on the next table. Contextually, I think we can all tell the difference between a term of affection and an insult - though we may choose to obfuscate and excuse, but then, I'm sure there are good people on both side...


Have I jumped into some sort of time-warp? Is it still 2018? Or have I jumped back to 1988 and we're just starting to work this stuff out? Or have I missed a massive aluminiumy plane?

Blimey

p/d wrote:Blimey

You know the world is in trouble when we are discussing homophobic French rugby players on one thread and Casanova Bedford rugby players on another. Pre Brexit and Trump this would’ve been the other way round. It’s all Farage’s fault, the blooming big poo face (please tell me that’s an acceptable insult).

Mellsblue wrote:

p/d wrote:Blimey

You know the world is in trouble when we are discussing homophobic French rugby players on one thread and Casanova Bedford rugby players on another. Pre Brexit and Trump this would’ve been the other way round. It’s all Farage’s fault, the blooming big poo face (please tell me that’s an acceptable insult).

Well there are those who take pleasure from shitting on eachother (apparently)

To be honest another reason to get shot of the pitch side mic and ref mic. Unless, of course, there are those who enjoy Mullins offering up an apology to the watching audience

p/d wrote:Well there are those who take pleasure from shitting on eachother (apparently

Isn't that what the Trump thread is for?

Which Tyler wrote:

p/d wrote:Well there are those who take pleasure from shitting on eachother (apparently

Isn't that what the Trump thread is for?

I thought that thread related to the dangers of under estimating a fart

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Says you. Others will differ

yup, they'd largely be wrong, but they do indeed have the right to be wrong. We can disagree on relative severity, but we can't disagree that f*gg*t is homophobic, or that fucker isn't. Of course, that doesn't mean that f*gg*t is always offensive in all contexts; you can still use the term to reference a bundle of sticks, or meatballs; you can still use the terms with a close friends, or within the homosexual community (much like n*gg*r), even then context is all-important and I'd advise caution as it may well trigger someone on the next table. Contextually, I think we can all tell the difference between a term of affection and an insult - though we may choose to obfuscate and excuse, but then, I'm sure there are good people on both side...

Why would they largely be wrong? Isn't someone telling someone else what they should find offensive of itself offensive? And actually just from the list (and this is in the context of Bastareaud directing his comment at a bloke) then why would faggot be more homophobic than cocksucker? I'm also certainly not a fan of the idea that you can say something withing a community whereas others can't, if you want to argue for offence you'd also imo need to accept an equality of usage.

You're not being told what to find offensive. No-one is saying that you should be offended by these words. You're being told that they are offensive, and that victims of said abuse may feel offended by the terms. These things are a matter of law.

We can disagree on severity, AKA you may think that c*cks*ck*r is just as homophobic as f*gg*t. I wouldn't majorly disagree with you either (though f*gg*t is pretty exclusive for homosexuals, whilst plenty of heterosexuals suck cocks). However, I'd think it's less offensive, and you are entirely free to disagree (to me f*gg*t is as offensive as it gets for his homophobic slurs).

As for communities being able to use the offensive words themselves, that's about taking ownership of the word, taking control, and fighting back against the discrimination. Basically, a form of psychological armour and a rejection of the victim status.
I'd recommend the film "Pride" (2014) by the way - good film in its own right, but it explicitly covers this precise point pretty well.

Which Tyler wrote:You're not being told what to find offensive. No-one is saying that you should be offended by these words. You're being told that they are offensive, and that victims of said abuse may feel offended by the terms. These things are a matter of law.

We can disagree on severity, AKA you may think that c*cks*ck*r is just as homophobic as f*gg*t. I wouldn't majorly disagree with you either (though f*gg*t is pretty exclusive for homosexuals, whilst plenty of heterosexuals suck cocks). However, I'd think it's less offensive, and you are entirely free to disagree (to me f*gg*t is as offensive as it gets for his homophobic slurs).

As for communities being able to use the offensive words themselves, that's about taking ownership of the word, taking control, and fighting back against the discrimination. Basically, a form of psychological armour and a rejection of the victim status.
I'd recommend the film "Pride" (2014) by the way - good film in its own right, but it explicitly covers this precise point pretty well.

If the community are taking a word back, such as queer, then fine but others are free to use a phrase too at that point imo, but then I'm not much for one group having rights and another not. And I did note Bastareaud had directed his comment at a bloke, and there aren't I assume many blokes sucking cock who wouldn't at the very least have some homosexual tendencies - my assumption might of course be incorrect.

Feel free, but remember that context still matters. You can still call your mates qu**r if you wish, and that might be fine. Use it as an insult however, and don't be surprised if you get in trouble.

Who's talking about one group having rights that another group doesn't? You have the right, there will just be a price to pay for exercising it. Basically, you're doing a 180* on your previous objection to being told what to find offensive. You're now telling other people that they don't have the right to choose whether or not to be offended based on context.

Ok, so by insisting on your own context, the context changes. Congratulations.

I can't remember the last time I called anyone queer, back in the 90s I'd hazard a guess. And even then it wasn't mates, it was players on the same team jumping away from making a tackle. These days I'd be more likely to demean someone by calling them a vegetarian, or worse still a vegan

Cracking tennis match going on at the moment
.
.
.
.
I would

May we suppose they wouldn't?

p/d wrote:Cracking tennis match going on at the moment
.
.
.
.
I would

Fantastic win for the hot one.

Who won again?

Nearly 3 hours that match in the end, and what a match

It was an absolute cracker.

Anyhoo, back to the thread topic. Would c*ck knocker been more acceptable?

p/d wrote:Cracking tennis match going on at the moment
.
.
.
.
I would

Federer or Cilic? Ah, sorry. The topic of this thread got me all confused.
Big fan of Wozniacki. She has fantastic....err...form.