Solomona Slurs

[Spiffy]

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.

Not if you take a look at some of Eddie's current squad as the yardstick.

[p/d]

Starting to understand why the barmaid at a local watering hole looked somewhat dismayed when I mentioned ‘I had been polishing my fruit’

[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.

Absolutely you can be an expert without having been on the end of the abuse, however it's much less likely. It's like if someone who had never lived outside the US was opining about what it was like to live in London - it's entirely possible that they might have learned everything from reading and research, but it would be unusual and you'd be more likely to get an accurate opinion from someone who'd been living there for the past 10 years.

To co-opt your example, a judge might pass judgement on a thief, but that's because they know the law, not the world of thievery. If you wanted to know what the challenges and difficulties of a thief's life were, you'd ask a thief.

I have no riposte to the example of Dewi Morris though.

Puja

[morepork]

You're a gent puja.

[Mikey Brown]

This thread is fucking weird.

[morepork]

You're weird.

[Mikey Brown]

You’re different to me and I hate you for it.

[Which Tyler]

I can't believe we're having to have this discussion again.

No, it is not okay to abuse people based on their sexual orientation, gender, skin colour, religion, ethnicity or disability.

It doesn't matter if the person is a member of the group s/he is being abuse for.
It doesn't matter if you personally are offended by it.
It doesn't even matter if you personally fail to understand.

It is not okay. There is no debate to be had on this. Anyone arguing (again) that it is okay is a fucking idiot and needs to join the late 20th century some time.

[Spiffy]

I can't believe we're having to have this discussion again.

No, it is not okay to abuse people based on their sexual orientation, gender, skin colour, religion, ethnicity or disability.

It doesn't matter if the person is a member of the group s/he is being abuse for.
It doesn't matter if you personally are offended by it.
It doesn't even matter if you personally fail to understand.

It is not okay. There is no debate to be had on this. Anyone arguing (again) that it is okay is a fucking idiot and needs to join the late 20th century some time.

Surely your rationale shows some clear bias against fucking idiots. Having been called one myself from time to time, I find this abusive, offensive and unacceptable.

[Mellsblue]

You're a gent puja.

Why is he gent (in this scenario, I’m sure he is in general, even if a little power crazed now he’s a mod)?
Nobody on here is saying homophobia is ok. The discussion is whether Solomona should be punished for what he did regardless of context, whether there is a sliding scale of abuse or whether Shillcock should just stick to the old saying of ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me’. Nothing for anyone to take offence at there. Unless they take offence at people have a differing opinion.

[Mellsblue]

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.

Absolutely you can be an expert without having been on the end of the abuse, however it's much less likely. It's like if someone who had never lived outside the US was opining about what it was like to live in London - it's entirely possible that they might have learned everything from reading and research, but it would be unusual and you'd be more likely to get an accurate opinion from someone who'd been living there for the past 10 years.

To co-opt your example, a judge might pass judgement on a thief, but that's because they know the law, not the world of thievery. If you wanted to know what the challenges and difficulties of a thief's life were, you'd ask a thief.

I have no riposte to the example of Dewi Morris though.

Puja

I think we we’re coming at it from different angles. You’re thinking about Shillcock’s right to be offended. I’m thinking about how to police Solomona’s remarks. For the latter I’d want an objective, well educated opinion not someone emotionally involved.
If we are saying only those with personal knowledge can comment on how Shillcock should react, then his sexuality is of paramount importance. As a straight man who has been on the end of homophobic abuse on the rugby field - for the sin of having a public school accent and using words longer than two syllables whilst playing some imbreds from a South Yorkshire ex- mining town - I can confirm that Shillcock should not take offence.

The Dewi Morris Rule is a copper bottomed get out of jail card when you meet anybody with seemingly more knowledge on a subject than you.

Anyway, I’m done. I’ve just read BBD’s post in the Donny in Italy thread and I’m off to find a bottle of painkillers and a bottle of vodka.

[Stom]

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.

Absolutely you can be an expert without having been on the end of the abuse, however it's much less likely. It's like if someone who had never lived outside the US was opining about what it was like to live in London - it's entirely possible that they might have learned everything from reading and research, but it would be unusual and you'd be more likely to get an accurate opinion from someone who'd been living there for the past 10 years.

To co-opt your example, a judge might pass judgement on a thief, but that's because they know the law, not the world of thievery. If you wanted to know what the challenges and difficulties of a thief's life were, you'd ask a thief.

I have no riposte to the example of Dewi Morris though.

Puja

I think we we’re coming at it from different angles. You’re thinking about Shillcock’s right to be offended. I’m thinking about how to police Solomona’s remarks. For the latter I’d want an objective, well educated opinion not someone emotionally involved.
If we are saying only those with personal knowledge can comment on how Shillcock should react, then his sexuality is of paramount importance. As a straight man who has been on the end of homophobic abuse on the rugby field - for the sin of having a public school accent and using words longer than two syllables whilst playing some imbreds from a South Yorkshire ex- mining town - I can confirm that Shillcock should not take offence.

The Dewi Morris Rule is a copper bottomed get out of jail card when you meet anybody with seemingly more knowledge on a subject than you.

Anyway, I’m done. I’ve just read BBD’s post in the Donny in Italy thread and I’m off to find a bottle of painkillers and a bottle of vodka.

FOR THE LAST TIME, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OFFENSE!!!

Being offended is a side effect. Someone can be offended if you call them Kevin. Offense is neither an objective measure nor any way to truly reflect the severity of someone's actions.

The objective matter here is that someone is using a word that refers to homosexuality to insult someone. The insult is not the problem. The problem is that he is spreading the concept that being homosexual is worthy of insult. That being gay is a negative thing. When in reality it's simply neutral.

[Oakboy]

I accept that political correctness is an accepted part of modern life (arguably imposed on us by politicians). As such, it is now a code of conduct for all in any form of public life.

My acceptance does not imply understanding or agreement as a principle, nor does it apply to my circle of friends in private. Reportedly, loads of other people pay lip service for the sake of behaviour in public. Basically, IMO, if you are young (say up to mid 20s) you are likely to see PC as an integral, proper part of life. Older ones, like me, simply go along with it whilst thinking it is bollix.

[bitts]

If it wasn't picked up on the refs mike it will be tricky to do this, but I think this is the perfect opportunity for RFU to make it clear this isn't acceptable by making an example of Denny.

Is be thinking of a year or so ban for playing for England or something. After all, in that case, they are his employer and shouldn't be seen to condone that behaviour in any way.

If someone said that who I manage they would be gone as fast as HR would let me.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[fivepointer]

Dificult to condemn the man when there is no evidence against him other than what Shillcock alleges.

We might instinctively believe Shillcock, but unless there is some corroboration taking any kind of action would be unwise.

[Puja]

I accept that political correctness is an accepted part of modern life (arguably imposed on us by politicians). As such, it is now a code of conduct for all in any form of public life.

My acceptance does not imply understanding or agreement as a principle, nor does it apply to my circle of friends in private. Reportedly, loads of other people pay lip service for the sake of behaviour in public. Basically, IMO, if you are young (say up to mid 20s) you are likely to see PC as an integral, proper part of life. Older ones, like me, simply go along with it whilst thinking it is bollix.

A useful meme I've come across recommends replacing the words "Political Correctness" in any sentence with "Treating People With Respect". You can get mods for your browser that do it automatically, which ends up with fun "Treating People With Respect Gone Mad!" headlines from the Mail.

Puja

[Digby]

Very few of us treat people with respect, and yet we're often very quick to demand action against others who do likewise.

[p/d]

Is be thinking of a year or so ban for playing for England or something.

why punish us? Should be a lifetime ban.

[p/d]

I can't believe we're having to have this discussion again.

No, it is not okay to abuse people based on their sexual orientation, gender, skin colour, religion, ethnicity or disability.

It doesn't matter if the person is a member of the group s/he is being abuse for.
It doesn't matter if you personally are offended by it.
It doesn't even matter if you personally fail to understand.

It is not okay. There is no debate to be had on this. Anyone arguing (again) that it is okay is a fucking idiot and needs to join the late 20th century some time.

Surely your rationale shows some clear bias against fucking idiots. Having been called one myself from time to time, I find this abusive, offensive and unacceptable.

I can take the idiot bit, but the fucking really hurts.......

[Peat]

I accept that political correctness is an accepted part of modern life (arguably imposed on us by politicians). As such, it is now a code of conduct for all in any form of public life.

My acceptance does not imply understanding or agreement as a principle, nor does it apply to my circle of friends in private. Reportedly, loads of other people pay lip service for the sake of behaviour in public. Basically, IMO, if you are young (say up to mid 20s) you are likely to see PC as an integral, proper part of life. Older ones, like me, simply go along with it whilst thinking it is bollix.

A useful meme I've come across recommends replacing the words "Political Correctness" in any sentence with "Treating People With Respect". You can get mods for your browser that do it automatically, which ends up with fun "Treating People With Respect Gone Mad!" headlines from the Mail.

Puja

There's a rather nice article I saw in the Spectator by Simon Barnes a couple of years back that summed up what is good about political correctness - its about letting people fit in to public life rather than excluding them. There's been some proper mental (and unhelpful) things dreamed up in pursuit of this end but that's the heart and soul of it.

[Mellsblue]

I accept that political correctness is an accepted part of modern life (arguably imposed on us by politicians). As such, it is now a code of conduct for all in any form of public life.

My acceptance does not imply understanding or agreement as a principle, nor does it apply to my circle of friends in private. Reportedly, loads of other people pay lip service for the sake of behaviour in public. Basically, IMO, if you are young (say up to mid 20s) you are likely to see PC as an integral, proper part of life. Older ones, like me, simply go along with it whilst thinking it is bollix.

A useful meme I've come across recommends replacing the words "Political Correctness" in any sentence with "Treating People With Respect". You can get mods for your browser that do it automatically, which ends up with fun "Treating People With Respect Gone Mad!" headlines from the Mail.

Puja

There's a rather nice article I saw in the Spectator by Simon Barnes a couple of years back that summed up what is good about political correctness - its about letting people fit in to public life rather than excluding them. There's been some proper mental (and unhelpful) things dreamed up in pursuit of this end but that's the heart and soul of it.

Subjecting yourself to a Simon Barnes article is the definition of political correctness gone mad.

[Peat]

I was paid to read newspapers at the time - he's an unfathomably long way from being the worst columnist you could read.

[morepork]

You're a gent puja.

Why is he gent (in this scenario, I’m sure he is in general, even if a little power crazed now he’s a mod)?
Nobody on here is saying homophobia is ok. The discussion is whether Solomona should be punished for what he did regardless of context, whether there is a sliding scale of abuse or whether Shillcock should just stick to the old saying of ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me’. Nothing for anyone to take offence at there. Unless they take offence at people have a differing opinion.

I say gent because he is at pains to highlight what to many is an obvious point that transcends this non-PC is the new PC bollocks.

[Digby]

You're a gent puja.

Why is he gent (in this scenario, I’m sure he is in general, even if a little power crazed now he’s a mod)?
Nobody on here is saying homophobia is ok. The discussion is whether Solomona should be punished for what he did regardless of context, whether there is a sliding scale of abuse or whether Shillcock should just stick to the old saying of ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me’. Nothing for anyone to take offence at there. Unless they take offence at people have a differing opinion.

I say gent because he is at pains to highlight what to many is an obvious point that transcends this non-PC is the new PC bollocks.

Piffle, it's for starting a thread called 'Solomona Slurs' in order that people can infer he's having a joke at people with substance abuse issues such as alcoholism given Solomona's drinking escapades before going on to complain people mustn't be unkind to others.

NB. Obviously he might not remotely be doing that, the use of the word slurs might be entirely incidental, but it's important to look for the chance to be offended.

[morepork]

I give up. As ewe were.