Rangers Sign UpTo the Equality Network

[craig 5,199]

When I am giving my opinion it has nothing to do with being a Mod. We do not have an admin party line on here. I told Frankie I thought he was wrong the other day. Because he is site owner does not mean that he is right all the time. If being a moderator means I cannot give my opinion then I will pack it in as I come on here to give my opinion in discussion and not to moderate per se.

 

You tell me I'm wrong all the time

[pete 2,499]

You tell me I'm wrong all the time

 

You are,

[JohnMc 2,801]

You're suggesting that it's ok to be offensive towards a section of society that hasn't been considered to have broken the law in the past? I don't understand that. I fail to understand the difference between one type of offensive word and another. As I asked, who decides?

 

The society you live in decides Gaffer, this isn't a hard concept to grasp, and it's already decided on this matter. And I didn't suggest anything of the fucking kind (sorry for offending you there). If you can't understand why describing someone who is gay as "not a normal human" is more offensive than calling someone from Barcelona 'Spanish' then I can't help you.

 

As for keeping up to speed, did you know from your social interactions and friends that elderly was offensive? I didn't. There are some terms and discriminations that receive a great deal of press coverage, and others that don't, and that was my point. It seems that it's those that get the attention that also receive the greatest level of condemnation when used.

 

Yes, I've friends who work in the health service and they've spoken about the language used to describe various groups in society. It's most certainly not a term that is universally described as offensive though, but it's being dropped from official usage. It's nothing like as loaded a term as 'homo' is. Language is fluid, and none more so than English, the meaning of words changes, sometimes over relatively short periods of time,

 

And for the record, I would never ever choose to read a newspaper or watch the news.

 

That comes as no surprise.

 

You're correct of course that there are laws against many types of discrimination, and I agree with that. And contrary to your assertion, I don't believe that any right (such as free speech) should be used without a sense of responsibility when executing that right.

 

What I have a problem with is people who take it upon themselves to decide what is an offensive word and what isn't. Furthermore, there are those people that take it upon themselves to decide the level of condemnation that the said word is deserving of. I'm in a minority (I believe) which finds the use of many swear words offensive. I also take offence to being openly called a 'hun'. Who decided that it's ok to call me that, but I'm not allowed to call someone elderly? This is a Rangers forum and I'm sure there are many on here that encounter such offence and discrimination on a daily basis. Why are we not afforded the same protection?

 

Society decided Gaffer, the politicians we elect, the media we consume, the law-makers we entrust, that's who. No one decided you can't use the word 'elderly'. It's a collective noun and very, very different from describing a gay man as a 'homo' Gaffer, you can surely see that. Are you really unaware of the barbaric acts that the LGBT community suffered in the recent past? Of the active discrimination they suffered, open hatred based on nothing but ignorance and fear? You simply can't compare that to being over 65, from Bilbao or even being a Rangers supporter.

[JohnMc 2,801]

When I am giving my opinion it has nothing to do with being a Mod. We do not have an admin party line on here. I told Frankie I thought he was wrong the other day. Because he is site owner does not mean that he is right all the time. If being a moderator means I cannot give my opinion then I will pack it in as I come on here to give my opinion in discussion and not to moderate per se.

 

I accept that, I was trying to explain, rightly or wrongly, why I thought Anchorman reacted as he did.

[forlanssister 3,114]

But we're agreed that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is a bad thing, right? And the use of words and terms that are derogatory and offensive to them should be discouraged too, yeah? The rest is a strawman.

 

I'm unaware of posting anything in this thread that would give the impression that I favour discriminating against anyone or using derogatory and offensive language against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation, as I've stated the world has changed and my views to a degree along with it others haven't moved apace but I don't see that as reason to condemn them or think I'm superior to them, I think they're as free to hold their opinion as I or you are ours.

 

See I'm cool with people having different views from me, I'm not backwards in expressing my disagreement with some views, as you might have noticed, so I've no problem with other people doing the same. Indeed I quite enjoy it sometimes.

 

Ditto.

 

It was Anchorman who left the site, not me. I don't think he should have, it was an over-reaction in my opinion, but I can see why Pete's position on here as a 'mod' gave his words more authority and so carried more offence. Pete's explained and apologised, for me that's enough.

 

If indeed Anchorman has left the site over this then I share the disappointment at his departure.

 

However where I digress is that I don't think the fact that Pete is a mod here makes a blind bit of difference, he's entitled to his own opinion same as each and every one of us here and I don't see his words having any more authority or causing anymore offence than anyone else. It was clearly a personal opinion and his mod status is in my view irrelevant.

[pete 2,499]

Quote Originally Posted by craig View Post

You tell me I'm wrong all the time:roflmao:

 

You are,

 

Thanks for that bit of banter Craig I needed that to cheer me up.

[SteveC 150]

I'm unaware of posting anything in this thread that would give the impression that I favour discriminating against anyone or using derogatory and offensive language against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation, as I've stated the world has changed and my views to a degree along with it others haven't moved apace but I don't see that as reason to condemn them or think I'm superior to them, I think they're as free to hold their opinion as I or you are ours.

 

.....

 

That sounds very reasonable but, as I mentioned above, it's not a reflection of reality. We don't allow people to express opinions such as paedophilia, incest, torture, cannibalism, indiscriminate killing and so forth are jolly good things so they are not "as free to hold their opinions as we are". Even if you were to disagree with that and say that you do, in fact, think all opinions no matter how loathsome to the general consensus are equally valid and have equal right to be heard then you'd be heavily implying that to allow total free speech on all matters is something you (and those of like mind) do and those that don't are wrong - i.e. that you are superior!

[forlanssister 3,114]

That sounds very reasonable but, as I mentioned above, it's not a reflection of reality. We don't allow people to express opinions such as paedophilia, incest, torture, cannibalism, indiscriminate killing and so forth are jolly good things so they are not "as free to hold their opinions as we are". Even if you were to disagree with that and say that you do, in fact, think all opinions no matter how loathsome to the general consensus are equally valid and have equal right to be heard then you'd be heavily implying that to allow total free speech on all matters is something you (and those of like mind) do and those that don't are wrong - i.e. that you are superior!

 

Who are "we" in this instance?

 

People hold views that I personally deem abhorrent and no doubt some people find some of my views to be abhorrent too, I don't have a problem with that and in no way think that I am superior because of that.

 

Views I find abhorrent today I may find acceptable tomorrow and views I find acceptable today I may find abhorrent tomorrow. Peoples views can and do change.

 

It does not follow that because I hold my view on a particular point someone who disagree's with me is wrong, in the main I'm agnostic but that doesn't mean atheists, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc...etc.. are wrong and that I am superior to them.

[JohnMc 2,801]

I'm unaware of posting anything in this thread that would give the impression that I favour discriminating against anyone or using derogatory and offensive language against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation, as I've stated the world has changed and my views to a degree along with it others haven't moved apace but I don't see that as reason to condemn them or think I'm superior to them, I think they're as free to hold their opinion as I or you are ours.

 

Well I'm struggling to know what you think, other than everyone is free to think what they want, hence my question. I've already said I think the 'age' excuse is a poor one. I don't have any problem with someone holding a contrary view, but they should be able to back it up when challenged on it.

 

If indeed Anchorman has left the site over this then I share the disappointment at his departure.

 

However where I digress is that I don't think the fact that Pete is a mod here makes a blind bit of difference, he's entitled to his own opinion same as each and every one of us here and I don't see his words having any more authority or causing anymore offence than anyone else. It was clearly a personal opinion and his mod status is in my view irrelevant.

 

See my reply to Pete in post 104.

[Gaffer 1,665]

The society you live in decides Gaffer, this isn't a hard concept to grasp, and it's already decided on this matter. And I didn't suggest anything of the fucking kind (sorry for offending you there). If you can't understand why describing someone who is gay as "not a normal human" is more offensive than calling someone from Barcelona 'Spanish' then I can't help you.

 

 

 

Yes, I've friends who work in the health service and they've spoken about the language used to describe various groups in society. It's most certainly not a term that is universally described as offensive though, but it's being dropped from official usage. It's nothing like as loaded a term as 'homo' is. Language is fluid, and none more so than English, the meaning of words changes, sometimes over relatively short periods of time,

 

 

 

That comes as no surprise.

 

 

 

Society decided Gaffer, the politicians we elect, the media we consume, the law-makers we entrust, that's who. No one decided you can't use the word 'elderly'. It's a collective noun and very, very different from describing a gay man as a 'homo' Gaffer, you can surely see that. Are you really unaware of the barbaric acts that the LGBT community suffered in the recent past? Of the active discrimination they suffered, open hatred based on nothing but ignorance and fear? You simply can't compare that to being over 65, from Bilbao or even being a Rangers supporter.

 

What a ridiculous response, in my opinion. You're trying to twist arguments and construct something there, and to make matters worse, you deliberately try to offend me. Why? Was there any need for that? I was asking some questions, and looking for a debate, but you've managed to kill it for me. That's the difference .... others were using terms by accident. You do it deliberately, and yet you're taking the moral high ground?!?