Be very careful what you say...

[Nickydblade]

Words change meaning all the time, south park did a fantastic episode about this with a bunch of Harley riders.

I miss when Southpark episodes felt outlandish, now it feels like we're living in an absurd episode.

I agree South Park is often brilliant about language, insults and power. Really clever and challenging at its best.

I agree words change meaning. In this context do you think you should be able to chant ‘rent boy’ at a football match? I wasn’t quite clear from your comment.

 

[Nickydblade]

If the one shout was the whole story, I'd say it is ott. Is it the whole story? I have no idea.
If they've used this because of other stuff and it was the last straw, then maybe.
It is abusive, no doubt, but I'm not comfortable with this type of legal action for behaviour that is unsavoury.

Last reply for now (working up the thread and even I’m getting bored with myself ).

‘It’s abusive, no doubt’. Like you I’m not sure what type of legal action is best (and as you say I suspect there was probably more context, but we are speculating). There is of course also the specific legal and cultural context of that match as explained in the article.

It seems the action was a three year banning order and counselling. What action would you suggest instead? If it was racist chanting would it be the same?

 

[JohnGannonsPerm]

Since January 2022, the Crown Prosecution Service has defined the "Chelsea rent boy" chant - aimed at the west London club's players and supporters - as a homophobic slur and says that anyone singing it is committing a hate crime and could face prosecution.

So if they had chanted Chelsea Gigolos they’d have been OK then? No wonder the country is in knots.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Last reply for now (working up the thread and even I’m getting bored with myself ).

‘It’s abusive, no doubt’. Like you I’m not sure what type of legal action is best (and as you say I suspect there was probably more context, but we are speculating). There is of course also the specific legal and cultural context of that match as explained in the article.

It seems the action was a three year banning order and counselling. What action would you suggest instead? If it was racist chanting would it be the same?

It's a silly chant. The big difference imo is it wasn't aimed at a person with that characteistic. Although I agree with your racism analogy, that should be punished regardless.
I know my view isn't purely logical. But it just feels disproportionate. It's a very schoolboy type thing to shout, I guess that's where my view is formed.

Perhaps Chelsea should reclaim the term, like spurs have done with Yid army etc. string vests and leather waistcoat for the more hardcore fan.

 

[Dkc]

There is an official ‘panel’ and that leads to legislation about things like protected characteristics including race and sexuality. It doesn’t mean it is ‘correct’ of course and I’m sure some would like racist, or other types of chanting, to be subject to freedom of speech. We are of course in the storm of a culture war about this sort of thing at the moment. Another ‘panel’ is mainstream fan opinion including things like this thread which clearly shows differences of opinion.

Are you claiming that you should be able to use ‘rent boy’ as a chant because in your own opinion it is ‘tame’? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Are you claiming that you should be able to chant ‘whore..’ at a (straight, for some reason) female player or fan? Again a simple reply would be appreciated.

Yes.

No

 

[Nickydblade]

Yes.

No

Thanks for the reply. My own (gay) brother would be offended if that was chanted at him or generally at a game. As I said earlier he (and his husband) refuse to go to football as they didn’t feel welcome in the past.

Do you think they are wrong, and that they should accept your right to chant it?

Edit: if I heard that sort of thing regularly as part of mainstream fan culture it would genuinely make me reconsider going myself.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Yes.

No

Tldr

 

[utd4ever]

I agree knife crime is very concerning and how we respond to it is something we need as a society to change.

Do the ‘marginalised weirdos’ include those who challenged racist chanting in the past? Can I ask you directly, are ‘hurty words’ that are racially motivated acceptable to you? A simple yes or no will suffice.

no

 

[Nickydblade]

no

Thanks for the reply. So is it different if it is homophobic ‘hurty words’?

 

[Dkc]

Thanks for the reply. My own (gay) brother would be offended if that was chanted at him or generally at a game. As I said earlier he (and his husband) refuse to go to football as they didn’t feel welcome in the past.

Do you think they are wrong, and that they should accept your right to chant it?

Football rivalries would be nothing without insults. Some are of course unacceptable, but 'Fat Chelsea Rentboy' isn't one of them imo given the context. Very few gay men are rent boys, and some straight men are. As I said, it's about questionable morals, not sexual preference or homophobia.

'Town full of queers' at Brighton would be unacceptable.

Almot every chant can be seen as problematic if you choose to take offence. Look at the furore over 'Swinging a Pig' after the last derby.

 

[Nickydblade]

Football rivalries would be nothing without insults. Some are of course unacceptable, but 'Fat Chelsea Rentboy' isn't one of them imo given the context. Very few gay men are rent boys, and some straight men are. As I said, it's about questionable morals, not sexual preference or homophobia.

'Town full of queers' at Brighton would be unacceptable.

Almot every chant can be seen as problematic if you choose to take offence. Look at the furore over 'Swinging a Pig' after the last derby.

So you are saying that you are right and my brother is wrong and you should be able to chant it? Just to be clear.

 

[Dkc]

So you are saying that you are right and my brother is wrong and you should be able to chant it? Just to be clear.

Yes. I'm sorry if it offends your brother but it is not an anti-gay chant.

If somene said they were offended by 'Swinging a Pig' because they see it as condoning throwing Wednesday fans off buildings, should all our fans stop singing it?

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Yes. I'm sorry if it offends your brother but it is not an anti-gay chant.

If somene said they were offended by 'Swinging a Pig' because they see it as condoning throwing Wednesday fans off buildings, should all our fans stop singing it?

It’s clearly discriminatory by suggesting someone is gay as an insult. All the standard mental gymnastics to pretend that’s not the actual intention isn’t in any way credible.
Its right up there with “it’s not racist it’s just a shortening of Pakistani”

 

[Nickydblade]

Yes. I'm sorry if it offends your brother but it is not an anti-gay chant.

If somene said they were offended by 'Swinging a Pig' because they see it as condoning throwing Wednesday fans off buildings, should all our fans stop singing it?

Thank you for being clear. If it is simply you v my brother then free speech is a reasonable position, even if it would prevent him from going to football.

If many people said it offended them, to the extent that legislation, campaign groups, football clubs, and probably (?) most mainstream culture all decided something was considered offensive (like that specific chant) would you ever consider that your own personal understanding of the term could change to the extent you would choose not to use it (like the ‘Yorkie’ argument earlier where I think almost everyone would agree that the individual’s opinion was a bit out of touch)? If not, fair enough, you stick to your guns.

The ‘swinging a pig’ analogy is interesting. To be consistent I would have to say that if you could make an argument it was victimising a specific group facing clear historical prejudice, and many people (not a couple of idiotic keyboard pigs), campaign groups, legislation, football clubs, mainstream fandom and (well meaning) forum posters all said I shouldn’t chant it… I would need to reconsider.

Tbh I’m not convinced so far, but if you want to make the case it is equivalent and start that campaign then I’m prepared to listen.

 

[Jon Bon II]

I vaguely remember this from childhood:

'Sticks and stones may break my bones
But words shall never hurt me.'

I suppose it depends what the words are

And if they are tippexed on a house brick as it bounces off your noggin.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes. I'm sorry if it offends your brother but it is not an anti-gay chant.

If somene said they were offended by 'Swinging a Pig' because they see it as condoning throwing Wednesday fans off buildings, should all our fans stop singing it?

The furore over “Swinging a Pig” was simply made up to try to get action against United. I never thought of it a throwing someone off high buildings, another Wendy affectation to try to make a point. In any event the hand movements when the song is sung to them are like swinging something above your head, not lobbing anyone off St John’s Gardens or the high rises at err, Wadsley Bridge.

In any event SAP and CRB aren’t in the same ball park.

 

[Rochdaleblade]

NY times article backs up the Chelsea headhunter origin

Ny times

 

[FinchleyBlade]

The balance concerning free speech is very difficult. What examples of physical violence do you mean that is not treated as a danger?

Do you think it is a dystopian, authoritarian joke that, say, monkey chants in a football matches or racist tweets directed at players are condemned, and perhaps followed up by legal action?

Non-threatening words and speech should not be criminalised and people should not be prosecuted and imprisoned for such acts.

You live in a country where people are regularly given years in prison for social media posts, whilst pedophiles with the worst kind of category A child rape videos on their computers are given suspended sentences - which is the case with most of these kind of offenders. This is not a normal state of affairs, this is not how a normal country operates, certainly not one that has the nerve to call itself a 'liberal democracy'. You live in a country where MPs can batter their constituents and face no prison time, whilst 61 year old Grandads are given 2 years in prison for holding up a sign and shouting some abuse at police officers at a protest - who then went on to kill himself whilst imprisoned.

So yes, a dystopian, authoritarian, Orwellian nightmare, which weaklings like yourself support.

 

[Nickydblade]

NY times article backs up the Chelsea headhunter origin

Ny times

Looks a good article but behind a paywall.

This may have similar content:

https://rainbowdevils.com/our-response-to-the-chelsea-rent-boy-chant/

 

[FinchleyBlade]

Last reply for now (working up the thread and even I’m getting bored with myself ).

‘It’s abusive, no doubt’. Like you I’m not sure what type of legal action is best (and as you say I suspect there was probably more context, but we are speculating). There is of course also the specific legal and cultural context of that match as explained in the article.

It seems the action was a three year banning order and counselling. What action would you suggest instead? If it was racist chanting would it be the same?

Why are you so obsessed with criminalising speech? Why are you such a weak individual that speech, words and language alone have such an affect on you?

 

[Nickydblade]

Non-threatening words and speech should not be criminalised and people should not be prosecuted and imprisoned for such acts.

You live in a country where people are regularly given years in prison for social media posts, whilst pedophiles with the worst kind of category A child rape videos on their computers are given suspended sentences - which is the case with most of these kind of offenders. This is not a normal state of affairs, this is not how a normal country operates, certainly not one that has the nerve to call itself a 'liberal democracy'. You live in a country where MPs can batter their constituents and face no prison time, whilst 61 year old Grandads are given 2 years in prison for holding up a sign and shouting some abuse at police officers at a protest - who then went on to kill himself whilst imprisoned.

So yes, a dystopian, authoritarian, Orwellian nightmare, which weaklings like yourself support.

All the stuff about horrific events does not give you a moral high ground about everything else. I imagine we all agree about those sort of things.

The ‘non-threatening’ words is a reasonable starting point, but the trouble is there may be disagreement about what that means. So to ask the same question again in a slightly different way… would you consider an overly racist ‘hurty word’, but not intended to be threatening, acceptable in a football chant?

 

[Nick Jansky]

Why are you so obsessed with criminalising speech? Why are you such a weak individual that speech, words and language alone have such an affect on you?

One could say that the real weakness, certainly mentally, is in those who choose to fling insults at others for the purpose of causing distress. Most people have grown out of that by the time they leave primary school. Maybe instead of asking him why he is so weak you could be asking yourself why you are so thick?

 

[Nickydblade]

Why are you so obsessed with criminalising speech? Why are you such a weak individual that speech, words and language alone have such an affect on you?

I’m not obsessed. I didn’t, and never ever have or would, start a thread about language use (blame whoever did) and I did not reply until I had read several pages of points I happened to disagree with. Why are these others so obsessed they have to pile in just to agree with something already stated? It is a thread on my team’s forum specifically about language use and just because I disagree with some people does that mean I’m not allowed my right to free speech .

I’m also aiming to be rational and hopefully have not resorted to ‘emotional’ insults.

If you can find where I have said I want to criminalise speech then I’ll try and explain or defend what I mean more clearly. If it is repeatedly asking the simple question I’m going to directly ask you now then I don’t think that is quite the same thing, but I see it does imply that.

Do you think overtly racist chanting a a football game should be legally acceptable? Or, do you think that ‘criminalising speech’ such as racist language can ever be justified. Choose one.

 

[tyke1889]

Looks a good article but behind a paywall.

This may have similar content:

https://rainbowdevils.com/our-response-to-the-chelsea-rent-boy-chant/

Use archive.is

 

[Nickydblade]

Use archive.is

Brilliant. Thank you.

It’s a better article than the one I suggested

…but it does suggest the headhunter story may be ‘fabrication’ so the origin of the chant in the other article is more likely.

 

[100% part time blade]

You take it given that some ‘words’ are too offensive e.g, racism or tragedy chanting (whereas some others either do not, but are too scared to say so, or have such a limited understanding of language and society that they equate something like ‘Yorkie’ with outdated racially motivated slurs).

However it was not always the case and the apparently ‘universally agreed’ opposition to racist chanting has been negotiated and debated over time. Obviously. I agree that now mainstream football culture has decided it is not acceptable.

Can I ask you directly, do you think is it still acceptable for mainstream football culture to use homophobic chanting? A simple yes or no will suffice. For anyone else concerned about chanting about ‘pigs’ or ‘shitholes’ or some other insult fans often use, I would ask the same simple question.

No

 

[blackydog]

You can argue the rights and wrongs, the wokeness, snowflakes etc, etc all day long. The thread is merely pointing out, how you can become unsuspectingly tangled up in something serious, with little malicious intent. Right or wrong. it's where we are.

 

[Loco Blade]

If this is to do with Chelsea away last season when a few muppets stood next to me in the lower shed away end never stopped giving it Mudryk with rent boy good I say

 

[Dkc]

If many people said it offended them, to the extent that legislation, campaign groups, football clubs, and probably (?) most mainstream culture all decided something was considered offensive (like that specific chant) would you ever consider that your own personal understanding of the term could change to the extent you would choose not to use it (like the ‘Yorkie’ argument earlier where I think almost everyone would agree that the individual’s opinion was a bit out of touch)? If not, fair enough, you stick to your guns.

Yes of course, we all can learn new things. If someome comes up with convincing evidence that 'rent boy' is commonly used as a form of 'hate speech' against gay people and an incitement to violence I'd oppose it's use.

However, I've never heard the term 'rent boy' used in that context (unlike say 'faggot'). It can be used in a derogatory way for sure but as I've said, it's derogatory towards young men who sell their arse for money, not gay people.

I can accept that some people may believe that selling your arse for money is a noble profession, and can therefore understand them taking offence.

 

[shorehamview]

Yes of course, we all can learn new things. If someome comes up with convincing evidence that 'rent boy' is commonly used as a form of 'hate speech' against gay people and an incitement to violence I'd oppose it's use.

However, I've never heard the term 'rent boy' used in that context (unlike say 'faggot'). It can be used in a derogatory way for sure but as I've said, it's derogatory towards young men who sell their arse for money, not gay people.

I can accept that some people may believe that selling your arse for money is a noble profession, and can therefore understand them taking offence.

Here you go then.

“Is it a Hate Crime?
Yes, officially now it can be considered such. The Crown Prosecution Service have confirmed that it considers the term ‘rent boy’ to be a homophobic slur, meaning that those using it could be liable for prosecution under hate crime laws.”

From the rainbow devils article quoted earlier.