Sexist chants at Lane, are we guilty?

[Flatulent_Bob]

If anyone wants to truly hear offensive words, try watching ‘roast battle’ on Comedy Central. THAT is brutal.

The line ‘you’re so camp you should be in Calais with a Syrian inside of you’ what used the other night. That’s both racist and homophobic. Then there was “your girlfriend is such a dog I tried to eat her”. From a Chinese man!!!! That’s reverse racism!!! The retort was “you’re so sexually naive that when your girlfriend asked for a 69 you cooked her a chicken chow mein”

‘Your wife’s got a cock’ is barely tickling the offensive scale.

The roast is between friends, they both equally involved, know what they are there to do and most importantly there is no intent to hurt, upset or offend the other. It’s fun because everyone’s in agreement and part of the joke.
The chants are aimed at insulting, upsetting or abusing people, who aren’t involved in the joke and the intent is to be nasty. The racial stereotypes and sexual judgments are used to insult, belittle and demean those it’s being directed at.
I honestly can’t believe someone would genuinely see the two and believe they are comparable.

 

[Sean Thornton]

The roast is between friends, they both equally involved, know what they are there to do and most importantly there is no intent to hurt, upset or offend the other. It’s fun because everyone’s in agreement and part of the joke.
The chants are aimed at insulting, upsetting or abusing people, who aren’t involved in the joke and the intent is to be nasty. The racial stereotypes and sexual judgments are used to insult, belittle and demean those it’s being directed at.
I honestly can’t believe someone would genuinely see the two and believe they are comparable.

You can speak for every single person who sang that Lita chant in that they meant what you claim? You're wasted on here.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

You can speak for every single person who sang that Lita chant in that they meant what you claim? You're wasted on here.

I was talking about the wife comments aimed at the Wednesday chairman, hence the quote.
How can I say all our fans were saying she has a dick but weren’t being insulting to a her?
You’ve got me there, but can you highlight how it possibly could not be intended to cause insult?

 

[super_pig]

And do you think any homosexual Blades felt comfortable about the chant? Perhaps they were visibly shaken? The chant only achieves what you say is its aim if you think there is something wrong with being homosexual, and society has moved on from that view.

hmm.. i can't see why they would be. they were making an observation not passing judgement.. (controversial).. i always say i 'hate' wednesday.. frankly i don't hate anyone.. umm hold on a minute though..

 

[Sean Thornton]

I was talking about the wife comments aimed at the Wednesday chairman, hence the quote.
How can I say all our fans were saying she has a dick but weren’t being insulting to a her?
You’ve got me there, but can you highlight how it possibly could not be intended to cause insult?

It's the same point though Bob. You make a claim about the meaning behind fans singing one song being to cause insult it would surely apply to the Lita one. Finding something mildly amusing in a football song doesn't necessarily make everyone racist, homophobic, misogynistic or whatever label people want to pin on them. I think you might struggle to hear some of our forty something female fans screaming "you cockney cunt" when we play in London.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

It's the same point though Bob. You make a claim about the meaning behind fans singing one song being to cause insult it would surely apply to the Lita one. Finding something mildly amusing in a football song doesn't necessarily make everyone racist, homophobic, misogynistic or whatever label people want to pin on them. I think you might struggle to hear some of our forty something female fans screaming "you cockney cunt" when we play in London.

Struggle? You have an interesting perception of me.The post I quoted asked why the TV programme was different, and I explained why.
My opinion on the Lita chant, since you ask, the fans singing it were using homosexuality as an insult. I can’t see of another reason to use it, unless you can?
Would I be offended by it? No, but as I’m not gay or having it shouted at me my opinion doesn’t really matter.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Struggle? You have an interesting perception of me.The post I quoted asked why the TV programme was different, and I explained why.
My opinion on the Lita chant, since you ask, the fans singing it were using homosexuality as an insult. I can’t see of another reason to use it, unless you can?
Would I be offended by it? No, but as I’m not gay or having it shouted at me my opinion doesn’t really matter.

"The chants are aimed at insulting, upsetting or abusing people, who aren’t involved in the joke and the intent is to be nasty."

In your opinion.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

"The chants are aimed at insulting, upsetting or abusing people, who aren’t involved in the joke and the intent is to be nasty."

In your opinion.

Yes that’s my opinion on the ladyboy chants, so I’m not sure what you’re dancing around here.
Are you able to offer an alternate view whereby these chants weren’t meant to be nasty, abusive and upsetting?

 

[Davalon]

Football often brings the worst out in people, myself included. That doesn't matter whether you're watching your team or playing yourself. I've thrown foul abuse (not racist or homophobic I hasten to add) about at both, and sometimes been embarrassed later.

However if you're going to call someone a black bastard or queer cunt at a match, then it's perfectly reasonable to be labelled racist or homophobic even if you don't necessarily have deep rooted prejudiced views of those people in every day life.

I totally agree some of the PC stuff can get utterly ridiculous today but then again so can the excuses for stuff most people would find unacceptable.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes that’s my opinion on the ladyboy chants, so I’m not sure what you’re dancing around here.
Are you able to offer an alternate view whereby these chants weren’t meant to be nasty, abusive and upsetting?

Quite clearly I've said you're tarring everyone who sang that or similar chants, with the same brush, I used Lita, when the reality is you have no idea what every single person, singing or even hearing them, felt. If you really believe people sing these songs with only the ultimate aim of causing upset, or nasty abuse, l genuinely feel sorry for you, because going to football must be heartbreaking.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Quite clearly I've said you're tarring everyone who sang that or similar chants, with the same brush, I used Lita, when the reality is you have no idea what every single person, singing or even hearing them, felt. If you really believe people sing these songs with only the ultimate aim of causing upset, or nasty abuse, l genuinely feel sorry for you, because going to football must be heartbreaking.

I can’t see any other reason to sing the songs at the Chairman’s wife and you’re unable unwilling to try and highlight one to me.
But watching football isn’t heartbreaking at all, just as debating opinions isn’t heartbreaking. I can handle not agreeing with everything that happens around me without it being a traumatic experience or making me feel like I have to run away from it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I can’t see any other reason to sing the songs at the Chairman’s wife and you’re unable unwilling to try and highlight one to me.
But watching football isn’t heartbreaking at all, just as debating opinions isn’t heartbreaking. I can handle not agreeing with everything that happens around me without feeling I have change it or run away from it.

I'm saying that not everyone will sing it for the reasons you claim. Some will just sing it for a laugh, thinks it's funny or banter and won't consider if it offends. Rightly or wrongly. That's very different from your claim that there is a sole intention when singing this, or similar songs, like it. You're entrenched in your position of "knowing" so there's no point in carrying on.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I'm saying that not everyone will sing it for the reasons you claim. Some will just sing it for a laugh, thinks it's funny or banter and won't consider if it offends. Rightly or wrongly. That's very different from your claim that there is a sole intention when singing this, or similar songs, like it. You're entrenched in your position of "knowing" so there's no point in carrying on.

If I’m entrenched as you say why am I asking for alternates?
Some may think it’s banter, some may believe it’s funny, but they’re aiming a homophobic slur at an individual. I don’t think they’re all homophobic, if that’s what you’re alluding to, just as I don’t think everyone who has ever said the N word is a racist.

 

[Sean Thornton]

If I’m entrenched as you say why am I asking for alternates?
Some may think it’s banter, some may believe it’s funny, but they’re aiming a homophobic slur at an individual. I don’t think they’re all homophobic, if that’s what you’re alluding to, just as I don’t think everyone who has ever said the N word is a racist.

"The chants are aimed at insulting, upsetting or abusing people, who aren’t involved in the joke and the intent is to be nasty"

Asking me for alternates doesn't show you arent entrenched. You posted the above. I doubt very much that's the case. It's you labelling 100% of those who sing it, with no proof at all.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

"The chants are aimed at insulting, upsetting or abusing people, who aren’t involved in the joke and the intent is to be nasty"

Asking me for alternates doesn't show you arent entrenched. You posted the above. I doubt very much that's the case. It's you labelling 100% of those who sing it, with no proof at all.

It’s shows I’m open to debating the point, which someone who’s entrenched wouldn’t be, but this isn’t going anywhere. However I think I can get to a level of agreement as I believe your point seems to be ignorance around what they are doing could be interrupted means they’re not necessarily trying to be nasty, but because they could think it’s funny. I disagree as I don’t think ignorance works as a defence.
Even if they think it’s fine, as no possible offence should or could be taken, they’re wrong to use someone sexuality as part of there fun poking when they have no idea he’d be offended or not.
However I absolutely do not believe that everyone or even anyone singing that song therefore makes them all homophobic.
If you consider that as being entrenched, then I think your definition is off. It’s just that no one has, as yet, offered a counter that I thinks stands up to any scrutany. It also means in your definition the same accusation could be aimed at you as you’re also not moving. Maybe we just disagree?

 

[stringer]

You ...... my dear chap ..... are missing the point !!

Incidentally ...... I've no idea if he is homosexual or not ....... but by calling him a "straight" man .... you are leaving yourself open to allegations of "casual homophobia" as per the benchmark that has been identified in this thread

UTB & FTP

How so?

 

[Sean Thornton]

It’s shows I’m open to debating the point, which someone who’s entrenched wouldn’t be, but this isn’t going anywhere. However I think I can get to a level of agreement as I believe your point seems to be ignorance around what they are doing could be interrupted means they’re not necessarily trying to be nasty, but because they could think it’s funny. I disagree as I don’t think ignorance works as a defence.
Even if they think it’s fine, as no possible offence should or could be taken, they’re wrong to use someone sexuality as part of there fun poking when they have no idea he’d be offended or not.
However I absolutely do not believe that everyone or even anyone singing that song therefore makes them all homophobic.
If you consider that as being entrenched, then I think your definition is off. It’s just that no one has, as yet, offered a counter that I thinks stands up to any scrutany. It also means in your definition the same accusation could be aimed at you as you’re also not moving. Maybe we just disagree?

Again. I haven't said you accused anyone of homophobia or racism. Nor have I said anything about anything being used as a "defence". Why do you keep commenting on things I haven't said?

If you'd care to stick to my point, i.e. What I've actually said rather that what you seem to want people to believed I've said, is that you don't know what every singers motive is when singing that song . I'm not arguing it's not nasty or abusive or offensive , but that you claiming that's why everyone sings it is clearly nonsense.

We clearly are disagreeing because you're arguing a different point - which suits your holier than though approach - even though we won't agree on the one you made. You used a wide brush assumption when you can't possibly know what's in everyone's mind and then tried to change the argument.

You're the one entrenched because your claim covers 100% of those that sing it. All I'm saying is you have no idea if that's true or not and I've said why. You've still not even considered that and have moved the goalposts.

 

[Gerritforud]

When someone denounces a chant for being racist or homophobic ext It doesn't mean they are saying 100% of people see it that way,
E.G Some people have no idea or care about the potential impact of their actions.
Seems to me someone's building a straw man again...

 

[CarlMcBlade]

It happens at grounds all over the country, football WAS traditionally a 'working class mans game' so historic chants wont change overnight, however songs about someones wife having a dick, someones 16yr old daughter and rather been a 'p*ki than a Blade' are totally unacceptable, though lets not get into the category of everyone being offended, is boasting about 'shagging women and drinking beer' or your city being full of 'tits & fanny' offensive, that's a genuine question to any of the fairer sex on here.

As a bloke I do find the Shoreham boys song deeply embarrassing. Which is a shame because it’s such a rousing tune. But I have a daughter and a young granddaughter who sometimes come with me to games and yes they have heard a lot worse. But I do find it inappropriate.
Surely it’s beyond the kop to give it a bit of a “rewrite?”

 

[Darthblade]

How so?

Because saying he's "straight" implies that if he wasn't straight he'd be "bent" and this implies a derogatory. The PC brigade wouldn't like that .....

And just to be clear ..... I'm not saying that you're being homophobic ..... just that you could be deemed to be by your casual use of terms

UTB & FTP

 

[Sean Thornton]

When someone denounces a chant for being racist or homophobic ext It doesn't mean they are saying 100% of people see it that way,
E.G Some people have no idea or care about the potential impact of their actions.
Seems to me someone's building a straw man again...

He could have said that himself much earlier. He chose not to. I made the point enough times for it to be clear. Funnily enough you're agreeing with me that 100% won't see chants as necessarily racist, homophobicor whatever, as you point out, yet call it a straw man. Bit puzzling that.


Bob also chose to infer things that weren't there, such as the sly dig about "defence". Presumably that's acceptable though? Now that was a straw man.

 

[Gerritforud]

He could have said that himself much earlier. He chose not to. I made the point enough times for it to be clear. Funnily enough you're agreeing with me that 100% won't see chants as necessarily racist, homophobicor whatever, as you point out, yet call it a straw man. Bit puzzling that.


Bob also chose to infer things that weren't there, such as the sly dig about "defence". Presumably that's acceptable though? Now that was a straw man.

Only you have made the assumption that he is suggesting 100% all think the same. No one in their right mind would think is such a way.
In arguing that he has made such a far fetched assumption you build yourself a straw man.
I've seen you do it before on similar subjects and it make one question your intentions.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Only you have made the assumption that he is suggesting 100% all think the same. No one in their right mind would think is such a way.
In arguing that he has made such a far fetched assumption you build yourself a straw man.
I've seen you do it before on similar subjects and it make one question your intentions.

Right mind?


As I said. He could have clarified when I suggested that's what I believed he's done. Didn't you bother reading any of it? You don't seem to want to deal with what's actually been said and are more interested in "intentions". You know what that's called surely?


No comment on deliberate inaccurate inferences then?

 

[Gerritforud]

You really are a silly little man. You conveniently ignore you've been caught out again and carry on with your boring mantra.
You know what that's called don't you?
Im joining Bob in ignoring you from here on in you sad pratt.

 

[Sean Thornton]

You really are a silly little man. You conveniently ignore you've been caught out again and carry on with your boring mantra.
You know what that's called don't you?
Im joining Bob in ignoring you from here on in you sad pratt.

Aah. Insults. If you're unable to defend the rubbish you post it's no wonder you aren't mature enough not to take your ball home when things are pointed out to you.

Bobs ignoring me? You must be buddies then. Maybe he's embarassed about pretending I'd defended the singing of such chants.

 

[Pierre's PC]

Sean Thornton earlier today

 

[Sean Thornton]

Sean Thornton earlier today

You're okay Pierre. No need for drama.

Nothing funnier than reading a suicide note by someone who's only drank a big bottle of Lucozade though......