SteveC

Given the previous results of the season, our score against Dunfermline was far more expected than theirs at Kilmarnock.

I feel sure it holds true for both: "We don't allow people to express opinions such as paedophilia, incest, torture, cannibalism, indiscriminate killing and so forth are jolly good things ..."

Most people/studies seem to indicate that football is an area where there is still a deep rooted problem as evidenced by the paucity of gay players who are open about it (in the male game, at least.) I grew up in the West coast of Scotland in the 60s and 70s. I suspect that you were the same? Or not far away in years and geography. I'm not sure we have the same attitude, however. (Just an observation and, you did add "(among other factors)". We may have, come to that. It's hard to tell. I thought JohnMcs point was that we can outgrow said shaping as society itself progresses away from bigoted attitudes. Apologies if I am misunderstanding or misquoting. i suspect that your attitude is vastly different to what it was when you were in early teens. I cringe to think of how anyone gay in our school would have felt. I left at 16 and went into a more adult world and the shaping began to change very quickly, especially as I knew and had a relationship with a bi-sexual lady in my late teens and I was very heavily into music where barriers had been torn down in the preceding years.

We = Gersnet

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!

As I indicated above, it came as a surprise to me some five years ago. It dates back a little further: "The guide says it aims to help journalists report stories about "older people" in a "fair contemporary and unbiased" manner. The authors of the report state that 80 per cent of older Americans have been subjected to ageist stereotypes. "While names and characterisations may vary, the message is the same: older men and women are incompetent and lack sufficiency," the guide states. Journalists are advised: "If you need to identify individuals over the age of 50, 'older adults' is preferred over 'senior' and 'elderly', which can be discriminatory in nature." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4596139/Elderly-no-longer-acceptable-word-for-older-people.html

I was told at the time and I hated it. Somewhat aptly I am so elderly now that my memory isn't up to remembering it. It was an ugly construction. I remember replying that even "youthfully challenged" would have been better. I should add though - to put it in context - the presentation in question was referring to people in a medical context and the term I disliked (soulless, corporate type speak - clinical) was literally being used clinically, so there was some excuse. It was not being proposed for use in daily conversation. For future reference to any youngsters on here, I know that I am "over the f@@@ing hill" and will take no offence at being so described. "Elderly" would make me suspicious of why you were being so nice! I believe "wrinklies" is the term du jour or at least was when my niece and nephew were teenagers - that and "ancients".

MacK1950, I need a "thanks for the thanks" button, but I don't have one so please let this note suffice

I see. it came across as you thought that they were not "normal human beings". Incidentally, re conception - lots of gay women can and do conceive, it's not as though the part of the man in conception is difficult to replace, nowadays. I've a couple of friends aiming to do just that after their marriage last year and they are looking forward to it - just as any other normal human being would do for a planned pregnancy.

I was caught out by "elderly" about five years back when I advised someone to use instead of an offensive term in a presentation - only to get a note back saying "elderly" was no longer acceptable. It was less unacceptable than what I replaced at least but it was new to me - so I learnt not to use it again. "It appears to me that there are some opinions that are just not "allowed" any more." - yes that's true and always been true - hundreds if not thousands of them. I'd say that support for paedophilia, random killings, ethnic cleansing, cannibalism when unnecessary, incest would not be allowed on here, I'd certainly hope so. I'd hope the same for those supporting women being barred the vote, arranged marriages of young girls to old men, torture and a host of other things. In all society's there are some taboos. in many societies that last three I mentioned are routinely accepted - the last in nearly all albeit this is not always officially admitted. Are you suggesting we should allow all of these to be advocated? I wouldn't imagine so. In other words, there's already an agreement that some attitudes are too abhorrent to be allowed to be expressed on here (thankfully) and so free speech and all opinions being "allowed" has never been part of reality.

He had a rather better excuse for not knowing how things had changed than anyone discussed in paragraph two of post #81.

There was a contrast with immigrants, also.

I hear that Madden is claiming Well were cheated out of a win by the ref giving us a penalty that wasn't and denying them one that was. As ever there is a fake equivalence drawn between an ungiven penalty and a goal. That's over and above the nonsense about ou penalty not being one. It was described as "controversial" in the same article, apparently. Then again do Rangers ever get a penalty that is not so described? I have not seen their penalty claim.

Ah so that explains why you come across as older than me despite being younger.

Torn between answering: Thank f@ck my licence fee isn't totally wasted, then and So, it is not in fact pro-government, as i just read on this thread, then? Instead it's anti Government....

Thanks for that detailed post, Dave M609, but your first sentence just makes me grit my teeth (I'm working Wednesday night and following 3 Saturdays)/ My personal season will really only start in September - though there's one 3pm Sunday kick off that I might catch on RTV

Gender fluidity is presumably the next generational shift then and you've missed that one, FS. I try to keep up but I was looking at a list of applications from 14 year olds the other week and had to look one up as it was new to me as it did not fall into any of the old standard "lbgtqia". It was p for "Pan Sexual" but from what I gather in younger circles this is now used to mean something more like "I refuse to be defined by any of the other labels as well as/or instead of "I'm open to being attracted to anyone regardless of which of any of the other gender groups" they identify themselves as. More a declaration of not being bound than a synonym for "omni". To their generation it seems thinking about such things as gender and gender fluidity is natural and not "bollox" (a revealing adjective to choose? ), FS. I quite like this new (to me) one as it reacts against the insistence on labelling. Anyone who has studied the literature of past times will realise that gender fluidity and mixed gender preferences were often openly part of life before such terms as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bis-sexuality were ever coined or felt to be needed.

Really? Ibrox crowds must have changes out of all recognition since I was last there. I just came here from another forum where a discussion of Motherwell fans led to "They like to act the hard men in the confines of safety, not so bold when challenged away from the ground. They are wee poofs." It's like something from half a century ago and yet still ongoing.

That's an even more horrific story than some of the comments in this thread.

If I had your thoughts then I'd want to feel guilty about them - it'd be even worse if you didn't.

I haven't seen all the Willie Vass photos but he has one at the end of Pena looking disconsolate after the match - not disinterested and not during it. We'd want someone who never got a run out to look disconsolate.

Exactly. It is very revealing that they lie so blatantly in their template reply.

They just issue a standard answer. They don't respond to details and likely no-one reads them. It's just an auto response, in effect.

I agree with that without having seen any of the game. I just got home at about 87 minutes and followed text..........I'm a nervous wreck after 5 minutes of that!

This worries me as I’m working on Sunday and Wednesday when we play and also out of commission for the next 3 Saturday afternoons (starting next weekend), next Sunday and various August evenings. Yikes, if we don't start (domestically) well, our season could be over before I see a game.