Rangers Sign UpTo the Equality Network

[JohnMc 2,468]

I could see how a Basque or a Catalan might not be happy at being described as Spanish, or a Portuguese even, but what others from the Iberian Peninsula feel this way? It's a poor comparison anyway, as is the 'elderly' one. Being Spanish, or old, wasn't illegal in Scotland until 1980. As far as I know no one was ever forcibly admitted to hospital and treated as being mentally ill for being over 65 or from Valencia.

 

I've read the thread again and I can't see where anyone told Pete, or anyone else, they weren't "allowed" certain opinions. Indeed, we're currently 8 pages into this thread which suggests this is actually being discussed and debated. I don't speak for Anchorman, he was clearly angry at Pete's post and let him know that. He didn't ask him to be banned though. The fact Pete's a 'mod' and comes across as a pretty decent bloke certainly made his post all the more surprising to me. Pete apologised to Anchorman and further explained his choice of words. I don't think he should be banned for it and I believe him when he says he didn't realise the word was offensive.

 

As for how you 'keep up to speed' with social norms I find myself wondering how anyone is able not to keep up to speed with this. I mean open a paper, watch the news, go online, read a book, have a wide circle of friends, it's not hard.

 

Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is illegal in this country Gaffer, if Pete, or anyone else, called their co-worker a 'homo' they'd almost certainly face a reprimand. You might not like that, you might think that's an infringement of your free speech, but currently the law, and pretty much every political party in the UK except the DUP and UKIP, doesn't agree.

[MacK1950 2,231]

I would like to expand on my use of "normal human beings".

IMO the main purpose of having intercourse is for females to conceive and produce offspring hence my statement.

Having "sex" for pleasure is a completely different issue and as "gay" men/women are unable to conceive in their interaction quantifies my statement.

Maybe my statement was the wrong use of words and upsetting anyone was not my intention.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Are you suggesting that societal attitudes to gay rights have changed for the worse FS? When you were born it was still illegal in the UK to be gay. We've had posters on this thread say "normal human beings" and "homo", I can accept that not everyone moves at the same pace but there are glaciers moving at a faster pace than some of us it seems.

 

No I'm not suggesting that at all but I think you know that already. What I am suggesting is in more general terms that not every societal change is for the better i.e. the current march of positive discrimination which I find as every bit as abhorrent as the discrimination that it allegedly counters. All that should matter is that the person best qualified for a job should get it whatever their gender, whatever their sexual orientation, whatever their colour, whatever their religion etc.

 

That different posters have different views on a subject to those held by either yourself or I isn't in itself a surprise, I think everyone one of us on here will hold views that will shock others but I see that as pretty normal and a reflection of a wide cross section of society who just happen to be brought together by one common love. Be a pretty boring planet if we were all held the same homogeneous views.

[SteveC 150]

I would like to expand on my use of "normal human beings".

IMO the main purpose of having intercourse is for females to conceive and produce offspring hence my statement.

Having "sex" for pleasure is a completely different issue and as "gay" men/women are unable to conceive in their interaction quantifies my statement.

Maybe my statement was the wrong use of words and upsetting anyone was not my intention.

 

There was a contrast with immigrants, also.

[SteveC 150]

I remember a news story a few years ago about a Japanese soldier who they found on an Island that didn't know the war was over. We sometimes live on our own wee island.

 

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

[Gaffer 1,665]

I could see how a Basque or a Catalan might not be happy at being described as Spanish, or a Portuguese even, but what others from the Iberian Peninsula feel this way? It's a poor comparison anyway, as is the 'elderly' one. Being Spanish, or old, wasn't illegal in Scotland until 1980. As far as I know no one was ever forcibly admitted to hospital and treated as being mentally ill for being over 65 or from Valencia.

 

I've read the thread again and I can't see where anyone told Pete, or anyone else, they weren't "allowed" certain opinions. Indeed, we're currently 8 pages into this thread which suggests this is actually being discussed and debated. I don't speak for Anchorman, he was clearly angry at Pete's post and let him know that. He didn't ask him to be banned though. The fact Pete's a 'mod' and comes across as a pretty decent bloke certainly made his post all the more surprising to me. Pete apologised to Anchorman and further explained his choice of words. I don't think he should be banned for it and I believe him when he says he didn't realise the word was offensive.

 

As for how you 'keep up to speed' with social norms I find myself wondering how anyone is able not to keep up to speed with this. I mean open a paper, watch the news, go online, read a book, have a wide circle of friends, it's not hard.

 

Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is illegal in this country Gaffer, if Pete, or anyone else, called their co-worker a 'homo' they'd almost certainly face a reprimand. You might not like that, you might think that's an infringement of your free speech, but currently the law, and pretty much every political party in the UK except the DUP and UKIP, doesn't agree.

 

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?

 

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

 

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?

[MacK1950 2,231]

Re immigrants I feel that too much is thrown their way when we have many of our own country persons living on breadline,having to put up with work assessment etc. who should be benefiting more than immigrants.

[pete 2,499]

I could see how a Basque or a Catalan might not be happy at being described as Spanish, or a Portuguese even, but what others from the Iberian Peninsula feel this way? It's a poor comparison anyway, as is the 'elderly' one. Being Spanish, or old, wasn't illegal in Scotland until 1980. As far as I know no one was ever forcibly admitted to hospital and treated as being mentally ill for being over 65 or from Valencia.

 

I've read the thread again and I can't see where anyone told Pete, or anyone else, they weren't "allowed" certain opinions. Indeed, we're currently 8 pages into this thread which suggests this is actually being discussed and debated. I don't speak for Anchorman, he was clearly angry at Pete's post and let him know that. He didn't ask him to be banned though. The fact Pete's a 'mod' and comes across as a pretty decent bloke certainly made his post all the more surprising to me. Pete apologised to Anchorman and further explained his choice of words. I don't think he should be banned for it and I believe him when he says he didn't realise the word was offensive.

 

As for how you 'keep up to speed' with social norms I find myself wondering how anyone is able not to keep up to speed with this. I mean open a paper, watch the news, go online, read a book, have a wide circle of friends, it's not hard.

 

Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is illegal in this country Gaffer, if Pete, or anyone else, called their co-worker a 'homo' they'd almost certainly face a reprimand. You might not like that, you might think that's an infringement of your free speech, but currently the law, and pretty much every political party in the UK except the DUP and UKIP, doesn't agree.

 

Thankfully I will probably only ever work in Holland so the use of the word Homo would be accepted unless I used it in a derogatory sense like fucking Homo. For safety's sake I probably will use gay from now on until someone decides that is derogatory.

 

I am not sure about your comment that there was ever discussion that I should be banned or where it comes from as far as I know that was never an issue. As far as I know Anchorman has not made a complaint to admin about me. Unfortunately I did get a PM from him which will stay private even from admin. I did respond to his PM but it seems he is not coming back on so he will probably never read it. That I find unfortunate as I would have preferred to try and sort things out with discussion rather than walking away from discussion.

Edited August 8, 2017 by pete

[SteveC 150]

I've been disappointed to read some of this thread. It appears to me that there are some opinions that are just not "allowed" any more. It also appears that certain people (like Pete) are being chastised for using an abbreviated term when no harm was intended. Rather than trying to have a sensible discussion (as we try to do about football matters), this descended into some people trying to educate others about what's acceptable and what's not. I'm all for ensuring that abuse and offence (no matter what form it takes) is reduced, if not eliminated, but does that mean that these things cannot be discussed and debated?

 

I personally found Anchorman's response to Pete as being offensive, because for me that foul language is unacceptable and abusive. Why is that tolerated more than other forms of 'abuse'? And as much as I disagreed with Pete's assertion as to the 'normality' of homosexuality, who am I to tell him what is correct? I have a different opinion to him, but that's all it is - opinion. Isn't it? Who are any of us to tell someone else? It seems that some language against others is acceptable on these and other forums and yet other subjects are completely taboo. Why? That's a genuine question, because I don't know the answer.

 

My kids are now telling me that the term 'elderly' is now regarded as offensive. Apparently, they've been advised not to use the term mental (even when joking with friends) as it may offend people with psychological illnesses. Furthermore, Spanish is no longer accepted because it offends those from particular regions. This is ok for my kids because they can be 'taught' all of this at school, but where do others keep up to date with this? Or as JohnMc says, "up to speed" with what's acceptable? Again, this is a serious question. I have called my parents elderly, and I know I probably upset some of my neighbours in Spain by referring to them as Spaniards. I'd like to educate myself before I cause widespread offence.

 

Had Pete or anyone else used these other offensive words, would there have been the same outrage? I'm not convinced. Who gets to decide which offensive words or opinions are worthy of an all out attack and condemnation, and which ones are acceptable as long as you didn't realise? Anyone?

 

 

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.

Edited August 8, 2017 by SteveC

[SteveC 150]

Re immigrants I feel that too much is thrown their way when we have many of our own country persons living on breadline,having to put up with work assessment etc. who should be benefiting more than immigrants.

 

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.