Discriminatory Singing Sanctions ââ?¬â?? Still no Clarity

[craig 5,199]

Only in as much as GSTQ is anti-Scottish (anti jacobite bla bla bla). It just annoys me so many Rangers fans get up in arms about the "dirge" that is FOS and can't see the parallel's with the dirge that is GSTQ. A bit off point but still irks me.

 

In a manner it isnt off topic - and is quite the point of the topic.

 

Pretty much every song sung will/could be taken as offensive to a certain group of individuals.

 

It will be an absolute nightmare to control - good luck to the powers that be in achieving that !

[bmck 117]

sorry its took so long.

 

In my opinion the moral traditions of this country have collapsed and I wouldn't quite blame a liberal mindset, more a mindset where kids are defended for their bad behaviour instead of admonished and educated, the I'm all right jack attitude and a complete lack of empathy for other and a dearth of any community spirit.

 

interesting mix of beliefs in here. "collapsed" suggests that it was previously better. society was certainly a whole lot more structured and civilised back in the day, but, then, the structure was one that was based upon the idea of female servitude, christian religiosity and the prosperity for all this nice moral structure was driven by child labour, opium and human trade. bad behaviour was thoroughly admonished with beatings and hangings. to quote the libertines "there were no good old days", and this idea of harking back to the good-old-days smacks of right-wing, upper-middle-class toryism.

 

but then you move a little less right wing (the new labour position), that we both beat you with a big stick if you dont toe the line and give you loads of education too.

 

if there is a lack of empathy for others, and a dearth of community spirit, its because the old institutions that fostered these things began dying with industrialisation, and with the increasing liberty of women. you want an increase in empathy yet you ignore the socio-historical reasons that gives rise to your complaints - complaints that are essentially the end results of a society entirely immersed in a game-theory driven economy and the freedom from previous oppression.

 

in other words, you want strong morality, but you want it in an era where the old avenues of ensuring this - patriarchal society, agrarian co-operative communities, the centrality of religion - have been replaced with a fairly free society, with individualistic survival of the fittest capitalistic economic, and complete secularism. secularism and the weighty enforcement of morality doesn't go hand in hand.

 

 

I would agree it has played it's part. Although sometimes I wonder - with all these films and games portraying heroes who are the good guys and the good guys usually win, how come kids now, ALWAYS want to be the bad guy?

 

i thought you would have been vastly above the 'computer games and bad films' cause bad behaviour argument. the baddies side is explored because its artistically more interesting. and we've come to learn that in real life there are few goodies, and even less in positions of authority. so why should we sympathise with the police/government/religious leaders or other stereotypical images of good etc?

 

god's dead for most m8. and, for good or ill, the fear in religion made people toe the line. in a world where god's dead no-one really has the moral authority for judgement of others actions - all you have is the opinion of the majority.

 

I may be on a high horse and I do remember bad kids at school but I have no doubt that kids are the worst they have been in living memory.

 

yeah, but back in the good old days teachers could beat their kids if they didn't do what they were supposed to. so could parents. i dont know any working class person of my parent's generation that weren't royally fucked up because of their poverty and parenting. nothings changed - kids have the liberty to vent it more now, but the underlying evils are just the same.

 

Worst ever violence in school.

 

worst ever recorded violence. its not so long ago that glasgow was a deprived town of hoodlums. there are just more kids from scummy backgrounds actually in schools to behave badly now.

 

"Look at this group at a street corner. Hulking, idle, slouching young men ... foul-spoken, repulsive wretches. The young Ruffians of London molest quiet people to an extent that's hardly credible. The throwing of stones in the streets has become a dangerous and destructive offence. The throwing of stones at the windows of railway carriages is an act of wanton wickedness. And the blaring use of the very worst language possible, in our public thoroughfares is a disgrace.

 

it was happening in the moralistic Victorian age, so its no suprise its happening now. that quotes from 1860.

 

Highest levels of vandalism.

 

highest recorded records, perhaps. this is this other tory/new labour fetish. the subjecation of man to numbers. we have to reduce this by 2%, this by 10%. what is vandelism? painting walls? breaking windows? it happens, certainly, but its always happened.

 

Highest levels of STD's

 

thats what happens when you lose the idea that sex culturally MUST (Or You Will Go To Hell / Not Have a Job) happen within marriage. so, you can go back to that, back to those "good old days" of middle class religious moralism if you want. and isnt it really people's own choice? if they get an STD they are screwed. its their problem, not yours.

 

dont go shagging around and you should be fine.

 

Highest levels of drunkenness.

 

On Saturday nights, a half-million workers flood the city like a sea, flocking into certain sections to celebrate the Sabbath all night until five in the morning. They stuff themselves and drink like animals ... They all race against time to drink themselves insensate. The wives do not lag behind their husbands but get drunk with them; the children run and crawl among them.

 

the incomparible dostoevsky said this about london - in 1862.

 

here's another:

 

We drink the very strongest liquors that can be brewed or distilled! The classes among us who are not decent are in the habit of getting mad-drunk, and of fighting after the manner of wild beasts, when we have a chance of using their fists, feet or teeth on each other, and on the Guardians of the law. Our places of licensed victualling are ugly dens, where the largest number of sots can get tipsy in the shortest space of time�They are the most horrible terrestrial inferno that the eye ever beheld, that the ear ever hears, or the heart ever sickened at.

 

its not new. "there were no good old days".

 

Highest levels of violence outside pubs.

 

see violence in schools.

 

Highest levels of teenage pregnancies.

 

see consequence of capitalism/liberty for women.

 

Highest levels of car theft for joy riding.

 

well, there's more cars nowadays.

[bmck 117]

Kids are out of control and if you can't see that, then maybe you're the one in an ivory tower.

 

kids have always been out of control - its just we cant beat them into submission nowadays. you've seen oliver twist? you mix deprived backgrounds with a liberal approach to parenting, and its what you get. the evils created by moralistic/conservative parenting are often equally as disturbing.

 

the truth is that parents have no moral authority now. capitalism and secularism has killed that. thats why people like Tony want to replace the role previously played by shared morality in communities etc with the government (ASBOs etc). this is infinitely more disturbing, because communal morality came from agreed upon standards that arose freely in a community, now we have his royal highness replacing this role with his personal vision of good and bad. thats more dangerous than the kids.

 

But it's not just the bad kids, it's the lack of good kids. When I was a kid I was reasonably respectful of adult even if nothing more than that they were bigger than me. Now the amount of times where I've had abuse from kids or stones thrown at me driving my car or on my bike is unbelievable. I can't even walk past a kid without him trying to out-stare me for some reason.

 

you're paranoid. i work in a university chock full of polite middle class kids. you must just have moved into an area with too many pesky commoners.

 

I've had two cars vandalised on three occasions and some kids ran over the top of another, I don't remember that happening to my parents.

 

did your parents have two cars? sounds like you've got some crappy kids round your way. i think kids nowadays are just living the moral vacuum history has created by exhorising all its old modes of control. they ask the very good question "why the fuck shouldn't i just do what i want?". even the greatest philosophers of the modern age haven't been able to work that out without reverting to a religious language they hate.

 

Their attitude stinks, I was picking up some rubbish - most probably dropped by kids on a roadside path and a teenage driver beeped me and flipped me off... That's the attitude of kids these days.

 

that just doesn't seem like a very big deal to me, to be honest. you seem to suggested that they disliked you because you were picking up rubbish. seems a tad extreme - they would more likely laugh at a do-gooder than be angry with them. that said, people like this just have a bigger voice now. they have cars, and nice gear - but the same tendency exists in them as existed in those kids mentioned in the quotes above. its human nature.

 

Kids are so bad these days that I've decided completely against having any.

 

ROFL. are you serious? do you think that this 'evil' gene that so permeates society is somehow going to affect your child? 9/10 if you bring your child up with love and respect, they turn out fine.

 

Parents on here will be thinking their kids are fine and fair enough, but it doesn't stop all those other kids who get away Scot free with crimes every day then some adult hits them for it and it's them that gets done.

 

you want to return to corporeal punishment? you think giving a kid a kicking is less of an evil than your car getting vandelised? you think its any kind of solution at all?

 

what about the kids that will take your kicking and then come round with their mates and kick your door in? how does your solution work with them?

 

Kids know this and that's one of the reasons they think they can do what they like.

 

yes, the lack of fear of getting a kicking really is the best way to ensure kids behave. morality by fear - your like the worst sort of conservative fundamentalists in some wys man.

 

My whole point is that if people don't know how to behave in a civilised manner then they shouldn't be surprised when new rules come into force for the comfort, safety and enjoyment of others who do not want exposed to their behaviour. The reason the rules are coming in, is a reflection to me that it's a minority that misbehave. That's a relief.

 

it is a minority to misbehave. i cant help but wonder though if all these laws coming in for your comfort wont ultimately be the cause of your child, should you ever decide to have one's, subjecation.

 

What the minority need to do is start their own FA and league where abusing the opposition is compulsory. That will give people a choice.

 

here's the argument you are setting up that people against this law are making:

 

1. i should be able to sing what i want

2. what the sfa wants is that we can sing what they want

therefore

3. i have no moral reason to object to the sfa, since they are doing what they want to curtail my doing what i want

 

this is horrible, horrible reasoning. just because i believe everyone has a right to their own opinion (the sfa included) doesn't mean that i necessarily think that their particular employment of that right is the correct one.

 

that is, i can think both a) they can try and implement this if they want, and b) they shouldn't implement this, without any contradiction.

 

There is a point there but I doubt you would want people in a party at your house, slagging off the other guests, mothers OR religions. You'd probably kick them out, and that's what football is doing.

 

no i wouldnt. sack having a party where everyone agrees. most people i know can stick up for themselves with my censorship.

 

My question is why are people so desperate to do this at a football match, why do they think it is so big and so clever? Why do they even try to justify it? You can question the PC'ness etc but how about questioning the strange mentality of the people that simply HAVE to do it? It's almost like a collective Tourette's syndrome.

 

why do you think its so small and idiotic? there's no harm in it, as far as i can tell. and when there's no harm in something i tend not to condescend it. your morality may be infinitely above this scum that winds up other fans with sweary words, but i'm not. i dont have a problem with it.

 

Maybe I'm on a high horse but it comes from the frustration of wondering why people can't just try to get on a bit better and be a bit nicer to each other...

 

maybe because they are overly quick to demonise anyone else that doesn't share their values.

 

There's so much anger, hatred and maliciousness in the world that causes most of our day to day problems. Why do people want to embrace it?

 

what, maliciousness like describing banter at a football game as collective tourettes syndrome?

 

 

In the end your argument seems to be that we should all do what we like, and I can see no argument form there in allowing the SFA to make their own rules, in which case, there is nothing for the anti PC brigade to complain about.

 

Therein lies the irony.

 

there's no irony in that. like i said, you can believe "we should able be able to do what we like" / "the sfa are wrong to do this" without any contradiction. not denying someone else's right to their opinion doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

[calscot 0]

Double post

[calscot 0]

I don't want to get too much into this as it could go on for pages and pages.

 

The discussion then probably breaks down to the philosophical question, "Why be moral?"

 

You can't make people moral by punishing them (although it often seems to help for some reason), but you also can't just let everyone do what they like without anarchy.

 

The tools society have invented are a democracy where the majority vote for leaders who then dictate to the minority. "Might is right" and in this case, might is on the side of the EC, the UK government, UEFA and the SFA.

 

It seems to me that you can't just leave people to behave themselves, too many don't, for some reason we need rules to discipline us and punishment to prevent repeated bad behaviour is the main "solution" we have.

 

Due to behaviour which is not considered tolerable by the majority, the SFA have had to bring in some new rules. Unfortunately as with many rules it is difficult to make them black and white and where the line is has to be negotiated. It's contentious and controversial, but unfortunately deemed necessary by the powers that be.

 

When the minority push the majority too far, the majority start using their weight and sometimes there is over-reaction.

 

However is it not the fault of the minority for doing the pushing?

 

I have no sympathy for people who are warned and warned and take no heed and then rules they don't like are brought in to deal with them.

 

It's the well behaved majority who may suffer that I feel sorry for.

 

PS If you think I'm paranoid or right wing Tory, then you're either fishing or in my opinion, have poor judgement of character...

[calscot 0]

PS I think some of the arguments about what is offensive could come under, "metasemantics".

 

I thought I'd made that up but it does exist. But basically the way I see it words which are deemed offensive by some people who think it means one thing, are defended by those who use it and say that semantically it means, something else.

 

But the defence about the semantics could break down if the alleged offender, means to offend by using the word to have the first offending meaning. After all, is his motivation to offend the other person? And if not why is he using the word at all?

 

In the end is it not best for the alleged offender to use a less offensive synonym for the meaning he insists he is using?

 

For example, if Rangers fans are not using Fen-ian to mean, "Irish Catholic", could they not have avoided being misinterpreted by singing, "We hate Celtic, terrorist supporters"?

[Guest RFC1873]

Without the add on's ie. *** our songs cannot be considered to be sectarian?

 

Even the Billy Boys!

"up to our knees in ****** blood"

 

****** : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******

 

Explain to us who this F word offends! Anti-British???

 

Perhaps we should ask St. P's ****** band? Or these guys http://www.the******s.com/flashintro.html

 

I for one am sick of being told our song's are sectarian.

GSTQ and Union Jack's. It's all just s**t.

 

Take home message, influential Celik supporting fans, Journos/MP's etc. have had a field day.

 

Aye, we need clarification, but until then I WILL sing my Rangers/Folk songs.

 

WATP

[Guest RFC1873]

WOW! so many **** in my last post.

[CammyF 6,892]

In a manner it isnt off topic - and is quite the point of the topic.

 

Pretty much every song sung will/could be taken as offensive to a certain group of individuals.

 

It will be an absolute nightmare to control - good luck to the powers that be in achieving that !

 

Exactly - that is that reason why this will be unmanageable or will lead to every ground in Scotland being closed and every team deducted points.

 

As Frankie said in the original article, is it any less offensive to sing 'up to our kness in /Ayr/Killie/Hibee etc blood' than ****** blood?

 

Singing 'In Your Glasgow Slums' and 'You Are A Weedgie' are also offensive. Where will the madness end?

 

Cammy F

[CammyF 6,892]

Only in as much as GSTQ is anti-Scottish (anti jacobite bla bla bla). It just annoys me so many Rangers fans get up in arms about the "dirge" that is FOS and can't see the parallel's with the dirge that is GSTQ. A bit off point but still irks me.

 

It is only my opinion that FOS is a 'dirge' - there are so many better songs that celebrate our history, culture etc more positively than a FOS. Not liking FOS isn't anti-Scottish, Anti-Jacobean nor is it some henious crime - I don't like the song, I believe it to be anti-English and not the song I'd chose to promote my 'Scottishness'.

 

Cammy F