It's a funny old world, innit? Taking a step back from the anger and partisanship of the Ferdinand affair, it is somehow absurd that Terry got into trouble for the "black" and not the "****". Has anybody noticed how nobody gets too upset at the use of "bastard" except when its correctly used to describe a child conceived outside wedlock, at which point they get angry and shouty? We live in times in which the only people we can insult (for now) are the middle classes and gingers. In a few years all we'll have safely left to call from the stands is "****", "****er", "******" and "twat" provided we don't apply any adjectives to them.
I agree about the freedom of speech issue. But part of that, I believe, is the ability to moderate one's own language in respect of other people. Words can be very destructive when thrown as insults. There's plenty of room for telling a player he's a load of s**t without getting too areas which others might find offensive.
It's the use of the adjective along with the expletive that makes it more offensive. If you say someone is ginger, or welsh, or black, that is not offensive. If you say someone is a ginger, or welsh, or black **** you are not only calling them a ****, you are defining them by their appearance or nationality or skin colour and implying they are inferior because of that definition.
Like saying 'get up princess' or 'man up'? That the whole point, only the idiotic would be offended by that. Calling a player **** is far more offensive except for the PC brigade.
But is that always the case, Stroller? Is the person giving the insult always implying that the one to whom it is directed is inferior? Sure, this must often be true, but can it be possible that sometimes the person offering the insult has only chosen a certain adjective as a consequence of identifying a difference (as I pointed out in an earlier post) and is not implying any inferiority? When do you think we will have to refrain from using adjectives such as "fat", "lazy", "useless" and "four-eyed"?
Don't you think that Terry called Ferdinand a black **** rather than just a **** because he knew it would be more likely to hit home Uber? It is the identified difference that you refer to that intensifies the insult.
Of course he did, Stroller, but read the words that I carefully chose. You have suggested that in all cases such adjectives are used because the person issuing the insult wishes to suggest the person to whom it is directed is also inferior. I am merely asking whether this is always the case. Perhaps what you say is true in every case because, after all, the person giving the insult maybe wouldn't be doing it in the first place unless he felt the target was inferior either to himself or other examples around him? But is that inferiority (in the case of a player on the pitch) his race, colour or creed, or his inability to perform at a certain level? Is his inferiority simply the fact that he's playing for the opposition? Perhaps the adjective, whilst unnecessary and inappropriate, isn't the true differentiator of inferiority, but the initial opinion of (say) the player's ability is? It is a fascinating subject and it interests me how many people think, because I'm just not wired up the same way.
Those are probably very minor insults - in fact I've never heard anyone say the first and the second I don't find offensive. The question isn't just about the specific insults found on the LFC leaflet but the wider issue of abusive and offensive terms. But it's quite often you hear a player told to 'get up you' 'p**f'', 'f*g' or 'qu**r'. These I think are commonplace but incredibly offensive. That's just personal opinion but I don't think it's political correctness gone mad to hope that these sort of comments are looked at as increasingly unacceptable.
I had a mate whos flat mate came out as queer. My mate carried on calling him all sorts of names just like they used to and was happy as he knew nothing had changed. I have another mate whos German who calls other Germans "Krauts" Are you gay or being offended on behalf of others? Its not the words that are offensive, its the context they are used in.
Some users of this forum are aware of my sexuality; I prefer hetrosexually challenged! And it's true, things said between friends can be taken in jest. Yet at the same time friends know what is appropriate or not in a given situation so context does play a part. Thankfully only a tiny, tiny minority of people would opnely shout racist abuse at a football match but homophobic abuse is deemed accpetable by a wider number of people.
So do you think "stand up, cause you cant sit down" or "does your boyfriend know youre here" is said in jest at Brighton fans to wind them up or that its sung because they hate gays? Thats not abuse, abuse would be something aimed at a footballer if he came out.
The difficulty is always that the recipient of the comment (or nowadays a myriad others on their behalf) is the final arbiter as to whether it was insulting or not, and not the person that has made it. Some black people have reclaimed the N-word in much the same way as some gays have reclaimed the terms listed by superHusky1. A number of terms once used to describe physically and mentally handicapped people are now outlawed because somebody says so. It's a minefield.
I think you need to read other people's posts a bit more thoroughly. No, I can accept that there are things that are said more in jest, such as those songs. But when someone's screaming 'get you puff' etc because a player's lying injured or whatever then that's saying something very specific about attitudes towards gay people. Everyone, from time to time, can be a wonker but taking part of someone's identity and using it in a negative, derogatory and nasty way and applying it to a specific situation or incident is offensive and hurtful. Thankfully racist abuse is clamped down on but from someone who's been attending football matches for over twenty years I believe that homophobic abuse is very much part of masculine football culture. From my own perspective, I find this unfortunate.
I use the word ****** but its only aimed at someone stupid. eg someone who phones the police because there wasnt the correct amount of cocaine in his purchase. Id never dream of using it to describe a disabled person. words change over time. South Park did a good episode on "***s" and its change of use, it had other uses before it was used to describe gays and they wanted to change it to describe people who ride Harleys. please log in to view this image
