Homophobia - Double Standards?

[J-2739]

Seeing as this thread is about homophobia, I wonder how people here would react if they were on a train when they heard some football fans having the following conversation:

"Arsenal are just gay this season"
"Yeah, their defence are playing like a bunch of poofs"
"That Koscielny is such a faggot, he needs to man up"

Would you tell the police? Lecture the football fans about their lack of sensitivity? Or shrug your shoulders and let 'em get on with it?

I'd just live and let live because:

1) It's not much to do with me (I don't support Arsenal ).

2) It's their opinion, and calling the police just on that would just be violating their freedom of speech.

 

[Darren R]

Seeing as this thread is about homophobia, I wonder how people here would react if they were on a train when they heard some football fans having the following conversation:

"Arsenal are just gay this season"
"Yeah, their defence are playing like a bunch of poofs"
"That Koscielny is such a faggot, he needs to man up"

Would you tell the police? Lecture the football fans about their lack of sensitivity? Or shrug your shoulders and let 'em get on with it?

Well, speaking as the only gay in the village - how would I react? I would react in the way I just have. My hands are shaking with anger so badly I can barely type. Would I tell the police? No. Would I tackle them about it? No, probably not. So that leaves me with option three - shrug my shoulders and get on with it. LIKE I HAVE TO EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Answer me one question - why the hell should I have to put up with this sort of ****?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd just live and let live because:

1) It's not much to do with me (I don't support Arsenal ).

2) It's their opinion, and calling the police just on that would just be violating their freedom of speech.

And what of my freedom to go about my everyday business without being subjected to this sort of comment?

 

[Gutfright]

Well, speaking as the only gay in the village - how would I react? I would react in the way I just have. My hands are shaking with anger so badly I can barely type. Would I tell the police? No. Would I tackle them about it? No, probably not. So that leaves me with option three - shrug my shoulders and get on with it. LIKE I HAVE TO EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Answer me one question - why the hell should I have to put up with this sort of ****?

You shouldn't have to put up with it, but sadly the world we live in is sometimes a crappy place.

Hopefully, most people on the train would know that the hypothetical football fans' comments are, at best, thoughtless and insensitive, but I expect a form of bystander apathy would come into effect.

It's depressing AF, but that sort of casual everyday homophobia isn't going to go away unless more people speak up against it, and people generally are unlikely to speak up against it because people generally try to avoid confrontation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'd just live and let live because:

1) It's not much to do with me (I don't support Arsenal ).

2) It's their opinion, and calling the police just on that would just be violating their freedom of speech.

What value is gained from such speech?

 

[Blamethrower]

What value is gained from such speech?

the freedom of self expression
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You shouldn't have to put up with it, but sadly the world we live in is sometimes a crappy place.

Hopefully, most people on the train would know that the hypothetical football fans' comments are, at best, thoughtless and insensitive, but I expect a form of bystander apathy would come into effect.

It's depressing AF, but that sort of casual everyday homophobia isn't going to go away unless more people speak up against it, and people generally are unlikely to speak up against it because people generally try to avoid confrontation.

I still don't see the problem with this, there is casual racism everywhere, generalisations, prejudices, you name it, but it's all approved by unwritten rules in GB.

For example, we can rip the p155 out of Germans, Scousers, we can make Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman jokes, we can call all australians criminals, dutch drug addicts, Italians are all stylish apparently, etc etc.

We're even intolerant of our neighbours in many respects - see Liverpool vs Manchester, Leeds vs Manchester BUT (and here's the point):

This is seen as healthy. A bit of rivalry, a bit of p155 taking, a bit of name calling IS VERY HEALTHY.

To try and put a stop to this will bring an end to that sense of humour we are famed for. Don't let the bigots destroy our culture.

When it is an action based on prejudice then go all out and destroy them, but I have absolutely no problem with different opinions. If you do then there is something wrong with you, not with society.

 

[J-2739]

And what of my freedom to go about my everyday business without being subjected to this sort of comment?

What value is gained from such speech

I feel that everyone has a right to speak their minds. Saying stuff like 'Arsenal is gay' may offend someone, but others may agree with that and form a group based on that opinion. You can be offended by someone else's opinion, but that shouldn't stop people from expressing themselves.

As for the 'only gay person in the village', you don't have to do this by yourself; there are lots of groups on the Internet based around your opinion on being gay, just like there are groups against gay people. That's the good thing about opinions, you don't have to share it yourself. Just like we all joined this site because we have a positive opinion on trains or train related areas.

 

[Gutfright]

I still don't see the problem with this, there is casual racism everywhere, generalisations, prejudices, you name it, but it's all approved by unwritten rules in GB.

For example, we can rip the p155 out of Germans, Scousers, we can make Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman jokes, we can call all australians criminals, dutch drug addicts, Italians are all stylish apparently, etc etc.

We're even intolerant of our neighbours in many respects - see Liverpool vs Manchester, Leeds vs Manchester BUT (and here's the point):

This is seen as healthy. A bit of rivalry, a bit of p155 taking, a bit of name calling IS VERY HEALTHY.

To try and put a stop to this will bring an end to that sense of humour we are famed for. Don't let the bigots destroy our culture.

When it is an action based on prejudice then go all out and destroy them, but I have absolutely no problem with different opinions. If you do then there is something wrong with you, not with society.

I don't see what's wrong with asking people to be more considerate, to think about the effects that their words have.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would you tell the police? Lecture the football fans about their lack of sensitivity? Or shrug your shoulders and let 'em get on with it?

It's a bit of a false question really.

I wouldn't tell the police, because the police wouldn't give a toss. I wouldn't confront them, because I'm quite attached to my front teeth. So of course I'd "let them get on with it", but there'd be quite a bit more annoyance than shrugging my shoulders. And I'm not gay.

I think most of us respect the rights of individuals to hold whatever beliefs they choose, even if those beliefs are ones we may find distasteful... and that as individuals we have the right to challenge those beliefs.

However I've noticed a double standard on this subject with regard to homophobia. This weekend, the footballer Andre Gray has been charged over tweets sent in 2012 of an alleged homophobic nature. Yet Brian Souter has not been challenged over his funding of "gay cure" organizations and his general beliefs which in my opinion have no place in the 21st century.

I don't think there's a double standard, just more that some people are naturally more in the public eye than others.

Gray has been rightly charged by the FA for what he said. This ties in with what the FA have done to other people for Twitter comments, including comments that Rio Ferdinand made about a Twitter troll's mother.

Souter doesn't have that public profile though. And, even if he did, he's clever enough to not outright state what he believes. He's clever enough to come out with the crap about "some of my best friends are gay", even while he's donating millions to political campaigns to damage gay people's rights and while he's donating millions more to his fundamentalist church that promotes gay cure therapy. And his company, Stagecoach, is normally seen near the front of gay pride parades.

Souter was called up on it when he did it- he was in a debate with Boy George on the TV at one point- but he doesn't have the public profile and so people forget about it.

As for "freedom of speech", I agree that he is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to spend his money arguing for that opinion. And I'm entitled to my opinion that he's not very nice for holding that opinion.

 

[185]

I'm sure there'll one day be a tablet people can take to cure us of that horrid twist of humanity.

Yes, cure the planet of Brian Souter.

I always wondered what drove him to hate the gay community so much, perhaps was it his taste in hideous jackets, and those with an understanding of fashion absolutely destroying him constantly? Having met Moir Lockhead (FG) some years ago, I did mention that at least he doesn't wear bizarre charity shop outfits which prompted a giggle.

Here's to a day we can rid ourselves of Brian Souter and his awful dress sense. :P

 

[TheKnightWho]

the freedom of self expression

And the value of that particular self-expression? I feel there is a lot of begging the question going on here: freedom of expression is good because freedom of expression is good. Ok - why?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is seen as healthy. A bit of rivalry, a bit of p155 taking, a bit of name calling IS VERY HEALTHY.

To try and put a stop to this will bring an end to that sense of humour we are famed for. Don't let the bigots destroy our culture.

When it is an action based on prejudice then go all out and destroy them, but I have absolutely no problem with different opinions. If you do then there is something wrong with you, not with society.

2 things:

1) I find plenty of things funny without insulting or offending people I don't even know. Use your imagination.

2) Prejudice does not have to be conscious. We all have that racist old relative who thinks what they say is fine and harmless, but it's actually really awful.

 

[AlterEgo]

And the value of that particular self-expression? I feel there is a lot of begging the question going on here: freedom of expression is good because freedom of expression is good. Ok - why?

Why does someone's expression have to have "value"? And who determines that value?

Freedom of expression is a common good and an enshrined fundamental human right. Once you go down the road of assessing whose opinions have value, and who can express certain views, it's a slippery slope.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Unless someone is threatening someone or a group directly, it's not hate speech in my opinion.
Souter funding a cure, how is that a problem, many people want to have childern, and a traditional life, it's not being forced on people by Souter. Somehow I expect some wouldn't see issue with the opposite were that true.
Andre Gray's comment, don't know who he is or what he said, but like I said above, if there's no threat, lies etc, what's the problem?

Specifically with this, presenting a "cure" suggests that there is something that needs to be cured. This results in two, very real and undesirably consequences:
1 - It furthers the general society view that being gay is somehow wrong and bad and something that needs to be fixed.
2 - It builds upon the issues many LGBT people have regarding their sexuality. Depression, self harm and other mental health issues are pretty damn common in the LGBT world. Do you really think someone saying their sexuality needs to be fixed is going to not make that worse?

One of the reasons we've found ourselves in Brexit scenario is because Britain - for some years - has been unable to have an adult national debate about border control and immigration. Those who yell "racist, shut up" have been hoisted by their own petard.

I would argue that the main reason we haven't been able to have an adult debate about the issue is because those who are against immigration tend to blame it for everything (Farage tried to blame it for being delayed on the M4 for a meeting at one point!) and refuse to put the blame elsewhere (e.g. with the housing crisis, the inaction of successive governments when it comes to building homes is as much of a cause as immigration has been yet Farage would always just bang on about immigration as if stopping that would solve it all!).

Banter, surely? (not your post, generic term)

Eugh. The word that has come to be the acceptable term for "bullying" these days.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why does someone's expression have to have "value"? And who determines that value?

Freedom of expression is a common good and an enshrined fundamental human right. Once you go down the road of assessing whose opinions have value, and who can express certain views, it's a slippery slope.

It's a fundamental human right that is practically impossible to define. Indeed, 'freedom' with no qualification is an incredibly vacuous concept - it needs substance, and 'expression' alone doesn't give it that.

Slippery slopes work in both directions: once we say anyone can say anything, how can we stop verbal harassment? It's a non-argument without evidence that it will indeed become intolerably restrictive.

 

[Blamethrower]

And the value of that particular self-expression? I feel there is a lot of begging the question going on here: freedom of expression is good because freedom of expression is good. Ok - why?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


2 things:

1) I find plenty of things funny without insulting or offending people I don't even know. Use your imagination.

2) Prejudice does not have to be conscious. We all have that racist old relative who thinks what they say is fine and harmless, but it's actually really awful.

I can't see what relevance your post has to my post.

Perhaps you can elaborate? From what I read, you are agreeing with me.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a fundamental human right that is practically impossible to define. Indeed, 'freedom' with no qualification is an incredibly vacuous concept - it needs substance, and 'expression' alone doesn't give it that.

Slippery slopes work in both directions: once we say anyone can say anything, how can we stop verbal harassment? It's a non-argument without evidence that it will indeed become intolerably restrictive.

I don't think it is impossible to define. What you might mean, perhaps, is that some human rights, like the right to free expression, may be countered by other rights at which point a balance may need to be struck. Have I got that right?

 

[Blamethrower]

It's a fundamental human right that is practically impossible to define. Indeed, 'freedom' with no qualification is an incredibly vacuous concept - it needs substance, and 'expression' alone doesn't give it that.

Slippery slopes work in both directions: once we say anyone can say anything, how can we stop verbal harassment? It's a non-argument without evidence that it will indeed become intolerably restrictive.

So what you're saying is that there is no definition, or at least a clear one in terms of what freedom or expression is.

Why are we "debating" this then?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I can't see what relevance your post has to my post.

Perhaps you can elaborate? From what I read, you are agreeing with me.

I'm asking why completely unrestricted freedom of expression is good, which includes hate, prejudice and other things that seem to have no apparent good in them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what you're saying is that there is no definition, or at least a clear one in terms of what freedom or expression is.

Why are we "debating" this then?

Because the discussion challenging what we take for granted.

 

[Blamethrower]

I don't see what's wrong with asking people to be more considerate, to think about the effects that their words have.

Again, words are just words, maybe you have trouble with dealing them as a kid but we're all adults here right?

If someone goes into depression because some idiot says "Arsenal are gay" on the bus then I think that person needs some serious psychological help.

Bullying is entirely different because you are mixing words with threats. Bullying at work may mean you lose your job, bullying at school could mean you get beaten up, all these things have consequences

Opinions are NOT actions, opinions DO NOT have consequences. Just grow up and accept that all people are different. You have to accept the bigots as much as you want them to accept you.

If you can't accept other peoples opinions then how do you expect them to accept your sexuality/religion/beliefs etc?

Pity the idiot, don't hate them. Otherwise you are just contributing to this poisonous climate of hate that pervades our country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm asking why completely unrestricted freedom of expression is good, which includes hate, prejudice and other things that seem to have no apparent good in them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Because the discussion challenging what we take for granted.

Freedom of expression is just that, you're expressing yourself. You are exercising your right to an opinion. You can say whatever you want whenever you want, just not wherever you want.

When there is no action and no threat attached, I can't see any problem.

But all the rules of "wherever" are completely murky due to the unwritten rules that I've already alluded to.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't think it is impossible to define. What you might mean, perhaps, is that some human rights, like the right to free expression, may be countered by other rights at which point a balance may need to be struck. Have I got that right?

I think we can do a bit better than that - otherwise we just end up stuck in a mess of conflicting rights and we have to appeal to something else so we're stuck back at square one. Instead I prefer to think of a single overarching principle that subsumes lesser principles into it, and in my case I think that we should strive towards something like dignity, or happiness in the general sense of the word.

The issue with rights is that they can only ever be rules of thumb, essentially.

 

[EM2]

Opinions are NOT actions, opinions DO NOT have consequences. Just grow up and accept that all people are different. You have to accept the bigots as much as you want them to accept you.

In a country where someone was attacked and killed for (it appears) simply being Polish, I find it difficult to agree that opinions do not have consequences.

 

[talltim]

In the specific cases in the OP, the FA has charged Andre Grey. The FA has absolutely no power over Brian Souter. Perhaps ATOC should charge him?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Opinions are NOT actions, opinions DO NOT have consequences.

But that is where you are wrong. They do have consequences. Very real and dangerous ones.

Are you really suggesting that someone expressing their opinions on say a topic that gets people really riled up isn't going to lead to actions based on those opinions?

 

[Gutfright]

Again, words are just words, maybe you have trouble with dealing them as a kid but we're all adults here right?

If someone goes into depression because some idiot says "Arsenal are gay" on the bus then I think that person needs some serious psychological help.

Bullying is entirely different because you are mixing words with threats. Bullying at work may mean you lose your job, bullying at school could mean you get beaten up, all these things have consequences

Opinions are NOT actions, opinions DO NOT have consequences. Just grow up and accept that all people are different. You have to accept the bigots as much as you want them to accept you.

If you can't accept other peoples opinions then how do you expect them to accept your sexuality/religion/beliefs etc?

Pity the idiot, don't hate them. Otherwise you are just contributing to this poisonous climate of hate that pervades our country.

I'm still not sure where the harm is in asking people to think about how their words affect other people.

It's not only hardcore homophobic bigots who use the word "gay" to mean rubbish or inferior. Sometimes it's just normal people who don't think about what they're saying. So why not give them a polite request to be more considerate in future?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a country where someone was attacked and killed for (it appears) simply being Polish, I find it difficult to agree that opinions do not have consequences.

An opinion does not kill someone if it remains in the opinion-holder's head.

When it moves to actions is when people die.

 

[Tetchytyke]

An opinion does not kill someone if it remains in the opinion-holder's head.

Perhaps, but we're not talking about freedom of opinion, we're talking about freedom of expression.

Although the killer of Jo Cox held the opinion that she was a traitor who deserved to be killed for her treachery, and he used that opinion as justification for murdering her, so the lines do get very blurred. It was the same with the killers of, among others, Sophie Lancaster and Anthony Walker too.

 

[Gutfright]

I think that we should strive towards something like dignity, or happiness in the general sense of the word.

The issue with rights is that they can only ever be rules of thumb, essentially.

Frankly, I can't see either of those working out.

A right to dignity sounds unworkable. After all, it's not very dignified to be stripped naked and to have your bum hole searched, but if we were to abolish the practice we'd make it a lot easier to smuggle drugs into prisons or explosives onto aeroplanes.

And a right to happiness may well be the worst idea I've ever heard. Aside from the fact that the last thing society needs is to produce more entitled over privileged brats (which is exactly what happens when you tell people that the rest of the world owes them happiness), there would be approximately one trillionth of a second between the government announcing that everyone has a right to be happy and someone going to court to argue that paying taxes makes him unhappy and therefore violates his rights. In fact the courts would be jammed up with prisoners arguing that being thrown in the clink makes them unhappy and violates their rights, children arguing that being made to go to boring old school violates their rights to happiness etc etc.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board...

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing that perhaps needs emphasizing is that with every (legal, usually) right comes a (moral, usually) responsibility.

You may have the right to express free speech (in the USA), but you have the responsibility not to go upsetting people with it unnecessarily.

You may have the right to drive your car on the road if you are licenced etc, but you have the responsibility to do so considerately to others.

You may have the right to occupy a priority seat, with someone being required to move from it if necessary, if you are of limited mobility, but you have the responsibility to request them to move politely if you need to do so.

That's something we seem to lose sight of these days.

 

[Gutfright]

You may have the right to drive your car on the road if you are licenced etc, but you have the responsibility to do so considerately to others.

There's no such thing as a right to drive. Driving is a privilege not a right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no such thing as a right to drive. Driving is a privilege not a right.

It is a right if you have the relevant licensing etc, as you are legally permitted to do it, and others are not legally permitted to prevent you doing so other than by the framework provided in law for that purpose.

It is not a fundamental human right but that phrase describes something different from a simple legal right.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Frankly, I can't see either of those working out.

A right to dignity sounds unworkable. After all, it's not very dignified to be stripped naked and to have your bum hole searched, but if we were to abolish the practice we'd make it a lot easier to smuggle drugs into prisons or explosives onto aeroplanes.

And a right to happiness may well be the worst idea I've ever heard. Aside from the fact that the last thing society needs is to produce more entitled over privileged brats (which is exactly what happens when you tell people that the rest of the world owes them happiness), there would be approximately one trillionth of a second between the government announcing that everyone has a right to be happy and someone going to court to argue that paying taxes makes him unhappy and therefore violates his rights. In fact the courts would be jammed up with prisoners arguing that being thrown in the clink makes them unhappy and violates their rights, children arguing that being made to go to boring old school violates their rights to happiness etc etc.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board...

And you missed the point entirely by sticking "right to" in front. I think you need to look up utilitarianism or deontology and then come back to me, because right now this sounds like babby's first attempt at philosophy, with a load of Dunning-Kruger thrown in...

In particular your definition of "happiness" is spectacularly sub-par.

When I'm criticising the very concept of rights, crowbarring what I'm saying into being about rights makes it look like you started typing without really reading what I wrote.