-
Posts
2,065 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by Desert Skipper
-
I’m afraid I’m sticking with that. But we all have our own opinions.
-
Well then that’s my misunderstanding of what PC means. I understand it to mean that these days it’s not acceptable to use such a term that was once commonplace. Can you honestly say that there are some terms today considered unacceptable, that you didn’t use when you were younger? I’m not talking racism, just terms that were wrongly used as non-targeted insults (such as mo*on etc) that we now accept can be hurtful to those afflicted. That’s what I mean by non-PC. Maybe PC has somehow evolved to become a term banded about by the right-wing who don’t agree with the left. But I don’t read the Daily Mail so I wouldn’t know.
-
Well maybe it’s my fault for not making it clear enough, but my whole argument is whether the use of this term in this context, can be a punishment of minimum 8 matches, when a different player gets 5 for squeezing someone’s penis. Maybe 8 matches is indeed the going rate, just not compared to the grades of (in my opinion only) worse offences such as targeted abuse, ‘fiddling’ and targeted violence.
-
Don’t take my word for it then, google Professor Steve Peters. He’ll explain why some people might get a bit of road rage and mouth obscenities whilst being cut up by another driver, but be completely different when challenged over a work issue in an office environment.
-
I don’t think players always are always fully in control on the field during a spat. And that sometimes spills over into ugly reactions. Should they be punished? Of course. Should two players in a spat be punished in the same way as a player who goes out and targets abuse at say, a homosexual player, to put him off? Not IMO. Two different offences. Anyway, let’s agree to disagree on the loss of control issue. I don’t think either of us will sway on that one based on our own experiences.
-
But it’s not a defence claiming non-guilt is it? It’s a defence against treating all uses of a term as deserving the same sentence, despite the circumstances. When someone kills another person, the sentence isn’t the same for manslaughter as it is for murder. That’s not nonsense IMO. But for clarity, we are in agreement that a sentence of some sort should be imposed.
-
Again, the debate isn’t about whether it’s acceptable (now or in the past). It’s about whether the punishment reflects the circumstances compared to other grade F offences, and compared to intended targeted abuse. I think everyone agrees the word is unacceptable and deserves some form of punishment.
-
I obviously don’t know the answer to that, but what I do know is that McGuire is greatly respected off the field (I think we all know he’s a grubby little s**t on it - even before this!) and he does a lot of good stuff off his own back for others. I also know he is from an army family and growing up in that environment often means blue language and offensive terms are commonplace. That’s the nature of the beast. So whilst I don’t know whether he uses that term very often on the field, I doubt he’d knowingly band it about in public without caring whether he hurt the feelings of any affected individuals.
-
One poster I think, way back at the start of the thread. FWIW, my youngest is autistic. If someone came up and targeted them with a derogatory term, I think I’d be justified in wanting some sort of serious action against them. If I saw a RL player (who is known for doing a lot of good stuff off the field) use the s-word in a heated argument, I’d probably be a bit p**ed off that he lost his cool and used it, but I’m smart enough to know that it’s a totally separate issue from targeted abuse, and I wouldn’t expect the same punishment. If anything I’d probably ask him to publicly apologise and donate a chunk of his hard earned match pay to an applicable charity. But you know what, I’d be more hurt by people accusing me of condoning such a term, than I am by McGuire using the s-word in an on-field spat. But hey, that’s just me.
-
No one’s saying it’s not offensive are they? They’re debating whether the use of it in this context deserves a level of punishment equivalent to offences they deem more of a threat. Pease don’t change the argument to fit a different narrative. I think maybe just one person way back in the thread passed it off as nothing, but that’s a different argument.
-
Nope, we’re not.
-
Well having listened to what goes on during a game of RL, in addition to different players’ own abilities to control their responses (we’re not all calm heads don’t forget) I can’t agree with that, just based on my experience experiences of course. I think it’s commonplace and its only the few incidents that actually get picked up and acted upon. There is a hell of a lot of work to do IMO to het anywhere near a clean and disciplined game. Regarding treating use of the the s-term, whether targeted or not, whether in the heat of the moment or not: If 8 games is the going rate, then fair enough. But somebody got 5 for playing with an opponent’s bits, and plenty get less for violent acts (Bentley?). My opinion only of course, but I see these as massively worse offences. Off the field I wouldn’t expect a loose non-PC term to carry a worse punishment than the latter two I mentioned.
-
You know what, it’s actually much more difficult than you think. It’s wired into the Limbic responses in our brain. It’s a hangover from our caveman days when all we had to do was fight to eat and live and reproduce. Now, as modern humans we have a highly-developed pre-frontal cortex (well I say we, maybe mine isn’t so much ) that enables us to apply intelligent thought before we act on something. The problem is that the Limbic response is a survival tool that is way stronger and faster than the ‘thinking’ bit. So when you’re fighting after 80 minutes of hard slog and the adrenaline is pumping you are at risk of the caveman bit taking over. Of course, with enough training and practice you can teach the brain to counter the Limbic response, but you won’t get it 100% perfect ever. If you could, you wouldn’t lose your temper, ever. And I know you have, just as I have, and regretted those actions (in the car for example?). If this was a planned and genuine attempt to hurt the feelings of a disabled person that’s a whole different matter.
-
I’m almost certain no one (well maybe one person) in this thread disagrees. As far as I can tell it’s (mostly) about the grading of the offence and the context. Some posters want to interpret it as being as bad as other Grade F offences or as bad as targeted abuse. Some of us see it differently and would like to take a pragmatic approach. This is all the fun of debating on the internet. But just to make clear, none of us are condoning the use of the word, irrespective of whether it’s a sporting club or in your own home.
-
You’re fortunate to have never been in a heated battle then Dave. Some people are human, even some posters on here when they get angry. Remember, he didn’t target this at someone disabled. A few games and a fine and a public apology for me (if we’re comparing it to other offences). And no, I’m not a Piers Morgan fan.
-
Actually Dave, my response to Elbow wasn’t targeting your post specifically, so don’t take it as a personal attack. It was highlighting the fact that a lot of posters are getting outraged and calling for 8 games or more (sacking?) for a mistake made in a heated argument. A mistake similar to one that anyone on here can make (and has been made in this thread incidentally!), despite them wanting to extol their apparent holiness on here. And that online self-righteousness is what I call Virtue Signalling. You may have a different definition, which is your take.
-
You called for Makinson to be sacked and sent packing from our game like you suggest for McGuire? Fair enough if you posted that. My claim wasn’t targeted at you individually but I applaud you for having consistency. Re: My ‘made-up’ claim about betting most of the ‘outraged’ posters on here having Makinson as their RLWC wing choice despite their stance on such indiscretions… I’ll trawl though the World Cup threads later and have a look. Then we’ll know either way.
-
Or indeed posters on here. Way back in this thread someone calls another poster a derogatory term that was previously used for mental health patients. He used this term because he was angry with another poster downplaying McGuire’s use of the s-word. Which serves to highlight the fact that most people don’t care about the actual risk of hurting the feelings of those with disabilities, it’s more about particular terms we can get outraged by and rant about on social media. Like we’re some sort of angelic pillars of the online community. Sheesh!* *I would like to apologise in advance if the use of the word Sheesh! is in fact cultural appropriation of New York’s Jewish community.
-
This is exactly my point. It’s got to be consistent. Sack someone, sure. But don’t then let the next guy off the hook for something that’s an inherently bigger threat.
-
But that’s putting into context elbow. Social media isn’t for that, nor is it for protecting genuine victims of targeted abuse. It’s about signalling virtues and getting likes for it, even though every single poster on here is capable of such indiscretions in the heat of the moment.
-
Fair play, I’ll go back and compare the posters on this thread with the posts on England team selections. I will then see if any of them have been outraged at a certain winger being given a reduced term for said groping offence, then selected for England. What is your stance on the grading of groping versus use of the word spa*tic?
-
I’ve not seen anywhere that the club have defended the use of the word. I would certainly question many posters on here though for double standards. It’s about the intent of the action and how the grading compares to other offences. I’m not prepared to trawl back through threads from the last two summers, but I’d bet my bottom dollar that you can’t find a thread calling for such action against the touching of one’s genitalia without consent. In fact, I’d go as far as saying almost every poster on this thread would have such a player as the first name on the wing for England. So, do we grade non-consensual groping as less of an offence than careless use of the discussed derogatory term? How would this compare to court sentences handed out if these offences were committed off the field? An interesting debate.
-
I’m not condoning McGuire for what he said, but is targeted racial abuse at someone of a certain race, the same as using the word “spa*tic” carelessly in an argument. Do both offences deserve the same ban? If so, all careless tackles should be considered in the same vein as targeted violence on the field, and any grabs of players bits n bobs considered as sexual molestation. What sort of bans/grades have we seen for those offences over the last few years?
-
Doubt it. All depends on how the coach approaches it. Maybe low risk defence strategy to avoid injuries before round one.
-
I don’t think there are many on here believing that transgressions should be forgiven, more a case of whether the punishment is consistent compared against other transgressions, such as targeted violent acts on the field. My opinion: 1) The context should be taken in to account - Using a term that was once a commonplace schoolboy insult in a verbal scrap with someone who clearly isn’t actually a sufferer of that condition isn’t targeted abuse. So an appropriate punishment to discourage use of it on the field, which may include a fine and public apology. If 8 matches minimum is the appropriate punishment then fine, but don’t give another player half that (or indeed nothing in some cases) for trying to intentionally injure someone. Ban them for 2-3 years and the violence will soon clear up. 2) As seen already on here, passionately arguing leads to seemingly innocent parties using derogatory terms. ‘Moron’ is a misuse of a term for the mentally impaired, yet somehow hasn’t made it to the banned list yet. Yet somehow those outraged at the word ‘s***tic’ are happy to use it. Go figure!