Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[The Other Foot]

You can be a protestant f***** and a Catholic h**, so this is a very silly conversation.

 

Incidentally, you can also be a tall midget. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[Aim Here]

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Quote where I have said that today.

Are you seriously complaining about the word "***" because it 's a slur against Rangers fans then? You want your entire fanbase to be a protected class,  immune from being treated with the same derogatory language as spoonburners, sheepshaggers, DABs and the like?

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Aim Here

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

sheepshaggers

 

You what 

[Forever_blueco]

46 minutes ago, Proposition Joe said:

Not having a dig at you personally, but can you even comprehend how weird and pathetic this sounds ?

Aye I’m not debating wether it’s right or wrong but it is the facts 

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Are you seriously complaining about the word "***" because it 's a slur against Rangers fans then? You want your entire fanbase to be a protected class,  immune from being treated with the same derogatory language as spoonburners, sheepshaggers, DABs and the like?

 

The H Word fails the acceptability test.  That is a given.  Other terms may also fail but that's not up to me to decide.

Edit:  We can call you 'h.u.n.s' because we also call St Mirren fans 'spoon-burners' is a pathetic argument.  I know you realise this.

Edited September 4, 2021 by The_Kincardine

[Aim Here]

6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The H Word fails the acceptability test.  That is a given.  Other terms may also fail but that's not up to me to decide.

On what grounds does it fail, exactly?

If it's an anti-Protestant slur, that's defensible point of view, though open to dispute, and you seem to be denying that's what you claim.

If it's a slur for some reason unrelated to disparaging a protected class, that is very much *not* given. You don't get to claim a disputed statement as axiomatically correct.

If you're just going by an appeal to authority and 'P&B bans it', the reason they do is because they don't want the hassle of all the Rangers fans greeting about it, not because they're taking any kind of view on the actual rights and wrongs of the word, and even if they were, Div is no more an authority on these matters than you are.

If I was you, I'd have stuck with option 1, because the others don't strike me as good faith arguments.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Aim Here

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, Aim Here said:

On what grounds does it fail, exactly?

Again, it's not up to the recipient of the slur to defend himself.  This is a long-established principle that works very well.

[The Other Foot]

Do mormons count as h***? 

And what the f**k are we going to do about the Greek Orthodoxers? 

[kingjoey]

31 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is the 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' argument which will lead nowhere.

The term has long-since failed the acceptability test and, as I have said, it isn't up to the recipients of slurs to justify why they shouldn't be subject to them.

There is a host of unacceptable terms we no longer use but which once were common parlance.  The DR article highlighted a few of them, and were right to do so.  The H Bomb is another term to add to that list.

As I've said before, I've been going to Scottish football matches on an extremely regular basis for over 57 years and, although I'm a protestant, have never ever been referred to as a h**. Rangers fans are desperate, desperate, for a term to match f***** that they can use as a weapon. United fans are Arabs, St Johnstone fans are Fermers, Aberdeen fans are Sheep, Rangers fans are H***. It's really as simple as that. Rangers want it to be a sectarian slur, they've convinced themselves that it is...but it isn't. 

[The Other Foot]

Good Lord...here's another thing. If h** means a Rangers fan, and f***** means an Irish Republican....then couldn't you technically be a f***** h**?! 

 

[JamieThomas]

I can call Rangers **** because we're mini ****. It's our word.

Spoiler

Also it's not a fucking slur you absolute oddballs

 

[Aim Here]

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Again, it's not up to the recipient of the slur to defend himself.  This is a long-established principle that works very well.

That's not any kind of established principle or axiom.

That's just a bad faith line of attack that bigots sometimes use when they realise they're being publicly disparaged and want to weaponize outrage in their favour for a change. I've already noticed you habitually use bad-faith arguments to defend the indefensible, so I figure I shouldn't be surprised.

We see similar stuff going on when anti-trans bigots are objecting to the term 'TERF' because they claim it's a slur. And fascists trying to claim that opposing far-right politics is an attack on white people. And supporters of Israel trying to weaponize opposition to anti-semitism by, for example, demanding that it's antisemitic to oppose the existence of a Jewish ethno-state.

We shouldn't let those guys choose what's a slur against them - and neither do I let jews, black people, catholics, or protestants or Rangers fans choose; instead we go by what the words mean and how they're used.

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Aim Here

[Dons_1988]

Tough one for rangers fans this. 

If people stopped using the term ***, what would they have to fall back on when they get challenged on singing about being up to their knees in ****** blood?

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

That's not any kind of established principle or axiom.

That, "The subject of the abuse doesn't have to justify their distaste' has been a principle for at least 50 years and is an excellent maxim.

The corollary. "I can call you anything I want and it's up to you justify any objection"  is being proponed on here and is thinking from the dark ages.

[The_Kincardine]

10 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

neither do I let jews, black people, catholics, or protestants or Rangers fans choose; instead we go by what the words mean and how they're used.

This is a post I'd never have expected to see on here.

[Aim Here]

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is a post I'd never have expected to see on here.

Unlike you, I'm not surprised by you repeatedly refusing to address the point or argue in good faith, and instead merely repeating your untenable assertions, with rather hypocritical insinuations of bigotry.

 

[Guest Wieghortsnut]

50 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

DABs 

 

Love it

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

Unlike you, I'm not surprised by you repeatedly refusing to address the point or argue in good faith, and instead merely repeating your untenable assertions, with rather hypocritical insinuations of bigotry.

I have addressed the point repeatedly.  That it doesn't give you the answer you want isn't my problem.

[Aim Here]

7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have addressed the point repeatedly.  That it doesn't give you the answer you want isn't my problem.

Your idea of 'addressing' the point is to repeatedly assert as axiomatic and unquestionable that 'what I say is a slur against me is a slur against me'. And that is simply not the case, unless you're seriously going to argue from my examples that the fascist far right, anti-trans bigots and supporters of a Jewish ethnostate, who all use that tactic, should be allowed to weaponize the notion of hate speech for their own hateful ends.

Of course your idea of addressing THAT is not defend those examples - because they'd instantly show you up as the bigot we all know you are - or to explain why those groups don't get to claim that they're the victim of slurs, which knocks your argument for six - but to ignore them and continue repeating your assertion.

We've been here before. You're just going to repeat your bad-faith nonsense ad infinitum.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Aim Here