Jump to content

Follow Following to Title 56. The Rangers Season 2021/22


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, robbie1872 said:

the exact same proof that its matching term  on the celtic side ([email protected]@@@n) is used to describe all catholics - none, however both are sectarian accoridng to nil by mouth , the scottish government and most importantly by the scottish legal system. you can continue to whinge and moan about it but thats the bottom line.

If you're blinkered, you're blinkered, and nothing can really change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Aim Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by The_Kincardine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Aim Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Aim Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...