Printable View
It is fairly obvious what he is referring to and does so on a regular basis yet nobody kicks up a fuss about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3T56BXSpBc
In any case, I think the criticism of Martin O'Neill by the PC people is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Well I think it is all a bit much, he is a football manager not a political correctness expert, it is clear it
was not his intention to offend anyone, otherwise he owuld not have said it.
Anyhow if it was offensive, then so was this
Heather Love - Queer Method and the Postwar History of Sexuality Studies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkkZV6GkkKo&list=PLG3k_1SBdm5kUx4vzAi4 pXju h3rW6GgmC&index=3
It is a storm in a teacup, he would have been better off avoiding using the word but it was not his intention to offend.
Everyone has taboos; not just "PC lads". Is there absolutely nothing someone could say that could offend you or of which you would be critical? If I started advocating murdering new-born babies, you wouldn't take issue with that? Or if I started ridiculing or besmirching loved ones? (I wouldn't dare do either of those things, but I'm just making the point that we all draw a line somewhere; we just tend to differ on where.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
People have always taken offence at things or been on the suffering end of marginalisation/stigmatisation. It's just that racism, homophobia and such sentiments still exist, but the people who are at the butt of those have stronger voices now. That's a good thing. Words have meaning and consequences. It's good to scrutinise them. I find "political correctness" is just a term, most often used by right-wingers, to discredit critics of reactionary, insulting or ill-informed ideas. People are as entitled to take offence at something as someone else is to assert something.
James O'Brien challenged a caller on LBC recently about his claim that some people's critical reaction to the Japanese couple who left (and lost) their son in a forest for six days as a punishment was "political correctness gone mad": http://www.lbc.co.uk/political-corre...n-going-131647
In doing so, he challenged the whole concept of "political correctness". Well worth a watch/listen.
I don't think that's all that funny, but it's an attempt at satire, obviously parodying and lampooning perceived traditionalist, conservative or elder-generation views on homosexuality rather than parroting them (although you could argue it does kind of play on gay stereotypes too in the process, albeit presumably well-intentioned). As I say, not hugely funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QueerQuote:
Reclamation
Beginning in the late-1980s, the label queer began to be reclaimed from its pejorative use as a neutral or positive self-identifier by LGBT people.[1] An early example of this usage by the LGBT community was by an organisation called Queer Nation, which was formed in March 1990 and circulated an anonymous flier at the New York Gay Pride Parade in June 1990 titled "Queers Read This".[8] The flier included a passage explaining their adoption of the label queer:
Ah, do we really have to use that word? It's trouble. Every gay person has his or her own take on it. For some it means strange and eccentric and kind of mysterious [...] And for others "queer" conjures up those awful memories of adolescent suffering [...] Well, yes, "gay" is great. It has its place. But when a lot of lesbians and gay men wake up in the morning we feel angry and disgusted, not gay. So we've chosen to call ourselves queer. Using "queer" is a way of reminding us how we are perceived by the rest of the world.Queer people, particularly queer people of color, began to reclaim queer in response to a perceived shift in the gay community toward liberal conservatism, catalyzed by Andrew Sullivan's 1989 piece in The New Republic, titled Here Comes the Groom: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.[9] The queer movement rejected causes viewed as assimilationist, such as marriage, military inclusion and adoption.[10]
The term may be capitalized when referring to an identity or community, rather than as an objective fact describing a person's desires, in a construction similar to the capitalized use of Deaf.[11]
The "hip and iconic abbreviation 'Q'" has developed from common usage of queer, particularly in the United States
I kind of hoped we were at a stage where this didn't need to be explained. O’Neill’s comments are part of a wider culture which discriminates against gay people and emphasises a particular kind of masculinity. One that thinks there’s something wrong with you if you’re not straight; one that says you can’t be a guy and be too close to your male friends; one that dictates the terms under which men can show affection or emotion or love.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
Comments like his just reinforce this toxic, harmful culture, and that’s something that affects all of us, gay or straight.
Worse yet, these pressures have a disproportionate effect, particular on young people and on LGBT people - especially in a country where the culture often isn't one of openness when it comes to talking about our ‘issues’. A country, after all, with ‘exceptionally high rates’ of suicide and self-harm.
The context we’re talking about was summed up by Mary McAleese just this year, when she described rates of LGBT self harm and suicide as ‘horrific’.
That was in reaction to the largest study to date of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Ireland, which showed gay teens experience elevated levels of suicidal behaviour and depression:
Is any of that O’Neill’s fault? No, of course not. But do his comments feed into that culture? Yes, they do.Quote:
“Significant numbers of younger LGBT people experience elevated levels of suicidal behaviour and self-harm, as well as worrying levels of severe and extremely severe stress, anxiety and depression.
Compared to the wider teenage population, gay teens were two times more likely to have self-harmed, three times more likely to have attempted suicide and four times more likely to have experienced anxiety or depression.
Overall, the report finds school continues to be a very difficult place for many young LGBT people. Only one-in-five feel they belong completely in their school, while less than half feel they have received positive affirmation of their identity.’
The report also shows that LGBT people continue to experience victimisation and harassment in their day-to-day lives. Three-quarters have been verbally abused, with almost one-third reporting abuse in the past year.
Only one-in-three felt safe showing affection or holding hands with a partner in public. Some 15 per cent said they would never do either.
One-in-three have been threatened with physical violence due to their sexual identity, while one-in-five had hurtful things written about them on social media.”
And as one of our highest profile ambassadors - and one school kids are well aware of - he should know better.
Besides, we should never forget that, even if you’re straight, that kind of toxic culture has a negative effect on you and your mental health too. Which is why it’s so important we try to change it, even in small ways.
Anyway, bring on the football please; I’m more than ready for it!
Nope. I am bulletproof.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I understand your point of view Danny but I still think the criticism of MON is OTT.
When the term is used in that context, it has been reclaimed or re-appropriated by the LGBTQ and/or feminist community. Context is key. Big difference between a white person using a certain word beginning with 'N' to refer to a black person and a black person using the same word to refer to a fellow black person as a reclaimed term of endearment, communal connection or affection.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXOkXDfUvGM
OK for the BBC?
You find "political correctness" intolerable or offensive though, right? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
OK, that was painful. But it's also clearly satire. I don't think there's any real comparison with what MON said, with respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
That would be an ecumenical matter Danny;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Once again, I think that's satire/parody of perceived "old fogey" attitudes for the purpose of ridicule, but if people want to take issue with something or perceive it as offensive, they're more than entitled to criticise and to make their issues known. Nobody has to agree with them, but if they make a well-reasoned argument, then maybe some others will subsequently see things under a different light and will see what the initial complaint-maker saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I don't think Martin's gag was satirical nor was his use of the word "queer" an act of reclamation. By the way, the problem wasn't solely with the fact that he used the word "queer". It was the suggestion that there was something weird/bad/funny with being gay.
TCM explains perfectly the problems with what Martin said above.
Hey funboys, get a room!
Roy would have to be on top.....Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Not sure about that. The choice of word was the major problem I think. If O'Neill had said that they brought Guppy and Walford along because he didn't want people to think himself and Keane were "a couple" nobody would have batted an eyelid I suspect, and I reckon he'd probably have even got few laughs. It could still be interpreted as meaning there's something wrong with being gay but I doubt anybody would have even bothered.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The comparisons to things said by professional comedians, satire, etc. is difficult to fathom.
In the print media this morning it did sound more apologetic. However I don't like that he is saying i wont try to be funny or words to that effect again. Its still a bit toys out of the pram and worries me that he won't be up for these Q&As again.
And why come out and say "I knew straight after I said it", because in the video yesterday he acted like he was unsure he had said anything wrong...
Interesting point this - it seems the media were at pains to put this story in the proper context, before running anything potentially destabilising against O'Neill and the Irish team. Admirable on one hand, possibly a little soft soap on the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
For instance, there was no such consideration given about his slamming of Dunphy on the same night. Second Captains ran those quotes out on the podcast the next day too.
It was a horrible expression in this context and MON should know better but his apology appears fairly comprehensive to me. Time for some football to wash all this stuff away.
may, or may not, be related that an Irish Times journalist was told he was not allowed to interview players at the weekend after some scathing articles on Delaney in recent times.