• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Football and Homophobia

Aksolotl said:
But who decide what is wrong or right? where is the line? the line between moral progress and moral decay? why do you think only western civilization can draw this line? Obviously the line is moving depending on culture, nation, epoch etc.
And I agree that traditional (any in fact) values is changing and western is changing and are you sure you like this changes in the future? I reflect the present day but I understand the possibility of changes. I keep my values but I know about many other points of view and I recognize the cultural background, history and tradition behind it. Am I relativist?
What do you want? - to set some moral values and to force everyone in the world to accept it?
Sorry, my English is not fluent enough for this video, in fact Sam Harris is not very popular in Russia. I've read some info, really interesting, but I don't get what argument you are talking about, could you define it in some words?
Click to expand...

I decide ;)

On a slightly more serious note: I decide, for me. As a people and population we all help decide what's right for us. Of course every nation and every people have a right to draw their own lines. However, just like they have the right to do that whoever wants to criticise their decisions have that right. For now at least I think western societies have made better decisions than most other societies in this regard, that hasn't always been the case and it might not always be the case. If someone else does a better job I'll support their views instead.

I'm not sure that I will like all changes in the future. If I don't like a change I will in my very limited ways object to them and I would trust much smarter and more articulate people than myself to present logical arguments against those changes in a hope that those changes wouldn't win the day. I certainly hope that I won't be reduced to *appeals to tradition to defend my views.

Your statement in your last post. "I think there is no moral progress at all [...]" was certainly a statement that fits moral relativism like a glove. Although a lot of your other statements have disagreed with that. Hence my questions about why you object to homosexual marriage if your view is so relativistic.

I can't force others to accept my views. And if I could I wouldn't. What I want is for debate and discussion to keep spreading and overtaking dogma and "tradition". For morals and ethics to be more based on reason and evidence, not on religion, superstition and arguments based on what people used to do. If that happens I think I'm on the right side of the argument and that a factual, logical discussion about morality will lead towards results that I tend to agree with. For me personally I will at least try to change my views if someone presents evidence or argumentation that is convincing on a rational level.

*For the sake of clarity: An appeal to tradition is a specific logical fallacy. It doesn't imply that we can't learn from history or tradition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)

(I will make another post about the Harris vid)
 
Aksolotl said:
But who decide what is wrong or right? where is the line? the line between moral progress and moral decay? why do you think only western civilization can draw this line? Obviously the line is moving depending on culture, nation, epoch etc.
And I agree that traditional (any in fact) values is changing and western is changing and are you sure you like this changes in the future? I reflect the present day but I understand the possibility of changes. I keep my values but I know about many other points of view and I recognize the cultural background, history and tradition behind it. Am I relativist?
What do you want? - to set some moral values and to force everyone in the world to accept it?
Sorry, my English is not fluent enough for this video, in fact Sam Harris is not very popular in Russia. I've read some info, really interesting, but I don't get what argument you are talking about, could you define it in some words?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Sam Harris can be said to be popular in any country as a whole :)

His general premise is that science/evidence can inform and thus play a part in moral decisions. He has an analogy he calls "the moral landscape", in which he suggests valleys and mountains where the tops of mountains represent the best possible moral decisions that can be made by us as people.

Already he's arguing against moral relativism at this point. He highlights this point by comparing Ted Bundy (the serial killer) to the Dalai Lama. He says that on moral issues one of their opinions would be more valid. Thus supporting that there can be moral truths. I don't fully agree with his choice of examples here, but his point stands regardless.

He also highlights some decisions by some cultures like for example forcing women to completely cover up their bodies when in public. He asks if this is likely to be a peak of human morality. He also compares that to the way western society depicts women with "ideal bodies" scantily clad on the cover of magazines saying that perhaps neither of these are moral peaks.

That's quite simplified obviously, I don't feel that I do his argument justice to be honest.

If you're really interested I did find a link to a similar, but considerably longer, talk he gave where Russian subtitles are available. Just posting the link in case you're interested, but I'm not blaming you if you think it's too long and thus not worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F99DLTN7Lc8
 
Mate, I have a great morning today and as moral relativist I'm ready to embrace all western culture, moral and way of living after the impressive win! \o/
 
Last edited:
I don't think we as fans should accept homophobia in football, for obvious reasons. However, in the case of Aurier, I find it difficult to say for certain that what he said was homophobic. He used a word that has, according to what we've learned, several different meanings, and that is predominantly used these days to call someone a wimp/coward or similar. I believe we have a derivative word in the Norwegian language (derived from "fiotte"), "fjott", which simply means someone who is a bit of an idiot. Akin to taco. I use it relatively often, and although it strikes me now as a word that seemingly originates from an old French demeaning word for a homosexual, I will probably still use it, as there's no such ill intent behind my usage of the word. Not to mention that, to my knowledge, the word "fjott" has never been used as a derogatory word for a gay person in Norway. To my knowledge.

I think the intent is relevant in Aurier's case, as there is nothing, as far as I have gathered, in what he said that alluded towards him calling Blanc out as anything other than a wimp. No supporting comments were made that would definitely say that Aurier meant what he said as homophobic.

There's so much we don't know about Aurier's meaning behind what he said, that it would be disrespectful to take what he said in the worst meaning, to give him motives he didn't have. It's quite possible that he did not know that the word has previously been used as a homophobic word, he's only 24 years old (born in 1997).

That's not to say I will defend blatant homophobic behaviour, but to simply call out something a person said as homophobic, when according to what we know, the word has many different (more used) meanings, is just wrong.
 
Last edited:
Daisuk said:
I don't think we as fans should accept homophobia in football, for obvious reasons. However, in the case of Aurier, I find it difficult to say for certain that what he said was homophobic. He used a word that has, according to what we've learned, several different meanings, and that is predominantly used these days to call someone a wimp/coward or similar. I believe we have a derivative word in the Norwegian language (derived from "fiotte"), "fjott", which simply means someone who is a bit of an idiot. Akin to taco. I use it relatively often, and although it strikes me now as a word that seemingly originates from an old French demeaning word for a homosexual, I will probably still use it, as there's no such ill intent behind my usage of the word. Not to mention that, to my knowledge, the word "fjott" has never been used as a derogatory word for a gay person in Norway. To my knowledge.

I think the intent is relevant in Aurier's case, as there is nothing, as far as I have gathered, in what he said that alluded towards him calling Blanc out as anything other than a wimp. No supporting comments were made that would definitely say that Aurier meant what he said as homophobic.

There's so much we don't know about Aurier's meaning behind what he said, that it would be disrespectful to take what he said in the worst meaning, to give him motives he didn't have. It's quite possible that he did not know that the word has previously been used as a homophobic word, he's only 24 years old (born in 1997).

That's not to say I will defend blatant homophobic behaviour, but to simply call out something a person said as homophobic, when according to what we know, the word has many different (more used) meanings, is just wrong.
Click to expand...

It is a rehash of the N-word argument. Racists have been arguing for years that the N-word is not offensive because it can have a different meaning when some rappers use it.

No one accepts this. And no one should accept Aurier's ludicrous explanation.

Whether you like it or not, you are an apologist for a hate crime (admittedly at the lowest end of the scale). I am certain that if it was brought to a court in this country, he would be found guilty.
 
JPBB said:
It is a rehash of the N-word argument. Racists have been arguing for years that the N-word is not offensive because it can have a different meaning when some rappers use it.

No one accepts this. And no one should accept Aurier's ludicrous explanation.

Whether you like it or not, you are an apologist for a hate crime (admittedly at the lowest end of the scale). I am certain that if it was brought to a court in this country, he would be found guilty.
Click to expand...
It isn't Aurier's explanation, it is French society.

I don't want a homophobe at the club. Maybe (probably) we already have one, or ten, but I have seen no evidence.
 
JPBB said:
It is a rehash of the N-word argument. Racists have been arguing for years that the N-word is not offensive because it can have a different meaning when some rappers use it.

No one accepts this. And no one should accept Aurier's ludicrous explanation.

Whether you like it or not, you are an apologist for a hate crime (admittedly at the lowest end of the scale). I am certain that if it was brought to a court in this country, he would be found guilty.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, I'm not familiar at all with the history of the word "fiotte", or how it stands in France today vs how it used to stand. If gay people in France find the use of the word offensive and it's generally seen as a word talking down gay people, I agree with you, I just haven't seen anyone say anywhere that this is the case (as opposed to the N-word, which I'm obviously way more familiar with).
 
Judging from religious leaders in western Africa and ME (both Muslim and Christian) it is likely that any devout followers would be homophobic depending upon your definition ... In fact that probably applies in part to players all over the world
 
r-u-s-x said:
Judging from religious leaders in western Africa and ME (both Muslim and Christian) it is likely that any devout followers would be homophobic depending upon your definition ... In fact that probably applies in part to players all over the world
Click to expand...

This will only ever be changed by education and tolerance on ALL sides.
Not an easy route to navigate but it's the only way to effect change long term in people's attitudes!
I'm not sure banning people in these types of cases furthers the very long term goals that many aspire to.

I can understand hate 'preachers' and those 'inciting' violence and hatred being denied entrance.
But stupid individuals running off at the mouth, not for me.
 
JPBB said:
It is a rehash of the N-word argument. Racists have been arguing for years that the N-word is not offensive because it can have a different meaning when some rappers use it.

No one accepts this. And no one should accept Aurier's ludicrous explanation.

Whether you like it or not, you are an apologist for a hate crime (admittedly at the lowest end of the scale). I am certain that if it was brought to a court in this country, he would be found guilty.
Click to expand...

But he was not speaking in this country.
Or in this country's language.
Or with any grounding or upbringing in the culture of this country, a setting that should form a fair basis of any judgement anybody tries to make on what he may have said or meant.

I am very curious to hear about the definition you are applying to the term 'hate-crime' to allow it to be stretched to cover this apparant indiscretion.
 
JerusalemMan said:
But he was not speaking in this country.
Or in this country's language.
Or with any grounding or upbringing in the culture of this country, a setting that should form a fair basis of any judgement anybody tries to make on what he may have said or meant.

I am very curious to hear about the definition you are applying to the term 'hate-crime' to allow it to be stretched to cover this apparant indiscretion.
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in the way now,
 
StephenH said:
This will only ever be changed by education and tolerance on ALL sides.
Not an easy route to navigate but it's the only way to effect change long term in people's attitudes!
I'm not sure banning people in these types of cases furthers the very long term goals that many aspire to.

I can understand hate 'preachers' and those 'inciting' violence and hatred being denied entrance.
But stupid individuals running off at the mouth, not for me.
Click to expand...

I think there should be zero tolerance.

As there is for racism.

If you are an homophobe, you should not play football in this country. However talented you are and however much you will improve the best defence in the country.
 
JPBB said:
I think there should be zero tolerance.

As there is for racism.

If you are an homophobe, you should not play football in this country. However talented you are and however much you will improve the best defence in the country.
Click to expand...

"zero tolerance"

Not for me...if there is one thing we are trying to increase its 'tolerance'.

There is only one way reduce all discrimination and that is through education.

 
JerusalemMan said:
But he was not speaking in this country.
Or in this country's language.
Or with any grounding or upbringing in the culture of this country, a setting that should form a fair basis of any judgement anybody tries to make on what he may have said or meant.

I am very curious to hear about the definition you are applying to the term 'hate-crime' to allow it to be stretched to cover this apparant indiscretion.
Click to expand...

No excuse.

He wants to play football in this country. And this country will not tolerate his hateful comments.

Using the Fa-word is a hate crime. And all the variations used to belittle LGBT people.
 
JPBB said:
I think there should be zero tolerance.

As there is for racism.

If you are an homophobe, you should not play football in this country. However talented you are and however much you will improve the best defence in the country.
Click to expand...
StephenH said:
"zero tolerance"

Not for me...if there is one thing we are trying to increase its 'tolerance'.

There is only one way reduce all discrimination and that is through education.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there should be "some" tolerance of homophobia?

I do not think the Police or the courts would accept that view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back