Huddersfield fans being investigated for Homophobic chanting against Brighton at the weekend. Can’t see any mention on here and Chris Hughton hasn’t mentioned it, perhaps it will be swept under the carpet because it isn’t Burnley.

Nice one. You found a way for us to be the victims. Good work.

Absolutely, good of you to point that out.

The word "homophobic" is constantly being misused when football chanting is the issue. I'm fed up with it.

boatshed bill wrote:The word "homophobic" is constantly being misused when football chanting is the issue. I'm fed up with it.

Regarding what chant(s) do you feel it's being misused?

Shut that door!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Regarding what chant(s) do you feel it's being misused?

Unless they express fear or hatred of homosexuality then the word is being used incorrectly.

boatshed bill wrote:Unless they express fear or hatred of homosexuality then the word is being used incorrectly.

If the word is being misused so much then it should be easy to provide an example of a chant. So please provide one. I'd like to understand your point.

The Brighton chant was your going down with the Palace, to which some Huddersfield fans responded with your going down on your boyfriend. Just providing you with a current example to help you IT.

Imploding Turtle wrote:If the word is being misused so much then it should be easy to provide an example of a chant. So please provide one. I'd like to understand your point.

Chelsea rent boys.

MrTopTier wrote:The Brighton chant was your going down with the Palace, to which some Huddersfield fans responded with your going down on your boyfriend. Just providing you with a current example to help you IT.

Why would they chant that response?

Don’t know. You would have to ask a Huddersfield fan that.

OK. You would have to target a homosexual to shout a homophobic remark at him,
So "The goalie is a homo" is not homophobic (unless the goalkeeper is actually "gay")
Let's face it, we all know that the ref is not a w@nker, we (well many of us) have shouted it. It does not express irrational fear or hatred of those who masturbate.

MrTopTier wrote:Don’t know. You would have to ask a Huddersfield fan that.

I think we both know it's because of the stereotype Brighton with regards to homosexuality. A harmless stereotype on it's own. But the problem comes when some people see that stereotype as a negative one and that's why some of those people see it as a point of mockery.

There's nothing wrong with being gay, just like there's nothing wrong with being straight. Yet some people like to call straight people gay. They do this because they see being gay as a bad thing or something to be ashamed of. That's why chants such as the one you referred to is a homophobic chant. It comes from a position of homophobia.

So boatshed's opinion that the word is being misused to describe chants using homosexuality as a source of mockery is inaccurate.

I'm sure the vast majority of Brighton fans who have had this type of chant directed at them for decades don't give stuff about it on similar lines to us being told we are six fingered inbreds who regularly go down on our sisters! but then you will get the likes of turtle insisting on being offended on their behalf regardless..

boatshed bill wrote:OK. You would have to target a homosexual to shout a homophobic remark at him,
So "The goalie is a homo" is not homophobic (unless the goalkeeper is actually "gay")
Let's face it, we all know that the ref is not a w@nker, we (well many of us) have shouted it. It does not express irrational fear or hatred of those who masturbate.

Why would someone call a straight person a "homo" though? As an insult, right? So that means the person using it as an insult thinks that being a "homo" is a bad thing and something to be mocked. That makes them a homophobe and their chant homophobic.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why would someone call a straight person a "homo" though? As an insult, right? So that means the person using it as an insult thinks that being a "homo" is a bad thing and something to be mocked. That makes them a homophobe and their chant homophobic.

I think you are reading far to much into the psychological side of this. it's just a bit of banter. Look up "homophobia", you'll get what I'm saying.
In my playing days I've been called everything imaginable, i've never once thought of it as anything but a bit of fun.

MrTopTier wrote:Don’t know. You would have to ask a Huddersfield fan that.

Don't really have to.

He just needs to ask anyone who has ever been to a football match.

boatshed bill wrote:I think you are reading far to much into the psychological side of this. it's just a bit of banter. Look up "homophobia", you'll get what I'm saying.
In my playing days I've been called everything imaginable, i've never once thought of it as anything but a bit of fun.

No, i think you're the one not trying hard enough to understand why using homosexuality as a reason to mock someone, whether they're homosexual or not, is homophobic.

It doesnt' matter who "you homo" is directed at as an insult. It's a homophobic insult.

Imploding Turtle wrote:No, i think you're the one not trying hard enough to understand why using homosexuality as a reason to mock someone, whether they're homosexual or not, is homophobic.

It doesnt' matter who "you homo" is directed at as an insult. It's a homophobic insult.

OK, at the risk of having my wrist slapped by the moderators, the following are homophobic chants:

I hate you, cos you are a poof!
You're going to die of AIDS!

You see, I really do get it.

boatshed bill wrote:OK, at the risk of having my wrist slapped by the moderators, the following are homophobic chants:

I hate you, cos you are a poof!
You're going to die of AIDS!

You see, I really do get it.

And you agree that the sexuality of the person to whom the insult is directed is irrelevant, right?

Lots of "phobias" and "isms" around, and in today's society there are lines between the ones that can be mocked and those that can't. You can't mock black people, but you can mock Americans. You can't mock supposed 'homosexual' towns, you can mock supposed 'incestuous' towns. It is what it is.

One day, hopefully soon, the time will come when Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech will come true. But for now, we just have to accept that black people and homosexuals, because of their actual and perceived disadvantages, are to be treated differently.

dsr wrote:Lots of "phobias" and "isms" around, and in today's society there are lines between the ones that can be mocked and those that can't. You can't mock black people, but you can mock Americans. You can't mock supposed 'homosexual' towns, you can mock supposed 'incestuous' towns. It is what it is.

One day, hopefully soon, the time will come when Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech will come true. But for now, we just have to accept that black people and homosexuals, because of their actual and perceived disadvantages, are to be treated differently.

I think we've finally found it, boys and grills. The most privileged post possible.

Imploding Turtle wrote:And you agree that the sexuality of the person to whom the insult is directed is irrelevant, right?

Only if it's directed at a gay person, otherwise it would have little or no effect.

Honestly, I've had this sort of thing shouted at me, generally when I've been playing well. It really doesn't hurt.
"Phobic" is a term used by the media, but it really is over-used and inaccurately applied.

Does bloke think we are all as thick as he is btw?

And I'd have considerably more time for the ones down the road if they hadn't all been hiding away from any Burnley fan for the past six years.

dsr wrote:Lots of "phobias" and "isms" around, and in today's society there are lines between the ones that can be mocked and those that can't. You can't mock black people, but you can mock Americans. You can't mock supposed 'homosexual' towns, you can mock supposed 'incestuous' towns. It is what it is.

One day, hopefully soon, the time will come when Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech will come true. But for now, we just have to accept that black people and homosexuals, because of their actual and perceived disadvantages, are to be treated differently.

Can we discuss your last sentence?

Interesting observation Lancaster, not sure it’s meant for this thread.

Yeah it is!

Mr 2018Nowdgniog is pitful, even for a *******

Apologies just seen the user name and twigged.

Ugh?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Can we discuss your last sentence?

Certainly. I said that "in today's climate, we just have to accept that black people and homosexuals, because of their actual and perceived differences, are to be treated differently".

Which is why we have the whole issue of "hate crime" and why racist and/or homophobic crime carries much stiffer sentences than other crime, and why we have special "rainbow laces" days to support homosexuals and other sexually oppressed people. Would you rather we didn't have those differences? I certainly would, then (as I said) we can judge people purely on themselves and not on their sexuality or skin colour; but as yet, we are not there. We're heading in the right direction, I think.

dsr wrote:Certainly. I said that "in today's climate, we just have to accept that black people and homosexuals, because of their actual and perceived differences, are to be treated differently".

Which is why we have the whole issue of "hate crime" and why racist and/or homophobic crime carries much stiffer sentences than other crime, and why we have special "rainbow laces" days to support homosexuals and other sexually oppressed people. Would you rather we didn't have those differences? I certainly would, then (as I said) we can judge people purely on themselves and not on their sexuality or skin colour; but as yet, we are not there. We're heading in the right direction, I think.

It was just a bizarre sentence to write.
LGBTQ people don't want to be treated 'differently', it's only because sections of society struggle to change their mindset that they are.
Same with people of a different skin colour.

There are a number of people on here who've made it clear over the years that they don't have much time for anyone who isn't straight, or for anything that's done to reduce the aggro for them.

I agree with what you've written now you've explained it better by the way.

Imploding Turtle wrote:And you agree that the sexuality of the person to whom the insult is directed is irrelevant, right?

I should have answered this properly.

The comment is irrelevant unless you are (For examples) gay, black, from Blackburn or a Dingle, depending , of course, on the particular insult.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yeah it is!

Mr 2018Nowdgniog is pitful, even for a *******

Are you suggesting he is a Hippophiliac

Imploding Turtle provokes a good argument then disappears. Don't feed the Turtle, he's g**

boatshed bill wrote:I should have answered this properly.

The comment is irrelevant unless you are (For examples) gay, black, from Blackburn or a Dingle, depending , of course, on the particular insult.

No it isn't

If it's being used as an insult then it's homophobic or racist.

Calling a football player an effing poof is homophobic, quite simply.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:No it isn't

If it's being used as an insult then it's homophobic or racist.

Calling a football player an effing poof is homophobic, quite simply.

I disagree.But I accept that it may offend gay people who are not the subject of the comment. However, by definition, this is not an act of homophobia.

I’m trying to think of any prominent black gay men ? I could only think of the dj tv guy Reggie Yates and not sure if Garth Crooks is one ?

As for the gay slur it starts in playgrounds about 8 yrs old when nobody knows or cares.

Gays will never be “ the norm” % wise so I guess will always be Prone to ridicule as a fair degree of people will be always be uncomfortable with the sexual side

AlargeClaret wrote:I’m trying to think of any prominent black gay men ? I could only think of the dj tv guy Reggie Yates and not sure if Garth Crooks is one ?

As for the gay slur it starts in playgrounds about 8 yrs old when nobody knows or cares.

Gays will never be “ the norm” % wise so I guess will always be Prone to ridicule as a fair degree of people will be always be uncomfortable with the sexual side

Justin Fashanu, did he get any stick? He was a tough fella.

Gays will never be the norm.

Time to get out of the world.

I agree with Houghton regarding the racist and homophobic chanting.
Still never understood why he didn't take issue with the "town full of p*keys" chant by the away support at our place though

dsr wrote:Lots of "phobias" and "isms" around, and in today's society there are lines between the ones that can be mocked and those that can't. You can't mock black people, but you can mock Americans. You can't mock supposed 'homosexual' towns, you can mock supposed 'incestuous' towns. It is what it is.

One day, hopefully soon, the time will come when Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech will come true. But for now, we just have to accept that black people and homosexuals, because of their actual and perceived disadvantages, are to be treated differently.

Equating homosexuality and incest! Nice!

AlargeClaret wrote:I’m trying to think of any prominent black gay men ? I could only think of the dj tv guy Reggie Yates and not sure if Garth Crooks is one ?

As for the gay slur it starts in playgrounds about 8 yrs old when nobody knows or cares.

Gays will never be “ the norm” % wise so I guess will always be Prone to ridicule as a fair degree of people will be always be uncomfortable with the sexual side

I like threads like these every now and then to remind me who the intolerant and out of touch dinosaurs are.

martin_p wrote:Equating homosexuality and incest! Nice!

Nice

martin_p wrote:Equating homosexuality and incest! Nice!

Can you post your discrimination chart please, so we all understand

Bosscat wrote:Nice

Well clearly I meant ‘not nice’ (although admittedly without tone of voice it doesn’t translate well on the inter web).

2018Nwodgniog wrote:Town full of pikeys..?

I posted that way to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think p*keys is less offensive than p*ckies on the left wing scale

Damo wrote:Can you post your discrimination chart please, so we all understand

I haven’t got a clue what you’re asking.

Oh Sh!t,

All I was really trying to do is show the difference between homophobic (noun
intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality) and comments likely to offend homosexuals such as "Chelsea Rent-boys" etc, even if said homosexual "victims" are not even present where the offending chants can be heard.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think we both know it's because of the stereotype Brighton with regards to homosexuality. A harmless stereotype on it's own. But the problem comes when some people see that stereotype as a negative one and that's why some of those people see it as a point of mockery.

There's nothing wrong with being gay, just like there's nothing wrong with being straight. Yet some people like to call straight people gay. They do this because they see being gay as a bad thing or something to be ashamed of. That's why chants such as the one you referred to is a homophobic chant. It comes from a position of homophobia.

So boatshed's opinion that the word is being misused to describe chants using homosexuality as a source of mockery is inaccurate.

But we often sing the referees a ******. And we are all wankers...