Article: The Original Rugby Championship - Six Nations 2016
-
Travellers and gypsies are technically different although the terms have been misused enough that it gets confusing.<br><br>
Would people feel differently if the slur was Jew boy or Black Boy? How long did Suarez get for calling Evra "negro"? It's the same thing really and I'm not surprised that World Rugby don't want to see it condoned on the field.<br><br><br>
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="567204" data-time="1458898556"><p>
Do you really feel Paddy is offensive PH? I've never heard of it being used in an offensive way nor ever thought of it that way. Yeah it can be used in an offensive manner when combined with something else usually thick Paddy, perpetuating the stereotype. But on its own it just means Irishman to me. In the same way that Kiwi, Yank, Jock, Pom, Taff, fluffybunny means NZer, American, Scotsman, Englishman Welshman, Frenchman.<br><br>
Genuinely not trolling here, this is my view and my experience.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I'm now of an age where it doesn't really matter to me, Cato. In my younger days, when visiting US/UK, or meeting people from UK abroad. I would encounter it from people, particularly officials - train stations, services, got it the odd time in pubs. And on a couple of occasions by cops/Customs officials. But that was at a time (70s/80s) when being Irish was difficult in UK, given the bombings, shootings, murders that were happening. <br><br>
I still hear it casually from people occasionally in a denigratory sense as opposed to friendly banter from visiting fans, etc which I have no problem with at all. Generally you can tell from how someone says it to you or to a group of people. <br><br>
Water off a duck's back at this stage in my life. I'd probably have been a bit more responsive in my younger days.
-
<p>A bit more responsive. I like that!</p>
<p>Â </p>
<p>I understand that thing about how it's said. Always difficult to get context and meaning in the written word. So if I use the term paddy on here, I mean it in the non-responsive way. OK? :yes:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="567382" data-time="1458982441">
<div>
<p>A bit more responsive. I like that!</p>
<p>Â </p>
<p>I understand that thing about how it's said. Always difficult to get context and meaning in the written word. So if I use the term paddy one here, I mean it in the on-responsive way. OK? :yes:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Â </p>
<p>Understood. Â :good1:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Calf" data-cid="567226" data-time="1458930869"><p>Travellers and gypsies are technically different although the terms have been misused enough that it gets confusing.<br><br>Would people feel differently if the slur was Jew boy or Black Boy? How long did Suarez get for calling Evra "negro"? It's the same thing really</p></blockquote><br>I'd suggest it's not. When travellers have a history that competes on a misery scale with millennia of genocide or intergenerational slavery it may be the same thing.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="567594" data-time="1459056867">
<div>
<p>I'd suggest it's not. When travellers have a history that competes on a misery scale with millennia of genocide or intergenerational slavery it may be the same thing.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So a slur is ok if it's recent and doesn't have genocide, slavery or something similar attached to it? Not sure I agree with that. Just tell him he's a shit prop who can't hold up his side rather than call him a gypsy - because in all honesty, why on earth would anyone call someone a gypsy (or Jew boy or black boy) if not intended as a slur (especially with boy attached to it).</p> -
It was obviously intended as bait in the heat of the moment, so it's usage was derogatory and intended to provoke - well that's my ha'pennyworth anyway.<br>
Apologising at half time was both good and bad because it sorted it out there and then, but gave everyone involved in the game the idea that it had been sorted out for good. <br>
It hadn't as the WRU proved when it decided that Lee's acceptance of the apology wasn't his to give.<br>
Of course the whole thing's a mess, but that's normal isn't it? It would have been easier if England had banned him for a week. That's probably what Stuart Lancaster would have done. But that's one of the reasons he wasn't going for the Grand Slam and Eddie Jones was. -
See, just calling people fluffybunnies wins on all fronts. <br><br>
Hey samson, you're a fluffybunny. And fat. Snd shit at football. <br><br>
It sounds better and no one cares -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="567633" data-time="1459066284">
<div>
<p>See, just calling people fluffybunnies wins on all fronts.<br><br>
Hey samson, you're a fluffybunny. And fat. Snd shit at football.<br><br>
It sounds better and no one cares</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Â </p>
<p>I think it should be fluffybunny too, not cnut, that'd confuse the fcuk out of him </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="567633" data-time="1459066284">
<div>
<p>See, just calling people fluffybunnys wins on all fronts.<br><br>
Hey samson, you're a fluffybunny. And <strong>fat. </strong>Snd shit at football.<br><br>
It sounds better and no one cares</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Â </p>
<p>Â </p>
<p>Gotta be careful there M4L. Marler could then be accused of being fattist. Problem being Lee calls him out for being fattist, then Marler comes back with "No, you're fattest" and things then spiral out of control.</p> -
Surely if the recipient of this "offence" says he wasn't offended and accepts the apology of the offender then that should be it. Or is it up to others to decide whether or not he should be offended? Isn't that pretty farking offensive in itself?
-
No one cares about the fatties. We're already trying to tax them out of existence
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="567598" data-time="1459057520"><p>
So a slur is ok if it's recent and doesn't have genocide, slavery or something similar attached to it? Not sure I agree with that.<strong> Just tell him he's a shit prop who can't hold up his side </strong>rather than call him a gypsy - because in all honesty, why on earth would anyone call someone a gypsy (or Jew boy or black boy) if not intended as a slur (especially with boy attached to it).</p></blockquote>
<br>
That would be propist. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="567594" data-time="1459056867"><p>I'd suggest it's not. When travellers have a history that competes on a misery scale with millennia of genocide or intergenerational slavery it may be the same thing.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I didn't say it was the same thing. I was raising more racially emotive terms to clarify the point that what he said was racist.<br><br>
As others have said you don't have to be a genocide/slavery victim to be racially abused. He should have just called him a fluffybunny.<br><br>
And in any event I think gypsies should rank fairly high on your 'misery scale'. They even tick your genocide box. Travellers aren't exactly living the high life either as far as I'm aware. -
<p>haha, so now apparently Marler was taunted with being Posh....really, do these guys know what a sledge is? As above, telling him he is a shit prop is better than calling a spade a spade!</p>
<p>Â </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11613021&ref=rss'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11613021&ref=rss</a></p> -
<p>TR. You can't say spade.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="567938" data-time="1459196138"><p>haha, so now apparently Marler was taunted with being Posh....really, do these guys know what a sledge is? As above, telling him he is a shit prop is better than calling a spade a spade!<br>
 <br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11613021&ref=rss">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11613021&ref=rss</a></p></blockquote>
<br>
Strangely, you can absolutely be "discriminated" against for being posh. I'm no expect but as far I'm aware while you can claim for being discriminated on religious grounds, colour and all sort of different backgrounds, but posh doesn't come into it. You would have thought the upper class lawyers of yesteryear would have thought this through, but apparently not. You can call anyone a post twat with absolute impunity. -
<p>I have no problem with religious discrimination. Somebody needs to tell the idiots they are following a book that was someone's "best guess" at science 6 <em>thousand </em>years who and it's no longer relevant, so stop bloody fighting each other over it.</p>
-
A costly comment in the end. Marler cops a 2 week ban and a £20k fine <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35967459'>http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35967459</a>
-
Absolute farking madness.
