[Closed] New thread, as advised by mods

I still think you are an idiot

Was there any need for that?

Not fair Cougar, that was selective. Furthermore, that was not the phrase to which I objected.

Really low, that

I don't need to ask him. I know him. and yes you are calling him homophobic

I don't need to ask him. I know him. and yes you are calling him homophobic

Apart from saying that I am not and I never have problem with the poster, only the post, in any of these situations. There is not much else I can say or do to respond to you. Unusually closed of you, but I guess your mind is made up

Not fair Cougar, that was selective. Furthermore, that was not the phrase to which I objected.

Really low, that

Not for the first time in the last couple of days, I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I was adding context in case HC / others hadn't seen the original. If there's something else you're objecting to that's news to me.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not getting drawn into this so I'll leave you to it.

To add fuel to the bag of burning poop.

I assume Charles is referring to the pre-edited reply?

The one sans lighting?

As for opinions...you started a whole thread to again advance an incorrect reading of a remark made and [b] you have the cheek to (try to) belittle anybody who doesn't agree with you[/b]. "Do you see the irony?"

Stunning! Your reading of all the comments and sides in this thread is that[i] I[/i] am the one trying to belittle people?

In your case I think I was pre-empted by providence.

There you made get all rude and personal! Hope you are happy

please make it stop. someone email mark!

Charlie - muy mind is made up because its so obvious there is no homophobic slur. You accused scotroutes of deliberately making a homophobic slur -that accusing him of being homophobic

the context and meaning has been explained to you many times but you will not accept this. You really are making yourself look ridiculous and more importantly making anyone who wants to make a stand about slurs based on sex, sexuality or race have to work harder to make the case when yo bang on about something where you simply are wrong.

with that I leave you to it.

*wanders in*

oh.

*wanders out*

Not for the first time in the last couple of days, I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I was adding context in case HC / others hadn't seen the original. If there's something else you're objecting to that's news to me.

But why not include the whole exchange? Including the phrase I objected to?

To add fuel to the bag of burning poop.

I assume Charles is referring to the pre-edited reply?

The one sans lighting?

Yes, but the lighting doesn't make it any better.

I originally hit the Report button before the edit, but it would have made little difference, other then realising that there was now some ambiguity to hide behind

Kryton57 - Member
Duckman just let it slide...

This deserved a wider audience!

wow this thread.
its a group of children at one end of the playground whispering with cupped hands while pointing at somebody else at the other end of the playground while one of the group is poking a turd with a stick.

haven’t you got any work, admin, washing up, bike rides to do?

I wonder if Charlie Mungus has his own theme music as he walks down the street fighting injustice?

What tyres for a poundshop Peter Tatchell?

the context and meaning has been explained

I don't know SR so can only make assumptions based on his posts. He doesn't strike me as bigoted in any way but he also doesn't come across as an idiot so I can only assume he knew what he was posting and knew how it might be inferred, but it was "humour" not malicious.

Not been following every post but SR hasn't popped up to explain AFAIK. If he in fact has then apologies.

Does feel like everyone is piling on CM which is a bit unfair IMO as he has a valid point I think.

Not gonna post again in this thread; crap like this is why I stick to the diet/fitness threads where you never get any arguments. 🙂

Ta

I've got a big heavy box of menswear to get in my car.

lifting shirts again, Jamie?

I've really got to bag up all of this confectionery ready to send out.

packing fudge again, Jamie?

My dog keeps sniffing people's bottoms.

Bums against the wall when you're around eh, Jamie?

This is the structure of the "joke". The context makes it no better.

I thought you all might like a picture of my lunch.

[img][url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2360/32885710031_ddc3050857_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2360/32885710031_ddc3050857_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/S6ZRSx ]Untitled[/url]

Needs bacon.

I pitta the fool.
(can't think of any cous cous based punnage 😥 )

Bit in the middle of the bowl does look rather like a poo.

#justsaying

I'm surprised that took 5 minutes.

Hold on, are you saying my lunch is shit? How very dare you!

I'm on my fourth packet of Hob Nobs here. I hope you're all happy making me fat 😥

Bit in the middle of the bowl does look rather like a poo.

Pre-posting?

I'd expect it to be more rectangular otherwise

perchypanther - Member

I'd expect it to be more rectangular otherwise

And who is that you know that delivers rectangular poo?

[quote=Drac ]Needs bacon.

or maybe sausage

FWIW having thought about it long and hard I reckon CM does have a point, fairly well summed up by zilog. Yes it is a reply to Jamie's comment about turds through letter boxes, but clearly there is a deliberate double meaning. Where I'm struggling is seeing the insult in the joke - I get about insidious normalisation of homophobia, but then I agree with TJ that SR isn't and nor do I believe there is any particular problem with that on this forum - if there is then the mods do indeed stamp on it quickly (whether or not it's alight). What's more, I reckon my gay mate (DYSWIDT? - and I don't mean the casual use of "gay" - I'm fairly sure using it in that context is fine) would find it funny, cos he's got a good SOH and doesn't take himself too seriously.

Though it also needs pointing out that I suspect the reason more people aren't supporting CM isn't anything to do with a fear of getting jumped on by other people on the thread - it's because of the somewhat ridiculous way he is handling this.

And who is that you know that delivers rectangular poo?

Altogether now!

[i]Postman Poo!
Postman Poo!
Postman Poo and his black and white gnu! [/i]

Wombats, apparently. (replying to Kryton)

Slowly gaining traction for thread of the year...

[url= http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/why-do-wombats-do-cube-shaped-poo/ ]Wow, every day is a school day...[/url]

CM, I agree with you. "Poo pusher" is an unpleasant playground insult for gay men, and I think it has no place on here. Mods, I think you made the wrong call by letting it go.

+1 from me on this. It's sad that this thread seems to be a debate about whether to have a debate, but for the very few discussing the issue raised, I have a couple of points:

1) Offence. The line seems to be that someone said something that might be construed as offensive, but they didn't mean to offend, so that's okay. Sorry, but that's not how offence works - it's like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. If you said something, and someone is offended by it, then by definition what you said was offensive. End of story.

2) "you're accusing x of being a homophobe" - hmm, no, calling someone out for a thing they've said and labelling them as a whole person, not the same thing at all. That scotroutes, or anyone else, could say something that is offensive, or potentially offensive, is just that. I'm as self-righteous and "professionally offended" as anyone but from time to time I say something that doesn't come out how I wanted it to, or has a different connotation or whatever - if I'm called out I'll apologise and try to learn from it, not just think "I didn't mean offence" and leave it at that.

Take the other example that was quoted on the other thread referring to the previous thread that cited the example of a much earlier thread (sad, isn't it?)- someone using the word "chinky" and then being persuaded that, actually, that's not really okay any more. Without trying to find the original, I would say it would be fine in that debate to say to the poster "that is a racist phrase you have used" without that being equal to saying "X is a racist" - not the same thing, not the same thing at all.

Can this thread just be summarised as a 'Denial of Service Attack' on the will to live of the mods and the majority of forum members?

[quote=hebdencyclist ]This is the structure of the "joke". The context makes it no better.

Though you make an interesting point you presumably weren't intending. I'm guessing that you feel comfortable making continual references to "Jamie" because you know he won't take it the wrong way (he has already popped up a few times expressing his disbelief that this is an issue). It's also apparently OK to state those "jokes" as examples, so actually writing the words isn't an issue? So where exactly is the issue in the context that the target of the original comment doesn't mind and the original joke wasn't intended to be homophobic?

Take the other example that was quoted on the other thread referring to the previous thread that cited the example of a much earlier thread

Ah yes, that... 🙄

[quote=edlong ]If you said something, and someone is offended by it, then by definition what you said was offensive. End of story.

Without commenting at all on this particular issue (as you can see I'm somewhat conflicted on that), then no, that isn't the end of the story at all.

[quote=Stephen Fry ]Well so ****ing what

Where I'm struggling is seeing the insult in the joke

I think you said it yourself:

insidious normalisation of homophobia

I agree that what was written wasn't the most hateful and offensive thing ever said about homosexuals, but that it adds to the sum of "arse against the wall"-type playground spite that gay people still, apparently, are expected to put up with in public discourse.

the somewhat ridiculous way he is handling this.

What? Sticking to his guns and refusing to be silenced by a barrage of obfuscation and ridicule?

I would have given up by now, too, but props to him for standing up for a principle.

it's because of the somewhat ridiculous way he is handling this

i'm not sure what else i could do. I've generall avoided being drawn into the name calling and ridicule, tended only to respond to what appear to be sensible questions and addressed relevant points where they arise. There is a steady frip of folks asking for it to stop, just as there is a steady flow of some folks posting increasingly desperate attempts to get the big laugh. some go for scattergun, but i've also avoided responding to these.

I'm only defending my position, I really can't see what is ridiculous, other than perhaps contine to engage with the debate, but this is no more ridiculous than those who continue to pose or raise issues. Only, there is a certain turnover of those, whilst i must defend my position in turn

Can this thread just be summarised as a 'Denial of Service Attack' on the will to live of the mods and the majority of forum members?

I really don't get this style of complaint, if this affects your will to live, if you are not intersted, don't read it. Simple. If you are interested, then don't complain or mock.

What is the issue you have with a thread you are not being forced to read?

[quote=CharlieMungus ]i'm not sure what else i could do.

e-mail the mods instead of starting a thread?

e-mail the mods instead of starting a thread?

That's pretty much where I started!

"arse against the wall"-type playground spite that gay people still, apparently, are expected to put up with in public discourse.

[i]Really?[/i]

Perhaps I need to get out of my decadent liberal bubble. And I apologise for my ignorance if I'm wrong... but does that really still happen? And not on the Jamaican Ragga scene, but in 2017 Britain? I thought the whole world went gay some time in the early nineties..?

Yes, really. But mostly from middle aged men, The 'Clarksonists' as mentioned earlier

The ones who called for a nice hard brexit?

making continual references to "Jamie" because you know he won't take it the wrong way

*s*****

😆

[img] http://m.imgur.com/fn8jYPv?r [/img]

Is it over now?

edlong - scotroutes was accused of being a homophobe as Charlie insisted he did it deliberatly not inadvertently. This is imnportant

Is it over now?

It was.

[img] [/img]

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Is it over now?
It was.

POSTED 49 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Don't you dare try to come across all coy, you naughty thing.

You love it. You just don't like admitting it.

You love it. You just don't like admitting it.

Ffs, this threads full of accusations.

tjagain - Member

edlong - scotroutes was accused of being a homophobe as Charlie insisted he did it deliberatly not inadvertently.

Has he said he's a homophobe? I'm fairly sure he hasn't. What I believe Charlie is saying, is that "poo pusher" is a gay slur and that Scotroutes was [i]jokingly[/i] inferring that Jamie was gay (For example - if Jamie had said he was going to push a bag of slugs through the letter box, SR wouldn't have come back with a comment about him being a "slug pusher", as the phrase has no meaning).

I don't think anyone is suggesting SR is a homophobe. I'm sure if you read back some of Charlie's and some of the other comments it will all make sense (they've put it much better than me).

As a gay guy that works in the motor trade, I hear all this crap all day - it doesn't really offend me much, it just a saddens me a bit.

slug pusher

[img] [/img]

*reported*

:o)

I agree that what was written wasn't the most hateful and offensive thing ever said about homosexuals, but that it adds to the sum of "arse against the wall"-type playground spite that gay people still, apparently, are expected to put up with in public discourse.

I think to some degree it shows normalisation and context is all

Its not always homophobic or insidious to make the joke it all depends on how and why - it can just be funny or it can be part of the drip drip of homophobia that pervades life- as Hicksy experiences.

For example i hate it when folk say that is gay - I have never ever heard it said in a positive way or where gay meant anything other than shit, crap effeminate, poor , rubbish etc
I challenge it but accept almost no one who does it is actually homophobic

I doubt scots has ever used that phrase and did so only to be funny. IMHO it was.
YMMV

It's a comfort that some folks get it.

And good for you JY for calling out folks who use 'gay' in that sense. 'poo pusher' is not often used in a positive sense either.

Oh shut up.

Take it easy, little fella

scotroutes was accused of being a homophobe

@TJ Apologies if I've missed it then, you might have to point me to it as I don't even know which of several threads to start looking in. What I have read is Charlie calling out a (in his view) homophobic comment and you, in a couple of places I think, asserting that Charlie is accusing SR of being a homophobe. Which is not the same thing.

I think from memory (life really is too short to go back over it again to check) that either you or someone else stretched the logic yet further by asserting that, since SR is not homophobic, the comment in question couldn't be tainted by homophobia either. As though only card-carrying bigots are capable of a misjudged joke.

Yeah, in fact, what I had said was that Scotroutes had used a homophobic term, not that he was homophobic, not even that he was using it homophobically just that the term was homphobic, and that it should not be used here.

I'm not sure why that is a problem, we have lots of words which can be used in humour, depending on your humour, which are banned from the forum in fact users face a ban when they look to subvert the filter and sneak the words in somehow.

I really don't think that this protracted finger pointing is doing any of you any favours.

You say "protracted finger pointing", I say "open and honest debate"

As for protracted, I reckon if you just left in the posts discussing the actual issue, and removed all the rest, we'd be under 2 pages. Obviously, this would be one of the posts culled in that scenario...

This thread is very much like trying to shove shite through a letterbox....

It's getting messy, there are no winners and everybody is left with an unpleasant smell.....

edlong - charlie -

Charlie says scotroutes used a homophobic term deliberately - that is accusing him of being homophobic.

so if it is shown that he did use it deliberately, even in jest, them you would conclude that he was a homophobe?

[quote=edlong ]As for protracted, I reckon if you just left in the posts discussing the actual issue, and removed all the rest, we'd be under 2 pages. Obviously, this would be one of the posts culled in that scenario...

reported 😉

Charlie says

Wait. SR is scotroutes NOT SaxonRider?

I is confused.

Yeah, but who is PP?

[img] [/img]

Yeah, but who is PP?

Peter Poopy?

Peter Poopy Posts a pongy poo in Pontypool?

Keep going CFH, one of them will get the laugh you need.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Peter Poopy Posts a pongy poo in Pontypool?

I was in Pontypool last Turdsday, I shit you not*.

*I actually was in Pontypool last Thursday.

PP- Ploppy, son of Ploppy and Mrs Ploppy

Good grief....I just wandered in and found this thread, thinking wow seven pages, it must get good in a minute!

It didn't! 🙁

It just gets worse. How is that even possible? Threads usually just sink when they get boring. This one's like a floater that just won't flush.

I think one of the reasons is that some folks just post irrelevant things, sometimes about the thread itself rather than the matter under discussion. As said above, I'm sure if you took all the distractors out, it would be a much shorter thread.

Perhaps if those who wanted to discuss how long this thread is, we're to start their own thread, it might make this one more concise