Forum menu
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.
I'm a teacher. Playground homophobia is thankfully dying. The kids in my fairly rough-arsed West Yorkshire school rarely use "gay" epithets as terms of abuse. There are even gay students and teachers who are "out".
I think the attitudes that see "poo pusher" as acceptable public discourse only exist now among the middle-aged. Once we're gone, perhaps gay people can enter a public conversation, in person or online, without running the risk of hearing strangers making crude jokes about their [assumed] sex lives. When that day comes, perhaps the rates of depression and suicide among gay people will decrease.
Unfortunately, CM, most people are very conservative by nature and will instinctively wish to preserve the status quo. So when you take a stand, some will try to accuse you of hypocrisy, or of being "PC", or of being unable to take a "joke". Others will try to muddy the waters by altering reality, suggesting that what was said was never said, or that x actually means y. But most will diminish your point by simply jeering from the sidelines.
We had this on a transgender thread a few months back. A simple news story about not referring to TG people by their birth gender attracted exactly the same pattern of responses you've been getting here.
Wow! Thanks! For words of support and putting you head above the parapet
I wish I had just pissed through Cougar's letterbox now 🙁
Wow! Thanks! For words of support and putting you head above the parapet
I did say you had a point, it's just the belaboured way you're going about it.
Of course he has a point but it was not meant in the way Jamie or Scotroutes mentioned, there was no malicious just a choice of words that CM seen as an insult. Best keep to pissing in shoes.
Where are you seeing them?
Well, I guess it comes down to how you pronounce the word 'fail'.
I could be in a minority group here because of my accent, but it comes out in two syllables...
Well, I guess it comes down to how you pronounce the word 'fail'.
Yup, 2 syllables if you is Welsh.
Yep, I realise that makes me racist in the context of [s]this thread [/s]STW.
hebdencyclist - Member
Except...Was the use of it not about pushing a poo through a letterbox and then lighting it?
Oh...and I have no useful contribution to make!
Ha! Mod stealth edit..
Oh...and I have no useful contribution to make!
In this thread, you are amongst friends...
Mods are faster than a speeding bullet today K57!
Of course he has a point but it was not meant in the way Jamie or Scotroutes mentioned, there was no malicious
So if I call you a ****, but with no malicious intent, you will allow it?
just a choice of words that CM seen as an insult.
No,it's a choice of words.which form an unacceptable and insulting term
Best keep to pissing in shoes.
Good idea
Well, I guess it comes down to how you pronounce the word 'fail'.
I could be in a minority group here because of my accent, but it comes out in two syllables...
I think Shakespeare has set a precedent here 😀
LADY MACBETH
[...]And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you
[b]Have done to this.[/b]
MACBETH
[b]If we should fail?[/b]
LADY MACBETH
[b]We fail![/b]
This scene is written in iambic pentameter. That is, there are ten syllables to each line. In this scene, to increase the tension, Shakespeare has Macbeth and Lady Macbeth say a bit of a pentametric line each. In short, the speech in bold (my bold) should add up to ten syllables. If "fail" is pronounced as a single syllable each time, there are ten syllables in total and the metre of the play is preserved. If "fail" is pronounced as two syllables, the metre is disrupted and the speech becomes prose.
Conclusion: By assuming "fail" to be a single-syllable word, whoever wrote that haiku is merely following in the footsteps of The Bard of Stratford 😀
Except...Was the use of it not about pushing a poo through a letterbox and then lighting it?
This would be one of the weasel excuses which HC mentions in his post
Except...
Yes, but don't let facts get in the way of a good crusade.
The fact that the word 'poo' was mentioned, and the fact that gaymen do poo's too means we're all a bunch of over-privileged white homophobic power-racists.
Or something.
duckman - Member
Mods are faster than a speeding bullet today K57!
My posts are as I wrote them, give me some credit FFS... 😉
Edit: Oh yours? I didn't see the original!
Edit: probably NSFW / the OP
Yes, but don't let facts get in the way of a good crusade.
You see the irony of that post, don't you?
I can't be bothered searching the whole of STW for the original post, but I recall it mentioned last night as pushing a poo through the letterbox. Which means you are talking err....poo.
Still; "This would be one of the weasel excuses which HC mentions in his post "
So what you are saying is that suggesting you push a poo through a letterbox and light it is a slur on gay men? Superb! Crack on Charlie.
One last Q; how else do you get a poo through a letterbox?
Duckman just let it slide...
So what you are saying is that suggesting you push a poo through a letterbox and light it is a slur on gay men?
No, no, that's so far from the point. That really takes some doing.
I can't be bothered searching the whole of STW for the original post, but I recall it mentioned last night as pushing a poo through the letterbox. Which means you are talking err....poo.
So, whilst you don't really know what you are talking about, you still want your opinion to be heard?
And... No before you ask. I am not new here
Charlie - you really are making a fool of yourself here and you have got this 100% wrong.
I am usually the first to shout if I see prejudicial posts, pejorative language and sexist / racist / homophobic slurs to the extent I have been shouted down on here for doing so.
The post you mentioned simply wasn't as you missed the context. Taken in isolation scotroutes post looks homophobic but when you see it in the context of Jamies post a few posts earlier its clear it is not.
Tjagain, I appreciate your are trying to be constructive, however, to imagine that Scotroutes used the term "Pushing poo again?" in all innocence and only in reference to posting poo through a letter box is either naive or shows an insensitivity to certain terms of abuse. It was deliberately ambiguous and a cheap way of sneaking in an unacceptable term of abuse for giggles.
I'm sure scotroutes himself would admit that was his intention, if he were honest.
Wrong wrong wrong. Sorry dude - let it go. You are 100% wrong on this. I know scotroutes - he is not homophobic nor does he make homophobic slurs.
I have often been called " professionally offended" and accused of looking for offence. Something I have never done and had never seen before. You here are looking for offence somewhere where it doesn't exist.
Actually, I saw the original post last night quoted, so I do know what I am talking about. Unlike you for 5 pages now. How is the crusade going?
Having seen it and checked again on the closed Mods thread..I still think you are an idiot determined to see a homophobic slur where none exists. Unless you are claiming the post on the now closed Mods thread was not a direct quote?
As for opinions...you started a whole thread to again advance an incorrect reading of a remark made and you have the cheek to (try to) belittle anybody who doesn't agree with you. "Do you see the irony?"
I'm not getting drawn into this again, but I just wanted to reply to Hebdencyclist.
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.
You might not be aware of the original context. As I explained in the previous thread, the comment was in reply to this one:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/donalderm-trump/page/3#post-8297882
Jamie - Member
Other moderators are more quiet about it, seeking to minimise any hassle from other posters.
What hassle?*pushes dog poo through Druidh's letterbox*
Scotroutes' reply is a couple of posts further down.
That's why we - well, why I at least - didn't remove it. As a comment in isolation I'd wholeheartedly agree with CM, but reading it in context it's innocuous IMHO and CM is just looking for an argument.
I am not calling Scotroutes homophobic, merely highlighting that he used homophobic terminology and that I asked for this to be removed. He no doubt saw it as a joke, but that does not make it OK.
Neither am I offended, merely highlighting unacceptable terminology. I am not upset, but that does not mean it is OK.
If you know him, why not ask him what he meant?
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?
Are you including in "context" the fact that SR has form for this as he's done exactly the same thing previously? i.e. a non-malicious (mates/lads banter, etc) but ill-advised "joke" under the cover of plausible deniability due "to context". The poster who compared it earlier to the Clarkson/slope incident was spot on IMO.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.