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 you have the cheek to (try to) belittle anybody who doesn’t agree with you. “Do you see the irony?”

Stunning! Your reading of all the comments and sides in this thread is that 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

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.

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.

[/url]Untitled

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?

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!

Postman Poo!
Postman Poo!
Postman Poo and his black and white gnu!

Wombats, apparently. (replying to Kryton)

Slowly gaining traction for thread of the year…

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?

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… 🙄

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.

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?

e-mail the mods instead of starting a thread?