Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Allsop reports homophobic abuse

13567

Comments

  • @MindlessDrugHoover said:
    Where would people stand on the "There's only two Andy Gorams" chant from back in the 90s? Seemed relatively witty and not particularly maliciously intended back then but with today's greater awareness of mental health issues, particularly in regards to players, would it be tolerated now?

    It shouldn't be tolerated, and I'd call out anyone I heard chanting that kind of thing - for starters, it's just plain insulting - but it wouldn't surprise me to hear it.

  • I recall going to the City Ground and hearing opposition fans singing 'Does your Missis know you're out?' being chanted to Peter Shilton when he had been found in a lay-by with someone not his wife. I laughed then. Actually still quite funny now. Though obviously now I should like to apologise on behalf of 1970s First Division football fans to any betrayed wives offended or errant husbands embarrassed at being shamed publicly in that manner.

  • The Tranmere goalkeeper seemed to appreciate the chant about Sky TV from the Wycombe fans.

  • @MindlessDrugHoover said:
    Where would people stand on the "There's only two Andy Gorams" chant from back in the 90s? Seemed relatively witty and not particularly maliciously intended back then but with today's greater awareness of mental health issues, particularly in regards to players, would it be tolerated now?

    It's funny but would be borderline now, to me it would depend on the "tone" of it, and what the player had said in the media about it.

    Wouldn't be fine to sing that at Billy Kee for example.

  • I don't remember the details of Andy Goram's alleged mental illness (assuming that to be the case). If I was 100% certain he was over it and 100% certain he would find the "two Andy Gorams" line amusing, I would say it was OK, otherwise not.

    Personally @FmG , I would find shouting "murderer", using a real life tragedy for football "banter" far more unacceptable than shouting some homophobic bollocks at Ryan Allsop or for example shouting "you f&king black cnt" at a player rather than just "you fcking" cnt". (To be clear all four are beyond the line for me, we are just talking degrees of unacceptability).

    Others take a different view. Which rather confirms my point to @chairboyscentral . Finding the line now seems harder now than it ever was.

  • Andy Goram is schizoprenic.

  • edited November 2019

    @chairboyscentral said:
    Andy Goram is schizoprenic.

    Schizophrenics can still have a sense or humour (or two)

    Big difference between a the Andy Goram chant and " F off Andy Goram you schizo nut" which I expect is the equivalent of what was directed at Rocky

  • edited November 2019

    And he personally might have found it funny, but mental illness in general isn't something to joke about, and I'm not sure that kind of chanting helps tackle the stigma. Also, I think there's some confusion there between schizophrenia and disasscoative identity disorder/multiple personality disorder. Call me pedantic, but as someone with experience of mental illness - not those ones - I know how important it is to get the facts right.

  • @DevC said:

    Finding the line now seems harder now than it ever was.

    I'm not sure that's true. I think we all know what is offensive now. Even the ones doing it. Sadly, the difference now is that is possibly why they do it.

    I would say calling someone a **** or a b*****d is just a bit sweary (though not pleasant to hear) but throw in a racial epithet or homophobic abuse and it crosses the line.

    Although I now just shout 'Oh get up...' to a 'rolling in agony' player rather than my previous favourite 'Get up you big girl's blouse...' lest it cause offence to big girls or women (or men or people who identify as either ) who favour big blouses.

    Small steps.

  • Can I still get away with "Get up you fairy"?

  • To be fair, it would probably take quite a lot to make a fairy go to ground.

  • @chairboyscentral said:
    And he personally might have found it funny, but mental illness in general isn't something to joke about, and I'm not sure that kind of chanting helps tackle the stigma. Also, I think there's some confusion there between schizophrenia and disasscoative identity disorder/multiple personality disorder. Call me pedantic, but as someone with experience of mental illness - not those ones - I know how important it is to get the facts right.

    Big difference between a joke involving a subject and a joke denigrating a subject.

    Personally, I see the Andy Goram chant as on the topic of mental health, but not poking fun at it. For a topic to be normalised it shouldn't be reserved only for serious debate.

  • @MindlessDrugHoover said:
    Where would people stand on the "There's only two Andy Gorams" chant from back in the 90s? Seemed relatively witty and not particularly maliciously intended back then but with today's greater awareness of mental health issues, particularly in regards to players, would it be tolerated now?

    It's an interesting point. I reckon that back then I would have found it amusing, and I would have joined in. Now I would not.

    I've said before that I've joined in with chants in the past (we're talking about 20 years or so ago) that I now find shameful. And that includes homophobic songs at Brighton away, songs that make light of domestic abuse, that mock mental health issues.

    I completely agree with the need for zero tolerance but I think we also ought to be careful about becoming a bit holier than thou about things we may have been guilty of in the past, whether it be through immaturity, ignorance, lack of education or a general lack of awareness in society as a whole.

  • @Username said:

    @chairboyscentral said:
    And he personally might have found it funny, but mental illness in general isn't something to joke about, and I'm not sure that kind of chanting helps tackle the stigma. Also, I think there's some confusion there between schizophrenia and disasscoative identity disorder/multiple personality disorder. Call me pedantic, but as someone with experience of mental illness - not those ones - I know how important it is to get the facts right.

    Big difference between a joke involving a subject and a joke denigrating a subject.

    Personally, I see the Andy Goram chant as on the topic of mental health, but not poking fun at it. For a topic to be normalised it shouldn't be reserved only for serious debate.

    Interesting point, but agree to disagree on this one.

  • Give it a few years and calling someone fat, not necessarily even in an abusive tone will be classed as a hate crime.

  • Annoyingly I find much to agree with in both @Username and @eric_plant posts.

    The line is blurred. One of the UKs great attributes is the ability to laugh at ourselves and it would be a great shame to lose that in an surge of political correctness. On the other hand no one should feel genuinely bullied or intimidated for fun by a crowd abusing their sexuality, race, mental illness etc etc nor in McCormick's case his past or the family seeing a crowd make light of their personal tragedy.

    I agree with Eric, the line has undoubtedly moved from a few years ago, and in general I think that is a good thing. At times though, when say a politician/celebrity is hounded for a clearly intended humorous remark twenty years ago, I wonder if we are going too far. So in truth I don't quite know where the line now is or whether the line as it now is is drawn in the right place.

  • @Malone said:
    Give it a few years and calling someone fat, not necessarily even in an abusive tone will be classed as a hate crime.

    That's the problem, where to stop. I think almost everyone accepts that sexism racism and homophobia are rightly the other side of the "line", but what else?

  • @Username said:

    @Malone said:
    Give it a few years and calling someone fat, not necessarily even in an abusive tone will be classed as a hate crime.

    That's the problem, where to stop. I think almost everyone accepts that sexism racism and homophobia are rightly the other side of the "line", but what else?

    Right now, I think the only "safe" words of insult are just straight swears.

    (and im actually nervous about my use of the word straight in front of swears there in case someone says something!)

  • @Username said:

    @Malone said:
    Give it a few years and calling someone fat, not necessarily even in an abusive tone will be classed as a hate crime.

    That's the problem, where to stop. I think almost everyone accepts that sexism racism and homophobia are rightly the other side of the "line", but what else?

    Intent is a huge part as well as decent attempts to avoid using words that have over time become used in disgusting ways so often so as to be bywords . It will evolve as speech does, don't be fooled into thinking that means everyone is out to get you and that it's as bad as the discrimination, it isn't and we're all (mostly) a bit better than that.

  • edited November 2019

    Isn't it also a question then @Username of what exactly constitutes sexism, racism and homophobia and is all such behaviour across the line or only such behaviour intended or reasonably likely to cause genuine offence or distress.

    Isn't there also a danger that we vilify relatively harmless examples of things that fall safely into an "ism" but tolerate highly offensive comments that don't.

    Obviously we don't know what was said to Allsopp but as an example I would argue that a fan shouting "you fucking poof" to Allsop should be less socially unacceptable than shouting "you fucking murderer" to McCormick but as the former is an "ism", the latter not I suspect society would see it the other way around.

    On the whole though, a sensible rule for all would be "am I sure this comment is funny and will not cause genuine offence or distress to anyone". If the answer is yes, say it. if the answer is no or not sure, keep quiet.

  • @Malone said:
    Give it a few years and calling someone fat, not necessarily even in an abusive tone will be classed as a hate crime.

    As I understand it NHS staff are already not allowed to refer to people as fat or obese any more even if they are fat and obese and it takes two or three tiny nurses to shift them lest it cause offence. Bariatric is the word. Bariatric beds. Bariatric wheelchairs. Bariatric ambulances. But they are not fat...unless they reclaim it for a BBC programme telling people not to be ashamed of being fat.

  • The point is that it moves as time moves on

    25 years ago making jokes about sexuality was commonplace and barely commented on. Hence you get football fans singing "Brighton's full of homosexuals" as though that is somehow an insult and barely anyone bats an eyelid.

    If we got Brighton in the cup and Wycombe fans started singing that (I don't think they would btw) people would be rightly appalled.

    Society changes with regards to such things and it's generally for the better. It's shameful to think how hearing that chant would have made someone who was struggling to come to terms with their sexuality feel.

    It's not just chanting either. Go back to the 80s and 90s and you'd have heard fans calling players poofs and suchlike. Go further back still and racist language would have been not uncommon.

    It's always tempting to feel that things aren't as good as they were when we were younger, and in many cases such feelings are justified. But we should never confuse those with a misplaced nostalgia for a tolerance of, essentially, bigotry which can often creep in when people are bemoaning "political correctness".

    Political correctness is essentially not acting or speaking in a way that is prejudiced against someone because of their race, colour, age, nationality, sexuality, gender....the list goes on. And it's a good thing.

  • Reasonable comments. Fully agree that the intent is important, one of the biggest annoyances is the tendancy of some on the left to jump on any mis use of language or picture and crucify that person even if the intent was clearly non racist (and even with an accompanying apology). Often those misdemeanours then get more attention than genuine racists/ sexists etc who are just more considered with their use of language, but their intent is clear.

  • A decent example of people willingly seeing a "hot topic" and claiming offense despite the obvious "good intentions".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/russell-howard-shamed-angry-mum-20867594

  • @Username said:
    A decent example of people willingly seeing a "hot topic" and claiming offense despite the obvious "good intentions".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/russell-howard-shamed-angry-mum-20867594

    Rather astonishing people would think the disabled girl is the butt of that joke.

  • @eric_plant A good point. Times do change and I think as with yourself most supporters acknowledge that it's a good thing.

    One thing I have found peculiar and a little annoying is the re-introduction of words that were seemingly offensive back in to the mainstream.

    For example, I have always been aware of the word 'Queer' being a less than endearing way of describing someone who is gay.

    Now, it seems that is a common phrase and it has been reclaimed in an official capacity by the Gay community.

    I still wouldn't use it in general conversation as I have never have, but I can see why that 'grey' area is even more grey when this happens.

  • I don't like Russell Howard's schtick in general but I know his wife is a doctor and he is very. very pro-NHS and so on. It's obvious he is mocking the designers/council for accessibility issues from that clip. The problem is people are triggered by 'a thing' and get a reporter and a photographer round in the the blink of an eye and the press is there like a dog on heat. Clickbait. What people fail to do is look at the person's usual output and think I think that's a load of old cobblers. (Apologies if his usual output is racist and anti-disabled people...as I said...I don't watch.)

  • @Wheresthechips said:
    @eric_plant A good point. Times do change and I think as with yourself most supporters acknowledge that it's a good thing.

    One thing I have found peculiar and a little annoying is the re-introduction of words that were seemingly offensive back in to the mainstream.

    For example, I have always been aware of the word 'Queer' being a less than endearing way of describing someone who is gay.

    Now, it seems that is a common phrase and it has been reclaimed in an official capacity by the Gay community.

    I still wouldn't use it in general conversation as I have never have, but I can see why that 'grey' area is even more grey when this happens.

    I think queer always did have the meaning that the lgbt community use now (which I believe means not fitting into a traditional "bracket" of sexuality) and it was just commandeered as a generic insult. Could be wrong but that's my understanding.

  • @eric_plant agree completely. Political correctness has more going for it than not. @Wheresthechips I think like the N word the gay community have 'reclaimed' it to use freely among themselves...but obviously someone else using it is problematic from a historic point of view.

Sign In or Register to comment.