The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
HangTime said:
The "Headbutt" on Kompany wasn't worthy of a red card IMO. I've seen players get away with that in the past and not get a 3 match ban.
I think when these offences happen that are not carded by the ref they just get assessed and given an arbitrary punishment based on the panel assessment.

My view is a 12 match ban is probably about right, the guy is a complete moron and no doubt next season we'll be hearing about how he should be in the England squad again.
Click to expand...

yes maybe the headbutt was a bit rubbish but it was the cumulative effect of it all

I have heard a few folks saying that he only got so long because he's Joey Barton, so what ? that's how things should work with past behaviour being considered
 
Rotty said:
yes maybe the headbutt was a bit rubbish but it was the cumulative effect of it all

I have heard a few folks saying that he only got so long because he's Joey Barton, so what ? that's how things should work with past behaviour being considered
Click to expand...

The FA should just ban him full stop, he's a thug and he's not fit to play football on such a stage. Simple as that.
 
Moses said:
Why's calling someone a **** worse than mocking someone for being short, out of interest? Where do you draw the line? When they're below the national average? When someone's a midget?

What about if someone's ugly? Is that okay? Is it okay until it's because they were disfigured at birth?

What if someone's disabled? Is that the same level of seriousness as racist words? Or does racist stuff trump all?

If someone's being hateful, why do the specific words matter?

I'm genuinely curious/have just started thinking about it a bit... I'm not trying to excuse it, it's just an academic exercise.
Click to expand...

If we're doing this as an academic exercise, I'll not go in to the etymology of the words, just leave this as a more moral? discussion. It interests me too.

It's purely from a hateful point of view. It's a very individual thing. Insulting people isn't ok.

Racism / Disabled people have been treated historically poorly, to say the least.
 
Rotty said:
yes maybe the headbutt was a bit rubbish but it was the cumulative effect of it all

I have heard a few folks saying that he only got so long because he's Joey Barton, so what ? that's how things should work with past behaviour being considered
Click to expand...

Yes and no, clean slates can be a blessing in disguise for a lot of players and people.

Joey Barton is a repeat offended and got off lightly. His 'excuses' on Twitter, I'd have taken them in to account too with this tbh.
 
Just want to clear something up!

I remember getting a RED Card infraction for saying "****" in this thread

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=20464775#post20464775

"****" was classed as inappropriate language.

I just abbreviated the world Pakistan, so is it allowed or not?

I will call someone from the United Stated of America a Yank or an Australian a Aussie
 
Last edited:
cheets64 said:
Just want to clear something up!

I remember getting a RED Card infraction for saying "****" in this thread

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=20464775#post20464775

"****" was classed as inappropriate language.

I just abbreviated the world Pakistan, so is it allowed or not?

I will call someone from the United Stated of America a Yank or an Australian a Aussie
Click to expand...

'****' is commonly used as a derogatory, racist term and is more often than not used to describe anyone from Asian decent, not just Pakistan which is unlike the terms Aussie and Yank which are unlikely to cause offence.
 
The inconsistency in the FA's actions are summed up by them appealing Rooney's off the ball kick for England. He got given a 3 match ban iirc? The FA deemed that too many games, yet they've given Barton 4 matches for the same on Aguero and another 4 for even less on Kompany

So, what's going on? Is it not as bad if Rooney does it? If somebody does it for England? I don't get it.
 
You want the discuss the etymology of offensive words?

It's an individual response. Different words mean different things, there are certain words that are wide spread and understood to be hugely offensive, such as the 'n' word, or '****' is it not seen as offensive in the middle east too as a 'general' derogatory way of describing people from that ~area.

'n' word, has as far was used to mean 'black' as in skin colour when referring to someone. ('Neger) It's had negative connotations since ~1500's, when it was used to referred to negatively to black people. It could be seen from an almost, sympathetic view that the 'black' people inflicted bad things upon white people. If that makes any sense. It's only recently ~1900 + that it's being used as a neutral or positive word, but that's in regards to within the black community.

I'm not sure what you want to discuss to be honest?

Words can offensive, they mean different things to different ~groups of people. The 'n' has always really had a history certainly in western speaking words as being a derogatory term for African people. Regional dialects / non standard dialects must play a part too, grouped in with how different 'people', 'groups' of people view and react to words.

No, you mis understand me, disabled people have been treated badly in the past due to their actual disability, same with African people because of their skin colour. With in regards to calling someone fat V racial slur, it would be down to the individual? no? If the second word is the 'b' word, is that not a negative term for a child out of wedlock and was a insult on it's own?

Moses, drop me an email via trust. I'm happy to talk about words. Waay off topic.
 
Last edited:
jakeke said:
The inconsistency in the FA's actions are summed up by them appealing Rooney's off the ball kick for England. He got given a 3 match ban iirc? The FA deemed that too many games, yet they've given Barton 4 matches for the same on Aguero and another 4 for even less on Kompany

So, what's going on? Is it not as bad if Rooney does it? If somebody does it for England? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

At worst you could say it's hypocritical of the FA when they appealed but should they bothered about being labelled hypocrites if it means they can successfully reduce the punishment for England's best player? Obviously when it's a case of Rooney wearing the red shirt of Man Utd and he does something wrong then they dont care how long they ban him for but then why would they?
 
Tom84 said:
At worst you could say it's hypocritical of the FA when they appealed but should they bothered about being labelled hypocrites if it means they can successfully reduce the punishment for England's best player? Obviously when it's a case of Rooney wearing the red shirt of Man Utd and he does something wrong then they dont care how long they ban him for but then why would they?
Click to expand...

Just like refs, the main thing they should be concentrating on is consistency, without that they're a sham who pick and choose who to discipline on a whim which is why they are treated as such a joke by pretty much everybody. If you don't consistently apply the rules to everybody there's little point in them being there.
 
jakeke said:
Just like refs, the main thing they should be concentrating on is consistency, without that they're a sham who pick and choose who to discipline on a whim which is why they are treated as such a joke by pretty much everybody. If you don't consistently apply the rules to everybody there's little point in them being there.
Click to expand...

It's not about consistency though is it? Are you saying they shouldn't of appealed to try and get their best player off the hook because they wave away similar appeals themselves? Like I said imo at worst it makes them look like hypocrites but that's it :/
 
Tom84 said:
It's not about consistency though is it? Are you saying they shouldn't of appealed to try and get their best player off the hook because they wave away similar appeals themselves? Like I said imo at worst it makes them look like hypocrites but that's it :/
Click to expand...

Yeah, appealing that set a very poor precedent. You can kick out at a fellow player off the ball and the FA don't think it's that bad and will in fact defend your actions
 
Moses said:
You said it's the history of the words which determines that racist words are especially bad, but why are racist words worse than non-racist abuse? You're putting racist stuff above everything else, in terms of seriousness... but why? Why's it worse to say someone's a black *illegitimate child*, compared to saying terrible things about disabled kids... or short people... or ugly people... etc? Why's a racist comment a special case, when it's the same intensity of hatred?
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. Now I get you. I think?

It's not *just* racist words, words that were designed or have come in to use to purely be insulting are worse no? We were just discussing racist words.

Like, I can describe you as being short and it have no negative connotations. I can't describe you as being an *illegitimate child* and have anything other then a negative connotation?

Is that what you mean?

That's nothing to do with context or tone.
 
Moses said:
Of course you can call be an *illegitimate child* and it not be offensive. The context or tone determines if it's offensive.

And the point is, you're elevating racist abuse above all else. Why? Didn't this all stem from you taking offence to someone comparing racist abuse with abuse about someone's height... saying the racist abuse is a level worse? Why's it the worst crime to say something racist, but not as bad to mock a disability, or ugliness, or height?
Click to expand...

Rotty used a trivial insult such as height or lack of hair (short and bald) to compare to a majority insulting word ('n' word) Yes. I thought that was attempting to down play what is a very offensive word? I think calling someone the 'n' word (specifically a black player) is more offensive then calling him short or bald.

In regards to the first point, maybe. I don't think I've explained myself at all well tonight tbh.
 
Moses said:
Why, if said in the same way? Obviously baldilocks vs YOU N-WORD SCUM... the latter's worse. But what if the bald insult had the same level of vitriol attached to it. Why's an n-word insult worse, even then? Why's it's the word that's the determining factor, rather than the way the words are delivered?
Click to expand...

Ok. Said in the same way. Calling a black player 'n' word is still ~worse~ then calling him sort or bald. I think that was downplaying racist language and objected to it, me and Rotty spoke via email and concluded it. I object to claiming that calling a black player the 'n' word, is the same as calling him short or bald.

Not to mention what's happened on here.
 
Last edited:
RE: Barton. We all know the FA is a joke, but if it had been any other player it would have been the same ban. If Barton's appeal fails can the ban be extended? To say, 12 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom