*** OMT - Tottenham Hotspur v Chelscum ***

[Lilbaz]

No, not because it's offensive.

Because in addition to being offensive it's a homophobic term.

If we can't insult and offend Chelsea fans without using homophobic slurs it's not only on the pitch we lack creativity.

It's really not that difficult to insult and offend people without using bigoted language.

It's not up to us to decide if it is homophobic though. That will be the courts decision. For that they would require context. Rent boy is in the dictionary and simply describes a young male prostitute. Context would be required. Tottenham fans were deemed not to be antisemetic for chanting yid army.

Would be interesting to see the court case though. The prosecution trying to prove that chelsea fans are young male prostitutes.

 

[braineclipse]

Interesting debate, but it’s pointless looking too deep into it. At the end of the day, in todays woke society if there is a whiff of something being offensive to a section of people you get cancelled so inevitably this kind of chant is going to disappear, in football stadiums at least….

Disagree. People continue to say all kinds of offensive things.

Some get some consequences for that, most don't, some of those that do get consequences get a huge positive response from people seemingly of the opinion that freedom of speech is the same as freedom of consequences for that speech.

 

[braineclipse]

It's not up to us to decide if it is homophobic though. That will be the courts decision. For that they would require context. Rent boy is in the dictionary and simply describes a young male prostitute. Context would be required. Tottenham fans were deemed not to be antisemetic for chanting yid army.

Would be interesting to see the court case though. The prosecution trying to prove that chelsea fans are young male prostitutes.

Or we listen to people and adjust in a small way so we don't further disenfranchise people in a minority group.

 

[glasgowspur]

I am happy to defer to Proud Lilywhites on this and let them advise on what is and isn't homophobic. It's a disgusting chant and needs to be binned.

I suspect this is a culture clash between generations: as an old fart I think our gay fans are being over-sensitive. Football is becoming more and more sanitised, and if it carries on people will object to swearing at games (the referee's a so and so) on the basis that swear words are out of place at a family event. I'm with Gutter Boy on this one ...calling Chelsea fans rent boys isn't homophobic in my book, and certainly doesn't "victimise young gay men". This is football....once you start requiring crowds to adopt woke standards in the chants to their tribal rivals, you take the passion out. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones..?"
Of course I'm out of step with the modern world, but how long before the club starts encouraging fans to report bad language, 10 years, 20?

I suspect that you and I are of a similar generation, and i lament a lot of what we are losing when it comes to humour and its complexities, and how easy it is to shout someone down with spurious accusations of Bigotry.
But society is a lot more mixed than in my youth, and I don't mean diversity. My dad didn't take me to matches, i went with my mates, so when a mum and dad are taking the kids to a match i can understand them not wanting to be in an environment of lots of bad language.
Not totally happy with it, but i can understand it.

Edited for terrible spelling

 

[Finney Is Back]

Not sure. In the current climate of political extremism, doing things like that by diktat is just playing into the hands of the culture warriors. Dialogue would be much more preferable, especially when interpretation of the phrase clearly varies quite considerably

Do yes, absolutely, use this to open a conversation about could it be interpreted as homophobic. But we all know that bluntly ordering it's banning is just going to see the term weaponised and its use increase by the pond life, basically stirring homophobia where there was none (see taking the knee serving to increase racist incidents)

I don’t get that?…. A ban on a chant that is at best juvenile and at worst homophobic isn’t going to see its use increase, it will actually see it decrease to the point where it would eventually only be used by real homophobes.

Same with taking the knee…. If that has increased racist incidents then all it has done is help make racists reveal themselves for who they really are.

Personally, I think it is great when bigots feel they have to reveal themselves.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I am happy to defer to Proud Lilywhites on this and let them advise on what is and isn't homophobic. It's a disgusting chant and needs to be binned.

I suspect this is a culture clash between generations: as an old fart I think our gay fans are being over-sensitive. Football is becoming more and more sanitised, and if it carries on people will object to swearing at games (the referee's a so and so) on the basis that swear words are out of place at a family event. I'm with Gutter Boy on this one ...calling Chelsea fans rent boys isn't homophobic in my book, and certainly doesn't "victimise young gay men". This is football....once you start requiring crowds to adopt woke standards in the chants to their tribal rivals, you take the passion out. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones..?"
Of course I'm out of step with the modern world, but how long before the club starts encouraging fans to report bad language, 10 years, 20?

I'm not particularly being reactionary about it. My view is just that it needs nuance. Rent boy isn't a homophobic term, apart from to individuals who associate all male sex workers as being homosexual, which really isn't the case.

It should be an opportunity to educate people about where the line is, and why things fall either side of that line.

An example of nuance:
- Calling New Zealanders 'Kiwis' - acceptable
- Calling Islanders in New Zealand 'Coconuts' - absolutely not acceptable
Both are just fruits, but you need nuance and context

Using that nuance, I would in contrast come down very hard on any chanting against Brighton that has a sexuality angle

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don’t get that?…. A ban on a chant that is at best juvenile and at worst homophobic isn’t going to see its use increase, it will actually see it decrease to the point where it would eventually only be used by real homophobes.

Same with taking the knee…. If that has increased racist incidents then all it has done is help make racists reveal themselves for who they really are.

Personally, I think it is great when bigots feel they have to reveal themselves.

It's because it's stirring up tension where there was none to begin with. Racism in British football had largely disappeared until a few years ago, but when people see over-zealously, it tends to motivate them to push back. I'm sure most people who boo the knee now were appalled by what happens to our black players in games in eastern europe, but now the conflict about it has served to radicalise them onto the other side.

 

[braineclipse]

It's because it's stirring up tension where there was none to begin with. Racism in British football had largely disappeared until a few years ago, but when people see over-zealously, it tends to motivate them to push back. I'm sure most people who boo the knee now were appalled by what happens to our black players in games in eastern europe, but now the conflict about it has served to radicalise them onto the other side.

If it takes this little to "radicalise" someone to the point of booing players taking the knee against racism then racism hadn't largely disappeared imo.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If it takes this little to "radicalise" someone to the point of booing players taking the knee against racism then racism hadn't largely disappeared imo.

It's because it was weaponised by the American right as being anti-white, and that got imported here.

Most older working/lower-middle class people now randomly hate the BBC, when 10 years ago it would have been kindly 'auntie', because of a similar weaponisation.

Propaganda is really powerful.

 

[Bishop]

It's because it's stirring up tension where there was none to begin with. Racism in British football had largely disappeared until a few years ago, but when people see over-zealously, it tends to motivate them to push back. I'm sure most people who boo the knee now were appalled by what happens to our black players in games in eastern europe, but now the conflict about it has served to radicalise them onto the other side.

They don't like it when it happens to "our boys" abroad because of the tribalism of us Vs them. But when "them" is that lot down the road they are happy to use racist abuse.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I'm not particularly being reactionary about it. My view is just that it needs nuance. Rent boy isn't a homophobic term, apart from to individuals who associate all male sex workers as being homosexual, which really isn't the case.

It should be an opportunity to educate people about where the line is, and why things fall either side of that line.

An example of nuance:
- Calling New Zealanders 'Kiwis' - acceptable
- Calling Islanders in New Zealand 'Coconuts' - absolutely not acceptable
Both are just fruits, but you need nuance and context

Using that nuance, I would in contrast come down very hard on any chanting against Brighton that has a sexuality angle

From a context perspective,(and aside from the footballing scenario under discussion), I don't think I have ever heard the term 'rent boy' used in any context other than that of referring to a young male prostitute with male clientele. Is it ever used otherwise? Of course all male sex workers are not homosexual, but is a male sex worker with female clientele ever referred to as a 'rent boy'? I don't think I have ever heard that.
And of course the context of this chant being sung at Chelsea supporters is very much about being homosexual, or at least that is purported to be its origin. I agree that many people may not know the origins however.
I think Proud Lilywhites are trying to educate when they say "We know most fans don’t sing this with any intent to discriminate, ostracise or demean us but the impact it has shouldn’t be underestimated-it has been used to victimise young gay men for years. Think before you chant, please."

 

[parklane1]

Whatever happened to that saying.

"Sticks and Stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" . Of course things need to change but why do some folks take offense at every thing they hear.

 

[markysimmo]

Whatever happened to that saying.

"Sticks and Stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" . Of course things need to change but why do some folks take offense at every thing they hear.

It's the modern snowflake society, whatever is said people will find offence, imagine what it will be like in 25 years !!

 

[parklane1]

It's the modern snowflake society, whatever is said people will find offence, imagine what it will be like in 25 years !!

Thankfully i will not be alive in 25 years( probably) to see just how sorry for ourselves folks will become. ( it's bad enough now)

 

[Seedy Ron]

Whatever happened to that saying.

"Sticks and Stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" .

I think it went out with the ark?

 

[parklane1]

I think it went out with the ark?

More's the pity.

 

[Finney Is Back]

It's because it's stirring up tension where there was none to begin with. Racism in British football had largely disappeared until a few years ago, but when people see over-zealously, it tends to motivate them to push back. I'm sure most people who boo the knee now were appalled by what happens to our black players in games in eastern europe, but now the conflict about it has served to radicalise them onto the other side.

Why are you sure that most people who boo the knee now were appalled by what happens to our black players in games in Eastern Europe?

 

[Finney Is Back]

It's because it was weaponised by the American right as being anti-white, and that got imported here.

Most older working/lower-middle class people now randomly hate the BBC, when 10 years ago it would have been kindly 'auntie', because of a similar weaponisation.

Propaganda is really powerful.

Do they? From where do you get this ‘fact’?

 

[stratnumberone]

It's because it was weaponised by the American right as being anti-white, and that got imported here.

Most older working/lower-middle class people now randomly hate the BBC, when 10 years ago it would have been kindly 'auntie', because of a similar weaponisation.

Propaganda is really powerful.

And it’s especially powerful in an age where social media allows people to operate 24/7 in an echo chamber that cannot be penetrated by facts or common sense.

 

[Lilbaz]

From a context perspective,(and aside from the footballing scenario under discussion), I don't think I have ever heard the term 'rent boy' used in any context other than that of referring to a young male prostitute with male clientele. Is it ever used otherwise? Of course all male sex workers are not homosexual, but is a male sex worker with female clientele ever referred to as a 'rent boy'? I don't think I have ever heard that.
And of course the context of this chant being sung at Chelsea supporters is very much about being homosexual, or at least that is purported to be its origin. I agree that many people may not know the origins however.
I think Proud Lilywhites are trying to educate when they say "We know most fans don’t sing this with any intent to discriminate, ostracise or demean us but the impact it has shouldn’t be underestimated-it has been used to victimise young gay men for years. Think before you chant, please."

And chelsea fans.