You win, bear.
Is her's somehow the definitive opinion on whether something is patronising and/or sexist? And should I base my opinion on whether something is patronising and/or sexist based on what someone else thinks? I didn't say that the Women's Football Team should find it patronising and sexist, I just said that I did. If she, or anyone on this forum disagrees with me, they're entitled to their opinion. It doesn't change mine.
I'm not even sure what the fuck that's supposed to mean. Given that I think it's sexist because I doubt they'd have tweeted something similar about the men, despite what the guy who tweeted it said, I'm just going to assume you're confused.If you think the tweet was sexist, it probably says more about your views on women
Lazy is not a race. Feel free to call him a lazy bastard, if you want.If someone made a racist comment about Glenn Johnson and he then said he was ok with it, does that mean it's not racist?
Lazy is not a race. Feel free to call him a lazy bastard, if you want.
Quite a lot of women didn't want the vote and campaigned against it. You're on very shaky ground once you start to treat assertions from one so-called representative as proof in itself that it's all right. So personally I don't take the player's comment that it's fine as that interesting. She knows about football and not much else.
He had an eating disorder!? I feel terrible for slagging him off now.I can't believe you mentioned sickle cell anaemia.
A specific group of women that the FA are presenting as role models to increase participation in the sport.For once I disagree. If the tweet had been or claimed to be about women in general that might have been a different matter. As it is, the tweet was about a specific group of women. Given the comments of members of that particular group, anyone who still insists on treating it as offensive is setting himself or herself up as someone who knows better than those specific individuals whether or not they "ought" to be OK with it.
For once I disagree. If the tweet had been or claimed to be about women in general that might have been a different matter. As it is, the tweet was about a specific group of women. Given the comments of members of that particular group, anyone who still insists on treating it as offensive is setting himself or herself up as someone who knows better than those specific individuals whether or not they "ought" to be OK with it.
The longer I live the more I realize that someone will have a problem with something somebody else says, no matter how innocuous.
Free speech isn't really free is it. The least messy arbiter, it seems to me, is intent. The tweet's intent wasn't sexist.
Self-righteousness is the thing that really needs opprobrium.
I think you're on dodgy ground with that though.
People often say something offensive without actually intending to be offensive, but that doesn't mean it's okay. The person on the receiving end will still have to put up with the same shit, but they should be expected to suck it up, simply so the other person doesn't feel guilty about it?
People are casually sexist/racist/gayist/anythingist all the time without intending to be, that's more a reflection on society than them as an individual
i dont give a shit....ill call a spade a spade.
Racist cunt.
I call it a fucking shovel.i dont give a shit....ill call a spade a spade.
the whole marxist pc brigade can go to fuck. if you are offended by a noise i make or text i type then the issue lies with you and your conditioning.
How do you use a shovel for that?I call it a fucking shovel.
It's the punchline from an old joke about nuns in a convent.How do you use a shovel for that?
I thought that was "Wears the soap".It's the punchline from an old joke about nuns in a convent.
This joke involves builders and their colourful language.Yeah, that one.
Bollocksed it up a bit there. Soz.