I find it ironic that Manly players object to wearing the pride jersey, yet a former Manly captain was the first NRL player to come out as gay.
And the homophobic islanders who won’t play have no dramas playing in a stadium named after booze and wear a betting shirt. Ah yes good old religion strikes again.
They will also defend a teammate accused of domestic violence, but showing support for those of a different sexual orientaion? Fuck no! can’t be doing that!
For the record, I think this is more of an equality, equity, fairness, safety, and sporting integrity issue than an ~ism in any way shape or form but this is where I’ve been told to post this stuff.
There’s rather a lot in that article. In terms of taking the knee I have wondered whether they need to move on from that. It doesn’t stop offensive language or chanting in the ground and ultimately it is that rather than any particular gesture that needs to stop. Everyone should have the right to go to the match without being subjected to threatening or discriminatory behaviour.
Yeah, this is done now. Point made.
Just saw this on Twitter. I’d heard that threats had been made towards a Labour MP. I didn’t realise that it was a Liverpool one:
It’s an interesting development. The guy who fired the lethal shots and was the main focus of the initial internal investigation is not included in this, and I think 3 of these 4 have already been acquitted or found to have no case to answer with local prosecutors.
Responding in here about the reaction to Sounesses comments over the weekend
True. People who are not excluded by the use of exclusionary language often underestimate the problem with it. By the same token though, as we’ve seen in this situation, people who speak out about it are also often really counter-productive in their attack on it. People rarely do something like out of malice, and far more out of a reflex of leaning on language tropes they have used for years. These are habits that take work to break, and often guidance to know what alternatives are preferable. For something that seems so trivial, it is often not easy. Our company has adopted AI in our internal messaging systems that identifies possible male focused language and gives you alternatives to replace it with before you send the message (consider trying “hi team” instead of “hi guys”) and it’s really amazing how often it pings me, correctly I might add.
What isn’t going to help is calling a 70 year old man a disgrace for not having adapted to a more modern language, especially when he’s otherwise made a valid point. All that ever does is make someone retreat back to their corner and double down on not changing. If we take the specific issue he was addressing I genuinely cannot think of a good alternative for succinctly describing the thing he was trying to express. And that is often part of the problem. If do not know what the alternative stock phrase for the concept he was describing how would he. And where does that leave him? Refusing to make any sort of comment about a valid observation again or doubling down? And so maybe we’d all have been better off if the response was “you made a valid point about the game, but in future please consider describing the type of game as xxx”
Considering the very specific case, I’d say that given the amounts that pundits get paid, maybe it’s time they earned that with actual insight and consideration of their words.
I’d agree with the overall point however.
Absolutely. When you are a paid communicator you are duty bound to have put thought into the words you’re using. It’s why I had so little time for Tyler’s comments the other week and his even worse non-apology apology. I think that is probably where the networks need to step in and provide that training.
To the specific point in question though, what is a better alternative for describing the sort of game he was trying to describing?
Surely this is a case of sexism?
Why shouln`t a man be considered/employed in this role just because he has no direct experience of the subject.
Its a physical game, or its a tough game.
But overall the point is that what he was commenting on was in fact “a mans game”.
Its only an expression and signals the element of physicality involved. Its different to Tylers comment insofar as it is based in truth, at least the truth of that moment.
No reason at all. Scottish government don’t have problems with it. It’s the Mail. A their opinions are worthless bigotry.