| Interesting social dilemma 09:30 - Oct 9 with 2092 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
Personally I am not a fan of the Nsiala song. It plays on a racial stereotype (even if it is intended to be a compliment).
Other teams have sung it and fans have been banned. ITFC have asked fans not to sing it. But the player himself has laughed about it and says he doesn't mind it.
It got me thinking from a moral point of view how society in general can deem something offensive when the person themselves that it is aimed at, has no issue with it.
We have to draw these lines really to govern what is and is not acceptable, which is really weird when you think about it, that people unconnected to it can be offended when the target actually isn't.
Counter that against chants to Steve Evans of 'have you ever seen your d***' Now personally society won't deem making fun of his weight as bad as a racially motivated stereotype, but if Evans was offended by the chant, which is likely given what we know of him, we are in a place in society when a man offended by a chant would be deemed to be less likely to be offended than another man not offended by a chant, that is supposedly deemed worse.
Always found the whole concept of being offended mad given it's subjective after all and that there are laws built around what individuals can claim to be offended by, regardless it seems of the actual content. |  |
| |  |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:32 - Oct 9 with 2072 views | chicoazul |
"we are in a place in society when a man offended by a chant would be deemed to be less likely to be offended than another man not offended by a chant, that is supposedly deemed worse"
What? |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:34 - Oct 9 with 2059 views | LankHenners |
Racism is worse than calling someone a porker, yes.
Like far too many people you’re conflating ‘being offended’ with ‘finding something distasteful’. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:34 - Oct 9 with 2056 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:32 - Oct 9 by chicoazul |
"we are in a place in society when a man offended by a chant would be deemed to be less likely to be offended than another man not offended by a chant, that is supposedly deemed worse"
What? |
What is more offensive? The Nsiala chant or the Evans one?
Pretty sure the club won't be taking action against anyone that chanted at Evans but other clubs have taken action for the exact same chant as Nsiala.
Yet Nsiala has said he finds the chant funny and I am guessing that Evans probably didn't.
So the point is that, assuming Evans found it less than funny, he can be offended by something society seems less offensive than Nsiala was about something society finds more offensive.
But yet we have laws around this very concept. | |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:46 - Oct 9 with 2008 views | footers |
Just because one person *says* they're not offended by something racist doesn't mean it isn't racist.
Hope this helps. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:46 - Oct 9 with 2008 views | GlasgowBlue |
The way I see it is that even if one particular black man isn’t offended by the song, it is offensive to the majority as it plays on a racial stereotype.
It’s like when people say “chalky isn’t offended by my wog jokes and he joins in”. Or I pull the leg of my Jewish mate for being tight with money. Perhaps they go along with it but it’s still repeating racist tropes. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:47 - Oct 9 with 1989 views | Herbivore |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:34 - Oct 9 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
What is more offensive? The Nsiala chant or the Evans one?
Pretty sure the club won't be taking action against anyone that chanted at Evans but other clubs have taken action for the exact same chant as Nsiala.
Yet Nsiala has said he finds the chant funny and I am guessing that Evans probably didn't.
So the point is that, assuming Evans found it less than funny, he can be offended by something society seems less offensive than Nsiala was about something society finds more offensive.
But yet we have laws around this very concept. |
Evans can lose weight. Toto can't do much about being black. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:49 - Oct 9 with 1986 views | footers |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:47 - Oct 9 by Herbivore |
Evans can lose weight. Toto can't do much about being black. |
Michael Jackson did. | |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:56 - Oct 9 with 1958 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:49 - Oct 9 by footers |
Michael Jackson did. |
“Shamone” | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:58 - Oct 9 with 1953 views | footers |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:56 - Oct 9 by GlasgowBlue |
“Shamone” |
He was certainly Bad and Dangerous, but thankfully not Invincible. | |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 10:14 - Oct 9 with 1904 views | slump |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:46 - Oct 9 by GlasgowBlue |
The way I see it is that even if one particular black man isn’t offended by the song, it is offensive to the majority as it plays on a racial stereotype.
It’s like when people say “chalky isn’t offended by my wog jokes and he joins in”. Or I pull the leg of my Jewish mate for being tight with money. Perhaps they go along with it but it’s still repeating racist tropes. |
It's difficult to disagree with the sentiment in this but I think that it relies on "rules" far too much.
Society has not developed for us to not see colour or race and the stereotypes that "we" bandy around are in the main, done in jest.
Personally I think it's about respect. Not alone, but mostly respect. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:23 - Oct 9 with 1823 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:46 - Oct 9 by GlasgowBlue |
The way I see it is that even if one particular black man isn’t offended by the song, it is offensive to the majority as it plays on a racial stereotype.
It’s like when people say “chalky isn’t offended by my wog jokes and he joins in”. Or I pull the leg of my Jewish mate for being tight with money. Perhaps they go along with it but it’s still repeating racist tropes. |
Re your first point, I agree with the sentiment, but of course we don't KNOW that its offensive to the majority. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:25 - Oct 9 with 1809 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
General rule... society deems everything to be offensive. | |
| |
| This Glassers on 11:27 - Oct 9 with 1793 views | Dyland |
| Interesting social dilemma on 09:46 - Oct 9 by GlasgowBlue |
The way I see it is that even if one particular black man isn’t offended by the song, it is offensive to the majority as it plays on a racial stereotype.
It’s like when people say “chalky isn’t offended by my wog jokes and he joins in”. Or I pull the leg of my Jewish mate for being tight with money. Perhaps they go along with it but it’s still repeating racist tropes. |
though the examples are a bit fallacious, cos they are, well, more offensive than saying someone has a big willy. Arguably :)
It's really simple, and completely irrelevant if Toto is offended or not.
And no, I am not personally offended by this song, obviously. Except by how crap and unoriginal it is. |  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:28 - Oct 9 with 1788 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:23 - Oct 9 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Re your first point, I agree with the sentiment, but of course we don't KNOW that its offensive to the majority. |
Which is exactly my point.
Society is deciding that this is offensive (which I happen to agree with as I think it would be deemed offensive to more black people than not, in my own view, somewhat limited in this area) even though the actual black person it is aimed at does not find it offensive.
That's the crux of what I am saying. We collectively can decide what should be offensive to a person who is the direct target of something they didn't take offense at. It's very strange as a concept when you consider everything else.
With crime we have laws which most people agree are sensible, the criminals may disagree, but the victim is never going to argue that the law is stupid for protecting them.
Offensive remarks seem to sit alone in this respect, which is why I always find it very interesting that we (presumably largely made of white, middle aged males) can determine what Toto Nsiala should be offended by. | |
| |
| This Glassers on 11:31 - Oct 9 with 1769 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
| This Glassers on 11:27 - Oct 9 by Dyland |
though the examples are a bit fallacious, cos they are, well, more offensive than saying someone has a big willy. Arguably :)
It's really simple, and completely irrelevant if Toto is offended or not.
And no, I am not personally offended by this song, obviously. Except by how crap and unoriginal it is. |
That's what I find interesting.
You (someone the chant has nothing to do with) saying that it is irrelevant if Toto (the subject of the chant) is offended or not.
I'm not saying I agree with the chant. I think it's terrible. But my entire point is how crazy this aspect of life is. That you can decide, based on a collective that it's irrelevant whether the subject of the chant is offended or not.
It's quite mad as a concept and stands alone from anything else in life. | |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:32 - Oct 9 with 1764 views | LankHenners |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:28 - Oct 9 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
Which is exactly my point.
Society is deciding that this is offensive (which I happen to agree with as I think it would be deemed offensive to more black people than not, in my own view, somewhat limited in this area) even though the actual black person it is aimed at does not find it offensive.
That's the crux of what I am saying. We collectively can decide what should be offensive to a person who is the direct target of something they didn't take offense at. It's very strange as a concept when you consider everything else.
With crime we have laws which most people agree are sensible, the criminals may disagree, but the victim is never going to argue that the law is stupid for protecting them.
Offensive remarks seem to sit alone in this respect, which is why I always find it very interesting that we (presumably largely made of white, middle aged males) can determine what Toto Nsiala should be offended by. |
You really don't need to make this more complicated than 'the racist song is bad'. | |
| |
| It isn't crazy or mad at all on 11:34 - Oct 9 with 1755 views | Dyland |
| This Glassers on 11:31 - Oct 9 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
That's what I find interesting.
You (someone the chant has nothing to do with) saying that it is irrelevant if Toto (the subject of the chant) is offended or not.
I'm not saying I agree with the chant. I think it's terrible. But my entire point is how crazy this aspect of life is. That you can decide, based on a collective that it's irrelevant whether the subject of the chant is offended or not.
It's quite mad as a concept and stands alone from anything else in life. |
nft | |
| |
| This Glassers on 11:35 - Oct 9 with 1755 views | footers |
| This Glassers on 11:31 - Oct 9 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
That's what I find interesting.
You (someone the chant has nothing to do with) saying that it is irrelevant if Toto (the subject of the chant) is offended or not.
I'm not saying I agree with the chant. I think it's terrible. But my entire point is how crazy this aspect of life is. That you can decide, based on a collective that it's irrelevant whether the subject of the chant is offended or not.
It's quite mad as a concept and stands alone from anything else in life. |
Can I take a wild guess that you're a straight, white man, probably between the ages of 30 and 50 who lives in a mainly rural environment?
If you match most of these descriptions, I can well see why you'd find the idea 'crazy' as it's something you've likely never experienced. | |
| |
| This Glassers on 11:43 - Oct 9 with 1729 views | Herbivore |
| This Glassers on 11:31 - Oct 9 by WarkTheWarkITFC |
That's what I find interesting.
You (someone the chant has nothing to do with) saying that it is irrelevant if Toto (the subject of the chant) is offended or not.
I'm not saying I agree with the chant. I think it's terrible. But my entire point is how crazy this aspect of life is. That you can decide, based on a collective that it's irrelevant whether the subject of the chant is offended or not.
It's quite mad as a concept and stands alone from anything else in life. |
It's not mad at all, it's quite simple really. I think you're overthinking it. | |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 11:55 - Oct 9 with 1704 views | wkj |
Why have you chosen to start a new post instead of replying to the post this clearly relates to?
Only negative about tonight..... by pelles321 8 Oct 2019 23:53That Toto chant. Are people aware there are similarities between it and the Villa chant which has been widely criticised over the weekend? It has the same final line, which is part of what is being criticised for racial stereotypes.
There were lots of positives about tonight’s game though. Huws was excellent, Dobra looked lively again and glad Keane has got his first of the season.
|  |
| |
| Interesting social dilemma on 12:00 - Oct 9 with 1688 views | Oxford_Blue |
Being criticised for something that you are able to change or control or choose (weight, views, religion) is different to something that you cannot choose - your gender or colour for instance. With one or two exceptions the law recognises this. | | | |
| Interesting social dilemma on 16:08 - Oct 9 with 1538 views | ActionMan |
That's a bit deep.
That's a never ever ending question in that what's truly deemed offensive and in essence thats determined entirely by us as individuals or how we perceive it ourselves.
Would you for example ban TV shows such as South Park or Family Guy who often portray stereotypes in all directions? How far do you go with that? The general rule of thumb in this case the Nsiala song is immature but not based on malice or spite. It's up to your own moral compass whether you deem it to be offensive or not but Nsiala has taken the mature stance and laughed it off which I think is the best approach.
Censorship of any kind is a difficult one because it's all well and good when you are the ones making that decision on what's right or wrong but if the tables get turned those same laws can then apply to what you say/do which they may deem as offensive in their eyes whether they are political or religious and so on and have you banned/arrested or even killed for your views or actions.
In Evans case he quite literally made up stuff about what our manager said or did on the touchline because he didn't win a game of football. He deserves some stick. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
