LGBT+ Discussion

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think it's a fair point about levels of representation for a fan board. I haven't looked in great detail but after a browse it does appear to not be the most representative cross section of the fan base. I think it's true to say that in recent years initiatives like this attract certain types of people on average who are into identity politics and some people would prefer to keep that element out of football where possible. 

Taking the piss out of the way people look is a bit below the belt for me personally but I'm not sure in what way it's homophobic. The comment about safe spaces and the one about appointing spmepne who ticks a lot of boxes is meant to be humorous clearly. It's a fact that we engage in a lot of this performative identity stuff just like every other club does. Some people love it but others would really rather it wasn't in football at all.

It wasn't the Rainbow saints want one. Isn't representing supporters that what fans group are meant to do?

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/20249225.rainbow-saints-sees-huge-growth-lgbtq-supporters/

Set up last year, Rainbow Saints aims to create a safe space within football for LGBTQIA+ people and allies to talk about all things football, Southampton, and positive change.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Nincompoop?

No call for that.

Mods!

🙂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 hours ago, pingpong said:

I guess it comes down to whether we want to have threads that LGBT allies shouldn't come into because there is homophobic content in them, or whether we want that stuff removed.  

I've made a couple of reports on here for the really horrific stuff, one of which was dead body pictures on the terrorist attack thread, and the moderators added a trigger warning to the thread title.

Maybe we should do the same one for this one, (may contain homophobic and/or transphobic views), or move it to the Muppet board. A lot of people don't want to see "banter" that pokes fun at LGBT people, or homophobic jokes about our own fan representatives, on a site supposedly for all saints fans.

 

I'd not want to read homophobic/ transphobic comments on a board either. 

I should point out that my first reaction to one of the posts @SW11_Saint mentioned was disappointed surprise. A moment later, I realised that it was because I'd not grasped the point of it, which was about the representation on the FAB.

This can be a challenging thread. In that it challenges views on our culture. Particularly with the T in LGBT, we've seen massive debates, changes in views, legislation and things like the Cass report, and various legal cases.

All that should be kept in mind as valid areas for discussion, before any labelling/ offence is made/ taken in my view.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think it's a fair point about levels of representation for a fan board. I haven't looked in great detail but after a browse it does appear to not be the most representative cross section of the fan base. I think it's true to say that in recent years initiatives like this attract certain types of people on average who are into identity politics and some people would prefer to keep that element out of football where possible. 

Taking the piss out of the way people look is a bit below the belt for me personally but I'm not sure in what way it's homophobic. The comment about safe spaces and the one about appointing spmepne who ticks a lot of boxes is meant to be humorous clearly. It's a fact that we engage in a lot of this performative identity stuff just like every other club does. Some people love it but others would really rather it wasn't in football at all.

Lots of good points Hypo.

I'm not sure how current it is, but more about the FAB here.

https://www.southamptonfc.com/en/news/article/learn-more-about-your-fan-advisory-board

I'm picking out:-

We currently have 16 active and committed members who represent a broad cross section of our fanbase covering age, gender, Season and non-Season Ticket Holders and both Men’s and Women’s team fans - members sit in all different areas of the ground so you’ll likely have seen them about.

And that they were originally selected through a supporter vote.

So, no mandate for having to have the voices from only specific groups on there, whether identity politics led or any other politics.

I'd want all voices and feedback heard. And I don't know that that's not currently the case regardless of who is currently on the FAB.

The box ticking post was a good reminder of how cynically put together such things can be.

I've no problem with the usual banter against the group itself. I would have for any personal shots. The people on there could be any of us, or our friends and family.

[whelk]

I have encountered a number of representative/steering groups in the workplace. Whilst well intentioned you always have to work out who the stupid cunts are who like the sound of their own voice. Also some drips can’t stand by decisions and feel more comfortable if they have focus group support. 
 

Problem in many organisations is extroverts drown out the introverts but mostly the quieter people are the ones you need to listen to

[SW11_Saint]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Things are bad… we’ve hit the ‘memezone’ as a form of defence. 

[Turkish]

Just now, SW11_Saint said:

Things are bad… we’ve hit the ‘memezone’ as a form of defence. 

Defence for what?

 

[SW11_Saint]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Yes you can absolutely do that. So who has used a similar expression on this thread?

No one, I was making an illustrative point - and a blatant one to avoid confusion. 

[Turkish]

Just now, SW11_Saint said:

No one, I was making an illustrative point - and a blatant one to avoid confusion. 

but it was flawed. 

[SW11_Saint]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

but it was flawed. 

I don’t think it was. The ‘Fry meme’ (which I suspect is taken out of context, if indeed it’s legit) appears to be saying that people can come out with any old crap, but it’s futile for those who find it offensive to say so. I think that’s nonsense. I used a heavy-handed example to illustrate my point. 

[SW11_Saint]

16 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Defence for what?

 

I think only you can answer that one. 

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

I don’t think it was. The ‘Fry meme’ (which I suspect is taken out of context, if indeed it’s legit) appears to be saying that people can come out with any old crap, but it’s futile for those who find it offensive to say so. I think that’s nonsense. I used a heavy-handed example to illustrate my point. 

I didn't post the Fry one so no idea why you're aiming that comment at me.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, SW11_Saint said:

I don’t think it was. The ‘Fry meme’ (which I suspect is taken out of context, if indeed it’s legit) appears to be saying that people can come out with any old crap, but it’s futile for those who find it offensive to say so. I think that’s nonsense. I used a heavy-handed example to illustrate my point. 

I don't think you're going to find many or even any on here that doesn't agree that liberal use of the N word is offensive. The examples you used earlier were rather more difficult to find offense in though- hence my earlier post. Fry's point was that simply being offended by something doesn't strip the original comment of any purpose or somehow make it wrong. Use of the N word is wrong in almost all circumstances, not because you might personally be offended by it but due to its racist history and because of its use in appalling acts of racist abuse. I don't believe that applies to the posts you highlighted earlier.  

[SW11_Saint]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I didn't post the Fry one so no idea why you're aiming that comment at me.

I wasn’t aiming anything at anyone… I was simply responding to your point about my perspective (re. the Fry meme) being ‘flawed’. 

[SW11_Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think you're going to find many or even any on here that doesn't agree that liberal use of the N word is offensive. The examples you used earlier were rather more difficult to find offense in though- hence my earlier post. Fry's point was that simply being offended by something doesn't strip the original comment of any purpose or somehow make it wrong. Use of the N word is wrong in almost all circumstances, not because you might personally be offended by it but due to its racist history and because of its use in appalling acts of racist abuse. I don't believe that applies to the posts you highlighted earlier.  

I really was just using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in that example (and purposely doing so, to detach it from the other conversations - it was simply a counter to the Fry meme, nothing else). 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

I really was just using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in that example (and purposely doing so, to detach it from the other conversations - it was simply a counter to the Fry meme, nothing else). 

You quoted my meme, saying things are bad when quoting memes, then reference the Fry one, which was nothing to do with me. You're not really making any sense.

[SW11_Saint]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You quoted my meme, saying things are bad when quoting memes, then reference the Fry one, which was nothing to do with me. You're not really making any sense.

Crossed wires. No disrespect, I didn’t really bother reading your memes. I assumed your ‘flawed’ comment related to the Fry meme, thus my response…