Thread: Wayne Simmonds (alledgedly) calls Sean Avery an anti-gay slur (article)

I said it years ago but will say it again......once we start empowering words and the use thereof in conjunction with people who can somehow benefit from the use of that word in some way shape or form will only lead to more people with thinner skins being more offended more frequently. What ever happened to Sticks and Stones? Especially in the world of hockey where name calling could very well result in someone getting their ass kicked?

Originally Posted by Hipcheck

I said it years ago but will say it again......once we start empowering words and the use thereof in conjunction with people who can somehow benefit from the use of that word in some way shape or form will only lead to more people with thinner skins being more offended. What ever happened to Sticks and Stones? Especially in the world of hockey where name calling could very well result in someone getting their ass kicked?

I agree that words are only as hurtful as you let them be, but shouldn't we put all slurs in the same category? Why are some inherently worse than others? I mean, can you really tell me that calling a black guy a n***** is any worse than calling a Jew a k*** or an chinese guy a c**** or a gay man a ***? Hold them all to the same standard is ALL we're saying.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

I agree that words are only as hurtful as you let them be, but shouldn't we put all slurs in the same category? Why are some inherently worse than others? I mean, can you really tell me that calling a black guy a n***** is any worse than calling a Jew a k*** or an chinese guy a c**** or a gay man a ***? Hold them all to the same standard is ALL we're saying.

Two things...

A) whats said on the ice is far different then whats said at Mcdonalds or on the street. Outside the rink I agree to some extent.

B) its not 1940 anymore. If I go out in public and use a slur its my image thats harmed....not the person Im slurring. If I am on TV and get caught using the N Word-no one is going to look down on the person Im slandering but they sure as hell are going to think less of me and my judgement. Whats more likely-I call someone a slur and people start chanting in union "you were called the n word you were called the N word" like 4th graders at the handball court or the people who witness my transgression publicly shun me and stop doing business with me? there is no additional punishment needed as the punishment itself is forever being branded and known as the guy that is a bigot & homophobe.

Originally Posted by Hipcheck

Two things...

A) whats said on the ice is far different then whats said at Mcdonalds or on the street. Outside the rink I agree to some extent.
B) its not 1940 anymore. If I go out in public and use a slur its my image thats harmed....not the person Im slurring. If I am on TV and get caught using the N Word-no one is going to look down on the person Im slandering but they sure as hell are going to think less of me and my judgement. Whats more likely-I call someone a slur and people start chanting in union "you were called the n word you were called the N word" like 4th graders at the handball court or the people who witness my transgression publicly shun me and stop doing business with me? there is no additional punishment needed as the punishment itself is forever being branded the guy thats a bigot homophobe.

Change that to you calling a gay guy a ***. Do you think anyone bats an eye? Whether you or anyone else wants to admit it, there's an acceptance in degrading homosexuals still. It's NOT ok.

In relation to your last point, is there anyone in here calling for Simmonds to be suspended for any amount of time? Fined? Flogged at Center Ice? No. We're just all in disbelief that some people think it's no big deal. . .but would snap if someone called Simmonds a n*****.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

In relation to your last point, is there anyone in here calling for Simmonds to be suspended for any amount of time? Fined? Flogged at Center Ice? No. We're just all in disbelief that some people think it's no big deal. . .but would snap if someone called Simmonds a n*****.

On this I think we can all agree.

That said-Where does Mother F'er appear on the list? It it below the N word but about the F word or below both? Is there a point scale we can use on what phrases are forbidden and which are acceptable?

Originally Posted by Hipcheck

On this I think we can all agree.

That said-Where does Mother F'er appear on the list? It it below the N word but about the F word or below both? Is there a point scale we can use on what phrases are forbidden and which are acceptable?

As I said previously, do you really want to equate those terms to racial/ethnic/religious slurs?

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

As I said previously, do you really want to equate those terms to racial/ethnic/religious slurs?

Pretty sure most religions are against having sex with your mother

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

You really want to equate those terms to calling someone a f** or a n*****?

You know I'm not, but I'm taking it to this degree to illustrate the fact that anything can offend anybody at any given time. If the issue is that the term he used offends a group of people then shouldn't any group of people be protected?

On another note, the term "homophobe" really bothers me on a number of counts.

1) a phobia is a fear. To suggest that people who oppose the homosexual movement/agenda are fearful of them is not necessarily accurate.
2) the literal interpretation is a person who fears things that are the same
3) This is probably the greatest concern: If one overlooks the previous issue, it must be accepted that the first four letters are an accepted euphemism for gay people. Last I heard, the gay community frowns on that term. Therefore, the term itself is offensive, making anybody who uses it a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by salami

You know I'm not, but I'm taking it to this degree to illustrate the fact that anything can offend anybody at any given time. If the issue is that the term he used offends a group of people then shouldn't any group of people be protected?

On another note, the term "homophobe" really bothers me on a number of counts.

1) a phobia is a fear. To suggest that people who oppose the homosexual movement/agenda are fearful of them is not necessarily accurate.
2) the literal interpretation is a person who fears things that are the same
3) This is probably the greatest concern: If one overlooks the previous issue, it must be accepted that the first four letters are an accepted euphemism for gay people. Last I heard, the gay community frowns on that term. Therefore, the term itself is offensive, making anybody who uses it a hypocrite.

...and there ARE people who get offended over every little thing. Those people should (and most often times are) disregarded. However, I think we can ALL agree, that there are terms that are offensive and we can pick them out of a list if we need to. It's not like it's some secret that calling a gay man a *** is a "bad" thing.

Going to extreme examples doesn't further any point you're trying to make. You either think Simmonds using the term is wrong, or you don't. If you don't, it's because you don't see the harm in calling someone a ***. If that's your opinion, fine. Don't run from it. Just come out and say that you think that. I'm sure you don't feel it would be ok for someone to call Simmonds a n*****, but that just means you have different levels of discrimination. I'm sure that in the 30's, they felt the same way about black guys. Sometimes you're just on the wrong side of history. It doesn't make you a bad person.