PDA

View Full Version : tifo too vulgar? supporter group put on probation in San Jose.



Pages : [1] 2

Darlofletch
04-11-2011, 10:06 AM
for saturday's game, did you have the same feeling as i did about the atmosphere, namely "I thought San Jose used to be a bit more lively than this" and "what's that "censored" banner all about?"

Turns out, Ultras 1806 are having a bit of trouble with their FO right now. Here's an explanation that one of them posted on my blog.


We organized a large silent protest last night (http://www.wakingthered.com/2011/4/10/2102294/san-jose-earthquakes-1-1-toronto-fc-not-bad-at-all#)
in protest of the unjust actions and mistreatment of the 1906 Ultras by the San Jose Earthquakes front office. You may have noticed that Buck Shaw sounded like a cathedral. We would appreciate any statement of support from TFC fans. We understand you have had to protest against your front office’s actions in the past and appreciate anything you could do.

(http://www.wakingthered.com/2011/4/10/2102294/san-jose-earthquakes-1-1-toronto-fc-not-bad-at-all#)

and here's their official statement



We are protesting the unjust probation that the Earthquakes front office have imposed on our group as punishment for our Tifo (overhead banner) at the Seattle home game on April 2nd. We will not stand for the front office’s unwarranted attempt at censorship. Three days after the Seattle game, Ultras leaders received an e-mail from the Earthquakes front office notifying us that a Seattle supporter complained about the tifo on Twitter, and that the Earthquakes front office agreed that the tifo was vulgar, a violation of the fan code of conduct, poorly represented the club, and that as a result the Ultras were being punished by being placed on probation.
The tifo at the Seattle game was in no way vulgar or obscene, and in no way violates the fan code of conduct. There was no nudity, no sexual acts, and no profanity. The tifo was merely an irreverent take on Charlie Sheen, something which the Earthquakes front office itself has indulged in (see their youtube video from a few weeks ago). If the tifo was so obscene and such a violation of the code of conduct, why did no Earthquakes staff member ask us to take it down, or complain to us during or after the game? Why did not a single Earthquakes fan complain about the tifo? Why did the front office not say anything to us for three full days? For the Earthquakes front office to now come forward and suggest the tifo was obscene is extremely insulting to the Ultras artists who spent countless hours of their free time making it. Our protest will continue until the unjust probation is lifted.
Sincerely,
1906 ultras leadership


On their website http://www.1906ultras.com/blog/ they show the banner in question, along with a bit of extra context (apparently it's a charlie sheen thing). as well there's details of a seperate tifo they did at the same game to show respect to a seattle supporter that recently died.
http://www.1906ultras.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/img-5771-1.jpg

It's definitely a bit on the risque side, but as they point out, security did nothing to stop them at the time, and it seems like it was one complaint that caused this. maybe they don't have a good relationship with the FO and they were looking for any excuse to try and rein them in.

What do you think, is it a bit too much, or is this just a big overreaction on the FO's part? I don't know if rpb does official statements of support for this sort of thing or not, but figured I'd post it here, get a lot more attention than my blog would.

London
04-11-2011, 10:08 AM
its not vulgar, kinda funny

Red4ever
04-11-2011, 10:11 AM
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that.

DavydMT
04-11-2011, 10:13 AM
from MLS TIFO thread


April 2
San Jose Earthquakes vs Seattle Sounders FC

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc182/san_jose_ultras/a.jpg

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc182/san_jose_ultras/b-1.jpg


Sounders FC Mourns Lost Supporter (http://myseattlesports.com/sounders-fc/sounders-fc-mourns-lost-supporter)

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc182/san_jose_ultras/c.jpg

BFin
04-11-2011, 10:14 AM
I noticed they had their backs to the pitch for a lot of the game, couldn't figure out why.

Thanks for posting.

ryan
04-11-2011, 10:15 AM
San Jose doesn't get enough fans, these lads should walk out on a match and stick it to them.

I can see how that would offend the Sharla Broslovski's of the world, but otherwise is all in good fun.

Carts
04-11-2011, 10:16 AM
Nothing will ever beat the "2 Girls 1 Cup" Columbus banner...

On the surface, totally clean - if you know what it actually about, totally vulgar! lol

Carts...

DavydMT
04-11-2011, 10:17 AM
all i can say to this is

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3394459189_b17923ae4c.jpg

arbogast
04-11-2011, 10:41 AM
for saturday's game, did you have the same feeling as i did about the atmosphere, namely "I thought San Jose used to be a bit more lively than this" and "what's that "censored" banner all about?"

Turns out, Ultras 1806 are having a bit of trouble with their FO right now. Here's an explanation that one of them posted on my blog.

[b]

and here's their official statement


On their website http://www.1906ultras.com/blog/ they show the banner in question, along with a bit of extra context (apparently it's a charlie sheen thing). as well there's details of a seperate tifo they did at the same game to show respect to a seattle supporter that recently died.
http://www.1906ultras.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/img-5771-1.jpg

It's definitely a bit on the risque side, but as they point out, security did nothing to stop them at the time, and it seems like it was one complaint that caused this. maybe they don't have a good relationship with the FO and they were looking for any excuse to try and rein them in.

What do you think, is it a bit too much, or is this just a big overreaction on the FO's part? I don't know if rpb does official statements of support for this sort of thing or not, but figured I'd post it here, get a lot more attention than my blog would.

I find it sexist and offensive. but that's my opinion.

Heathen
04-11-2011, 10:42 AM
talking of edgy tifos, do you think this would be out of order for Vancouver

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6007/southsidersbanner.gif

Pinkie
04-11-2011, 10:43 AM
that tifo was totally misogynistic and completely inappropriate.

VoxPopuliCosmicum
04-11-2011, 10:54 AM
Charlie Sheen is misogynistic and we deserve to have him put out of his misery, but we also deserve to suffer his presence because we seem to care what he says and does. That tifo, however, was undeniably lame, which in the tifo world is a greater crime than misogyny. Well executed, sure, but not at all clever. Just a very lame reference to Sheen that seems to have no contextual relationship to the team, city, league or sport.

MartinUtd
04-11-2011, 10:55 AM
Funny that it took the complaint of a Seattle fan to cause the stir. So apparently the leagues best supporters don't like it when they're on the receiving end.

ilikemusic
04-11-2011, 10:56 AM
I find it sexist and offensive. but that's my opinion.


that tifo was totally misogynistic and completely inappropriate.

Agreed. But thats just my opinion.

MKR
04-11-2011, 10:56 AM
Are they bragging about being at the top of the table 3 games in?

Whoop
04-11-2011, 10:57 AM
It would have been funnier if San Jose was in first or if they won the MLS Cup last year.

Otherwise it is pretty lame.

I mean if they were in 1st or defending champs... then I could forgive it a bit.

Whoop
04-11-2011, 10:58 AM
Are they bragging about being at the top of the table 3 games in?

The first time I saw that, that's what I was thinking. LOL

werewolf
04-11-2011, 11:03 AM
It would make more sense if they had a clear advantage over and Seattle. Anyway, its pushing the line, its more of an innuendo, then blatantly vulgar. If the banner was met with large opposition from San Jose fans who were actually at the game (father of some grade school kids asking questions etc.) then I would understand. But censoring a supporters group based on one complaint from twitter? Only in MLS. That's almost as bush league as Colorado.

TorCanSoc
04-11-2011, 11:05 AM
I can't make out the picture, with the angle shown here. Is it a guy in a SJ jersey in his underwear, about to be blown by two guys kneeling in front of him?

Whoop
04-11-2011, 11:07 AM
It would make more sense if they had a clear advantage over and Seattle. Anyway, its pushing the line, its more of an innuendo, then blatantly vulgar. If the banner was met with large opposition from San Jose fans who were actually at the game (father of some grade school kids asking questions etc.) then I would understand. But censoring a supporters group based on one complaint from twitter? Only in MLS. That's almost as bush league as Colorado.

But on the flipside.

This.

London
04-11-2011, 11:10 AM
Im guessing this wasnt a tifo by the soccer mom supporters group in SJ,

"our biggest issue is Ultras 1806 swear too much"

Darlofletch
04-11-2011, 11:20 AM
I can't make out the picture, with the angle shown here. Is it a guy in a SJ jersey in his underwear, about to be blown by two guys kneeling in front of him?

that's pretty much it yeah, with the two guys representing seattle, who they were playing that day, and the red bulls (cos they knocked them out of the playoffs last year?)

London
04-11-2011, 11:21 AM
^^^^ ??????

they are girls and seattle and LA girls

Pinkie
04-11-2011, 11:28 AM
Im guessing this wasnt a tifo by the soccer mom supporters group in SJ,

"our biggest issue is Ultras 1806 swear too much"

the issue that i personally have with that tifo is that it denigrates women and it glorifies the asshole douche charlie sheen. and to no end whatsoever.

quite literally if rpb did this i would terminate my membership immediately.

Technorgasm
04-11-2011, 11:37 AM
the banner for the fallen fan was pure clas.
not onyl because they knew about it.
but that they took the time to make abanner of regret and respect to their opposition.

well done 1906

(insert 2 girls one cup banner pic)

Pookie
04-11-2011, 11:38 AM
Outside of the debate over censorship, the interesting question is whether "silent" protests really work.

I wore green and sat down for our own protest last year but if empty seats at kickoff and quiet fans really made a difference, MLSE must be quaking in their boots over the last season.

Unsold CCL games and dropping renewal rates probably had more of an impact.

ryan
04-11-2011, 11:40 AM
the issue that i personally have with that tifo is that it denigrates women and it glorifies the asshole douche charlie sheen. and to no end whatsoever.

quite literally if rpb did this i would terminate my membership immediately.

Nice avatar mate.

rocker
04-11-2011, 11:41 AM
What was the penalty? I just skimmed what was posted and all I see is something about "probation" and then the supporters group protested that.

Darlofletch
04-11-2011, 11:47 AM
^^^^ ??????

they are girls and seattle and LA girls

is it LA?
the white and red made me think new york

I guess LA makes a bit more sense as their local(ish) rivals.

nobodybeatsthewiz
04-11-2011, 11:50 AM
the issue that i personally have with that tifo is that it denigrates women and it glorifies the asshole douche charlie sheen. and to no end whatsoever.


while i do agree with you, pinkie, i couldnt help but chuckle at your avatar when reading/typing :);)

TFCRegina
04-11-2011, 11:51 AM
I find it sexist and offensive. but that's my opinion.

But not vulgar.

tfcleeds
04-11-2011, 11:55 AM
Certainly risque, and I can't see such a banner being allowed at BMO.

What is it with the continuing Charlie Sheen fascination? Buck Shaw wasn't the only stadium that had Charlie Sheen banners on the weekend. I mean, I can see him being popular in Columbus, but...

s2cazz
04-11-2011, 11:57 AM
Certainly risque, and I can't see such a banner being allowed at BMO.

What is it with the continuing Charlie Sheen fascination? Buck Shaw wasn't the only stadium that had Charlie Sheen banners on the weekend. I mean, I can see him being popular in Columbus, but...

I don't see how this is Charlie Sheen. Are BJ's exclusive to Charlie? thats what I don't get.

tfcleeds
04-11-2011, 12:00 PM
I don't see how this is Charlie Sheen. Are BJ's exclusive to Charlie? thats what I don't get.

Was referring to the #winning banner just below it.

s2cazz
04-11-2011, 12:01 PM
Was referring to the #winning banner just below it.

Ahh... I must have missed that lol. Thanks

London
04-11-2011, 12:04 PM
the issue that i personally have with that tifo is that it denigrates women and it glorifies the asshole douche charlie sheen. and to no end whatsoever.

quite literally if rpb did this i would terminate my membership immediately.

i actualy think it is in bad taste and i wouldnt push for anything like that in our group, i dont think it is vulgur though

Whoop
04-11-2011, 12:06 PM
To me it just doesn't make sense really.

s2cazz
04-11-2011, 12:08 PM
To me it just doesn't make sense really.

I agree. They obviously were trying to be risqué but really without much point. Its like they focused on trying to offend without thinking too much about the point of the message.

Pinkie
04-11-2011, 12:10 PM
while i do agree with you, pinkie, i couldnt help but chuckle at your avatar when reading/typing :);)

lol i know :)

thats what happens when your bf gets a hold of your rpb account.

nobodybeatsthewiz
04-11-2011, 12:20 PM
lol i know :)

thats what happens when your bf gets a hold of your rpb account.


;) im just ribbing ya, haha

Pinkie
04-11-2011, 12:21 PM
;) im just ribbing ya, haha

lmao totally deserved it!

DavydMT
04-11-2011, 12:23 PM
i'm working on a pinky and the brain 2stick, i hope that will be cool :-)

Oldtimer
04-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Pinkie has a point.

You can support without being misogynistic and classless.

Wull
04-11-2011, 12:48 PM
so I guess a "no more prossies" banner for beckham wouldn't go over well for Wednesday?! (Nick that's prossies, NOT proddies!!)

Jeffro
04-11-2011, 12:56 PM
quite literally if rpb did this i would terminate my membership immediately.

Me too. I think they're embarrassing themselves by protesting about it too. Their goal was clearly 'shock value' or whatever, so why should they be surprised when people are offended? You know, you can get away with more offensive things sometimes if they're witty and clever, this was neither. View from the top? A team currently with one win, sitting 4th in the west, tied with us on 5 points in week 4??? Come on, full of fail all around, other than execution.

Jeffro
04-11-2011, 01:02 PM
But not vulgar.

Vulgar:

A rude term. Crudely indecent. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement. Uncouth. Sometimes offensive, often used with sexual innuendo's.

Azerban
04-11-2011, 01:36 PM
this is no more misogynist than dressing a blow up doll in the opposing teams kit or singing about Posh 'thinking Dichio'

also 'class' is just a word for 'shit i agree with fuck you', y'all can stick your class up your cunts

jloome
04-11-2011, 01:41 PM
Agreed. But thats just my opinion.

Agreed. You should stitch up a flag of some of the female RPBs kicking wondo in his cojones with a golden boot.

jloome
04-11-2011, 01:43 PM
y'all can stick your class up your cunts

The social purpose of "class" or "grace," is to avoid unnecessary conflict over purposeless insults. There is an actual reason for it beyond sounding snooty.

Oldtimer
04-11-2011, 01:58 PM
this is no more misogynist than dressing a blow up doll in the opposing teams kit or singing about Posh 'thinking Dichio'

also 'class' is just a word for 'shit i agree with fuck you', y'all can stick your class up your cunts

I'm not all that surprised, considering that you feel that a player named "Kuntz" is some kind of joke.

Azerban
04-11-2011, 02:14 PM
The social purpose of "class" or "grace," is to avoid unnecessary conflict over purposeless insults.

what is a 'purposeless insult', in the context of a supporters display


I'm not all that surprised, considering that you feel that a player named "Kuntz" is some kind of joke.

i don't get it

jloome
04-11-2011, 02:15 PM
I'm not all that surprised, considering that you feel that a player named "Kuntz" is some kind of joke.

Actually.... I find that funny too. Hey, whattya gonna do? Humans are crude and stupid sometimes. It's usually nothing personal.

Pinkie
04-11-2011, 02:15 PM
this is no more misogynist than dressing a blow up doll in the opposing teams kit or singing about Posh 'thinking Dichio'


yeah that shit is also unnecessary. i have never ever sang that song and for the life of me can't remember the last time anyone's ever expressed a desire to dress up a blow up doll in other teams kits.

i don't understand your comparison. you're saying this is just as bad as these other examples ergo its ok?

jloome
04-11-2011, 02:18 PM
what is a 'purposeless insult', in the context of a supporters display

In this context, it's the fact that two women are on their knees that offends people. It's not about the teams involved. So that would be the insult lacking any purpose; that it came about is the part that is "classless."

Again, I'm not overstating this particular case, just defining why people defer to exclamations that are classy or graceful in the first place. It's not just social class snobbery, it's for a reason.

Azerban
04-11-2011, 02:21 PM
i don't understand your comparison. you're saying this is just as bad as these other examples ergo its ok?

i'm saying that very few things are unnecessary, and these don't come close. it's a taunt. it's supposed to be abrasive, that's literally the entire point.

there has been vastly more disgusting and real displays of misogyny on these very boards than a cartoon banner of a couple of girls near a dude in his underwear.

tfcleeds
04-11-2011, 02:21 PM
yeah that shit is also unnecessary. i have never ever sang that song and for the life of me can't remember the last time anyone's ever expressed a desire to dress up a blow up doll in other teams kits.

i don't understand your comparison. you're saying this is just as bad as these other examples ergo its ok?

With apologies to KD. Couldn't resist:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5420071176_3425df0dd3.jpg

Pinkie
04-11-2011, 02:25 PM
i'm saying that very few things are unnecessary, and these don't come close. it's a taunt. it's supposed to be abrasive, that's literally the entire point.

there has been vastly more disgusting and real displays of misogyny on these very boards than a cartoon banner of a couple of girls near a dude in his underwear.

ok great, yes, but that doesn't make this particular tifo not misogynistic.

Azerban
04-11-2011, 02:27 PM
what ever happened to "i hate what you have to say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"

it's actually fairly sad that the focus is on a banner displaying a situation you can be exposed to on primetime television, and not the censorship

Azerban
04-11-2011, 02:28 PM
ok great, yes, but that doesn't make this particular tifo not misogynistic.

how is it misogynistic

is cunnilingus misandrist?

Fort York Redcoat
04-11-2011, 02:45 PM
is cunnilingus misandrist?

I'm interested to know how many readers had to assume what the 3rd word in the above question was. I personally had never seen it before.

J .
04-11-2011, 02:48 PM
all i can say to this is

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3394459189_b17923ae4c.jpg

Best ever, I wish it was on display every time we played the kkkrew

Shep
04-11-2011, 03:03 PM
I'm not a fan of the banner, but I support them on this. It wasn't vulgar, it might have been a bit in bad taste, and to be honest I didn't think it looked all that good, but it sounds like SJ HO overreacted to a few complaints.

Suggesting they stay away from tifos that may be perceived as sexist might have been a better route, and would have been taken better. But putting them on probation, that's an insult to their passion and the work they put in to make their club great.

I mean, they pay for the matches, scream for the team, create a real footy atmosphere and in return get treated like they aren't even valued or appreciated by the HO.

MartinUtd
04-11-2011, 03:06 PM
this is no more misogynist than dressing a blow up doll in the opposing teams kit or singing about Posh 'thinking Dichio'

also 'class' is just a word for 'shit i agree with fuck you', y'all can stick your class up your cunts

Even though I can't tell if you're trolling (most times in fact) I have to say I completely agree with the sentiment. When did everyone get so fucking sensitive?

daner90
04-11-2011, 03:12 PM
'm interested to know how many readers had to assume what the 3rd word in the above question was. I personally had never seen it before.

Haha, this is actually the first time I had seen the words misogynistic or misandrist before. Now that i know what the words mean, this TIFO is not misogynistic and frankly don't see how this is really that big of a deal.

billyfly
04-11-2011, 03:30 PM
I think it's vulger but how many things are vulger? Billboard signs etc?

rocker
04-11-2011, 03:59 PM
But putting them on probation,.

what does the probation entail exactly? No banners for a few weeks?

Shep
04-11-2011, 04:22 PM
what does the probation entail exactly? No banners for a few weeks?

I think if they break any of the 'rules' again while on probation they get the boot from a set # of matches. The number 20 pops up, but I'm not sure if that would be it. And from what I gather it would be a blanket suspension for all of them.

so basically they are going to be walking on eggshells for a while. I doubt that they would ever really get that suspension, but it's the insult of being put on 'probation' that I don't like. That's just my op though

London
04-11-2011, 04:43 PM
MLS is pulling back the carrot on SJ

Whoop
04-11-2011, 04:50 PM
MLS is pulling back the carrot on SJ

LOL

I wonder if we'll be told not to swear anymore?

flamehawk
04-11-2011, 04:56 PM
Agreed. But thats just my opinion.

Completely agree that the tifo was sexist and misogynistic. For those asking why, it portrays two women in a demeaning position and proclaims it as a positive, "we sure like the view". In the context of patriarchy in society, in a sport where its supporters are mainly men.. should we really be supporting this?

While, I don't support front office interventions into the stands, as I do think supporters should have control, we should be critical of this. I think as supporters we need to be more critical of the often blatant forms of sexism, homophobia, racism etc. If people argue that they can't have a good time without these oppressive behaviour, they should ask themselves why. And I am not trying to tell people to be 'PC' as people often accuse this sort of criticism of asking. Why the hell would I want people to superficially refrain from saying certain things just because it was dictated to them? As a community, and as individuals, we need to interrogate why we behave a certain why and by acting a certain way, how we exclude certain people from participating.

I hope people aren't put off by what I am saying. I am just giving my honest opinion. Sometimes, its a little hard to bring some of my friends along to games because they don't exactly feel welcomed.

bangersandmash
04-11-2011, 04:57 PM
there has been vastly more disgusting and real displays of misogyny on these very boards than a cartoon banner of a couple of girls near a dude in his underwear.

I know... "[they] should be forced to smell the glove,’ then you’d have a point, but it’s all a joke." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell_the_Glove

Sorry... it's 2011... there are very few opportunities to reference "this is spinal tap." This was definitely one of them

David_Oliveira
04-11-2011, 05:06 PM
I personally disagree with the tifo. It is very sexist. It's portraying women very negatively. If that were two guys, would there not be an uproar over the tifo?

werewolf
04-11-2011, 05:13 PM
It wasn't clever, and a bit silly, maybe not in the best taste, but folk need thicker skin around these parts. No one said anything at the time, it was a supporter of the opposition with their panties in a twist on twitter...

Wull
04-11-2011, 08:47 PM
Just to play devil's advocate, is the banner demeaning or is it an accurate portrayal of two women who are demeaning themselves in his circus?

DichioTFC
04-11-2011, 09:00 PM
i have no problem with the banner. everyone that's getting their panties in a knot about it need to get a grip.

Denigration of women? Really? Give me a break.

flamehawk
04-11-2011, 09:51 PM
i have no problem with the banner. everyone that's getting their panties in a knot about it need to get a grip.

Denigration of women? Really? Give me a break.

How is it not a denigration of women?

I think it's a shame that we don't have more women involved in football supporter culture, and it's no surprise when people don't seem to take these things seriously. There's a certain irony that people keep saying 'panties in a knot' ..but I don't think I'll even bother getting into that...

flamehawk
04-11-2011, 09:55 PM
Just to play devil's advocate, is the banner demeaning or is it an accurate portrayal of two women who are demeaning themselves in his circus?

To be honest, I am not too familiar with the context of Charlie Sheen and these two women. But, even if it was accurate - isn't it an issue if the banner expresses approval and enjoyment of these acts.

Besides, I don't see anything wrong with promiscuity or polygamous sex acts lol, but why would the rival soccer team badges be on these women if not to denote that they were being demeaned?


Ultimately, it's jsut not very creative.. in addition to being demeaning..

David_Oliveira
04-11-2011, 10:18 PM
i have no problem with the banner. everyone that's getting their panties in a knot about it need to get a grip.

Denigration of women? Really? Give me a break.

It is something that happens all too often. I have been made more aware of it as I am dating a Sociology and Women's Studies major. Comments like these will just keep putting women down. If it is wrong to denigrate LGBT, why is ok to do it to women? If they were two guys in that situation, would it still be ok? or what if they were portrayed as being of a certain race or religion? Would it be ok?

I don't think they meant wrong. Society has taught people that it is ok to treat that which is different in hurtful, demeaning ways. It is up to us to set standards higher for us all. We are all the same, be it White, Hispanic, Black, or Green Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Scientologists. Straight, Gay, Bisexual, or Gay.

Quit the hate. Approving of this is agreeing with the underlying connotations.

TorontoGooner
04-11-2011, 10:19 PM
Of course its offensive, of course its demeaning. But quite frankly, if people don't like it, stay away, go watch Baseball.

You can't market Football as a 'Terrace Culture' sport and a 'Soccer Mom' environment in the same stadium. Something's got to give. What they did was in poor taste, and not even particularly clever. However, every weekend people yell the "C" word at the Ref (including myself) and "get away" with it. Nothing's constructive about it, it's just an outpouring of emotion.

I will maintain this, in this interest of balance; the beauty and overall superiority of our sport is discussion of this taking place.

werewolf
04-11-2011, 10:24 PM
^ not even the Silicon Valley soccer moms made noise about it at the match.

David_Oliveira
04-11-2011, 10:28 PM
TG, you can't tell someone because they don't like something that has nothing to do with the game to stay away. That's like saying "Don't like racism? stay away."

I too have yelled out the "C" word, I'm just as guilty just as I am of yelling out other negative things. I agree with what you say; it's an outpouring of emotion, spontaneous even. Now a premeditated painting, that was planned out. There is no need for these premeditated crap.

Keyman
04-11-2011, 10:29 PM
that tifo was totally misogynistic and completely inappropriate.

agreed :picard:

Jeffro
04-11-2011, 10:35 PM
Besides, I don't see anything wrong with promiscuity or polygamous sex acts lol, but why would the rival soccer team badges be on these women if not to denote that they were being demeaned?


There it is for any one struggling with what makes it mysogynous.

flamehawk
04-11-2011, 10:36 PM
Of course its offensive, of course its demeaning. But quite frankly, if people don't like it, stay away, go watch Baseball.

You can't market Football as a 'Terrace Culture' sport and a 'Soccer Mom' environment in the same stadium. Something's got to give. What they did was in poor taste, and not even particularly clever. However, every weekend people yell the "C" word at the Ref (including myself) and "get away" with it. Nothing's constructive about it, it's just an outpouring of emotion.

I will maintain this, in this interest of balance; the beauty and overall superiority of our sport is discussion of this taking place.

Hah, I hardly think baseball is going to be much better. I agree with you partially, in the end of the day, this is popular culture/mass culture. I'd be really naive not to think that this sort of behaviour exists. I mean FFS that's why discriminatory structures are so strong in our societies, they permeate culture, and get's seen as a given. I have no interest in forcing people to behave a certain way. However, I am interested in having a discussion and any substantive change is going to take time and conversations.

And I mean, I am not trying to act like I am holier than thou. I certainly have yelled cunt a bunch of times, and used ableist language.

What we all have in common si that we love this sport and I think we all have an interest in having it expand and grow. This can only happen if we address barriers within the sport. There also needs to be a recognition that the sport has a long history in uniting people and bringing forth political change/struggle (Barca's history.. even what's going on in Egypt at least before the miltiary came in - supporters group played a big part)

AL-MO
04-11-2011, 10:44 PM
all i can say to this is

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3394459189_b17923ae4c.jpg

I painted this banner and would do it again in a second. It was made to get a rise out of our opponents and did so quite successfully.

As for this Charlie Sheen display, I don't find it particularly creative (or offensive for that matter) but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

werewolf
04-11-2011, 10:46 PM
Misogyny ( /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women

If a women in a Sounders top, and a women in a Galaxy top were on all fours in front of me whilst in my underpants, I wouldn't hate them at all.

Stop trying to use big words to legitimize your arguments. It's a stupid banner, but we aren't the League of Women Voters, nor should we try to be.

Whoop
04-11-2011, 10:57 PM
It was poorly executed because I have no idea what they were trying to do.



http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/137360.jpg

colman1860
04-11-2011, 11:16 PM
Everything that needs to be said has been said - I would contribute if flamehawk hadn't already said all that I wanted to say.

CretanBull
04-11-2011, 11:33 PM
Completely agree that the tifo was sexist and misogynistic. For those asking why, it portrays two women in a demeaning position and proclaims it as a positive, "we sure like the view". In the context of patriarchy in society, in a sport where its supporters are mainly men.. should we really be supporting this?

While, I don't support front office interventions into the stands, as I do think supporters should have control, we should be critical of this. I think as supporters we need to be more critical of the often blatant forms of sexism, homophobia, racism etc. If people argue that they can't have a good time without these oppressive behaviour, they should ask themselves why. And I am not trying to tell people to be 'PC' as people often accuse this sort of criticism of asking. Why the hell would I want people to superficially refrain from saying certain things just because it was dictated to them? As a community, and as individuals, we need to interrogate why we behave a certain why and by acting a certain way, how we exclude certain people from participating.

Well said :thumbsup:



I hope people aren't put off by what I am saying. I am just giving my honest opinion. Sometimes, its a little hard to bring some of my friends along to games because they don't exactly feel welcomed.


Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never experienced anything like that at BMO. I've heard things that some would consider offensive, but nothing that - IMO - would make someone feel unwelcomed (ie I've heard a lot of swearing that might put off a parent from bringing a child, but I've never heard anything racist).

flamehawk
04-11-2011, 11:42 PM
Well said :thumbsup:



Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never experienced anything like that at BMO. I've heard things that some would consider offensive, but nothing that - IMO - would make someone feel unwelcomed (ie I've heard a lot of swearing that might put off a parent from bringing a child, but I've never heard anything racist).

I remember bringing a latino friend once, can't remember if it was a Canada game or a TFC game, but people started chanting 'H5N1' ... I mean it was esp. bad in the context at the time. And as a Chinese person I remember how badly we were stigmatized with the SARs outbreak. I mean, she's not naive enough to not expect it but it wasn't exactly the best of introductions to the game.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 12:04 AM
I'm a white guy, so nothing is (likely) to be aimed at me personally but I can honestly say that I haven't heard anything directed at anyone else at a TFC game. The Red Patch Boys are about as racially and ethnically mixed as the city of Toronto itself is.

The most tension that I can remember was at the Canada/Peru game - the South end was supposed to be exclusively for Canada supporters and some Peru fans came in. Things got a little ugly, but members of our group (if I remember correctly, our VP Phil was one of them) put an end to that in a hurry and the Peru fans had their seats re-located to a pro-Peru section.

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 12:11 AM
I'm a white guy, so nothing is (likely) to be aimed at me personally but I can honestly say that I haven't heard anything directed at anyone else at a TFC game. The Red Patch Boys are about as racially and ethnically mixed as the city of Toronto itself is.

The most tension that I can remember was at the Canada/Peru game - the South end was supposed to be exclusively for Canada supporters and some Peru fans came in. Things got a little ugly, but members of our group (if I remember correctly, our VP Phil was one of them) put an end to that in a hurry and the Peru fans had their seats re-located to a pro-Peru section.

Ya, to be fair, I think Toronto fans have been pretty good in this department. Certainly a lot better than the vast majority of football grounds.

I didn't attend the Peru game, but I had a Peruvian friend that did and they said it was pretty rough.

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 12:24 AM
A further point. My issue with this tifo isn't that it's "vulgar" (the reason cited by the supporter group and apparently the FO). I have no problem with vulgarness as defined:


1.Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined
- the vulgar trappings of wealth

2.Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude
- a vulgar joke

I mean, if the issue was only vulgarness, who are we really concerned for? The overprotective parents who decide to bring their poor sheltered kids to a football game? That's just bad parenting.

It's a whole different argument however, when the issue is the targeting and debasement of a group of people who already have a pretty tough time in our society..

London
04-12-2011, 03:53 AM
Ya, to be fair, I think Toronto fans have been pretty good in this department. Certainly a lot better than the vast majority of football grounds.

I didn't attend the Peru game, but I had a Peruvian friend that did and they said it was pretty rough.


the peruvians were not innocent in that one, thats for sure.

DichioTFC
04-12-2011, 03:54 AM
How is it not a denigration of women?

I think it's a shame that we don't have more women involved in football supporter culture, and it's no surprise when people don't seem to take these things seriously. There's a certain irony that people keep saying 'panties in a knot' ..but I don't think I'll even bother getting into that...


It is something that happens all too often. I have been made more aware of it as I am dating a Sociology and Women's Studies major. Comments like these will just keep putting women down. If it is wrong to denigrate LGBT, why is ok to do it to women? If they were two guys in that situation, would it still be ok? or what if they were portrayed as being of a certain race or religion? Would it be ok?

I don't think they meant wrong. Society has taught people that it is ok to treat that which is different in hurtful, demeaning ways. It is up to us to set standards higher for us all. We are all the same, be it White, Hispanic, Black, or Green Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Scientologists. Straight, Gay, Bisexual, or Gay.

Quit the hate. Approving of this is agreeing with the underlying connotations.

I didn't deny that there's a negative connotation in the banner, my argument is that too much is being made of it. Soccer supporter banners are not the arena in which to encourage social change (look at the racism spewing across Europe for decades despite FIFA and FA repeated attempts to reign it all in). There are so many other areas where women / minorities / LGBTs require social change more desperately, is a tifo in a California suburb really the starting point for this or, rather, other areas of modern society (glass ceiling, work force penetration rates, etc.). Getting in a huff about soccer supporter culture is like yelling at a wall, there's absolutely no point.

Hell, I don't see anyone here saying anything about our "tic-tac-tabernac" chant, and I'm sure that's just as offensive to Quebeckers as that tifo was to women. Point being, almost anything can be stretched to be offensive. Taking drunken soccer supporters seriously is a lost cause, but I will admit you white knights are hilarious. I love how serial you all are about this.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/25/128668247197220228.jpg

And yes, I do approve of the misogynistic, hurtful tifo. Free speech > slightly offensive, yet witty banner.

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 08:25 AM
I didn't deny that there's a negative connotation in the banner, my argument is that too much is being made of it. Soccer supporter banners are not the arena in which to encourage social change (look at the racism spewing across Europe for decades despite FIFA and FA repeated attempts to reign it all in). There are so many other areas where women / minorities / LGBTs require social change more desperately, is a tifo in a California suburb really the starting point for this or, rather, other areas of modern society (glass ceiling, work force penetration rates, etc.). Getting in a huff about soccer supporter culture is like yelling at a wall, there's absolutely no point.

Hell, I don't see anyone here saying anything about our "tic-tac-tabernac" chant, and I'm sure that's just as offensive to Quebeckers as that tifo was to women. Point being, almost anything can be stretched to be offensive. Taking drunken soccer supporters seriously is a lost cause, but I will admit you white knights are hilarious. I love how serial you all are about this.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/25/128668247197220228.jpg

And yes, I do approve of the misogynistic, hurtful tifo. Free speech > slightly offensive, yet witty banner.


That is a bit of a non-argument though? Because there are perhaps more despicable/pressing examples of sexism, this sort of behaviour is justified? I can justify a lot of things this way ... let's go beat people up, it's not like we're torturing them like in Guantanamo (ok a bit of an exagerration here..).

I support free speech too, that's why I said it's not the role of the Front Office to censure. Instead, it is our role as supporters, to be critical. There are certainly more pressing issues that affect the day-to-day lives of marginalized groups, but this happens to be in our backyard. So yes, we're responsible and oblgiated to speak out. Especially when this group is asking us to support them ... isn't the whole point of this discussion at the moment to discuss a response to this request??

And let's remember, soccer support culture is neither homogeneous nor static ... as with culture in general. On the topic of sexism, St. Pauli supporters protested against sexist Maxim ads being placed in their stadium and the ads were removed. Unsurprisingly, according to a journalist anyways, they have the highest proportion of female supporters in the league. The connection is pretty apparent, and shows firstly, that supporter groups aren't inherently oppressive and secondly, that addressing these things can have a meaningful effect on diversifying and expanding our supporter base.

It's simply not true that soccer support is not a space for social change. I cited the Egyptian example earlier. Here's an article on it: http://www.edgeofsports.com/2011-01-31-596/index.html It's not liek when we enter the stadium we suddenly enter a vacuum. Just as I would be trying to addressing these issues at work or in the streets, I think it's important to address these issues in soccer support.

And correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming you're a guy. It's a little coincidental that you'd be saying that you approve of misogyny ... seeing as you aren't being targeted. Ultimately, I think most of us discussing this are guys, and I'd be nice to hear the views of women on this issue.

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 08:42 AM
How is it not a denigration of women?

I think it's a shame that we don't have more women involved in football supporter culture, and it's no surprise when people don't seem to take these things seriously. There's a certain irony that people keep saying 'panties in a knot' ..but I don't think I'll even bother getting into that...

Women perform oral sex all that time. Is that a sexist act that they wilfully partake in? Of course not. Therefore, how can the representation of the act be?

Is the tifo vulgar? Yes, in that it's a crude depiction of a sexual act.

Is the tifo sexist or misogynistic? Nope. Because it's simply depicting an act that occurs on a daily basis and most often willingly by women.

Unless you are going to argue that fellatio itself is a sexist or misogynistic act, there is no logic to suggest the depiction of such is. The picture shows a man wearing an Earthquakes shirt receiving fellatio by two women wearing shirts of opposing teams. There is no depiction of violence or anything that suggests the threat of it. If there was, there would be a case to argue sexism/misogyny, but there simply isn't.

TorontoGooner
04-12-2011, 08:53 AM
I'm not saying it's right, nor do I agree with it. But it happens. I think the pride we can have in being Toronto fans is the fact that we have fans who recognise unnecessary behaviour when they see it.

And no, I'm not saying racism is acceptable. Please don't use that card at me. Worse things happen at games around the world that go unpunished.

I even wrote an article two months back for a website that outlined my hatred of sexism in football.

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 08:54 AM
Women perform oral sex all that time. Is that a sexist act that they wilfully partake in? Of course not. Therefore, how can the representation of the act be?

Is the tifo vulgar? Yes, in that it's a crude depiction of a sexual act.

Is the tifo sexist or misogynistic? Nope. Because it's simply depicting an act that occurs on a daily basis and most often willingly by women.

Unless you are going to argue that fellatio itself is a sexist or misogynistic act, there is no logic to suggest the depiction of such is. The picture shows a man wearing an Earthquakes shirt receiving fellatio by two women wearing shirts of opposing teams. There is no depiction of violence or anything that suggests the threat of it. If there was, there would be a case to argue sexism/misogyny, but there simply isn't.

Answered this earlier:


To be honest, I am not too familiar with the context of Charlie Sheen and these two women. But, even if it was accurate - isn't it an issue if the banner expresses approval and enjoyment of these acts.

Besides, I don't see anything wrong with promiscuity or polygamous sex acts lol, but why would the rival soccer team badges be on these women if not to denote that they were being demeaned?


Ultimately, it's jsut not very creative.. in addition to being demeaning..


To reiterate, it's not sexual acts that is an issue.. I am not a prude..

But it's pretty clear that the tifo was meant to be portrayed as demeaned ... if not, what's the point of putting the rival team jerseys on the women? Are you arguing that this tifo (in terms of meaning they're trying to express) would be the same as one with a couple making out, one wearing the home jersey, the other wearing a rival jersey? That tifo would make no sense.... the point then becomes clear, that the issue isn't about its representation fo a sexual act...

Azerban
04-12-2011, 08:55 AM
But it's pretty clear that the tifo was meant to be portrayed as demeaned ... if not, what's the point of putting the rival team jerseys on the women? Are you arguing that this tifo (in terms of meaning they're trying to express) would be the same as one with a couple making out, one wearing the home jersey, the other wearing a rival jersey?

red patch boys, we are here

fuck your women and drink your beer

Oldtimer
04-12-2011, 08:56 AM
Sorry, don't agree Cash.

Displays that show women only as mere sex objects are by their nature "sexist."
If it was balanced by a TIFO showing women as high-powered executives, then you could claim otherwise.

Do women have sex of various types? Of course they do. But that isn't the definition of woman.

TorontoGooner
04-12-2011, 08:57 AM
Its 10am and I need a pint already!

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 09:02 AM
Sorry, don't agree Cash.

Displays that show women only as mere sex objects are by their nature "sexist."
If it was balanced by a TIFO showing women as high-powered executives, then you could claim otherwise.

Do women have sex of various types? Of course they do. But that isn't the definition of woman.

This too!

Whoop
04-12-2011, 09:14 AM
Wow this blew up out of proportion this morning.

That tifo was just a fail all the way around.

They tried to be witty and funny and failed. And that was aside of the act depicted on the tifo.

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 09:23 AM
Sorry, don't agree Cash.

Displays that show women only as mere sex objects are by their nature "sexist."
If it was balanced by a TIFO showing women as high-powered executives, then you could claim otherwise.

Do women have sex of various types? Of course they do. But that isn't the definition of woman.

I bet there are a lot of guys with risque photos of their partners that would disagree with you on that first remark.

The thing is, you're the person making the assumption that a negative stereotype is being portrayed. Again, the image is too vague for anyone to assume anything other than exactly what they see. If the girls were chained up and resisting, you've got a case. If they were depicted as crying with black eyes and blood on their lips, you've got a case. As it stands, there's not a lot that remotely suggests any of that.

So where is the offensiveness? Well, from how I see it, it's alluding to the fact that the Earthquakes get their dicks metaphorically sucked by the LA Galaxy and Seattle Sounders. You can stretch it out and claim that the SJ fan/player is in a position of sexual superiority and the two women are in positions of submission - but again, those are relationships that many take willingly and even enthusiastically take part in. The imagery and text suggests the Earthquakes sexual dominance, but not necessarily the submissiveness of the Galaxy or Sounders.

London
04-12-2011, 09:27 AM
Maybe those girls in the banner went on the SLUT walk

is it vulgur then??????


kidding

tfcleeds
04-12-2011, 09:30 AM
This thread has already gotten way too serious in my opinion. The banner was a gigantic fail, end of story, especially considering it doesn't make any sense given SJ's standing in the division. But given the fact that the women are portrayed as representing LA and Seattle, I think the whole submission thing is being implied, regardless of whether they appear to be "willing" participants or not. This is what makes it degrading towards women.

Anyways, I've seen much worse. Although it was funny and I can appreciate the spirit in which it was intended, I think many people may have found our Jesus banner way more offensive, just to use one example from MLS.

james
04-12-2011, 09:34 AM
the thing ive always loved about the Ultra culture around the world is how they always seem to have a dirty sense of humour and its a good laugh from there tifos to there songs and chants, its been part of soccer for quite a long time now in many countries and if you think its vulgar and you want to complain about it well get on your knees and suck it! :D

Pinkie
04-12-2011, 09:49 AM
really? this discussion is ridiculous.

sorry but fellatio is inherently demeaning to women as it is portrayed in their banner- just take a look at the positioning of the women vs the man - she is on her knees as he is towering over her.

and its red patch boys we are here we'll steal your women and drink your beer (i've always thought it was pretty lame though)

tfcleeds
04-12-2011, 09:58 AM
really? this discussion is ridiculous.

sorry but fellatio is inherently demeaning to women as it is portrayed in their banner- just take a look at the positioning of the women vs the man - she is on her knees as he is towering over her.

and its red patch boys we are here we'll steal your women and drink your beer (i've always thought it was pretty lame though)

Not exactly sure what you're saying here. Yes, I agree the banner presents the women as being in a demeaning position (given they are shown as being LA and Seattle supporters, who it can be implied, would not willingly perform such an act on a SJ fan, hence the submission aspect), but is fellatio really inherently demeaning to women? Does that mean cunnilingus is demeaning to men?

rocker
04-12-2011, 10:00 AM
fellatio really inherently demeaning to women? Does that mean cunnilingus is demeaning to men?

If it's in public and used to express power, yes.

Of course people do all kinds of things in the bedroom -- so no, not all sex acts are inherently demeaning. But here we have one group using sex to express power and antagonize another group. That's the problem. Also, it involves men speaking on behalf of women.

I think the probation penalty is fine, actually. Supporters should be smarter than that.
This is something I actually expect out of Crew fans.

Fort York Redcoat
04-12-2011, 10:00 AM
I think Britney Spears demeaning to all women but I wouldn't be offended if someone depicted her on a banner. Much.

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 10:03 AM
If it's in public and used to express power, yes.

Of course people do crazy shit in the bedroom -- so no, not all sex acts are inherently demeaning. But here we have one group using sex to express power and antagonize another group. That's the problem.

Actually Rocker, this is probably one of the best arguments made on the subject.

Hmmmmmm, good point.

Pinkie
04-12-2011, 10:05 AM
If it's in public and used to express power, yes.

Of course people do all kinds of things in the bedroom -- so no, not all sex acts are inherently demeaning. But here we have one group using sex to express power and antagonize another group. That's the problem. Also, it involves men speaking on behalf of women.

I think the probation penalty is fine, actually. Supporters should be smarter than that.
This is something I actually expect out of Crew fans.

yes. this.

also pete - i have no idea how that could happen? britney on a banner?

tfcleeds
04-12-2011, 10:12 AM
If it's in public and used to express power, yes.

Of course people do all kinds of things in the bedroom -- so no, not all sex acts are inherently demeaning. But here we have one group using sex to express power and antagonize another group. That's the problem. Also, it involves men speaking on behalf of women.

I think the probation penalty is fine, actually. Supporters should be smarter than that.
This is something I actually expect out of Crew fans.

And of course, that is what the banner is depicting, and why it is degrading. It was just the "inherently demeaning" part which threw me off - but yes, in that context, I understand.

s2cazz
04-12-2011, 10:17 AM
really? this discussion is ridiculous.

sorry but fellatio is inherently demeaning to women as it is portrayed in their banner- just take a look at the positioning of the women vs the man - she is on her knees as he is towering over her.

and its red patch boys we are here we'll steal your women and drink your beer (i've always thought it was pretty lame though)

I'd like to know how fellatio is demeaning to women. I love how the portrayal of a sex act automatically becomes demeaning to women.

Having sex is not demeaning to women. It is natural and beautiful and (except in the case of fellatio) it is where babies come from. ;)

Do I demean my wife everytime we preform a sexual act together? If you want to say the banner is vulgar then fine. You want to say it was poorly thought out and horrible I agree. The demeaning-ness of the imagery of this particular banner is debtable depend how sensitive you are. But please don't say that fellatio is inherently demeaning. It happens every day between people who love and respect each other as well.

Oldtimer
04-12-2011, 11:17 AM
I'd like to know how fellatio is demeaning to women. I love how the portrayal of a sex act automatically becomes demeaning to women.

Having sex is not demeaning to women. It is natural and beautiful and (except in the case of fellatio) it is where babies come from. ;)

Do I demean my wife everytime we preform a sexual act together? If you want to say the banner is vulgar then fine. You want to say it was poorly thought out and horrible I agree. The demeaning-ness of the imagery of this particular banner is debtable depend how sensitive you are. But please don't say that fellatio is inherently demeaning. It happens every day between people who love and respect each other as well.

I think rocker answered this:


If it's in public and used to express power, yes.

Of course people do all kinds of things in the bedroom -- so no, not all sex acts are inherently demeaning. But here we have one group using sex to express power and antagonize another group. That's the problem. Also, it involves men speaking on behalf of women.

I think the probation penalty is fine, actually. Supporters should be smarter than that.
This is something I actually expect out of Crew fans.

DichioTFC
04-12-2011, 11:34 AM
really? this discussion is ridiculous.

sorry but fellatio is inherently demeaning to women as it is portrayed in their banner- just take a look at the positioning of the women vs the man - she is on her knees as he is towering over her.

and its red patch boys we are here we'll steal your women and drink your beer (i've always thought it was pretty lame though)

LOLLLLLLL - that's the quote of the thread. :facepalm:

zeelaw
04-12-2011, 11:35 AM
Nothing will ever beat the "2 Girls 1 Cup" Columbus banner...

On the surface, totally clean - if you know what it actually about, totally vulgar! lol

Carts...

QFT, amazing I'll never forget that one

s2cazz
04-12-2011, 11:41 AM
I think rocker answered this:

Thats fine... but Fellatio is still not inherently demeaning to women

Pinkie
04-12-2011, 11:46 AM
um really you think its not?

fine i'll fucking rephrase it - fellatio in that position is demeaning? does that work?

DichioTFC
04-12-2011, 12:02 PM
um really you think its not?

fine i'll fucking rephrase it - fellatio in that position is demeaning? does that work?

^ Is someone getting angry because others aren't agreeing with their position?

Nope, still doesn't work. It's hilarious how the definition of 'demeaning' is based upon how the women are positioned. So if they were only on their knees, it would be more or less demeaning, therefore more acceptable?

Point being, its entirely subjective. The FO thought it was in poor taste, they handed out a probation (fair enough). Members here agreed it was in poor taste and are in favour of the probation (fair enough). I find no fault in it and think the feminist reaction is more over the top than the tifo itself (and apparently, so do the Seattle supporters on Big Soccer).

2mil4dero+santo
04-12-2011, 12:08 PM
^ Is someone getting angry because others aren't agreeing with their position?

Nope, still doesn't work. It's hilarious how the definition of 'demeaning' is based upon how the women are positioned. So if they were only on their knees, it would be more or less demeaning, therefore more acceptable?

Point being, its entirely subjective. The FO thought it was in poor taste, they handed out a probation (fair enough). Members here agreed it was in poor taste and are in favour of the probation (fair enough). I find no fault in it and think the feminist reaction is more over the top than the tifo itself (and apparently, so do the Seattle supporters on Big Soccer).

C'mon buddy, I mean I'm a guy and all, but really... It doesn't offend me personally but you gotta admit its completely demeaning and vulgar. Sorry just my opinion...

Pinkie
04-12-2011, 12:09 PM
naw not frustrated. i just swear a lot.

and its precisely demeaning because of the position of the woman.

of course its a subjective point of view. but thanks for pointing it out :D

FreekAce
04-12-2011, 12:36 PM
so it would not have been demeaning if the dude was sitting down, legs spread apart? that makes no sense.

ryan
04-12-2011, 12:40 PM
What if it was two guys, players perhaps, instead of women?

would there still be an issue with some of you?

DichioTFC
04-12-2011, 12:41 PM
so it would not have been demeaning if the dude was sitting down, legs spread apart? that makes no sense.

If the guy were lying down, and the girls were towering over the guy (either on their knees or all fours), the women would be in a position of power and, therefore, the tifo becomes acceptable... right?

C.Ronaldo
04-12-2011, 12:47 PM
thats like saying PrON is offensive.

pfff, its just classy girls pleasing appreciative men.

ensco
04-12-2011, 12:50 PM
This parsing of the thing is pointless.

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . "

nobodybeatsthewiz
04-12-2011, 01:00 PM
cant we all just get along? (and hope chelsea win today, haha)

rocker
04-12-2011, 01:10 PM
If the guy were lying down, and the girls were towering over the guy (either on their knees or all fours), the women would be in a position of power and, therefore, the tifo becomes acceptable... right?

That would be equally wrong. Last I heard we're supposed to believe in equality, not differences of power between the sexes.

But of course, the San Jose supporters aren't really smart enough to do that and diverge from the patriarchial attitudes dominant since the caveman.

2mil4dero+santo
04-12-2011, 01:21 PM
What if it was two guys, players perhaps, instead of women?

would there still be an issue with some of you?

One of the issues as well is, kids saw this. Is this something you would want ur 13 year old daughter so see and think its acceptable? I don't mean to sound high and mighty, but if people want to have sex or watch porn thats their business just keep it private.
Theres a reason why there are age laws regarding sex and pornography its not ok for children to see this kind of thing.
I know they didn't mean anything by it, but it's not cool to display something like that where women and children see it. Not cool...

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 01:24 PM
The banner was crap. It looks like a ten year old drew it.

I am offended by the idea of ten year olds implying oral sex in their artwork.

I got detention for that shit when I was at school.

FreekAce
04-12-2011, 01:26 PM
so the real problem is sexual contents on banners, regardless of it being a chick on dude, dude on chick, dude on dude or chick on chick no? (what about animals, they off limits?)?

i have no problem with any of the above mentioned possibilities (okay maybe the animals...). in comparison to some other tifo's and fan behaviour ive seen in the stands over the years, this barely even registers on the offensive scale. and on top of it it was completely lame and made no sense.

s2cazz
04-12-2011, 01:29 PM
One of the issues as well is, kids saw this. Is this something you would want ur 13 year old daughter so see and think its acceptable? I don't mean to sound high and mighty, but if people want to have sex or watch porn thats their business just keep it private.
Theres a reason why there are age laws regarding sex and pornography its not ok for children to see this kind of thing.
I know they didn't mean anything by it, but it's not cool to display something like that where women and children see it. Not cool...

It was 2 women on their knees. Sure the implied message was vulgar but I doubt a child would understand what it meant.

Like I said call it vulgar, Poorly thought out, and you can argue demeaning or not. Definitely in bad taste. Children see worse than that on Television.

Whoop
04-12-2011, 01:31 PM
The banner was crap. It looks like a ten year old drew it.

I am offended by the idea of ten year olds implying oral sex in their artwork.

I got detention for that shit when I was at school.


so the real problem is sexual contents on banners, regardless of it being a chick on dude, dude on chick, dude on dude or chick on chick no? (what about animals, they off limits?)?

i have no problem with any of the above mentioned possibilities (okay maybe the animals...). in comparison to some other tifo's and fan behaviour ive seen in the stands over the years i've, this barely even registers on the offensive scale. and on top of it it was completely lame and made no sense.

This.

Face it, while I don't agree with racism and sexism in supporter culture, the culture, for the most part, is offensive and vulgar. People yell, scream obscenities throughout a match that normally wouldn't use in the company of strangers.

People call Landon Donovan "Landycakes" and it's not because he likes cake. Yet no one bats an eye. People yell "cunt" at players all the time and our Spanish speaking friends hurl insults at Spanish speaking players.

I think people are making too much of a poorly constructed banner.

2mil4dero+santo
04-12-2011, 01:31 PM
so the real problem is sexual contents on banners, regardless of it being a chick on dude, dude on chick, dude on dude or chick on chick no? (what about animals, they off limits?)?

i have no problem with any of the above mentioned possibilities (okay maybe the animals...). in comparison to some other tifo's and fan behaviour ive seen in the stands over the years i've, this barely even registers on the offensive scale. and on top of it it was completely lame and made no sense.

I would agree that alot of people wouldn't find it offensive, and you may not have a problem with it. If there was a racist sign I'm sure there would be people not offended by it too, it doesn't mean its ok. Theres not much difference imo.

Let me ask you this, if this sign was held up in front of a bunch of elementary school girls, how would you feel about that?

Whoop
04-12-2011, 01:33 PM
LOL... the children debate.

13 year olds today are way more sophisticated than we think. Some would think the banner was funny.

You see worse on TV, music award shows, and music videos (they still have those?).

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 01:34 PM
so the real problem is sexual contents on banners, regardless of it being a chick on dude, dude on chick, dude on dude or chick on chick no? (what about animals, they off limits?)?

i have no problem with any of the above mentioned possibilities (okay maybe the animals...). in comparison to some other tifo's and fan behaviour ive seen in the stands over the years, this barely even registers on the offensive scale. and on top of it it was completely lame and made no sense.

I would say that a banner depicting or implying the act of oral sex is probably inappropriate, and this is so implicit it crossed the line.

On sexism, I would say that its hardly a thunderous blow against equality and womens rights. If women get offended by that its because they want to be offended and draw attention once again to their long list of grievances, and not because theyre upset that two badly drawn females in soccer shirts are kneeling to gratify a crap cartoon character.

Whoop
04-12-2011, 01:35 PM
I would agree that alot of people wouldn't find it offensive, and you may not have a problem with it. If there was a racist sign I'm sure there would be people not offended by it too, it doesn't mean its ok. Theres not much difference imo.

Let me ask you this, if this sign was held up in front of a bunch of elementary school girls, how would you feel about that?

Point though is that it wasn't.

You're at a football match, not in front of a school.

Would you yell "fucking asshole", "cunt", "son of a bitch", "twat", "jerk", etc. in front of a child?

Whoop
04-12-2011, 01:36 PM
I still don't know the Charlie Sheen reference made in the banner?

Or was it just the #winning banner below it?

Whoop
04-12-2011, 01:38 PM
The ironic thing is that DavydMT posted the image in the MLS tifo thread in this section LAST WEEK and no one complained then.

The first thought I had when I saw it... was 1) it doesn't make sense because SJ stinks, 2) it looks like crap because it's too convoluted, and 3) how does that dopey cartoon character expect to get a blowjob with his underwear still on?

MKR
04-12-2011, 01:49 PM
re: sex jokes on a banner: Not to mention that for the most part they are meant to be offensive and to get a rise out of people for the wrong reasons, i just don't know why you would want to go there when it comes to organized support at a football game... especially when a lot of time and hard work is inlvolved in making said banner. While it may not offend me per se, i can definitely come to that conclusion that it's cheap humour and in pretty poor tast. It's one thing to yell out something that is of a sexual nature (i.e. cunt, tit, dick, etc), but i don't know why you would spend money on supplies and devote time to making a banner to get a message like that accross. Surely they could have been more creative than that?

I guess what i'm trying to say is that it is both stupid and offensive, but way more stupid.

Whoop
04-12-2011, 01:52 PM
re: sex jokes on a banner: Not to mention that for the most part they are meant to be offensive and to get a rise out of people for the wrong reasons, i just don't know why you would want to go there when it comes to organized support at a football game... especially when a lot of time and hard work is inlvolved in making said banner. While it may not offend me per se, i can definitely come to that conclusion that it's cheap humour and in pretty poor tast. It's one thing to yell out something that is of a sexual nature (i.e. cunt, tit, dick, etc), but i don't know why you would spend money on supplies and devote time to making a banner to get a message like that accross. Surely they could have been more creative than that?

I guess what i'm trying to say is that it is both stupid and offensive, but way more stupid.

This.

Makes this banner look a lot better. :D

I mean remember how many supporters from other teams said it was lame? LOL

http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_sow_experts__4/ept_sports_sow_experts-809697636-1271382995.jpg?ymTfV_CDQNffLqBO

FreekAce
04-12-2011, 01:58 PM
Point though is that it wasn't.

You're at a football match, not in front of a school.

Would you yell "fucking asshole", "cunt", "son of a bitch", "twat", "jerk", etc. in front of a child?

a banner like this will not offend young children as they do not understand the meaning of it. its aimed at adults.
take a movie like shrek, funny for kids because of the jokes, and funny for adults because of the same jokes. those same jokes though are interpreted in a completely different manner. the jokes are suggestive and full of innuendo.
if the kids are of an age that get what it means surely the supporters are not bringing up anything the kids have not heard elsewhere.

Oldtimer
04-12-2011, 02:00 PM
This.

Makes this banner look a lot better. :D

I mean remember how many supporters from other teams said it was lame? LOL

http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_sow_experts__4/ept_sports_sow_experts-809697636-1271382995.jpg?ymTfV_CDQNffLqBO

One of the best banners ever at BMO.


BTW, I guess this thread was started to show sympathy for San Jose's supporters.

I have little sympathy for them. Or the Impact supporters when they got in trouble. It's their own faults. If there was a league-wide problem, then we can discuss. Otherwise, they support our competition, so why are we discussing their problem?

2mil4dero+santo
04-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Point though is that it wasn't.

You're at a football match, not in front of a school.

Would you yell "fucking asshole", "cunt", "son of a bitch", "twat", "jerk", etc. in front of a child?

but it was heald up in front of 10,000 people and on TV...

Anyways I'm just sayin... it doesn't offend me personally, I love a bj as much as the next guy. I just think it's funny that some people don't think this should offend anyone. If you put a display like this in front of 10,000 people, don't act surprised when you get complaints about it...

The thread asks the question is this "tifo too vulgar". My opinion is yes.

MKR
04-12-2011, 02:03 PM
The Yoda banner was awesome. Anyone who didn't think it was is a big loser.

s2cazz
04-12-2011, 02:20 PM
The Yoda banner was awesome. Anyone who didn't think it was is a big loser.

It was nerdy, but in a fun way. One of my favorites.

s2cazz
04-12-2011, 02:22 PM
but it was heald up in front of 10,000 people and on TV...

Anyways I'm just sayin... it doesn't offend me personally, I love a bj as much as the next guy. I just think it's funny that some people don't think this should offend anyone. If you put a display like this in front of 10,000 people, don't act surprised when you get complaints about it...

The thread asks the question is this "tifo too vulgar". My opinion is yes.

10, 000 people at a soccer game. And as for TV the broadcaster didn't have to show it and probably didn't show it. It is definitely offensive. But not to the point to cause an uproar.

2mil4dero+santo
04-12-2011, 02:26 PM
10, 000 people at a soccer game. And as for TV the broadcaster didn't have to show it and probably didn't show it. It is definitely offensive. But not to the point to cause an uproar.

I agree with you. I just don't think they deserve sympathy for getting complaints about it. I mean, what do you expect holding up a sexually suggestive banner in front of 10,000 people? Thats all I'm saying.
They deserve to be punished if only because of the stupidity of it.

s2cazz
04-12-2011, 02:28 PM
I agree with you. I just don't think they deserve sympathy for getting complaints about it. I mean, what do you expect holding up a sexually suggestive banner in front of 10,000 people? Thats all I'm saying.
They deserve to be punished if only because of the stupidity of it.

That I really don't know. I am kind of borderline.

They do deserve punishment for the lack of creativity and making a banner that looks like a 2 year old drew it though.

ryan
04-12-2011, 02:30 PM
One of the issues as well is, kids saw this. Is this something you would want ur 13 year old daughter so see and think its acceptable? I don't mean to sound high and mighty, but if people want to have sex or watch porn thats their business just keep it private.
Theres a reason why there are age laws regarding sex and pornography its not ok for children to see this kind of thing.
I know they didn't mean anything by it, but it's not cool to display something like that where women and children see it. Not cool...

On the other hand, our world is filled with sexual innuendo.

From billboards, to posters, to TV adverts, to movie trailers, to pop music, to...


YET THEY ALL GET AWAY WITH IT!

2mil4dero+santo
04-12-2011, 02:40 PM
On the other hand, our world is filled with sexual innuendo.

From billboards, to posters, to TV adverts, to movie trailers, to pop music, to...


YET THEY ALL GET AWAY WITH IT!

Well what can you do, the world is what the world is... you can't change it lol.

It does make parenting a little tougher these days though when your kids are exposed to sex on a daily basis...

Phil
04-12-2011, 02:46 PM
One of the best banners ever at BMO.


BTW, I guess this thread was started to show sympathy for San Jose's supporters.

I have little sympathy for them. Or the Impact supporters when they got in trouble. It's their own faults. If there was a league-wide problem, then we can discuss. Otherwise, they support our competition, so why are we discussing their problem?

I know what you are saying but when I take X offending display out of it (not using judgment on the content) and measure that against the tactics being used by their FO and the support of the League based off of 1 Twitter complaint.

That raises a flag or two for support in the MLS in general. There were meetings at the supporters summit that had a tone and now we are seeing implimentation of rules with minimal consultation with the supporters groups.

WestStandGeoff
04-12-2011, 02:53 PM
On the other hand, our world is filled with sexual innuendo.

From billboards, to posters, to TV adverts, to movie trailers, to pop music, to...


YET THEY ALL GET AWAY WITH IT!

Exactly. While I don't think the banner was appropriate, I also don't think it's any more offensive or sexist than an AXE commercial.

ryan
04-12-2011, 03:02 PM
Exactly. While I don't think the banner was appropriate, I also don't think it's any more offensive or sexist than an AXE commercial.

Yet, these same people that would/have complained, will throw their kids in front of the TV to get them out of their hair....which is alright.

But how dare football supporters do this!?!


Give me a break society, you can be so hilariously daft sometimes.

Whoop
04-12-2011, 03:25 PM
I know what you are saying but when I take X offending display out of it (not using judgment on the content) and measure that against the tactics being used by their FO and the support of the League based off of 1 Twitter complaint.

That raises a flag or two for support in the MLS in general. There were meetings at the supporters summit that had a tone and now we are seeing implimentation of rules with minimal consultation with the supporters groups.

This is what can't be lost in all of this.

I still remember banner-gate last season.

DichioTFC
04-12-2011, 03:46 PM
has anyone seen the subject line of the newest TFC email?

http://i52.tinypic.com/2gwdfyg.png

I'm sure we can all agree with the feminists that this is very offensive... and by our own FO!

prizby
04-12-2011, 04:27 PM
get a sense of humour...

boban
04-12-2011, 04:34 PM
has anyone seen the subject line of the newest TFC email?

http://i52.tinypic.com/2gwdfyg.png

I'm sure we can all agree with the feminists that this is very offensive... and by our own FO!
I don't think so.

WestStandGeoff
04-12-2011, 04:36 PM
I can find a lot more problems with this banner other than being misogynistic:


Both women are thin, so it discriminates against fat people
Both women are young, so it's ageist
Both women are women, so it's homophobic
Neither of them are wearing opulent jewelry, so it must be discriminating against poor people
That's about it I think... although there probably is some religious discrimination too if I think about it long enough.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 04:44 PM
I know what you are saying but when I take X offending display out of it (not using judgment on the content) and measure that against the tactics being used by their FO and the support of the League based off of 1 Twitter complaint.

That raises a flag or two for support in the MLS in general. There were meetings at the supporters summit that had a tone and now we are seeing implimentation of rules with minimal consultation with the supporters groups.

I've made my feelings about the banner itself known, but beyond that this is a critical issue to all of us and its where our attention and support for San Jose's supporters should be. Taking issue with the tactics of their FO shouldn't be confused with approving of the banner.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 04:46 PM
I can find a lot more problems with this banner other than being misogynistic:


Both women are thin, so it discriminates against fat people
Both women are young, so it's ageist
Both women are women, so it's homophobic
Neither of them are wearing opulent jewelry, so it must be discriminating against poor people
That's about it I think... although there probably is some religious discrimination too if I think about it long enough.

Snide and dismissive comments won't do anything to change the clear and obvious sexist and demeaning nature of the banner.

David_Oliveira
04-12-2011, 04:54 PM
I know what you are saying but when I take X offending display out of it (not using judgment on the content) and measure that against the tactics being used by their FO and the support of the League based off of 1 Twitter complaint.

That raises a flag or two for support in the MLS in general. There were meetings at the supporters summit that had a tone and now we are seeing implimentation of rules with minimal consultation with the supporters groups.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong. We are not discussing the banner but the reaction.

I agree that the FO acted poorly. If they had an issue, it should have been dealt with right away. Them only having an issue after a complaint is what we are up in arms with. Right?

If that is the case, I think both sides can get in on this. People against the banner should be up in arms over the FO allowing the banner in the first place and people for the banner can be pissed there were sanctions in the first place. Right?

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 05:05 PM
I have to say, it's pretty frustrating reading a lot of the comments. I have a great deal of respect for folks that may disagree but still engaged with these questions. But others who simply discount the perspectives of those critical of this (in inadvertently discounting the groups marginalized by mass soccer culture) really gets on my nerves. If you don't agree, it's fine, we're not going to change your mind anytime soon.. if you don't see issue about something, go ahead and explain why not .. but don't tell me that what I should not be offended at ...

The fact of the matter is, as a social worker, I've seen people have to deal with some really fucked up things .. and a banner certainly pales in comparison.. however, I see the two as very much connected. It's just two sides of the same coin. I am also in no way saying the messaging in this banner was 'exceptional' ... if anything it's not, and with that recognition, we should be more outraged not dismissive. We live in a rape culture that objectifies women and I have no interest in having a community I am very passionate about perpetuate it. If you disagree. Sure. But properly engage with the questions, instead of telling me I am being too serious or whatever..

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 05:07 PM
Taking issue with the tactics of their FO shouldn't be confused with approving of the banner.

Agreed.

I can't agree with the FO dictating what is allowed. It's really up to critical SJ fans and other football fans to speak out against what their supporter groups are doing.

ryan
04-12-2011, 05:41 PM
All I want to add in, is that if you are in the camp that finds this type of banner inappropriate, I sure as hell hope you do not buy products from companies who use sex to advertise, or support anything that uses sex to push business.

If you do, you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

It's absolutely unjust to muzzle soccer fans making a sex related joke while big business gets a free pass because their rolling in money.

I don't argue my stance because I support exploiting sex for financial gain, I believe it's wrong deep down to be perfectly honest. However, that's not the way the world works. It is used widely and is EVERYWHERE in EVERYONE's face and unless it's outlawed for all, taking a stance against this banner is flat out not fair.

MartinUtd
04-12-2011, 05:49 PM
has anyone seen the subject line of the newest TFC email?

http://i52.tinypic.com/2gwdfyg.png

I'm sure we can all agree with the feminists that this is very offensive... and by our own FO!

Uhh.. you're joking, right?

billyfly
04-12-2011, 05:52 PM
Snide and dismissive comments won't do anything to change the clear misjudgement of Mikael Grabovski's talents.

Fixed. BTW - the inside joke can be found in the Leafs thread page 764.

LEAFS RULE

Shep
04-12-2011, 06:00 PM
All I want to add in, is that if you are in the camp that finds this type of banner inappropriate, I sure as hell hope you do not buy products from companies who use sex to advertise, or support anything that uses sex to push business.

If you do, you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

It's absolutely unjust to muzzle soccer fans making a sex related joke while big business gets a free pass because their rolling in money.

I don't argue my stance because I support exploiting sex for financial gain, I believe it's wrong deep down to be perfectly honest. However, that's not the way the world works. It is used widely and is EVERYWHERE in EVERYONE's face and unless it's outlawed for all, taking a stance against this banner is flat out not fair.

Like this ad that was in the London Free Press a few days ago, and full page too..

http://adweek.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c51c053ef0147e4112640970b-450wi

pekduck
04-12-2011, 06:07 PM
First done by BMW in 2008, full size prints in magazines, and billboard ads.

http://ettf.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bmw-first.jpg



Like this ad that was in the London Free Press a few days ago, and full page too..

http://adweek.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c51c053ef0147e4112640970b-450wi

ensco
04-12-2011, 06:40 PM
^I disagree that those ads are comparable to that TIFO. They're just not. But even if I didn't...

There's a bunch of topics in life, say for example: what the drinking age should be, or what the punishment for using drugs should be, or what constitutes pornography, that work a certain way.

The way these topics work is, somebody in a suit gets to draw where the line is. Like it or not.

If you don't know that going in, that's your problem.

pekduck
04-12-2011, 06:47 PM
^
i have no comment on the tifo. I just liked that BMW ad when i first saw it in 2008 and thought it was a brilliant idea for a print ad with appropriate target audience

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 06:55 PM
All I want to add in, is that if you are in the camp that finds this type of banner inappropriate, I sure as hell hope you do not buy products from companies who use sex to advertise, or support anything that uses sex to push business.

If you do, you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

It's absolutely unjust to muzzle soccer fans making a sex related joke while big business gets a free pass because their rolling in money.

I don't argue my stance because I support exploiting sex for financial gain, I believe it's wrong deep down to be perfectly honest. However, that's not the way the world works. It is used widely and is EVERYWHERE in EVERYONE's face and unless it's outlawed for all, taking a stance against this banner is flat out not fair.

The offense doesn't come from using sex to advertise or promote its the depiction of the degradation of women that is offensive - there's a world of difference between the two.

A car company using a suggestive picture and caption is risque, but it certainly doesn't violate community standards the way a banner of two women submissively on their knees, grabbed by their hair, about to service a man who's lording over them. The use of force against the women (stand-ins for the opposing teams) and the fact that they aren't willful participants is at the heart of the intended message of the banner.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 06:57 PM
Fixed. BTW - the inside joke can be found in the Leafs thread page 764.

LEAFS RULE

Not content to let it die in one thread, you now have to spread it to other threads as well? At first your obsession was flattering. Now it's creepy.

Heathen
04-12-2011, 07:13 PM
The banner was crap. It looks like a ten year old drew it.

I am offended by the idea of ten year olds implying oral sex in their artwork.

I got detention for that shit when I was at school.

Sometimes it feels like I've been in detention walking out of BMO

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 07:19 PM
If that were two guys, would there not be an uproar over the tifo?


doubt it
i'm sure people would praise it

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 07:35 PM
doubt it
i'm sure people would praise it

Do you honestly think that a banner depicting a guy grabbing another guy buy the hair for the purpose of making him perform oral sex while a third guy submissively awaits the same fate would get praise from anyone ?!?

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 07:37 PM
The offense doesn't come from using sex to advertise or promote its the depiction of the degradation of women that is offensive - there's a world of difference between the two.

A car company using a suggestive picture and caption is risque, but it certainly doesn't violate community standards the way a banner of two women submissively on their knees, grabbed by their hair, about to service a man who's lording over them. The use of force against the women (stand-ins for the opposing teams) and the fact that they aren't willful participants is at the heart of the intended message of the banner.

This post remind me somewhat of this Onion article:

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize

WASHINGTON—As Congress prepares to allow gay individuals to serve openly in the military, those against the proposed change voiced their concerns Monday, warning the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could soon lead to strong, strapping American soldiers engaging in mind-blowing homosexual intercourse right on the battlefield.

"We're sending our soldiers out there with a mission, and that mission is to protect this country," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), one of many conservative politicians who staunchly oppose the change. "If this is repealed, what's to stop all-night sex romps from breaking out while U.S. servicemen are hiding in a bunker, or crawling around an irrigation ditch bathed only by the light of the moon, or, say, the dozens of other situations I've already thought through in elaborate detail?"

"We can't allow this to happen," Gohmert added as beads of sweat collected on his brow. "It's wrong. Sweaty male sex—no matter how erotic and uninhibited—is so wrong and so, so naughty."http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/

Just sayin'.

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 07:41 PM
Do you honestly think that a banner depicting a guy grabbing another guy buy the hair for the purpose of making him perform oral sex while a third guy submissively awaits the same fate would get praise from anyone ?!?


yup i actually do think that
go look at other leagues and how they've done stuff like that

Brooker
04-12-2011, 07:54 PM
Sex acts on a banner? Oh the horror. :rolleyes:

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 07:56 PM
people that support this team, did one that hinted on 2 girls, 1 cup
guess if we do it it's okay
*shrug*
or we've made a banner that has a religious figurehead, flipping them off
*shrug*

iansmcl
04-12-2011, 08:09 PM
people that support this team, did one that hinted on 2 girls, 1 cup
guess if we do it it's okay
*shrug*
or we've made a banner that has a religious figurehead, flipping them off
*shrug*

Both of which I find in poor taste.
*shrug*

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 08:12 PM
never said i didn't think that either
i just find it odd how people are having their comupins (see even i can use made up words!) about this, but yet not even bat an eye of complaint about stuff that we've done in the past.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:13 PM
people that support this team, did one that hinted on 2 girls, 1 cup
guess if we do it it's okay
*shrug*
or we've made a banner that has a religious figurehead, flipping them off
*shrug*

Personally, I didn't have a problem with either. The 2 girls 1 cup was clever, the offense was directed at their players. I can understand how some people might have been offended by the Jesus-finger, but even as a Christian I wasn't offended.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:14 PM
Sex acts on a banner? Oh the horror. :rolleyes:

Not sex, forced sex.

Brooker
04-12-2011, 08:15 PM
how do you know its forced and if it is how do you know the girls don't like to be forced? some are into that. :)

calm down, oldertimers! this whole thing is silly.

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 08:19 PM
Personally, I didn't have a problem with either. The 2 girls 1 cup was clever, the offense was directed at their players. I can understand how some people might have been offended by the Jesus-finger, but even as a Christian I wasn't offended.

so you're saying a video that has garunteed to have offended thousands more (not me, i found it hilarious), and to have some of us go ahead and make a banner around it is okay?
but having a banner where some shittly drawn sheen holding two chicks hair, is wrong?
now does that make sense? really i'm lost. the first one clearly hurdled the offensive line and then some.

Shep
04-12-2011, 08:21 PM
^I disagree that those ads are comparable to that TIFO. They're just not. But even if I didn't...

There's a bunch of topics in life, say for example: what the drinking age should be, or what the punishment for using drugs should be, or what constitutes pornography, that work a certain way.

The way these topics work is, somebody in a suit gets to draw where the line is. Like it or not.

If you don't know that going in, that's your problem.


I never compared the ad to anything. I just posted it after I read the bit about sex being used everywhere. The comment reminded me of the ad.

But now that you bring it up, I think they are comparable actually. Both refer to woman as sex objects don't they? Actually the car ad is even heavier in that regard. The sheen-esque tifo was more a play on charlie's recent exploits mixed with footy crests than a view of woman in general. Where the car ad pretty much puts in writing that most man would sleep with a woman regardless of her sexual history if she was hot enough..

That to me is as degrading as the tifo, if not more. But I guess vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as "If you don't know that going in, that's your problem." I agree, but I also believe if a person disagrees with the charge or the punishment they have the right to argue it, publicly and privately in this case, which is what they are doing.

Raging Reggie
04-12-2011, 08:21 PM
7 fucking pages on this? (ohh forgive me if i have cursed and swore on the board)

Jesus, I didnt realise the group have been over run by soccer moms. At least bring my drunk ass a peanut butter jelly sandwich and a juice box for the game tommorrow night please....

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 08:22 PM
careful peanut butter allergies are out there
better make it cheeze wiz and jelly

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:23 PM
how do you know its forced and if it is how do you know the girls don't like to be forced? some are into that. :)

calm down, oldertimers! this whole thing is silly.

The fact that the lesser, inferior, teams are in a role of servitude is the message of the banner - the fist full of hair implies force.

Raging Reggie
04-12-2011, 08:27 PM
careful peanut butter allergies are out there
better make it cheeze wiz and jelly

HAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA, Yeoman stikes! Im sorry should i delete my comment? Dont want this thead to stretch into another 3 pages and get off topic with people talking about the merits of MLSE selling peanuts at the games.

Raging Reggie
04-12-2011, 08:28 PM
The fact that the lesser, inferior, teams are in a role of servitude is the message of the banner - the fist full of hair implies force.

ummm, my old lady loves it when i grab a fist full of her hair? Im offended dude, what are you implying?

billyfly
04-12-2011, 08:31 PM
Not content to let it die in one thread, you now have to spread it to other threads as well? At first your obsession was flattering. Now it's creepy.

You accused someone of the EXACT SAME THING you did in the Leaf thread.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:33 PM
so you're saying a video that has garunteed to have offended thousands more (not me, i found it hilarious), and to have some of us go ahead and make a banner around it is okay?

Yes, because we referenced a pop-culture meme and put their players in the roll of shit eaters. I didn't say that it wasn't offensive, I said that I didn't have a problem with it because the offense was directed at their players.



but having a banner where some shittly drawn sheen holding two chicks hair, is wrong?


Yes, because of the way it depicts women - its made worse by the fact that the reference to Sheen is so poorly drawn that the overwhelming majority of people who saw that wouldn't have made the connection to him. Most people who saw that would think that it was a banner of a male San Jose fan grabbing a female LA fan by her hair - it conjures imagines of violence and rape - and thats the clear intended message of the banner. They're not trying to say "We're better than you, so if you're into it come on over and you can give me a blow job if you like" it's "We rule, you suck - so suck it".

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 08:35 PM
players are humans to you know?
they have thoughts and feelings to?
still projecting an image that shows what we are at any given time

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:35 PM
ummm, my old lady loves it when i grab a fist full of her hair? Im offended dude, what are you implying?

What you do with your old lady is clearly consentual. What that San Jose fan is doing to that LA fan isn't.

Raging Reggie
04-12-2011, 08:36 PM
Im fairly certain when charlie sheen has sex with his goddess though, it goes down just as the banner depicts :D

Raging Reggie
04-12-2011, 08:40 PM
What you do with your old lady is clearly consentual. What that San Jose fan is doing to that LA fan isn't.

How do you know that? Your just assuming. The cartoon LA fan wasnt complaining. I didnt see any bubble letters comming from there mouth suggesting they werent into it.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:40 PM
players are humans to you know?
they have thoughts and feelings to?
still projecting an image that shows what we are at any given time

Lampooning a public figure - an athlete, a politician, a celebrity etc. - even to the point of offense has a level of social acceptance that doing the same vs a group - especially a perceived minority or socially disadvantaged group - doesn't.

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 08:41 PM
so where's the group in that picture then?

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 08:41 PM
Not sex, forced sex.

Except that there is absolutely nothing on the banner that states that or depicts that.

But hey! Why get bogged down with the details? :rolleyes:

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:42 PM
How do you know that? Your just assuming. The cartoon LA fan wasnt complaining. I didnt see any bubble letters comming from there mouth suggesting they werent into it.

The banner was meant to be insulting, depiction of consentual sex between opposing fans isn't insulting.

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 08:44 PM
^ Which would explain why almost everyone here agrees that it's not a very effective banner.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:45 PM
Except that there is absolutely nothing on the banner that states that or depicts that.

But hey! Why get bogged down with the details? :rolleyes:

Do you think having an oppenent on her knees held by her hair is meant to convery consent?

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 08:46 PM
so where's the group in that picture then?

Women

Yeoman
04-12-2011, 08:47 PM
so you're mad at the fact that it's the women thing? right
again, you're now drawing lines in the sand that you can't just s curve around
i'll bring it back
where's the line then? again, two girls, one cup is okay? but this isn't? how?

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 08:48 PM
Do you think having an oppenent on her knees held by her hair is meant to convey consent?

You obviously don't get oral a lot. There's lot of ways a girl can position herself to perform fellatio. On her knees happens to be a popular one. That doesn't necessarily indicate the use of force. In fact, it's a HUGE assumption to do so.

Raging Reggie
04-12-2011, 08:50 PM
I think we should make banners like "Welcome to our city guys! Thanks for playing on our pitch" and "Second half we will boo our team for you, cause you swell people are our guests in this country. HOpe you have fun here!"

AL-MO
04-12-2011, 09:05 PM
7 fucking pages on this? (ohh forgive me if i have cursed and swore on the board)

Jesus, I didnt realise the group have been over run by soccer moms. At least bring my drunk ass a peanut butter jelly sandwich and a juice box for the game tommorrow night please....

Damn Reggie you beat me to it.

8 pages now? Part of me is wondering if this is a joke or something.

If the banner didn't bother you great, if it offended you, even better.

WHO CARES?! This thread is proof that people will get offended over anything these days.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:07 PM
You obviously don't get oral a lot. There's lot of ways a girl can position herself to perform fellatio. On her knees happens to be a popular one. That doesn't necessarily indicate the use of force. In fact, it's a HUGE assumption to do so.

Thanks for sex lesson :rolleyes:

The banner was meant to be insulting, depiction of consentual sex between opposing fans isn't insulting.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:08 PM
so you're mad at the fact that it's the women thing? right
again, you're now drawing lines in the sand that you can't just s curve around
i'll bring it back
where's the line then? again, two girls, one cup is okay? but this isn't? how?

I've already explained that.

Cashcleaner
04-12-2011, 09:12 PM
Thanks for sex lesson :rolleyes:

The banner was meant to be insulting, depiction of consentual sex between opposing fans isn't insulting.

You're right. It's not. Which helps explains why the tifo is so ineffectual.

WestStandGeoff
04-12-2011, 09:14 PM
Snide and dismissive comments won't do anything to change the clear and obvious sexist and demeaning nature of the banner.


WHO CARES?! This thread is proof that people will get offended over anything these days.

That was kind of the point of my snide post... and also that just because something is offensive, doesn't mean it's automatically sexist/racist/ageist/homophobic/islamophobic/whaterverphobic.

babone
04-12-2011, 09:15 PM
all i can say to this is

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3394459189_b17923ae4c.jpg
Is it possible to get this poster size? That is fricken priceless!

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:15 PM
I think we should make banners like "Welcome to our city guys! Thanks for playing on our pitch" and "Second half we will boo our team for you, cause you swell people are our guests in this country. HOpe you have fun here!"

When people here took offense to the racist chants in Columbus was your response "Well then, no more chanting from us any more. From now on we'll just keep quiet and politely appauld" ?

Taking offense to a banner done by another group - the first time in 5 years that that's happened - doesn't call for any changes to be made to how we do things.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:20 PM
You're right. It's not. Which helps explains why the tifo is so ineffectual.

Cash, even the people who aren't offended by this aren't in denial about what is being depicted. No one here is looking at that and thinking "Thats strange, they wanted to insult the other team but instead of showing an image that invokes dominance over an inferior oppenent they chose to make a banner of a consentual sex scene".

AL-MO
04-12-2011, 09:21 PM
Is it possible to get this poster size? That is fricken priceless!

We could always make another.....

Whoop
04-12-2011, 09:23 PM
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/8/Sexy-Guinness-Ad-547488

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 09:27 PM
Apparently the relationship between Charlie and his goddesses is totally consensual, although the accepted wisdom is that they do what he says because he gives them stuff. The 'Goddesses' want what he has, so they demean themselves submissively to get a share.

The 'goddesses' are not 'women' they are two real people, who are being parodied in the banner. They are not rape victims, they're groupie prostitutes.

keep to the facts and stop making this issue a platform for other issues such as 'the rape culture' that we live in, whichis the kind of statement that makes me want to puke. I think the continuous implication by feminists that men are basically rapists that are restraining themselves, and have chauvinism in their genetic makeup is nauseating.

Wagner
04-12-2011, 09:29 PM
all the talk of consent...has me thinking about Scumbag Steve.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhnnkqDorm1qglf38o1_500.jpg

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 09:33 PM
^^
BANG! that's awesome.

Whoop
04-12-2011, 09:35 PM
Apparently the relationship between Charlie and his goddesses is totally consensual, although the accepted wisdom is that they do what he says because he gives them stuff. The 'Goddesses' want what he has, so they demean themselves submissively to get a share.

The 'goddesses' are not 'women' they are two real people, who are being parodied in the banner. They are not rape victims, they're groupie prostitutes.

keep to the facts and stop making this issue a platform for other issues such as 'the rape culture' that we live in, whichis the kind of statement that makes me want to puke. I think the continuous implication by feminists that men are basically rapists that are restraining themselves, and have chauvinism in their genetic makeup is nauseating.

Thanks Ian.

Never knew a poorly constructed banner that tried to be risque and funny and failed on all accounts - especially given that San Jose sucks - could elicit 8 pages of discussion. LOL

And the FO reacting to 1 complaint on Twitter and imposing sanctions on the group is also asinine.

I don't look forward to the day when TFC's FO decides to impose sanctions on supporters groups based on 1 complaint.

Wagner
04-12-2011, 09:35 PM
Ian, i wish you posted more.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:36 PM
Apparently the relationship between Charlie and his goddesses is totally consensual, although the accepted wisdom is that they do what he says because he gives them stuff. The 'Goddesses' want what he has, so they demean themselves submissively to get a share.

The 'goddesses' are not 'women' they are two real people, who are being parodied in the banner. They are not rape victims, they're groupie prostitutes.

I don't disagree, the problem is that this banner was so poorly executed that I doubt if anyone made the connection between it and Charlie Sheen so it ended up leaving most people with a far more different impression than what they intended.

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 09:40 PM
Apparently the relationship between Charlie and his goddesses is totally consensual, although the accepted wisdom is that they do what he says because he gives them stuff. The 'Goddesses' want what he has, so they demean themselves submissively to get a share.

The 'goddesses' are not 'women' they are two real people, who are being parodied in the banner. They are not rape victims, they're groupie prostitutes.

keep to the facts and stop making this issue a platform for other issues such as 'the rape culture' that we live in, whichis the kind of statement that makes me want to puke. I think the continuous implication by feminists that men are basically rapists that are restraining themselves, and have chauvinism in their genetic makeup is nauseating.

Yea, I was speaking to a friend about this whole Charlie Sheen thing. I don't know Charlie Sheen or his partners personally.... so can't really comment on that relationship.

But I don't see the relevancy even if the starting point was a reference to CHarlie Sheen, seeing as the intentions appears to be to have two women associated with negative connotations like a rival team (often associated with discourses of dominance).

We don't live in a vacuum, it's impossible to talk about these things without recognizing the context. The notion of rape culture isn't that men are rapists that restrain themselves .. the notion refers to how we have a culture that normalizes sexual violence (as seen with some of the responses here today) and sexually objectifies women. I as a man, recognize my priviliges in the work world, and in other areas.. what makes me puke is when people are so unaware, whether consciously or not, of where they stand in this world and when called out on it, get so defensive and start throwing thigns like 'making this issue a platform' ..

ryan
04-12-2011, 09:41 PM
The offense doesn't come from using sex to advertise or promote its the depiction of the degradation of women that is offensive - there's a world of difference between the two.

A car company using a suggestive picture and caption is risque, but it certainly doesn't violate community standards the way a banner of two women submissively on their knees, grabbed by their hair, about to service a man who's lording over them. The use of force against the women (stand-ins for the opposing teams) and the fact that they aren't willful participants is at the heart of the intended message of the banner.


I can surely find you worse, much worse, than the ads those two posters put up.

Surely you are aware of how easy that would be.

Lets also keep facts to facts, there's no force or any indication that they aren't willful. You're making things up to support your opinion.

werewolf
04-12-2011, 09:45 PM
mwPIC2HchpQ

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 09:46 PM
I don't disagree, the problem is that this banner was so poorly executed that I doubt if anyone made the connection between it and Charlie Sheen so it ended up leaving most people with a far more different impression than what they intended.

Yeah it was shit, and they should be told not to bring it again because the visual reference to oral sex isnt appropriate, whether it was social commentary, parody, fun, misogyny or whatever.

Their FO handled it wrong, but they really are doing the SJ fans a favour by telling them to burn the fucking thing, cause its an embarrasment.

You have to accept though, Cretan, that however the message is interpreted, the intended message was not 'men are the masters of women' and pretending it does is merely creating an excuse to start demonising men again, and making references to 'rape culture' and 'patriarchal society' yadda yadda.....

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:46 PM
I can surely find you worse, much worse, than the ads those two posters put up.

Surely you are aware of how easy that would be.

Lets also keep facts to facts, there's no force or any indication that they aren't willful. You're making things up to support your opinion.

So you look at that picture and think "Oh look, there's an LA fan being really nice to that San Jose fan"? If its meant to depict a willful act, what's the purpose of the banner? Clearly, they're trying to insult their oppenents and there's nothing insulting about consentual sex.

Whoop
04-12-2011, 09:50 PM
I looked at it and thought "when did this incarnation of San Jose ever win anything to proclaim liking the view from the top?"

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 09:54 PM
You have to accept though, Cretan, that however the message is interpreted, the intended message was not 'men are the masters of women' and pretending it does is merely creating an excuse to start demonising men again, and making references to 'rape culture' and 'patriarchal society' yadda yadda.....

The intended message almost certainly wasn't "men are the masters of women" but with such poor execution you can understand how someone might be left thinking that it was demeaning to women.

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 09:57 PM
You have to accept though, Cretan, that however the message is interpreted, the intended message was not 'men are the masters of women' and pretending it does is merely creating an excuse to start demonising men again, and making references to 'rape culture' and 'patriarchal society' yadda yadda.....

I am not sure it needs to be the intended message though. This sort of imagery and narrative is so much a part of common culture, that I doubt the SJ fans sat around and was like "let's demean women" .. doesn't make it any less problematic...


And c'mon, assuming you're a guy too, 'excuse to start demonising men?' like we're having such a horrible time compared to women?

David_Oliveira
04-12-2011, 09:59 PM
http://cdn.babble.com/famecrawler/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/charlie_sheen_nbc_110301_640_video.jpg
http://www.1906ultras.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/img-5771-1.jpg
The goddesses in the tifo don't even look like The Sheenious' goddesses.

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 10:07 PM
And c'mon, assuming you're a guy too, 'excuse to start demonising men?' like we're having such a horrible time compared to women?

A lot of us are, in many ways. But nobody gives a crap.

Our issues from prostate cancer, domestic abuse, child custody and support etc.... etc.... are derided and ignored, because the prevalent view out there is that men are automatically the aggressors, irresponsible, powermongering, lecherous, self serving assholes that dont quite get it and are benefitting from 2000 years of patriarchy.

I call bullshit.

ryan
04-12-2011, 10:07 PM
So you look at that picture and think "Oh look, there's an LA fan being really nice to that San Jose fan"? If its meant to depict a willful act, what's the purpose of the banner? Clearly, they're trying to insult their oppenents and there's nothing insulting about consentual sex.



What's on the banner is 2 girls on their knees beside a standing male.

Your interpretation is not fact. End of story.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 10:12 PM
What's on the banner is 2 girls on their knees beside a standing male.

And that's meant to convey what? A fun time of mutual respect shared between a San Jose and LA fan or a depiction of San Jose dominance over LA?

flamehawk
04-12-2011, 10:14 PM
A lot of us are, in many ways. But nobody gives a crap.

Our issues from prostate cancer, domestic abuse, child custody and support etc.... etc.... are derided and ignored, because the prevalent view out there is that men are automatically the aggressors, irresponsible, powermongering, lecherous, self serving assholes that dont quite get it and are benefitting from 2000 years of patriarchy.

I call bullshit.

Yes, men face problems too. But I think you're individualizing the issue. An analysis of patriarchy doesn't say that men are automatically aggressive, irresponsible etc.... the analysis states that our societies are structured so that women are systemically subjugated and discriminated against. Why are women so often saddled with childcare functions? Why are community childcare options os limited? Why is violence against women perpetrated by men so much more prevalent than it is the other way around (not to say men are never victims of this)? Why do women earn on average .75 cents to every dollar a men makes? etc. etc. etc....

It's not about portraying men as inherently evil .. that'd be very weak analysis. We're talking about structural issues here.

CretanBull
04-12-2011, 10:18 PM
A lot of us are, in many ways. But nobody gives a crap.

Our issues from prostate cancer, domestic abuse, child custody and support etc.... etc.... are derided and ignored, because the prevalent view out there is that men are automatically the aggressors, irresponsible, powermongering, lecherous, self serving assholes that dont quite get it and are benefitting from 2000 years of patriarchy.

I call bullshit.

We're in (greater) danger of spiralling off topic, but personally I don't take any of those issues lightly either. I've been at a friends side in a child custody case while he was unfairly demonized and his kid was awarded to a woman that anyone but the Canadian justice system would consider unfit.

Having a criminal record (for theft) 10 years prior was deemed a more serious offense than a mother who routinely ignores her son and takes every opportunity to pawn the kid off on anyone who will take him but wants to hold custody for the sake of a child benefit allowance...without it she couldn't afford to spend every weekend in a bar.

nascarguy
04-12-2011, 10:22 PM
Damn Reggie you beat me to it.

8 pages now? Part of me is wondering if this is a joke or something.

If the banner didn't bother you great, if it offended you, even better.

WHO CARES?! This thread is proof that people will get offended over anything these days.
9 pages now time for more :drinking::drinking: and wait for page 10 &11

ExiledRed
04-12-2011, 10:47 PM
Yes, men face problems too. But I think you're individualizing the issue. An analysis of patriarchy doesn't say that men are automatically aggressive, irresponsible etc.... the analysis states that our societies are structured so that women are systemically subjugated and discriminated against. Why are women so often saddled with childcare functions? Why are community childcare options os limited? Why is violence against women perpetrated by men so much more prevalent than it is the other way around (not to say men are never victims of this)? Why do women earn on average .75 cents to every dollar a men makes? etc. etc. etc....

It's not about portraying men as inherently evil .. that'd be very weak analysis. We're talking about structural issues here.

Its not about portraying men as inherently evil, its about making women inherently victims, which by implication makes men the victimisers.

I dont buy it, at the lower end of the payscale where the majority of us live, the payscale imbalance is imperceptible, and in workplaces such as factories you might find women have a ton more advantages than men do.

In retail or service, do you think male resumes are never discriminated against? Do you think women dont get more flexibility with hours and overtime based on their motherhood?

Why is it when you say domestic violence, the automatic assumption is going to be that of male aggression. That right there is the demonisation of men, and I promise you that most men who are abused by their spouses don't report it, dont have any support network in place anyway, and wouldnt even get support from their friends, cause theyd laugh at them.

My position is, that this demonisation of men has lead to issues facing us to be exacerbated and unaddressed, and if nobody gives a fuck about my problems, why should i give a fuck about theirs?

I used to worship the earth goddess and yearn for a return to the matriarchy back in my early twenties by the way. If we were having this conversation back then, I would be like

"yeah, and men like changed religion and shit so that god was a man, and the line should be traced through the mother cause you know who the mother is and the father could be anyone, and women make more sensible leaders than men who just like to bomb shit....yeah man.....pasas that bong."

Blowing Bubbles
04-12-2011, 11:04 PM
I can see how the tifo is offensive and really it should've been taken down during the game by security and that would've been the end of it right there.

But handing out a 5 game probation to the supporters group is way over the top - especially early in the season. You would hop the front office would be able to have a better dialogue and negotiate a different resolution - maybe just an open dialogue over what is/isn't appropriate and if they cross the line again it'll be a massive ban. Or a 1 game timeout/cooling off period now.

Ostracizing the group up front is not good for in game atmosphere if these guys are going to sit on their hands for the next 5 home games ..... then again maybe the ownership doesn't give a fuck about supporters and would rather those guys just weren't there at all ...... who knows what their target demo is and if they're trying to cater to soccer fans or ppl who go to Giants and Sharks games.

Surprised by the sanctimony of some posters ITT saying if that was done at bmo they'd quit RPB .... hope you guys aren't involved in any dirty chants then.

DichioTFC
04-13-2011, 02:15 AM
Damn Reggie you beat me to it.

8 pages now? Part of me is wondering if this is a joke or something.

If the banner didn't bother you great, if it offended you, even better.

WHO CARES?! This thread is proof that people will get offended over anything these days.


9 pages now time for more :drinking::drinking: and wait for page 10 &11

I, for one, enjoy trolling in this nonsense thread. I feel like I'm Roogsy in a DeRo thread ;)

Btw, if we made a sexual banner featuring DeRo, would the RPB website explode?

DichioTFC
04-13-2011, 02:22 AM
this thread needs to die a slow, painful death. Next you'll be telling me that this is offensive...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhhr9aluLO1qf1fawo1_500.jpg

Cashcleaner
04-13-2011, 04:52 AM
What's on the banner is 2 girls on their knees beside a standing male.

Your interpretation is not fact. End of story.

Needed repeating.

Too be honest, I don't think this debate will ever go away. People decide for themselves what they are offended by, and those sorts of matters are not generally decided by logic but rather by emotion. We're at an impasse.

CretanBull
04-13-2011, 04:55 AM
I, for one, enjoy trolling in this nonsense thread. I feel like I'm Roogsy in a DeRo thread ;)



this thread needs to die a slow, painful death. Next you'll be telling me that this is offensive...


Some people here are offended by the banner, and for the most part there's been an honest level of debate about it. Do you think trolling a thread and mocking people's point of view on such a sensitive issue helps in anyway? Do you have such little respect for your fellow RPB members that you feel the need to belittle their views because you disagree with them?

Even if you're not offended by the banner, is it that hard to imagine why some people would take exception to a banner depicting an actor who has a history of violence against women standing over a woman who he's holding in place by her hair?

Again, even if you're not bothered by the banner can we at least agree that a topic of this nature deserves more respect than a flippant comparison to an internet meme reference to Sir Mix Alot lyrics?

"Trolling" doesn't help at all - worse, its adding fuel to the fire to the lack of mutual respect that's ripping this group apart.

CretanBull
04-13-2011, 05:21 AM
Too be honest, I don't think this debate will ever go away. People decide for themselves what they are offended by, and those sorts of matters are not generally decided by logic but rather by emotion. We're at an impasse.

You're probably right. To put it in another context though, if you were offended by something that you thought was anti-semtic even if I didn't think that it was anti-semtic I'd have enough respect to not mock you for being offended and try to have a mature conversation about it. If things started to get ugly or personal, I'd back off because I'm not the offended party and I'd respect someone else's feelings on such a sensitive issue. The Red Patch Boys is supposed to be a brotherhood, and mutual respect has to be the foundation of such a diverse group as ours.

Has it occured to anyone here that someone who was raped or sexually assulted has read this thread and reacted in horror with the causual and joking attitude that some people have taken?

The debate has been had, just about every opinion on the topic has been expressed. Going forward can those who aren't offended show some sympathy to those that are and treat the subject with some reverence?

flamehawk
04-13-2011, 07:18 AM
You're probably right. To put it in another context though, if you were offended by something that you thought was anti-semtic even if I didn't think that it was anti-semtic I'd have enough respect to not mock you for being offended and try to have a mature conversation about it. If things started to get ugly or personal, I'd back off because I'm not the offended party and I'd respect someone else's feelings on such a sensitive issue. The Red Patch Boys is supposed to be a brotherhood, and mutual respect has to be the foundation of such a diverse group as ours.

Has it occured to anyone here that someone who was raped or sexually assulted has read this thread and reacted in horror with the causual and joking attitude that some people have taken?

The debate has been had, just about every opinion on the topic has been expressed. Going forward can those who aren't offended show some sympathy to those that are and treat the subject with some reverence?

Here here

This isn't exactly 4chan or some random website. We actually see each other at the pub and at games. I'd like to think this is a community, and it'd be nice for folks to have a little more respect. Emotions or not, (I'd like to think it's both for me but if you think I am completely irrational, fine.) that's the opinion being stated by some folks here and as Cretan said, I do know people that would have an even bigger reaction to some of the comments made here ... let's not act like children trying to take the mickey out of eachother.