|
|
Post by Manx Terrier on Jul 19, 2021 20:19:47 GMT 1
As long as a post is not racially abusing another poster or bullying or abusing another poster it should generally be allowed. The forum shouldn't have specific rules designed just to prevent upsetting people or groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 19, 2021 20:23:05 GMT 1
You raise a very good point. Whatever anyone thinks of otiums opinions and his right to say them, one thing I think most would agree with me about is that the way he has dealt with his illness and the terminal diagnosis it brought about has been pretty inspirational. He has had this belligerent refusal to let it stop him living his life how he wants to, or to let it send him into a spiral of depression. Think most people, myself included , would probably just turn very quickly into a depressed, scared wreck of what we were. I think its a real shame that for the crime of saying something bad about gays ( I repeat, a view no different than what the mainstream religions freely have in this country ) that he has been denied the opportunity to communicate on here ( and he was on here a lot so must have become a big part of his day ) and we have lost the opportunity to support him, for what thats worth, as his life comes to its end. I get he's had warnings from those that deem those opinions not just wrong ( like just about everyone else does including myself ) but unacceptable to even say , but bloody hell, the penalty doesn't seem to match the crime in any way to me. What relevance is what other religons say? If something is wrong it's wrong? I don't see how you can create a justification benchmark from another group with dubious opinions/views. I also read that many weren't offended by Otis post. Isn't this missing the point? This board represents us as Huddersfield Town fans, and as such represents Huddersfield Town. People are entitled to their views, and their views are then to be challenged. The rules are in place in order to ensure the views posted are acceptable to anyone who may read board. If you believe those rul Ive never thought this board represents Huddersfield Town . We're just fans of the club and certainly in terms of the Off Topic section, Huddersfield Town is of no relevance at all really. Id imagine there are forums for people who drive BMWs, but they're not representing the company BMW in any way. I think what religions say is relevant because in our society,, where Otium has just been judged,,, its not only acceptable for these mainstream religions to hold those same views, and for them to promote them to their millions of followers but also to actively and openly discriminate against people based on them. So if that is acceptable in our society for huge organisations like religions, then IMO coming down on an individual in such a manner for doing nothing different seems disproportionate and somewhat inconsistent . People are entitled to their views as you say. Only they're not clearly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 20:23:37 GMT 1
As long as a post is not racially abusing another poster or bullying or abusing another poster it should generally be allowed. The forum shouldn't have specific rules designed just to prevent upsetting people or groups. I don’t agree with the admins on everything. But that is absolutely barbaric. |
|
King Curtis
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Bacon is good for me
Posts: 4,844
|
Post by King Curtis on Jul 19, 2021 21:11:26 GMT 1
Otium... Never banned from an actual football ground, but banned from an online football forum.
Disgrace.
|
|
|
|
Post by York Terrier on Jul 19, 2021 21:19:04 GMT 1
I have no idea who everyone is talking about but if he is banned for whatever reason ( and there appears to be many) then that’s the end of the issue just move on. I want the Brexit vote overturned but it won’t happen as these are the rules. ( But that Silly sod and his cronies will not get back in again) as the rules allow us to vote him out just as happened to Otium. But that's the point , WE haven't voted him out . The decision was taken by a small self appointed group. One having been in an argument with him . But those are the rules so why the fuss some on here appear not to think to highly of him and the remarks he has apparently made. Just let it go it does not need pages and pages |
|
|
|
Post by turbo2 on Jul 19, 2021 21:23:43 GMT 1
What relevance is what other religons say? If something is wrong it's wrong? I don't see how you can create a justification benchmark from another group with dubious opinions/views. I also read that many weren't offended by Otis post. Isn't this missing the point? This board represents us as Huddersfield Town fans, and as such represents Huddersfield Town. People are entitled to their views, and their views are then to be challenged. The rules are in place in order to ensure the views posted are acceptable to anyone who may read board. If you believe those rul Ive never thought this board represents Huddersfield Town . We're just fans of the club and certainly in terms of the Off Topic section, Huddersfield Town is of no relevance at all really. Id imagine there are forums for people who drive BMWs, but they're not representing the company BMW in any way. I think what religions say is relevant because in our society,, where Otium has just been judged,,, its not only acceptable for these mainstream religions to hold those same views, and for them to promote them to their millions of followers but also to actively and openly discriminate against people based on them. So if that is acceptable in our society for huge organisations like religions, then IMO coming down on an individual in such a manner for doing nothing different seems disproportionate and somewhat inconsistent . People are entitled to their views as you say. Only they're not clearly. Religion is a pet hate of mine. Atheist me. But I do get your point. Muslims and catholics both have strong positions on this. Funny though that catholic priests can’t marry and homosexuality is scorned whilst for decades they’ve hidden the fact their priests have been fiddling with the choir boys. |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Jul 19, 2021 21:35:49 GMT 1
BDG …. I get your stance and your reluctance to stand down on it. I don’t know Oti, I know he’s a Town fan, I know he’s had some/ got some spurious ideas about stuff. From a personal point I’ve seen a lot of death and the best death is when you can articulate before you can’t anymore. Cancer is a fine example, you can plan, that’s a good thing. Let him post before he can’t anymore. He’s probably scared but would never say it. I think it would mean a lot to him. PS And if he doesn’t die any time soon we can all kick fuck out of him😊😊 The fact that he openly expressed his apology demonstrates that he wants to still post while he can. It's a brave move by the admins,because not only have they terminated the chance for otium to communicate with people he will see as friends and fellow town fans, they've also terminated the opportunity for many of us to help keep otiums spirits raised in his final weeks of his life. He's openly fought his battles on here, Experiences that other posters may well draw on if they ever face a life ending illness themselves - it's a shame that those experiences have been denied to people that may well benefit from them in the future. The forum has voted to bring him back. The forum is not the 3 people that administrate it. Not to sound insensitive, but it's a shame that in the blokes 'final weeks' he couldnt make peace with the way of the world and say "let folk live their lives without derision of their lifestyle on a public forum" But, hey. |
|
|
|
Post by Manx Terrier on Jul 19, 2021 21:40:21 GMT 1
As long as a post is not racially abusing another poster or bullying or abusing another poster it should generally be allowed. The forum shouldn't have specific rules designed just to prevent upsetting people or groups. I don’t agree with the admins on everything. But that is absolutely barbaric. Rules should give administrators wide leeway to ban posters for seriously bad conduct. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 19, 2021 21:42:54 GMT 1
So racism is cool as long as its not aimed at a town fan .. Great new rule
|
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Jul 19, 2021 21:59:55 GMT 1
Would you set guidelines and expect him to follow them, or allow him to post whatever he wants? Silly question Sid. You know what I mean. Don’t be a bell end. Forgive me if I chose not to engage in an infantile bout of name calling. I'll just assume you can't answer the Question that needs to be answered if your suggestion was to be considered. |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Jul 19, 2021 22:13:48 GMT 1
The fact that he openly expressed his apology demonstrates that he wants to still post while he can. It's a brave move by the admins,because not only have they terminated the chance for otium to communicate with people he will see as friends and fellow town fans, they've also terminated the opportunity for many of us to help keep otiums spirits raised in his final weeks of his life. He's openly fought his battles on here, Experiences that other posters may well draw on if they ever face a life ending illness themselves - it's a shame that those experiences have been denied to people that may well benefit from them in the future. The forum has voted to bring him back. The forum is not the 3 people that administrate it. You raise a very good point. Whatever anyone thinks of otiums opinions and his right to say them, one thing I think most would agree with me about is that the way he has dealt with his illness and the terminal diagnosis it brought about has been pretty inspirational. He has had this belligerent refusal to let it stop him living his life how he wants to, or to let it send him into a spiral of depression. Think most people, myself included , would probably just turn very quickly into a depressed, scared wreck of what we were. I think its a real shame that for the crime of saying something bad about gays ( I repeat, a view no different than what the mainstream religions freely have in this country ) that he has been denied the opportunity to communicate on here ( and he was on here a lot so must have become a big part of his day ) and we have lost the opportunity to support him, for what thats worth, as his life comes to its end. I get he's had warnings from those that deem those opinions not just wrong ( like just about everyone else does including myself ) but unacceptable to even say , but bloody hell, the penalty doesn't seem to match the crime in any way to me. Difficult to debate the issue when most of us have a different understanding of the facts I accept you genuinely believe he was banned for "saying something bad about gays" I genuinely believe he was banned for breaking the rules. We both agree he was given numerous warning but chose to ignore them. You believe it relevant to stress the warnings were given by people who disagree with his views, I don't. Like many others, I would prefer say a 5 year ban to a lifetime ban (not sure that would help in this case) but the penalties are what they are and Oti knew what they were I could go on but I wont. What you are right about though IMO, is that the way he has dealt with his illness and the terminal diagnosis it brought about has been pretty inspirational. Let's all of us regardless of our position on the ban wish him and his loved ones all the best. |
|
Champers
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,422
|
Post by Champers on Jul 19, 2021 22:32:30 GMT 1
As long as a post is not racially abusing another poster or bullying or abusing another poster it should generally be allowed. The forum shouldn't have specific rules designed just to prevent upsetting people or groups. Errrrrrrrrmmmmmm...what?!?! By this logic posters would be allowed to: - poke fun at disabled people - be as homophobic as they want - mock all religions, so long as it wasnt at any forum member specifically And much, much more hideous behaviour. This is potentially THE worst thing I've seen anyone suggest on any forum ever. Give your head a wobble you fucking maniac. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 22:36:12 GMT 1
Otium... Never banned from an actual football ground, but banned from an online football forum. Disgrace. Presumably that's because he broke the rules of one place but not the other... |
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Jul 19, 2021 22:40:04 GMT 1
As long as a post is not racially abusing another poster or bullying or abusing another poster it should generally be allowed. The forum shouldn't have specific rules designed just to prevent upsetting people or groups. Errrrrrrrrmmmmmm...what?!?! By this logic posters would be allowed to: - poke fun at disabled people - be as homophobic as they want - mock all religions, so long as it wasnt at any forum member specifically And much, much more hideous behaviour. This is potentially THE worst thing I've seen anyone suggest on any forum ever. Give your head a wobble you fucking maniac. Careful, El Mel will accuse you of trying to make him look bad. 🙄 |
|
King Curtis
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Bacon is good for me
Posts: 4,844
|
Post by King Curtis on Jul 19, 2021 23:24:06 GMT 1
Otium... Never banned from an actual football ground, but banned from an online football forum. Disgrace. Presumably that's because he broke the rules of one place but not the other... "The politics and current affairs sub-board is the only board we tend to administer differently. Here, we tend to allow some conduct that we may not allow elsewhere – debate can often become heated and some of the opinions can become unsavoury, but generally we tend to let this play out and the users of the sub-board to police themselves. This does not mean you can’t report posts, but it does mean that we’ll review them bearing the location of them in mind. As a general rule of thumb, if your post would normally result in a yellow card, we will most likely let it slide. However, we take each report on merit, and repeated low level offending on this sub board may well trigger sanctions and we still expect users to conduct themselves appropriately. Our advice to those who may like to avoid contentious and often controversial debate is to stick to the main board." |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 19, 2021 23:26:35 GMT 1
Posters are allowed to mock religions.
If pointing out the absurdity and lunacy of religion and religious belief wasn't allowed, then many posters, myself included, would have been given life time bans a long time ago!
I doubt even so much as a warning has ever been handed out, and rightly so.
They obviously arent covered by this 'must not offend any group' rulebook.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 23:28:00 GMT 1
Presumably that's because he broke the rules of one place but not the other... "The politics and current affairs sub-board is the only board we tend to administer differently. Here, we tend to allow some conduct that we may not allow elsewhere – debate can often become heated and some of the opinions can become unsavoury, but generally we tend to let this play out and the users of the sub-board to police themselves. This does not mean you can’t report posts, but it does mean that we’ll review them bearing the location of them in mind. As a general rule of thumb, if your post would normally result in a yellow card, we will most likely let it slide. However, we take each report on merit, and repeated low level offending on this sub board may well trigger sanctions and we still expect users to conduct themselves appropriately. Our advice to those who may like to avoid contentious and often controversial debate is to stick to the main board." There is nothing in the passage quoted that says yellow cards will not be issued. I know, as I wrote it. Quote away, but all you're doing is making our point for us. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 23:29:37 GMT 1
Posters are allowed to mock religions. If pointing out the absurdity and lunacy of religion and religious belief wasn't allowed, then many posters, myself included, would have been given life time bans a long time ago! I doubt even so much as a warning has ever been handed out, and rightly so. They obviously arent covered by this 'must not offend any group' rulebook. We have issued sanctions for posts relating to religion before. Ask Marcus D. And let's remember, religion is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jul 19, 2021 23:35:42 GMT 1
The poll is now finished. Not sure if folk who didn't vote can now see the result, but in case you can't the final scores on the doors are
196 votes in favour of reinstatemnet
146 against.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 19, 2021 23:55:25 GMT 1
Posters are allowed to mock religions. If pointing out the absurdity and lunacy of religion and religious belief wasn't allowed, then many posters, myself included, would have been given life time bans a long time ago! I doubt even so much as a warning has ever been handed out, and rightly so. They obviously arent covered by this 'must not offend any group' rulebook. We have issued sanctions for posts relating to religion before. Ask Marcus D. And let's remember, religion is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality isn't. I agree with you, but many people wouldn't. But guess thats another opinion that isn't allowed? Most religious people are brainwashed with it before they've reached an age where they've even learned how to read and write, so in that respect, im not sure its true to say there's much 'choice' going on. Thinking back, Ive been very mocking of religion and religious people. Ive questioned their sanity to believe in such nonsense and ridiculed the whole principle of believing in sky fairies and living your life dictated by ancient camp fire stories. So what must Marcus D have said to get a ban from talking about religion?? |
|
|
|
Post by Haasturner on Jul 20, 2021 0:08:58 GMT 1
Posters are allowed to mock religions. If pointing out the absurdity and lunacy of religion and religious belief wasn't allowed, then many posters, myself included, would have been given life time bans a long time ago! I doubt even so much as a warning has ever been handed out, and rightly so. They obviously arent covered by this 'must not offend any group' rulebook. We have issued sanctions for posts relating to religion before. Ask Marcus D. And let's remember, religion is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality isn't. I'm not sure religion is a lifestyle choice, its fostered upon millions of people across the world whether they like it or not. Poor analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 20, 2021 1:55:50 GMT 1
We have issued sanctions for posts relating to religion before. Ask Marcus D. And let's remember, religion is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality isn't. I'm not sure religion is a lifestyle choice, its fostered upon millions of people across the world whether they like it or not. Poor analogy. No it's not. One can choose to follow a faith. People across the world make that choice every day. One can also choose which "flavour" of that faith to follow, or to renounce their faith. They can change faiths, find faith, lose faith, and choose how their faith gets put into practice on a daily basis. None of these choices are afforded to people in regards to.their sexuality, save perhaps the least one - they can choose how their sexuality gets put into practice. So while mocking/insulting someone's faith, as many have done on here, can be offensive, insensitive and even a hate crime, it is (in my view and that of many people) different than mocking someone's sexuality. One no more chooses to be gay, straight, bi or any other defined sexuality than they choose the colour of their eyes, their height, their race etc. But one can choose whether to be a Catholic, a Muslim, a Buddhist. I will concede that there is some nuance here though - for example David Baddiel dwzrobes himself as a Jew but also as an atheist. The lines have become blurred between having been raised within a certain community - Baddiel is a cultural Jew who does not follow or practice Judaism. But while he can be the victim of antisemitism he would not be mocked for his Jewish beliefs, as he has none. Slaps was making the specific point about mocking people for their beliefs, and my point remains that the key difference is that one chooses their belief system. |
|
|
|
Post by offsideclyde on Jul 20, 2021 5:18:05 GMT 1
Mocking somebody regarding sexuality is a hate crime.
Mocking somebody regarding race or religion is a hate crime.
Absolutely no difference in the eyes of the law.
If you are giving a lifetime ban to Otium you now need to go back and ban others too.
In the interest of fairness or we can end the nonsense leave the football forum to be about football and reinstate somebody who has apologised for any potential offence caused.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainblack on Jul 20, 2021 5:58:54 GMT 1
You raise a very good point. Whatever anyone thinks of otiums opinions and his right to say them, one thing I think most would agree with me about is that the way he has dealt with his illness and the terminal diagnosis it brought about has been pretty inspirational. He has had this belligerent refusal to let it stop him living his life how he wants to, or to let it send him into a spiral of depression. Think most people, myself included , would probably just turn very quickly into a depressed, scared wreck of what we were. I think its a real shame that for the crime of saying something bad about gays ( I repeat, a view no different than what the mainstream religions freely have in this country ) that he has been denied the opportunity to communicate on here ( and he was on here a lot so must have become a big part of his day ) and we have lost the opportunity to support him, for what thats worth, as his life comes to its end. I get he's had warnings from those that deem those opinions not just wrong ( like just about everyone else does including myself ) but unacceptable to even say , but bloody hell, the penalty doesn't seem to match the crime in any way to me. Difficult to debate the issue when most of us have a different understanding of the facts I accept you genuinely believe he was banned for "saying something bad about gays" I genuinely believe he was banned for breaking the rules. We both agree he was given numerous warning but chose to ignore them. You believe it relevant to stress the warnings were given by people who disagree with his views, I don't. Like many others, I would prefer say a 5 year ban to a lifetime ban (not sure that would help in this case) but the penalties are what they are and Oti knew what they were I could go on but I wont. What you are right about though IMO, is that the way he has dealt with his illness and the terminal diagnosis it brought about has been pretty inspirational. Let's all of us regardless of our position on the ban wish him and his loved ones all the best. It seems as though "Flashman" has finally been expelled from "Rugby School" |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 20, 2021 6:10:20 GMT 1
Errrrrrrrrmmmmmm...what?!?! By this logic posters would be allowed to: - poke fun at disabled people - be as homophobic as they want - mock all religions, so long as it wasnt at any forum member specifically And much, much more hideous behaviour. This is potentially THE worst thing I've seen anyone suggest on any forum ever. Give your head a wobble you fucking maniac. Careful, El Mel will accuse you of trying to make him look bad. 🙄 Mate. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Post by Metch on Jul 20, 2021 6:27:39 GMT 1
Posters are allowed to mock religions. If pointing out the absurdity and lunacy of religion and religious belief wasn't allowed, then many posters, myself included, would have been given life time bans a long time ago! I doubt even so much as a warning has ever been handed out, and rightly so. They obviously arent covered by this 'must not offend any group' rulebook. Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not, it's a crucial difference when arguing what is acceptable or not. If people continue to deny a plain truth then they have to take the consequences of their ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by captainblack on Jul 20, 2021 6:30:26 GMT 1
The fact that he openly expressed his apology demonstrates that he wants to still post while he can. It's a brave move by the admins,because not only have they terminated the chance for otium to communicate with people he will see as friends and fellow town fans, they've also terminated the opportunity for many of us to help keep otiums spirits raised in his final weeks of his life. He's openly fought his battles on here, Experiences that other posters may well draw on if they ever face a life ending illness themselves - it's a shame that those experiences have been denied to people that may well benefit from them in the future. The forum has voted to bring him back. The forum is not the 3 people that administrate it. Otium himself has asked for no special treatment because of his condition. Despite this, he has been given more chances than any other poster would ever have received, and a huge factor in this was his condition. Given that he is in touch with some members here outside of DATM< I'm certain that if your main concern is to have a line of communication with him that can be arranged by you and those he is in touch with. The forum has 16000 members. Fewer than 200 of those members have voted in a poll that was never going to have any impact on the decision. If Otium wanted to keep posting, he was fully aware of a) the rules b) the consequences of breaking them and c) that expressing the view that homosexuality is deviant had already resulted in him getting a sanction. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy. I watched my mum die from it and my wife battle it, among many I've known with it. But, as callous as it sounds, it's entirely irrelevant as even Ron himself said it should be. I believe Oti was mistaken using the word deviant in his post and its not something I would use to describe homosexuals,but Is it such a terrible expression as to ban someone from the forum though? I firmly believe Oti should be reinstated on "compassionate grounds" though , we have both lost loved ones to cancer and personally I would do anything to help people with the disease . Would it be really be asking to much to rescind the decision made by the admins (who I am not criticising) and try and give Oti some happiness in possibly his last few weeks . |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 20, 2021 7:06:51 GMT 1
Otium himself has asked for no special treatment because of his condition. Despite this, he has been given more chances than any other poster would ever have received, and a huge factor in this was his condition. Given that he is in touch with some members here outside of DATM< I'm certain that if your main concern is to have a line of communication with him that can be arranged by you and those he is in touch with. The forum has 16000 members. Fewer than 200 of those members have voted in a poll that was never going to have any impact on the decision. If Otium wanted to keep posting, he was fully aware of a) the rules b) the consequences of breaking them and c) that expressing the view that homosexuality is deviant had already resulted in him getting a sanction. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy. I watched my mum die from it and my wife battle it, among many I've known with it. But, as callous as it sounds, it's entirely irrelevant as even Ron himself said it should be. I believe Oti was mistaken using the word deviant in his post and its not something I would use to describe homosexuals,but Is it such a terrible expression as to ban someone from the forum though? I firmly believe Oti should be reinstated on "compassionate grounds" though , we have both lost loved ones to cancer and personally I would do anything to help people with the disease . Would it be really be asking to much to rescind the decision made by the admins (who I am not criticising) and try and give Oti some happiness in possibly his last few weeks . The guy was expressing his own forthright views. Folk have jumped on the word deviant but in the context used, I'm sure Otium felt he was Ok with the choice. adjective
departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behaviourLet's put it in context. If a you heard a bloke in a pub say "I need sex desperately", the majority of people would assume he would be implying with a member of the opposite sex - that's human nature. Or do I now live in a world where I can't have that thought, and I have to question whether the guy is straight, bi, gay or likes animals, before I paint a mental picture in my mind? |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 20, 2021 7:15:10 GMT 1
I believe Oti was mistaken using the word deviant in his post and its not something I would use to describe homosexuals,but Is it such a terrible expression as to ban someone from the forum though? I firmly believe Oti should be reinstated on "compassionate grounds" though , we have both lost loved ones to cancer and personally I would do anything to help people with the disease . Would it be really be asking to much to rescind the decision made by the admins (who I am not criticising) and try and give Oti some happiness in possibly his last few weeks . The guy was expressing his own forthright views. Folk have jumped on the word deviant but in the context used, I'm sure Otium felt he was Ok with the choice. adjective
departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behaviourLet's put it in context. If a you heard a bloke in a pub say "I need sex desperately", the majority of people would assume he would be implying with a member of the opposite sex - that's human nature. Or do I now live in a world where I can't have that thought, and I have to question whether the guy is straight, bi, gay or likes animals, before I paint a mental picture in my mind? I'd perhaps have more sympathy with that view if a) this wasn't a repeat offence for exactly that wording. Oti is intelligent enough to have either argued that defence the first time round or used a synonym that could not be misinterpreted this time and b) had not previously conflated homosexuality and paedophilia on more than one occasion. He could be in no doubt that his use of "deviant" could and would result in action as it already had. And we also both know he's smart enough to know the connotations of the word. I think you're clutching. I.admire your loyalty, however. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 20, 2021 7:19:04 GMT 1
The guy was expressing his own forthright views. Folk have jumped on the word deviant but in the context used, I'm sure Otium felt he was Ok with the choice. adjective
departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behaviourLet's put it in context. If a you heard a bloke in a pub say "I need sex desperately", the majority of people would assume he would be implying with a member of the opposite sex - that's human nature. Or do I now live in a world where I can't have that thought, and I have to question whether the guy is straight, bi, gay or likes animals, before I paint a mental picture in my mind? I'd perhaps have more sympathy with that view if a) this wasn't a repeat offence for exactly that wording. Oti is intelligent enough to have either argued that defence the first time round or used a synonym that could not be misinterpreted this time and b) had not previously conflated homosexuality and paedophilia on more than one occasion. He could be in no doubt that his use of "deviant" could and would result in action as it already had. And we also both know he's smart enough to know the connotations of the word. I think you're clutching. I.admire your loyalty, however. As do I, with your comedy career. |
|
