King Chuck discussion zone: new parasite, same idiot hat

Green Gecko wrote:Then why not just say prostitute, or escort?

"Rent boy" is a slur popularised a long time ago to denigrate male sex workers. Is that OK too?

Is it OK to make jokes about hookers? I don't agree with that either. Sex workers deserve respect.

If you seriously want to pick an argument with this one, which is basically your raison d'etre, go ahead in the feedback section. I'm not having some long arse argument about a 4 week ban for a shitty joke that is patently offensive. Or do you want to make queer people work for that?

Do you really want to do that?

Green Gecko wrote:Then why not just say prostitute, or escort?

"Rent boy" is a slur popularised a long time ago to denigrate male sex workers. Is that OK too?

Is it OK to make jokes about hookers? I don't agree with that either. Sex workers deserve respect.

If you seriously want to pick an argument with this one, which is basically your raison d'etre, go ahead in the feedback section. I'm not having some long arse argument about a 4 week ban for a shitty joke that is patently offensive. Or do you want to make queer people work for that?

Do you really want to do that?

Moggy wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:There is a very low likelihood in my opinion that anybody and everybody would be aware of that context, and whatever the intentions were, it is the impact that matters most. So without providing that context, it's both harmful, and negligent. For the benefit of doubt, one should include that context if they wish to criticise someone - and given the topic, what kind of random sideline would that be?

To refer to the article everyone is supposed to just know about, exactly because of the media blowout following Schofield's outing (which is itself questionable imo), that is a legal relationship aged 17-21 with anyone of any older age.

A "rent boy" can refer to pretty much anyone who is young, gay and young or "good"-looking. It is defined as a "young male prostitute".

Devoid of context, and only if that matters (I don't think it does), it amounts to "person is attracted to men, lol". Do we really need to justify that?"

It's not OK to vilify a gay person, or more generally gay people, if they are suspected of being merely sexually deviant. As it plays even worse into the homophobia that being queer is itself deviant, indecent, wrong, or even sick.

1 month is lenient.

It's pretty well known that Schofield allegedly likes young men. And there are plenty of us here that freely make jokes about hookers.

It's up to you, but I think a month's ban is ridiculously harsh, unless Floydfreak has a history of homophobia on here.

Green Gecko wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:There is a very low likelihood in my opinion that anybody and everybody would be aware of that context, and whatever the intentions were, it is the impact that matters most. So without providing that context, it's both harmful, and negligent. For the benefit of doubt, one should include that context if they wish to criticise someone - and given the topic, what kind of random sideline would that be?

To refer to the article everyone is supposed to just know about, exactly because of the media blowout following Schofield's outing (which is itself questionable imo), that is a legal relationship aged 17-21 with anyone of any older age.

A "rent boy" can refer to pretty much anyone who is young, gay and young or "good"-looking. It is defined as a "young male prostitute".

Devoid of context, and only if that matters (I don't think it does), it amounts to "person is attracted to men, lol". Do we really need to justify that?"

It's not OK to vilify a gay person, or more generally gay people, if they are suspected of being merely sexually deviant. As it plays even worse into the homophobia that being queer is itself deviant, indecent, wrong, or even sick.

1 month is lenient.

It's pretty well known that Schofield allegedly likes young men. And there are plenty of us here that freely make jokes about hookers.

It's up to you, but I think a month's ban is ridiculously harsh, unless Floydfreak has a history of homophobia on here.

I am queer and I did not know about that.

If this is a problem for you, I suggest appealing for a straight administrator to have this argument with you instead.

Green Gecko wrote:Mate it's a strawberry floating month which is NOT a long time, and you are absolutely picking on something to bitch about.

Perhaps you should pipe down, back up, and strawberry float off instead of defending people and then manoeuvring yourself out of it. It's insufferably dull.

LewisD wrote: