What's grasping at straws, I'm just searching for something that you would find offensive in our context. Perhaps you wouldn't react violently and I'd like to think so. But if you did a lot of people would defend you for it, is my point.

If what is reported is true then what was said is horribly offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't make it less so. To us being upset at "Algerian terrorist" is as meaningless as why Paki is so offensive in most parts of the world. We lack the context that makes it offensive.

I'm not defending a violent response to any words. But I'm on the losing side of that debate. The basis on which hate speech legislation has been passed all around the world is to prevent violence. Apparently most of the world, particularly the European part of it, accepts the idea that a person can say something so repugnant that they are responsible for any resulting violence.

I'm not offended by it at all. And I'm not someone who acts violently ever. It's beneath me and so are Zindane's and the other guy's actions.

The fact that I didn't find what he said to be offensive does make it less so. To me. It's a non-issue. And why the heck are people so up in arms about it anyway? It wasn't directed at them. He didn't call Steph a terrorist. It's between the two men, the two teams and the refs.

Somehow the fact that I found it funny, and still do, has garnered me the heartless racist crown. Whatever. I'm reacting in the way Zindane should have... by laughing it all off.

:D

As I said before- two idiots with bad reputations trash talking and head-butting each other is hardly worth anyone here getting up in arms over. They are now considering taking away Zindane's MVP award, so it would appear the Europeans don't consider it a valid reason to physically attack someone.

Of course he should have laughed it off. But I also find it understandable that he didn't. I don't feel you're a heartless racist. However, you have frequently argued positions on this board not from points of fact but from points of emotion. That something is right simply because it feels that way to you. So I will say it is suprising to see you reject that the words were offensive simply because they weren't offensive to you.

And if the award is stripped it is just for PR reasons. It isn't like somehow over the last three days the head butt has somehow become less appropriate that the decision needs to be reconsidered.

That's me, I lead with my emotions. But I also know when something is funny and this is one of those times.

And how does a person come to the conclusion that something's not right? By how it feels to them. Everyone does it. It's not exclusive to me. Steph is offended because she thinks it's offensive, I'm not offended because I think it's not offensive. Plain and simple. People don't come to conclusions about things by analyzing it to death.

That word is ineffective period. I liken the word 'terrorist' to 'Communist' in the McCarthy era and 'witch' in Salem's heydays... It alludes to someone that people want us to be afraid of and shouldn't be.

I often have a hard time not sympathizing/empathizing with people. But in this instance, it's not deserving of either from me...

Well, there's where we are fundamentally different. How I feel about things is about the least important aspect in how I reach a conclusion.

That word may be ineffective to you, but you still got upset when you felt someone had implied that gays are more likely to commit arson. For you, terrorist is a word that is used in the context of 9/11 and the ensuing political battles. For Zidane it has a different context of the decades long strong between France and Alergia and an awful lot of violence.

The question isn't whether I would be offended or if you would be offended but whether there was reason for Zidane to be offended. You don't think so, so you find what happened to be unwarranted and bizarre. I do think he had reason so I find what happened to be unwarranted if understandable.

Nobody (here) is saying he was justified but I find it somewhat bizarre to say he was unjustified in being upset. And equally bizarre to equate what (reportedly) was said to a punchline from a bad Steve Martin movie.

I'm sure it is just that I lack a sense of humor that allows me to see the humor in a racial epithet and retaliatory violence.

Again, that's where we're fundamentally different. I think humor can be found in everything.

As for the arson thing, Matthews said that gays should be investigated for the church burnings. Saying that he felt, without any knowledge or research that you tout, that gays were responsible. That's like saying there was a robbery, it must be black people responsible. It makes no sense. Not only that, but Matthews is a reporter who is supposed to be doing this kind of research and then informing the viewer. His reaction was from the gut and should be discounted by you, Alex, who think that feelings should not come into it.

To me, there's a difference between a news reporter and a sports figure.

I find nothing wrong with what CoasterMatt said either. It was a funny joke. It may not register with a Vulcan, but it's funny to most. (And I meant the last part as a joke, Alex.)

I didn't comment that Zidane's actions were unwarranted. I said that both men were idiots in the way they acted. I don't think that in this country you can be let of the hook legally if you hit someone because they taunted you. I don't know about law, but it doesn't seem justified to hit someone because they call you a terrorist faggot. I don't know where the World Cup was played so I can't comment about how that country would rule the man's actions.

So with your logic, Alex, everything is basically offensive as long as someone, anyone could find it offensive or does find it offensive. Doesn't this hinder discussion if everyone should be walking on eggshells about what they can or can not say without offending someone? I mean, you're a discussion board guru, doesn't this hinder discussing things?

I can't believe that my :D caused so much grief.

Yes, everything is offensive so long as someone is offended. But offending another is not necessarily a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. The question I'm raising was whether it was reasonable to be offended.

I don't see why "but it's funny to most" is a joke.

Yes, Matthews supposition should be discounted without proof. But then your offense should rather have been to just laugh it off.

Sports figures beat at each other all the time in the United States without legal charges being files. In fact, it is so uncommon for criminal charges to result that it is major national news whenever it happens in any level of sport in the United States. So, in that regard, this is nothing anomalous.

Finally, because smileys are obnoxious.

WOULD YOU 2 JUST GET A ROOM! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

In hindsight, yes, I should have laughed it off.
I know, but we're rooting for ya, Mr. Spock. :laughy smilie:

Yes, I know you think smilies are obnoxious, you say that a lot. It sounds like you protesteth too much methinks. I also remember you saying that any post with two smilies in it isn't read by you ever. That's good to know. Ha ha.