• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Match Tottenham Hotspur v Chelsea <removed>s

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Buoy Rentals
green-buoy-in-water.jpg
 
EighteenEightyTwo said:
I think proud lilywhites have fallen into the trap of framing the issue as tolerant v homophobes, when in actual fact it comes down to individuals' interpretations of the meaning of '<removed>'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I always just thought of <removed> as the male equivalent of whore, a negative expression for someone who sells themselves, never really associated it with gay but that's only my life experience.
 
Raiders said:
I remember last year when people were trying to explain to them what it meant. They would not have any of it. Would not even discuss it with people. Instead they resorted to just calling people homophobic and stupid for not agreeing with them. At least explain to people why something is offensive. There is a case for it being homophobic, so explain that case to people. I personally to not find it homophobic or offensive (even as a <removed>).
I find them pretty odious in general. Most fans begrudgingly put up with them.

Edit: They have taken offense to this


Fuck my life they can't be serious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


That clip is quite interesting. What Mark Chapman means is the hug went on too long in the context of their friendship. The irony is if they were actually in a relationship then the panel wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

I can kind of see why they're upset though, I don't see why it has to be on 2 good 2 bad. It's not really funny or noteworthy in any way.
 
Tomo said:
I always just thought of <removed> as the male equivalent of whore, a negative expression for someone who sells themselves, never really associated it with gay but that's only my life experience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I always thought we called the chavs <removed>s was because they got bought by a Russian billionaire, and the fact they were one of the first clubs to suddenly have billions of pounds to spend on wages and transfer fees....
Shows how much I fucking know.......
:pochbye::dierpochhug:
 
Fattynomates said:
I always thought we called the chavs <removed>s was because they got bought by a Russian billionaire, and the fact they were one of the first clubs to suddenly have billions of pounds to spend on wages and transfer fees....
Shows how much I fucking know.......
:pochbye::dierpochhug:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Same here never knew a Chelsea player was using actual <removed>s, always thought like you it was about selling out to the gangster.
 
I always knew what the <removed> connotation was, must be just people over a certain age who do

Oh and we will win 2-1 and Dier will put Fabregas in hospital
 
Tomo said:
Same here never knew a Chelsea player was using actual <removed>s, always thought like you it was about selling out to the gangster.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

‘Chelsea <removed>s’ football chant accused of homophobia amid World Cup furore

Interesting read about it, apparently it was a notorious Chav hooligan who got caught using a <removed>, one thing I will say is shame the LGBT chav fans aren't as bothered about the anti Semitic and racist chants there fans come up with......
 
EighteenEightyTwo said:
I think proud lilywhites have fallen into the trap of framing the issue as tolerant v homophobes, when in actual fact it comes down to individuals' interpretations of the meaning of '<removed>'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In fairness, if you look at their Twitter posts, the comments it attracted were often awful. If people want to disagree with them about the '<removed>s' argument they could at least do it respectfully and not make everyone look bad.

Raiders said:
I remember last year when people were trying to explain to them what it meant. They would not have any of it. Would not even discuss it with people. Instead they resorted to just calling people homophobic and stupid for not agreeing with them. At least explain to people why something is offensive. There is a case for it being homophobic, so explain that case to people. I personally to not find it homophobic or offensive (even as a <removed>).
I find them pretty odious in general. Most fans begrudgingly put up with them.

Edit: They have taken offense to this


Fuck my life they can't be serious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Framing something like that clip as definitely a reference to the hug being gay and attaching buzzwords like 'casual homophobia' doesn't help their case. It's going from 0-100mph and puts people's noses out of joint if they didn't at first interpret it that way. I think they probably had very little material for '2 Good 2 Bad' and ran with it.

A similar thing (though definitely more understandable) was the furore surrounding Richard Hammond's crap ice cream joke. Nevermind that May and Clarkson said he was talking nonsense and being an idiot in the clip itself
 
Just remember how much everyone on here was dreading our last game against them!

I think this is the game where their winning streak comes to an end. It's been made to look a lot more impressive than it has been by the calibre of clubs they've faced during it, and the very favourable lack of Christmas and New Year congestion. Aside from the two Manchester teams (and us, shame we messed up there, we so nearly had them) they've had a very easy run of games and are well due getting found out. Beating Man City isn't even that impressive anyway, they're a fucking basket case this season.
 
Must be awful for all Woolwich fans with title ambitions to hold their thumbs for Tottenham. Their agony puts a smile on my face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top