2017 Gold Cup Opponents

[Obinna]

8 minutes ago, Rheo said:

Games should be a welcoming place not one where one might feel uncomfortable in my opinion.  Agree to disagree 

I agree with you just not in this particular case, as there is nothing to feel unsafe about.

If a non-violent chant at a player makes a spectator feel unsafe, where do you draw the line? 

"I don't feel safe" is just code for "I am offended", and if someone is so easily offended they should just stay home, to be frank.

[Kent]

Sure the goalkeeper may or may not be homosexual, but I don't think that's really the point. Let's say instead the chant was fa**ot instead to give us a better context of what I believe is going on here (I'm not a Spanish speaker, but when I first heard it I was with Mexican friends and they told me what it means). If you were homosexual and attending the game as a fan, and everyone around you chanted fa**ot, even though you may not feel physically in danger (although someone might feel in danger, especially if they have been bullied or abused because of their homosexuality in the past), I'm guessing you really wouldn't feel all that welcome or all that good about yourself. At the absolute least you definitely wouldn't want to join in on the cheer.

[Rheo]

6 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I agree with you just not in this particular case, as there is nothing to feel unsafe about.

If a non-violent chant at a player makes a spectator feel unsafe, where do you draw the line? 

So if they were chanting the F word that would be fine?  It's not violent but makes people uncomfortable and has a similar connotation.

[Gian-Luca]

2 hours ago, Markus said:

I don't think he's necessarily wrong (not that you said he was) other than referring to Honduras as a regional powerhouse... He basically says Canada has to win this and if they do, there might be an opportunity for us to build on that. 

 

 

I don't think he's wrong, just that there are a couple of extra cheap shots to Canada (harping on the use of the word dynamic, pointing out that at least Malouda has a club unlike some Canadians etc.) that suggest an unnecessary cynicism. I doubt that this article is going to help TSN's ratings ahead of time, though hopefully a few Canadian wins will do that.

[Obinna]

37 minutes ago, Rheo said:

So if they were chanting the F word that would be fine?  It's not violent but makes people uncomfortable and has a similar connotation.

Fans chant the F word and other obscenities all the time. They generally segregate themselves into what we call "supporter sections". You have probably noticed that parents with kids do not buy tickets there.

Parents don't insist that supporters change their behaviour, instead they remove their kids from the situation by sitting elsewhere in the stadium.

Shutting down the entire stadium because a minority of individuals are offended by this chant is just as silly as shutting down the entire stadium because the "F word" "A word" or any other word that is offensive to someone, or anyone. 

That is why I ask, if you capitulate to this, where do you draw the line?

[Obinna]

44 minutes ago, Kent said:

Sure the goalkeeper may or may not be homosexual, but I don't think that's really the point. Let's say instead the chant was fa**ot instead to give us a better context of what I believe is going on here (I'm not a Spanish speaker, but when I first heard it I was with Mexican friends and they told me what it means). If you were homosexual and attending the game as a fan, and everyone around you chanted fa**ot, even though you may not feel physically in danger (although someone might feel in danger, especially if they have been bullied or abused because of their homosexuality in the past), I'm guessing you really wouldn't feel all that welcome or all that good about yourself. At the absolute least you definitely wouldn't want to join in on the cheer.

My Venezuelan ex says it means "whore", so the fact that there is no consensus on meaning makes this push against it even more ridiculous. 

For arguments sake though let's actually assume it universally means "homosexual". 

Now, you are right that I would not feel physically in danger, but I probably wouldn't feel welcome either. I absolutely agree with that. 

This is where our agreement ends.

First of all, I wouldn't put myself in an environment that I consider to be so "unwelcoming". Second of all, I wouldn't demand that everyone else changes so that I feel welcome. Instead, I would either just not participate, or I would watch soccer where this doesn't happen.

Not participating yourself is one thing, but forcing people not to participate is entirely different. It is a case of the "bullied" becoming the "bully" under the guise of having the moral high ground.

[Rheo]

I know the word has different connotations in different places but to many it's a homophobic slur.  The F word also means cigarette in some places, doesn't mean that it should be yelled at soccer games.

No offense meant but I just don't see the defense in trying to justify the use of a word that many are offended by.  I feel the game should be welcoming to all.  As I said agree to disagree.

[Ivanovski94]

Puto isn't homophobic. No spanish speaker will say its homophobic because its not. I support the mexican fans and while i think the puto chant is dumb because of fifa and the social justice overreaching I want to hear more of the puto chant, I hope the mexican fans wont bow down to stupidity and continue to shout it loud and proud.

[Oranje]

We should also stop yelling 'You fat bastard' as not to offend the bastards in the crowd, heaven forbid they are fat....

[Obinna]

21 minutes ago, Rheo said:

I know the word has different connotations in different places but to many it's a homophobic slur.  The F word also means cigarette in some places, doesn't mean that it should be yelled at soccer games.

No offense meant but I just don't see the defense in trying to justify the use of a word that many are offended by.  I feel the game should be welcoming to all.  As I said agree to disagree.

I don't think you are trying (or even want) to see an alternative point of view. My belief is that your opinion is not rooted in logic. If you want to suspend your ability to be logical and remain closed minded on this issue, then you and I will agree to disagree then.

It's not as if I am forcing you to blindly adopt my viewpoint. That is an SJW would do. 

[Obinna]

5 minutes ago, Oranje said:

We should also stop yelling 'You fat bastard' as not to offend the bastards in the crowd, heaven forbid they are fat....

How dare you fat shame.

[dyslexic nam]

Social norms move on and progress. At one point in our not so distant history, it was socially acceptable to use the N word.  Like the monkey noises and bananas bullshit that some people still somehow think it okay, the vast majority of people recognize that it isn't - and collectively don't allow the behaviour to persist (insofar as it can be controlled).  Now, insults that are based in sexuality are becoming similarly unacceptable.  To some, that is political correctness gone too far, but to many it is not dissimilar to the evolution that occurred in our language about race.  Some may see it as different since calling a straight (maybe - who knows) keeper a fa**ot ot a puto , but that isn't the point.  In an era where we know a sizeable portion of any crowd is likely to be LGBT, using a term that identifies membership in that group as demeaning or derogatory implies that they themselves are lesser.  It isn't a threat of violence, and maybe the keeper himself doesn't even care.  But insofar as the intention is to insult the keeper by claiming he is gay (and I have always understood that was the intent behind the chant), then the implication is that someone being gay is being explicitly identified as worthy of ridicule.  To someone in the LGBT group, it probably isn't  that qualitatively different than people of colour hearing racist chants.  Call it the sanitization of language and supporter culture if you want, but to me that is at worst the lesser of two evils.  I would rather be part of an inclusive society than one that preserves the language of exclusivity due to some sense of entitlement to say what you want.  

[Obinna]

15 minutes ago, Ivanovski94 said:

Puto isn't homophobic. No spanish speaker will say its homophobic because its not. I support the mexican fans and while i think the puto chant is dumb because of fifa and the social justice overreaching I want to hear more of the puto chant, I hope the mexican fans wont bow down to stupidity and continue to shout it loud and proud.

I second that. Social justice overreaching often creates the exact opposite response they desire. It is natural that reasonable people want to counter the unreasonable. It's ying and yang. 

[aloyol]

30 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Social norms move on and progress. At one point in our not so distant history, it was socially acceptable to use the N word.  Like the monkey noises and bananas bullshit that some people still somehow think it okay, the vast majority of people recognize that it isn't - and collectively don't allow the behaviour to persist (insofar as it can be controlled).  Now, insults that are based in sexuality are becoming similarly unacceptable.  To some, that is political correctness gone too far, but to many it is not dissimilar to the evolution that occurred in our language about race.  Some may see it as different since calling a straight (maybe - who knows) keeper a fa**ot ot a puto , but that isn't the point.  In an era where we know a sizeable portion of any crowd is likely to be LGBT, using a term that identifies membership in that group as demeaning or derogatory implies that they themselves are lesser.  It isn't a threat of violence, and maybe the keeper himself doesn't even care.  But insofar as the intention is to insult the keeper by claiming he is gay (and I have always understood that was the intent behind the chant), then the implication is that someone being gay is being explicitly identified as worthy of ridicule.  To someone in the LGBT group, it probably isn't  that qualitatively different than people of colour hearing racist chants.  Call it the sanitization of language and supporter culture if you want, but to me that is at worst the lesser of two evils.  I would rather be part of an inclusive society than one that preserves the language of exclusivity due to some sense of entitlement to say what you want.  

Thank you. I was tired reading some of the nonsense justifications.

[harrycoyster]

I don't have a strong opinion on the Puto chant. I just wish FIFA would take a stance one way or the other so that this doesn't need to be a two decade long argument. 

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

Social norms move on and progress. At one point in our not so distant history, it was socially acceptable to use the N word.  Like the monkey noises and bananas bullshit that some people still somehow think it okay, the vast majority of people recognize that it isn't - and collectively don't allow the behaviour to persist (insofar as it can be controlled).  Now, insults that are based in sexuality are becoming similarly unacceptable.  To some, that is political correctness gone too far, but to many it is not dissimilar to the evolution that occurred in our language about race.  Some may see it as different since calling a straight (maybe - who knows) keeper a fa**ot ot a puto , but that isn't the point.  In an era where we know a sizeable portion of any crowd is likely to be LGBT, using a term that identifies membership in that group as demeaning or derogatory implies that they themselves are lesser.  It isn't a threat of violence, and maybe the keeper himself doesn't even care.  But insofar as the intention is to insult the keeper by claiming he is gay (and I have always understood that was the intent behind the chant), then the implication is that someone being gay is being explicitly identified as worthy of ridicule.  To someone in the LGBT group, it probably isn't  that qualitatively different than people of colour hearing racist chants.  Call it the sanitization of language and supporter culture if you want, but to me that is at worst the lesser of two evils.  I would rather be part of an inclusive society than one that preserves the language of exclusivity due to some sense of entitlement to say what you want.  

Good post.

Yes, there is the implication that being gay is worthy of ridicule. This is an accurate observation.

Feelings are undoubtedly hurt, I understand that.

 

Here's a thought experiment for everyone:

Let's say that fans were prohibited from using the word "puto" in that chant and replaced with "gordo" (adjective for "fat" in spanish). 

Is there an implication that fat people are worthy of ridicule? Yes there is.

Okay, let's change it to "fracasado" ("failure or lose" in spanish).

But  wait, people who identity with being a failure are offended. We shouldn't imply they are worthy of ridicule either!

You see, there is no limit of people who can potentially be offended whenever your chant an insult.

I'm sure you can see the issue with this.

I think we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that the only person in control of his or her feelings is ultimately that individual.

 

So while I think an inclusive environment is a noble ideal, we can go sometimes off the rails in trying to achieve it. Throwing bananas and monkey chanting at black players? Yeah, let's continue to stomp that out. That is inherently different than Mexicans indiscriminately chanting "puto" at every opposing keeper.

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Good post.

Yes, there is the implication that being gay is worthy of ridicule. This is an accurate observation.

Feelings are undoubtedly hurt, I understand that.

 

Here's a thought experiment for everyone:

Let's say that fans were prohibited from using the word "puto" in that chant and replaced with "gordo" (adjective for "fat" in spanish). 

Is there an implication that fat people are worthy of ridicule? Yes there is.

Okay, let's change it to "fracasado" ("failure or lose" in spanish).

But  wait, people who identity with being a failure are offended. We shouldn't imply they are worthy of ridicule either!

You see, there is no limit of people who can potentially be offended whenever your chant an insult.

I'm sure you can see the issue with this.

I think we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that the only person in control of his or her feelings is ultimately that individual.

 

So while I think an inclusive environment is a noble ideal, we can go sometimes off the rails in trying to achieve it. Throwing bananas and monkey chanting at black players? Yeah, let's continue to stomp that out. That is inherently different than Mexicans indiscriminately chanting "puto" at every opposing keeper.

I understand your argument, and yes, where to draw the line is subjective and as dyslexic nam mentioned society tends to change that line over time. But at it's core it's not that different than the racist stuff you talk about. Whether it's a racist comment or a homophobic one, it's implying that it's a bad thing to be born a certain way. The only difference is that with race it's visible for all to see. For sexual orientation it's not always known to the person making the comment or outside observers. If we pretend for a moment that the stereotypes of homosexuals were actually the stereotypes of black people (things like not being strong, not good at sports, and maybe some of the nastier things like being morally reprehensible) then maybe p**o wouldn't be the chant, maybe it would be the N word. Would it be OK to indiscriminately chant the N word at every opposing keeper with the implication that they kick like a no good n*****?

Anyways, the most important thing is that it's not hard to be considerate of others. Replacing one chant with another isn't going to affect my enjoyment of a soccer game, but it might make all the difference to the person sitting next to me.

[Gian-Luca]

Pre-tourney Gold Cup "Power rankings" for what they are worth. Canada ranked 7th, which is where most pre-tourney previews seems to have us pegged (as far as I can tell - most of them I am seeing are on youtube in Spanish).

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/07/06/gold-cup-power-rankings-who-are-favorites-heading-tournament

 

 

 

[harrycoyster]

14 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Pre-tourney Gold Cup "Power rankings" for what they are worth. Canada ranked 7th, which is where most pre-tourney previews seems to have us pegged (as far as I can tell - most of them I am seeing are on youtube in Spanish).

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/07/06/gold-cup-power-rankings-who-are-favorites-heading-tournament

 

 

 

Costa Rica 3rd

Honduras 5th

Canada 7th

French Guiana 11th

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I understand your argument, and yes, where to draw the line is subjective and as dyslexic nam mentioned society tends to change that line over time. But at it's core it's not that different than the racist stuff you talk about. Whether it's a racist comment or a homophobic one, it's implying that it's a bad thing to be born a certain way. The only difference is that with race it's visible for all to see. For sexual orientation it's not always known to the person making the comment or outside observers. If we pretend for a moment that the stereotypes of homosexuals were actually the stereotypes of black people (things like not being strong, not good at sports, and maybe some of the nastier things like being morally reprehensible) then maybe p**o wouldn't be the chant, maybe it would be the N word. Would it be OK to indiscriminately chant the N word at every opposing keeper with the implication that they kick like a no good n*****?

Anyways, the most important thing is that it's not hard to be considerate of others. Replacing one chant with another isn't going to affect my enjoyment of a soccer game, but it might make all the difference to the person sitting next to me.

You make a good point that race is visible, while sexual preference may not be. 

I think the stereotype of homosexuals, which you brought up (weak, not good at sports, etc.) Is worth mentioning. While not always true (of course) it highlights the spirit behind the chant (you suck at soccer, keeper).  @dyslexic nam made the point there is implication that being gay is bad, but is it not more accurate to say the implication is that gay people are bad at sports? 

If you are athletic, good at sports and gay and that chant offends you, fair enough, but I suspect the vast majority of those who are offended are twisting it into some attack on their sexual preference, which of course it is not.

[dyslexic nam]

I had written a long rebuttal and then didn't bother.  It seems like there are some pretty obvious mental gymnastics going on to justify a behaviour that many find highly offensive.  If people were shouting racial slurs to insult people of all colours/races, it wouldn't be acceptable because the words themselves are offensive - not just when directed toward a person of colour.  Similarly, shouting homophobic slurs is offensive, regardless of the target's status as gay or straight.

A lot of gay people already face significant personal hardship because of external pressures.   And homophobic slurs are part of that landscape.  They aren't something I am interested in defending - any more than I would try to justify or rationalize the general  use of racial slurs.  For some people it is acceptable to be homophobic.  For some it is acceptable to be racist.  I personally aim to be neither.

[Oranje]

13 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I had written a long rebuttal and then didn't bother.  It seems like there are some pretty obvious mental gymnastics going on to justify a behaviour that many find highly offensive.  If people were shouting racial slurs to insult people of all colours/races, it wouldn't be acceptable because the words themselves are offensive - not just when directed toward a person of colour.  Similarly, shouting homophobic slurs is offensive, regardless of the target's status as gay or straight.

A lot of gay people already face significant personal hardship because of external pressures.   And homophobic slurs are part of that landscape.  They aren't something I am interested in defending - any more than I would try to justify or rationalize the general  use of racial slurs.  For some people it is acceptable to be homophobic.  For some it is acceptable to be racist.  I personally aim to be neither.

Man, I agree with you 100%. We are at an interesting point in language history where insults have come so far from the original meaning that they have lost all association (mind you there are still some in the lexicon that are not) and have taken on a different meaning. For instance, I was on the train and a 20-something berated these middle-school kids for saying the other sucked at some phone game because woman and homosexuals who perform fellatio are subservient and a less-than than the receiver. Therefore "you suck" is a misogynistic and homophobic saying, she has a point based on what the phrase is saying, but when I say we suck after we lose to Mauritania I really doubt any gay or female members of this board feel like I am attacking them. We're at a point where people are looking for reasons to be insulted..

[Obinna]

36 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I had written a long rebuttal and then didn't bother.  It seems like there are some pretty obvious mental gymnastics going on to justify a behaviour that many find highly offensive.  If people were shouting racial slurs to insult people of all colours/races, it wouldn't be acceptable because the words themselves are offensive - not just when directed toward a person of colour.  Similarly, shouting homophobic slurs is offensive, regardless of the target's status as gay or straight.

A lot of gay people already face significant personal hardship because of external pressures.   And homophobic slurs are part of that landscape.  They aren't something I am interested in defending - any more than I would try to justify or rationalize the general  use of racial slurs.  For some people it is acceptable to be homophobic.  For some it is acceptable to be racist.  I personally aim to be neither.

Just because someone chants puto at a soccer match at the opposing keeper, indiscriminately might I add, does not make them homophobic. However, to throw a banana at an African and call him a monkey is discrimination. Can you actually not understand the difference, or are you just digging your heals into the sand on this?

This idea that we must protect everyone in society from ever becoming offended has created a generation of people who are offended by everything. 

[Complete Homer]

I'll tread lightly here, as I'm neither gay nor Hispanic, so I don't necessarily have the context or position to speak for anyone. But I think it is fair to say that people should give more a generous ear to the other side of the conversation than what is normally seen

Every Spanish speaker I've asked about this says the word would never conjure the thought of a gay person to the speaker. It is the literal origin of the word, of course, but they say the word at present represents something completely different, equivalent to "bitch" in English. 

Think about the word "bitch". Taken literally, you are calling a woman subhuman. If you pick it apart (I'm sure countless thesis papers have), it's truly awful in its literal sense. But what does that word actually mean in 2017? Usually, in the context I hear it at least, it's referring to a man or woman who is being petulant. Not even close to its literal meaning, but I'm sure there's a Spanish speaker out there judging those insensitive, misogynistic Canadians/Americans for their outdated slurs. Heck, Toronto FC fans named their mascot "Bitchey" by popular vote, we are a truly awful bunch, right? 

Should anyone be using either words? No, probably not. But I find it disturbing that we are so willing to point at "the other" and talk on and on about how terrible their word is. 

To be clear, I have never used the word "puto", I do not think it should be used in chants, but I am also guilty of using the word "bitch" on occasion, so I don't think I or anyone like me has a particular moral high ground to ban the use of the word. It strikes me as using a foreign chant as a cheap target to inflate one's own sense of righteousness. 

And maybe the word has taken on a different meaning in North America, because of our own history, that causes it to be a slur here but not in Mexico. Fine by me to ban it in MLS. But I think the focus should be on improving ourselves, working on making inclusive language (as we understand it in our culture) the basic expectation in our of chants, instead of trying to chastise people in another country with another language for using a word that we clearly don't understand. 

TL;DR let's take the plank out of our eyes before trying to dig a speck of sawdust out of Mexico's eye

Edit: And if any Spanish speakers are participating, I'd be interested to hear if your opinion on the word differs from what I've been told

Edit2: Though I suppose taking a step back and thinking that the effect of a gay person hearing the word is quite possibly a very oppressive experience, even if 95% of those hearing it don't understand, should be accounted for... 

I don't know. I just don't like jumping down the throat of another group when weve got our own problems 

[Rheo]

17 minutes ago, dsqpr said:

We're red, we're white,

We're fcuking dynamite,

Canadaaaaa, Canadaaaa!

Meant the other F word