The woman was a NZer in a NZ rugby stadium.
Are you suggesting NZers are monocultural?
why is that good?
So… what exactly is wrong with trying to change the prevailing culture?
Within the context of this incident, provided the benefits of your actions outweigh the harms, I’d say nothing is wrong with trying to change the prevailing culture.
I suggest you boycott Eden Park and let them know why, as I have suggested previously in this thread. They can then weigh the potential benefit/harm that your and other like minded individuals’ absence of patronage will have on them.
Unless you hold to, and can defend, moral relativism
I hold to it in as much as descriptive relativism attempts to depict a subjective code in an objective way. Makes sense to me at least.
then it’s not at all clear that the morality of an act can be judged upon context
Sure, but describing anything meaningfully is incredibly difficult let alone any particular moral code/practice.
If you’re an Error Theorist then I can see how you might say “Look, there’s no truth to any claim about homophobia being good or bad”
Plainly I don't. I'm saying that within a given context a certain practice may be considered good/bad/tolerable according to established protocol.
confuses the standing of cultural practices with claims about the morality of those practices.
Okay that's a reasonable point. Morality encompasses harm/benefit whereas cultural practice relates to what may be considered tolerable. But you can't talk about everything at once and concepts often become blurred in conversation.
It’s making an appeal to tradition to justify kinds of behaviour
No. It's merely a description. You are pre-supposing some kind of emotional agenda which simply doesn't exist.
If you happen to be a moral relativist
I'm not. You can't really be one. You simply use it as a tool in trying to be objective.
retaliatory barbs aside-
The simple point I’m making is this: Morality is directly related to social context, be it Ancient Rome, pre-European Aotearoa or a Eden Park.
I’m saying that it is morally acceptable to call the ref a poofter at this particular rugby match, because the uttering of homophobic slurs and passive tolerance of such utterances is the prevailing cultural practice at these venues in my experience. My own moral code is essentially irrelevant in that context, that is one reason why I no longer attend such events.
Nah, you’ve lost me …
I was assuming you were familiar with the basic principles of moral relativism
Oh, and do try to be more polite to people you disagree with. Isn’t that how civilised people are meant to behave?* We aren’t at a rugger match after all.
* denotes intentional irony – in case you missed that too.
This behaviour isn’t typical of Eden Park crowds and it’s not acceptable.
Not in my experience. Perhaps your awareness has changed.
You actually don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
If you really think that, don’t bother engaging. But I suspect your response has more to do with your passive aggression.
What on earth does that mean?
It means that market researchers listen to feedback and that morality isn't absolute, it's culturally relative. (ie abortion)
women, GLBT people, Jews, Muslims and people of colour who are expected to take their “sensitive dispositions” elsewhere, isn’t it?
Depends who you listen to. Lot of men out there feel discriminated against, probably without much justification from my perspective - but perception is reality at an individual level.