PSG Vs Istanbul Basaksehir postponed due to comments made by 4th official

[MarcusX]

7 minutes ago, The Batman said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2006/jun/13/worldcup2006.sport23

"The first white player to feature for the Caribbean side in 60 years" 

You ask anyone who he was and nobody will know. You say "he was the white guy who played for Trinidad and Tobago at the 2006 World Cup", people will remember who he is. 

Does that make it right? Isn't it highly disrespectful to him that he appears to only be known by his skin colour?

[grifty]

28 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Would the only white guy in the West Indies cricket team be offended if he was described as the white guy? 

If there had been hundreds of years of white people being subjugated, 'owned', looked down upon, murdered, tortured, sold, etc, etc by black people. Then when society allows for him to act equally as black people, he is able to represent his country in the sport he loves and the only thing he is distinguished by is the colour of his skin, then probably yes.

There's an awful lot of (what I'd presume) are middle class white men trying to decide how black people should be happy to be recognised in here... My take on it (as a white guy) is that the black community as a starter don't want black to be the first thing someone uses to describe them with. While it may not be meant in a derogatory way, I'd imagine when it starts to happen every week, day, time you're described it would start to grate.

[Baba Yaga]

13 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

That wasn't my argument at all and you know it.

It is called drawing parallels.

The fact is people have been discriminated against for being black, as have people with disabilities, for many years.

Both someone's skin colour and whether they have a disability is something that a person can do nothing about.

I do not consider someone being black to be closer to someone having a disability, I was highlighting how in both cases it is something they cannot control.

 

As opposed to the weak "what about hair colour" argument, when hair colour is something that can be controlled. 

 

Your dishonesty here is ******* vile you utter scumbag. 

The point I'm making is that in your argument it seems that people who are black should get similar treatment to people who are disabled just because they're black.

[Rossi the Robin]

2 minutes ago, grifty said:

If there had been hundreds of years of white people being subjugated, 'owned', looked down upon, murdered, tortured, sold, etc, etc by black people. Then when society allows for him to act equally as black people, he is able to represent his country in the sport he loves and the only thing he is distinguished by is the colour of his skin, then probably yes.

There's an awful lot of (what I'd presume) are middle class white men trying to decide how black people should be happy to be recognised in here... My take on it (as a white guy) is that the black community as a starter don't want black to be the first thing someone uses to describe them with. While it may not be meant in a derogatory way, I'd imagine when it starts to happen every week, day, time your described it would start to grate.

Good post but I suppose if you make up less than 4% of the population in the UK that’s how people describe someone who is different in appearance 

Not sure how we are going to change this especially if colour is used to describe people in a positive way i.e. recent news article on the first black person to go into space 

Also people should not be deemed racist if they don’t agree - I personally think racism is a thing of intent but others will disagree with me and I understand that 

 

[YorkshireSection]

9 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Watching Police Interceptors last night and the cops were chasing two suspects around the streets. The cop in the car said on his radio that they were in pursuit of 2 black men, in hoodies and jeans. Is this wrong, or stating a fact to help his fellow officers trace them ?

I'm not saying that you are lying, however the police use the term IC3 to describe a person of Afro-Caribbean descent. 

[Selred]

57 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

It's infinitely more fair than hair colour as neither thing is what the person has chosen. 

You can change your hair colour if you want to, it is something you can control to an extent.

No, my qualms is that you're comparing mocking someone to identifying them by their skin colour. Very different.  

[And Its Smith]

35 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Would the only white guy in the West Indies cricket team be offended if he was described as the white guy? 

This sort of response is why racism will never end as it’s not understood well enough. 

[Rossi the Robin]

1 minute ago, And Its Smith said:

This sort of response is why racism will never end as it’s not understood well enough. 

It’s a question, had some good answers, it helps 

[JamesBCFC]

24 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

The point I'm making is that in your argument it seems that people who are black should get similar treatment to people who are disabled just because they're black.

My argument doesn't say anything on those lines at all.

Stop lying, ***.

[!james]

9 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Good post but I suppose if you make up less than 4% of the population in the UK that’s how people describe someone who is different in appearance 

Not sure how we are going to change this especially if colour is used to describe people in a positive way i.e. recent news article on the first black person to go into space 

Also people should not be deemed racist if they don’t agree - I personally think racism is a thing of intent but others will disagree with me and I understand that 

 

Yes I disagree. Intentionality is irrelevant.

Racism is not about intent, it's the effect of that action on the person or group.

Ignorance does not justify racism or mitigate the effects of their actions. 

 

 

[JamesBCFC]

12 minutes ago, Selred said:

No, my qualms is that you're comparing mocking someone to identifying them by their skin colour. Very different.  

And yet still a fairer comparison than your one.

Instead responding to any of the other multiple points, you are focusing on that.

Nice.

[grifty]

13 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Good post but I suppose if you make up less than 4% of the population in the UK that’s how people describe someone who is different in appearance 

Not sure how we are going to change this especially if colour is used to describe people in a positive way i.e. recent news article on the first black person to go into space 

Also people should not be deemed racist if they don’t agree - I personally think racism is a thing of intent but others will disagree with me and I understand that 

 

I think the point would be, why has he been differentiated by the fact he is black. No-one says or said at the time that Neil Armstrong was the first white guy in space. same as George Washington isn't known as the first white president. Stirling Moss wasn't known as a white racing driver, but Hamilton is known as a black racing driver. It will be the same when there is a first female president. The groups (female, LGBT, black, disabled, etc) who feel they are identified by a trait they were born with, don't want to be described by that.

I agree with your last point, I don't believe a big chunk of the population care what colour someone is, however the % that do are often quite vocal/vitriolic about it (see twitter)

[Selred]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

And yet still a fairer comparison than your one.

Instead responding to any of the other multiple points, you are focusing on that.

Nice.

Because your point riled me James, it's an unfair comparison. 

I think you do need to calm down, you have called many people names on this forum. I was wanting a actual debate, and willing to learn, but I don't appreciate unfair comparisons and being called thick. 

[Rossi the Robin]

2 minutes ago, !james said:

Yes I disagree. Intentionality is irrelevant.

Racism is not about intent, it's the effect of that action on the person or group.

Ignorance does not justify racism or mitigate the effects of their actions. 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, !james said:

Yes I disagree. Intentionality is irrelevant.

Racism is not about intent, it's the effect of that action on the person or group.

Ignorance does not justify racism or mitigate the effects of their actions. 

 

 

Then I suppose a lot of the time it comes down to education 

Another thing that confuses me is if you are affected by people defining you by your skin colour why put emphasis on it yourself i.e. black history month 

[AshtonGreat]

18 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Good post but I suppose if you make up less than 4% of the population in the UK that’s how people describe someone who is different in appearance 

Not sure how we are going to change this especially if colour is used to describe people in a positive way i.e. recent news article on the first black person to go into space 

Also people should not be deemed racist if they don’t agree - I personally think racism is a thing of intent but others will disagree with me and I understand that 

 

I think it's important to debate issues like this, as it affects everyone in one way or another. Should racial labelling be scrapped altogether? 

[Sheltons Army]

44 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

If the white guy had suffered his whole life from being singled out as ‘the white guy’ then he probably would be offended

If he was actively looking to be.......yes

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, Selred said:

Because your point riled me James, it's an unfair comparison. 

I think you do need to calm down, you have called many people names on this forum. I was wanting a actual debate, and willing to learn, but I don't appreciate unfair comparisons and being called thick. 

The argument you were making was beyond thick as it doesn't work in even the slightest way.

I've already told you why it doesn't work at all but you persist with it.

Outside of that I called one person a scumbag for going out of their way to intentionally misrepresent what my argument said. 

 

You made an unfair comparison, but I cannot make one that you deem unfair?

Great hypocrisy there.

And you said you wanted a discussion, dont make me laugh.

 

[AshtonGreat]

3 minutes ago, grifty said:

I think the point would be, why has he been differentiated by the fact he is black. No-one says or said at the time that Neil Armstrong was the first white guy in space. same as George Washington isn't known as the first white president. Stirling Moss wasn't known as a white racing driver, but Hamilton is known as a black racing driver. It will be the same when there is a first female president. The groups (female, LGBT, black, disabled, etc) who feel they are identified by a trait they were born with, don't want to be described by that.

I agree with your last point, I don't believe a big chunk of the population care what colour someone is, however the % that do are often quite vocal/vitriolic about it (see twitter)

I agree that it sounds a bit bonkers to point out that the first black guy has gone into space. But at the same time, in light of what's happened through history with black people not getting the same rights as other people, I think it's meant as a recognition of positive change. 

[Selred]

4 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

The argument you were making was beyond thick as it doesn't work in even the slightest way.

I've already told you why it doesn't work at all but you persist with it.

Outside of that I called one person a scumbag for going out of their way to intentionally misrepresent what my argument said. 

 

You made an unfair comparison, but I cannot make one that you deem unfair?

Great hypocrisy there.

And you said you wanted a discussion, dont make me laugh.

 

Again, please stop with the comments about thick. It's just rude.

Me asking how describing someone as black, when all the coaches are white, vs if I described someone as bald in a group of people with hair isn't "beyond thick". 

I am conscious of the connotations behind the word black, but equally it's a physical appearance difference, the same as being bald, we are all the same. I may be dense in terms of my take of this, but I do not feel it's racist, which is the issue raised from it.

[A Horse With No Name]

5 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said:

I agree that it sounds a bit bonkers to point out that the first black guy has gone into space. But at the same time, in light of what's happened through history with black people not getting the same rights as other people, I think it's meant as a recognition of positive change. 

And of course, the Americans are making a huge thing of the first black female vice president. Wonder if that riles her ?

[Sheltons Army]

3 minutes ago, Selred said:

Again, please stop with the comments about thick. It's just rude.

Me asking how describing someone as black, when all the coaches are white, vs if I described someone as bald in a group of people with hair isn't "beyond thick". 

I am conscious of the connotations behind the word black, but equally it's a physical appearance difference, the same as being bald, we are all the same. I may be dense in terms of my take of this, but I do not feel it's racist, which is the issue raised from it.

Well said 

[A Horse With No Name]

1 minute ago, Selred said:

Again, please stop with the comments about thick. It's just rude.

Me asking how describing someone as black, when all the coaches are white, vs if I described someone as bald in a group of people with hair isn't "beyond thick". 

I am conscious of the connotations behind the word black, but equally it's a physical appearance difference, the same as being bald, we are all the same. I may be dense in terms of my take of this, but I do not feel it's racist, which is the issue raised from it.

I can absolutely 100% guarantee that if any person on this forum, met someone for the very first time, ie daughters new boyfriend, or a new work colleague, the first thing that would flash into their mind is "oh he's black" 

99% of people would never utter those words, but the fact that they thought it proves they are not as holy as thou as they hoped.

[JamesBCFC]

7 minutes ago, Selred said:

Again, please stop with the comments about thick. It's just rude.

Me asking how describing someone as black, when all the coaches are white, vs if I described someone as bald in a group of people with hair isn't "beyond thick". 

I am conscious of the connotations behind the word black, but equally it's a physical appearance difference, the same as being bald, we are all the same. I may be dense in terms of my take of this, but I do not feel it's racist, which is the issue raised from it.

Of course.

There's tonnes of blokes who go around changing their skin colour

Almost as many as those who dye their hair or shave it.

 

[phantom]

10 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

What nonsense,he knew exactly who the coach was and he wasn’t about to peg it out the ground like a bloody criminal never to be seen again 

This is your opinion, please don't use it as a fact.

The officials were from another country, very likely he was not aware of everyone on the subs bench

9 hours ago, prankerd said:

I lived in spain as a kid and many kids would call me negro in a racist manner, its a simple way to get around not calling you the n word.

Correct, and still something that I can't get my head around when in Spain

9 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Haven’t a clue but I have seen jay z,snoop dog and dr Dre mention some “white boy” being the best rapper out there,emineminum or sumat 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.W.A

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another topic, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on Cavani's tweet last week when United came back to win after being 2-0 down.

He used the "negro" word in  a tweet celebrating their victory.

Clearly to some around the world this word it acceptable

[petehinton]

Some people need to just sit down and realise that, as a white person, it isn’t your place to basically comment on what is/isn’t racist toward black people. It’s not hard to understand. 
 

The first thought toward all this shouldn’t be ‘well that isn’t even a racist comment’.  

[grifty]

2 minutes ago, Selred said:

Again, please stop with the comments about thick. It's just rude.

Me asking how describing someone as black, when all the coaches are white, vs if I described someone as bald in a group of people with hair isn't "beyond thick". 

I am conscious of the connotations behind the word black, but equally it's a physical appearance difference, the same as being bald, we are all the same. I may be dense in terms of my take of this, but I do not feel it's racist, which is the issue raised from it.

Probably because bald people weren't used as slaves by hairy people for hundreds of years, don't have many derogatory names for them outside of 'baldy' which infer that their genes are somewhat lesser due to the colour of their skin/amount of hair on their head.

Do you think the bald guy likes to be known as 'the bald guy'? not known as Steve, or the friendly guy, or the one on the right.

I appreciate you don't feel it's racist and if many of us did describe someone as 'the black guy' we wouldn't mean it in a negative context, just easy description, but that's the whole point. This might get a few backs up but I'll assume the majority of us on here are middle aged white guys. We don't really understand what it feels like to be the victims of racial prejudice or abuse because we are the majority so haven't experienced it. If someone called me 'the white guy' I wouldn't care, however if I was in a society where I was one out of 15 people who was white and constantly referred to as the white guy, I would start to feel conscious about it.

[JamesBCFC]

11 minutes ago, grifty said:

Probably because bald people weren't used as slaves by hairy people for hundreds of years, don't have many derogatory names for them outside of 'baldy' which infer that their genes are somewhat lesser due to the colour of their skin/amount of hair on their head.

Do you think the bald guy likes to be known as 'the bald guy'? not known as Steve, or the friendly guy, or the one on the right.

I appreciate you don't feel it's racist and if many of us did describe someone as 'the black guy' we wouldn't mean it in a negative context, just easy description, but that's the whole point. This might get a few backs up but I'll assume the majority of us on here are middle aged white guys. We don't really understand what it feels like to be the victims of racial prejudice or abuse because we are the majority so haven't experienced it. If someone called me 'the white guy' I wouldn't care, however if I was in a society where I was one out of 15 people who was white and constantly referred to as the white guy, I would start to feel conscious about it.

Excellently put.

[IAmNick]

20 minutes ago, Selred said:

Again, please stop with the comments about thick. It's just rude.

Me asking how describing someone as black, when all the coaches are white, vs if I described someone as bald in a group of people with hair isn't "beyond thick". 

I am conscious of the connotations behind the word black, but equally it's a physical appearance difference, the same as being bald, we are all the same. I may be dense in terms of my take of this, but I do not feel it's racist, which is the issue raised from it.

It's a fair response. In addition to the other things people have said about the history we should also remember these guys were at work.

Imagine you're at work in a meeting room with a large group of people you don't know. Someone new walks in and you direct them to a seat. Do you say "Just sit next to that black bloke over there?" or "Just sit next to that fat guy"?

I'm guessing not. Maybe in the pub with your mates you would, but I would argue (and not saying it's ok to do in that case) that's different there.

[Baba Yaga]

Just now, grifty said:

Probably because bald people weren't used as slaves by hairy people for hundreds of years, don't have many derogatory names for them outside of 'baldy' which infer that their genes are somewhat lesser due to the colour of their skin/amount of hair on their head.

Do you think the bald guy likes to be known as 'the bald guy'? not known as Steve, or the friendly guy, or the one on the right.

I appreciate you don't feel it's racist and if many of us did describe someone as 'the black guy' we wouldn't mean it in a negative context, just easy description, but that's the whole point. This might get a few backs up but I'll assume the majority of us on here are middle aged white guys. We don't really understand what it feels like to be the victims of racial prejudice or abuse because we are the majority so haven't experienced it. If someone called me 'the white guy' I wouldn't care, however if I was in a society where I was one out of 15 people who was white and constantly referred to as the white guy, I would start to feel conscious about it.

Do you believe the police are wrong when they refer to suspects by their race then when there is a high speed chase on? And is it desirable for match officials to communicate in a similar 'fast-paced' way when officiating a football match?

[Jeez]

Bottom line it’s not ok to refer to people by their physical attributes. Especially If you look at it in a professional situation, which this was.

You can’t really start suggesting it’s ok to say to refer to people as the bald guy or the Indian or the girl with the wonky teeth or the chap with the big nose. 

Its such a weak argument.