Jump to content
IGNORED

Racism in football


daored

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I agree that racism in all its forms is not political, but BLM has been around a number of years as a political movement I believe.

It is and isn't.

BLM started as a Twitter hashtag and then made its way into the real world as a movement to say that Black lives do not seem to matter as much as White lives. It was an American thing that then made its way around the world.

There is also a political group that took the name Black Lives Matter. It's similar to how somebody can be conservative but not a supporter/member of the Conservative Party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheReds said:

If hundreds of people called Rashford crap on the weekend on social media then many will call it racist abuse, yet if the same comments were against Kane then it seems to be fine

This is bolllocks, nobody is calling racism because they called Rashford crap, it is being called called racism because he was racially abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I agree that racism in all its forms is not political, but BLM has been around a number of years as a political movement I believe.

The organisation has, and has some well meaning but dreadfully communicated ideas #defundthepolice is the most god awful way to put forward a point that makes a lot of sense in the US and limited but some sense here as well. 

But black lives matter started as a twitter hashtag back in 2013 after treyvon martins killing I believe and has been around as a movement for a long time, but had somewhat of a resurgence after the George Floyd killing. 

Political organisations often form out of movements but they don't necessarily mean that the followers of a movement or the aims of a movement agree at all with those in the political movement that has come to take their name, although sadly the increased tribalism we are seeing is beginning to kill that off where people will blindly follow their tribe no matter what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spud55 said:

The organisation has, and has some well meaning but dreadfully communicated ideas #defundthepolice is the most god awful way to put forward a point that makes a lot of sense in the US and limited but some sense here as well. 

But black lives matter started as a twitter hashtag back in 2013 after treyvon martins killing I believe and has been around as a movement for a long time, but had somewhat of a resurgence after the George Floyd killing. 

Political organisations often form out of movements but they don't necessarily mean that the followers of a movement or the aims of a movement agree at all with those in the political movement that has come to take their name, although sadly the increased tribalism we are seeing is beginning to kill that off where people will blindly follow their tribe no matter what. 

Thanks for the clarifications.  

As I’ve said above, if an individual footballer wants to show support for BLM then great, good for them and I would applaud that, but I personally don’t think the directive to all footballers to take a knee is the right approach.  However, as I’ve also said above, if it keeps people talking about a serious issue then that can only be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

The media say all sorts of things.

It started in UK football following the death of George Floyd. It's a mix of reaction to that, reaction to racism, BLM support and wanting to support Black colleagues.

The media just went for a simple "it's BLM!".

But BLM by itself doesn't necessarily mean anything political. Black Lives Matter started as a phrase to say that Black lives matter. There is now a political group using that name, I highly doubt many players are supporters of the political group.

The media should say things that are truthful then, that would be a start for everyone concerned.

Then surely the likes of SKY, EFL, BBC, and even some sort of players representation group should make some sort of statements distancing themselves from the Political organisation. If it is the case then why haven't they? I would guess it is because they know they would get a backlash from it from the organisation as they would in effect saying they do not support it. So they just leave it as it is, and simply call people racist who are disagree with taking the knee, but the people who are against it is because they are against BLM the political organisation (there will be obviously be some racists against it solely because they are racist, but I don't think that is anywhere near a lot myself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheReds said:

The media should say things that are truthful then, that would be a start for everyone concerned.

Then surely the likes of SKY, EFL, BBC, and even some sort of players representation group should make some sort of statements distancing themselves from the Political organisation. If it is the case then why haven't they? I would guess it is because they know they would get a backlash from it from the organisation as they would in effect saying they do not support it. So they just leave it as it is, and simply call people racist who are disagree with taking the knee, but the people who are against it is because they are against BLM the political organisation (there will be obviously be some racists against it solely because they are racist, but I don't think that is anywhere near a lot myself).

Why should they have to? It takes seconds of Google searching to learn the difference.

Sky/BBC/the players/whoever are using it correctly. Why should they have to spend extra time explaining a very simple phrase just because some people are trying to twist things into a meaning that isn't there?

Black lives matter. It's a simple phrase and does exactly what it says on the tin.

If people want to pretend it's a front for Marxism or for removing all police, then that says far more about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Thanks for the clarifications.  

As I’ve said above, if an individual footballer wants to show support for BLM then great, good for them and I would applaud that, but I personally don’t think the directive to all footballers to take a knee is the right approach.  However, as I’ve also said above, if it keeps people talking about a serious issue then that can only be a good thing.

Agreed, and I don't think it is mandated is it? I would like to think that it is a choice and I would have no issues if a player doesn't want to take the knee. When it first started I would expect there to be a time of suck it up and show some solidarity, but after that initial few weeks if a player does not agree with the taking of the knee or more likely is indifferent to it then they should be free to not participate without anyone thinking any less of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

If a political group started using "Bristol City" as a name, do you think our club should have to change its name?

Taking the knee/Black lives matter doesn't mean any more than what it sounds like in the context of footballers.

Just because there is a group using it for political aims isn't a reason for the original meaning to be lost.

I would expect Bristol City to come out and explain that they are nothing to do with it, a statement on their website/twitter etc. Pretty simple really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

You're right that people use those words as insults. It's wrong to do so and I never use them as insults.

It doesn't have to be a competition between Black rights and Traveller rights though. Any racism is wrong.

its not a competition and yes all racist is wrong, but some on here try to take a moral high ground or should i say jump on the political band wagon but never pick up other insults to other communitys,the world does not revolve around black people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, big dosser said:

its not a competition and yes all racist is wrong, but some on here try to take a moral high ground or should i say jump on the political band wagon but never pick up other insults to other communitys,the world does not revolve around black people.

Nobody said it does revolve around Black people. That's what this discussion is about, Black players being racially abused, the conversation is naturally going to be about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Why should they have to? It takes seconds of Google searching to learn the difference.

Sky/BBC/the players/whoever are using it correctly. Why should they have to spend extra time explaining a very simple phrase just because some people are trying to twist things into a meaning that isn't there?

Black lives matter. It's a simple phrase and does exactly what it says on the tin.

If people want to pretend it's a front for Marxism or for removing all police, then that says far more about them.

Why should they have to? Simply put millions of people watch football in the UK alone, and I would guess (and only guess) that the vast majority of them tie in taking the knee with BLM and with it being Political. That is surely pretty simple to think why people think that, if they haven't been told anything differently. You think everyone should google everything to find out what it means rather than read/listen to the media for the umm news?

Sky/BBC should explain the difference or what exactly they are supporting. People are not twisting anything, as much as you would like to think they are.

Millwall fans got slated and instantly called racists for booing, west Ham, Colchester and another club had some fans boo as well but was hardly reported. Millwall have never booed the kick out campaign as far as I am aware, that surely tells you exactly what they were booing and why, it wasn't because of a simple slogan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Why should they have to? Simply put millions of people watch football in the UK alone, and I would guess (and only guess) that the vast majority of them tie in taking the knee with BLM and with it being Political. That is surely pretty simple to think why people think that, if they haven't been told anything differently. You think everyone should google everything to find out what it means rather than read/listen to the media for the umm news?

Sky/BBC should explain the difference or what exactly they are supporting. People are not twisting anything, as much as you would like to think they are.

Millwall fans got slated and instantly called racists for booing, west Ham, Colchester and another club had some fans boo as well but was hardly reported. Millwall have never booed the kick out campaign as far as I am aware, that surely tells you exactly what they were booing and why, it wasn't because of a simple slogan. 

Sky/BBC have never said "oh look the players are kneeling in support of the BLM political group". Whenever they have mentioned it, it's in the exact context that it's meant to be.

It's only bad faith actors and those that listen to them that think it's some Marxist plot to overthrow Western society.

I wonder why the kick it out campaign was not booed? Is it because it was quiet, easily ignored and didn't amount to anything? Odd how the booing (and fake "it's a political group!") starts when the protest is actually seen and being noticed....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Why should they have to? Simply put millions of people watch football in the UK alone, and I would guess (and only guess) that the vast majority of them tie in taking the knee with BLM and with it being Political. That is surely pretty simple to think why people think that, if they haven't been told anything differently. You think everyone should google everything to find out what it means rather than read/listen to the media for the umm news?

Sky/BBC should explain the difference or what exactly they are supporting. People are not twisting anything, as much as you would like to think they are.

Millwall fans got slated and instantly called racists for booing, west Ham, Colchester and another club had some fans boo as well but was hardly reported. Millwall have never booed the kick out campaign as far as I am aware, that surely tells you exactly what they were booing and why, it wasn't because of a simple slogan. 

If people are going to go so far as to boo and criticise what is at least portrayed at first glance as an anti racism movement you would hope they could do even a modicum of research on it in my opinion. If you're going to form a strong opinion on something to the point of protesting it I'd say it's your responsibility to understand what you're protesting and why. People have to take some responsibility for their actions.

I'd also add that in my experience, not all but a lot of the strongly anti BLM/kneeling folk are also anti MSM / fake news types who would choose not to believe whatever the BBC/Sky etc. said regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Why should they have to? Simply put millions of people watch football in the UK alone, and I would guess (and only guess) that the vast majority of them tie in taking the knee with BLM and with it being Political. That is surely pretty simple to think why people think that, if they haven't been told anything differently. You think everyone should google everything to find out what it means rather than read/listen to the media for the umm news?

Sky/BBC should explain the difference or what exactly they are supporting. People are not twisting anything, as much as you would like to think they are.

Millwall fans got slated and instantly called racists for booing, west Ham, Colchester and another club had some fans boo as well but was hardly reported. Millwall have never booed the kick out campaign as far as I am aware, that surely tells you exactly what they were booing and why, it wasn't because of a simple slogan. 

So what is it about the BLM organisation that you find problematic? How have you managed to do enough research to decide that you don't like the organisation enough to condone the booing of an anti rascism gesture, without also finding out that is a movement?  Even by its own design one that is decentralised and can be massively different depending on where you are in any political aims that it may or may not have, but all of it is  connected by the one simple principle that the lives of black people should matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Sky/BBC have never said "oh look the players are kneeling in support of the BLM political group". Whenever they have mentioned it, it's in the exact context that it's meant to be.

It's only bad faith actors and those that listen to them that think it's some Marxist plot to overthrow Western society.

I wonder why the kick it out campaign was not booed? Is it because it was quiet, easily ignored and didn't amount to anything? Odd how the booing (and fake "it's a political group!") starts when the protest is actually seen and being noticed....

No of course they never, because BLM were not actually recognised as a Political group when it was first introduced into football back in March. Sky/BBC etc would have been slated to say that. But many people/fans did see them as Political, taking the knee basically being brought in after the Floyd killing, which was obviously tied in with the organisation and not just the slogan. Surely that is obvious and self explanatory.

When Sky/BBC/EFL/Media in general say "the players are taking the knee for Black Lives Matter", you seriously think millions upon millions of fans should automatically think "that's great, this is Black Lives Matter the slogan and they are definitely nothing to do with Black Lives Matter the Political organisation"? Even though the same Sky/BBC/EFL/Media haven't bothered to tell anyone and distance themselves from the political organisation? Yeah ok, it makes perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheReds said:

No of course they never, because BLM were not actually recognised as a Political group when it was first introduced into football back in March. Sky/BBC etc would have been slated to say that. But many people/fans did see them as Political, taking the knee basically being brought in after the Floyd killing, which was obviously tied in with the organisation and not just the slogan. Surely that is obvious and self explanatory.

When Sky/BBC/EFL/Media in general say "the players are taking the knee for Black Lives Matter", you seriously think millions upon millions of fans should automatically think "that's great, this is Black Lives Matter the slogan and they are definitely nothing to do with Black Lives Matter the Political organisation"? Even though the same Sky/BBC/EFL/Media haven't bothered to tell anyone and distance themselves from the political organisation? Yeah ok, it makes perfect sense.

If the average viewer hears "Black Lives Matter" and thinks "the political organisation!", then it shows just how well the far right has done to smear the Black rights movement.

I'm not sure you have your timeline right there. In March I don't think there were many (if any) taking the knee. George Floyd wasn't killed until May and football didn't return until June. 

Sky have explained things already (video below). I'm not sure why they need to explain Black rights and how it's not tied to a political group every single time. Unless that demand is just as a way to distract away from the actual issues? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheReds said:

No of course they never, because BLM were not actually recognised as a Political group when it was first introduced into football back in March. Sky/BBC etc would have been slated to say that. But many people/fans did see them as Political, taking the knee basically being brought in after the Floyd killing, which was obviously tied in with the organisation and not just the slogan. Surely that is obvious and self explanatory.

When Sky/BBC/EFL/Media in general say "the players are taking the knee for Black Lives Matter", you seriously think millions upon millions of fans should automatically think "that's great, this is Black Lives Matter the slogan and they are definitely nothing to do with Black Lives Matter the Political organisation"? Even though the same Sky/BBC/EFL/Media haven't bothered to tell anyone and distance themselves from the political organisation? Yeah ok, it makes perfect sense.

Most of those millions of fans will see Black Lives Matter as a purely anti-racist slogan and nothing at all to do with the political movement that you would probably find the majority of people don't even know exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spud55 said:

So what is it about the BLM organisation that you find problematic? How have you managed to do enough research to decide that you don't like the organisation enough to condone the booing of an anti rascism gesture, without also finding out that is a movement?  Even by its own design one that is decentralised and can be massively different depending on where you are in any political aims that it may or may not have, but all of it is  connected by the one simple principle that the lives of black people should matter. 

To me it seems they are causing more division, whether or not that is the actual aim or not I do not know but there seems to be many extreme people involved. I have seen multiple videos of people involved at the top (Hawk Newsome USA) who just seems pretty clueless and I never knew McDonalds was the biggest racial problem around until seeing him. In the UK here we have the lovely Oxford woman Sasha - filled with extreme hate against white people, she spreads her message quite openly, anti white and anti Police.

The message that I seem to see overall from BLM is just creating a massive victim mentality, and not any message of you can achieve what you want in this life, of course people will have setbacks, job losses etc, that is life, it isn't easy, but it isn't all to do with race. The protests that turn into violence, months of protests costing billions in the US, the fighting with Police in London etc. 

I will leave it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TheReds said:

To me it seems they are causing more division, whether or not that is the actual aim or not I do not know but there seems to be many extreme people involved. I have seen multiple videos of people involved at the top (Hawk Newsome USA) who just seems pretty clueless and I never knew McDonalds was the biggest racial problem around until seeing him. In the UK here we have the lovely Oxford woman Sasha - filled with extreme hate against white people, she spreads her message quite openly, anti white and anti Police.

The message that I seem to see overall from BLM is just creating a massive victim mentality, and not any message of you can achieve what you want in this life, of course people will have setbacks, job losses etc, that is life, it isn't easy, but it isn't all to do with race. The protests that turn into violence, months of protests costing billions in the US, the fighting with Police in London etc. 

I will leave it there.

1. We are not American, so what their views have to do with this I don't know.

2. No idea who Sasha is, at the other end of the political spectrum from Tommy Robinson by the sound of it, but I would be amazed if more than a quarter of a percent of people in this country have any idea who she is. Nutters on all sides and that.

3. Here is a direct quote from the front page of blacklivesmatter.co.uk

    "We are a non-political, non-partisan, non-violence platform."

    I would suggest that is more most people's experience of BLM than the politics and division you seem to think it stands for.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BS2 Red said:

If the average viewer hears "Black Lives Matter" and thinks "the political organisation!", then it shows just how well the far right has done to smear the Black rights movement.

I'm not sure you have your timeline right there. In March I don't think there were many (if any) taking the knee. George Floyd wasn't killed until May and football didn't return until June. 

Sky have explained things already (video below). I'm not sure why they need to explain Black rights and how it's not tied to a political group every single time. Unless that demand is just as a way to distract away from the actual issues?

 

I think you're wrong btw, taking the knee is bound to the Colin Kaepernick's 2016 story its been used to mean something very different post George Floyd.  And BLM is definitely a political movement, the very act of protest is political so to try and make out that its not is silly.  Thing is I agree with a lot of what the BLM movement is fighting for, however I don't agree with everything they do or say, and not everything thats done in their name. 

For example I think white privilege is a toxic and regressive phrase that seems to have come to mean a lot of things from the simple fact that white people are not born with the same disadvantages as black people (OK'ish as this is not always the case) to at the other end of the spectrum when a white lady's asking a black guy in a park to clean up her rubbish (Thats just strait racism).  You can't conflate one with the other and expect everyone to just agree with you.  Thats just one example, here's another there is a black guy who wouldn't support BLM and take the knee, he got called racist because he didn't like the fact that in the USA there protesters had burned down his local church (If you blame BLM for that is up to you he did).  Taking the knee brings all the complexities of that debate onto the pitch and into the ground and when it's full of people again I don't think this will end well if I'm honest, there is a reason political symbols are banned in sport. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I think you're wrong btw, taking the knee is bound to the Colin Kaepernick's 2016 story its been used to mean something very different post George Floyd.  And BLM is definitely a political movement, the very act of protest is political so to try and make out that its not is silly.  Thing is I agree with a lot of what the BLM movement is fighting for, however I don't agree with everything they do or say, and not everything thats done in their name. 

For example I think white privilege is a toxic and regressive phrase that seems to have come to mean a lot of things from the simple fact that white people are not born with the same disadvantages as black people (OK'ish as this is not always the case) to at the other end of the spectrum when a white lady's asking a black guy in a park to clean up her rubbish (Thats just strait racism).  You can't conflate one with the other and expect everyone to just agree with you.  Thats just one example, here's another there is a black guy who wouldn't support BLM and take the knee, he got called racist because he didn't like the fact that in the USA there protesters had burned down his local church (If you blame BLM for that is up to you he did).  Taking the knee brings all the complexities of that debate onto the pitch and into the ground and when it's full of people again I don't think this will end well if I'm honest, there is a reason political symbols are banned in sport. 

 

BLM is two different things that people online have gotten confused. There's a political group called Black Lives Matter, that's not the same thing as the general movement to raise awareness that Black lives matter. 

Taking the knee is something BLM supporters (both types) support. But it's not a BLM owned thing. It's separate. Like how the peace sign is used by different groups for different things.

I don't disagree with you on the other stuff. It's disgusting to have a go at somebody that doesn't want to take the knee. It's a personal choice.

Being anti-racist shouldn't be a political thing though. The far right want to make it a political thing, we shouldn't let them twist things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

BLM is two different things that people online have gotten confused. There's a political group called Black Lives Matter, that's not the same thing as the general movement to raise awareness that Black lives matter. 

Taking the knee is something BLM supporters (both types) support. But it's not a BLM owned thing. It's separate. Like how the peace sign is used by different groups for different things.

I don't disagree with you on the other stuff. It's disgusting to have a go at somebody that doesn't want to take the knee. It's a personal choice.

Being anti-racist shouldn't be a political thing though. The far right want to make it a political thing, we shouldn't let them twist things.

I don't disagree but the fact you have taken the time to unpick it, is not somthing most football fans want to do.  So they'll be either in my camp indifferent, support it or not.  And some won't know what they think of it apart from being offended.  If you end up being vocally against it which won't mean you're necessarily taking racist view, you will probably find yourself on either the wrong side of the law, the club and your peers.  That's why it's not good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I don't disagree but the fact you have taken the time to unpick it, is not somthing most football fans want to do.  So they'll be either in my camp indifferent, support it or not.  And some won't know what they think of it apart from being offended.  If you end up being vocally against it which won't mean you're necessarily taking racist view, you will probably find yourself on either the wrong side of the law, the club and your peers.  That's why it's not good idea. 

But if most people haven't unpicked it then they cannot plausibly be vocally against it can they? I can understand being vecifioursly for the idea or totally uninterested as both make complete sense and I would expect the majority of people to be in the uninterested camp, can see that it's probably a good thing but struggle to really care as it's not something that impacts their daily lives. 

Even having some issues with it because of some of the actions of the BLM organisation I can understand but I think anyone who has taken the time to look to come to that conclusion has done enough to see that there is a clear difference between the movement and parts of the organisation that are political, even here I would expect nothing more than indifference more to the dislike side. 

However to be vermently opposed to it you must have either put in some thought and come to a conclusion that you don't think racial equality is a good idea for some reason. Or and what is more likely you are simply parroting the shite that is peddled by people like Farage, Hopkins, Fox etc. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up when it was possible to be overtly racist, tell a racist joke out aloud, when about the only time you'd see a black player would be in internationals etc.

I can say that those days, on the whole, have been consigned to the dustbin of history - I say this as someone who does not live in the inner-city.
When I've seen it, and sometimes this happens at personal risk, I've pulled people up on some of the shit they've been spouting.

What has changed in recent years is the anonymous nature of social media and its allowance of racists to share their views with impunity.
For those that think that it's possible to identify these people, I'm afraid you're being naive; all you need is an anonymising service (and there are plenty of real reasons why they should be allowed). To fix this requires international agreement and considering the US' view on 'freedom of speech', is probably near on impossible. This does not mean that other governments have to put up with this approach i.e. they just tell the social media outlets that they put their houses in order and it gets blocked, but this is more or less impossible unless you are China or Russia.

We've even got 'sponsored' politicians/tits who spout their 'views'. This is either through some racist sugar daddy from another country or, the perverseness of crowd sourcing. I think we are seeing these sources 'strangled' to a certain extent but I suspect it might require some imaginative approaches to fix this problem.

So, where does this leave us?
Probably the slow education of people and society, and people just don't want to wait.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bcfcfinker said:

I grew up when it was possible to be overtly racist, tell a racist joke out aloud, when about the only time you'd see a black player would be in internationals etc.

I can say that those days, on the whole, have been consigned to the dustbin of history - I say this as someone who does not live in the inner-city.
When I've seen it, and sometimes this happens at personal risk, I've pulled people up on some of the shit they've been spouting.

What has changed in recent years is the anonymous nature of social media and its allowance of racists to share their views with impunity.
For those that think that it's possible to identify these people, I'm afraid you're being naive; all you need is an anonymising service (and there are plenty of real reasons why they should be allowed). To fix this requires international agreement and considering the US' view on 'freedom of speech', is probably near on impossible. This does not mean that other governments have to put up with this approach i.e. they just tell the social media outlets that they put their houses in order and it gets blocked, but this is more or less impossible unless you are China or Russia.

We've even got 'sponsored' politicians/tits who spout their 'views'. This is either through some racist sugar daddy from another country or, the perverseness of crowd sourcing. I think we are seeing these sources 'strangled' to a certain extent but I suspect it might require some imaginative approaches to fix this problem.

So, where does this leave us?
Probably the slow education of people and society, and people just don't want to wait.

 

Agreed I don't think you can make social media not anonymous as you say its not hard to get around, I could just go through my vpn before sending some abuse, or as it's a tweet or equivalent you could easily use a free vpn and proxy chains to make it even less likely that anyone is going to find you. 

Also I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to force people "out" so to speak, to take a relatively benign example, the secret barrister puts out a lot of stuff that would probably not be well liked by government and various parts of the criminal justice system so would likely have some issues if it were known who they are (obviously this is not an example where someone would face serious persecution if they were known) but the point is still the same. 

I think also it has simplified arguments the the point where nuance has died and it is merely the most simplistic arguments can be had. Take Lawrence Fox, his big coming out party was taking a very complex and nuanced argument about media coverage of Megan Markle being at best a bit sketchy to somewhere approaching racially motivated, now this is not a cut and dry argument where by media outlets were being overtly racist you could only make the argument by looking at the coverage as a whole and comparing it to her peers, once you have done that you can in my eyes make a reasoned argument that her negative coverage compared to that of Kate was motivated by the fact that she's black, however a reasoned argument can also be made that the negative coverage was for other reasons and nothing to do with race. 

Both are acceptable arguments in a reasoned debate, the argument omg you must be racist against whites as the daily mail didn't directly say anything overtly racist is a retarded argument devoid of the necessary nuance required other than to peddle you simplistic click bait shit designed to embolden racists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I don't disagree but the fact you have taken the time to unpick it, is not somthing most football fans want to do.  So they'll be either in my camp indifferent, support it or not.  And some won't know what they think of it apart from being offended.  If you end up being vocally against it which won't mean you're necessarily taking racist view, you will probably find yourself on either the wrong side of the law, the club and your peers.  That's why it's not good idea. 

It's probably best to look into something before being vocally against it.

As Spud55 said, how can they boo something and not understand it?

I totally understand people hear "it's Marxism!" and believe it. It's just very sad that they don't spend any time at all questioning if what they've been told is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BS2 Red said:

It's probably best to look into something before being vocally against it.

As Spud55 said, how can they boo something and not understand it?

I totally understand people hear "it's Marxism!" and believe it. It's just very sad that they don't spend any time at all questioning if what they've been told is true.

I think that's the point though isn't it does require some thought and some people don't want to think about it at a football game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spud55 said:

Agreed I don't think you can make social media not anonymous as you say its not hard to get around, I could just go through my vpn before sending some abuse, or as it's a tweet or equivalent you could easily use a free vpn and proxy chains to make it even less likely that anyone is going to find you. 

Also I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to force people "out" so to speak, to take a relatively benign example, the secret barrister puts out a lot of stuff that would probably not be well liked by government and various parts of the criminal justice system so would likely have some issues if it were known who they are (obviously this is not an example where someone would face serious persecution if they were known) but the point is still the same. 

I think also it has simplified arguments the the point where nuance has died and it is merely the most simplistic arguments can be had. Take Lawrence Fox, his big coming out party was taking a very complex and nuanced argument about media coverage of Megan Markle being at best a bit sketchy to somewhere approaching racially motivated, now this is not a cut and dry argument where by media outlets were being overtly racist you could only make the argument by looking at the coverage as a whole and comparing it to her peers, once you have done that you can in my eyes make a reasoned argument that her negative coverage compared to that of Kate was motivated by the fact that she's black, however a reasoned argument can also be made that the negative coverage was for other reasons and nothing to do with race. 

Both are acceptable arguments in a reasoned debate, the argument omg you must be racist against whites as the daily mail didn't directly say anything overtly racist is a retarded argument devoid of the necessary nuance required other than to peddle you simplistic click bait shit designed to embolden racists. 

You can make social media 100% accountable and not anonymous, all the bot addresses, vpn addresses block them all, add block chain into the mix and you cant post anonymously, even this forum would filter racist content its not hard.  What twitter, fb, insta etc don't want is for the nice little earner that is hate speech to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I think that's the point though isn't it does require some thought and some people don't want to think about it at a football game.

Then they should just ignore it.

I don't think I've ever seen any entertainment at half time that has interested me. Instead of shouting and booing, I just go for a drink, food, a piss, chat to people or mess around on my phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...