BrizzleRed

2 hours ago, Ashton Hero said:

You've definitely had better shirts - that looks like something that somebody designed after winning a competition. 

Of ours, the 94/95 versions (1st and 3rd kit) were the best I can remember. Soon followed by the nadir of the 'Tesco Bag'. 

 

Nah, we leave that sort of thing to you lot to get your pub team shirt sponsorship!

4 hours ago, italian dave said:

Pretty much what @Rebounder has already said above - and more eloquently than I could have!

The intent is not to label anyone as 'privileged' in a general sense and I thought that the blog made that point. It's just about highlighting the inequalities that - like it or not - have and still exist and the impact that has on some people and not on others.

Of course life is tough for lots of people, plenty of them white, straight, males - but I don't see the term as being used in that general way. You could, I suppose, talk about your folks in shop doorways in terms of housing tenure privilege or some such - but that's moving into different territory really - that's affected by circumstances and events, not just about who you are. 

Yes, I agree though that term can be problematic (and has certainly become so because there are people who want it to be - not suggesting that's you for a moment BTW) and I do get what you're saying - and clearly there are plenty who react against it. I just don't know what a better word would be. And even though I probably hit most of the 'xx privilege' buttons in relation to those protected characteristics under the equalities legislation, I cant say that I've ever felt it to be negative - it just makes me think. And, in the context it's intended, often makes me think of things that just hadn't occurred to me before. 

I appreciate the thoughtful and well put point of view ID.  The point where we completely differ is whether there is a need for a word privilage at all.  You say you don’t know what a better word would be, but I say, there shouldn’t be any word at all!

When you’re basically telling a whole ethnic group that they are under-privilaged, it creates a very negative mindset.  I believe everything should be viewed on a person by person basis, not on skin colour alone. 

There is absolutely no evidence that every white person has an advantage from birth, whilst every black person has a disadvantage and is discrimated against.  Taking this point a step further, the Asian community seem to show pretty high academic and business achievemts, so would they qualify as advantaged or disadvantaged under this form of categorisation?

In short, categorising entire groups within our society in terms of a single word, regardless of their individual situations seems absolutely pointless, as well as being very negative and divisive imho.  

The only real gain I can see, is for those who want to foster and promote a racial divide in this country, rather than try to eliminate it.  I will point out, as you did with me earlier, I’m certainly not suggesting you are one of these people.

I’m sure we’ll never agree on this one to be honest, but it’s been an interesting discussion, all the same.

9 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Things aren't really getting better at the moment though. They are regressing as hate crimes have been rising over recent years and we had a full on shooting spree at a gay bar in America just last year. There is still a lot to be vigilant about and we shouldn't accept people being attacked due to their sexuality as a way of life - just like we shouldn't accept it if straight person was attacked simply for being straight. (Though I agree we'll never stop all of it )

I do think there are massive issues with using the words Privileged, as when you're a white kid on an estate it's hard to really see that as privilege. I can see though that the black people I grew up with had more challenges to face even if our economic backgrounds were the same. For example a Black Woman is much more likely to have to deal with Sexism and Racism than I did in the UK growing up and as an adult.  That's all that people are saying. 

That's not to say the white straight male has had an incredibly Privileged life. 

 

Now you’re really talking about a country with massive social problems, when you get onto the subject of America!  I think we can safely say we’re way ahead of them on that score and they could learn a lot from us.

I think you could also find cases of mass shootings in just about every possible situation over there and as we all know, schools seem to be partiicularly popular.  It does seem to be a massively divided country on so many fronts and with their ridiculous gun laws, that can only have one outcome sadly.

Certainly agree with what you say in this post

12 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I honestly don’t think those are labels that are intended to somehow demonise people, or indeed are labels that are directed at individuals at all. They just explain a state of affairs. 

You say that a gay couple should be able to show affection without fearing that they’ll be abused. (Nothing OTT, just holding hands, kissing, whatever). And of course you’re right. But that’s not the case. You may think they should be able to, I’m sure you wouldn’t abuse them, but it’s nevertheless the case that it happens and therefore they are always mindful of that. 

On the other hand, a straight couple - doing exactly the same - will have no such fear.

That’s the difference. And that phrase expresses that. Straight people probably don’t even think about it, let alone see themselves as being ‘privileged’ to be able to do it. But to that gay couple, they are.  

Understand where you’re coming from re the labels issue, but they can be viewed in multiple ways.  They can most certainly carry negative connotations to many people and cause a great deal of resentment though.

Yes, gays can certainly be more prone to insults from mindless individuals, but while things sre improving, unfortunattely we don’t live in a perfect world.  It’s unrealistic to expect that everything could actually be perfect.  

Life is tough for everyone in different ways.  Try telling the poor folks living in shop doorways who are getting pee’d on by drunks, that they are actually straight privilaged and maybe white privilaged too.

There’s a big danger when you start pinning what may be viewd by many as a negative label as being straight privilaged.  Instead of helping the cause of gay people, you could just be fuelling further resentment in tbe straight community.  

Same goes for any other privilage label out there, because in spite of what you explained earlier, that still appears to categorise a huge number of the population in a negative way, like it or not.
 

10 hours ago, Ashton Hero said:

Quick question - if Rovers are such a tinpot club, why do we spend so much time discussing them. including their most recent game with Accrington? Over 3000 pages is a little embarrassing TBH. 

If we were genuinely massive, as our players and fans used to claim ad nauseam, we would have bigger things to worry about.

Just saying. 

 

Simple answer is, they’re a laugh a minute and they’d give some top level comedians a run for their in terms of laugh potential.

Difference.is, I’d pay good money to see a good comedian, but I’d pay f all towards that lot …… especially when you can read all about it on this thread!

We dont call them The Gift for nothing mate!!!

26 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'labels'? 

I don't disagree with anything you say here (other than that, which I'm just not sure about) - and in answer to your question why would others around them keep quiet - provided the negative comments weren't along the lines of stereotyping gay couples as behaving this way.

It isn't about "blaming" anyone in the rest of society - it's about recognising that there are still differences and inequalities between what you've called in your earlier post "mainstream" society and minority groups, and why there is - for example - equalities legislation that recognises those differences and the need for special protections to be enshrined in law. The difference, if you like, between calling someone a fat b*** (to use an example that was mentioned earlier) and a black b***. 

So, yes, I get what you say, and yes in an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary. But you haven't answered the question I put which was just what it is you disagree with - using the example of a couple expressing affection in public. Because that's not about labelling anyone, that's just about recognising the underlying inequalities of experience, expectation, that still exist. 

The labels I’m referring to Dave are white privilage, male privilage and straight privilage.

Although I didn’t directly answer your question, it was what I inferred in my answer.  Just to clarify, of course a gay couple should be able to show affection.  

As I said, they should just be mindful of the same standards of public decency and respect to others that we’d expect from a straight couple.  

There will obviously be some people who might find the actions of a straight couple as an acceptable standard, while the same level with a gay couple could make them uncomfortable.  That’s a personal thing for them, but in this day and age, they’ll just have to suck it up and accept it.

The only issue I see is if a gay couple go completely OTT, and then start shouting homophobia if someone gets upset by that.  

40 minutes ago, italian dave said:

But isn’t that the point he’s making? That one thing we don’t all share, for example, is being able to show affection for your partner in public without the fear of being abused. 

Do you think that’s not the case? And if it is the case, don’t you think that the person who is able to do that is in a privileged position compared to the person who can’t?

It’s not articles like this that are creating that division: it’s society. 

In my opinion, the division is being caused by the people creating or quoting the labels.

Society has moved on a long way, but granted there will still be the occasional brainless ignoramous making improper comments regarding ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, tall, short, disability, you name it.  That doesn’t mean the rest of normal society should have a negative label attached to them, just because of the idiots.

Another issue is appropriate behaviour.  As an example, I’ll bet many of us have seen a straight couple who are getting a bit worked up, to a level where it can make some people around them uncomfortable and it could well attract negative comments.  If a gay couple were behaving in the same way, would everyone around them have to keep quiet, for fear of being accused of being homophobic?

The way I see it, it’s down to all of us to be respectful of the feelings of the people around us and behave appropriately.  As in my example, that applies equally, whether you are straight or gay, or come under any other label you want to attach.  If you then get morons throwing insults, they should be dealt with appropriately in return.  

It definitely doesn’t achieve anything by sticking a label on everyone in society though.

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

I came across this - from a Forest fan - which touches on this and suggests why there’s a difference.

https://nedwood.uk/2023/01/03/the-wrong-atmosphere/
 

We’ll if that’s the opinion of the Forest fan, then he’s perfectly entitled to it.  

I’m right with him in terms of the obnoxious chants, but as soon as he starts banging on about the various privilages, that’s when I’m out!

All this privilage guff is exactly what’s causing divisions in our society.  It’s turning people into either a superior or victim, strictly due to gender, sexual orientation or skin colour.

Imho, that’s total crap and people are what, or who they are and nobody gains anything from having these discriminatory labels attached.  

As far as I’m concerned, that’s just the sort of divisive rubbish we should be getting rid of.  Rather than driving massive wedges between various elements of our society, they should be emphasising what we all share in common, as there’s plenty.

10 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Yeah fair thanks. 

On Palestine - I was losely around some of the groups in Bristol and it was quite clear how Anti-Semitism was easily slipped into there unchallenged. Even if it wasn't intentional for some it was there. I only truly recognised it when I reflected back. I think we largely agree in Palestine, but there are massive issues with both sides of the debate.

If we are now more divided then ever did things like the Bus Boycott, Brixton Riots, Southmead, Hartcliffe and St Paul's riots not happen? Were there not suppression of the miners strikes, poll tax riots, stonewall riots etc. Those are just some of the social upheavals that spring to mind out of many that existed before I was born. Speaking to people I know from then it doesn't sound like it was a time of harmony and equality. That ignoring the huge geo political situations that were happening then too. 

I think what has changed since then is that lot of discrimination has been fought against, and the Internet has changed how information is shared and the world has got a lot smaller with everything more in our faces. Groups of people who didn't have a space for their voice, from all backgrounds, now have access to potentially millions of viewers through social media and services like YouTube etc. It's one of the biggest changes since Industrialization here and we are still trying to get to grips with it. 

I do agree that people jump down peoples throats too quickly and are to quick to fire accusations without even trying to understand where someone is coming from, or how they developed. I don't think you can squarely lay the blame at the feet of woke people.

If you think that it's solely woke people and cancel culture that are the issue then that means ignoring Incel Ideolgy, the Alt-Right, and all the other grubby stuff that's out there that is also polluting the water. I fail to see how they are promoting our similarities, but it becomes an issue of wokeness if they are challenged? 

I am not a fan of cancelling people, but I do think people have a right to challenge something they don't agree with just as much as someone has the right to say it. The people who love to talk about woke people are often the same people crying because of criticism of the royal family after the Queen died. Feels that cancel culture is okay when it's the right voices being cancelled. 

Thanks anyway - I don't fully agree with what you've said and where the issues lie, but I just think it's more complicated than simply being an issue with wokeness and I don't believe that we are necessarily more divided, it's just in our faces more. 

A lot of interesting stuff there and you make some really valid points.  We could go on a very long time with this discussion, though I’m sure we’d be struggling for time!

To explain my statement about feeling we are more divided than I can ever remember, I mean us as a society.  The older examples you gave, such as the miner’s strike and the various riots in particular were the people against the authorities.  

Now it feels to me to be far more divisive, as it’s within society itself and is people against people.  In addition to the examples I previously mentioned, I’ll add Brexit to the modern examples and I doubt there’s anybody who would deny that was and is a massively divisive issue within the population!

Whereas those disputes of old eventually had a final resolution, my concern for our modern differences is their potential for escalation,  easily fuelled through social media.  I fear racial issues are a particularly dangerous one and a potential powderkeg.

Although as you mention, social media can be  a brilliant communication tool, it can also be a devastating weapon when used in a negative way.  The potential for sowing unrest within society through mis-informatiin is limitless and can have the effect of throwing fuel on the fire in disputes when used in a malovolent way.  

As you say, we’re still coming to grips with this media and it’s a massively complex issue.  You need freedom of speech, though deliberate misinformation can be very dangerous, whilst on the other hand, censorship is equally dangerous.  Then you have the very real issue of hacking by criminals and even by rival nations.  

Who knows how this will all pan out, but the genie is out of the bottle, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

Anyway, as it’s a football forum, better get back to the main subject …… great win yesterday!!!

3 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Again I don't think that's completely true, but I do agree in some ways that certain elements of the circles I have mixed in have been guilty in the stuff they've overlooked when supporting certain groups. I don't want to fall into left and right narratives, but the left rightly do get pulled up on this both internally and externally though not enoguh. Due to the nature of the right it's much easier for them to pick and choose what's acceptable. 

Can you give some examples of where equality isn't expected both ways? Genuinely is helpful and I can probably think of some too. Like I remember when I was quite young and naive I didn't realise how much Anti-Semitism there was in Pro Palestine groups (not all) and how easy it was for it to slip in. Made me very wary of those groups and the people that mix in them. Also supporting groups on a racial issue, but maybe ignoring their blatant sexism?  Do you mean that kind of stuff? 

Really there can never be true equality in this country, but not due to these issues. We are taught to hate and distrust eachother whilst the people that control our essential resources make record profits. Government's (left and right) and the people that support them rely on there being an enemy that they can deflect that on too, whether it's working class people striking, migrants, people who use drugs, people that need benefits, or the young people. It's never them and the people they support. In my opinion at least

 

Interesting points Rebounder, but I think we massively differ on your second paragraph, given the huge and disproportionate power advantage Israel hold over the Palestinians.  

The Israeli state seems incapable of taking criticism and it often claims any legitimate criticism of their treatment of the Palestinian people as being anti-semitic.  

The beleagered Palestinians, virtually imprisoned in the ever shrinking scrap of their own land they’ve been left with, don’t have the luxury of that extra shield!

I’m far from saying anti-semitism doesn’t exist, but there do seem to be many people who try to dodge straightforward criticism by claiming it’s anti-semitic.

As for my previous post, the equality issues I’m referring to are more to do with the negative aspects of the ever growing woke culture.  

My problem with it is, although promoted as positive action, it can often be negative.  Rather than promoting equality, very often the woke community actually increase division.  Whether it’s racial issues, sexual orientation, climate change or whatever, they aren’t celebrating what we as a people have in common, but are just magnifying and arguing over the differences.  

Not only that, but there is often no tolerance of alternative views.   Rather than agreeing to disagree, cancel culture often kicks in and there is a concerted drive to destroy anyone who persists with an alternative opinion to theirs.  We’ve seen many examples of this and we are never going to achieve the harmony most people would prefer while this ideology persists. 

I can’t ever remember so many divisions in this country during my lifetime and we are now getting to the ridiculous situation when even the gay and trans communities are now forced into battling each other.

I agree with you there are people who are deliberately sowing and benefitting from this division, though I suspect much of this comes from powerful individuals and self interest groups, with the government just being dragged along, rather than actually leading.

While this situation is allowed to continue, imho we’ve got zero chance of real equality, as that wouldn’t suit many of the same self-interest groups, as it would diminish their own power.

Yesss massive win, brilliant job you Reds!!!!

45 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Remember my last couple of visits, by then those crush barriers had certainly seen better days, I had no confidence at all that they were safe & the bit you walked through to get to the turnstiles resembled an obstacle course, full of rubble, divots & huge puddles.

For the very last one I stood on the side where the burned down stand used to be, easy to get on the pitch when Steve Neville scored, as a far few of us discovered.

Yep, nothing there at all.

Was there too at that game, somwere around the halfway line if I remember rightly.

We talk about the Mem being bad, but that place really was a total stain on the Bristol landscape.

5 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Back then a lot of people were offended by Men openly kissing in public. There are still  people around now that would struggle with it. I think it's a bit of a myth that society wasn't so easily offended back then, it's just we're not offended by the same things now. In the 70's a lot of those jokes did hurt and offend a lot of people, they just didn't have the voice  to be able to call it out, and society generally didn't care that they were being discriminated against. 

It's not "easily offended" when you have been assaulted and abused for your sexuality. Using sexuality as an insult towards someone else indicates that there is something wrong with it, and that feeds into a narrative that they are less than. The person making the joke might not be homophobic, but they are helping to perpetuate that idea and that does lead to real life discrimination of gay people. 

I totally acknowledge that we all make mistakes and I've made loads of jokes that I look back on and regret - I will definitely do it again I'm sure. Language is also changing constantly and I think most people are more scared of getting something wrong so they retreat into a defensive stance straight away - "people are just to easy to offend these days" I think it's okay to get something wrong and to reflect on it. People also have the right to challenge us on something we've said even if we don't agree with it. 

As always context and situation are important. 

There’s also an important thing that’s often passed over in these sort of situations.  

Whilst ‘mainstream’ society is told it should be accepting and tolerant towards the various minority groups, that same same level of tolerance doesn’t seem to be expected from the minority groups themselves.

Until that gets addressed, we’ll probably never get to a point where we reach true equality for everyone sadly.

I’ll say right here, I’m pro Pearson, as I’m convinced he is exactly what was needed to give this club the massive shake up it needed and clear the decks of the crap we’ve accumulated.

That said, the longer we go on, the more I’m convinced he’s only part of the solution and we are still missing that other vital part, namely reinforcement on the coaching side.

Even our most optimistic fans couldn’t argue the case that NP is getting the best out of the players available to him and the longer this continues, the less likely it seems that this will change.

The fans are all lamenting the basic errors we continue to make, the piss poor corner, throw in and general set-piece routines and our slow, unimaginative build-up play.  We can see it, but it still continues.

NP had admitted coaching isn’t his main area of expertise, so what help is he getting from the current coaching set-up? 

I think NP can complete the shake up this club so urgently needed but imho, it’s becoming increasingly obvious he needs coaching help to get things working on the pitch, as he doesn’t appear capable of achieving this on his own.

32 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

I know that I am in a tiny minority but I wish that somebody would buy both Bristol clubs and put them together.

Only then would we really have the fan base to make it to the prem. Helmuts on...........

Wow!  

It’s been discussed before, but what exactly would actually be gained from a merger with that lot?  Huge fanbase?  Money?  Great stadium? Better league standing?  Great history?

Nope, they’d add absolutely bugger all to what we’ve already got and would contaminate our club in the process.

Only people who would gain from a merger are the sags!

55 minutes ago, phantom said:

Haven't seen on slag chat for months so had a venture over there

Amazing how suddenly they don't care about the cup, two games from Wembley and the interest amazingly changes

….. haven’t they realised, this could have bought them some Championship ready drainage to go with their sprinklers on the cabbage patch???

13 minutes ago, chinapig said:

No, Steve was the architect who chose notorious dodgy builders Ashton & Johnson Ltd. Having overspent the budget he discovered the house was falling down so he had to bring in Gould & Pearson Ltd to rebuild it.

It's my analogy and I reserve the right to make it up as I go along!

Thank god he never got Ashton & Johnson Ltd to do the ground redevelopment as well, or we’d be well and truly f****d!

5 minutes ago, One Team said:

Brilliant post and completely agree. Nothing pisses me off more at Ashton Gate than the lights in the stands being on all match for night games. Under the lights means the pitch not us! 

When I first started going there it wasn’t like this and loads of other grounds switch the lights off. Puts me off going if it’s an evening KO to be honest. 

And to previous points I think they want a rugby crowd for the football, sat down, clapping politely all together.

Right with you I can still clearly remember the buzz you used to get at evening matches when the lights went down.  It was a feeling of, right here we go then and your adrenaline would start pumping and all your attention would be on the pitch.  

Never got that same magic with them bleedin lights on

As you say, they probably want the Rugby crowd, but we don’t have the benefit of taking our beers to the seats!!!

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair points. I am sceptical about whether we can get the lighting thing changed but it is also possible that the club are not exactly battling very hard over it.

Same goes for some of our noisier fans being put where they are, SAG may have issues but it may also be something the club don't mind too much about. I would suggest on point 2 that the policing and stewarding bill would likely increase were the fans in closer proximity so the current status quo may suit the club just fine with that.

Exactly and that’s my main point, I don’t think the club will fight any fan causes.  

It’ll be interesting to see if the new CEO has any input, given Palace’s seemingly much more fan friendly attitude.

Think it’s pretty nailed on that Steve’s response would be something along the lines of ‘we’re not having any of that nonsense here’.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@gl2

Not necessarily the clubs fault that, that's part of the wider environment changes both in the game itself and government legislation. Having said that some clubs probably buy into it more than others.

 

Quite so, but sometimes it’s just the little things that make a difference.  

Imagine going to the cinema, or theatre and they keep the main auditorium lighting on throughout the performance.  Not going to happen as it kills the viewing experience.

It doesn’t seem to bother our club though, even though well acknowledged to really detract from the spectator’s experience.  I get there’s the SAG, but plenty of other clubs get round that problem.  

We often discuss on here the muted atmosphere at the Gate and I think this is a big factor, along with dumping the most vocal section of the fanbase right in the corner of the ground.

Just two examples of why I just don’t believe the supporters come that high on the owner’s priority list to brutally honest.

11 minutes ago, gl2 said:

Would be nice, stand at front, stand at back, walk around stand/lean where-ever you want, smoke, drink, swear even agrovate the visiting fans; now all thats missing is a nice pair of slippers under your seat.

Yes nice ground now apparrently but we have no control over who uses it, sorry but dont like what we have become, part of something else i.m.o; rightly or not, its just how I feel.

Can’t argue with any of that tbh.  

Football has certainly changed and whilst some things have improved, there’s much that makes me feel increasingly distanced from the club.  

The sad thing is, there’s little sign of that situation improving.

1 hour ago, Coxy27 said:

"Reckons we always get behind the team"

Doesn't know us very well does he.

To be fair, we always do when we play a Warnock team!

26 minutes ago, Club and Country said:

Retired or semi retired , aka do it for free or can we pay as little as possible

what an embarrassing post for a league 1 club 

It’s what they do best …… stealing and scrounging.

9 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Infantacide has no class............he is Blatter Mark 2.  Only concerned with self promotion, and squeezing as many brown envelopes stuffed with notes as he can gather.  Football fans around the world deserve so much better than to be represented by this egotistical stain of a man.

We fans can clearly see how corrupt this organisation is, yet international football seems happy for FIFA to represent them.

Really makes you wonder how deeply that corruption has penetrated into football for this to be tolerated.

4 hours ago, lenred said:

Our new CEO has been in charge at Palace for a very long time.   Under his stewardship Palace have become one of the clubs that has the best atmosphere in the country and he must’ve a) had at least something to do with it and b) have seen the benefits of a vocal stadium on the performance on the pitch.    Hopefully this means that he will be open to ideas about various options that could improve the match day atmosphere.   Sorting out the away fan conundrum, encouraging fan engagement in other areas other than the ‘singing section’ and turning the bloody lights off at night games would be a good start! Really hopeful that be comes with good ideas on this.  

Now wouldn’t that be brilliant!  Can’t honestly see that happening, as SL will be a hard nut to crack, but we can live in hope I suppose. 

I never get the feeling nowadays that this club actually wants partizan support and they actually seem to go out of their way to prevent that happening, as in your points in the highlighted paragraph.

It feels like the main aim is to get fans to pay over their money, sit down and shut up.  I think it’s so ingrained now that there are many of our fans who don’t even stand at away grounds where it’s allowed.

There’s no doubt that our dire home form doesn’t help.  It’s hard to really believe the team is capable rousing themselves at home, when the last few years of experience demonstrates we very rarely can!