Cowshed

I have responded to your use of All Lives Matter as being undeniably a racist slogan. The points and questions posed you have ignored. Its is easily deniable. It is illogical to use your rules where no other alternative can be considered. A mixed race group were using a undeniably racist slogan - All Lives Matter. That is nonsense. The group has been called various things. Most are that nonsense. As per politics forum. Why call people something they are not? What were the consequences? What was be implied/inferred? Were this group members of St Annes Conservative club?

You still have not answered the earlier questions regarding undeniably racist. I am calm. Yes, the group have been called racists according to Bristol antifascists they are notoriously racist, a poster in the sub forum called the group fascists. So yes, there is merit in consistently pointing out what are facts. Again, you have made an assertion. I know the banner creator as others do and as several pointed out last year, I think it is highly likely that the creator would not be aware of why you perceive All Lives Matter to be undeniably a racist slogan. You are importing and extrapolating context from another continent. The context is what occurred here in BS1. The words meant exactly what they say .. All Lives Matter.

Its half time.. All Lives Matter is a thing in America well a context is its four thousand miles away. However, you decide that this should define the use of language here. You want to enforce your rules of speech. Society uses due process. Facts. The facts I posted are the context. The group was multi racial, the wording on the banner was unambiguous and clearly not racist. Facts. A context you then decided was irrelevant. Your rules. These were working class bloke, not linguists. People can have a different world view to yours and have different standards. Not wrong different.

You are telling me I cant write whatever. You do not control the English language. I stated a fact. You state context matters greatly after stating its irrelevant in your first sentence. As expected a lot of rules. Your rules. Its nonsense.

It isn't analogous. The context is the words were included on a banner stating what the group was, a message for a police Superintendent and this was displayed in BS1 by a group that was not exclusively white. This group cannot be perpetuating anything associated with racism, it’s quite the opposite. The group was multiracial. There was no aid given to any racists. None. Bristol has no far-right groups of any significance. The racist oddballs in caves that there are would loathe knowing who bought the banner, their backgrounds, knowing they were not anything to do with the far-right. Unfortunately, there are left wing groups who don't like it as well. There is your division. As Steve highlighted in the article.

Recently Bristol Manor Farm Avon Youth league teams had no referees for games. Manor Farm were not the only club affected. Entire divisions had no refeerees allocated to them. This stretched across age groups. No refs. The reason was the disgraceful behaviour displayed towards referees including refs of fourteen and fifteen by coaches and Managers. Referees are being driven away from the game at grass roots level and if they progress up levels they have Managers like that to contend with.

No I see nothing racist in a mixed race group using the words All Lives Matter. How can that be a clearly racist act? Literally it is not. There is no reference to race. Its illogical to suggest it was undeniably racist. The slogan used by a non far-right multi racial group was undeniably anti racist. The words meant exactly what they say .. All Lives Matter.

An assertion was made. The group which was present at the Cenotaph used a undeniably racist slogan. A fact is the group was multi racial. Mr Rees confirms the organiser has a black wife. The slogan used contains no reference to race. Yet its asserted the group are committing a undisputed racist act. How?

I will waste time as I know the individual in the article. He is not a fiend, he is an acquaintance. I think its fair to defend these people and as an acquaintance I can spot an obvious flaw in the posters argument. A fact as Mr Rees observes here - Mayor met 'Football Lads' protest organisers 'to hold the city together' - Bristol Live (bristolpost.co.uk) The organiser. His wife is black. People in the groups at the Cenotaph were Black and Asian. How can a group of White, Black and Asian men be using a slogan in All Lives Matter that is undeniably racist?

You are being picked up on what you have said. Yes it was on a placard in BS1. Bought by a group who were mixed race. And the text displayed further context - Not Far Right/All races. How in your own words does the above = Your it was undeniably a racist slogan? Your fact in the last line. What did Andy Bennett call the group at the Cenotaph? What was being implied? Did he lie? Why call them any wing?

You are importing and extrapolating context from other continents. The context is what occurred here in BS1.

No I am drawing attention to the actual circumstances. Its deniable All Lives Matter is a racist slogan. In the context it was used that day and by knowledge of whom its more than deniable, its vacuous thinking.

The only reason anyone ever intimated that they may have been racist was their blatant use of the "All Lives Matter" slogan which is undeniably a racist slogan when used in response to BLM. I think you will find though, that anybody mentioning this would also have said that if they weren't racist, then they just didn't have the brains to realise they were being unintentionally so. That is your quote from this thread. All Lives Matter is not undeniably a racist slogan. The person who purchased the banner has a mixed race family. The group who displayed the banner were multi racial. The group who depending on perception were defending the Cenotaph when criminal acts like pulling down statues were occuring was mixed race. These points were posted a year ago. A year later your still pushing (bleating?) the racism line.

Silence= thinking it was pointless continuing a non-debate and assertions. People are asserting that ALM is racist. In its literal sense it is not. You(?) and others add context v BLM. That is uncertain. Many will not share your view. But the actual context was as pointed out months ago was this was a group containing people who were not all white, its organiser is in a mix raced relationship. People who bought that banner are anti-racists. As a poster pointed out at the time it’s a circle that cannot be squared to create your racist act assertion. Multi racial anti racist racists that is the nonsense narrative that individuals were pushing on OTIB, and others used out in the wider world.

Have you tried to wash spray paint off anything? The Council have to buff it off many surfaces. It does not wash off stone. It will cause lasting damage. What you highlight is own world view not everybody’s. People are sensitive about what is sacred. You clearly do not share that sensitivity but again that is your world view. Attacking a memorial is not a trivial crime for millions. Many people feel vandalising a war memorial is disgusting. It in my opinion should be a hate crime in the manner deliberately defacing a Temple would be. Attacking memorials harms the perception people have of BLM. Negative actions create negative memories. The more negative the deeper internalised the memory becomes. Attacks on memorials are an attack on people’s families, community, status this is highly negative. That this does not include you does not change what is basic psychology. Your undeniable assertion earlier (All Lives Matter) was your opinion. It was not a fact and literal. It was deniable and logically so. Everybody is not you.

The sight of war memorials being accidently damaged coincidentally at national BLM demos has left lasting damage. Psychologiocaly it has left a memory. The human brain works like that .. BLM will be instantly linked to defacing memories of the fallen in minds. That you think defacing a war memorial is hardly a crime is your view. Its not unique, another poster described what occurred nationally similarly and articulted the Cenotaph was just a pile of stones (?). Undeniably many wholly disagree with your views. To deface a war memorial is a criminal act, these deliberate acts caused wide deep offence and distress.

Wrong. The Police put out their statement the previous week. It contained an untruth. An untruth that was repeated.

Which question was that an answer to?

Did you think it was legitimate for the police to label these individuals far-right/right wing? Do you think it is legitimate that left wing groups have been perpetuating the same lie and also describing BCFC fans as notoriously racist? I know Steve. He is many things, but one thing he has never been is a evil far-right racist and fascist.

If he was all he was elevated to he would have not joined BCFC. The players carear was on the slide before he came to Ashton Gate. This players mindset was responsible. Andy Cole paints a picture of a man who was less than sober.

And the player who left wasn't good enough to command a starting place in the teams he joined either.

And training with a tennis ball or a size three ball and moving to a size five does the similar. Do it enough the memory becames larger and permanent. Practice will make permanent. Cricketers like tennis players dont have faster reactions. Via their practice they see patterns and understand what is ocurring in a millsecond even subconscioulsy which leads to their response. This also occurs in football.

Science identifies genes linked to speed, height, weight, body shape, left/right handedness but your footballer’s gene hasn't been identified because it does not exist. Sons of pros. That is a question of mindset and behaviours. A footballer will understand more clearly and be able to provide education to their siblings as to what the necessary behaviours are to develop into a footballer. Many footballers do not have sons that become pros. Which highlights a flaw in your theory? You provided an example of Frank Lampard. Fat Frank as he was labelled should not as a non-mesomorph have become a footballer. Only he did due to an extreme training regime that most would never endure. He applied a growth mindset. Another poster highlighted Mesi. Physically blessed? Hardly. He was given growth hormones. He again went through a freakish training regime from incredibly early ages. An extreme training regime that most would never endure. Ronaldo here we have a physical blessed freak but again his training? He is a training phenom. Taking what he had moving from ecto to his explosive meso-ecto all with a mindset and training regime that is legendary in its extremity = Mindset. You swerved x2 the question about nations. The skill of the Brazilians, the defending of the Italians, the Spanish passing is not genetic. Its cultural, its mindset and it’s nurtured by how they train.

I did not say ANY. Any human (virtually) can develop high levels of skills with a football. Ultra skilled freestylers frequently do not become footballers. A clumsy kid with poor motor skills can improve. A reason we train. Could you identify what this hereditary gene is? Scientists can identify the ACTN speed gene but not a football gene. I will ask politely again. What herditary gene do these skillful Brazillians have? Do the Italians have a defending gene? Do the Spanish have a passing gene?

No. Messi did thousands of hours of training with a football before he was five. So with the highly abnormal level of training he recieved during his early years creating a advanced technical base many could develop similar technical abilties.