Cowshed
-
Posts
7146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Cowshed
-
-
11 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
You really need to calm down. Nobody called this group racists so not sure why you need to tell us that they were multi racial and not racist in every single one of your posts.
All Lives Matter would not have been put on that banner if it wasn't for the context of it being opposed to a Black Lives Matter demo, so context does indeed very much come into it. It was not intended to be racist, but it does seem to be a little clumsy to me.
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.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, IAmNick said:
I'm not telling you you can't write something. You can write whatever you like, and people can comment on what you write. And that's what has happened here.
Not my rules. Our societies rules - words and actions have context. Otherwise why is the cenotaph special? It's just stones... but there's context behind it. It has great meaning to us.
Why do you argue taking the knee is divisive? Because you see context behind it. Why is a banana being thrown on a football pitch wrong? It's just fruit. Fruit isn't bad. Why does anyone care? Context.
Are those "my rules" too? That's how language and actions work.
Things we do and say don't exist in a complete vacuum at all times, to be totally defined by us however we want in the given situation.
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.
-
Just now, IAmNick said:
Does that make sense though?
It doesn't line up with any of the other explanations you've got. In fact I'd say it's not an explanation at all personally.
I'd also ask what's wrong with sometimes not saying something if it upsets people. I expect we all do that don't we?
I certainly make an effort to. If someone explains to me something I say is hurtful or I don't fully understand I listen. I don't think that's being silenced/got the by "woke" mob/made to comply or anything.
Who has been made to comply here exactly? The group with an article explaining their point of view in the paper? Hah!
That's just an excuse to be the selfish "I just tells it as I sees it" bloke who does what he wants and to hell with anyone else.
The group being multicultural is irrelevant and shows you've missed the point totally.
You can't just write whatever you want and go "not racist by the way" as a magical get out of jail free card.
I see there being a few options:
- People there knew the meaning/context and were racist. Probably very few imo.
- People decided to stand behind a banner with a slogan they didn't research or understand because it sounded good or people they knew were. Probably most imo. But I'd argue ignorance isn't an excuse, and if I was going to pose with something similar I'd want to make sure I understood it.
- People didn't care and just turned up with mates thinking a horde of "antifa" were on there way (whose population is probably smaller than your racist one mentioned above) and they could have a few beers and a scrap. A few.
Just because they didn't appreciate the context doesn't mean you can just say it therefor doesn't exist. Context matters greatly.
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.
-
24 minutes ago, IAmNick said:
It's a fair question, and it's one of context really.
As I'm sure you know the "Black lives matter" slogan is quite a few years old now, highlighting social and systematic racism. There have been a few high profile events in recent years, especially in the US.
An important part is that saying "Black lives matter" isn't saying all lives don't matter. "All lives matter" was and is primarily said as some weird response to saying "Black lives matter", and seems to imply that the problems it's trying to highlight should be downplayed or are ignored because what about other problems. Nobody is denying other groups and people also face huge challenges and issues in their lives, which of course matter.
It would be slightly analogous to if you had a family member who had breast cancer (as I have) and went on a charity walk to raise money for it. In response, you had people up there with "All cancers matter" banners, or saying "So what you don't care about my heart disease?" or "Yeah so you want to cut my diabetes treatment do you?" and so on. Provocative in my mind, to use your word. Other people have said if your house was on fire, and your neighbour was demanding the firemen also spray a load of water on their house, because their house matters too.
Further on from that actual racists (and I'm not saying everyone who says "All lives matter" is racist, to be clear) have then co-opted the phrase to intentionally shut down discussions about racism, and people who repeat the phrase are intentionally or not perpetuating that problem. It has now as a result turned something we can all agree on (improving the lives of black folk) into something divisive we're here arguing about. That's an intentionally step from people who are racist, being unfortunately aided by normal non racist folk.
Fundamentally of course all lives matter. Nobody is saying otherwise. But so do black lives. They can and should exist together. Helping black folk improve their lot in life helps us all, and doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't help everyone else too.
Why people need to "respond" with "All lives matter" is completely beyond me.
Hopefully that makes sense!
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.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
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.
-
19
-
1
-
Just now, richwwtk said:
I have not said they were being racist, I said they were unwittingly using a slogan that is clearly racist when used as a response to Black Lives Matter.
I fully accept they did not mean it and were not being racist, though I would hope tha tthey would admit it wasn't the most sensitive thing to be saying.
Do you really not see the issue with using All Lives Matter as a response to the Black Lives Matter slogan?
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.
-
6
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:
I’ll repeat, no one said ALL of them were racist
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?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Wiltshire robin said:
I wouldn’t waste your time arguing with this guy , he’s one of the ones on this forum that find something to be offended by in anything . I know a few people who read the forum but won’t sign up as they think if they say the slightest thing a few people on here will cause a
storm.
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?
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
It was on that placard as a response to the phrase Black Lives Matter.
It doesn't really matter what I say because you will refuse to accept it.
This does not change the fact that they were NOT called racist by anybody and you should stop bleating on about it because it is just a false accusation.
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?
-
9 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
You are importing and extrapolating context from other continents. The context is what occurred here in BS1.
-
7 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
You are ignoring the fact that I have said that, although it is a racist slogan in that context, the people using it weren't being racist, they were just being ignorant.
I have not called them racist.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
Please stop bleating on about these people being called racists, I have searched and can't find it. If you can, link it here and maybe you'll have a point.
If not, you are just making them out to be victims of something that never happened.
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
On 08/10/2021 at 12:51, MarcusX said:
We’re back to that conundrum that sent Cowshed and the like into silence and killed the thread in the politics forum.
You can’t argue that taking the knee is intrinsically linked with BLM and it’s political meanings and cannot simply mean something non-political, and then argue that you can say “All lives matter” in response to a BLM protest and claim that it has no link to BLM and means something else.
Either both can be removed from their “political” or wider meanings, or they can’t.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 08/10/2021 at 10:04, richwwtk said:
I don't deny it's a crime, people have been arrested for it. What I said was hardly the crime of the century. I agree that a Cenotaph is more than just a pile of stones, much more, but for a bit of protestors spray paint that can easily be washed away the next day to have left lasting damage would suggest extreme sensitivity.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
One person spoke to the soldiers saying they were cleaning it off too quickly and another asked them why they put some placards in a bin, not exactly abuse.
And trying to set fire to the flags was a single 19 year old foolish kid who was filmed and arrested.
All of these people were in the wrong, but hardly the horrendous actions you are making them out to be.
Yes, people shouldn't be spray painting their slogans when on protests, but it's hardly the crime of the century. It can be cleaned off easily enough afterwards with no lasting damage, and War Memorials aren't being targeted specifically, they are highly visible and a magnet for the spray painters.
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.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, richwwtk said:
They are a bunch of no mark thugs, nobody really cares if the police called them right wing (note: not far right or racist), that is not the issue here.
The issue for me is that both the mayor and the press are reporting on them as if CSF is some kind of legitimate organisation as opposed to a bunch of blokes that like to inflict violence on others.
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.
Wrong. The Police put out their statement the previous week. It contained an untruth. An untruth that was repeated.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, Basil Fawlty said:
So, that’s all right, then. He’s a lovely bloke apart from the occasional bout of football hooliganism, I take it?!
Which question was that an answer to?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, richwwtk said:
Not quite sure why a bunch of thugs are being legitimised in this way.
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.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, italian dave said:
Nope...we ruined him..as we have done others!
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.
-
44 minutes ago, italian dave said:
Exactly this. He was a player people went to football to watch. (I remember meeting someone who wasn't even a City fan but came up from Plymouth regularly to watch him at AG). He was the reason people fell in love with football. Osman's dislike and eventual despatch of him (Osman was player manager at the time) was one of the reasons Osman became the only City player I can recall who got boo-ed when he scored a goal!
Bit like your old man, Shelts, I stopped my membership of the City Society - or whatever it was called then - when Osman sent him packing and have never got round to rejoining since.
As @beaverface says, we had some games when Jacki and Andy Cole were joined by the likes of Rosenior and Atteveld and boy, we might have been unpredictable, but we were good to watch!
I agree, and as the OP says, Andy Cole would be a good judge of a player, and has played alongside a good few very top names. It was a long time ago, but as I recall the two of them built up an understanding remarkably quickly, given the short time they played together. And maybe as much as scoring goals Jacki was a creator who plates like Andy Cole need around them.
And, we are talking about a player who played 60 times for his country, scoring 20 goals (and not some third rate country). Who played in European club competitions. Who scored a goal every 3 games at both international and (top) club level. Yet - according to some - not good enough for Bristol City!
And the player who left wasn't good enough to command a starting place in the teams he joined either.
-
19 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:
A bit left field, but as a boy Donald Bradman use to throw a golf ball against a wall and bat it with a stump; so when he got older to hit a cricket ball with a full size bat became easy for him.
Pretty sure that constant repetition at a young age hones these skills rather than any inherent DNA ,it's just that if your father is a footballer he is more likely to encourage you than if he was say a motor racing fanatic.
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.
-
Just now, Robbored said:
Of course not - but because the gene hasn’t yet been identified doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. it seems to me that it must exist when you see so many sons of professional footballers becoming the same themselves.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Leveller said:
Some little lads have innate talent that gets nurtured. Some little lads are naturally clumsy with no ball skill. You can’t nurture ANY lad into a skilled footballer. So yes, there is an an element of varied levels of natural ability.
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.
11 minutes ago, Robbored said:I accept that nuturing, training, intense practice are all factors but so is the hereditary gene which in my opinion is the most important of them all. If your father was a professional footballer then it’s more likely that you’ll inherit some of his genes than say the son of a bricklayer who never played football to any level.
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?
-
6 minutes ago, Calculus said:
Is it your contention that with all the intense practice required you could have been as good as Messi?
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.
CSF
in Football Chat
Posted
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?