IAmNick

And yet you happily associate taking the knee with events from America, and use that as part of your basis for the dislike of it. You also ignore that the people doing it have said WHY they are (the equivalent of the words on the banner), and instead focus on your perception of it. I think you're the one tied in knots here.

Great point. Famously the elite are HUGE fans of challenging and changing the societies they exist in that made them elite in the first place. Famously they also want to improve the lot and life of the most downtrodden in the society, usually the ones they take advantage of to make their obscene wealth. I can see it now. The world's billionaires huddled around a table. Finally they have hoovered up 99% of the wealth on our planet and they can enact their master plan - increasing and protecting human rights, letting people choose their pronouns, and fighting racism. What planet do you live on?! This is such a stupid argument. You couldn't exist in society if you held yourself to these standards and refused to do anything that had even the most tangential relation to something you disagreed with. Given the club take the knee by your logic above you should stop supporting City?

Grow up, it's called adults having a discussion Hahaha you have to be kidding, this is literally the only one non football thread on the entire front page. Don't be so dramatic. You were there posting on the first page of this... laughable

Nobody is "telling" you, specifically, anything. You're not understanding. Amusingly you are the terminally offended here. You're looking at discussions of our entire society and trying to apply them to yourself personally. With "Stop and search" above, saying that massively more black people get stopped isn't saying no white people do, or that if you're white police wont target you unfairly. It'd be like saying "1/3 people get cancer but I haven't got cancer. Are you trying to tell me I do?". People are saying that in general if you look across all of our society then black folk have a measurably more difficult time. That is NOT saying: - ALL black folk are poor, or ALL black folk have a difficult time in life - ALL white people have an easier life than ALL black people - White people DON'T have difficult lives, or live in extreme poverty, get discriminated against, and have widespread problems we need to tackle, and so on - An individual white person will always have an easier life than a black person Why do people feel the need to take things so personally? I'm white, and accepting that we have systematic issues in our country isn't a negative thing for me, and doesn't make any struggles I've had feel easier or ignored or whatever. Why does this bother you so much?

But you have to look at averages when society is comprised of millions of even billions of people rather than you and your half a dozen mates right? It'd be complete impossible to allocate resources or get anything done otherwise. The fact you're bringing up "white men" means I'm not sure you seem to get it - just because the issues faced by one group are highlighted doesn't mean the issues faced by another aren't important. I'm not black, but can recognise the significant issues many face in their lives. I can also recognise those that many white men face... the two aren't mutually exclusive. People talk about the permanently offended. To me those are the ones who when someone goes "Wow, look at the hard time X group has" feel the need to instantly respond "WELL WHAT ABOUT ME AND THE GROUP IM IN I HAVE A HARD TIME TOO" over and over again. Helping one group helps us all. We're all on the same side here. On "stop and search" I'd be interested why you think "white men" are more likely to be affected (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest). White: 6 in every 1,000 Black: 54 in 1,000 Black other: 157 in 1,000 White is actually the lowest of every category. Is it racist in isolation? Probably not, but the way it's used seems to be. The above is what people are talking about - when people say "we need to help black people out with Stop and Search" replying with "What about white people though!" is an odd response isn't it?

I actually agree with you in part here - I think many people are far too quick to assume someone is being malicious or evil, when often it's just being a bit clumsy or not fully understanding of something. We're all guilty of that sometimes. I know I definitely am and have put my foot in it on multiple occasions throughout my life! I think the difference is how we respond to it personally - make an effort, or refuse to. That's why as I said I don't think most of the guys down there were racist, and I have no idea if they were right wing or not. I'm sure a fair number are decent people who would look out for anyone regardless of race/creed/whatever. Good question and I have no idea without knowing the situation! If you rocked up to a somber remembrance event about colonial slavery with a Saint George's Cross you could perhaps be suggested you were being intentionally provocative and potentially disturbing the peace. If it was remembrance day then good luck to you! Like I said above - all about context.

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.

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.

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, but that kind of thinking means nothing will get done about anything. You can always point to other problems and say "Well why are you helping X when Y exists???". 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!

A guy I go to football with (lifelong City fan) was headbutted and had his tooth knocked out by a well known CITY hooligan around 25 years ago. This was supposedly our "protectors" attacking us. His crime? It was an away match and his CHILD son was wearing a European football shirt this meathead mistook for the away team. They were with the City fans and others in the group had City tops on. The bloke starting threatening and swinging this CHILD around by his shirt/scarf outside after the game, dad stepped between them and got his teeth knocked out as a result. Protectors my arse. Sounds more like virtual signaling to me

Anyone else remember our own Dele Adebola having to clarify that he had not in fact had ebola?

Have really enjoyed these in the past, but this is another one I feel is a fair bit more negative than my own opinion, and not for the first time this season. I only watched on Robins TV however. I thought we were the better side on balance, threatened more, and deserved the three points. Some of the comments like "largely second best" and so on throughout your report I feel are rather unfair. On the ratings I think they're slightly on the low side. Martin I thought was good most of the day, even without his goal he found himself with some great chances and came near a few times. He'd have easily been a 6 and possibly a 7. Williams was outstanding and I'd have been tempted for an 8 there. In contrast while I was delighted for Tanner with his goal I thought positionally he was a little suspect today with his positioning throughout, especially in the closing stages, so it'd be a generous 7 for me - and that's not intended as a real criticism as he's a young lad and has stepped up a lot. A great battling win in very challenging conditions for me, especially after going behind in the first half.

City third (Martin): https://streamja.com/05Bo1

Peterborough second: https://streamja.com/zPmrX

City second (Tanner): https://streamja.com/bJ9Rv

City goal (Thompson OG): https://streamja.com/yNmGp

Peterborough goal: https://streamja.com/OB0rb

Obviously not the perfect team any of us would pick with free choice, but this is the reality of where we are right now. We are going to have some average players, inconsistent ones, or tired ones - that's the life of a mid table championship club which I'm very relieved to day we seem to be this season. Still think they're a decent 11 for us and good enough to get a result today. COYR!

City second (Wells): https://streamable.com/i3r92c

The good and the bad of Semenyo there in about 2 minutes - the awful ball to Massengo on the break, then a great strong run to win the free kick.

Pring wasn't it?

QPR goal: https://streamable.com/s55iir

City goal (Martin): https://streamable.com/zjtoij

I remember back when the East End was open the accepted issue was the low roof projected sound onto the pitch, and the other stands couldn't hear it even though it sounded really loud in there. Then they moved to the back of the Williams, that was too high up with a large open area in front. Then the Atyeo, and that was too open and too far for the noise to build and people couldn't wait for them to move away from it. Now in the SS corner, that's not behind a goal which is apparently part of the problem. I'm definitely not implying anything negative about the people in that area as I think they do a great job. Personally think it's not where they are that's the problem though - it's mostly the rest of the ground. When they start the chants they need others around to join in, or maybe more "pockets" of singers spread around rather than in a big mass - although that does look great. When well known songs get sung, even if it's City Till I Die, COYR at a corner, or back in Gary Johnson days the slightly naff "Always believe" you get all stands singing and the atmosphere is great. I find when the more "complicated" songs get sung the other stands don't join in, and it's much harder to hear. I also reckon the football has a big impact. When it's tippy tappy sideways passing we've seen for the last X years then it's just not exciting or going to get people singing. Fast attacking football, even if it's kind of agricultural in nature, will do imo. Defo agree about less music, or at least much quieter as it's totally deafening where I am and you can hardly hear the person next to you.

Yep. Pearson mentioned having more parity in wages didn't he? Good to see it being followed through with now with the youngsters on merit.