Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread VIII - ** MOD NOTE POST #4781 **

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

For starters I don't think you're calling me a racist.

I just don't think this should be "a thing". As soon as people start to hold different standards for others because of their skin colour or heritage they're only adding to the problem. Aki is a rugby player like Payne. He shouldn't be viewed as an ethnically and racially different rugby player. And the sooner people start to look at it from that perspective the better.

Yep.

Personally, I've no major problem with project players but I understand that some people do. If anyone has a bigger issue with Aki because he's not white, then that obviously isn't acceptable and should be called out.

However, I don't see anyone making a bigger deal of Aki than was made of Stander and I definitely don't see anyone saying "that black guy shouldn't be playing for us". What I do see is a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that any criticism of a non-white guy must be racist and that drives me bananas because it makes any sort of rational discussion impossible.

molloyjh

Interested Observer wrote: »

I could be wrong as I'm not actually compiling every piece of news or online comment but the sense I get is there's a lot more focus on Aki playing for Ireland than there was for Payne or Stander, and that focus is mostly in a negative tone. And it makes me wonder why that is exactly.

I don't think it's any one thing at all really. For some it's a continuation of an issue they already had. For others it's a numbers thing. When it was one or two they were okay with it but the more it's happening the less comfortable they are getting. For others its the numerous statements Aki has made where he has indicated he wasn't dead set on playing for Ireland. Others are getting pissy because Zebo is losing out despite playing here his whole life while Aki who's only here 3 years is getting selected. And then you've got the media playing it up for clicks/sales which is adding to the issue, be that through spreading the bad feeling or over emphasising the level of bad feeling.

Are there some that have other motives? Probably. But I can't imagine there are too many of them. Unfortunately when you're talking about large numbers of people some of them are going to be dicks.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

What I do see is a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that any criticism of a non-white guy must be racist and that drives me bananas because it makes any sort of rational discussion impossible.

No.

We're saying that it can be construed as racist. Not that it must be racist. It's a complicated enough problem without all this straw!

ClanofLams

molloyjh wrote: »

I can probably address both of these with the same post.

While I agree anyone communicating a message of any kind needs to be conscious and very much aware of how that message might be received, there is also a responsibility on the people who view/read/hear the message to be conscious and aware of how the message was intended.

It's one thing that has always bugged me about modern communication generally. It seems these days the entire responsibility is being placed with the person delivering the message. But that's a wholly one sided and unfair approach. We should all be doing more to try and ensure we are understanding the intent behind the message. Communication is a two way thing.

If the intent is clearly or very probably racist (or unacceptable in any way) then let's address it. But there are varying degrees of probability that something is unacceptable and reactions should be in line with said level of probability, i.e. proportionate to the the probability of wrong doing. Sadly these days the default setting is outrage for far too many people if there's even the slightest possibility that there's anything untoward going on. And that outrage feeds on itself online until all form of reason or proportionality is out the window.

As I said, the worst that can really be said about this photo was that it wasn't thought through enough. It isn't inherently racist. Nor are the people who saw it as an innocent joke and liked it. But is that what the Internet at large is saying? Like the Australian Minister who has been getting it in the neck for a poorly worded statement this week, the intent wasn't to be racist but that doesn't stop people losing their minds over it.

But the people putting the meme together here knew what they were doing. Slagging someone about thinking they are Irish, as you do with your cousin, isn't necessarily racist or even xenophobic.

But here, they were putting an Islander called Bundee Aki in an image and contrasting that with 'irishness'. They could have juxtaposed a picture of Aki, Payne, Stander, etc and said the 'Irish rugby team' or something alone those lines but they opted to go with Aki alone in the main frame with words, providing a mention to Stander below to give themselves some cover.

We would be foolish if we thought the creators and distributors were so naive as to not recognise that Aki's heritage was not a significant part of the 'joke'.

swiwi_

Interested Observer wrote: »

I could be wrong as I'm not actually compiling every piece of news or online comment but the sense I get is there's a lot more focus on Aki playing for Ireland than there was for Payne or Stander, and that focus is mostly in a negative tone. And it makes me wonder why that is exactly.

Skin colour pure and simple.

People think “South Sea Islander”. They don’t think Kiwi and they certainly don’t think Irish.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I would have agreed with you a few years ago, I'd say. But seeing now how people use this type of stuff as a dog whistle I've come over to agreeing that we should be a lot more conscientious.

I take almost the exact same viewpoint. I had a very similar discussion with FF as this back in January on the same topic. I have never used the phrase "dog whistle" to describe it before but I think the political definition of it works quite well.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

I can probably address both of these with the same post.

While I agree anyone communicating a message of any kind needs to be conscious and very much aware of how that message might be received, there is also a responsibility on the people who view/read/hear the message to be conscious and aware of how the message was intended.

It's one thing that has always bugged me about modern communication generally. It seems these days the entire responsibility is being placed with the person delivering the message. But that's a wholly one sided and unfair approach. We should all be doing more to try and ensure we are understanding the intent behind the message. Communication is a two way thing.

If the intent is clearly or very probably racist (or unacceptable in any way) then let's address it. But there are varying degrees of probability that something is unacceptable and reactions should be in line with said level of probability, i.e. proportionate to the the probability of wrong doing. Sadly these days the default setting is outrage for far too many people if there's even the slightest possibility that there's anything untoward going on. And that outrage feeds on itself online until all form of reason or proportionality is out the window.

As I said, the worst that can really be said about this photo was that it wasn't thought through enough. It isn't inherently racist. Nor are the people who saw it as an innocent joke and liked it. But is that what the Internet at large is saying? Like the Australian Minister who has been getting it in the neck for a poorly worded statement this week, the intent wasn't to be racist but that doesn't stop people losing their minds over it.

The owner of the Houston Texans described the recent events in the NFL and used the term "letting the inmates run the prison."

Was it meant as racist? No. It wasn't actually referring to players at all supposedly.

Was it a very very stupid thing to say? Obviously. So he and everyone associated with it apologised profusely.

There is a reason why intent is not always relevant, but it's too much to go into here.

irishfan9

He shouldn't play for ireland, not because of his skin colour but because he isn't irish, simple as that.

Same applies for any non irish passport holder.

MarinersBlues

Neil3030 wrote: »

Is that true? Very happy to hear, if so!

Yep.
They are around Galway for over a month and have toured Europe for a bit while they were here.
They were happy out, and very pleasant to talk to.

molloyjh

ClanofLams wrote: »

But the people putting the meme together here knew what they were doing. Slagging someone about thinking they are Irish, as you do with your cousin, isn't necessarily racist or even xenophobic.

But here, they were putting an Islander called Bundee Aki in an image and contrasting that with 'irishness'. They could have juxtaposed a picture of Aki, Payne, Stander, etc and said the 'Irish rugby team' or something alone those lines but they opted to go with Aki alone in the main frame with words, providing a mention to Stander below to give themselves some cover.

We would be foolish if we thought the creators and distributors were so naive as to not recognise that Aki's heritage was not a significant part of the 'joke'.

What you're doing here is projecting. You can't possibly know what was going through their heads at all and you cannot claim to know what the "significant part of the joke" was meant to be.

MJohnston

When people use the words "political correctness" could they try and state what they're actually talking about? Because that term itself has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, it has been used by countless different people and groups to mean countless different things, and saying it says precisely nothing at all.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Interested Observer wrote: »

I could be wrong as I'm not actually compiling every piece of news or online comment but the sense I get is there's a lot more focus on Aki playing for Ireland than there was for Payne or Stander, and that focus is mostly in a negative tone. And it makes me wonder why that is exactly.

for me it's this

stander Strauss paye all talked about international future when thry arrived.

Aki arrived saying he wanted to maximise his earning power and he needed international rugby to do that. when he finished his contract he would make the decision if he could make the all blacks and if not he would look at lesser options like ireland and Samoa.

at least that's the sense I got out of a few interviews he gave in his first year and I don't like him because of that and I dont want him to play for us because of that.

Yes I know standee and paye and Strauss would probably have loved an all blacks or a springboks call up and it didnt happen but they didn't talk about it in public like that. Aki did and he rubs the wrong way because of that.

EDIT: I try not to mention this all the time. If he pulls on the green jersey I will support him. I only posted now because someone asked what the difference between him and Payne and stander is.

Bridge93

Aki was used because he's in the news surely? Payne and Stander are not in the news.

It's a joke that's not particularly funny but a joke nonetheless. How people interpret the intentions behind it is up to them

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The owner of the Houston Texans described the recent events in the NFL and used the term "letting the inmates run the prison."

Was it meant as racist? No. It wasn't actually referring to players at all supposedly.

Was it a very very stupid thing to say? Obviously. So he and everyone associated with it apologised profusely.

There is a reason why intent is not always relevant, but it's too much to go into here.

Are you deliberately only focusing on part of my posts or something? I've already said that anyone communicating a message is part responsible for how that is received and that reaction should be proportional, not to actual intent, but to the probability of intent. The probability of intent isn't always equal to the actual intent, and that NFL example is a good one to use in that regard.

Look, I've said my piece on this. There's no point in me wasting any more time or pages on it. I just think there's a propensity for overreaction these days from people who make no effort to fulfil their role in the act of communication. That's not there to justify anything, it's just a frustration I have with people who look to find points of difference and things to be outraged over as opposed to common ground and rational thought. And it's a far bigger and wider issue than things like this.

molloyjh

MJohnston wrote: »

When people use the words "political correctness" could they try and state what they're actually talking about? Because that term itself has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, it has been used by countless different people and groups to mean countless different things, and saying it says precisely nothing at all.

Did anyone but me use it? I reckon I've probably explained my position in some detail already.....

b.gud

awec wrote: »

Bad timing with Zebo is part of it IMO.

Unfortunately for the IRFU they're dropping Zebo and trying to peddle their "protecting Irish rugby" line while picking yet another project player.

So if I understand your post correctly you're saying that having foreign player playing at the top level in Ireland is bad for Irish rugby. So in essence you're saying that the IRFU and Nucifora were right to block the re-signing of Pienaar....

ClanofLams

molloyjh wrote: »

What you're doing here is projecting. You can't possibly know what was going through their heads at all and you cannot claim to know what the "significant part of the joke" was meant to be.

I said a significant part not the significant part. If you wish to believe that the creators were so naive as to not think Aki's race was a factor, that's your own call.

ClanofLams

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

for me it's this

stander Strauss paye all talked about international future when thry arrived.

Aki arrived saying he wanted to maximise his earning power and he needed international rugby to do that. when he finished his contract he would make the decision if he could make the all blacks and if not he would look at lesser options like ireland and Samoa.

at least that's the sense I got out of a few interviews he gave in his first year and I don't like him because of that and I dont want him to play for us because of that.

Yes I know standee and paye and Strauss would probably have loved an all blacks or a springboks call up and it didnt happen but they didn't talk about it in public like that. Aki did and he rubs the wrong way because of that.

EDIT: I try not to mention this all the time. If he pulls on the green jersey I will support him. I only posted now because someone asked what the difference between him and Payne and stander is.

A lot has been made of that. He probably answered a few questions in a naive manner but he never said anything about needing international rugby to maximise his earning power. He said he wanted to play international rugby at some stage and Samoa was an option if he didn't go well in Ireland. Not particularly well advised but blown way out of proportion.

If he was the mercenary some paint him as, he would have taken the significantly more lucrative offers on the table from France a year ago.

molloyjh

ClanofLams wrote: »

I said a significant part not the significant part. If you wish to believe that the creators were so naive as to not think Aki's race was a factor, that's your own call.

I think you're missing my point. Neither of us have any idea if they factored Akis heritage into the joke at all. Either they did and its in bad taste (or worse) or they didn't and it was poor judgement. I'd rather not jump to conclusions when I don't know so I'm prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt. Because rather than point fingers from a point of ignorance I'd rather have a more optimistic outlook that doesn't involve me passing judgement on others all the time.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Are you deliberately only focusing on part of my posts or something? I've already said that anyone communicating a message is part responsible for how that is received and that reaction should be proportional, not to actual intent, but to the probability of intent. The probability of intent isn't always equal to the actual intent, and that NFL example is a good one to use in that regard.

Look, I've said my piece on this. There's no point in me wasting any more time or pages on it. I just think there's a propensity for overreaction these days from people who make no effort to fulfil their role in the act of communication. That's not there to justify anything, it's just a frustration I have with people who look to find points of difference and things to be outraged over as opposed to common ground and rational thought. And it's a far bigger and wider issue than things like this.

I agree a little. However, I would put much, much more responsibility on people for controlling how their message could be interpreted. I think we'vd allowed people to play dumb for too long and its allowed certain people to get away with far too much of the 'dog whistling', a lot of money is made out of it.

And that's a personal opinion for me, from personal experience, and I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to agree. Certainly not a rugby thing at all.

Former Former

ClanofLams wrote: »

A lot has been made of that. He probably answered a few questions in a naive manner but he never said anything about needing international rugby to maximise his earning power. He said he wanted to play international rugby at some stage and Samoa was an option if he didn't go well in Ireland. Not particularly well advised but blown way out of proportion.

If he was the mercenary some paint him as, he would have taken the significantly more lucrative offers on the table from France a year ago.

That's all fair enough - but the fact remains he didn't come out and say "yes I want to play for Ireland", whereas Strauss, Payne and Stander were all vocal on that point.

If you want to look for a difference between Aki and the rest of them, there's one. It's easier to scream racism though.

swiwi_

For me the jury’s out. I’m waiting until the first anthem before deciding whether Bundee’s now Irish. It’s the deciding factor.

Erik Shin

ClanofLams wrote: »

A lot has been made of that. He probably answered a few questions in a naive manner but he never said anything about needing international rugby to maximise his earning power. He said he wanted to play international rugby at some stage and Samoa was an option if he didn't go well in Ireland. Not particularly well advised but blown way out of proportion.

If he was the mercenary some paint him as, he would have taken the significantly more lucrative offers on the table from France a year ago.

Aki definitely did not see Ireland as his first choice international pick even after a year of residency, his interviews were very clear in what he didn't say, as opposed to what he did say.
For me, that's what the meme is all about...

Former Former

But for me, the underlying problem is the perception that Aki is being treated differently (for whatever reason), but I don't think he is.

Remember the whole nonsense about Paul Kimmage (yes, I know) coming out against Stander playing for Ireland? The line then was that he's anti-Munster, didn't breathe a word about Payne, the Dublin meeja etc.

Go back further. Remember when Matt Williams said during the World Cup that Payne wasn't great in attack? I was called a racist for agreeing with him. Posters were lining up telling me that because I didn't think Payne was much of a threat with ball in hand, I was a racist.

All the project players have been given some level of stick. It's completely open to interpretation and your own spin as to why they get it.

People use these things for their own agendas. That's just the way of it. This thread is just more evidence of it. The guy who hates Irish people, somewhat ironically, thinks we're all racists. Love that one. The Connacht lads are beacons of racial sensitivity all of a sudden.

This will all blow over at about 7pm on Saturday week, there'll be some lovely photos of Aki clutching the IRFU crest, maybe draped in a tricolour after the game if we win, and then we'll all move on to the next earth-shattering outrage.

ClanofLams

Former Former wrote: »

That's all fair enough - but the fact remains he didn't come out and say "yes I want to play for Ireland", whereas Strauss, Payne and Stander were all vocal on that point.

If you want to look for a difference between Aki and the rest of them, there's one. It's easier to scream racism though.

Why did they want to play for Ireland though? None of them claimed any Irish heritage, as far as I am aware no any connection with Ireland prior to their arrival.

They wanted to play for Ireland to advance their careers. Aki said in his first interview after signing that he hopefully wanted to play for Ireland when the time came if he was playing 'good footy'. He said if it didn't work out Samoa was an option.

People taking offence at that are really just looking for a reason.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I agree a little. However, I would put much, much more responsibility on people for controlling how their message could be interpreted. I think we'vd allowed people to play dumb for too long and its allowed certain people to get away with far too much of the 'dog whistling', a lot of money is made out of it.

And that's a personal opinion for me, from personal experience, and I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to agree. Certainly not a rugby thing at all.

I get that. I think I'm just sick of people pointing fingers every which way all the time. There is a middle ground where everyone steps up to what they should be doing. Not that I believe I'll ever see that.

errlloyd

ClanofLams wrote: »

They wanted to play for Ireland to advance their careers. Aki said in his first interview after signing that he hopefully wanted to play for Ireland when the time came if he was playing 'good footy'. He said if it didn't work out Samoa was an option.

People taking offence at that are really just looking for a reason.

Effectively what happened there is that Aki who is a relatively poor boy who finished education early due to his first child, answered a reporters question badly. Stander and Payne with their massively privileged upbringing knew exactly what to say.

If your problem with Aki v Stander is how he deals with the media, you're basically classist not racist. :D:D

ClanofLams

Erik Shin wrote: »

Aki definitely did not see Ireland as his first choice international pick even after a year of residency, his interviews were very clear in what he didn't say, as opposed to what he did say.
For me, that's what the meme is all about...

No he didn't, he said it was his first choice before he arrived.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9938620/Bundee-Aki-targets-Irish-jersey-as-he-quits-NZ

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

That's all fair enough - but the fact remains he didn't come out and say "yes I want to play for Ireland", whereas Strauss, Payne and Stander were all vocal on that point.

If you want to look for a difference between Aki and the rest of them, there's one. It's easier to scream racism though.

I mean Aki did come out and say he was interested in playing international rugby for Ireland in a stuff.co.nz interview before he ever left New Zealand.

And he was massively criticised for it. Because he also spoke about how international rugby would help him "look after his family". It's easier to ignore that though?



Either he is:

A) A bloody thieving mercenary (and mercenaries were sometimes brown, you bloody racist!) who was aiming for Irish money from the moment he stepped off that god forsaken foreign-bad-at-rugby-rock he came from. Or

A bloody money-thirsty mercenary (the are still brown quite often! You definite racist person!) who wouldn't commit to our beloved national Irish rugby team in Ireland because he's a bloody so-and-so who wanted to make money by playing for another nation which was not glorious Irish Motherland Rugby.

I guess it depends which post you read. Because it jumps back and forth quite quickly.



Well, actually I lied, there is a third option. Which is that Payne, Stander, Aki, and Strauss would all have jumped at the opportunity to play for Ireland if they could, for the sole reason that they weren't able to play for their home country, and they're all basically the exact same. And maybe, just maybe, there is a reason why some people trust some of their claims to our national team more than others.

Former Former

ClanofLams wrote: »

Why did they want to play for Ireland though? None of them claimed any Irish heritage, as far as I am aware no any connection with Ireland prior to their arrival.

They wanted to play for Ireland to advance their careers. Aki said in his first interview after signing that he hopefully wanted to play for Ireland when the time came if he was playing 'good footy'. He said if it didn't work out Samoa was an option.

People taking offence at that are really just looking for a reason.

I didn't take offence at it all. We all know exactly why Strauss and Payne and Stander are here. But if you're courting public opinion and approval, a bit of soapy PR goes a long way and Aki decided not to. Again, I don't care personally, but you can't b*tch about public perception if you do nothing to improve it.