Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Will racism ever end?

13468912

Comments



  • That's just simply untrue and (yet another) attempt to frame people who are against specific gestures or methods as against the cause (in this case, ending racism)

    Nobody is advocating against the cause of ending racism, but people are rightly and justly calling out specific parts of a campaign which they feel is more divisive and actually to more harm than good to the overall cause.

    This thread asks one simple question, will racism ever end. The answer is no. There will always be racists. It's an unfortunate part of life.

    Actual racism is not accepted in society as a whole, and rightly so, but there will always be pockets of genuine racists.

    But when certain groups try to level accusations of racism where it is not warranted, it only cheapens the claims of people who suffer actual racism on a daily basis and initiatives linked to divisive gestures or rhetoric do much more harm than good.

    Being called a racist used to be one of the biggest slurs on a persons character. Now it might simply mean they aren't a fan of illegal immigration.

    Overuse and misuse of the word has made it lose its power.





  • I can agree with that. It wasn't my intention to give the guy a free pass. Yes, it is comforting I guess to think "nah, surely nobody can be THAT bad, he must be mentally ill".

    Like I said it can be difficult to get a grasp and understanding of a situation where someone has acted so horribly when personally I can't see any kind of scenario where I would ever behave that way.





  • The threads on multiculturalism, wokeism of the day, anything on Greta, immigration, feminism, homelessness, BLM itself etc are all a case in point. All started from the viewpoint that the advocacy of the topic, or the advocates are a problem or the frustrating element.

    And as for 'accusations of racism where it is not warranted', let's say that that is a problem, or something that is happening (and of course it will in some situations) but not all situations, but to then try and shut down wideranging calls for action on racism on the basis that some of the claims are unwarranted is a curious position to take in my view.

    As I've said before, it might not mean you are a racist, but the racists are on the same side of the argument as you and are pleased to see you taking that position.





  • I don't have any issue with footballers taking the knee. Totally fine with it.

    What I would say though is that it seems like a gesture that creates the impression of doing the right thing while actually doing nothing.

    The reality here is that almost any person, any where in the world, can create an account on some of these platforms and then immediately go and abuse people until they are banned. Then they can probably do it again and again and again if they are resourceful enough. They might even reside in a country where this behavior wouldn't even be illegal. The social media platforms know this and so they do nothing. Except, they don't actually do nothing. They facilitate "starting a conversation" about Racism on their same platforms that allow Racism. It's a waste of everybody's time. Spend weeks and weeks supporting players choices, defending players choices online, talking endlessly about how this stuff needs to stop and it's all undone when some little twerp in the middle of nowhere creates another fake account and makes national headlines with racial abuse. Meanwhile the very corporations that allow this abuse to happen stand up and applaud the people calling it out. It's a joke.


    "White Privilege." OK. So what is the definition of Racism?

    I'm visualizing a scenario here where we've agreed that racism should end. I think we can at least agree on that. So we're getting into that conversation. It's horrible and it's disgusting and on every level it's just wrong. OK. "So what about your White Privilege." I'm sorry, what? "You know because you are white you need to..." Wait... what? Can we define racism again? Cos that really feels like I'm about to be criticized based on an immutable characteristic that is outwith my control.

    Surely you are not going to criticize people or judge people based on their race? Will racism ever end? You tell me.





  • That's because there are intrinsic problems with all of the topics you mentioned above. I'm more than happy to debate the demerits of feminism, immigration, homelessness BLM and the emergence of people outdoing themselves to be "woke". Because I am not happy with aspects of how some of the current campaigns are handled in the media and in conversation with people who try to out-do themselves to be the most "progressive", doesn't mean that I should shut up because it's a good cause.

    Because I argue my point on such topics, I have been labelled some disgusting and offensive names and even my daughter's parentage was called into question. It seems that unless you wholly accept and go along with what is the current "progressive" view of certain topics, you are vilified. It's a nasty tactic to shut down any opposition by trying to shame people into silence for fear of being called a bigot/phobe/ist. It's pathetic.

    I don't particularly give a flying **** who's on the same side of the argument as me. I get to my opinion based on experience and learning.

    If I happen to be of the opinion that taking the knee is a bad idea because of it's link with BLM & St Floyd making it divisive, my opinion wont change because a member of the KKK also doesn't like the knee.

    If I oppose Antifa because of their actions, it doesn't make a difference if Richard Spencer also hates them

    If I am opposed to third wave feminism because it's steeped in misandry, I don't care if a wife beating misogynist also doesn't like feminism

    I don't lump all vegetarians in with Hitler and Manson. I'm not responsible for other people's beliefs. I can only represent mine. I don't care who is on my "side" as long as my side is reasoned and not coming from a dishonest place.

    I'm not a racist, yet the amount of pussyfooting around calling me one, or trying to "gotcha" me into saying something that can be misconstrued as one is tiring.



  • Advertisement


  • From one of the players targeted after England lost the Euro final.

    “To the social media platforms @instagram @twitter @facebook I don’t want any child or adult to have to receive the hateful and hurtful messages that me Marcus and Jadon have received this week,” Saka wrote. “I knew instantly the kind of hate that I was about to receive and that is a sad reality that your powerful platforms are not doing enough to stop these messages.”

    We're going deeper off topic on to something which there is another thread on here about but what do you think a footballer should do if they are racially targeted?

    I don't know what point you are making about white privilege. Are you saying the concept that it exists is in itself racist? I don't think so, it doesn't mean every white person has it easy but that they do not have the expectation of being mistreated because of their race in the same way that some others exist. It is generally used when asking people to understand what non-white people experience rather than saying that they have it all so easy.





  • Isn't Greta a pretty good example of how messed up a lot of "social justice" stuff really is? So she gets up in front of world leaders and berates them for making a mess of the planet. Not unfair. They, in response, give her a standing ovation. Like... "Yeah, we DID screw up the entire planet for future generations! Woop woop! You go girl! Tell us off! We really ruined the world! Give us what for! So brave!". Next day. Business as usual.

    Is there an argument that advocates are not actually solving the problem but rather are allowing organizations to look like they are solving the problem in exchange for a bit of publicity and a bit of cash. Corporation X supports Social Cause Y just look how we support Celebrity Activist Z! Are they actually getting anything done though?

    Maybe there are more than two sides? Why would racists be upset that twitter users are objecting to the act of throwing each other under the bus over perceived racism? Twitter will let them create an account to racially abuse someone quite openly and they'll even be able to do it again tomorrow. Hell, if they are REALLY lucky a mainstream outlet might even publish the tweet for them and their other little racist buddies to get a good laugh at. Then some dumbass TV presenter or radio host who isn't even racist might even get the sack for "playing down" the tweets. Why would actual racists be anything other that delighted about this state of affairs?

    People will get wound up about the phrase "virtue signaling" but what if there is an element of something true there? That some aren't actually solving problems but rather are just trying to make money and/or gain popularity from presenting their brand in a certain way. Just a thought. Might be nothing to it. Would love to see Facebook and Twitter taking MUCH more of a stand here though.





  • So the 'intrinsic problems with all of the above' are the issues rather than the issues themselves? If you think that is the case and that is what needs to be discussed, then that itself is a privilege whether you like to see it as such or not.

    And I'm not saying that suggests your life is wonderful in every way, but when the motivations to take part in such discussions are primarily focused on negating the justification for whatever the 'cause du jour' in the spotlight on that particular day rather than supporting or advocating for something you feel needs attention then is that not telling?

    I've said it before, why don't we see as many threads started by people asking for support or guidance for an issue than we see started by people trying to shut down support for something else?





  • "We're going deeper off topic on to something which there is another thread on here about but what do you think a footballer should do if they are racially targeted?" - Cristal made a statement that some rappers, jay-Z included, thought was racist, so they boycotted it, stopped using it and rapping about it. Clubs and players should be boycotting social media, until they get some assurances that there will be accountability. It's literally that simple. No PL players or clubs tweeting for a week would have the SM giants in a tailspin.





  • Of course there's going to be celebrity activism. But, if it is in relation to a topic that needs action/attention, is it better to do nothing?

    If any of us see a problem, do we stay quite about it rather than risk being accused of being an attention seeker? The right to vote, the right to work, the right to safe work environment, the abolition of slavery, the freedom for sexual expression, the right to same sex marriage, the right to have an abortion (to name just a few) all were gained in part by people advocating for the particular cause and in many (if not all cases) faced ridicule and dismissal at the outset that they were doing it for their own selfish reasons.

    As for Governments applauding Greta and then carrying on as normal. Most governments are heavily populated and guided by highly qualified and educated people. For the most part, they probably know the impact the modern economy is having on the environment. But they are in their role because of the whim of the electorate and they know that significant change is easy to lobby against and hard to implement. They didn't bring Greta in to tell them anything they don't know. They brought her in so the electorate could see them 'being informed' about the issue.



  • Advertisement


  • They all went off social media for a weekend and it was completely sideswiped with the news about the European Super League breakaway plans being released.





  • Never said 'say nothing at all' just pointing out the reality that the focus of threads is predominantly targeting rather than supporting activist causes (whatever their nature or focus) which actually proves that it most certainly isn't a progressive activist hub.





  • It draws attention to the issue of racism in sport.

    You are talking about the gesture so as an action to draw attention it worked.





  • Negative, divisive attention. Surely a unifying gesture which didn't polarise people would have been much more adventageous.





  • I don't get behind a lot of activist causes because I wholesale don't believe them worthy of my support or because there is something inherently unpleasant, erroneous or false in the set-up or agenda behind it.





  • What unifying gesture do you think would bring the racists on board with an anti racism gesture?





  • Would that not automatically mean something that can be ignored? You have to ask why is the gesture polarising if it isn't outright supporting of racism, then at least ambivalence or disinterest to the experience of people being targeted in that way.

    The whole thing in spiraled from Kapernick protesting peacefully, at that point there were not street protests or the riots that happened on occasion. But even that wasn't acceptable.





  • You aren't going to "bring the racists" on board with any initiative. Racists gonna racist.

    I think therein lies the problem Robbie.

    When I talk of unification, I mean have a campaign that everyone who is not a racist can support. By having a gesture which polarises people who aren't racist, you are automatically pushing people with valid concerns about the gesture (unfairly) into the "racist" camp by default.





  • They virtue signalled that they were going off SM for a weekend, but would be right back on it as soon as the weekend was over. Hardly a boycott.



  • Advertisement


  • No but you will highlight the problem by letting them boo a simple gesture like taking the knee. And when it is televised you will bring that highlight to a global audience.





  • No it wouldn't automatically mean that at all. The kneeling gesture was front and centre of all newspapers, news reports, political discourse and social media in the aftermath of George Floyd and the ensuing riots and (rightly in my opinion) don't want it as the gesture of choice for a campaign they would otherwise be 100% behind.





  • That makes zero sense. That would only give a false impression that those against the knee are racist and that racism is a bigger issue than it already is......

    hmmmm. Perhaps you may be onto something.





  • Sorry are you saying there is no racism is soccer and that racism is not directed at black players all across the European Professional leagues?

    Numerous people from English football perspective have clarified this is not about the BLM movement.

    Below is a Gareth Southgate quote directly saying it.

    But Gareth Southgate said the England team's actions were not in support of the Black Lives Matter organisation. He said: "We have got a situation where some people seem to think it is a political stand that they don't agree with. That is not the reason the players are doing it. We are supporting each other."





  • Don't be sorry Robbie, at this stage I am used to you misrepresenting what I said.

    There was NO way I said that racism doesn't exist in soccer. Even the least generous interpretation would have to acknowledge that I specifically said that racism was an issue. I did half expect you to wrongly accuse me of downplaying it, but I never thought you would go all the way as to attempt to frame it that I denied it's existence. I'm not sure whether that type of leap is impressive or pathetic. Cathy Newman would be proud.

    What I said was that by highlighting around the globe that people boo the knee, could give a false impression that those who were booing were racist, thus falsely inflating the amount of racism that needed to be tackled by counting non-racists as part of the toxic racist element.

    You are going around in circles here Robbie. I don't care what Gareth Southgate said. Regardless of the best of intentions or the most pure of ideals, because of BLM and George Floyd inspired riots, the gesture of taking the knee will be an offensive and polarising gesture to giant swathes of people because of the link that has already been created (intentional or otherwise).

    At risk of repeating myself, it is the gesture that people take issue with, not the message behind it which makes it such an idiotic gesture to use if your goal was to unify the non racists supporters against vile racism.





  • I think in all this I forgot to say to you that I genuinely hope your wife is ok. From my own experiences with my family, I know how **** it can be to be racially abused. It's great to see someone who experiences it with a close family member have such a balanced and considered opinion. Fair play op.





  • Good luck as someone also married to someone easily identifiable to racist idiots as not Irish. I understand well your pain and frustration at seemingly empty anti racism gestures. But I can also see their role in highlighting racism and trying to make it a more present issue for others.

    But as you also point out too, many of the mindless idiots rather than get behind an obvious anti racism initiative turn their opposition into seeming support for the very racist gestures.

    To those in opposition and supporting booing the knee whatever your reason it will appear as tacit support for the people who perpetuate that racist hatred.

    That makes you a supporter of racism.



  • Advertisement


  • Completely disagree. The reaction to Kapernick taking the knee with people, up to and including the President calling for him or others to be taken off the field and lose their job should they do so showed just how difficult it was for people to acknowledge the issue they were drawing attention to.

    Since day dot, strikes, protests, marches specifically were organised to attract attention and be disruptive or else they were ignored.

    As for the escalation following the events resulting in George Floyds death. I don't think we can understand just how evocative those scenes were for people in black communities who constantly experience the police as an enemy rather than a protective force. That some violence broke out at some protests (is not forgivable, nor have I ever said it is) but it is understandable and does not for a second undermine the call for fair treatment.

    We saw what happened when 2 British paratroopers found themselves in the middle of an IRA funeral of people who had been killed by British forces. Did that violence negate the entire argument or support for the IRA in the North? Should it have done?



Advertisement