Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

I was referring to the FA - not English football as a whole.

Racism in English football in the 70's and 80's was absolutely a big problem. However in the 90's and 00's the Kick It Out campaign was very successful and racism in stadiums had been basically eradicated compared to what it had been.

It feels like football had become largely colour blind until the last couple of years when the internet and social media started blowing every little incident out of proportion. (like the Bernardo Silva Twitter post to Benjamin Mendy).

Ok but you know what the FA are responsible for, right?

El_Duderino 09

paw patrol wrote: »

tbh why would I (or anybody) change my language because somebody says that language is now considered unsuitable.

Have we lost the concept of context ?
Are people that stupid they can't understand the thrust of what somebody means ?


Who makes these rules? and why am I beholden to them?
It's a weird concept that people I don't know or groups I don't like (such as the ADL for example) get to dictate the actual words I utter.
Who control this control?

Why would you change your language? Simple answer would be around whether you want to cause offense or not. Once you know that some words are offensive and others aren't, then you have choices about which words to use. If you choose to cause offense based on race, that's considered among the forms of racism. Simple stuff.

You're free to say pretty much whatever you want at pretty much any time but words can have meaning and consequences. If you say racist things on purpose then it's fair to assume people will identify you as a racist. The other racists will probably admire you for that, and other people won't.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I do have a problem with language changing. I'm fine with things like "selfies" or other such things which are just modern world terms. But I have a real problem with them changing the dictionary definition of racism, and changing the meaning of the word "literal" to being the complete opposite of "literal" for example

yeah - some are definitely annoying (literally!) - but neither of us are sole custodians of the English language..

So - you gonna have to suck this one up it seems.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually I do have a problem with language changing. I'm fine with things like "selfies" or other such things which are just modern world terms. But I have a real problem with them changing the dictionary definition of racism, and changing the meaning of the word "literal" to being the complete opposite of "literal" for example

I suspect that's the case with lots of people. You object to the meaning behind the change which is the move away from racism.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The FA should be embarassed. I don't know why he apologised. He should be suing his employer for unfair dismissal.

I feel like this PC nonsense is veering into dangerous territory these days. Institutions need to stop cowering and be willing to stand up to the outrage mobs for "wrongspeak". I wish people in positions of power would take a stand and say "enough".

The FA undoubtedly are embarrassed by the fact that they hired someone who they imagined due to their decades of experience in business would be able to manage promoting an image of diversity in football, only managed to be responsible for doing just the opposite :pac:


Clarke offered an apology for the 'coloured' remark soon afterwards after being prompted to do so by Kevin Brennan MP, but this apparent contrition was not enough to assuage the anger of FA Board members and staff who have increasingly come to view the chairman as an embarrassing liability.


Kick It Out chief blasts Greg Clarke for using 'litany of lazy, racist stereotypes' that led to him quitting as FA chairman - as football fans brand him a 'dinosaur'


Why would he sue the FA for unfair dismissal when he offered his resignation?


He had said: 'As a person who loves football and has given decades of service to our game, it is right that I put the interests of football first.

'2020 has been a challenging year and I have been actively considering standing down for some time to make way for a new Chair now our CEO transition is complete and excellent executive leadership under Mark Bullingham is established.

'My unacceptable words in front of Parliament were a disservice to our game and to those who watch, play, referee and administer it.

'This has crystallised my resolve to move on. I am deeply saddened that I have offended those diverse communities in football that I and others worked so hard to include.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I suspect that's the case with lots of people. You object to the meaning behind the change which is the move away from racism.

I don't object to moving away from racism, as long as racism in question is largely agreed upon and understood.

I object to changing the meaning of racism. How can you eradicate something if it's subjective and ever-changing?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Ok but you know what the FA are responsible for, right?

English football also had a hooliganism problem for decades. Doesn't mean the FA was a hooligan institution at that time.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't object to moving away from racism, as long as racism in question is largely agreed upon and understood.

I object to changing the meaning of racism. How can you eradicate something if it's subjective and ever-changing?

Well with specific reference to coloured - it originally WAS racist as it was shorthand for/ part of a classification system of no white people.

So it changed from racist to sort of polite for a while then people realised their mistake.

Have you never changed your mind on something? Has an opinion you held when younger changed? It seems for and more these days people are willing to weld themselves to opinions and will never ever back down. That's pretty messed up really.. Imagine that was true for everything and I still had to cut about in those twisted Levi jeans I bought back in '99..

gormdubhgorm

joeguevara wrote: »

did you reqd the article? Because you missed 99% of it. He has a long history of using offensive, archaic and downright derogotory language. if he wants to continue that, let him do so not as chair of a football association who wants to move forward. Anyone who continues to believe that institutional racism is fluff and being gay is a life choice, shouldn't be in a position of authority.

I just read that end bit of it now. Which could be argued changes it's context.
However, describing institutional racism as fluff. May have some truth to it.

As is shown the shambolic taking knee before games - just shows how 'fluffy' and pointless such things are. It helps no one. I noticed even the commentators are starting to wonder aloud, if it dilutes the message as a result of familiarity?
I also feel it is all optics and little substance most of the time.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

English football also had a hooliganism problem for decades. Doesn't mean the FA was a hooligan institution at that time.

But in the new head of the FA comes along and casually mentions that the new disciplinary procedure is to glass someone with a smashed bottle of becks - you'd be ok with that?

:pac:


Seriously - you can't have the head of the FA whose remit it to promote football for all be racist, homophobic and misogynistic. That's not an unpopular opinion, that's just naive.. (Even if there are issues with changing language for your layman).

km991148

Moving away from the FA.. this might be an unpopular opinion.. I just noticed that mr_fegelien (creator of this and many other epic threads) has been banned - that's a sad day!

gormdubhgorm

km991148 wrote: »

Moving away from the FA.. this might be an unpopular opinion.. I just noticed that mr_fegelien (creator of this and many other epic threads) has been banned - that's a sad day!

whisky_galore

joeguevara wrote: »

Dev was a pr1ck.

Somehow he won elections, despite being a "prick". Why didn't the other "pricks" win?

joeguevara

whisky_galore wrote: »

Somehow he won elections, despite being a "prick". Why didn't the other "pricks" win?

Trump won an election. He’s a prick too. Leo won elections. He’s a pr1ck too, Dev to me is one of the most despicable men in Irish history.

Your Face

Joe Biden is creepy.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't object to moving away from racism, as long as racism in question is largely agreed upon and understood.

I object to changing the meaning of racism. How can you eradicate something if it's subjective and ever-changing?

OK but that's like Zeno's Paradox - How can Achilles ever catch the turtle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

The answer is that it's simple. The issue isn't changing, just the terms used to describe the issue. If you object to the evolution against racism then the chances are you've been caught out by the changing times and you're now on the wrong side of racism.

"I don't object to moving away from racism, as long as racism in question is largely agreed upon and understood". I had to laugh at this part. Do you need to get the racists buy-in to agree what is and what isn't racism? Of course you don't . If you want to cause offense to people based on race, then you're a racist - and that applies whether you want to see yourself as a racist or not.

gormdubhgorm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK but that's like Zeno's Paradox - How can Achilles ever catch the turtle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

The answer is that it's simple. The issue isn't changing, just the terms used to describe the issue. If you object to the evolution against racism then the chances are you've been caught out by the changing times and you're now on the wrong side of racism.

"I don't object to moving away from racism, as long as racism in question is largely agreed upon and understood". I had to laugh at this part. Do you need to get the racists buy-in to agree what is and what isn't racism? Of course you don't . If you want to cause offense to people based on race, then you're a racist - and that applies whether you want to see yourself as a racist or not.

The problem is that the 'in' pc terminology is often decided upon by those who are outside the group being referred to. For example I know disabled people who would be offended and laugh in your face - if you called them 'differently abled'. As it can also end up as more offensive than now termed offensive terms such as 'spastic' for example.
Which is an original medical term now construed as a pejorative by many.
As well intentioned as terms such as 'differently abled' are they could be construed as being patronising.

whisky_galore

joeguevara wrote: »

Trump won an election. He’s a prick too. Leo won elections. He’s a pr1ck too, Dev to me is one of the most despicable men in Irish history.

That's democracy, baby.

El_Duderino 09

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The problem is that the 'in' pc terminology is often decided upon by those who are outside the group being referred to. For example I know disabled people who would be offended and laugh in your face - if you called them 'differently abled'. As it can also end up as more offensive than now termed offensive terms such as 'spastic' for example.
Which is an original medical term now construed as a pejorative by many.
As well intentioned as terms such as 'differently abled' are they could be construed as being patronising.

Ok so here’s 2 great examples. If someone told you they don’t like the term differently abled because they find it offensive, what would you do? You’ll you keep calling them differently abled because that’s the word you were taught, or would you ask them what term they prefer and use that instead? I know which one I’d do (within reason).

The point on the term spastic is very interesting but probably not for the reason you think. Spastic is a medical term for a specific condition of Spasticity which is to do with involuntary muscle contraction. But the term spastic was broadened to an insult for lots of physical and intellectual disabilities.

Spastic is a great example of a term that started off as a medical term and then evolved and took on an offensive meaning. Do people think we should resist the “PC gone mad” and return to calling people with Downs Syndrome, spastics? I don’t.

One eyed Jack

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The problem is that the 'in' pc terminology is often decided upon by those who are outside the group being referred to. For example I know disabled people who would be offended and laugh in your face - if you called them 'differently abled'. As it can also end up as more offensive than now termed offensive terms such as 'spastic' for example.
Which is an original medical term now construed as a pejorative by many.
As well intentioned as terms such as 'differently abled' are they could be construed as being patronising.

You mean like medical profession referring to spastics and retards, or the legal profession referring to illegitimate bastards?

I do get your point, but the same thing you’re saying is a problem that groups outside define terms, your own examples are how people within your own group define terms that suit them - which is fine within your own group, but not so much outside of your own group of people who are familiar to each other.

Most people aren’t so anxious about the odd social gaffe, and most people are willing to overlook it when they do, but if someone is consistently making social gaffes and having people make excuses for them, then it does become a little tiresome.

km991148

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The problem is that the 'in' pc terminology is often decided upon by those who are outside the group being referred to.

But is it tho?

It seems like some people just love the idea of some committee sitting around thinking up "socially acceptable" terminology. I think it happens much more organically than that.

Sure some words, an origin/first usage can be traced (snowflake for example), but others I think its more collectively realising that some are not acceptable and some other word or term fills the void.

gormdubhgorm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok so here’s 2 great examples. If someone told you they don’t like the term differently abled because they find it offensive, what would you do? You’ll you keep calling them differently abled because that’s the word you were taught, or would you ask them what term they prefer and use that instead? I know which one I’d do (within reason).

The point on the term spastic is very interesting but probably not for the reason you think. Spastic is a medical term for a specific condition of Spasticity which is to do with involuntary muscle contraction. But the term spastic was broadened to an insult for lots of physical and intellectual disabilities.

Spastic is a great example of a term that started off as a medical term and then evolved and took on an offensive meaning. Do people think we should resist the “PC gone mad” and return to calling people with Downs Syndrome, spastics? I don’t.

Well I know a person who has spastic diplegic cerebral palsy. Who is always highly amused at the fact that a particularly politically correct individual uses the term 'spa' directed at him if he did something stupid. Meaning thick. However, technically the term is factually correct because of its other original meaning. Which leads to his amusement

Then spastic became a pejorative as you say. To the extent the spastics society had to change thier name back in the 60's I think it was.
It's original meaning now seems lost in the sands of time, and many Dublin people now still associate 'spa' with just being a bit dopey.


I think language should be dealt with on a case by case basis individually.
There is no broad brush with language as people like to pretend.
However, it always seems to be the most vocal who suddenly decide what is right or wrong for others.

I have even seen one down syndrome person refer to another as a spastic.

Why do you do in that scenario? Which is both wrong and amusing on many levels.

--
As regards down syndrome Kevin Kilbane (for example) gets highly offended when he hears the term 'Mong' a pejorative version of the old word for downs syndrome - a Mongoloid. Because he has a child who has DS. Yet he continuously uses the term 'moron' to describe a person he views as foolish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

Yet many of these terms were used to describe those with DS or similar in the 1800's.

Lunacy Act 1871

Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811

Idiots Act 1886

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

But is it tho?

It seems like some people just love the idea of some committee sitting around thinking up "socially acceptable" terminology. I think it happens much more organically than that.

Sure some words, an origin/first usage can be traced (snowflake for example), but others I think its more collectively realising that some are not acceptable and some other word or term fills the void.

I think it very much is a conscious campaign by some people though. The pc movement at its heart is emanating from liberal American college campuses. Places that reach critical race theory, gender studies and the likes. Places that promote the idea that gender is a social construct but race is biological. Places that promote the idea of discrimination in the form of affirmative action, under the guise of searching for equal opportunities. There is nothing organic about these ideas.

This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory. This is all in plain sight if people are willing to open their eyes.

gormdubhgorm

km991148 wrote: »

But is it tho?

It seems like some people just love the idea of some committee sitting around thinking up "socially acceptable" terminology. I think it happens much more organically than that.

Sure some words, an origin/first usage can be traced (snowflake for example), but others I think its more collectively realising that some are not acceptable and some other word or term fills the void.

I disagree especially in this day and age. It only takes a small cohort of people with an agenda/ulterior motive and suddenly language changes for large swathes of people. And then many people become lost as to meanings. Then are told xyz term is not socially acceptable.

Some of the people all the new terminology that is used for. Mean these new redefined groups suddenly have to relearn what to call themselves whether they like it or not!

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it very much is a conscious campaign by some people though. The pc movement at its heart is emanating from liberal American college campuses. Places that reach critical race theory, gender studies and the likes. Places that promote the idea that gender is a social construct but race is biological. Places that promote the idea of discrimination in the form of affirmative action, under the guise of searching for equal opportunities. There is nothing organic about these ideas.

This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory. This is all in plain sight if people are willing to open their eyes.

I mean one of the new terms 'people/person of colour' is clearly from the American playbook. First time I heard it I started laughing to be completely honest. Jayus, who came up with that one, I said.

Mad_maxx

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I mean one of the new terms 'people/person of colour' is clearly from the American playbook. First time I heard it I started laughing to be completely honest. Jayus, who came up with that one, I said.

" person of colour " is a political term

i just say african american or black

km991148

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I disagree especially in this day and age. It only takes a small cohort of people with an agenda/ulterior motive and suddenly language changes for large swathes of people.

yeah you are right actually:

MSM
Fake News
Fake Polls
Living Wage

km991148

Anyway - to clarify - I think language evolves much more organically that some people think. I'm sure everyone can find one or two examples of words and phrases that weren't so organic in their making, but not as many as you might think.

El_Duderino 09

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Well I know a person who has spastic diplegic cerebral palsy. Who is always highly amused at the fact that a particularly politically correct individual uses the term 'spa' directed at him if he did something stupid. Meaning thick. However, technically the term is factually correct because of its other original meaning. Which leads to his amusement

Then spastic became a pejorative as you say. To the extent the spastics society had to change thier name back in the 60's I think it was.
It's original meaning now seems lost in the sands of time, and many Dublin people now still associate 'spa' with just being a bit dopey.


I think language should be dealt with on a case by case basis individually.
There is no broad brush with language as people like to pretend.
However, it always seems to be the most vocal who suddenly decide what is right or wrong for others.

I have even seen one down syndrome person refer to another as a spastic.

Why do you do in that scenario? Which is both wrong and amusing on many levels.

--
As regards down syndrome Kevin Kilbane (for example) gets highly offended when he hears the term 'Mong' a pejorative version of the old word for downs syndrome - a Mongoloid. Because he has a child who has DS. Yet he continuously uses the term 'moron' to describe a person he views as foolish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

Yet many of these terms were used to describe those with DS or similar in the 1800's.

Lunacy Act 1871

Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811

Idiots Act 1886

Ok. Could you answer this question from the post you quoted: If someone told you they don’t like the term differently abled because they find it offensive, what would you do?

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it very much is a conscious campaign by some people though. The pc movement at its heart is emanating from liberal American college campuses. Places that reach critical race theory, gender studies and the likes. Places that promote the idea that gender is a social construct but race is biological. Places that promote the idea of discrimination in the form of affirmative action, under the guise of searching for equal opportunities. There is nothing organic about these ideas.

This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory. This is all in plain sight if people are willing to open their eyes.

What’s the objective of this conscious campaign? For what, are they consciously campaigning?