Booing the knee *Mod Note in Post 1232 and OP*

MrStuffins

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know what he said. I also know what you said.

There is a difference.

Yes.

He acknowledges White Privilege and tells his daughter that, because she's mixed race, isn't white enough to have said privilege.

This says that, if she was whiter, she would have said privilege.

It's not very hard to understand, although I see you're trying your hardest to do so on purpose. Again, not surprising.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Take no notice of Klaz, he has consistently show a high level of literary comprehension.

I had a good laugh at that one. Hilarious. Cheers.

MrStuffins

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They could say it in a couched roundabout way. Not directly saying it of course, but everyone knows what it means riiight?
Dogwhistling...

Where have I heard that argument before??

Blah blah blah!

That's not what was said. You can jump through hoops all you want but it makes no difference

Danzy

MrStuffins wrote: »

"Not white enough to have privilege" says that there is a white enough to have privilege.

That IS what he said!

I disagree with your politics but I beg you to stop your assault on the written word, its subtle turns, in this case not subtle, a sentence, a text is more than just a collection of single words adding up like an accountant's ledger.

Presumably you are good at math. I was horrendous.

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes.

He acknowledges White Privilege and tells his daughter that, because she's mixed race, isn't white enough to have said privilege.

Which does not match with your claim that he believes in white privilege.

You changed the context away from his original post. Can't believe that you're doubling down on this. Vocabulary is kinda important to show the meaning in sentences, you know? That poster chose his words on purpose... you replacing those words, changes the meaning of the sentence.

Bizarre.

cdeb

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes.

He acknowledges White Privilege and tells his daughter that, because she's mixed race, isn't white enough to have said privilege.

This says that, if she was whiter, she would have said privilege.

I'm loathe to keep speaking for the OP, but the impression I got was that society (as being shaped by BLM ideologies) was telling their daughter she wasn't white enough for privilege. Not the OP themself. The OP is, quite sensibly, telling her to be her and ignore skin colour.

The OP can probably clarify in due course (if they want, of course)

Fr D Maugire

cdeb wrote: »

I'm loathe to keep speaking for the OP, but the impression I got was that society (as being shaped by BLM ideologies) was telling their daughter she wasn't white enough for privilege. Not the OP themself. The OP is, quite sensibly, telling her to be her and ignore skin colour.

The OP can probably clarify in due course (if they want, of course)

Pretty much what I took from it as well. That it is the skin colour that dictates according to the metric being pushed by race theories, and that is what the poster is opposed to.

MrStuffins

cdeb wrote: »

I'm loathe to keep speaking for the OP, but the impression I got was that society (as being shaped by BLM ideologies) was telling their daughter she wasn't white enough for privilege. Not the OP themself. The OP is, quite sensibly, telling her to be her and ignore skin colour.

The OP can probably clarify in due course (if they want, of course)

I'm sure that's what you want him to have said, but that's not what he said.

Again, BLM saving a fortune living in your heads lads

cdeb

I'm more than happy to see a reasoned argument from you for your view

But just saying "No it isn't" isn't really debating the point.

(Source - Monty Python)

Fr D Maugire

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sure that's what you want him to have said, but that's not what he said.

Again, BLM saving a fortune living in your heads lads

"ah...the old living in your head line" the sure sign that a poster has nothing to offer.

Danzy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sure that's what you want him to have said, but that's not what he said.

Again, BLM saving a fortune living in your heads lads

At risk of derailing the thread, but do you honestly believe that is what he meant.

A friend of mine is an engineer, he can visualize blue prints in 3d and model them at a speed that astounds his colleagues.

I guess I would be as lost there as you are here in facing written word.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

MrStuffins wrote: »

Who is accusing teams who won't take the knee of racism?

I don't engage with posters who twist every word other posters say. Good luck.

nolivesmatter

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Pretty much what I took from it as well. That it is the skin colour that dictates according to the metric being pushed by race theories, and that is what the poster is opposed to.

Yep, same as that. Seemed obvious to me.

Ha Long Bay

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 wrote: »

The Scotland national team won't kneel at the euros.

Are they a bunch of racists now too or perhaps they understand it's links to a terrorist organization.

Who is accusing teams who won't take the knee of racism?

Danzy

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 wrote: »

I don't engage with posters who twist every word other posters say. Good luck.

In his defense, it is not malice.

There they sit so he makes them stand.

nolivesmatter

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sure that's what you want him to have said, but that's not what he said.

Again, BLM saving a fortune living in your heads lads

I really have seen a lot of good faith attempts to find common ground here from many of the posters who have an issue with taking the knee, but it's disappointing that all too often the other side just seems more interested in a game of one-upmanship like this. At least nobody's calling anyone a racist anymore..

The irony is that many of the same people who commend BLM or taking the knee for instigating these kind of conversations are unwilling to engage in them in any meaningful way with the opposition.

MrStuffins

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 wrote: »

I don't engage with posters who twist every word other posters say. Good luck.

So nobody then. Grand so!

Quantum Erasure

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's one to put your point across, it's another to tell blatant lies. It's not a good look

...

Rothko

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Yep, same as that. Seemed obvious to me.

It's really obvious.

Fr D Maugire

Fandymo wrote: »

Their lie filled (George was unarmed now) poster looking for support at a protest at the inquest also promotes BLM.

Just saw that now and it is back to being a racially motivated killing. They claim the investigation is only taking place because of intervention from the US, i am sure any police killing would have an official investigation considering how rarely it occurs.

There was an investigation into the shooting by police of the guy who killed Justine Valdez.

archfi

I would hope most readers of this thread can see what the coming of the critical theory age has done to discourse.
It's bloody shocking.

HAs anyone read or heard the FAI and Kenny's justification for not bending their collective knees on behalf of Ireland in Andorra?

Ahwell

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 wrote: »

The Scotland national team won't kneel at the euros.

Are they a bunch of racists now too or perhaps they understand it's links to a terrorist organization.

Neither, they are still making a gesture for the same reasons the English squad are taking the knee, it is just a different gesture.

Strazdas

What's confusing things a bit is the claim that taking the knee is a show of support for BLM activists in the US.

I would argue that it isn't : certainly in the case of the England and Ireland teams this week, it seems to have been purely meant as a gesture against racism in football.

MrStuffins

Strazdas wrote: »

What's confusing things a bit is the claim that taking the knee is a show of support for BLM activists in the US.

I would argue that it isn't : certainly in the case of the England and Ireland teams this week, it seems to have been purely meant as a gesture against racism in football.

Spot on!

Fr D Maugire

Strazdas wrote: »

What's confusing things a bit is the claim that taking the knee is a show of support for BLM activists in the US.

I would argue that it isn't : certainly in the case of the England and Ireland teams this week, it seems to have been purely meant as a gesture against racism in football.

Surely the confusing bit is using the exact same gesture that was used by BLM activists to protest against police brutality and was introduced to Europe in the wake of the George Floyd BLM protests.

~Rebel~

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Surely the confusing bit is using the exact same gesture that was used by BLM activists to protest against police brutality and was introduced to Europe in the wake of the George Floyd BLM protests.

For better or worse, it's what the players themselves chose to do at the outset as a stand against racism. Maybe they should've invented a new thing, but I guess they looked at their peers in the NBA, NFL, Tennis etc etc and decided upon it for its instant read as a fundamentally clear and simple anti-racist act.

You can tie other things to it, but the fact remains that for them, and for most people, the act predominantly simply means 'anti-racist'.

It's also well worth noting that the simple term 'Black Lives Matter' existed well before any use of it as a tighter singular organisation with its own goals (though still being soooo much more decentralised and loose than people on here seem to give it credit for). The two things live side by side - the organisation, and the broader ethos.

MrStuffins

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Surely the confusing bit is using the exact same gesture that was used by BLM activists to protest against police brutality and was introduced to Europe in the wake of the George Floyd BLM protests.

Only confusing if BLM are in the forefront of every thought you have all day, like a boogieman lurking, living inside your head waiting to pounce at every second and you think that everything wrong in the world is down to them

Rothko

MrStuffins wrote: »

Only confusing if BLM are in the forefront of every thought you have all day, like a boogieman lurking, living inside your head waiting to pounce at every second and you think that everything wrong in the world is down to them

:rolleyes:

Ha Long Bay

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Surely the confusing bit is using the exact same gesture that was used by BLM activists to protest against police brutality and was introduced to Europe in the wake of the George Floyd BLM protests.

The confusing part is why some posters here are trying to tie the action of some footballers to BLM and ignore everything else.


Do you think BLM started the gesture or in some way own it?


https://globalnews.ca/news/3769534/martin-luther-king-jr-take-a-knee-history/

MrStuffins

Ha Long Bay wrote: »

The confusing part is why some posters here are trying to tie the action of some footballers to BLM and ignore everything else.


Do you think BLM started the gesture or in some way own it?


https://globalnews.ca/news/3769534/martin-luther-king-jr-take-a-knee-history/

This is the point. BLM didn't start it, they didn't invent it, and the whole campaign is under "No Room For Racism" and isn't even associated with the BIG BAD BLM!!

But the same posters will always be trusted to take every opportunity to blame BLM in any case.

The fact is, their issue isn't BLM at all. It's a much more fundamental issue. The BLM stuff is just a tool they use.