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

Fr D Maugire

Tell me how wrote: »

• Granting of voting rights.
• Womens rights.
• Desegregation legislation.
• Removal of homophobic laws.
• Approval for Same sex marriages.
• Access to abortion.

History has plenty examples of change coming about on the back of protests. I've repeatedly said here that these current protests are part of the process rather than the solution to fix all problems.

Those were all far more clear cut issues/laws. Racism is a slightly more complicated one. There are laws that to me seem pretty clear cut like gun control in the US that have still not been changed, and guns are a huge part of the underlying problems in the US.

The main source of Racism is online. Other than clamping down on social media, what changes can be made to stop people from being racist that do not already exist?

Tell me how

archfi wrote: »

But not about the actual racism or methods to reduce it/stop it.
Lots of divisive talk though.

This is like people losing their sh*t at Greta for calling for meaningful action to help the environment without having completed all the design studies, feasibility exercises and cost benefits analysis herself upfront.

The divisive talk, as always is coming from those resistant to meaningful change.

Retr0gamer

archfi wrote: »

You appear to take great offence at people that simply do not accept your explanation.
You cannot say that that gesture is not associated with the BLM organisation whether you believe that it shouldn't.
It's simply not open to question.

It's not open to question because saying it is associated with the blm organisation rather than the movement is categorically wrong. And saying otherwise is buying your head in the sand.

Insanely highly paid footballers are now marxists apparently. That's just stupid.

Dr. Bre

Tell me how wrote: »

This is like people losing their sh*t at Greta for calling for meaningful action to help the environment without having completed all the design studies, feasibility exercises and cost benefits analysis herself upfront.

The divisive talk, as always is coming from those resistant to meaningful change.

Change we can believe in

PhlegmyMoses

archfi wrote: »

You appear to take great offence at people that simply do not accept your explanation.
You cannot say that that gesture is not associated with the BLM organisation whether you believe that it shouldn't.
It's simply not open to question.

And you are taking offence because people do not accept yours. And let's be honest here, racism is a far more prevalent thing amongst the populace than a ****ing balanced critique of the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel.

But go off anyway mate, looking at your post history, you are knee deep in internet culture war bollocksology. Head outside and touch the grass, make some friends.

archfi

Tell me how wrote: »

This is like people losing their sh*t at Greta for calling for meaningful action to help the environment without having completed all the design studies, feasibility exercises and cost benefits analysis herself upfront.

The divisive talk, as always is coming from those resistant to meaningful change.

No, it's not.
This is exactly what black footballers mentioned previuously have been saying.

Tell me how

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Those were all far more clear cut issues/laws. Racism is a slightly more complicated one. There are laws that to me seem pretty clear cut like gun control in the US that have still not been changed, and guns are a huge part of the underlying problems in the US.

So if even clear cut issues took so long with so many resistant to progress along the way, then footballers can't be vilified for not having easy fixes to this.

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

The main source of Racism is online. Other than clamping down on social media, what changes can be made to stop people from being racist that do not already exist?

I'm not suggesting that this is immediately feasible or likely to be acceptable and I can see many issues with it myself but imagine for a second if when the interview was first growing if you could not register anonymously, if it had been structured that you had to register with an intermediary at which you disclosed your real identity and then got your 'anonymous pass' or whatever for a particular site.

This could be used to facilitate the tracking of people who are racist online.
Now, whatever about it being set up at the early days of the infancy of the web, introducing it now would be problematic but we've seen the introduction of GPR legislation which massively influenced everyone so maybe something like this might be possible. If the motivation was there.
And yes, I know, there will be immediate concerns of whistleblowers being doxxed and so on but right now, we only expect anonymity because we have become familiar with it.

I'm not suggesting the above is straightforward or easy, but I don't think it is impossible to improve things either and would actually be interested in discussing it more, or seeing it discussed on a dedicated thread. Of course, some people will say that this cannot be done because it will restrict peoples right to free speech but as we've seen earlier, the right to free speech already has controls and in the past, if you wanted to speak freely, it was very clear that it was you who was speaking and so you had to own what you were saying.

Omackeral

Tell me how wrote: »

This is like people losing their sh*t at Greta for calling for meaningful action to help the environment without having completed all the design studies, feasibility exercises and cost benefits analysis herself upfront.

The divisive talk, as always is coming from those resistant to meaningful change.

And how about the examples of those who aren’t into the knee but actively did vote for SSM and Repeal? What do you say of them?

Sadler Peak

It's lost all meaning now but on and on and on this US crap will go on and ......

Tell me how

Omackeral wrote: »

And how about the examples of those who aren’t into the knee but actively did vote for SSM and Repeal? What do you say of them?

What do you think I should say to them?
Just because they were progressive in that area doesn't mean that they have to agree with the knee exercise. Nor does it mean that their support for those initiatives is of less value because they might not support this.

My view on the position someone has on the Knee issue is dependent on where they stand on the knee issue and their reasons for doing so.

archfi

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

And you are taking offence because people do not accept yours. And let's be honest here, racism is a far more prevalent thing amongst the populace than a ****ing balanced critique of the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel.

But go off anyway mate, looking at your post history, you are knee deep in internet culture war bollocksology. Head outside and touch the grass, make some friends.

I haven't taken offence at anything in this thread only the massive lack of ability to have an intelligent, reasonable debate without being branded a nazi racist fascist.

I don't believe the players are Marxists, can you read at all?
HAve you tried disagreeing with someone intelligently - I mean the odd quip isn't bad for morale but come on, at least make it 1% funny:rolleyes:

Are you ok? Yes, I despise critical theories - they are a cancer on society.
I'm also knee deep in the Eurovision thread, the TV forum, radio forum.
Is that ok with you, Phlegmy?

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1403306568733663235?s=19

Sums it up perfectly.

"It is undeniably true that taking the knee was linked to ‘BLM’ at the start. The letters were emblazoned everywhere when Project Restart began. We shouldn’t seek to rewrite recent history.

But, equally, this truth shouldn’t erode the infinitely more relevant present reality that the gesture means something very different for the players. Taking the knee long precedes the BLM political movement and will persevere long after it. Its meaning has thereby always been separate. The sentiment is pure.

One argument from those who boo is that no one has made this clear, that a statement is needed.

Well, by now, Southgate has explained it, the players have explained it, the pundits have explained it and the Football Association have explained it. Who else can possibly say anything? What else can possibly be said? They have all made their meaning clear: that this is solely a gesture towards racial equality, to make people recognise existing inequalities.

No other interpretation is possible. Anyone still insisting it is about the BLM political movement or Marxism is just ignorantly imposing their own meaning, and in truth dealing with their own issues. That is what much of this is about."

Dr. Bre

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1403306568733663235?s=19

Sums it up perfectly.

"It is undeniably true that taking the knee was linked to ‘BLM’ at the start. The letters were emblazoned everywhere when Project Restart began. We shouldn’t seek to rewrite recent history.

But, equally, this truth shouldn’t erode the infinitely more relevant present reality that the gesture means something very different for the players. Taking the knee long precedes the BLM political movement and will persevere long after it. Its meaning has thereby always been separate. The sentiment is pure.

One argument from those who boo is that no one has made this clear, that a statement is needed.

Well, by now, Southgate has explained it, the players have explained it, the pundits have explained it and the Football Association have explained it. Who else can possibly say anything? What else can possibly be said? They have all made their meaning clear: that this is solely a gesture towards racial equality, to make people recognise existing inequalities.

No other interpretation is possible. Anyone still insisting it is about the BLM political movement or Marxism is just ignorantly imposing their own meaning, and in truth dealing with their own issues. That is what much of this is about."

Take the knee in work , take the knee in a shop . This isn’t going to be solved by celebrities on tv doing it

Fr D Maugire

Tell me how wrote: »

So if even clear cut issues took so long with so many resistant to progress along the way, then footballers can't be vilified for not having easy fixes to this.



I'm not suggesting that this is immediately feasible or likely to be acceptable and I can see many issues with it myself but imagine for a second if when the interview was first growing if you could not register anonymously, if it had been structured that you had to register with an intermediary at which you disclosed your real identity and then got your 'anonymous pass' or whatever for a particular site.

This could be used to facilitate the tracking of people who are racist online.
Now, whatever about it being set up at the early days of the infancy of the web, introducing it now would be problematic but we've seen the introduction of GPR legislation which massively influenced everyone so maybe something like this might be possible. If the motivation was there.
And yes, I know, there will be immediate concerns of whistleblowers being doxxed and so on but right now, we only expect anonymity because we have become familiar with it.

I'm not suggesting the above is straightforward or easy, but I don't think it is impossible to improve things either and would actually be interested in discussing it more, or seeing it discussed on a dedicated thread. Of course, some people will say that this cannot be done because it will restrict peoples right to free speech but as we've seen earlier, the right to free speech already has controls and in the past, if you wanted to speak freely, it was very clear that it was you who was speaking and so you had to own what you were saying.

I would agree completely with this, but here is the thing that I pointed out before. The majority of racism is online, but it is not the only form of abuse online, there is bullying, homophobia, misogyny, fat shaming all happening online.

Is it not time we moved on from the very narrow focus on racism or does racism somehow have more importance than other forms of abuse? Eradicate online abuse in it's totality and then focus on the more niche area of abuse.

Maybe more people would get on board with that.

Retr0gamer

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Take the knee in work , take the knee in a shop . This isn’t going to be solved by celebrities on tv doing it

Celebrities have an audience of millions. They're using it to raise awareness of a good cause.

This is just pure whataboutery.

Sadler Peak

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1403306568733663235?s=19


How ?
How is this bullshít when two of it's founder say they are ' trained Marxists '.
Does Miguel not believe two black women when they tell ' their truth ' ?

Dr. Bre

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Celebrities have an audience of millions. They're using it to raise awareness of a good cause.

This is just pure whataboutery.

It’s not . It’s you just wanting to watch it on tv but wouldn’t dare to this in work or in a shop .

Retr0gamer

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I would agree completely with this, but here is the thing that I pointed out before. The majority of racism is online, but it is not the only form of abuse online, there is bullying, homophobia, misogyny, fat shaming all happening online.

Is it not time we moved on from the very narrow focus on racism or does racism somehow have more importance than other forms of abuse? Eradicate online abuse in it's totality and then focus on the more niche area of abuse.

Maybe more people would get on board with that.

There's plenty of other things that need fixing. Don't try and dilute this issue by bringing up others. What about, what about, what about. This is just more deflection. How about they bend the knee for racism and cancer. But then they aren't doing it for work place bullying and athletes foot

Retr0gamer

Dr. Bre wrote: »

It’s not . It’s you just wanting to watch it on tv but wouldn’t dare to this in work or in a shop .

No it's you being ridiculous. Why would I? There's more effective ways for me to combat it. This is frankly ridiculous whataboutery.

extra gravy

Sadler Peak wrote: »

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1403306568733663235?s=19


How ?
How is this bullshít when two of it's founder say they are ' trained Marxists '.
Does Miguel not believe two black women when they tell ' their truth ' ?

I'd suggest reading the article but what's the point.

Tell me how

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I would agree completely with this, but here is the thing that I pointed out before. The majority of racism is online, but it is not the only form of abuse online, there is bullying, homophobia, misogyny, fat shaming all happening online.

Is it not time we moved on from the very narrow focus on racism or does racism somehow have more importance than other forms of abuse? Eradicate online abuse in it's totality and then focus on the more niche area of abuse.

Maybe more people would get on board with that.

If you have a look at the thread on proposed hate speech legislation being formulated in Ireland I think you'll find this is not exactly the case. At least here on Boards anyway which isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal of how the wider country thinks.

PhlegmyMoses

archfi wrote: »

I haven't taken offence at anything in this thread only the massive lack of ability to have an intelligent, reasonable debate without being branded a nazi racist fascist.

I don't believe the players are Marxists, can you read at all?
HAve you tried disagreeing with someone intelligently - I mean the odd quip isn't bad for morale but come on, at least make it 1% funny:rolleyes:

Are you ok? Yes, I despise critical theories - they are a cancer on society.
I'm also knee deep in the Eurovision thread, the TV forum, radio forum.
Is that ok with you, Phlegmy?

Please make it stop before I cringe myself to death. Tell me you arent like this around real human beings. Crying over footballers kneeling. **** me pink

Fr D Maugire

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's plenty of other things that need fixing. Don't try and dilute this issue by bringing up others. What about, what about, what about. This is just more deflection. How about they bend the knee for racism and cancer. But then they aren't doing it for work place bullying and athletes foot

How is it diluting or deflecting the issue if you can fix an issue for one group whilst fixing the same issue for a number of other groups in fell swoop?

ThunbergsAreGo

Tell me how wrote: »

If you have a look at the thread on proposed hate speech legislation being formulated in Ireland I think you'll find this is not exactly the case. At least here on Boards anyway which isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal of how the wider country thinks.

Yes most are ambivalent towards everything

Rothko

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Please make it stop before I cringe myself to death. Tell me you arent like this around real human beings. Crying over footballers kneeling. **** me pink

What are you on about?

Omackeral

Retr0gamer wrote: »

This is just pure whataboutery.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

What about, what about, what about. This is just more deflection.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

This is frankly ridiculous whataboutery.

You've on from ''strawman'' I see. Can't wait for ''dog-whistle'' tomorrow :pac:

Muahahaha

Tell me how wrote: »

Wilfred Zaha has stood while others around him have kneeled and he hasn't expressed any concern that he was pressured to behave differently. Nor have I seen it suggested that he should.

When Wilfred Zaha stood up as all his team mates took the knee he got the full backing of his manager and the club to do so. But the whole thing was just Zaha all over, he has always been a bit of a muppet. All 400+ Premier League players were asked in December to vote if they wanted to continue on taking the knee and they voted overwhelmingly to do so. I guarantee that if they had of voted not to continue taking the knee then Zaha would have been the first to have taken the knee himself in protest because thats what he is like, throughout his career he's always had a bit of an attitude problem.

He is a player who when he was at a big club like United broke one of the golden rules of players off pitch behaviour and went and had an affair with his managers daughter. He was dropped from the team with Man United eventually selling him as a result and since then no big club will touch him with a barge pole. If you told Zaha the sky is blue he would argue that it isnt, his attitude has been questioned at ever club he has even been at. He seems to love being a contrarian and its damaged his career as a result because he does have bags of talent.

Kermit.de.frog

I don't know how some people can't see why populations in Eastern Europe having been on the receiving end of communism might have issues with collective virtue signalling.

It wouldn't be just the BLM stuff but on lots of issues.

It's the hard leftism underneath these things most of those booing would have the issue with, not racism.

They have seen all this before.

nullzero

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

What rigorous method is this? I am all ears for how you have gone about rigorously quantifying this.

Literally not assuming it's working and paying attention to the reality of the situation. It isn't all that rigorous at all, it's just more rigorous than assuming everything is A OK. That's for being all ears, very polite of you.

MisterAnarchy

Sadler Peak wrote: »

How ?
How is this bullshít when two of it's founder say they are ' trained Marxists '.
Does Miguel not believe two black women when they tell ' their truth ' ?

Miguel says

Taking the knee is a reproach.

It is a reproach of a society and its structures that sees players racially abused on social media at the surface, and that more deeply breeds the kind of economic inequalities that allow social problems to breed. These are the kids Marcus Rashford is trying to help.

So its primarily about social media abuse and systemic racism according to him , is that what we are meant to understand ?

There is very little racism in grounds nowadays, its not like back in the 80's when it was rife and players took terrible stick.
That has thankfully been largely eradicated.

Can online abuse be eliminated, no I don't see how it can and even if it could its up to the internet service providers like Twitter, Facebook, etc to do something about, not footballers.
Any disgruntled person in their own home can send material to players on a social platform.
There is literally no filter, you are opening yourself up to the whole world when you go on something like Twitter.
There will always be rival fans, disgruntled and bitter people with an axe to grind.

Take any Liverpool Man Utd game at Anfield for example and the stick that Utd players get when taking a throw or a corner, its shocking.
Literally the first 6-7 rows of people on their feet roaring obscenities.
Is that abuse ok if not of a racial nature, you Manc **** etc ?
Its the same at Old Trafford.
This tribal warfare is embedded in English football.

I dont see how taking a knee, which has large connotations to a thuggish organisation like BLM will actually remedy any of the above.
Its virtue signalling.