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

Fann Linn

Granadino wrote: »

I don't think all teams should have to take the knee. Cancel culture has ruined everything.

I put it in the same mould as 'Ireland's Call', a distraction before the match.

humberklog

Granadino wrote: »

I don't think all teams should have to take the knee. Cancel culture has ruined everything.

They don't. Croatia just today didn't for example.

Timberrrrrrrr

Granadino wrote: »

I don't think all teams should have to take the knee. Cancel culture has ruined everything.

No team or person has to take the knee, people choose to do it themselves.

Danzy

Penn.

In an American context Kneeling may be seen as a peaceful protest.

In Europe it is for Religion or Royalty that people only kneeled to historically.

Both of which appeal to the ego of the activitists and celebs involved.

The opportunity to be able to castigate the Proles as vile sinners and heretics is too good to miss.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't answer because I don't have an answer. I can't honestly say. If I was the judge I would have to consider if I would be comfortable with imposing the same sentence to a black person saying it to another black person.

It wouldn't be just or fair to have one rule for one ethnicity and not for the other. That would not do anything but further divide.

I also wouldn't like to send the message that this type of behaviour would be tolerated by doing nothing, so it's a genuine dilemma which is why more thought needs to go into it, and a kneejerk "make it illegal" won't be beneficial

Who said anything about a black person being racist to another black person? I never said anything about that, its just something you have introduced that sounds like whataboutery to avoid answering the question.

I posed the simple question of a real life example of Marcus Rashford being racially abused on social media and what you think the punishment should be I'll ask it again

But you didnt answer my question after I answered yours. namely what is your punishment for someone who calls a black person the N word on social media just like Marcus Rashford and Ian Wright have experienced in the real world
Is it a-
-Fine
-Community Service
-Conviction
-Suspended sentence
-Prison

What combination of the above would you apply if you were the judge? . Or would you just let them walk out free for racially abusing black people?

So what is it? What puninishment (if any) would you say fits the crime for the above? Ive already made clear in answering your question that I think it should be a fine, community service and a conviction. What do you think it should be? Or are you saying you would let a racist abuser walk free?

Faugheen

MarkEadie wrote: »

Great post. I would also add that his "but I have a mixed race daughter" story is up to the reader whether to believe it or not.

Wouldn't go that far, personally.

humberklog

Danzy wrote: »

Penn.

In an American context Kneeling may be seen as a peaceful protest.

In Europe it is for Religion or Royalty that people only kneeled to historically.

Both of which appeal to the ego of the activitists and celebs involved.

The opportunity to be able to castigate the Proles as vile sinners and heretics is too good to miss.

Yeah that's one of many things I didn't get when I saw it creeping into Europe.
As a gesture taking the knee looks visually ungainly and culturally I would associate with christianity and militaries of monarchies.

They look to me as if they're about to head off to the Holyland to slay Saladin.

extra gravy

Good Time Jim wrote: »

I am delighted that the Russian and Hungarian players refuse to kneel. Hopefully more teams grow a backbone.

Yawn.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Who said anything about a black person being racist to another black person? I never said anything about that, its just something you have introduced that sounds like whataboutery to avoid answering the question.

I posed the simple question of a real life example of Marcus Rashford being racially abused on social media and what you think the punishment should be I'll ask it again



So what is it? What puninishment (if any) would you say fits the crime for the above? Ive already made clear in answering your question that I think it should be a fine, community service and a conviction. What do you think it should be? Or are you saying you would let a racist abuser walk free?

I've already explicitly said that I don't know.

If I was the judge, I would need to know that I was following standards which were fair and consistent across the board. Its very tough to figure out to be fair and I don't want to give a definite answer as I genuinely don't know how I'd feel about handing down a punitive sentence. I mean, it makes logical sense. But it would have ramifications about how other cases are sentenced. This isn't whataboutism because it is a reason that simply saying "fine them, jail them" is a kneejerk reaction.

How much of a fine, what community service and would you use this as a precident (i.e if the exact same words which offended were used by others in a social media message, would you hand down the same sentence)

Fandymo

Fandymo wrote: »

So BLM didn’t invent taking a knee, they only used it for a few years, and continue to use it, nothing to do with them.

Nazis didn’t invent the swastika, used it for a few years and it’s linked with them forever and ever and ever.

That’s some logic.

Except the contrast is pretty poor. Firstly BLM were largely peaceful and not a genocidal regime. So other groups adopting the symbol cause ultimately they view it as a simple effective gesture that references the issue of racism. Like all the nonsense about it secretly being a Marxist agenda sound more like they would complain over any gesture. Eg there's plenty of posters in this thread that tend to deny racism at every turn in other topics.

Fandymo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except the contrast is pretty poor. Firstly BLM were largely peaceful and not a genocidal regime. So other groups adopting the symbol cause ultimately they view it as a simple effective gesture that references the issue of racism. Like all the nonsense about it secretly being a Marxist agenda sound more like they would complain over any gesture. Eg there's plenty of posters in this thread that tend to deny racism at every turn in other topics.

Between 1bn-2bn worth of damage does not seem very “peaceful”.

Fandymo

Fandymo wrote: »

Between 1bn-2bn worth of damage does not seem very “peaceful”.

Given the numbers involved, yes it was. Think 90% or thereabouts is the figure in terms of peaceful protest. Also in terms of the motivation of the protesting, it was based on very real issues. So other groups using same gesture, not particularly strange.

Tell me how

Good Time Jim wrote: »

Ah yes, the 'fiery but mostly peaceful' blm protests

Fandymo wrote: »

Between 1bn-2bn worth of damage does not seem very “peaceful”.

Zero violence at at least 93% of protests.
An arrest rate of about 1 in 2000 of those who attended.
At least some of the violence instigated by police or shadow operators.

These are all facts, go ahead and misrepresent what went in, but do so knowing just how false a picture what your saying actually paints.

Tell me how

Good Time Jim wrote: »

I am delighted that the Russian and Hungarian players refuse to kneel. Hopefully more teams grow a backbone.

Given the way minorities and dissidents are treated in both countries, I think if they had strong backbones, they'd be protesting also.

Do you not think so? Or do you agree with the behaviour if leadership in both countries towards those who disagree with them?

Tell me how

Good Time Jim wrote: »

Peaceful protest movement...but commits 2bn dollars worth of damage...

????

What percent if an organisation, in your view needs to be violent for the entire organisation to be dismissed as being so?

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Zero violence at at least 93% of protests.
An arrest rate of about 1 in 2000 of those who attended.
At least some of the violence instigated by police or shadow operators.

These are all facts, go ahead and misrepresent what went in, but do so knowing just how false a picture what your saying actually paints.

The facts are that those figures represent something in the realm of 10,000+ arrests.

That is not a small number, we've had this discussion before and you feel the percentages make all those arrests acceptable, anyone else who can count can see that those numbers of arrests are concerning.

So when footballers are taking the knee people are thinking about these issues and not necessarily just being big nasty racists.

Tell me how

Good Time Jim wrote: »

I don't really care. I'm just glad to see them not kneel in submission like the western Europeans.

You think kneeling to draw attention to unfairness, inequality and racism is submission?

Submission to who?

Tell me how

Good Time Jim wrote: »

I'd expect peaceful protest movements to be free from arson, rape, murder and looting.

I think you'll probably find there isnt a single organisation be it sport, police group, army, teaching body, club or any other organisation that is free if these things once membership gets above a couple hundred thousand.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

What percent if an organisation, in your view needs to be violent for the entire organisation to be dismissed as being so?

Once an organisation gains a reputation for violence that threshold has been crossed. Percentages aren't important at that stage.

As an example, a very small number of people were members of the IRA in the 70s and 80s but all Irish people were tarnished by their actions in the UK to some extent. We distanced ourselves from their actions, a good place to start for BLM would be to stop encouraging violence and denounce those who engage in it.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

The facts are that those figures represent something in the realm of 10,000+ arrests.

That is not a small number, we've had this discussion before and you feel the percentages make all those arrests acceptable, anyone else who can count can see that those numbers of arrests are concerning.

So when footballers are taking the knee people are thinking about these issues and not necessarily just being big nasty racists.

Look it, percentages are used to discuss as to how significant things are as part of a wider group. That's literally why they are used. And they're used in virtually every industry and discussion.

You cant dismiss them just because they weaken your argument.

Timberrrrrrrr

Good Time Jim wrote: »

Kneeling while representing your nation is beyond pathetic. You'll never see the Russians do it and I applaud them for it.

Russians and Hungarians don't kneel.....how many black players on either team?

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Look it, percentages are used to discuss as to how significant things are as part of a wider group. That's literally why they are used. And they're used in virtually every industry and discussion.

You cant dismiss them just because they weaken your argument.

If we say that less than 10%(off the top of my head it's much less than 10% but let's use it as an example nonetheless) of Nazi party members were engaged in gassing Jews does it mean that the Nazi party was mostly not violent against Jewish people? When do percentages not tell the full story?

Percentages are important but they do not negate all the other facts relating to a subject.

I'm not dismissing their importance in any way, I'm just realistic enough to know they don't tell the whole story and as has been shown time and again, your reliance on the notion of percentages in relation to this subject makes a mockery of your argument.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Zero violence at at least 93% of protests.
An arrest rate of about 1 in 2000 of those who attended.
At least some of the violence instigated by police or shadow operators.

These are all facts, go ahead and misrepresent what went in, but do so knowing just how false a picture what your saying actually paints.

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not dismissing their importance in any way, I'm just realistic enough to know they don't tell the whole story and as has been shown time and again, your reliance on the notion of percentages in relation to this subject makes a mockery of your argument.

My argument is that the vast number of people attending protests, and the protests themselves in what was the most widely attended protest movement in any given year ever on record, were peaceful.

It is a mockery to suggest otherwise and is being done so as to deflect from the central message which those protests were about.

And now would be good time to repeat that the exact same arguments were used against civil rights campaigners, including MLK, in the 60's. You are literally repeating history.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

If we say that less than 10%(off the top of my head it's much less than 10% but let's use it as an example nonetheless) of Nazi party members were engaged in gassing Jews does it mean that the Nazi party was mostly not violent against Jewish people? When do percentages not tell the full story?

Percentages are important but they do not negate all the other facts relating to a subject.

I'm not dismissing their importance in any way, I'm just realistic enough to know they don't tell the whole story and as has been shown time and again, your reliance on the notion of percentages in relation to this subject makes a mockery of your argument.

And your point fails miserably cause you're using such an extreme contrast example... The goal of BLM is to highlight police brutality against people off colour and racially motivated violence. Using a civil rights movement as an example would work. Eg the suffragettes back in the day were famed for wanton disregard. One famously whipped Winston Churchill on a street, so you happy to write off the suffragettes as a violent organisation and ignore what motivated them?

Good Time Jim wrote: »

If they were all so peaceful why didn't they stop the looters and arsonists?

Cause it's easy to control the behavior of every single person participating?

extra gravy

Tell me how wrote: »

And now would be good time to repeat that the exact same arguments were used against civil rights campaigners, including MLK, in the 60's. You are literally repeating history.

Good time Jims in the 60s: "That MLK fella is just a troublemaker and the protesters only thugs!"

Timberrrrrrrr

Good Time Jim wrote: »

How much of race hustler do you have to be to expect them to kneel?

I don't expect anyone to kneel, if someone chooses to kneel then it doesn't affect me in any way shape or form, why does kneeling upset you? Does it affect your day to day life?

Tell me how

Good Time Jim wrote: »

If they were all so peaceful why didn't they stop the looters and arsonists?

Why don't people in the stands stop the people committing racist abuse towards players if they're all so morally upstanding and only refusing to boo because their parents told them communism was bad 40 years ago?

extra gravy

Good Time Jim wrote: »

Don't know. That is not my problem.

So you're quite happy to berate the players for taking a stand against racism but you couldn't give a shïte about finding any solutions to the problem. Sounds a lot like a few other posters in this thread.

extra gravy

Good Time Jim wrote: »

Wtf? Why was my George Floyd joke deleted?

Maybe because jokes are supposed to be funny.

Good Time Jim

Good Time Jim wrote: »

Wtf? Why was my George Floyd joke deleted?

This says plenty about your motivations tbh.