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

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You're completely ignoring the history associated with the word in your effort to absolve someone else from also doing it.
This isnt a singular word just identified or created with no context. It is disingenuous to misrepresent the conversation as being about some generic word.

Absolve? In a discussion of racism, are only black people allowed to say the word '******' in your view? Does my using it there make me a racist? Surely you understand the concept of context and intent. If a white author wants to write a book about racism, should they not be allowed use said word? Or a linguist wants to investigate it's origins? Can they now not unless black?

Is one uttering the word always racist and wrong no matter the context or intent if that person is not black?

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you agree with the dunne that BLM is an abhorrent ideal/movement? Is that not trying to frame it as something awful? Is that reasonable when the vast amount of protests were entirely peaceful and the arrest rate was something like 1 in 2000 of those who attended? Because if so, have you not formed an opinion based on limited exposure and probably zero interaction with anyone who may say they are from a BLM group.

I think the BLM movement has been co-opted by people who don't care for black people anymore than they do for anyone else. We are all aware of Patrisse Cullors recently did. I believe that people have found a way to make easy money by selling an idea of victim hood, and that they will make it all better. I view the people behind BLM no differently than I do Jimmy Swaggart. They are out to make money.

Do I agree with the phrase itself, ofcourse I do. But BLM as it's currently used would be more accurate if changed to Black Lives Matter But Really Only Those Lives in Western Anglophone Countries. There have been human rights abuses non-stop in Africa, including police specific ones, and yet we never hear about them to the extent we do when a black person in America gets killed, particularly when by the police. Suddenly then we all have to care. There were no protests down O'Connell street when Mido Macia was killed by the police in South Africa. No one was taking a knee or calling for protesting police brutality before prem league games after the Marikana Massacre. I don't remember any celebrities and any of the people who care what they think putting their instagram black after the recent revelations of what the Ugandan police were getting up to in November last year.

So Black Lives Matter is a misnomer, BLMBROTLIWAC would be more accurate.

Tell me how wrote: »

And again you are falling in to the same practice as the dunne in generalizing a group, those on the left, while getting outraged that similar might done towards you, him, or others you agree with. Is it toxic for me to point this out even though it is likely true?

No, I said

emanating from certain elements, primarily on the left now

So I have not generalised about 'those on the left', but a small cohort who are in my view a minority but a vocal one.

Tell me how wrote: »

Its laughable that you reference threads on Boards as containing attempts to shame people in to silence given all these threads are started by and generally used by people bemoaning the topic whether it multiculturalism, women's rights, advocating for fair treatment of people of all colours by police etc etc.

It's not laughable. It's an example that it happens. Of course such attempts are rather futile on an 'anonymous' discussion forum. But the veiled hints and insinuations that whoever is disagreeing with whatever the latest progressive narrative is is something awful is never far away.

Tell me how wrote: »

But given you brought up other threads, let's touch on that for a minute. When someone counters consistently and forcefully to the narrative that is persistent on these threads many get upset and say that they are being targeted and are being accused of being racist or sexist or whatever. Which going by the amount of times this is brought up as being a disgusting thing to do, just might be worse than the actual act itself for some which is a nearly impressive lack of self awareness.

But this does happen. It's happened on this thread. Go read the Gender identity thread, or the JK Rowling thread before it and it was endless accusations of 'transphobia, anti-trans, bigots' etc. Read the multi-cultural thread similar happened there, the accusation of racism and xenophobia was nearly always present.

Tell me how wrote: »

And more often, it is people saying they have been accused of being racist way way more than it is someone actually being accused of being racist. I haven't called anyone out here for being racist. I've only ever done it once in Boards in a post that wasnt carded or removed because of the view expressed in the post I was responding to. But while I do think there are some who could be categorized as such, and more who just shrug their shoulders and say nothing to do with me which you might say is fine but they then express a view on those on the other side of the topic being discussed and that then leads me to think they are at least absolving those who are being prejudiced in their actions.

But I do think there are a significant of people who see any conversation about the advancement of minorities or women, or whoever as meaning that they are going to lose out, or that it is going to be harder for them themselves to get opportunities in future than it may have been in the past. I've referred to them before as 'Status quo fan club members'.

A great example of what I mean. Those that disagree with you are 'fearful', are opposed to the 'advancement of minorities or women' instead of just having a differing opinion. You are subscribing a negative to these people. The first step towards they're racist, sexist etc.

It may just be that people don't view everything like you do, and by associating these negatives with people you don't agree with leads the discussion quite quickly down a bad path.

Tell me how wrote: »

Change is something to be fearful of in their eyes

Are they fearful of change or of the change that you personally want. These are two different things. Secondly, change isn't always a good thing.

Tell me how wrote: »

and whether it is calling for an end to racism through peaceful protests

Are these people opposed to ending racism through peacful protest, or are they opposed to the manner in which that protest is happening. Two different things entirely.

Tell me how wrote: »

or talking about more women in politics,

Are they fearful of more women in politics or are they fearful of the methodology that may be used to achieve this? Two different things entirely.

Tell me how wrote: »

or being more welcome to people who look or sound different,

Are they fearful of welcoming people who look or sound different or are they fearful of too many people coming into their country in too short a time which they feel adds huge pressure, on already under pressure, social services, schools, healthcare etc. Again, both are vastly differing things.

Tell me how wrote: »

their view is No, No, No like a keyboard version of Ian Paisley.

Is that their view, or is that your view of their view because you think all these people are simply 'fearful' of 'losing out' from the get go?

Tell me how wrote: »

Or maybe they are just upset that it is always someone else who is being advocated for, and no one is standing up for them and they feel isolated and ignored and forgotten. If so, I wish, as I've said before, they'd start threads looking to discuss that instead of attacking all the people and groups who they think are getting the attention they should be getting.

Are they attacking or discussing? Why do you frame it as attacking?

Tell me how wrote: »

And for the record, this is a view expressed as to how I generally experience these types of threads. it's not specifically about you or the dunne or anyone else who might feel outraged and ask me to show posts from the 100's of threads and 1000's of posters which have led me to forming this view over several years.

I really think next to no-one is 'outraged' on this thread. Lets leave the silly Americanisms in the dustbin;)

Fr D Maugire

Think this thread has veered to much into BLM territory and there is already a thread on that, so time for something else.

On a more constructive note, I think most people agree social media is the biggest current issue around racism. Different suggestions to deal with it, boycott social media, punish abusive users etc.

I don't really do social media like twitter, instagram etc so I don't know the ins and outs, so have questions.

Can a person control who actually tweets at them. For example, say I have 100 followers, can I control which of them can actually tweet at me or can someone who doesn't follow me send me a tweet? Can I put settings in place that only people I want can tweet at me? Same for instagram etc. I only ask, but to my mind those functions should be available and that way users can stop people sending abusive tweets. Don't know someone or don't approve them as recognised, they cannot send send you a tweet. Can still follow you, but not write messages to you.

If those functions are already in place, why are people not using them?

Fr D Maugire

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Think this thread has veered to much into BLM territory and there is already a thread on that, so time for something else.

On a more constructive note, I think most people agree social media is the biggest current issue around racism. Different suggestions to deal with it, boycott social media, punish abusive users etc.

I don't really do social media like twitter, instagram etc so I don't know the ins and outs, so have questions.

Can a person control who actually tweets at them. For example, say I have 100 followers, can I control which of them can actually tweet at me or can someone who doesn't follow me send me a tweet? Can I put settings in place that only people I want can tweet at me? Same for instagram etc. I only ask, but to my mind those functions should be available and that way users can stop people sending abusive tweets. Don't know someone or don't approve them as recognised, they cannot send send you a tweet. Can still follow you, but not write messages to you.

If those functions are already in place, why are people not using them?

What might be useful is if messages containing racists words, or the known get around (using 1 for i for example) are blocked from being sent or filtered from a person's inbox or feed. Not sure if possible but might somewhat help.

Burt Renaults

Deleted User wrote: »

Well nobody here who is known or has a long posting history is racist or supports racism.

Nobody? Absolutely nobody? That's about as true as the idea that the site is "full of alt/far right racists". There have been a few too many recently, but thankfully Boards now seems to be doing something to clean it up. Hopefully that'll continue.

MisterAnarchy

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I don't really do social media like twitter, instagram etc so I don't know the ins and outs, so have questions.

Can a person control who actually tweets at them. For example, say I have 100 followers, can I control which of them can actually tweet at me or can someone who doesn't follow me send me a tweet? Can I put settings in place that only people I want can tweet at me? Same for instagram etc. I only ask, but to my mind those functions should be available and that way users can stop people sending abusive tweets. Don't know someone or don't approve them as recognised, they cannot send send you a tweet. Can still follow you, but not write messages to you.

If those functions are already in place, why are people not using them?

On Twitter you cant privately message someone else unless they follow you, so if I dont follow you, you cant message me.

You can easily set limits on who can see your tweets, who can reply to them, etc.

All the above you mentioned is available on Twitter, I can't speak for Instagram.

These companies employ very advanced algorithms so blatant instances of racism or abuse can be easily filtered if necessary.

Fr D Maugire

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

On Twitter you cant privately message someone else unless they follow you, so if I dont follow you, you cant message me.

You can easily set limits on you can see your tweets, who can reply to them, etc.

All the above you mentioned is available on Twitter, I can't speak for Instagram.

These companies employ very advanced algorithms so blatant instances of racism or abuse can be easily filtered if necessary.

So excuse my ignorance, but how can people send abusive messages. Does the recipient not have the necessary settings in place?

How did Marcus Rashford receive 75 racist messages in a day, were they all following him and he them in return.

Burt Renaults

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

So excuse my ignorance, but how can people send abusive messages. Does the recipient not have the necessary settings in place?

The nature of social media (like real life, most people are grand) is such that a lot of people don't want to filter out messages or replies from people they don't follow. They don't feel they should have to. Yes, by enabling such settings, you're excluding the dirt, but you're excluding perfectly nice people too.

MisterAnarchy

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

So excuse my ignorance, but how can people send abusive messages. Does the recipient not have the necessary settings in place?

I'd imagine that they have very few limits on who can reply to their tweets, the default is anyone can reply.

In alot of case the social media presence is about reaching as wide an audience as possible, it has commercial benefits.

For example the PGA recently introduced a Player Impact Fund concept.
A $40m kitty will be split by 10 golfers to "recognise and reward players who positively move the needle" by generating coverage for the sport.
The biggest share, $8m, will go to the individual deemed most valuable.

There are six separate metrics, including the value of their social media and the number of internet searches they generate, which determine who will split the spoils.

RobertKK

I voted no as I think its ineffective against racism and discrimination.

They might as well be doing jumping jacks as it would be as effective.

They can do it if they want but it is going on for a long time and it changes nothing.

Fr D Maugire

Burt Renaults wrote: »

The nature of social media (like real life, most people are grand) is such that a lot of people don't want to filter out messages or replies from people they don't follow. They don't feel they should have to. Yes, by enabling such settings, you're excluding the dirt, but you're excluding perfectly nice people too.

So I can still have 10 million followers, but have settings that none of them can message me?

Would I be correct in saying that the need for attention outweighs the need to protect themselves in the case of people who do not have the filters in place?

Burt Renaults

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

So I can still have 10 million followers, but have settings that none of them can message me?

Would I be correct in saying that the need for attention outweighs the need to protect themselves in the case of people who do not have the filters in place?

You can have settings whereby they (your followers) can't privately message you unless you follow them back. As far as I know, that's the default. And you can select who, if anyone, can directly reply publicly to something you tweet. You can't stop them from @-ing (i.e. mentioning) you though. You can switch off notifications, but that also excludes all the perfectly decent people (which is most people). A lot of people don't do that because it defeats the purpose of social media.

And no, I don't think it's correct to say that people are seeking attention. They're seeking interaction, that's all.

Mimon

RobertKK wrote: »

I voted no as I think its ineffective against racism and discrimination.

They might as well be doing jumping jacks as it would be as effective.

They can do it if they want but it is going on for a long time and it changes nothing.

People are talking about it so surely that has value instead of everyone burying there head in the sand and motoring on with the status quo.

nullzero

Mimon wrote: »

People are talking about it so surely that has value instead of everyone burying there head in the sand and motoring on with the status quo.

It's akin to preaching to the choir at this stage.

As for making inroads into the small remaining groups of actual racists and changing their minds it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

As I mentioned earlier I feel it could do more harm than good in the end. People are getting a bit jaded with the constant preaching from BLM whilst seeing BLM activists engaged in undesirable behaviour, there is a real danger than with the growing backlash against this taking the knee practice that hard-line racist groups may acquire some new supporters they may not have ever seen join their ranks during the era of "kick it out" etc...

It's disheartening to see so many here equating taking any sort of issues whatsoever with taking the knee with out and out racism or being in some way indicative of racist tenancies.

This isn't a black and white (no pun intended) issue, it's has more to it than an either/or argument and until we can all appreciate that this discussion will continue in circles.

Fr D Maugire

Burt Renaults wrote: »

You can have settings whereby they (your followers) can't privately message you unless you follow them back. As far as I know, that's the default. And you can select who, if anyone, can directly reply publicly to something you tweet. You can't stop them from @-ing (i.e. mentioning) you though. You can switch off notifications, but that also excludes all the perfectly decent people (which is most people). A lot of people don't do that because it defeats the purpose of social media.

And no, I don't think it's correct to say that people are seeking attention. They're seeking interaction, that's all.

Ok, so by effectively tagging you then can still reach you. Ok, that would need changing in my book, like only people you can approve can tag you in something.

I would have a different view on the need for interaction with strangers online. I can do it here, but it is a different setting from the likes of Twitter, instagram etc. Also I understand that I may get offended by what some people say on here, if I cannot handle it I shouldn't be on here. Simple as that.

I find it hard to find sympathy for people who can control what happens to them, but choose not for some weird need to interact with strangers. This applies to anyone who opens themselves up to social media, not just people receiving racial abuse.

There are lots of things we shouldn't have to do in life, but we do it. Putting an alarm on your house, shouldn't have to, but that is the reality of life.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

It's akin to preaching to the choir at this stage.

As for making inroads into the small remaining groups of actual racists and changing their minds it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

As I mentioned earlier I feel it could do more harm than good in the end. People are getting a bit jaded with the constant preaching from BLM whilst seeing BLM activists engaged in undesirable behaviour, there is a real danger than with the growing backlash against this taking the knee practice that hard-line racist groups may acquire some new supporters they may not have ever seen join their ranks during the era of "kick it out" etc...

Can you point to a single post on this thread which suggests that that is what is the purpose of the protest?

You talk about preaching to the choir and yet it has been pointed out here repeatedly that for this protest to ultimately be successful it is when it convinces the authorities and clubs to teat the racists in the stands as they should be treated. Then when enough of them realise they face life time bans, fines and possibly criminal convictions, the remaining racists will stfu and there will be less to influence impressionable youngsters that this behaviour is acceptable.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah ok.

Well nobody here who is known or has a long posting history is racist or supports racism.

You will always get trolls and re-reg people coming in to rile people up. Couple here that are on your side believe it or not.

But if you are pointing to obvious trolls as evidence of racism, you are either new to the internet or acting the maggot.

The bottom line is that racism is not tolerated and nor should it be. To claim this site is full of alt/far right racists (not saying you directly made the accusation) is unfounded.

How sure are you that that is the case? by what metrics are you doing so. As I said, it's easily to go close but not cross a line.

Interesting you are saying this and then going on to suggest that someone pointing out racism, be it from a troll or otherwise, is the one acting the maggot.

Fr D Maugire

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you point to a single post on this thread which suggests that that is what is the purpose of the protest?

You talk about preaching to the choir and yet it has been pointed out here repeatedly that for this protest to ultimately be successful it is when it convinces the authorities and clubs to teat the racists in the stands as they should be treated. Then when enough of them realise they face life time bans, fines and possibly criminal convictions, the remaining racists will stfu and there will be less to influence impressionable youngsters that this behaviour is acceptable.

Hold on, racism within stadiums in UK/Ireland seems to be of a very low level and there are already rules in places for many of the things you described.

You talked about why the Irish team supported their minority players, gave 4 examples of abuse for Irish players but it was all online. Same for Marcus Rashford, it was mentioned the level of abuse he receives, but it seems to be all related to online abuse.

Can you link to many examples of players receiving abuse from the stands?

Tell me how

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Hold on, racism within stadiums in UK/Ireland seems to be of a very low level and there are already rules in places for many of the things you described.

You talked about why the Irish team supported their minority players, gave 4 examples of abuse for Irish players but it was all online. Same for Marcus Rashford, it was mentioned the level of abuse he receives, but it seems to be all related to online abuse.

Can you link to many examples of players receiving abuse from the stands?

FFS

It took 0.5 seconds on Google.

Cyrus Christie reveals racist abuse while on Republic of Ireland duty

Christie: "It happened when I first joined up and it even happened one time at the training ground from fans standing outside. They were kids."

Booing is yobbish, and actual racist thugs would revel in it.

But I understand questioning of BLM and of the "take a knee" initiative itself. I would prefer if footballers - many of whom are black and brown - earning millions a year focused more on funds for educating and including disadvantaged kids instead of this rather hollow gesture which won't stamp out the incidents of racism that exist, and which are the work of individual scumbags, not an institutional matter within the game of football (whereas it probably was 40 years ago).

Dyr

Interesting polling:

Fr D Maugire

Tell me how wrote: »

FFS

It took 0.5 seconds on Google.

Cyrus Christie reveals racist abuse while on Republic of Ireland duty

Fair enough, but when I read the article it is a bit unclear, he talks about receiving abuse after games, doesn't say whether that is inside or outside the stadium. If inside, what did he do? Report it, let it go?

The training ground incident seems to have happened outside the training ground.

Doesn't excuse that type of racism, but If those incidents are outside stadiums etc, well that is a difficult one, because how do you control that. Also guaranteed those kids are little scrotes and exactly the type of people who would boo at the kneeling.

On an added note, I don't recall if Black players from the 90s ever got much abuse playing for Ireland, Paul McGrath, Chris Hughton, Phil Babb. Maybe they just never talked about it. If it has got worse since then, that would be sad.

Ahwell

RobertKK wrote: »

I voted no as I think its ineffective against racism and discrimination.

They might as well be doing jumping jacks as it would be as effective.

They can do it if they want but it is going on for a long time and it changes nothing.

It's one thing to think it's ineffective against racism and discrimination, but it's quite another thing to boo it. The poll should have had a "Would you boo?" option - the booing is the reason this thread exists.

The result of having the issue highlighted over the past week is - there was far less booing and much more applauding at todays match. I'm sure, because England won today, the applauding will be ramped up for the next match and as they progress through the tournament the applause will drown out the booing to such an extent that it will become an non-issue. So in a way it will have been effective.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you point to a single post on this thread which suggests that that is what is the purpose of the protest?

You talk about preaching to the choir and yet it has been pointed out here repeatedly that for this protest to ultimately be successful it is when it convinces the authorities and clubs to teat the racists in the stands as they should be treated. Then when enough of them realise they face life time bans, fines and possibly criminal convictions, the remaining racists will stfu and there will be less to influence impressionable youngsters that this behaviour is acceptable.

Do you have any idea what your even talking about here?

Do you believe that football is a hotbed of racist chants that go unpunished?

If you went into a ground in England in the last 20 years and racially abused a player you would have received a ban, just recently a Man City fan was banned from attending football matches for 5 years for abusing Raheem Sterling (a Man City player).

Racism isn't tolerated in football and hasn't been for a long time.

As for pointing to posts in this thread to support the notion that taking the knee should be aiming to tackle the last remaining racist football fans, I can't, because this thread and it's contributors, believe it or not are not the final word on this topic.

You seem to have no notion of how racism has been and is handled by football authorities, basically everything you outlined as means of punishment for racist fans is already in place and has been for years. Racists chants do not echo from the stands of football grounds, you demonstrably have no notion of what you're talking about. You have 16k plus posts in this site, have you ever posted about football before? Are you on the soccer forum? And people are thanking this drivel?

bewareofthedog

Bambi wrote: »

Interesting polling:

Some of the crowd on here would swear it's a tiny corner of alt right boards trolls who only oppose the kneeling ( this has been said multiple times ), it's ironic because they're the ones totally obscured by their own political echo chambers, not the random man on the street who watches the likes of Joe Rogan.

There's no reasoning with left wing ideologues/zealots, it's always yes or no, never maybe.

Fr D Maugire

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Some of the crowd on here would swear it's a tiny corner of alt right boards trolls who only oppose the kneeling ( this has been said multiple times ), it's ironic because they're the ones totally obscured by their own political echo chambers, not the random man on the street who watches the likes of Joe Rogan.

There's no reasoning with left wing ideologues/zealots, it's always yes or no, never maybe.

But, those poll results would support the idea that it is the Little Englander right wing type fans who are more likely to oppose it, those who voted for Brexit. Likewise Conservatives who are more right wing. It may be a significant amount, but it is exactly who would be expected.

bewareofthedog

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

right wing type fans who are more likely to oppose it, those who voted for Brexit.

You mean more than half the Country?

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Do you have any idea what your even talking about here?

Do you believe that football is a hotbed of racist chants that go unpunished?

If you went into a ground in England in the last 20 years and racially abused a player you would have received a ban, just recently a Man City fan was banned from attending football matches for 5 years for abusing Raheem Sterling (a Man City player).

Racism isn't tolerated in football and hasn't been for a long time.

As for pointing to posts in this thread to support the notion that taking the knee should be aiming to tackle the last remaining racist football fans, I can't, because this thread and it's contributors, believe it or not are not the final word on this topic.

You seem to have no notion of how racism has been and is handled by football authorities, basically everything you outlined as means of punishment for racist fans is already in place and has been for years. Racists chants do not echo from the stands of football grounds, you demonstrably have no notion of what you're talking about. You have 16k plus posts in this site, have you ever posted about football before? Are you on the soccer forum? And people are thanking this drivel?

You are absolutely right.
There is no problem with racism in football.
Aubameyang, Salah, Raheem Sterling, Marcus Rashford, Ian Wright, etc would all vouch for that.
The current english footballers are wrong to suggest the protests are warranted.
The current English manager is wrong to suggest the protest are warranted.
The English FA are wrong to suggest the protests are warranted.
The report from 2019 that racist incidents reported to Kick it Out had increased by 22% is obviously false.
Players in Italy haven't walked off the pitch because of racist abuse.
And players in Spain who have been targeted have made it all up.
You are right, and everyone who has seen and reported all the above is wrong. Is that it?

And asking about me posting about soccer or in the soccer forum is fcuking ridiculous. For what it's worth, I don't post in the forum because whenever I read it I can't tolerate the blinkered view supporters of all clubs have on all topics. And the international thread is limited to give the current manager a chance to get rid of the current manager posts. So if it's ok with you, I'll keep watching matches on TV and in the real world, and having an opinion on it and expressing that whatever way I want.

I do note you attacked me rather than acknowledging you have misrepresented the argument for kneeling. Duly noted.

Fr D Maugire

bewareofthedog wrote: »

You mean more than half the Country?

Depends of whether this was all GB like stated or just England, if it is all GB, that is still just over a third who oppose kneeling if my maths are correct. Might increase if just England.

Fr D Maugire

Tell me how wrote: »

You are absolutely right.
There is no problem with racism in football.
Aubameyang, Salah, Raheem Sterling, Marcus Rashford, Ian Wright, etc would all vouch for that.
The current english footballers are wrong to suggest the protests are warranted.
The current English manager is wrong to suggest the protest are warranted.
The English FA are wrong to suggest the protests are warranted.
The report from 2019 that racist incidents reported to Kick it Out had increased by 22% is obviously false.
Players in Italy haven't walked off the pitch because of racist abuse.
And players in Spain who have been targeted have made it all up.
You are right, and everyone who has seen and reported all the above is wrong. Is that it?

And asking about me posting about soccer or in the soccer forum is fcuking ridiculous. For what it's worth, I don't post in the forum because whenever I read it I can't tolerate the blinkered view supporters of all clubs have on all topics. And the international thread is limited to give the current manager a chance to get rid of the current manager posts. So if it's ok with you, I'll keep watching matches on TV and in the real world, and having an opinion on it and expressing that whatever way I want.

I do note you attacked me rather than acknowledging you have misrepresented the argument for kneeling. Duly noted.

A quick google search tells me that those who abused Aubameyang, Salah and Sterling were all banned so is that not what you want, what is being argued for? Rashford and Wright was online abuse.

Fandymo

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

When leaders of a group claims that looting by supporters is “reparations” or is ok because the stuff is “insured”. It is, without doubt, a violent group.


https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/black-lives-matter-organizer-calls-chicago-looting-reparation/