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

Mitch Connor

extra gravy wrote: »

The players who suffer racist abuse on a regular basis think it is appropriate. Thier opinion hold more weight that yours or anyone else here that disagrees with it.

You do have players, like Wilfred Zaha, who don't like the gesture, but that is more down to a belief that it simply isn't enough, and that authorities allow and play to the gesture cause it effectively allows them to get away with not doing anything else. Which is an absolutely reasonable position to take. But he isn't booing it.

It is obviously valid to say a gesture on its own does little, and much more is needed; but that doesn't mean booing the gesture is appropriate.

(i'm not arguing that you were saying booing is appropriate)

jakiah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The players have said that their kneeling is nothing to do with the BLM orgnaization, just as it wasn't when Kapernick did it.

Lying about a connection is not a valid reason, and using it as your reason (and lying to do so) means you have no valid reason, and are booing because you don't like the idea of black people being treated equally and with resepect.

Do the fans boo when players wear a Poppy? Do they boo the national anthem? They are both policatal theatre as well. Did fans boo liverpool players when they came out in support of the Dock workers? That is political theatre.

The fans are booing because they don't like the idea that Black Lives Matter, and that is racist.

There is no logical consistency to any of this. Kneeling was associated with BLM, it said Black Lives Matter on players shirts, in the stands and on our TV screens. Now we're still kneeling, but apparently for something else. What else? Who knows, whatever youre having yourself. Some say players getting abuse on twitter, some say racism in society in general.

Fans who oppose kneeling are racist, but players and football associations who dont kneel arent racist. Non-political anti-racism campaigns in football attract no backlash, but anti-racism campaigns associated with external political movements do. But kneeling isnt political (except when it was). And we kneel against Hungary, but not Andorra, and its still definately not political.

What a mess.

Fr D Maugire

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The players have said that their kneeling is nothing to do with the BLM orgnaization, just as it wasn't when Kapernick did it.

Lying about a connection is not a valid reason, and using it as your reason (and lying to do so) means you have no valid reason, and are booing because you don't like the idea of black people being treated equally and with resepect.

Do the fans boo when players wear a Poppy? Do they boo the national anthem? They are both policatal theatre as well. Did fans boo liverpool players when they came out in support of the Dock workers? That is political theatre.

The fans are booing because they don't like the idea that Black Lives Matter, and that is racist.

I don't agree with the booing, and I am sure many are indeed racist, but the examples you listed in comparison were one off or limited time frames political statements(still dislike things like the Poppy charade). The kneeling has being going on for a year, and I think any political cause that carried on for over a year would start to bring the ire of football fans, especially if it was having no real affect.

Timberrrrrrrr

I'm still trying to get my head around why so many Irish people are upset about the minor actions of a foreign countries football team/fans.

The English team collectively have decreased that they wish to partake in this particular action as thier way to highlight racism in football.

Some idiotic neanderthals choose to boo this action.

It takes a few seconds and then the game is started.

To all those posting gmagainst the team taking the knee, how does this affect you in real life? What makes you so outraged about this action that you (some,not all) post so passionately about it when it has absolutely zero bearing on your day to day life.

I'm honestly perplexed as to the bitterness of some towards the English team (again, some of it from certain posters I fully expect) for making a small gesture against racism for a few seconds before a game starts.

Weird.

Mitch Connor

jakiah wrote: »

There is no logical consistency to any of this. Kneeling was associated with BLM, it said Black Lives Matter on players shirts, in the stands and on our TV screens. Now we're still kneeling, but apparently for something else. What else? Who knows, whatever youre having yourself. Some say players getting abuse on twitter, some say racism in society in general.

Fans who oppose kneeling are racist, but players and football associations who dont kneel arent racist. Non-political anti-racism campaigns in football attract no backlash, but anti-racism campaigns associated with external political movements do. But kneeling isnt political (except when it was). And we kneel against Hungary, but not Andorra, and its still definately not political.

What a mess.

There is Black Lives Matter - the ethos.
There is then an organization that took on the Black Lives Matter name.

The players gesture is connected to the ethos that Black Lives Matter and should be treated equally and with respect.

The are not, and never did, perform the gesture as a submission to the Black Lives Matter organization.

Fr D Maugire

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm still trying to get my head around why so many Irish people are upset about the minor actions of a foreign countries football team/fans.

The English team collectively have decreased that they wish to partake in this particular action as thier way to highlight racism in football.

Some idiotic neanderthals choose to boo this action.

It takes a few seconds and then the game is started.

To all those posting gmagainst the team taking the knee, how does this affect you in real life? What makes you so outraged about this action that you (some,not all) post so passionately about it when it has absolutely zero bearing on your day to day life.

I'm honestly perplexed as to the bitterness of some towards the English team (again, some of it from certain posters I fully expect) for making a small gesture against racism for a few seconds before a game starts.

Weird.

Because some people who enjoy sports do not want to see politics coming into sport and it is on the increase everywhere. There are so many political causes, they could continue on for ever and the fact is, once you open the floodgates it might never end and you have sport being completely taken over by political movements, I mean we seen that with communism and how it went down.

jakiah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

There is Black Lives Matter - the ethos.
There is then an organization that took on the Black Lives Matter name.

The players gesture is connected to the ethos that Black Lives Matter and should be treated equally and with respect.

The are not, and never did, perform the gesture as a submission to the Black Lives Matter organization.

Thats your intepretation of whats happening, other people take a different view.

Mitch Connor

jakiah wrote: »

Thats your intepretation of whats happening, other people take a different view.

Other people are wrong.

What I have stated is what the reality is.

Black Lives Matter the org took their name from the social movement, which came first.

The players have consistently said their gesture is about systemic racism and not affliated with a political organization (the BLM organization).

Any other interpretation is simply wrong, and deliberately wrong.

Snake Plisken

Good article I doubt all the players agree with taking the knee but if they don't they will be hounded by the press and social media for not taking the knee!

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1404374560498196486?s=19

Mitch Connor

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Because some people who enjoy sports do not want to see politics coming into sport and it is on the increase everywhere. Their are so many political causes, they could continue on for ever and the fact is, once you open the floodgates it might never end and you have sport being completely taken over by political movements, I mean we seen that with communism and how it went down.

No, people don't want to see politics they don't agree with come into sport. Sport, in every country, is full of politics and as long as it is politics they agree with it is fine.

Show me the outcry from these same booing fans at the Poppy, which is a political piece. there isn't any cause the english people don't have a problem with that bit of politics. But, if you are from, say Derry, and don't want to glorify the soldiers that murdered people of your country, you will damn well have to put up with all kinds of abuse and death threats. Even when all you have done is simply not wear a Poppy (not booing, not being anti-poppy).

And, isn't it just really said that the idea that Black Lives Matter, that people should be treated with fairness and respect, is a political contraversy.

jakiah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Other people are wrong.

What I have stated is what the reality is.

Black Lives Matter the org took their name from the social movement, which came first.

The players have consistently said their gesture is about systemic racism and not affliated with a political organization (the BLM organization).

Any other interpretation is simply wrong, and deliberately wrong.

Rubbish.

Kneeling was openly in support of the Black Lives Matter movement when it was happening in club football here. The PFAI specifically said so.

League of Ireland players to take a knee in support of Black Lives Matter campaign when season resumes, PFAI confirms
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020/0723/1155231-loi-players-to-take-a-knee-when-season-resumes/

LOI players to 'take a knee' in support of Black Lives Matter movement when action resumes
https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/loi-players-to-take-a-knee-in-support-of-black-lives-matter-movement-when-action-resumes-39392336.html

League of Ireland: PFAI members to take a knee when season resumes on 31 July
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53527606

You are just lying now.

Mitch Connor

'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'.

And here we have it:

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Is there a difference between wanting a different gesture (other sides are standing, pointing to the respect badge) and actively booing the gesture?

Booing either gesture, which is speaking to equality and respect, is racist.

If you boo the method because you disagree with the method it's because you are a racist. A totally disingenuous take.

Mitch Connor

jakiah wrote: »

Rubbish.

Kneeling was openly in support of the Black Lives Matter movement when it was happening in club football here. The PFAI specifically said so.

League of Ireland players to take a knee in support of Black Lives Matter campaign when season resumes, PFAI confirms
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020/0723/1155231-loi-players-to-take-a-knee-when-season-resumes/

LOI players to 'take a knee' in support of Black Lives Matter movement when action resumes
https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/loi-players-to-take-a-knee-in-support-of-black-lives-matter-movement-when-action-resumes-39392336.html

League of Ireland: PFAI members to take a knee when season resumes on 31 July
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53527606

You are just lying now.

Black Lives Matter the social campaign is different from Black Lives Matter the political organization in the US.

Which is what I said, many times.

jakiah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Black Lives Matter the social campaign is different from Black Lives Matter the political organization in the US.

Probably should have picked a different name then. And used a different gesture when protesting on the football pitch.

This stuff is such a reach, its laughable really.

None of this poltiical stuff should be in the football matchday. Between this and the poppy hosrsehit, the gates are open to insert whatever populist political theatre you like into football now. I look forward to your ardent defence of officially sanctioned anti-immigration protest at football whens its introduced in the parts of the world where that is popular.

TomSweeney

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Other people are wrong.

What I have stated is what the reality is.

Black Lives Matter the org took their name from the social movement, which came first.

The players have consistently said their gesture is about systemic racism and not affliated with a political organization (the BLM organization).

Any other interpretation is simply wrong, and deliberately wrong.

Systemic racism doesn't exist.

Fr D Maugire

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No, people don't want to see politics they don't agree with come into sport. Sport, in every country, is full of politics and as long as it is politics they agree with it is fine.

Show me the outcry from these same booing fans at the Poppy, which is a political piece. there isn't any cause the english people don't have a problem with that bit of politics. But, if you are from, say Derry, and don't want to glorify the soldiers that murdered people of your country, you will damn well have to put up with all kinds of abuse and death threats. Even when all you have done is simply not wear a Poppy (not booing, not being anti-poppy).

And, isn't it just really said that the idea that Black Lives Matter, that people should be treated with fairness and respect, is a political contraversy.

No, I already pointed out that I think the Poppy thing is a charade, I lived in the UK years ago, and never recall it being a thing, there was poppy day and you chose to wear a rose if you so wished. It is a very recent Phenom, this Poppy fascism, that is why I said politics in sport is on the rise which I prefer not to see.

Regardless, the Poppy thing is a limited time deal, it doesn't go on for over a year which was my point about too much. If the kneeling had been a weekend, hell even a month, I think people would have been ok with it, but a year and no sign of ending.

jakiah

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

No, I already pointed out that I think the Poppy thing is a charade, I lived in the UK years ago, and never recall it being a thing, there was poppy day and you chose to wear a rose if you so wished. It is a very recent Phenom, this Poppy fascism, that is why I said politics in sport is on the rise which I prefer not to see.

Regardless, the Poppy thing is a limited time deal, it doesn't go on for over a year which was my point about too much. If the kneeling had been a weekend, hell even a month, I think people would have been ok with it, but a year and no sign of ending.

The poppy bull**** should also be banned, its worse than this BLM stuff. Jinogistic, nationalist, populist bull**** which should never have been sanctioned by the football authorities.

Mitch Connor

jakiah wrote: »

Probably should have picked a different name then. And used a different gesture when protesting on the football pitch.

This stuff is such a reach, its laughable really.

None of this poltiical stuff should be in the football matchday. Between this and the poppy hosrsehit, the gates are open to insert whatever populist political theatre you like into football now. I look forward to your ardent defence of officially sanctioned anti-immigration protest at football whens its introduced in the parts of the world where that is popular.

the social campaign started first, and the kneeling comes from the NFL players starting it (Kapernick originally). And yeah, I really do wish the Black Lives Matter organization had not co-opted the name as it then muddies the water. The social movement should be easily seperated from any one organization as any one organization may have leaders or demands that are easily used as weapons against the social movement, which is what we see. Even when the players have been explicit in saying their gesture of based on a desire for equality and respect, and they are not affiliated with the BLM org, you still have people saying they are booing the Org, which the players are not representing.

The 'free zones' in Washington (and other places) became an absolute disgrace and so much rubbish came out from those involved, which did all of (1) trample over the actually good requests from the BLM organization (2) sully the entire social movement due to the main organization (BLM) having co-opted the name of the social movement.

You will see no ardent defence from me on anti-immigration protests, anywhere. And I see no reason why my support of Black Lives Matter, the social campaign, should be attached to any such support. My defence of the social movement has nothing to do with whether it is officially sanction, it is to do with whether I believe in the main goal of the movement - treating people with respect, fairness and equality.

jakiah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the social campaign started first, and the kneeling comes from the NFL players starting it (Kapernick originally). And yeah, I really do wish the Black Lives Matter organization had not co-opted the name as it then muddies the water. The social movement should be easily seperated from any one organization as any one organization may have leaders or demands that are easily used as weapons against the social movement, which is what we see. Even when the players have been explicit in saying their gesture of based on a desire for equality and respect, and they are not affiliated with the BLM org, you still have people saying they are booing the Org, which the players are not representing.

The 'free zones' in Washington (and other places) became an absolute disgrace and so much rubbish came out from those involved, which did all of (1) trample over the actually good requests from the BLM organization (2) sully the entire social movement due to the main organization (BLM) having co-opted the name of the social movement.

You clearly have an interest in this US identity politics stuff and have a lot of context. Bit weird, but fair enough. Your interest is not shared by the vast majority of football fans in Europe. Inserting this stuff into the matchday is absurd to them.

Some of you lads are incapable of thinking outside the context of your own little internet bubble.

Tchaikovsky

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Because some people who enjoy sports do not want to see politics coming into sport and it is on the increase everywhere. There are so many political causes, they could continue on for ever and the fact is, once you open the floodgates it might never end and you have sport being completely taken over by political movements, I mean we seen that with communism and how it went down.

Not sure what you mean by the communism statement, but there's an international football tournament currently taking place between teams differentiated by political borders. Certain countries, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia, Gibraltar and Spain, have been kept apart by Uefa in draws precisely because of politics. Politics is everywhere in sport.

jakiah

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by the communism statement, but there's an international football tournament currently taking place between teams differentiated by political borders. Certain countries, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia, Gibraltar and Spain, have been kept apart by Uefa in draws precisely because of politics. Politics is everywhere in sport.

Picking out some specific political campaigns and inserting them into the official matchday is new. This stuff was all explicitly banned just a few years ago. For good reason.

Billy Mays

https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1404097621564723201?s=20

ArthurDayne

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Good article I doubt all the players agree with taking the knee but if they don't they will be hounded by the press and social media for not taking the knee!

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1404374560498196486?s=19

Have to say, that is one vacuous article. He talks about why he dislikes the gesture, but then in a kind of roundabout way goes as far as to say that those misgivings should translate into jeering and booing at black and ethnic minority footballers taking part in an anti-racism gesture. Of course, he doesn’t actually specifically mention that this would be the practical outcome of it “being OK” to boo people Taking the Knee because even he knows that this is a pretty outrageous thing to say — so in an act of wanton intellectual cowardice he just kind of skips over that element.

McGuirk’s argument seems to boil down to saying that just because there may be an element of tokenism and social obligation to the gesture, and because anyone who refused to do it might be pilloried, then it should be booed. This is of course a manifestation of the very same absolutism and ‘not-with-us-then-against-us’ mentality that he seems to be complaining about — but that little irony seems to have flown over his head.

I’m not particularly fond of the Poppy and I dislike the tokenism and forced obligation that it so often carries, not to mention the outrage it elicits when people don’t wear them and (to paraphrase McGuirk) prove their patriotic virtue. However, I don’t walk up to people wearing Poppies and boo them — or jeer at people laying Poppy wreaths — because I’m not pig ignorant enough to fail to acknowledge that for many people there is also a very sincere motivation and meaningfulness to the gesture.

McGuirk’s argument is pure poison and encourages a poisonous way of expressing disagreement.

Fr D Maugire

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by the communism statement, but there's an international football tournament currently taking place between teams differentiated by political borders. Certain countries, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia, Gibraltar and Spain, have been kept apart by Uefa in draws precisely because of politics. Politics is everywhere in sport.

Well surely, that would be an example of trying to keep politics out of sport. Those countries are at loggerheads politically so by keeping them apart, they are reducing the odds of political ideology spilling into football. Common sense.

Tchaikovsky

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Well surely, that would be an example of trying to keep politics out of sport. Those countries are at loggerheads politically so by keeping them apart, they are reducing the odds of political ideology spilling into football. Common sense.

But they're being purposely kept apart because of politics, therefore politics and sport are mixing.

Mitch Connor

jakiah wrote: »

You clearly have an interest in this US identity politics stuff and have a lot of context. Bit weird, but fair enough. Your interest is not shared by the vast majority of football fans in Europe. Inserting this stuff into the matchday is absurd to them.

Some of you lads are incapable of thinking outside the context of your own little internet bubble.

When the players have been explicit that why they are kneeling, and that is it not for a political organization, there doesn't need to be any outside knowledge.

Also, being ignorant of that, and the context of what came first, or Kapernick, but apparently not ignorant of things about the BLM organization you would claim to hate and thus boo against..... is being deliberately ignorant or simply lying for your own agenda.

jakiah

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Well surely, that would be an example of trying to keep politics out of sport. Those countries are at loggerheads politically so by keeping them apart, they are reducing the odds of political ideology spilling into football. Common sense.

Ukraine have a nice picture of their borders including crimea on their shirts for the tournament. Would never have been allowed a few years ago.

This stuff is the thin end of the wedge.

Tchaikovsky

Serbia v Albania was suspended when a drone carrying a Greater Albanian flag was pulled down by a Serbian player and all hell broke out on the pitch.

jakiah

Mitch Connor wrote: »

When the players have been explicit that why they are kneeling, and that is it not for a political organization, there doesn't need to be any outside knowledge.

Also, being ignorant of that, and the context of what came first, or Kapernick, but apparently not ignorant of things about the BLM organization you would claim to hate and thus boo against..... is being deliberately ignorant or simply lying for your own agenda.

You vastly overestimate how much football fans care about what players think.

Your assertion that there are two 'Black Lives Matter' and that players used to kneel in support of one of them (the good one presumably?) but dont any more is just laughable. Even if it was true it just paints this protest as an incoherent mess and illustrates that the idea that 'everyone booing is racist' is nonsense.

Mitch Connor

jakiah wrote: »

You vastly overestimate how much football fans care about what players think.

Your assertion that there are two 'Black Lives Matter' and that players used to kneel in support of one of them (the good one presumably?) but dont any more is just laughable. Even if it was true it just paints this protest as an incoherent mess.

So the football booing aren't even interested in what the players are actually doing, they just want to boo them. Well, thats a great argument.

They kneeled in support of the social movement, and continue to kneel in support of the social movement. I've not said they stopped kneeling, nor have a said they changed sides.