Things That are Racist

[egg]

2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Sadly some of them do need reminding. 

Yep, but it can be done without referencing BLM, and without obligatory virtue signalling by players The slogan used by Istanbul after tonights incident was uncontroversial, and crystal clear. I'd have no issue with that appearing at grounds, on screen, or even on shirts. 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Hypo told us players are just going through the motions when taking the knee, so I guess these players did so after scoring against Millwall because they were told to by the authorities

 

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

Hypo told us players are just going through the motions when taking the knee, so I guess these players did so after scoring against Millwall because they were told to by the authorities

 

No it is a number of players who think it is bollocks not all of them. Clearly there's some militant ones or people who don't know any better. What do you reckon then? There's unanimous support? 

[sydney_saint]

Once again it is white people determining what black people can and can't get offended by, and what is and isn't racist... Try listening rather than shouting over

[Patrick Bateman]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

“why did you say the black guy”

he’s upset that he referred to a black guy as a black guy. 

How does he know they are a 'guy'?  Could be any gender, for god sake, so uncultured. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Once again it is white people determining what black people can and can't get offended by, and what is and isn't racist... Try listening rather than shouting over

It's not. You're determining that is the point being made. It's certainly not the point I was making. Try asking rather than assuming. 

My point was that there are various physical attributes that make us identifiable. Amongst a group of other men, Pierre Webo could be described in a variety of ways in order to be readily identifiable. Assuming his name was not known, what is wrong with identifying by a physical attribute? He is black. He is bald. He ain't a good looking fella. 

Was describing him as the black guy more inappropriate than describing him as the bald guy, or the ugly guy? If so, why? 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Once again it is white people determining what black people can and can't get offended by, and what is and isn't racist... Try listening rather than shouting over

What if you have two black people with opposing opinions? Which one should you listen to? You realise that it's pretty patronising and demeaning to a group of individuals to arbitrarily group them into a category called "Black people" based on their skin colour and then assign a bunch of opinions to them? 

Someone like candace owens seems to have a few unusual opinions but she's black should I listen to her? Or is it just the black people who agree with Black Lives Matter, critical race theory and all white people being cursed with the original sin of whiteness? 

[sydney_saint]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not. You're determining that is the point being made. It's certainly not the point I was making. Try asking rather than assuming. 

My point was that there are various physical attributes that make us identifiable. Amongst a group of other men, Pierre Webo could be described in a variety of ways in order to be readily identifiable. Assuming his name was not known, what is wrong with identifying by a physical attribute? He is black. He is bald. He ain't a good looking fella. 

Was describing him as the black guy more inappropriate than describing him as the bald guy, or the ugly guy? If so, why? 

I actually wasn't so much referring to you, but more this comment 'It’s insanity when referring to a black man as a black man is considered racist. .. 

I think that quote does fit in with what I said, that it is other people determine what is and isn't offensive when they are not on the receiving end. It's not just words, but the tone, inflection and delivery which is important. Clearly in this case he thought it was said in a derogatory manner? Who am I to say otherwise? 

I believe in kindness, so calling a stranger the bald guy or the ugly guy I wouldn't do either. Why upset someone when you could just use their name? The world has enough problem without unnecessary adding to it. 

[Pedantic Pete]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What if you have two black people with opposing opinions? Which one should you listen to? You realise that it's pretty patronising and demeaning to a group of individuals to arbitrarily group them into a category called "Black people" based on their skin colour and then assign a bunch of opinions to them? 

Someone like candace owens seems to have a few unusual opinions but she's black should I listen to her? Or is it just the black people who agree with Black Lives Matter, critical race theory and all white people being cursed with the original sin of whiteness? 

You have just displayed your true colours..Don't you know there is only one opinion now? If you don't have that opinion you are *racist/homophobic/islamist (is that a word?/ insert any other "ist you can think of"? 

 

* delete as applicable

[egg]

8 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

I actually wasn't so much referring to you, but more this comment 'It’s insanity when referring to a black man as a black man is considered racist. .. 

I think that quote does fit in with what I said, that it is other people determine what is and isn't offensive when they are not on the receiving end. It's not just words, but the tone, inflection and delivery which is important. Clearly in this case he thought it was said in a derogatory manner? Who am I to say otherwise? 

I believe in kindness, so calling a stranger the bald guy or the ugly guy I wouldn't do either. Why upset someone when you could just use their name? The world has enough problem without unnecessary adding to it. 

Understood. Your last paragraph avoids my point that, assuming his name wasn't known, would referencing his skin colour be more offensive than referencing another physical attribute? I don't think it would, but I get the impression that some of his other attributes (bald and not terribly good looking) would actually be deemed OK, whereas black is a big no no. I'm not black, but I'm bald and not particularly good looking, and I find the distinction odd. 

Edited 8 December, 2020 by egg

[Lighthouse]

This whole issue is in danger of turning into Brexit - two teams, the battle lines drawn, neither willing to give an inch, both determined to seize upon any tiniest crumb of righteousness to score points. The net result is a total stalemate, with little to no progress ever being made.

 

I know people will say people of colour deserve equality so why should they concede anything but this is a negotiation whether you like it or not. It’s going to take time, patience and an acceptance that not everything will go your way. I was involved in a union dispute once where conditions at the company I worked for where nowhere near those of the industry leaders. We were every bit as well trained, professional, experienced and hard working but did we go straight in demanding everything our competitors employees had? No, like heck we did. We went in hard with the most pressing issue at the time (being employed full time on zero hours contracts if anyone cares) and accepted we weren’t going to get free coffee and biscuits.

 

You’ve got to ask yourself if these are the hills we really want to die fighting over. People booing a gesture, for dubious and debatable reasons? A Romanian (who’s outlook on diversity is probably centred more on Tartars and Romani gypsies than PoC) calling a black man a black man?

 

We should be focussing on issues such as the racist chanting in Montenegro last year and the pathetic punishment UEFA handed out, instead we’re having a contest to see who can be the most outraged over Fawlty Towers and Bo Selecta.

[austsaint]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Understood. Your last paragraph avoids my point that, assuming his name wasn't known, would referencing his skin colour be more offensive than referencing another physical attribute? I don't think it would, but I get the impression that the attributes (bald and not terribly good looking) would actually be deemed OK, whereas black is a big no no. I'm not black, but I'm bald and not particularly good looking, and I find the distinction unpalatable. 

But there's a huge distinction Egg between referencing skin colour and and other physical attributes.   I remember in my Football days.....the 80s; many used to argue that to call someone on the field a "white *unt" was just as offensive as calling someone a "black *unt".    Most of those views reflected an  ignorance about the historical lessons of slavery, colonisation and subordination.     That's why these "casual" remarks about skin colour miss the overarching historical fact and cause so much angst.     I'm white by the way, 60 and have been a brick layer for 40 years....but I can read and understand history and make the links to what's still going on, albeit in a less damaging way

[Pedantic Pete]

6 minutes ago, austsaint said:

But there's a huge distinction Egg between referencing skin colour and and other physical attributes.   I remember in my Football days.....the 80s; many used to argue that to call someone on the field a "white *unt" was just as offensive as calling someone a "black *unt".    Most of those views reflected an  ignorance about the historical lessons of slavery, colonisation and subordination.     That's why these "casual" remarks about skin colour miss the overarching historical fact and cause so much angst.     I'm white by the way, 60 and have been a brick layer for 40 years....but I can read and understand history and make the links to what's still going on, albeit in a less damaging way

My local police force have just tweeted about a crime they want witnesses for..They have described the aggressor as black (as well as describing any other likely identifying features) ... Is that racist? not a trick question but I am not sure of the rules anymore?

 

[austsaint]

1 minute ago, Pedantic Pete said:

My local police force have just tweeted about a crime they want witnesses for..They have described the aggressor as black (as well as describing any other likely identifying features) ... Is that racist? not a trick question but I am not sure of the rules anymore?

 

No, it's not.  In this case it's a distinguishing characteristic making an arrest more likely.      I think you can work out the difference.

[egg]

18 minutes ago, austsaint said:

But there's a huge distinction Egg between referencing skin colour and and other physical attributes.   I remember in my Football days.....the 80s; many used to argue that to call someone on the field a "white *unt" was just as offensive as calling someone a "black *unt".    Most of those views reflected an  ignorance about the historical lessons of slavery, colonisation and subordination.     That's why these "casual" remarks about skin colour miss the overarching historical fact and cause so much angst.     I'm white by the way, 60 and have been a brick layer for 40 years....but I can read and understand history and make the links to what's still going on, albeit in a less damaging way

The important thing to note here is that he was not being singled out because he was black. He needed to be singled out, and doing so by a physical attribute cannot be unreasonable. 

No amount of history can make it more offensive for the solitary black guy in a group to be referred to as the black guy, than it would be for the solitary white guy in a group to be referred to as the white guy. 

The 4th official tonight has been labelled a racist for identifying a person by reference to his obvious identifying attribute. 

What else was he to do? Going around the houses trying to avoid offence would have made it like a game of "guess who"...he hasn't got a moustache, he hasn't got glasses, he hasn't got hair, he's not wearing an earing. Pointing out the obvious, without malice and where required, isn't wrong. 

Edited 9 December, 2020 by egg

[hypochondriac]

44 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

I actually wasn't so much referring to you, but more this comment 'It’s insanity when referring to a black man as a black man is considered racist. .. 

I think that quote does fit in with what I said, that it is other people determine what is and isn't offensive when they are not on the receiving end. It's not just words, but the tone, inflection and delivery which is important. Clearly in this case he thought it was said in a derogatory manner? Who am I to say otherwise? 

I believe in kindness, so calling a stranger the bald guy or the ugly guy I wouldn't do either. Why upset someone when you could just use their name? The world has enough problem without unnecessary adding to it. 

I'm not talking specifically about this case because I don't know all, the facts, but are you seriously suggesting that anything perceived by someone to be racist is a racist act and that if its a black person alleging the racism that no one who isn't darker skinned is allowed to question the narrative? 

You can see why that's a problem surely? I mean we already have that at the moment with non hate crime incidents being logged all over the place when it's enough that someone feels something has been motivated by prejudice for it to become so. 

[austsaint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The important thing to note here is that he was not being singled out he was black. He needed to be singled out, and doing so by a physical attribute cannot be unreasonable. 

No amount of history can make it more offensive for the solitary black guy in a group to be referred to as the black guy, than it would be for the solitary white guy in a group to be referred to as the white guy. 

The 4th official tonight has been labelled a racist for identifying a person by reference to his obvious identifying attribute. 

What else was he to do? Going around the houses trying to avoid offence would have made it like a game of "guess who"...he hasn't got a moustache, he hasn't got glasses, he hasn't got hair, he's not wearing an earing. Pointing out the obvious, without malice and where required, isn't wrong. 

The 4th official could have pointed, given the player's number, called him by his name.   He may not have intended offence, but his clumsy words clouded the issue.   And by the way....the History can and does make it more likely to cause offence, and no amount of your semantic argument changes that.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, austsaint said:

No, it's not.  In this case it's a distinguishing characteristic making an arrest more likely.      I think you can work out the difference.

And the 4th official saying black wasn't using it as an identifying characteristic? 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not talking specifically about this case because I don't know all, the facts, but are you seriously suggesting that anything perceived by someone to be racist is a racist act and that if its a black person alleging the racism that no one who isn't darker skinned is allowed to question the narrative? 

You can see why that's a problem surely? I mean we already have that at the moment with non hate crime incidents being logged all over the place when it's enough that someone feels something has been motivated by prejudice for it to become so. 

I think that's exactly what he's saying Hypo. 

[Pedantic Pete]

2 minutes ago, austsaint said:

No, it's not.  In this case it's a distinguishing characteristic making an arrest more likely.      I think you can work out the difference.

I don't know what was said in the game but on the face of it, to me, using a characteristic at the game to identify someone, is the same as what the police have done.

We either don't see the physical differences or we do, surely we can't pick and choose when it is appropriate to do so?

 

 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

I think that's exactly what he's saying Hypo. 

Well if that is seriously what's being pushed then I can absolutely see why people don't take claims of racism seriously. All that does is allow any minority with a suitably malevolent intent to misuse that power - or privilege if you will- to cause all, kinds of damage as well as undermining true racist acts 

[austsaint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

And the 4th official saying black wasn't using it as an identifying characteristic? 

Different context....a description of an alleged criminal, not known and a limited number of known professional Footballers with names, numbers and proximity.   

[egg]

9 minutes ago, austsaint said:

The 4th official could have pointed, given the player's number, called him by his name.   He may not have intended offence, but his clumsy words clouded the issue.   And by the way....the History can and does make it more likely to cause offence, and no amount of your semantic argument changes that.

You're debating this without knowing what happened. The individual was Pierre Webo. An assistant coach. No number. Needing to be identified. He had obvious distinguishing attributes. One was being black. If he was the solitary white guy amongst a group of black guys, would identifying him as the white guy be a problem? The correct answer is no. 

Edited 9 December, 2020 by egg

[austsaint]

2 minutes ago, Pedantic Pete said:

I don't know what was said in the game but on the face of it, to me, using a characteristic at the game to identify someone, is the same as what the police have done.

We either don't see the physical differences or we do, surely we can't pick and choose when it is appropriate to do so?

 

 

You're either taking the piss or not very smart.   

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, austsaint said:

Different context....a description of an alleged criminal, not known and a limited number of known professional Footballers with names, numbers and proximity.   

And in the moment if he didn't know or didn't remember the name or number of the individual? Pretty sure it was a coach anyway so don't think he'd have a number. 

If it was me I'd probably say something like "the darker skinned man" but then I'm not Romanian so maybe it's a language thing but as you said context is important and he clearly wasn't intending any sort of offence. Surely you use common sense in this situation. 

Edited 9 December, 2020 by hypochondriac

[egg]

2 minutes ago, austsaint said:

Different context....a description of an alleged criminal, not known and a limited number of known professional Footballers with names, numbers and proximity.   

This wasn't a footballer. Perhaps get a handle on what happened before expressing any further opinion. 

[austsaint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

You're debating this without knowing what happened. The individual was Pierre Webo. An assistant coach. No number. Needing to be identified. He had obvious distinguishinh attributes. One was being back. If he was the solitary white guy amongst a group of black guys, would identifying him as the white guy be a problem? The correct answer is no. 

In your mind maybe.     I'm bailing out of the "debate".

[austsaint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

This wasn't a footballer. Perhaps get a handle on what happened before expressing any further opinion. 

One last comment - I'll express further opinions as I choose, not at your behest.   Clear about that?

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, austsaint said:

You're either taking the piss or not very smart.   

I find it interesting that it always seems to be the people on one side of this debate who want to leap to calling the other side thick. Like someone else mentioned, it's very similar to the brexit debate. Him not agreeing with you or giving an honest opinion doesn't mean he's taking the piss or that he's an idiot. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, austsaint said:

One last comment - I'll express further opinions as I choose, not at your behest.   Clear about that?

So you realised your error yes? 

[egg]

1 minute ago, austsaint said:

One last comment - I'll express further opinions as I choose, not at your behest.   Clear about that?

Fill your boots, but as you clearly don't know any of the facts, you're not well placed to "debate". 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

Fill your boots, but as you clearly don't know any of the facts, you're not well placed to "debate". 

I think he's a bit embarrassed that he got it wrong and would prefer to lash out rather than just hold his hands up and admit he hadn't read past the headline... 

[austsaint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Fill your boots, but as you clearly don't know any of the facts, you're not well placed to "debate". 

The point I made stands, whether it was a player or a member of staff.   Fill your boots.

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, austsaint said:

The point I made stands, whether it was a player or a member of staff.   Fill your boots.

You mentioned that he could have mentioned his proximity to someone else (not particularly practical) called him by his name- that he may not have known- or used his number (that he didn't have). 

Without mentioning a physical characteristic it would have taken a lot longer for him to be identified. 

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, austsaint said:

But there's a huge distinction Egg between referencing skin colour and and other physical attributes.   I remember in my Football days.....the 80s; many used to argue that to call someone on the field a "white *unt" was just as offensive as calling someone a "black *unt".    Most of those views reflected an  ignorance about the historical lessons of slavery, colonisation and subordination.     That's why these "casual" remarks about skin colour miss the overarching historical fact and cause so much angst.     I'm white by the way, 60 and have been a brick layer for 40 years....but I can read and understand history and make the links to what's still going on, albeit in a less damaging way

What a shame you didn’t read and understand what happened in Paris last before jumping to conclusions 

[whelk]

I think the season should be abandoned. Send a strong message

[Turkish]

7 hours ago, sydney_saint said:

Once again it is white people determining what black people can and can't get offended by, and what is and isn't racist... Try listening rather than shouting over

Can you please explain how referring to a black guy as a black guy is racist because no one has been able to yet.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Can you please explain how referring to a black guy as a black guy is racist because no one has been able to yet.

Micah Richards said it wasn't racist. Why is Sydney Saint allowing white pundits in the media to determine what is and isn't racist and silencing a black voice? 

[hypochondriac]

6 hours ago, austsaint said:

In your mind maybe.     I'm bailing out of the "debate".

Why are you attempting to silence the voice of Micah Richards- a proud person of colour? Seems you'd rather prioritise your own white voice and tell Micah how he should think. That seems a bit racist to me... 

[East Kent Saint]

9 hours ago, Turkish said:

How is it racist to refer to a black guy as a black guy, please explain

Im not  saying it was racist , the coach who got the red card did . He was probably angry about getting a red card . My comment is with the benefit of hindsight but the situation has gone a bit mad so any sensible comment is probably pointless now .

[East Kent Saint]

10 hours ago, austsaint said:

Would be mad not to take a stand for human decency.   

Sorry forgot to put sarcasm warning .

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, East Kent Saint said:

Im not  saying it was racist , the coach who got the red card did . He was probably angry about getting a red card . My comment is with the benefit of hindsight but the situation has gone a bit mad so any sensible comment is probably pointless now .

And if that is the case that he accused him of racism because he was mad about the red card, then it proves the lunacy of allowing racism to solely be identified by any black person and unable to be challenged by anyone else. 

[austsaint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Why are you attempting to silence the voice of Micah Richards- a proud person of colour? Seems you'd rather prioritise your own white voice and tell Micah how he should think. That seems a bit racist to me... 

I really don't think your "effort" warrants a reply.  Wtf.

[austsaint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

What a shame you didn’t read and understand what happened in Paris last before jumping to conclusions 

I didn't.  My point stands...the 4th official could have found a better way to address/identify the A/Coach.  Stop trying to be a smart ass...

[egg]

3 minutes ago, austsaint said:

I didn't.  My point stands...the 4th official could have found a better way to address/identify the A/Coach.  Stop trying to be a smart ass...

Is identifying him by any physical attribute off limits...or just colour? If he was the only white guy in a group of black men, and needed to be identified quickly, would it have been OK to identify him as the white guy? 

[austsaint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Is identifying him by any physical attribute off limits...or just colour? If he was the only white guy in a group of black men, and needed to be identified quickly, would it have been OK to identify him as the white guy? 

Go and find a hobby.  You're talking shite.

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, austsaint said:

I didn't.  My point stands...the 4th official could have found a better way to address/identify the A/Coach.  Stop trying to be a smart ass...

Okay so are you opposed to any mention of colour to describe someone? 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, austsaint said:

Go and find a hobby.  You're talking shite.

What happens in a debate / discussion is that a person makes a point, then someone responds, maybe with a question, then the other responds back, etc.

In my experience, people decline to answer and/or throw in a childish insult, when they know that any answer will destroy their argument. 

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think referring to him as the black guy comes across as perhaps a little disrespectful and he probably could have chosen better words, but racist, really?

Watching the footage, I got the impression Demba Ba was getting angry for the sake of being angry and looking for offence where none was intended. 

Real genuine racism will never be defeated while we are obsessed with demonising people for things like this.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Okay so are you opposed to any mention of colour to describe someone? 

I think his point is that you can't describe a black person as a black person, but reference to another physical characteristic is OK (like he's bald, or fat, or short, that sort of stuff). I think he's possibly trying to say, but won't commit, that its OK to describe a white person as a white person.