|
Post by venceremos on Dec 7, 2020 11:44:21 GMT 1
I’d suggest the BLM UK website (which I quoted) is a better source for finding out whether BLM UK is a political party. It’s clearly quite different in nature from the Catalan independence movement (although I’m in favour of that too). The .com website mentions it being a 'global operation' and since decentralization, defunding the police and abolishing capitalism are their 'core values' (and inherently political) I fail to see how the UK variant could deviate from those and still be associated. It's a bit like saying "this is a cat, but it wags its tail and says woof" People need to know what they're supporting and I don't suppose every single footballer up and down the land has made a conscious decision to take the knee nor do they know about the political agenda behind this, which many are very keen to hide. Of course Catalan independence is an entirely different issue, but my point was to highlight the hypocrisy in the way authorities, in football at least, have either turned a blind eye to BLM's true nature or, like others, are unaware. Which is it? A lot of people seem to be sweeping it under the carpet. There's more than meets the eye here. Another issue is the alarming frequency with which you see 'all cops are pigs' and similar vitriol, and you try telling me that BLM doesn't contribute to that. Come to mention it, why does the logo used for a supposedly non-violent organisation use a clenched fist? The clenched fist is a long-standing symbol of social struggle. It’s not new. Countless organisations have symbols of violence in their crests, although I don’t see a clenched fist as necessarily violent. Isn’t that an indicator of triumph in sport, for example? To return to the point, it was said that BLM had registered as a political party and I pointed out that its website suggests that’s wrong. Unless you have evidence that it has, you haven’t succeeded in contradicting that. BLM is a mass social movement and of course it will engage in the political arena when necessary. How do you suggest combating racism and reversing the effects of racism without being political? Fighting racism isn’t just about trying to stop racists saying foul things or people being attacked. It’s about ensuring that every section of society is genuinely open to anyone, of any ethnicity. That’s difficult and will often be resisted. That’s political. Nobody’s hiding a political agenda, the agenda is perfectly clear - end racism in all its forms. You either support that broad social aim or you oppose it. There is no middle ground.
|
|
|
Post by blamber on Dec 7, 2020 12:14:05 GMT 1
The problem comes when people do not want to be preached at when they go to a football match. It can cause resentment when there was none there to begin with. Surely no one can complain about Kick It Out as it's specifically there to tackle anti racist behaviour. BLM, as a political movement, has a strong political agenda which many don't agree with. And whatever you may think about struggling white communities they have a right to be heard too. I agree that you can't separate football and society. But you don't always have to use politics to educate or inform. As we see from this thread, politics itself is divisive - football is too! I think debate and hearing other people's opinions is the best way to learn and understand each other. I worry that some factions of our society are dismissive (often abusive) towards other people's views that they don't agree with (ie the narrow minded 'cancel culture') - meaning we can't ever debate anything for fear of being abused or labelled something that we're not. I really don’t have any interest in debating with people who boo a peaceful action intended to raise awareness and promote racial equality. Appeasing such people never ends well. Nobody is being lectured, any more than a minute’s silence is a lecture. All you have to do is wait a moment while those on the pitch take the knee. If you don’t like that, you can discuss it in an appropriate forum but to boo it is beneath contempt. I haven't boo'd anyone, for the record. But if you refuse to engage with anyone to understand why some people feel they may want to boo the BLM gesture then you may be one of those that are only prepared to debate with those that agree with you. There are some that believe that All Lives Matter - and they get boo'd for saying so. But perhaps you'd be more comfortable engaging with those that boo the All Lives Matter thinkers.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 7, 2020 12:45:10 GMT 1
I think most people are more than happy to see racism in all its forms tackled and addressed and understand the importance of doing so. However, as with most things, there will be disagreements on how best to achieve that. And rather unsurprisingly (looking to their aims, their actions, their words) an awful lot of people not only think BLM aren't helping, they think them counter productive.
I mean shock horror that a lot of people aren't keen on fighting racism by dismantling capitalism, by defunding or abolishing the police, or doing away with prisons, with introducing open borders. So no matter what their ultimate aims may be, an awful lot of people aren't going to support that. Because for the most part it comes across for what it is, far left claptrap. Indeed, haven't the founders of BLM openly admitted that they are trained Marxists? Perhaps and that's hardly a surprise if true looking to their aims.
Then of course BLM isn't helped with the complete prats you have who have decided to take up the role of speaking on for the movement. We have that complete idiot from Oxford University don't we? She's tweeting about white slaves and calling black people who don't happen to agree with her and BLM "coons". It doesn't really help when you have racists as the face and voice of a movement. Anti-Semitic tweets don't help either.
You can be against racism and against BLM. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise...👍
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 7, 2020 13:09:23 GMT 1
Right so, Marxist theory is good then. Because, you use the Welfare State and have obviously benefited from getting equal treatment at a basic level. Of course it's about choice, but you choose to use the support of the state. If other countries use Marxist Theory for their own warped ideology it does not make the theory defunct. If you go down that road you may as well say all religious beliefs are bad. One of the funniest conversations I ever had was with a true blue Tory voting member of my union going on about "sharing the wealth" and "equality in society". His name was Ken, could imagine my nickname for him... All the evidence of history tells us that the only way in which a state, founded on Marxist principles, can function at all is through coercion, lies and brutality visited upon its population, and where its peoples MUST, not only parrot the imagined achievements of the State, but, upon pain of death, believe them. The contradictory nature of the socialist utopias is one explanation of the violence involved in the attempt to impose them: it takes infinite force to make people do what is impossible.Roger Scruton 👍
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 13:30:26 GMT 1
Right so, Marxist theory is good then. Because, you use the Welfare State and have obviously benefited from getting equal treatment at a basic level. Of course it's about choice, but you choose to use the support of the state. If other countries use Marxist Theory for their own warped ideology it does not make the theory defunct. If you go down that road you may as well say all religious beliefs are bad. One of the funniest conversations I ever had was with a true blue Tory voting member of my union going on about "sharing the wealth" and "equality in society". His name was Ken, could imagine my nickname for him... Well, at least you have disabused me of the notion that sometimes a sense of humour is lacking on this board ("Marxist theory is good"), if only gallows humour! What the adherents of Marxism can not,or will not, see is that Marxism is like, to be topical, a virus which invades the body, and depends for its survival upon those most noble of human traits - compassion, and care for one's fellow man - and then corrupting them into the evil barbaric practices which we witness so often, from Stalin's gulags, through China's great famine, to today's humanitarian disaster in oil-rich Venezuela; throw into that recipe the sheer brutality of Pol Pot, and Kim Jon Un, and you end up with not a Utopian paradise, but a living hell on earth. The point is, not, as you imply, that such consequences are the result of some other non-defined "warped ideology", but the INEVITABLE results of trying to put Marxist theory into practice - NOT the implementation of the "wrong sort of Marxism". All the evidence of history tells us that the only way in which a state, founded on Marxist principles, can function at all is through coercion, lies and brutality visited upon its population, and where its peoples MUST, not only parrot the imagined achievements of the State, but, upon pain of death, believe them. As if this weren't bad enough, Marxists fail to acknowledge that the very theory operates contrary to the the basic human instinct of trying to better one's lot in life, for oneself, or for one's descendents: even from a simple economic assessment, Marxism is an abysmal failure - again, look at that glorious success which is Venezuela - but going back in time, when Western countries had BMWs, Mercedes, Jaguars and Minis, East Germans had the Trabant. I was once acquainted with a guy who actually, quite seriously believed that the Berlin Wall was there to keep us out. As one of the other board members is fond of saying "You couldn't make it up".... not strictly true, of course - Orwell (a man of the LEFT) warned us. You are welcome to continue to defend the indefensible should you so wish, but do not expect those of us who retain the capacity for rational thought, to take you seriously: Marxism is a monstrous evil, not a shining light leading us to a perfect world, if only because such a perfect world exists only in Marxist imagination. Blimey and this from the bloke who called an elected politician Sturmbarn something or other. You clearly haven't read Marxist theories. I am well aware of the failings of Marxist regimes. You talk of rational thought, but fail to engage in a meaningful manner about the idea of shared wealth and equality. You ignore the point about religion. Enjoy the Welfare State 👍
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 7, 2020 13:33:52 GMT 1
I really don’t have any interest in debating with people who boo a peaceful action intended to raise awareness and promote racial equality. Appeasing such people never ends well. Nobody is being lectured, any more than a minute’s silence is a lecture. All you have to do is wait a moment while those on the pitch take the knee. If you don’t like that, you can discuss it in an appropriate forum but to boo it is beneath contempt. I haven't boo'd anyone, for the record. But if you refuse to engage with anyone to understand why some people feel they may want to boo the BLM gesture then you may be one of those that are only prepared to debate with those that agree with you. There are some that believe that All Lives Matter - and they get boo'd for saying so. But perhaps you'd be more comfortable engaging with those that boo the All Lives Matter thinkers. It never occurred to me that you might be someone who booed. But now you mention it, I realise I might well already have been debating the issue on here with people who would boo given the opportunity, so perhaps I'm wrong in saying I wouldn't. I've just had enough of people making excuses for racist behaviour. If even a peaceful gesture can't be made without booing, it seems clear there's a hell of a long way to go before racism is eradicated. Some seem to think it's got nothing to do with football, or that Kick It Out can magic up a footballing world of racial equality regardless of the wider social context. That just seems to be wishful thinking and a desire for a quiet life and easy solutions. The booing didn't happen because those people thought taking the knee had gone on too long or because they wanted actions, not gestures. They've opposed it from the start, either because they're outright racists or because they don't think there's a problem if society is racially unequal, which of course is racist in itself. All lives matter is a meaningless nonsense. Of course all lives matter. You might as well say air is useful or food is necessary. Nobody boos all lives matter because it doesn't exist, other than as a social media hashtag designed to drown out a specifically anti-racist social movement. The pertinent question is why, in response to a movement protesting the inordinate numbers of deaths of black men, women and children at the hands of law enforcement agencies, anyone would want to say 'never mind your specific grievance, everybody matters'? It's insulting and appalling that so many have latched onto it. The motivations of those who originated it are dubious, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Dec 7, 2020 13:44:45 GMT 1
I haven't boo'd anyone, for the record. But if you refuse to engage with anyone to understand why some people feel they may want to boo the BLM gesture then you may be one of those that are only prepared to debate with those that agree with you. There are some that believe that All Lives Matter - and they get boo'd for saying so. But perhaps you'd be more comfortable engaging with those that boo the All Lives Matter thinkers. It never occurred to me that you might be someone who booed. But now you mention it, I realise I might well already have been debating the issue on here with people who would boo given the opportunity, so perhaps I'm wrong in saying I wouldn't. I've just had enough of people making excuses for racist behaviour. If even a peaceful gesture can't be made without booing, it seems clear there's a hell of a long way to go before racism is eradicated. Some seem to think it's got nothing to do with football, or that Kick It Out can magic up a footballing world of racial equality regardless of the wider social context. That just seems to be wishful thinking and a desire for a quiet life and easy solutions. The booing didn't happen because those people thought taking the knee had gone on too long or because they wanted actions, not gestures. They've opposed it from the start, either because they're outright racists or because they don't think there's a problem if society is racially unequal, which of course is racist in itself. All lives matter is a meaningless nonsense. Of course all lives matter. You might as well say air is useful or food is necessary. Nobody boos all lives matter because it doesn't exist, other than as a social media hashtag designed to drown out a specifically anti-racist social movement. The pertinent question is why, in response to a movement protesting the inordinate numbers of deaths of black men, women and children at the hands of law enforcement agencies, anyone would want to say 'never mind your specific grievance, everybody matters'? It's insulting and appalling that so many have latched onto it. The motivations of those who originated it are dubious, to say the least. All lives matter unless said life had a criminal record, or is attempting to cross the channel on a dingy, or wants to challenge the status quo. Then they don’t matter.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Dec 7, 2020 13:48:24 GMT 1
All the evidence of history tells us that the only way in which a state, founded on Marxist principles, can function at all is through coercion, lies and brutality visited upon its population, and where its peoples MUST, not only parrot the imagined achievements of the State, but, upon pain of death, believe them. The contradictory nature of the socialist utopias is one explanation of the violence involved in the attempt to impose them: it takes infinite force to make people do what is impossible.Roger Scruton 👍 In my naive youth, I felt sorry for advocates of Marxism - nowadays, I feel nothing but total contempt; there are people far cleverer than you or I who have struggled to understand the mindset of such individuals, but come up short....as for me, I can only despair for them, and try in, my small way, to show OTHERS what Marxism means in reality.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 7, 2020 13:54:59 GMT 1
Who decided it was a good idea to do the take the knee thing at Milwall? Must have been people who wanted a reaction. Kick politics out of football. Political action and football are interlinked. Have been since the creation of the sport and it's done a lot of good. Social change, community engagement etc. Just because some don't like it doesn't mean we should drop what has been a cornerstone out. Struggling with "political action and football are interlinked". Football provides a place where Downie can cheer and banter alongside Matron and politics doesn't matter.
Football at it's higher levels provides the medium for a rich man's plaything and a place for the "prawn sarnie" types, but also enables ordinary working people to feel part of it. But it's better that the politics is left out of it.
Taking the knee at Milwall was just asking for the reaction it got.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 7, 2020 14:21:28 GMT 1
Political action and football are interlinked. Have been since the creation of the sport and it's done a lot of good. Social change, community engagement etc. Just because some don't like it doesn't mean we should drop what has been a cornerstone out. Struggling with "political action and football are interlinked". Football provides a place where Downie can cheer and banter alongside Matron and politics doesn't matter.
Football at it's higher levels provides the medium for a rich man's plaything and a place for the "prawn sarnie" types, but also enables ordinary working people to feel part of it. But it's better that the politics is left out of it.
Taking the knee at Milwall was just asking for the reaction it got.
So the priority is that people who might hold opposing political views can enjoy watching football? That comes before attempts to eliminate racism? Thanks, but I'll stick with my priorities and not upsetting racists isn't one of them. I like the words of the Colchester chairman (and heartened to see QPR players will take the knee when they play Millwall, as a gesture of solidarity): "Those that take the knee want to highlight that all lives should be valued and should not be treated inhumanely or inferior to others just because of their race. "It is undeniable that black and other ethnic minority people are still the victims of racism, and the black footballers and staff at Colchester United feel that they are in a position of privilege that has been fought for through the blood and sweat of their ancestors. "A position that in 2020 the average black person is still not afforded. "Those taking the knee, and supporting the taking of the knee, not only shows their willingness to support the drive to eradicate racial oppression but force it to be a talking point even when it's uncomfortable. "Undeniably, taking the knee is a fundamental catalyst in pushing the conversation, and thus the necessary changes, forward."And he's right - the gesture is still forcing the issue to be a talking point, as this thread proves, which is evidently making some people uncomfortable. He went on to say fans should " at the very least stay silent during future games" as players take a knee.
"Alternatively, they should just stay away from our club because anyone that still wants to boo now that I have explained the purpose and importance of the taking of the knee is not welcome at our club.
"I will be happy to refund anyone for the remaining value of their season permit if that is the reason they feel they can no longer attend our games."
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 7, 2020 14:34:46 GMT 1
Struggling with "political action and football are interlinked". Football provides a place where Downie can cheer and banter alongside Matron and politics doesn't matter. Football at it's higher levels provides the medium for a rich man's plaything and a place for the "prawn sarnie" types, but also enables ordinary working people to feel part of it. But it's better that the politics is left out of it. Taking the knee at Milwall was just asking for the reaction it got.
So the priority is that people who might hold opposing political views can enjoy watching football? That comes before attempts to eliminate racism? Thanks, but I'll stick with my priorities and not upsetting racists isn't one of them. I like the words of the Colchester chairman (and heartened to see QPR players will take the knee when they play Millwall, as a gesture of solidarity): "Those that take the knee want to highlight that all lives should be valued and should not be treated inhumanely or inferior to others just because of their race. "It is undeniable that black and other ethnic minority people are still the victims of racism, and the black footballers and staff at Colchester United feel that they are in a position of privilege that has been fought for through the blood and sweat of their ancestors. "A position that in 2020 the average black person is still not afforded. "Those taking the knee, and supporting the taking of the knee, not only shows their willingness to support the drive to eradicate racial oppression but force it to be a talking point even when it's uncomfortable. "Undeniably, taking the knee is a fundamental catalyst in pushing the conversation, and thus the necessary changes, forward."And he's right - the gesture is still forcing the issue to be a talking point, as this thread proves, which is evidently making some people uncomfortable. He went on to say fans should " at the very least stay silent during future games" as players take a knee.
"Alternatively, they should just stay away from our club because anyone that still wants to boo now that I have explained the purpose and importance of the taking of the knee is not welcome at our club.
"I will be happy to refund anyone for the remaining value of their season permit if that is the reason they feel they can no longer attend our games.""So the priority is that people who might hold opposing political views can enjoy watching football? That comes before attempts to eliminate racism?" No it doesn't, but football is an entertainment venue, not a political rally. If you are not breaking the law by, for example, racist chants, then you should be there to be entertained purely by the football.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 7, 2020 14:40:42 GMT 1
So the priority is that people who might hold opposing political views can enjoy watching football? That comes before attempts to eliminate racism? Thanks, but I'll stick with my priorities and not upsetting racists isn't one of them. I like the words of the Colchester chairman (and heartened to see QPR players will take the knee when they play Millwall, as a gesture of solidarity): "Those that take the knee want to highlight that all lives should be valued and should not be treated inhumanely or inferior to others just because of their race. "It is undeniable that black and other ethnic minority people are still the victims of racism, and the black footballers and staff at Colchester United feel that they are in a position of privilege that has been fought for through the blood and sweat of their ancestors. "A position that in 2020 the average black person is still not afforded. "Those taking the knee, and supporting the taking of the knee, not only shows their willingness to support the drive to eradicate racial oppression but force it to be a talking point even when it's uncomfortable. "Undeniably, taking the knee is a fundamental catalyst in pushing the conversation, and thus the necessary changes, forward."And he's right - the gesture is still forcing the issue to be a talking point, as this thread proves, which is evidently making some people uncomfortable. He went on to say fans should " at the very least stay silent during future games" as players take a knee.
"Alternatively, they should just stay away from our club because anyone that still wants to boo now that I have explained the purpose and importance of the taking of the knee is not welcome at our club.
"I will be happy to refund anyone for the remaining value of their season permit if that is the reason they feel they can no longer attend our games.""So the priority is that people who might hold opposing political views can enjoy watching football? That comes before attempts to eliminate racism?" No it doesn't, but football is an entertainment venue, not a political rally. If you are not breaking the law by, for example, racist chants, then you should be there to be entertained by the fotball. Of course, but sometimes there are bigger considerations. This is one of the defining battles of our time. The suggestion that football, one of the most public arenas, should turn away and pretend it's not happening because a moronic minority feel the need to boo a gesture of solidarity is simply appeasement - don't upset the racists.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Dec 7, 2020 14:49:53 GMT 1
Interesting debate on GMB this morning between Piers Morgan and James Cleverley.
Piers took offence at Cleverley’s refusal to condemn the booing at Millwall, whilst Cleverley took offence at Morgan saying as a black man he should be offended.
The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. There’s a lot of people taking offence on behalf of others, issues around the BLM organisation are perfectly valid, but to pretend there wasn’t also racist motivations behind the booing of the knee is ignorant at best.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Dec 7, 2020 14:55:30 GMT 1
"So the priority is that people who might hold opposing political views can enjoy watching football? That comes before attempts to eliminate racism?" No it doesn't, but football is an entertainment venue, not a political rally. If you are not breaking the law by, for example, racist chants, then you should be there to be entertained by the fotball. Of course, but sometimes there are bigger considerations. This is one of the defining battles of our time. The suggestion that football, one of the most public arenas, should turn away and pretend it's not happening because a moronic minority feel the need to boo a gesture of solidarity is simply appeasement - don't upset the racists. And also when football itself still has a lot of questions to answer about the way it operates, such as the lack of black people in executive or managerial positions and the fact there are still far too many examples of on-field and off-field racism, e.g. Millwall on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 7, 2020 15:05:36 GMT 1
Of course, but sometimes there are bigger considerations. This is one of the defining battles of our time. The suggestion that football, one of the most public arenas, should turn away and pretend it's not happening because a moronic minority feel the need to boo a gesture of solidarity is simply appeasement - don't upset the racists. And also when football itself still has a lot of questions to answer about the way it operates, such as the lack of black people in executive or managerial positions and the fact there are still far too many examples of on-field and off-field racism, e.g. Millwall on Saturday. Organising a "take the knee" at Millwall on Saturday was the real life version of "clickbait". The organisers were, I'm sure, hoping for the reaction they got. Attitudes need to change with some Millwall fans and many other people, but that isn't the way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Dec 7, 2020 15:11:03 GMT 1
Why should Millwall be "exempted" if the players on the pitch want to take the knee? Just because they've got more than their fair of racist fans on the terraces? As Venceremos points out, what you're advocating is appeasement of these knuckle-dragging numpties.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Dec 7, 2020 15:29:46 GMT 1
Well, at least you have disabused me of the notion that sometimes a sense of humour is lacking on this board ("Marxist theory is good"), if only gallows humour! What the adherents of Marxism can not,or will not, see is that Marxism is like, to be topical, a virus which invades the body, and depends for its survival upon those most noble of human traits - compassion, and care for one's fellow man - and then corrupting them into the evil barbaric practices which we witness so often, from Stalin's gulags, through China's great famine, to today's humanitarian disaster in oil-rich Venezuela; throw into that recipe the sheer brutality of Pol Pot, and Kim Jon Un, and you end up with not a Utopian paradise, but a living hell on earth. The point is, not, as you imply, that such consequences are the result of some other non-defined "warped ideology", but the INEVITABLE results of trying to put Marxist theory into practice - NOT the implementation of the "wrong sort of Marxism". All the evidence of history tells us that the only way in which a state, founded on Marxist principles, can function at all is through coercion, lies and brutality visited upon its population, and where its peoples MUST, not only parrot the imagined achievements of the State, but, upon pain of death, believe them. As if this weren't bad enough, Marxists fail to acknowledge that the very theory operates contrary to the the basic human instinct of trying to better one's lot in life, for oneself, or for one's descendents: even from a simple economic assessment, Marxism is an abysmal failure - again, look at that glorious success which is Venezuela - but going back in time, when Western countries had BMWs, Mercedes, Jaguars and Minis, East Germans had the Trabant. I was once acquainted with a guy who actually, quite seriously believed that the Berlin Wall was there to keep us out. As one of the other board members is fond of saying "You couldn't make it up".... not strictly true, of course - Orwell (a man of the LEFT) warned us. You are welcome to continue to defend the indefensible should you so wish, but do not expect those of us who retain the capacity for rational thought, to take you seriously: Marxism is a monstrous evil, not a shining light leading us to a perfect world, if only because such a perfect world exists only in Marxist imagination. Blimey and this from the bloke who called an elected politician Sturmbarn something or other. You clearly haven't read Marxist theories. I am well aware of the failings of Marxist regimes. You talk of rational thought, but fail to engage in a meaningful manner about the idea of shared wealth and equality. You ignore the point about religion. Enjoy the Welfare State 👍 Dearie me "engage in a meaningful manner" indeed? If you can't see the intended humour behind my reference to Mr Drakeford (as, for example, in the portrayal of German officers in "Allo Allo") then your sense of humour or of the ridiculous has deserted you! I don't really need to read the works of Marx and Engels to understand Marxist theory, any more than I need to read a detailed exposition on the workings of the internal combustion engine to understand THAT: it is simply enough to know that it either works, or it doesn't. How gracious of you to acknowledge the "failings" of Marxist regimes..... would you call the Chinese famine (estimated deaths of 35-40 MILLION), Soviet gulags, the Byelorussian famine, the Uigjar "re-education camps in China, the enslavement of Venezuela" simply "failings" ? These are monstrous crimes, and, in terms of numbers, far exceeding the evils perpetrated in the name of the Third Reich, or was that just a "failing" as well? If, as you say, you are aware of the failings of Marxist regimes, you should take a hard look at their root causes, as I suggest in my post. I did indeed ignore your point about religion, largely because I don't see its relevance, other than perhaps to an allusion to Stalin's alleged question as to the number of tanks the Pope had; otherwise, your point escapes me, but I am, after all, an atheist, so perhaps you can educated me on that matter too. You seem to follow the Marxist line about the "sharing of wealth", without considering how best to create that wealth in the first place - I suggest that the non-Marxist economies have been a tad more successful than Marxist ones, or perhaps you know differently. The NHS may well its existence to Marxist theory for all I know, (or care, come to that) but to hold it up as some sort of iconic totem of the success of the whole theory does rather stretch credulity beyond breaking..... surely there are more wonderful and greater successes in the all-encompassing panoply of Marxist theory.... please do enlighten me!
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Dec 7, 2020 16:14:13 GMT 1
I must say that it’s very comforting for someone like me who prefers reading the latest exploits of Jack Reacher to heavyweight books on political or economic theory to learn that I don’t have to read them in order to pontificate at great length about them.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Dec 7, 2020 16:34:41 GMT 1
I must say that it’s very comforting for someone like me who prefers reading the latest exploits of Jack Reacher to heavyweight books on political or economic theory to learn that I don’t have to read them in order to pontificate at great length about them. I prefer Tom Clancy, Freddie Forsyth or, from another genre, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 7, 2020 17:04:10 GMT 1
And also when football itself still has a lot of questions to answer about the way it operates, such as the lack of black people in executive or managerial positions and the fact there are still far too many examples of on-field and off-field racism, e.g. Millwall on Saturday. Organising a "take the knee" at Millwall on Saturday was the real life version of "clickbait". The organisers were, I'm sure, hoping for the reaction they got. Attitudes need to change with some Millwall fans and many other people, but that isn't the way to do it. If it was clickbait at Millwall, was it clickbait at every other ground where the knee was taken? If not, what's so special about Millwall? Why do some of their fans' supposed sensibilities have to be handled so delicately?
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 7, 2020 18:33:58 GMT 1
Organising a "take the knee" at Millwall on Saturday was the real life version of "clickbait". The organisers were, I'm sure, hoping for the reaction they got. Attitudes need to change with some Millwall fans and many other people, but that isn't the way to do it. If it was clickbait at Millwall, was it clickbait at every other ground where the knee was taken? If not, what's so special about Millwall? Why do some of their fans' supposed sensibilities have to be handled so delicately? You don't change people's mindset by making them look like idiots. The fans of Millwall do need to have deep seated prejudices challemged in a different way than some clubs. I would have thought that was obvious? Come on now, taking the knee at Millwall was clearly meant to provoke the reaction it did.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 7, 2020 18:58:17 GMT 1
If it was clickbait at Millwall, was it clickbait at every other ground where the knee was taken? If not, what's so special about Millwall? Why do some of their fans' supposed sensibilities have to be handled so delicately? You don't change people's mindset by making them look like idiots. The fans of Millwall do need to have deep seated prejudices challemged in a different way than some clubs. I would have thought that was obvious? Come on now, taking the knee at Millwall was clearly meant to provoke the reaction it did. Do you change people's mindsets by pandering to their prejudices? Of course not. Do you seriously believe that minority doesn't exist all over the country, at every other club, or almost? It's there and it needs to be put in the spotlight and shown up for what it is. The only people who made those Millwall fans look like idiots was those Millwall fans. I'm astonished that you're acting as their apologist and claiming they were somehow driven to it. But in the longer run, they've done a good thing because more people are now talking about this issue than they were before. They've even succeeded in getting QPR to take the knee again. Well done lads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 19:10:38 GMT 1
Why have we moved from Kick It Out to BLM and taking the knee?? What is the motivation behind this?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 7, 2020 19:20:53 GMT 1
Why have we moved from Kick It Out to BLM and taking the knee?? What is the motivation behind this? Politically motivated
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 19:26:16 GMT 1
Why have we moved from Kick It Out to BLM and taking the knee?? What is the motivation behind this? Politically motivated But who is the driver behind it?
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on Dec 7, 2020 19:52:55 GMT 1
I agree with them taking the knee to highlight issues of racial injustice in the beginning. I very much believe players completely have the right to continue to do this.
Players have the right to kneel.
BUT.
Supporters have the right to vocalise how they feel about a political symbol/movement too or what is seen as the politicisation of football if it is thrust upon them.
I really hate the media and public figures witch-hunting people at football matches who object or boo the kneeling and want them banned. Free speech allows them to do it even if I personally disagree and find it poor form to boo.
What I think will be interesting is what the EFL and Premier League will do if someone wants to support a right wing cause before a match. Will it be afforded the same leeway that kneeling has if a player waves a Union Jack in support of Brexit before a game? I very much doubt that though.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Dec 7, 2020 19:56:14 GMT 1
But who is the driver behind it? Humble apologies, but I may have to share some of the guilt on this one, by reacting to a post from "nicko" quoting "Marxist theory", or what he thought to be the relevance thereof: I cannot in all honesty, sit idly by when I see anyone having the nerve to defend Marxist theory, as if it were the answer to all our problems... Somebody has to stand up for what is good, and it happens to be me. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by blamber on Dec 7, 2020 20:00:36 GMT 1
I haven't boo'd anyone, for the record. But if you refuse to engage with anyone to understand why some people feel they may want to boo the BLM gesture then you may be one of those that are only prepared to debate with those that agree with you. There are some that believe that All Lives Matter - and they get boo'd for saying so. But perhaps you'd be more comfortable engaging with those that boo the All Lives Matter thinkers. It never occurred to me that you might be someone who booed. But now you mention it, I realise I might well already have been debating the issue on here with people who would boo given the opportunity, so perhaps I'm wrong in saying I wouldn't. I've just had enough of people making excuses for racist behaviour. If even a peaceful gesture can't be made without booing, it seems clear there's a hell of a long way to go before racism is eradicated. Some seem to think it's got nothing to do with football, or that Kick It Out can magic up a footballing world of racial equality regardless of the wider social context. That just seems to be wishful thinking and a desire for a quiet life and easy solutions. The booing didn't happen because those people thought taking the knee had gone on too long or because they wanted actions, not gestures. They've opposed it from the start, either because they're outright racists or because they don't think there's a problem if society is racially unequal, which of course is racist in itself. All lives matter is a meaningless nonsense. Of course all lives matter. You might as well say air is useful or food is necessary. Nobody boos all lives matter because it doesn't exist, other than as a social media hashtag designed to drown out a specifically anti-racist social movement. The pertinent question is why, in response to a movement protesting the inordinate numbers of deaths of black men, women and children at the hands of law enforcement agencies, anyone would want to say 'never mind your specific grievance, everybody matters'? It's insulting and appalling that so many have latched onto it. The motivations of those who originated it are dubious, to say the least. But probably most of those who object are not racist. This is the point. What they object to is anti racism being championed by a politically motivated group whose aims go against what a lot of people vigorously disagree with. Why muddy the waters with a political movement when you already have Kick It Out to champion it? If you personally support BLM and its political aims that's fine. Your choice. But for others that do not support their politics then that's why there's a problem. If people were asked to applaud the Kick It Out campaign for 15 seconds at the start of every game I very much doubt whether there would be any booing at all. And anyone that did probably ought to be ejected. As it is, people have the excuse to say that they don't support BLM and carry on booing. And that's where the campaign to stamp out racism loses.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 7, 2020 20:04:52 GMT 1
But who is the driver behind it? The players?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 20:12:30 GMT 1
But who is the driver behind it? The players? Fine, but why?
|
|