You should probably reread the post to which I was replying.
It would be arrogant of me to say that this is possibly the single most patronising thing you've ever said.
So your positive statement of the argument against taking the knee is that critical race theory is bad? You sound like someone parroting Fox News talking points. It is perfectly possible to disagree with aspects of critical race theory or even all of critical race theory and still be entirely supportive of taking the knee. The aspect I particularly dislike is the denial of the importance of intention. That has zero relevance to this argument, literally no relevance at all.
And, by the way, let's not take it as read that "there is no longer overt institutional or legal prejudice towards non-white people". I agree that there aren't explicit laws that say that you can lock up Black people for something that wouldn't be a crime if carried out by a White person. But that is simply not what "institutional racism" means.
You should probably reread the post to which I was replying.
It would be arrogant of me to say that this is possibly the single most patronising thing you've ever said.
So your positive statement of the argument against taking the knee is that critical race theory is bad? You sound like someone parroting Fox News talking points. It is perfectly possible to disagree with aspects of critical race theory or even all of critical race theory and still be entirely supportive of taking the knee. The aspect I particularly dislike is the denial of the importance of intention. That has zero relevance to this argument, literally no relevance at all.
And, by the way, let's not take it as read that "there is no longer overt institutional or legal prejudice towards non-white people". I agree that there aren't explicit laws that say that you can lock up Black people for something that wouldn't be a crime if carried out by a White person. But that is simply not what "institutional racism" means.
Do you want to have another try?
No, I would not. All people in this country are subject to the same laws and our society treats everyone with a growing sense of fairness and attempted equality. I wrote that we are not in Utopia and goodness knows that that is so.
If you think it patronising to assert that there are, and have not been for a very long time, no laws in this country supporting prejudice in response to a post asserting that that is a valid basis for complaint in the present time, I am not sure what could reasonably be said in response.
On the question of the relevance of CRT to the argument, it is exactly relevant for the reasons I gave and I stated my personal views on the right to carry out the gesture very clearly.
Perhaps you confuse being against racism with being against the anti-racist movement that has evolved in the past few years in the US out of critical theory.
This is an astonishing line to take and it really takes some mental gymnastics. Ask your black friends if they've ever been pulled over by the cops for no reason. Ask them when they last got racially abused in the street. When was the last time either of those things happened to you? Now ask those people if critical race theory in the United States has made the slightest bit of difference to how much shit they have to put up with. These are real, hurtful, oppressive things happening to real people around you every day. Pretending any of this is about critical race theory is surely the route of those who feel their superiority under threat.
Your habit of mischaracterising a view you disagree with, often in emotive terms such as by your invocation of family members here, is exactly why I regret threads like this for all that we will be fine friends anon.
You don't regret threads like this enough to ignore them though. Every time the subject comes up you're in there defending the rights of racists.
Let us also take as read that there is no longer overt institutional or legal prejudice towards non-white people.
This is quite a leap. Again, ask your black friends if that's true.
Instead, I suggest there has never been a more equal society than that in which we live.
This line could have been written in the 1970s and been true. Things have got better, but they're not equal and to pretend that they are is putting your head in the sand.
But do your "wife and children" enjoy exactly the same rights and protections as you? Yes, they do.
I'll let them know that a white man says everything is fine now. They'll be over the moon. However, forgive me if I don't take you word for this, as black people are still considerably more likely to receive a prison sentence for a crime where a white person receives a non-custodial sentence. This link is from last year, but you can find pretty much the same article published every year for the last couple of decades.
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
But we are classes of oppressor and oppressed. I have no idea why or how anyone would try to claim the opposite. And while that is true, this is not the race-blind utopia that you seem to think it is. Out of everything you've ever posted on this subject, this paragraph, and in particular the phrase "removing agency and individual responsibility" is the most offensive victim blaming I think I've ever seen on this subject. It's their own fault that they get abused in the street? It's their own failure of responsibility that causes them to get pulled over for driving while black? Their own fault for having skin a different tone to the judge?
Perhaps you confuse being against racism with being against the anti-racist movement that has evolved in the past few years in the US out of critical theory.
This is an astonishing line to take and it really takes some mental gymnastics. Ask your black friends if they've ever been pulled over by the cops for no reason. Ask them when they last got racially abused in the street. When was the last time either of those things happened to you? Now ask those people if critical race theory in the United States has made the slightest bit of difference to how much shit they have to put up with. These are real, hurtful, oppressive things happening to real people around you every day. Pretending any of this is about critical race theory is surely the route of those who feel their superiority under threat.
The question is what is the best way to address continuing inequalities. I argue that CRT is very much not it. I suspect your political antennae are sufficiently attuned to know that its ideas are creeping into the mainstream.
Your habit of mischaracterising a view you disagree with, often in emotive terms such as by your invocation of family members here, is exactly why I regret threads like this for all that we will be fine friends anon.
You don't regret threads like this enough to ignore them though. Every time the subject comes up you're in there defending the rights of racists.
Though I regret them, why should I ignore them any more than you? The suggestion that my interest is in representing the "rights of racists" is, putting it neutrally, another emotive mischaracterisation.
Let us also take as read that there is no longer overt institutional or legal prejudice towards non-white people.
This is quite a leap. Again, ask your black friends if that's true.
Please cite examples of laws in place that show I am mistaken.
Instead, I suggest there has never been a more equal society than that in which we live.
This line could have been written in the 1970s and been true. Things have got better, but they're not equal and to pretend that they are is putting your head in the sand.
I did not say things were ideal. See below.
But do your "wife and children" enjoy exactly the same rights and protections as you? Yes, they do.
I'll let them know that a white man says everything is fine now. They'll be over the moon. However, forgive me if I don't take you word for this, as black people are still considerably more likely to receive a prison sentence for a crime where a white person receives a non-custodial sentence. This link is from last year, but you can find pretty much the same article published every year for the last couple of decades.
Are their rights different to yours and mine?
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
But we are classes of oppressor and oppressed. I have no idea why or how anyone would try to claim the opposite. And while that is true, this is not the race-blind utopia that you seem to think it is. Out of everything you've ever posted on this subject, this paragraph, and in particular the phrase "removing agency and individual responsibility" is the most offensive victim blaming I think I've ever seen on this subject. It's their own fault that they get abused in the street? It's their own failure of responsibility that causes them to get pulled over for driving while black? Their own fault for having skin a different tone to the judge?
That you suggest I think ours a race blind utopia when I expressly stated the opposite is regrettable. It is, though, immeasurably better than it was forty years ago. This is not nothing and merits acknowledgement.
The approach of CRT, and critical theory generally, in categorising people by their characteristics, in this case of race, and attributing to them, expressing it crudely for the sake of brevity, classes of oppressor or oppressed does indeed encourage a removal of agency and individual responsibility. To be the oppressor purely by dint of one's skin colour makes one irredeemable. To be, by the same token, the oppressed, encourages a sense of hopelessness and victimhood that acts as a powerful disincentive to progression in society. This is separate to the actual experiences of people in either category, being a template that CRT proposes should be used to interpret racial interactions. It is a divisive, inhuman and illiberal measuring tool. This is, as I understand it, what lay behind many of the criticisms of the knee taking at the outset last year. I think it fair criticism.
@micra said:
Glad I’m like @Wendoverman - simply simplistic. I’ll sleep well tonight.
PS I did try to understand the arguments for and against racism but lost track of who had racist tendencies and who was clearly anti anti-racists.
Without meaning to stir things up again, @micra, my proposition is that it is perfectly possible to be anti-racist while opposing a certain set of ideas prevalent in a movement, founded in the US, known as "anti-racism". This is not the same as the BLM movement though it is based more or less in those ideas.
I have not yet seen anyone make a pro-racism argument.
How many times do the people taking the knee have to explain to you that they are not supporting some US quasi-Marxist loons?
This was the prevalent fig leaf argument against taking the knee last season, since when virtually every player given the opportunity has said this is categorically not the case. The England manager even wrote to you to explain it.
It’s like there is a cognitive dissonance that won’t allow you to connect the dots.
Even if your argument was true, booing black players over matters of race is simply unacceptable. In our lifetimes I’ve seen bananas thrown at our players, heard ‘zigga zigga zigga’ chants aimed at them and less than 18 months ago had one of all time greats feel racially abused.
I owe them a bit of virtue signalling for what I’ve seen them take over the years.
Certain aspects of the BLM movement in the UK seem to me a bit ineffectual, but just because I have quibbles does not mean that I oppose either them or their objectives, nor do I think it is up to me to tell them how to direct their protest. When you start booing someone or something, you are not raising some minor quibbles, you are expressing strong disagreement, so are we to believe that sections of Millwall FC have acquired not only basic literacy skills but degrees in PPE from a red brick? It’s too much of a stretch for me, I reckon their objections are far more basic.
I really appreciate all these convoluted arguements about what's racist and what isn't. However when anyone tells me that I can't applaud someone making a gesture, that they tell me they believe is a valid show of support against racism, because that person is deluded in what they believe then I say fuck it I'll go with my instincts.
If it smell like a racist and barks like a racist ...
@Twizz said:
I really appreciate all these convoluted arguements about what's racist and what isn't. However when anyone tells me that I can't applaud someone making a gesture, that they tell me they believe is a valid show of support against racism, because that person is deluded in what they believe then I say fuck it I'll go with my instincts.
If it smell like a racist and barks like a racist ...
I think you may have hit on something like the raw essence of some of the objection. No-one has told you you can't applaud if you want (have they?) but there is an emotional resistance to the suggestion that applause might be mandatory - the opposite of your own perspective - that there is abroad the suggestion that society has never been worse or more uneven in its treatment of people rather than that it is an immeasurably fairer-minded place to live than it has ever been and that there has never been greater opportunity available for those with little at the start (and this observation is not confined to non-white people) to raise themselves up. It's not my idea of a perfect society but, as evidenced by this thread perhaps, I don't see any sense that the people in it are opposed to further reconsideration of how we look at ourselves.
Again. No idea what the average man on the Millwall terrace thinks. Just seeking to put forward the idea that the situation is less binary than originally presented here.
@HCblue My, you're up and early defending the indefensible. Actually this is pretty binary.
This isn't about critical race theory, it's about taking the knee to show abhorrence of the continuing prevalence of racism in this country. I struggle to see an argument that conflates the two things as being in good faith.
This isn't about not applauding taking the knee. It's about not booing taking the knee.
Oh, and I did re-read @StrongestTeam 's comment. He didn't say what you pretend he said.
@OakwoodExile said: @HCblue My, you're up and early defending the indefensible. Actually this is pretty binary.
This isn't about critical race theory, it's about taking the knee to show abhorrence of the continuing prevalence of racism in this country. I struggle to see an argument that conflates the two things as being in good faith.
This isn't about not applauding taking the knee. It's about not booing taking the knee.
Oh, and I did re-read @StrongestTeam 's comment. He didn't say what you pretend he said.
The perspective has been presented reasonably clearly, I think. Naturally, you are free to ignore it but it does not mean it is not there.
Should I write something like "My, you're up early and arguing against arguments that aren't being made" or should I try to address what is being said without attempting to diminish the person saying it?
@Twizz said:
I really appreciate all these convoluted arguements about what's racist and what isn't. However when anyone tells me that I can't applaud someone making a gesture, that they tell me they believe is a valid show of support against racism, because that person is deluded in what they believe then I say fuck it I'll go with my instincts.
If it smell like a racist and barks like a racist ...
I think you may have hit on something like the raw essence of some of the objection. No-one has told you you can't applaud if you want (have they?) but there is an emotional resistance to the suggestion that applause might be mandatory - the opposite of your own perspective - that there is abroad the suggestion that society has never been worse or more uneven in its treatment of people rather than that it is an immeasurably fairer-minded place to live than it has ever been and that there has never been greater opportunity available for those with little at the start (and this observation is not confined to non-white people) to raise themselves up. It's not my idea of a perfect society but, as evidenced by this thread perhaps, I don't see any sense that the people in it are opposed to further reconsideration of how we look at ourselves.
Again. No idea what the average man on the Millwall terrace thinks. Just seeking to put forward the idea that the situation is less binary than originally presented here
Laughable. Fair play to the posters who can be bothered to engage with you, they're better than me
@HCblue You see "diminish[ing] the person saying it" is absolutely something you do yourself. Again, it feels a bit arrogant to choose an example that relates to me, but saying
"You should probably reread the post to which I was replying."
is not patronising because of the substance of the argument, it's patronising because it implies that I couldn't understand what @StrongestTeam had said.
You also regularly misrepresent and strawman other people's views and then accuse them of doing that exact same thing.
Further, you claim to dislike these threads, and yet the one thing I can state with 100% confidence is that this thread would have been an awful lot shorter but for your persistence in defending the indefensible.
Once again, this is about bending the knee and booing bending the knee. It's not about critical race theory, or "wokeness" or anything else. If you can't address the point at issue without bringing in a whole bunch of egregious whataboutery, then it really is difficult to see why you are continuing the argument at all.
Yes, that diminishes you in my eyes and, I'm fairly confident, the eyes of many other people on here.
As the father of mixed race children I am happy to agree with @HCblue that the current generation is, generalising a bit, a lot more relaxed about differences in ethnicity, gender and everything else, so some reasons for optimism.
Pretty much everything else I’ve read by him/her seems to just be misplaced bullshit and precisely the sorts of arguments that led to that ‘whitewash’ government commission report on race issued a few months ago.
And still really can’t see any connection with the discussion on footballers taking the knee.
They have publicly and repeatedly stated that the gesture has nothing to do with the political movement. To make the arguments you - @HCblue are making in this context suggests that you think they are lying.
Why you are trying repeatedly to complicate something so simple is beyond me.
Feel free to ignore or boo or talk endless bullshit trying to justify it if you want. It’s a (relatively) free country. Just don’t whinge if people shrug their shoulders turn away and mutter ‘racist twat’ under their breath.
(And apologies for any offence with some of the language used)
(And apologies if it’s got personal - on other issues I have no arguments with you usually)
@hcblue I was quoting Dave from his performance of the song Black at the Brits.
Just because things are less racist than they used to be doesn’t mean they aren’t racist, and that we don’t need to do more. Including footballers raising awareness through the taking the knee gesture. It isn’t sufficient on its own, but it’s a tiny step forward, and I really don’t see a justification for booing it.
For me the last five years in the streets and on social media have proved beyond doubt that racism is alive and well and thriving and now even enjoys a number of people intellectualising it.
@OakwoodExile said: @HCblue You see "diminish[ing] the person saying it" is absolutely something you do yourself. Again, it feels a bit arrogant to choose an example that relates to me, but saying
"You should probably reread the post to which I was replying."
is not patronising because of the substance of the argument, it's patronising because it implies that I couldn't understand what @StrongestTeam had said.
Or that you had not read it the first time.
You also regularly misrepresent and strawman other people's views and then accuse them of doing that exact same thing.
Give one example.
Further, you claim to dislike these threads, and yet the one thing I can state with 100% confidence is that this thread would have been an awful lot shorter but for your persistence in defending the indefensible.
So long as you characterise the conversation in that way, I shall disagree.
Once again, this is about bending the knee and booing bending the knee. It's not about critical race theory, or "wokeness" or anything else. If you can't address the point at issue without bringing in a whole bunch of egregious whataboutery, then it really is difficult to see why you are continuing the argument at all.
Whether you like it or not, the gesture/ ceremony is a symbol. The important questions are around our substantive response to it and what reaction we think may be warranted in the situation being highlighted by those making the gesture. That requires us to form an accurate picture of the state of play in our society. The way we frame that conversation is key to the way we address it.
I'm not a booer nor much of a clapper on things like this. Other people have different feelings. Similarly, my sense of what society is or should be like will differ from that of those with different life experiences, including white and black professional sportsmen and other supporters of Wycombe Wanderers and Millwall. Hence the need to make a clear-headed analysis if possible.
Yes, that diminishes you in my eyes and, I'm fairly confident, the eyes of many other people on here.
@Chris said: @hcblue I was quoting Dave from his performance of the song Black at the Brits.
Dave?
Just because things are less racist than they used to be doesn’t mean they aren’t racist, and that we don’t need to do more. Including footballers raising awareness through the taking the knee gesture. It isn’t sufficient on its own, but it’s a tiny step forward, and I really don’t see a justification for booing it.
I tend to agree with pretty much all this paragraph, as expressed.
@bookertease said:
As the father of mixed race children I am happy to agree with @HCblue that the current generation is, generalising a bit, a lot more relaxed about differences in ethnicity, gender and everything else, so some reasons for optimism.
Cool.
Pretty much everything else I’ve read by him/her seems to just be misplaced bullshit and precisely the sorts of arguments that led to that ‘whitewash’ government commission report on race issued a few months ago.
Misplaced how?
And still really can’t see any connection with the discussion on footballers taking the knee.
They have publicly and repeatedly stated that the gesture has nothing to do with the political movement. To make the arguments you - @HCblue are making in this context suggests that you think they are lying.
I don't see how that is so and I certainly do not think that. I don't remotely doubt they are sincere in their intentions and honest in their descriptions. I don't really think the interesting, relevant conversation is about either the footballers making the gesture or the people booing it. It is more about how to frame the situation and what to do about it.
Why you are trying repeatedly to complicate something so simple is beyond me.
Feel free to ignore or boo or talk endless bullshit trying to justify it if you want. It’s a (relatively) free country. Just don’t whinge if people shrug their shoulders turn away and mutter ‘racist twat’ under their breath.
I doubt one would notice and thus be led to whinge if someone turned away and muttered that under their breath as they walked away. It is likely to be more noticeable if they say it to your face.
(And apologies for any offence with some of the language used)
(And apologies if it’s got personal - on other issues I have no arguments with you usually)
"Yes, It would be abhorrent for people to be lumped all in one group and judged accordingly by the law perhaps because of a characteristic or effect of birth. If a group of people had experienced that over decades if not centuries they'd surely want to protest. Probably less so because someone disagreed with them on a forum."
You replied to this as follows (although not in your immediate reply)
"Your proposition was that there was a category, or categories, of people against whom the law expressly discriminated. This is not the case."
That is misrepresenting and strawmanning @StrongestTeam 's views. You ignored "over decades if not centuries" and pretended his argument was based on explicit legal discrimination at the present time.
And I read his comment and your reply, and read them right, the first time.
If it's not still written into overtly racist laws that the police or citizens can be discriminatory, then obviously racism isn't a problem, duh
If taking the knee has done anything practically, it's at least shown up people into a few different camps
1) the racists (immediate vitriolic reaction)
2) the mentally challenged (angry but not really sure why- usually friends with 1) )
3) the pseudo- intellectual with dangerously high self-value and importance - above those who have actually lived with racism.
I'm more than happy for a few of 2 and 3 to be caught in the wash while we remove all the 1s) from the game and society, it's just tiresome.
"Yes, It would be abhorrent for people to be lumped all in one group and judged accordingly by the law perhaps because of a characteristic or effect of birth. If a group of people had experienced that over decades if not centuries they'd surely want to protest. Probably less so because someone disagreed with them on a forum."
You replied to this as follows (although not in your immediate reply)
"Your proposition was that there was a category, or categories, of people against whom the law expressly discriminated. This is not the case."
That is misrepresenting and strawmanning @StrongestTeam 's views. You ignored "over decades if not centuries" and pretended his argument was based on explicit legal discrimination at the present time.
And I read his comment and your reply, and read them right, the first time.
If it is the case that there is no express or statutory discrimination, and this is the only thing presented in the post as being complaint-worthy, it is not clear why you would want to protest about it. One could present alternative grounds for complaint about the status quo but complaining about a state of being that no longer pertains is on its own not compelling.
You said "regularly misrepresent and strawman". This example is neither of these things. Do you have any others?
Comments
I couldn't say, @chris. I think the outcomes tend to be different though would not like to venture a strong opinion as to why. Do you have a view?
It's obvious that the answer is no.
And do you know or believe you know why?
It would be arrogant of me to say that this is possibly the single most patronising thing you've ever said.
So your positive statement of the argument against taking the knee is that critical race theory is bad? You sound like someone parroting Fox News talking points. It is perfectly possible to disagree with aspects of critical race theory or even all of critical race theory and still be entirely supportive of taking the knee. The aspect I particularly dislike is the denial of the importance of intention. That has zero relevance to this argument, literally no relevance at all.
And, by the way, let's not take it as read that "there is no longer overt institutional or legal prejudice towards non-white people". I agree that there aren't explicit laws that say that you can lock up Black people for something that wouldn't be a crime if carried out by a White person. But that is simply not what "institutional racism" means.
Do you want to have another try?
No, I would not. All people in this country are subject to the same laws and our society treats everyone with a growing sense of fairness and attempted equality. I wrote that we are not in Utopia and goodness knows that that is so.
If you think it patronising to assert that there are, and have not been for a very long time, no laws in this country supporting prejudice in response to a post asserting that that is a valid basis for complaint in the present time, I am not sure what could reasonably be said in response.
On the question of the relevance of CRT to the argument, it is exactly relevant for the reasons I gave and I stated my personal views on the right to carry out the gesture very clearly.
This is an astonishing line to take and it really takes some mental gymnastics. Ask your black friends if they've ever been pulled over by the cops for no reason. Ask them when they last got racially abused in the street. When was the last time either of those things happened to you? Now ask those people if critical race theory in the United States has made the slightest bit of difference to how much shit they have to put up with. These are real, hurtful, oppressive things happening to real people around you every day. Pretending any of this is about critical race theory is surely the route of those who feel their superiority under threat.
You don't regret threads like this enough to ignore them though. Every time the subject comes up you're in there defending the rights of racists.
This is quite a leap. Again, ask your black friends if that's true.
This line could have been written in the 1970s and been true. Things have got better, but they're not equal and to pretend that they are is putting your head in the sand.
I'll let them know that a white man says everything is fine now. They'll be over the moon. However, forgive me if I don't take you word for this, as black people are still considerably more likely to receive a prison sentence for a crime where a white person receives a non-custodial sentence. This link is from last year, but you can find pretty much the same article published every year for the last couple of decades.
But we are classes of oppressor and oppressed. I have no idea why or how anyone would try to claim the opposite. And while that is true, this is not the race-blind utopia that you seem to think it is. Out of everything you've ever posted on this subject, this paragraph, and in particular the phrase "removing agency and individual responsibility" is the most offensive victim blaming I think I've ever seen on this subject. It's their own fault that they get abused in the street? It's their own failure of responsibility that causes them to get pulled over for driving while black? Their own fault for having skin a different tone to the judge?
" They say, "You should be grateful we're the least racist" "
Not with you.
The question is what is the best way to address continuing inequalities. I argue that CRT is very much not it. I suspect your political antennae are sufficiently attuned to know that its ideas are creeping into the mainstream.
Though I regret them, why should I ignore them any more than you? The suggestion that my interest is in representing the "rights of racists" is, putting it neutrally, another emotive mischaracterisation.
Please cite examples of laws in place that show I am mistaken.
I did not say things were ideal. See below.
Are their rights different to yours and mine?
That you suggest I think ours a race blind utopia when I expressly stated the opposite is regrettable. It is, though, immeasurably better than it was forty years ago. This is not nothing and merits acknowledgement.
The approach of CRT, and critical theory generally, in categorising people by their characteristics, in this case of race, and attributing to them, expressing it crudely for the sake of brevity, classes of oppressor or oppressed does indeed encourage a removal of agency and individual responsibility. To be the oppressor purely by dint of one's skin colour makes one irredeemable. To be, by the same token, the oppressed, encourages a sense of hopelessness and victimhood that acts as a powerful disincentive to progression in society. This is separate to the actual experiences of people in either category, being a template that CRT proposes should be used to interpret racial interactions. It is a divisive, inhuman and illiberal measuring tool. This is, as I understand it, what lay behind many of the criticisms of the knee taking at the outset last year. I think it fair criticism.
Glad I’m like @Wendoverman - simply simplistic. I’ll sleep well tonight.
PS I did try to understand the arguments for and against racism but lost track of who had racist tendencies and who was clearly anti anti-racists.
Without meaning to stir things up again, @micra, my proposition is that it is perfectly possible to be anti-racist while opposing a certain set of ideas prevalent in a movement, founded in the US, known as "anti-racism". This is not the same as the BLM movement though it is based more or less in those ideas.
I have not yet seen anyone make a pro-racism argument.
Sleep well.
How many times do the people taking the knee have to explain to you that they are not supporting some US quasi-Marxist loons?
This was the prevalent fig leaf argument against taking the knee last season, since when virtually every player given the opportunity has said this is categorically not the case. The England manager even wrote to you to explain it.
It’s like there is a cognitive dissonance that won’t allow you to connect the dots.
Even if your argument was true, booing black players over matters of race is simply unacceptable. In our lifetimes I’ve seen bananas thrown at our players, heard ‘zigga zigga zigga’ chants aimed at them and less than 18 months ago had one of all time greats feel racially abused.
I owe them a bit of virtue signalling for what I’ve seen them take over the years.
Certain aspects of the BLM movement in the UK seem to me a bit ineffectual, but just because I have quibbles does not mean that I oppose either them or their objectives, nor do I think it is up to me to tell them how to direct their protest. When you start booing someone or something, you are not raising some minor quibbles, you are expressing strong disagreement, so are we to believe that sections of Millwall FC have acquired not only basic literacy skills but degrees in PPE from a red brick? It’s too much of a stretch for me, I reckon their objections are far more basic.
I really appreciate all these convoluted arguements about what's racist and what isn't. However when anyone tells me that I can't applaud someone making a gesture, that they tell me they believe is a valid show of support against racism, because that person is deluded in what they believe then I say fuck it I'll go with my instincts.
If it smell like a racist and barks like a racist ...
I think you may have hit on something like the raw essence of some of the objection. No-one has told you you can't applaud if you want (have they?) but there is an emotional resistance to the suggestion that applause might be mandatory - the opposite of your own perspective - that there is abroad the suggestion that society has never been worse or more uneven in its treatment of people rather than that it is an immeasurably fairer-minded place to live than it has ever been and that there has never been greater opportunity available for those with little at the start (and this observation is not confined to non-white people) to raise themselves up. It's not my idea of a perfect society but, as evidenced by this thread perhaps, I don't see any sense that the people in it are opposed to further reconsideration of how we look at ourselves.
Again. No idea what the average man on the Millwall terrace thinks. Just seeking to put forward the idea that the situation is less binary than originally presented here.
@HCblue My, you're up and early defending the indefensible. Actually this is pretty binary.
This isn't about critical race theory, it's about taking the knee to show abhorrence of the continuing prevalence of racism in this country. I struggle to see an argument that conflates the two things as being in good faith.
This isn't about not applauding taking the knee. It's about not booing taking the knee.
Oh, and I did re-read @StrongestTeam 's comment. He didn't say what you pretend he said.
The perspective has been presented reasonably clearly, I think. Naturally, you are free to ignore it but it does not mean it is not there.
Should I write something like "My, you're up early and arguing against arguments that aren't being made" or should I try to address what is being said without attempting to diminish the person saying it?
Laughable. Fair play to the posters who can be bothered to engage with you, they're better than me
@HCblue You see "diminish[ing] the person saying it" is absolutely something you do yourself. Again, it feels a bit arrogant to choose an example that relates to me, but saying
is not patronising because of the substance of the argument, it's patronising because it implies that I couldn't understand what @StrongestTeam had said.
You also regularly misrepresent and strawman other people's views and then accuse them of doing that exact same thing.
Further, you claim to dislike these threads, and yet the one thing I can state with 100% confidence is that this thread would have been an awful lot shorter but for your persistence in defending the indefensible.
Once again, this is about bending the knee and booing bending the knee. It's not about critical race theory, or "wokeness" or anything else. If you can't address the point at issue without bringing in a whole bunch of egregious whataboutery, then it really is difficult to see why you are continuing the argument at all.
Yes, that diminishes you in my eyes and, I'm fairly confident, the eyes of many other people on here.
As the father of mixed race children I am happy to agree with @HCblue that the current generation is, generalising a bit, a lot more relaxed about differences in ethnicity, gender and everything else, so some reasons for optimism.
Pretty much everything else I’ve read by him/her seems to just be misplaced bullshit and precisely the sorts of arguments that led to that ‘whitewash’ government commission report on race issued a few months ago.
And still really can’t see any connection with the discussion on footballers taking the knee.
They have publicly and repeatedly stated that the gesture has nothing to do with the political movement. To make the arguments you - @HCblue are making in this context suggests that you think they are lying.
Why you are trying repeatedly to complicate something so simple is beyond me.
Feel free to ignore or boo or talk endless bullshit trying to justify it if you want. It’s a (relatively) free country. Just don’t whinge if people shrug their shoulders turn away and mutter ‘racist twat’ under their breath.
(And apologies for any offence with some of the language used)
(And apologies if it’s got personal - on other issues I have no arguments with you usually)
@hcblue I was quoting Dave from his performance of the song Black at the Brits.
Just because things are less racist than they used to be doesn’t mean they aren’t racist, and that we don’t need to do more. Including footballers raising awareness through the taking the knee gesture. It isn’t sufficient on its own, but it’s a tiny step forward, and I really don’t see a justification for booing it.
For me the last five years in the streets and on social media have proved beyond doubt that racism is alive and well and thriving and now even enjoys a number of people intellectualising it.
Or that you had not read it the first time.
Give one example.
So long as you characterise the conversation in that way, I shall disagree.
Whether you like it or not, the gesture/ ceremony is a symbol. The important questions are around our substantive response to it and what reaction we think may be warranted in the situation being highlighted by those making the gesture. That requires us to form an accurate picture of the state of play in our society. The way we frame that conversation is key to the way we address it.
I'm not a booer nor much of a clapper on things like this. Other people have different feelings. Similarly, my sense of what society is or should be like will differ from that of those with different life experiences, including white and black professional sportsmen and other supporters of Wycombe Wanderers and Millwall. Hence the need to make a clear-headed analysis if possible.
So be it.
Dave?
I tend to agree with pretty much all this paragraph, as expressed.
Cool.
Misplaced how?
I don't see how that is so and I certainly do not think that. I don't remotely doubt they are sincere in their intentions and honest in their descriptions. I don't really think the interesting, relevant conversation is about either the footballers making the gesture or the people booing it. It is more about how to frame the situation and what to do about it.
I doubt one would notice and thus be led to whinge if someone turned away and muttered that under their breath as they walked away. It is likely to be more noticeable if they say it to your face.
@HCblue OK, I'm almost too bored with you now, but, as it happens, I can kill two birds with ones stone.
@StrongestTeam said
You replied to this as follows (although not in your immediate reply)
That is misrepresenting and strawmanning @StrongestTeam 's views. You ignored "over decades if not centuries" and pretended his argument was based on explicit legal discrimination at the present time.
And I read his comment and your reply, and read them right, the first time.
If it's not still written into overtly racist laws that the police or citizens can be discriminatory, then obviously racism isn't a problem, duh
If taking the knee has done anything practically, it's at least shown up people into a few different camps
1) the racists (immediate vitriolic reaction)
2) the mentally challenged (angry but not really sure why- usually friends with 1) )
3) the pseudo- intellectual with dangerously high self-value and importance - above those who have actually lived with racism.
I'm more than happy for a few of 2 and 3 to be caught in the wash while we remove all the 1s) from the game and society, it's just tiresome.
If it is the case that there is no express or statutory discrimination, and this is the only thing presented in the post as being complaint-worthy, it is not clear why you would want to protest about it. One could present alternative grounds for complaint about the status quo but complaining about a state of being that no longer pertains is on its own not compelling.
You said "regularly misrepresent and strawman". This example is neither of these things. Do you have any others?
Been a while since I watched the Brits! Don't know him. Seems interesting.