@HCblue said:
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.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you happy but adds nothing to your argument.
So if I’m reading you right, you are saying that CRT states that change is impossible. You use the words irredeemably and helpless. I had understood CRT to be an explanatory model for why racism exists despite, on the surface, the removal of overt racist laws and practices and their replacement with seemingly non discriminatory laws and legal protections.
As for your sentence that includes the words supporters and beneficiaries I argue that CRT does make the claim that we (white people) are beneficiaries of a biased system and it is a claim I agree with. It is through the writings and conversations I have had with colleagues and friends who identify as non-white and my own reading and critical examination of my life that I have come to understand how the system currently works to my advantage. Now better informed, I am able to begin to work to change that system and no longer support it through ignorance and inaction. My friends and colleagues take issue with your statement that they are helpless. They currently have less power within the system but are actively working for equality in power to sit alongside equality in law as the latter is not the same as the former.
Thanks for this.
I don't say that CRT suggests change is impossible but that the practical effect of its collective-centred approach makes positive change less rather than more likely.
I also agree with the proposition of the first sentence of paragraph two. Similarly, I would agree with the proposition that I have enjoyed varying measures of advantage from being male, middle class and of a two-parent family - we all enjoy various benefits and disadvantages and we all deal with them differently. The question is how we identify these, how we rank them and how we address them and it is this framing that is currently up for grabs, as it were.
Taking your phrase "equality of power" to mean equality of treatment and opportunity in society, I agree with you. (By all means correct me if you meant something different.) There has to be a discussion about how that is measured.
Whilst I grant you that individuals can bring about great change l’d argue that a collective will for change is also necessary.
Naturally, hence consciousness raising actions such as this in order to garner such support. Some measure of collective will, or support, is essential to change in a functioning democracy, right?
Secondly, do you think that people who are non-white are treated equally and have equal opportunities in current English society? I do not, even though they may have, as you have said I think, equal rights in law.
Honestly, I don't know. It would be easy to say a quick "no, because racism". But, if we support the idea that most discrimination that takes place these days is unconscious, it would be harder to assess the reasons why you or I or X did not secure a job or other opportunity.
It's possible, I expect, to make some kind of appraisal of the averages for different social groups but not necessarily to attribute the reasons for differences between them accurately. (Not saying it's not worth collecting the data. Just that interpretation of it might not be straightforward.) I did say, you are right, that we are theoretically equal under the law but I accept that that does not necessarily mean we all treat each other the same.
Unconscious discrimination is still discrimination. Although I think unconscious is the wrong word and I offer “unthinking” instead. And whilst it may be hard to assess the reasons for bias I think not to attempt to do so is a lazy cop out. It may also be uncomfortable to discover that one unthinkingly perpetuates power differentials in areas such as gender, sexuality and race. It is also uncomfortable to realise that one’s achievements in areas such as work, income, education and so on may not be solely due to one's innate abilities. Once you accept those hard truths it is incumbent upon you to do something about it because if you don’t then you are, whether you like it or not, perpetuating discrimination through privilege.
@Username said:
Not sure that the Chelsea Rent boys chant is homophobic mind you so I wouldn't necessarily want to group it all together.
When I saw the story on Twitter I assumed they were singing something else entirely (that definitely would be homophobic).
How else could it be interpreted? Genuine question, as I've read up on the connotations and all that.
The "negative" of being a Chelsea Rent boy being the selling your body, not the fact it's necessarily to a bloke.
Specific to Chelsea as there was a relatively well known spot by Stamford bridge where it was commonplace
That may be, but it is also a homophobic slur.
I've never heard it used outside of at Chelsea/ Chelsea players ...
Last time I went to Chelsea in the away end was with a friend who's as straight as a roundabout and he had no complaints about joining in with the chant so I've never thought twice about it tbh - maybe that's wrong, but I've never seen it on the same lines as a lot of the obviously homophobic chants which have rightly disappeared.
Not playing Chelsea very often means it's something that won't need to be thought about again for a long while at least
I am obviously far less sophisticated as I've never heard it used in any context other than gay male prostitution. Does this mean they were singing about the possibility he was going to sell his body to a lovely lady near a bridge after the game?
@Username said:
Last time I went to Chelsea in the away end was with a friend who's as straight as a roundabout and he had no complaints about joining in with the chant so I've never thought twice about it tbh - maybe that's wrong, but I've never seen it on the same lines as a lot of the obviously homophobic chants which have rightly disappeared.
>
I've only ever heard "rentboy" used as a term of unequivocally homophobic abuse. Maybe I've somehow managed to find myself around a select few homophobes at pubs and (non-WWFC) football matches that others have managed to avoid.
With regards to your friend, if a person of colour joined in racist abuse aimed at themselves, it doesn't make it any less racist.
@Username said:
Not sure that the Chelsea Rent boys chant is homophobic mind you so I wouldn't necessarily want to group it all together.
When I saw the story on Twitter I assumed they were singing something else entirely (that definitely would be homophobic).
How else could it be interpreted? Genuine question, as I've read up on the connotations and all that.
The "negative" of being a Chelsea Rent boy being the selling your body, not the fact it's necessarily to a bloke.
Specific to Chelsea as there was a relatively well known spot by Stamford bridge where it was commonplace
That may be, but it is also a homophobic slur.
I've never heard it used outside of at Chelsea/ Chelsea players ...
Last time I went to Chelsea in the away end was with a friend who's as straight as a roundabout and he had no complaints about joining in with the chant so I've never thought twice about it tbh - maybe that's wrong, but I've never seen it on the same lines as a lot of the obviously homophobic chants which have rightly disappeared.
Not playing Chelsea very often means it's something that won't need to be thought about again for a long while at least
I haven't heard it outside of a football context since I was at school, where it was pretty commonly used.
@Username said:
Last time I went to Chelsea in the away end was with a friend who's as straight as a roundabout and he had no complaints about joining in with the chant so I've never thought twice about it tbh - maybe that's wrong, but I've never seen it on the same lines as a lot of the obviously homophobic chants which have rightly disappeared.
>
I've only ever heard "rentboy" used as a term of unequivocally homophobic abuse. Maybe I've somehow managed to find myself around a select few homophobes at pubs and (non-WWFC) football matches that others have managed to avoid.
With regards to your friend, if a person of colour joined in racist abuse aimed at themselves, it doesn't make it any less racist.
Of course not
"Rent boy" obviously completely passed me by as an insult, and I definitely didn't have a sheltered upbringing/hung around with enough wrong'uns at various times, maybe a generational thing.
I am not clever enough to take part in this intellectual debate except to say that I’m disgusted by anyone who judges a person by the colour of their skin.
Well done Klopp and co for the video, hopefully resonates with or informs one or two people. Would have been easy to ignore.
Imagine your son getting called that over and over on his debut for his new club on the TV, and what people would say to any player who came out if they chant that sort of thing for fun.
@mooneyman said:
Indicates you lived in an affluent area @micra. I think the correct term was "bent as a nine bob note".
Certainly didn’t @mooneyman. Poplar Road estate, row upon row of inter-war semis. It would have been nine bob of course. I just couldn’t believe/remember, if truth be known, that there were ever notes for the equivalent of a 50p piece!
Comments
The thoughts of the actual gay fellow about it did not make the case strong enough for you then @Username ?
The "negative" of being a Chelsea Rent boy being the selling your body, not the fact it's necessarily to a bloke.
Specific to Chelsea as there was a relatively well known spot by Stamford bridge where it was commonplace
Unconscious discrimination is still discrimination. Although I think unconscious is the wrong word and I offer “unthinking” instead. And whilst it may be hard to assess the reasons for bias I think not to attempt to do so is a lazy cop out. It may also be uncomfortable to discover that one unthinkingly perpetuates power differentials in areas such as gender, sexuality and race. It is also uncomfortable to realise that one’s achievements in areas such as work, income, education and so on may not be solely due to one's innate abilities. Once you accept those hard truths it is incumbent upon you to do something about it because if you don’t then you are, whether you like it or not, perpetuating discrimination through privilege.
That may be, but it is also a homophobic slur.
I've never heard it used outside of at Chelsea/ Chelsea players ...
Last time I went to Chelsea in the away end was with a friend who's as straight as a roundabout and he had no complaints about joining in with the chant so I've never thought twice about it tbh - maybe that's wrong, but I've never seen it on the same lines as a lot of the obviously homophobic chants which have rightly disappeared.
Not playing Chelsea very often means it's something that won't need to be thought about again for a long while at least
I am obviously far less sophisticated as I've never heard it used in any context other than gay male prostitution. Does this mean they were singing about the possibility he was going to sell his body to a lovely lady near a bridge after the game?
>
I've only ever heard "rentboy" used as a term of unequivocally homophobic abuse. Maybe I've somehow managed to find myself around a select few homophobes at pubs and (non-WWFC) football matches that others have managed to avoid.
With regards to your friend, if a person of colour joined in racist abuse aimed at themselves, it doesn't make it any less racist.
I haven't heard it outside of a football context since I was at school, where it was pretty commonly used.
Of course not
"Rent boy" obviously completely passed me by as an insult, and I definitely didn't have a sheltered upbringing/hung around with enough wrong'uns at various times, maybe a generational thing.
Anyone who thinks rentboy isn't homophobic is, at best, quite thick.
Can anyone explain why this was being sung at a match not involving Chelsea?
It was being directed at Billy Gilmour, who is on loan from Chelsea to Norwich
Ahh, thank you.
@Username surely you realised when they and your mate sang it...it might be an insult of some sort?
I’d not heard the expression “straight as a roundabout” before. Only “bent as a nine pound note”. Different context of course.
Indicates you lived in an affluent area @micra. I think the correct term was "bent as a nine bob note".
Ten bob note surely?
Err....no, there was an actual ten bob note so that wouldn't have made any sense in that context
'Queer as a bottle of chips' is another one !!
As a child of decimalisation I stand corrected!
I got a ten bob note as a birthday present once...I think it went on a Captain Scarlett SPV.
I assume that was before your abnormal crisp consumption took hold!
My crisp consumption has been widely exaggerated.
I am not clever enough to take part in this intellectual debate except to say that I’m disgusted by anyone who judges a person by the colour of their skin.
Well done Klopp and co for the video, hopefully resonates with or informs one or two people. Would have been easy to ignore.
Imagine your son getting called that over and over on his debut for his new club on the TV, and what people would say to any player who came out if they chant that sort of thing for fun.
Certainly didn’t @mooneyman. Poplar Road estate, row upon row of inter-war semis. It would have been nine bob of course. I just couldn’t believe/remember, if truth be known, that there were ever notes for the equivalent of a 50p piece!
‘......if truth be told....’ is the correct phrase, I think.
There was a five shilling note in circulation until 1928
Before my time, believe it or not! They’ll be printing £50 notes next.
I've heard that soon we will only have a small plastic bank card to pay for things.
Sewn into our foreheads.