George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, TheJTS98 said:

That should be the aim of any anti-racism messaging at the fitba.

The problem with taking the knee is that it doesn't have an aim. Also, it's now so mired in controversy that it's useless for the purpose people want it to serve.

I mean, in the British context what does it actually mean anyway?

It's quite frustrating to see so many people almost seem to think of taking a knee as an end in itself, and the mere suggestion of stopping it must be attacked. There's a pseudo-religious aspect to this.

Taking a knee is not the issue here. And the people fixating on this gesture are taking their eye off the main goal, and it's sad that many of them doing that are also implying some kind of malice in those suggesting it should be stopped.

It should be stopped. It's useless and it is now causing a problem rather than serving any purpose.

I don't necessarily disagree with much of that. I don't think, from a pragmatic view point, taking the knee is going to do much from this point on. I don't think it's doing any harm either. If someone is getting absolutely raging about it, it's unlikely they'd ever have been very receptive to any discussion about it.

[Guest TheJTS98]

5 minutes ago, Pato said:

What is the problem it is causing?

It's causing a divide between sections of the England support and the players and coaches who are going to be needed as faces for any future campaigns.

It's creating aggressive environments in the stadium. Do you want to be a black guy at a game surrounded by guys in Stone Island booing taking the knee? When do we start seeing scraps over this?

It's making a link, rightly or wrongly, between racism and another political movement which those who are so minded can use to muddy the waters.

It's taking the place of something more effective in combating racism in fitba. It literally achieves nothing and is just cheap and easy for the authorities.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Always fun to see Dorlomin, one of the maddest people online, telling people to stop being mad online

[Guest TheJTS98]

7 minutes ago, Pato said:

So - to clarify - the players taking the knee are causing the divide, not the people booing the players taking the knee?

Well, that's an issue of semantics.

But, I'd argue that when you have evidence that doing this causes this reaction, there is no virtue in continuing to do it.

Unless you can point one out?

People fixate on this idea of 'backing down to the racists'. But that's a short-sighted view.

You know it's going to get a bad reaction in stadiums. You know it's going to lead to an environment where black fans might feel uncomfortable. You know it creates a gap between the players and the fans. You know its connotations with BLM and whatever people claim about BLM allows racists to subtly change the topic and manipulate the discussion around racism in sport. You know a number of high-profile sports people have called it out as tokenistic pish. You know all of these things.

If you still want to carry on with this, knowing all of that, then you're simply choosing to go down with a sinking ship. There's nothing wrong with taking a step back and saying 'this is a bad idea with bad consequences, let's get a better one'.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

It's some laugh seeing Viktor Orban claim that political gestures have no place on a football pitch.

The same Orban who has built a state of the art football stadium in his tiny home village and is funding football clubs in Hungarian speaking areas of neighbouring countries.

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

To be fair, I don't think anyone is really trying to change racists' minds. You can't split the world neatly into racists and non-racists.

The vast majority of racism is probably by people who aren't overtly racists and don't see themselves as racist, they just think it's OK to make generalisations and judgements about people based on ethnicity. Whether it's working or not, the aim of BLM and all the associated stuff should be to make those people question some of the things they think or say.

The Black Lives Matter program is really focused on achieving economic, social and institutional equality for the black community rather than caring about changing white people's thoughts and generalisations. The latter is a much more narrow, liberal-oriented (and yes, typically middle class) view of why racism is bad and What Must Be Done About It. 

I'd say that the greater radicalism and wider scope of BLM is progressive for their cause but it also puts it in the political domain because that is how you achieve those major changes instead of token gestures.

Meanwhile the UK, after a brief wave of potential radicalism in 2020, has focused on, err, token gestures like statue defenestration/defence and some footballers kneeling before every game until racism magically disappears. 

[Detournement]

Racism isn't going away so either you don't take the knee or you are taking it for years and years which would be ridiculous. The discourse around it is the main thing keeping it going. 

If individual players want to do it then great but it's got very little value as an officially scheduled act. 

The Dalian Atkinson killing trial will surely return a verdict during the Euros so either way that will add fuel and we'll see how many people are as keen to make statements about British police as they are American. 

 

[Guest TheJTS98]

6 minutes ago, Pato said:

Getting racists who were previously privately racist to be publicly racist is an excellent outcome.

No, it's not. This is a depressing view on the topic.

[Ad Lib]

38 minutes ago, virginton said:

Standing silently is in the typical Western cultural context a mark of support and approval, champ. That's why minute's silences and the annual Poppyfest season are literally fixated on obtaining exactly that desired response from the audience. 

Short of a down with this sort of thing placard the avenue for non-racist disapproval appears to be non-existent in your bizarre categorisation.

You're missing the point, champ. You don't have to express disapproval of the manner of the protest while the protest is itself taking place.

By choosing to do so, at precisely the point when actual fucking racists are expressing their racist disapproval, you are part of the problem.

It is not legitimate for unoppressed people who disagree with the manner of the protest to protest against that manner during the protest. That is snowflake handwringing and tone trolling, as you know fine well.

This is a binary question: you either support the ends of the protest (anti-racism) in which case you express vocal approval or respectful silence, or you oppose the ends of the protest, in which case you're racist.

38 minutes ago, virginton said:

The thing in question being an empty gesture lifted wholesale from the US, cynically co-opted by the EPL and with no definable aims? Oh no!

No, the "thing" is "a global anti-racism movement" which just so happens to have taken its symbol of protest from the US.

Once again, and with feeling, you don't get to tone troll about the symbols oppressed people choose to use to protest against their struggle.

If your objection is to a lack of clarity as to the aims of the protest, then you should be lobbying the relevant authorities to clarify their aims. Booing at a football stadium doesn't do this: it makes you look like a racist.

You don't get to define what "the thing" is. The people doing the thing get to.

38 minutes ago, virginton said:

There were (much more effective) anti-racism campaigns before taking the knee began and there will be more after it is consigned to the dustbin of history as a terrible strategy. 

Even if this is your view, the vast majority of them are not mutually exclusive with taking the knee and none of them are undermined by taking the knee.

To say otherwise it to buy into precisely the racist tropes about BLM that are endemic among the racists.

38 minutes ago, virginton said:

No, this is not actually a logical extension of the above.

Because you don't get to define what the knee protest is for (the oppressed people who initiated it do) it absolutely does.

38 minutes ago, virginton said:

'Feel uncomfortable' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this discussion, when it can be swapped out for 'non-racists who believe that it's a tedious pile of shite'. 

One of those sentiments takes the knee campaign down a pointless cul-de-sac and oh look here we are. 

You are entirely within your rights to think the form of protest is a tedious pile of shite. But that doesn't make it okay to boo the protest, where the reality is that your actions are understood and construed as an attack on anti-racism, not an attack on the form of protest.

And the obsession with complaining about the form of protest shows that you feel more comfortable punching down on black people's self-chosen form of protest at their oppression than you do making the world a hostile environment for racists.

Which pretty much makes it that you're a bit racist, tbh.

[Ad Lib]

42 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

That should be the aim of any anti-racism messaging at the fitba.

The problem with taking the knee is that it doesn't have an aim.

Yes it does. It has an aim "to oppose racism". This isn't fucking complicated. That in and of itself is a worthy and important aim even if it doesn't change a single person's mind.

42 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

Also, it's now so mired in controversy that it's useless for the purpose people want it to serve.

Then call for more concrete and better forms of protest and build a consensus around them. Don't boo those who think think this form of protest still has value, and don't say or do things that can reasonably be construed as a lack of solidarity with their position.

42 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I'd argue it should go further. Messaging at the fitba should be aimed at your part-time racists and children. There should be a message and a culture of this being for dicks and something not to do.

Taking the knee doesn't do that. I mean, in the British context what does it actually mean anyway?

It is a symbol that black people across many parts of the world have chosen, and which has importance to them, and which symbolises the global nature of the struggle for racial equality. You don't get to choose the symbols oppressed people use to protest their oppression.

42 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

It's quite frustrating to see so many people almost seem to think of taking a knee as an end in itself, and the mere suggestion of stopping it must be attacked. There's a pseudo-religious aspect to this.

Taking a knee is not the issue here.

Then don't fucking boo it?

42 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

And the people fixating on this gesture are taking their eye off the main goal, and it's sad that many of them doing that are also implying some kind of malice in those suggesting it should be stopped.

Make your mind up here. Earlier the problem is that it doesn't have an aim, but your proposed solution is that it should be stopped, rather than that it should have a clearer aim. Why is your priority to "stop the knee" rather than to "strengthen the fight against racism"?

42 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

It should be stopped. It's useless and it is now causing a problem rather than serving any purpose.

It isn't "causing a problem". Racists are.

[Detournement]

It's not really a global anti racist movement or it would be talking about Jerusalem, Yemen, the Congo, Brazil and other places. 

I know that the players mean well but overall it's just an American culture war export. 

[Guest TheJTS98]

10 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Yes it does. It has an aim "to oppose racism". This isn't fucking complicated. That in and of itself is a worthy and important aim even if it doesn't change a single person's mind.

That's a really shit aim. It's like getting a personal trainer and telling them your aim is 'to get fitter'. What the f**k does it mean? What does achieving it look like? What constitutes success?

Then call for more concrete and better forms of protest and build a consensus around them. Don't boo those who think think this form of protest still has value, and don't say or do things that can reasonably be construed as a lack of solidarity with their position.

I have suggested a better approach. And I'm not booing anything. Just saying it should be stopped. What you 'construe as a lack of solidarity' is Twitter pish and I have no interest in it.

It is a symbol that black people across many parts of the world have chosen, and which has importance to them, and which symbolises the global nature of the struggle for racial equality. You don't get to choose the symbols oppressed people use to protest their oppression.

I'm not 'choosing the symbols oppressed people use to protest their oppression'. Another straight-from-Twitter line, I see. I'm saying it doesn't work in British football. I'm right.

Then don't fucking boo it?

I don't.

Make your mind up here. Earlier the problem is that it doesn't have an aim, but your proposed solution is that it should be stopped, rather than that it should have a clearer aim. Why is your priority to "stop the knee" rather than to "strengthen the fight against racism"?

It should be stopped and replaced with something with an aim. Not a tricky concept.

It isn't "causing a problem". Racists are.

Again, semantics. When you do something you know will provoke an unhelpful reaction, then you can't wash your hands of the unhelpful reaction.

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by TheJTS98

[Guest TheJTS98]

4 minutes ago, Pato said:

why?

Because it serves no purpose.

It's just part of the social media drive to shame and destroy people you disagree with. It has no actual benefit.

A good anti-racism campaign would educate. It would have a target constituency. It would be thought out and have different stages and different approaches for different demographics.

Outing people as 'bad' is a very social media-type idea and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It's a total waste of energy and completely misses the point.

[vikingTON]

22 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

You're missing the point, champ. You don't have to express disapproval of the manner of the protest while the protest is itself taking place.

By choosing to do so, at precisely the point when actual fucking racists are expressing their racist disapproval, you are part of the problem.

It is not legitimate for unoppressed people who disagree with the manner of the protest to protest against that manner during the protest. That is snowflake handwringing and tone trolling, as you know fine well.

This is a binary question: you either support the ends of the protest (anti-racism) in which case you express vocal approval or respectful silence, or you oppose the ends of the protest, in which case you're racist.

It is not even remotely a binary question and it is the approach of liberals like yourself who try to shoehorn all sentiment into two distinct boxes that dooms the campaign to failure on even its most basic intentions. 

Quote

No, the "thing" is "a global anti-racism movement" which just so happens to have taken its symbol of protest from the US.

Erm no, it's not 'global' at all, not even remotely. It's a largely Anglosphere phenomenon whose ripples are just about experienced in west-central Europe as well. 

Global anti-racism is not even remotely aligned to a bunch of footballers taking a knee. 

Quote

If your objection is to a lack of clarity as to the aims of the protest, then you should be lobbying the relevant authorities to clarify their aims. Booing at a football stadium doesn't do this: it makes you look like a racist.

You seem to have wildly confused the audience at a spectator sport with political activists. That is not even remotely what they are obliged to do at all. If they don't approve of an empty gesture, they have the right to boo or turn their back or whatever else within the law. Just as supporters of the gesture have a right to clap and cheer.

If you're not in the business of tolerating different responses to your gesture then choosing a football game in front of a pissed-up crowd to do it is really not the smartest choice. 

Quote

You are entirely within your rights to think the form of protest is a tedious pile of shite. But that doesn't make it okay to boo the protest, where the reality is that your actions are understood and construed as an attack on anti-racism, not an attack on the form of protest.

Liberal opinion can 'understand' or construe it in whatever way they want; the people who are booing in Middlesbrough or Budapest couldn't give a toss about what The Guardian's comments section thinks about them. 

Quote

And the obsession with complaining about the form of protest shows that you feel more comfortable punching down on black people's self-chosen form of protest at their oppression than you do making the world a hostile environment for racists.

Reifying a gesture chosen by a set of elite Anglosphere athletes in 2020 as the "self-chosen form of protest at their oppression" by a global category of billions of people says a lot more about your world view than it does anyone else's. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by vikingTON

[Guest TheJTS98]

1 minute ago, Pato said:

This is mental. It's way easier for clubs to identify and ban people who are being openly racist than if they're just thinking it or posting it online or whatever.

We've been actively educating racist people in football to not be racist since pre-Justin Fashanu and my word they keep cropping up. Ross County just gave one of them a job.

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

Your grand plan for challenging racism in football is to elicit racism in stadiums.

That's like saying we want to out drunk drivers by handing out free pints in car parks.

You should want to eliminate as much of the racism as you can. You should want to educate people. You should want to change the culture around racism.

You don't. You just want a good social media-style pile-on and to feel superior. That's not, and should never be, the point of an anti-racist campaign. You 100% do not get it.

 

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

That's a really shit aim. It's like getting a personal trainer and telling them your aim is 'to get fitter'. What the f**k does it mean? What does achieving it look like? What constitutes success?

It might well be a poorly defined aim but it's still an aim. You don't see people going around booing, condemning or opposing "fitness", do you?

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I have suggested a better approach. And I'm not booing anything. Just saying it should be stopped. What you 'construe as a lack of solidarity' is Twitter pish and I have no interest in it.

You haven't explained why it should be stopped though, beyond a tone trolley "some people are uncomfortable with it". The world is full of empty gestures and it's fine to think some of those should be stopped, but it's not fine to ally with racists, which is what anyone who boos it at a football match is doing and what anyone who says it's okay to boo it at a football match is doing.

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I'm not 'choosing the symbols oppressed people use to protest their oppression'. Another straight-from-Twitter line, I see. I'm saying it doesn't work in British football. I'm right.

You are choosing it. You are telling them they should stop using their symbol.

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I don't.

But you don't condemn all of those who do.

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

It should be stopped and replaced with something with an aim. Not a tricky concept.

Name me "something with an aim" that is mutually exclusive with taking the knee. Name it. Go.

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

Again, semantics. When you do something you know will provoke an unhelpful reaction, then you can't wash your hands of the unhelpful reaction.

Which is exactly why non-racist football fans shouldn't boo players who decide to take the knee. Glad we agree.

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

It might well be a poorly defined aim but it's still an aim. You don't see people going around booing, condemning or opposing "fitness", do you?

You haven't explained why it should be stopped though, beyond a tone trolley "some people are uncomfortable with it". The world is full of empty gestures and it's fine to think some of those should be stopped, but it's not fine to ally with racists, which is what anyone who boos it at a football match is doing and what anyone who says it's okay to boo it at a football match is doing.

You are choosing it. You are telling them they should stop using their symbol.

But you don't condemn all of those who do.

Name me "something with an aim" that is mutually exclusive with taking the knee. Name it. Go.

Which is exactly why non-racist football fans shouldn't boo players who decide to take the knee. Glad we agree.

I gave you one reply. But, having read this, I'm not sure what your angle is.

There's so much straight-from-Twitter cliche here that I think it may be parody.

I have twice outlined the multiple harms taking the knee is causing. Go back a page and see.

The rest of it is just social media echo chamber rubbish, to be honest. Not worth a response.

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Pato said:

Putting a great deal of words in my mouth there. I'm perfectly happy with education continuing along with the powerful symbol of BLM. Whatever tool works. It's you who want to impose limts for reasons I don't find in the least bit persuasive.

I feel terrible breaking it to you, but some racists cannot be educated out of being racist. For them, you need firmer action. If someone kneeling on the grass is enough to get them monkey chanting or whatever then great - the sooner they're identified at this stage and hoofed out the stadium the better. Leaflets and respectful silence or whatever you think is better will just lead to Tommy Tommy chants in no time.

Wow.

Incredible.

We have nowhere to go here. Enjoy your day.

[Ad Lib]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

It is not even remotely a binary question and it is the approach of liberals like yourself who try to shoehorn all sentiment into two distinct boxes that dooms the campaign to failure on even its most basic intentions. 

The question of whether you oppose or do not oppose racism is a binary question.

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm no, it's not 'global' at all, not even remotely. It's a largely Anglosphere phenomenon whose ripples are just about experienced in west-central Europe as well. 

Global anti-racism is not even remotely aligned to a bunch of footballers taking a knee.

I didn't say it was "aligned" to it. I said that those who use it have come to use it as one symbol of what they regard as a global struggle against racism.

Something can be a global symbol without being adopted by everyone on the planet. It's not just a US or a Western symbol simply because of who uses it the most.

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

You seem to have wildly confused the audience at a spectator sport with political activists. That is not even remotely what they are obliged to do at all. If they don't approve of an empty gesture, they have the right to boo or turn their back or whatever else within the law. Just as supporters of the gesture have a right to clap and cheer.

No. They don't. Racism doesn't go away just because "well I'm not political ahm jist watchin the gehm".

If you are booing something you are taking an active decision to attack it.

If it's more important for you that you get to tell black people how they should protest against racism than it is to act differently from certifiable racists, then that set of priorities suggests you too are complicit in institutional racism.

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

If you're not in the business of tolerating different responses to your gesture then choosing a football game in front of a pissed-up crowd to do it is really not the smartest choice.

Racists at the football shouldn't be tolerated. They should be imprisoned.

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Liberal opinion can 'understand' or construe it in whatever way they want; the people who are booing in Middlesbrough or Budapest couldn't give a toss about what The Guardian's comments section thinks about them. 

And similarly I couldn't give a toss what offends their sensibilities. If not being made to feel uncomfortable and being able to dictate the form of "acceptable" anti-racist protest is more important to them than tackling racism, they should be ostracised, banned and imprisoned.

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Reifying a gesture chosen by a set of elite Anglosphere athletes in 2020 as the "self-chosen form of protest at their oppression" by a global category of billions of people says a lot more about your world view than it does anyone else's. 

Casually discounting the racism experienced by black athletes just because "THEY'RE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH" and saying that their chosen form of protest is somehow less legitimate than others because "THEY'RE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH" says more about you than it does about them or me.

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, TheJTS98 said:

I gave you one reply. But, having read this, I'm not sure what your angle is.

There's so much straight-from-Twitter cliche here that I think it may be parody.

I have twice outlined the multiple harms taking the knee is causing. Go back a page and see.

The rest of it is just social media echo chamber rubbish, to be honest. Not worth a response.

No you haven't. You've wrung your hands and pandered to the feelings of racists and people who feel uncomfortable at having racism pointed out to them.