UKC

Racism letting the side down

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large

I'm writing this not because I think I'm perfect - It's because I don't think last nights racial abuse at the final has been covered on the forums and silence and complicity go hand in hand. As a nation we did not deserve a win last night. Racist bullies don't deserve nice things. My utter respect goes out to the squad though, they represented the best of England.

3
 jasonC abroad 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I agree but I think these people have been given the green light somewhat by Boris Johnson, Priti Patel etc refusing to condemn the people booing when the players take the knee.  I see that Boris has condemned the online abuse etc but it seems odd to condemn one and not the other.

11
In reply to jasonC abroad:

Adil Ray tweeted to the point...

"Piccaninnies & watermelon smiles, Prime Minister?"

1
 Andrew Wells 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

It's not about deserve or not, and realistically are you going to tell me that Italy is somehow a bastion of anti-racism compared to England? It's most certainly not.

That said, absolutely the problems with racism in the England fanbase and indeed in wider society need to be tackled with increasing energy. We are seeing social media companies failing yet again to moderate their platforms, and constant streams of abuse towards players based on their race.

I do think there has been a change though, in the sense that in the past abusing England players for basically any reason has been seen as acceptable and now that is less the case. Part of the problem is that we have a disgusting segment of our press and political establishment who, whatever they say, basically are the voice of racists in this country (that isn't to say that they are all racists, or that everyone who votes Tory is racist... but a majority of people who are racist support the right wing)

5
 philipivan 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I haven't seen any racist messages anywhere, although that may be because I'm not on twitter. I did see an outrageous video of someone being beaten up on fb near what I presume was the Wembley entrance. I have seen hundreds of messages/ posts/ articles discussing the abuse which in my mind just puts even more fuel on the fire. 

As someone said above Italy is probably even worse in this regard. 

This isn't really about football though is it, there's always going to be a percentage of morons who use whatever tribalism as an excuse for violence. They should be addressed as people/ criminals rather than football "fans"

2
 gazhbo 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

If you were going to award the trophy to the country with the least racist fans it certainly wouldn’t be going to Italy.

5
 DaveHK 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Letting the side down is a very appropriate choice of words because the side themselves seem to be a decent bunch of guys on the whole.

 Andrew Wells 12 Jul 2021

I also think that, like

Yes there are big problems with the England fanbase (and in fact basically every national team's fanbase, and some of them are truly awful when it comes to racial and homophobic abuse, see; Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia etc). However. There is also a problem where a majority of England fans are not like that, and yet the whole lot are casually referred to as racist scum. There is a general feeling that football is stupid, people who care about it are plebs, and supporting your national team is archaic patriotism at best and outright xenophobia at worse.

It is a game largely played by working class people and largely enjoyed by working class people and often sneered at by middle class people for being a game supported by hooligans and thugs. That makes me really uncomfortable. 

11
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

> If you were going to award the trophy to the country with the least racist fans it certainly wouldn’t be going to Italy.

That's relevant somehow is it?

16
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> Racist bullies don't deserve nice things.

The 'fans' who've been directing racist abuse at members of the team, via social media or otherwise, do deserve a lifetime ban from attending future games though imo.

In reply to deepsoup:

Makes sense.

> The 'fans' who've been directing racist abuse at members of the team, via social media or otherwise, do deserve a lifetime ban from attending future games though imo.

Message Removed 12 Jul 2021
Reason: inappropriate content
In reply to Andrew Wells:

There is a general feeling that football is stupid, people who care about it are plebs, and supporting your national team is archaic patriotism at best and outright xenophobia at worse.

Since football is far and away the UK's most popular spectator sport, I think it unlikely that this can be a "general feeling." I can't remember ever encountering such a view in any mainstream media, so where does it find expression? I don't even believe it's particularly widely-held among the middle class. A number of the guys I know who hold season tickets at gig Prem clubs are middle-class. And it's quite a while since Keano complained that the atmosphere at Old Trafford was being ruined by too many well-off middle-class supporters too busy eating their prawn sandwiches to roar the team on. This sounds to me like the sort of artificial grievance that belongs on Wokewatch.

Post edited at 14:35
2
 Cobra_Head 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

As soon as Rashford missed I could already sense the Tweets and Facebook bullshit, "should have concentrated on football, rather than feeding kids, and BLM".

It was bound to happen because there are plenty of racist arseholes living in the UK.

Pritti Patel, telling them it's OK to boo, taking a knee only fanned the flames of this shite.

So once, again, I'm embarrassed to be English, because of a few wankers we have living in our country.

4
 Cobra_Head 12 Jul 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

> If you were going to award the trophy to the country with the least racist fans it certainly wouldn’t be going to Italy.


It shouldn't be a competition, though, that's the point. The competition bit is the football, not who's the most racist.

1
 Andrew Wells 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

I've seen huge amounts of it on social media. I don't think it's remotely artificial and using words like "wokewatch" just degrades any conversation into a spat over culture war nonsense buzzwords.

4
 guffers_hump 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

What's funny about that statement "should have concentrated on football, rather than feeding kids, and BLM". is that if we were to use that logic against them, its Boris Johnson and all his little friends fault we lost the Euro's. 

Edit: Just thought I'd explain, that if children were fed correctly Rashford would have had more time to train and thus wouldn't of missed. 

I myself do not hold any of the above opinions.

Post edited at 15:31
1
 laurie 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Any you also have this   the  Tory's fanning the flames of division and blame 

 Natalie Elphicke attacks Marcus Rashford “They lost. Would it be ungenerous to suggest Rashford should have spent more time perfecting his game and less time playing politics”.

1
 Phil1919 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I thought more should have made about Italy cheating by blatantly fouling Sterling, Grealish, and perhaps Kane, when they weren't up to dealing with them fairly. Sterling being pulled by his shirt and studs used on Grealish were just 2 of a number of such incidents. Sorry, a bit off thread perhaps. The whole game was of course overhyped which explains some of the over reaction to the loss.

4
RentonCooke 12 Jul 2021

In reply to Stichtplate:

> Pretty low to label a poster with a black wife and stepson as a racist.

> You seem to have a remarkable facility to project nothing but bitterness, negativity and unpleasantness every single time you post. 

It seems to earn him/her a good proportion of likes on UKC though. 

Interesting, when the topic is "hate" and people claiming to be on-side with stamping it out.

5
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I've seen huge amounts of it on social media. I don't think it's remotely artificial and using words like "wokewatch" just degrades any conversation into a spat over culture war nonsense buzzwords.

But how representative do you feel these social media posts are? They may well only be  as representative of the public as a whole as the racist abusers - ie vociferous but tiny in number. Approximately 50% of the public claim an interest in football, so I can't buy that the perception of fans as plebeian scum is a general one. Well, except in the case of Millwall, and they don't care that nobody likes them.

In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I have been encouraged by the response this morning to what happened last night. The headlines about the horrendous racist abuse are getting equal billing to the actual match. That wouldn't have been the case 10 years ago so I think it's a step in the right direction.

RentonCooke 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

But black people also dislike BLM (and overwhelmingly oppose, and would likely be the primary victims of, its defund-the-police campaign).  My extended family are a perfect examples, having zero time for the movement and utterly opposing taking the knee.  But I guess they are the wrong sort of blacks, Uncle Toms, and so forth. 

The case justifying fans' right to boo taking a knee was made by Luther Blissett himself in discussion with David Lammy on LBC.  To which Lammy didn't then seem in strong disagreement either.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1413883553767636994?s=20

But it's racist and Priti Patel's problem?

If Marcus Rashford was white, would the "should have concentrated more on xyz" comments be so criticised? 

We can probably all agree such comments are rude, harsh, or distasteful.  But I'm not sure they're racist and I wouldn't want someone accused of racism for simply saying them.  To many I suspect they are all part of the normal un-refined football banter aimed at anyone, regardless of skin colour.  When earning £200,000 a week, where the expectation you will at least kick a ball between the two posts, failing to do so tends to result in merciless memeing and ribbing, whoever you are.  When it comes to the monkey gifs or overtly racist comments, I see not a single person defending them and everyone from Prince William to the Prime Minister speaking out on it. 

What would be racist however is the expectation that a player like Grealish should be able to receive such comments, while a player like Rashford shouldn't.  There's a term that that: the racism of low expectations.  It is a marker that someone thinks blacks are incapable, inferior or unable to handle the same stresses and strains of white people and require the paternalistic care of whites.

I get that few people feel comfortable coming out with anything other than a "yes, I agree X is racist and I oppose racism" stance.  The costs for doing so, as seen here, are usually automatic accusations of racism.  But I can well assure you, within the African community in the UK, they really aren't anywhere near that sensitive, they don't need white saviours riding in to protect them from the everyday knocks and stumbles of living here and, as I have gone to lengths to point out on the other thread, the impacts of this uncritical acceptance of BLM and its agenda, for whatever good it may be doing, is also having a profoundly negative impact.  Cheering BLM may be salving white people's souls (and helping advance their own politics).  But it is most definitely undermining a generation of black kids.

Post edited at 16:19
20
 Rob Exile Ward 12 Jul 2021
In reply to laurie:

Oh bless! Just when you think the Tories have hit rock bottom  another one pops out of the woodwork to make them even more contemptible.

5
In reply to RentonCooke:

Reading the other thread which you linked to (to defend yourself against an accusation above), I think you made an excellent point that I hadn't given full consideration to. 

How many racist insults were directed at the players? Were there thousands? or were we seeing thousands of reposts of just a few? (any is too many of course) 

1
 Timmd 12 Jul 2021
In reply to jasonC abroad:

> I agree but I think these people have been given the green light somewhat by Boris Johnson, Priti Patel etc refusing to condemn the people booing when the players take the knee.  I see that Boris has condemned the online abuse etc but it seems odd to condemn one and not the other.

Priti Patel talked about taking the knee being 'gesture politics', too, which didn't help. Combine that with the anti immigration/hostile environmental approach of current times, and a certain referendum being a greenlight for less tolerance and it being okay to express that (in those who didn't have it to start with), and I guess we end up where we're at.

This seems to be modern Britain...

Post edited at 16:59
5
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Simple solution to this. Mandatory covid vaccination for everyone. Link the NHS number to the dickheads isp.

Post vial hatred and we activate the kill chip in the vaccination and cull you from society.

Forget trying to educate them, if they haven't got the message by now they never will and they will just keep on breeding more hatred so let's have a good cull. 

3
 SuperstarDJ 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I'd broaden this out to some awful behaviour in general. Trashing Leicester Square,  from storming through checkpoints and gates to try to gain entry into the ground.  Making lots of home fans feel scared and intimidated.  We need to get to grips with the drink fuelled element of our culture which brings out the demons in some (i hope) otherwise relatively normal and law abiding people.  I don't doubt this has been happening for years, hidden away but now brought into the light by social media. I think that the Met have once again let themselves down by keeping a low profile and trying to pretend it's not happening instead of showing up in force, cracking heads and taking names in a way they're happy to at BLM protests or vigils for women that one of their own murdered earlier this year.

I think the current government and Brexit in general have given tacit approval to a sort of xenophobia and nationalism that feed into the behaviour seen online. Opinions that people would have been ashamed and embarrassed to admit to 20 years ago can now be expressed anonymously online and the holders be made to feel they're part of the mainstream in a way that they weren't previously. 

I also don't believe that sorts of self hating Englishfolk who see this as a sign of us being an awful country.  We absolutely must put our house in order but not give into despair or pointless self-flagellation.  And people from other countries pointing at England and saying what a terrible country we are should have a long look at themselves and ask if they're really much better.

Finally - as someone else has said, I do take a bit of encouragement from this happening.  We are making progress by talking about this and some people's prejudices are starting to feel under pressure in a way they weren't a generation ago.  This pushing back and acting up is a response to that - they're feeling threatened by a slowly rising tide of social justice.  BLM, gay marriage, trans rights - they're all moving forward from where they were a generation ago.  We didn't used to have these fights because they were so one sided.  They're not any more and the noise and aggravation is because the forces of small c conservatism are being threaten by progress.  We can make it get better.

15
 Timmd 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Dax H: I think there'll possibly always be a given proportion of people in a society who are bigots, with the 'softer noise' getting louder among people who are more easily swayed in that direction (but who'll sway back again) changing with society. 

A gay friend (rather cynical) once commented on sometimes feeling like a society of people can be like cattle in following along behind everybody else, as points of view changed regarding how people can tend to view and talk about being gay having improved since the mid 90's (sometimes the same people). 

He's more cynical than me, but I think there's some truth in people's propensity to be influenced, which may mean that's a hopeful thing to focus on...

Post edited at 17:26
RentonCooke 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It's very hard to say.  This image posted by David Lammy has certainly been doing the rounds; two verifiable Twitter handles making three posts and an Australian newspaper headline (which when read with the context of its article is not quite as it appears).  There are maybe half a dozen other screen captures of messages that look legit.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Disgraceful&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23embarrassing&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

So at face value, a dozen racist messages immediately to hand on all of Twitter from around the internet.

There has also been a retweet of what is apparently Rashford or Saka's Instagram feed with a bunch of DMs, showing monkey pictures and bananas and so forth.  Though a lot of the messages look like they're not even written by English speakers and have names ranging from Chinese to Muslim. That could of course be intentional, but they could just as easily have been sent from anyone from Bedford to Bangalore.

There's no doubt much more out there.  There are 1 billion Instagram users.   If just 0.000001% of them were trolls, racist or malicious, that would likely make for a few hundred, if not thousands, of racist posts.  And I would be surprised if there wasn't, even in the most enlightened of social democracies.  It's open forum social media.  Anyone with a mobile phone can post to you whatever they want, hurling any shit they want. 

And some people, who may not even be exactly racist themselves are apparently being paid good money to create such posts, with the explicit intent of creating the sort of outrage, impact and division that we are seeing; the pointing fingers at your own countrymen, the accusations of racism thrown far and wide, them-and-us, the distrust.  The outrage is feeding the trolls, not starving them.

Post edited at 17:26
3
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021

In reply to Stichtplate:

> Pretty low to label a poster with a black wife and stepson as a racist.

It's something one risks inviting by putting up racist-adjacent posts that look uncannily like just-about plausibly deniable dog whistle stuff on here.

Yeah, it must be dreadful for an anonymous poster on here to be unjustly accused of racism, accepting for the sake of argument that that is what's happened here, very hurty on the feels.  But there are worse things than being unjustly accused of racism.  Racism for example.

9
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Dax H:

Probably best not, even in jest!
(I like what you did with 'vial' hatred though.)

 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to guffers_hump:

> What's funny about that statement "should have concentrated on football, rather than feeding kids, and BLM". is that if we were to use that logic against them, its Boris Johnson and all his little friends fault we lost the Euro's. 

That's exactly what Angela Rayner said on Twitter in response to Natalie Elphike's comment about Rashford 'playing politics' - "He wouldn't have to if you and all the other Tory MPs didn't leave hungry kids without food."

 Stichtplate 12 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> It's something one risks inviting by putting up racist-adjacent posts that look uncannily like just-about plausibly deniable dog whistle stuff on here.

"Racist-adjacent Posts"? Do you mean opening an entirely valid discussion on whether we should condemn an entire sport/society/country as irredeemably racist based on the actions of a tiny minority of pigshit ignorant knobheads ?

> Yeah, it must be dreadful for an anonymous poster on here to be unjustly accused of racism, accepting for the sake of argument that that is what's happened here, very hurty on the feels.  But there are worse things than being unjustly accused of racism.  Racism for example.

When I've come across people spouting racist shite in real life I've pulled them up on it, likewise, when I've come across people being unnecessarily unpleasant on here. 

As for "hurty on the feels", yes, I'd imagine it'd be quite hurtful to label the parent of a black child as a racist. But hey, what do I know? I'm just another anonymous poster who grew up with a mixed race sister.

3
In reply to Timmd:

> I think there'll possibly always be a given proportion of people in a society who are bigots, with the 'softer noise' getting louder among people who are more easily swayed in that direction (but who'll sway back again) changing with society

> He's more cynical than me, but I think there's some truth in people's propensity to be influenced, which may mean that's a hopeful thing to focus on...

I agree, start with the ringleaders and work backwards. 

In reply to deepsoup:

> Probably best not, even in jest!

> (I like what you did with 'vial' hatred though.)

Who is jesting? I believe there are a lot of people that the world would be far better without. 

2
RentonCooke 12 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

"Racism-adjacent"?  "Dog-whistle"?  

What exactly is racist, or indicative of views I hold as being proximal to racism? 

You can come out with it and put your cards on the table.  I'm all for open discussion and I've grown a thick skin to this sort of thing.  Usually the claim that I'm racist carries with it a "just because you've got an African wife, doesn't mean you're not", because, you know, slave owners had sex with black slaves and I'm probably really just a rapist like them.  I get that one a fair bit, from high-minded, moralistic, individuals making the claims you are.  

Is it just that anyone who departs from your view on the world, that you deem to project on to all black people, must necessarily be racist?  You're either for the revolution, or a counter-revolutionary for whom no castigation is too severe?  If I don't make the same sounds you do, use blasphemous language you are averse to, I must be cavorting with the devil?

Or perhaps you are just lacking in the confidence that you yourself are not racist, deep down perhaps recognising that you are akwardly uncomfortable, or mistrustful, around black people?  And therefore need to call out others to demonstrate your anti-racist credentials?  Like being safeguarded from the witch-hunt by calling out witch, or preventing your sexuality being questioned by being a vocal homophobe?  

As for anonymity, I've climbed with people here who know me, know my family.  I would be very surprised if any were to consider me racist. But you appear to know better.

4
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> "Racist-adjacent Posts"? Do you mean opening an entirely valid discussion on whether we should condemn an entire sport/society/country as irredeemably racist based on the actions of a tiny minority of pigshit ignorant knobheads ?

I mean claiming that the abuse has been exaggerated by the "woke" and isn't really a thing.  It'll be entirely a "false flag" attack next.  Stating boldly that black people are overwhelmingly opposed to the aims of the BLM movement.  Are they bollocks, whether Right-wing Renton is telling the truth about his extended family (who could be entirely fictional for all we know*) or not.

*You can't have it both ways.  I have no problem with people being anonymous on here, but you can't remain anonymous and simultaneously claim to know better than others on the grounds of who you are or who you're related to.

Also the rather tiresome trope that "defunding the police" is an aim of the BLM movement in the UK.  It is in the USA, and there are quite compelling reasons for it over there.  Conflating the two in an effort to discredit the movement here is pretty standard anti-anti-racist stuff. 

And if a person is anti-anti-racist, that doesn't make them racist necessarily of course, but then again they're not not racist either.

9
In reply to Dax H:

What even if they vote Labour?

 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> Or perhaps you are just lacking in the confidence that you yourself are not racist, deep down perhaps recognising that you are akwardly uncomfortable, or mistrustful, around black people?  And therefore need to call out others to demonstrate your anti-racist credentials?  Like being safeguarded from the witch-hunt by calling out witch, or preventing your sexuality being questioned by being a vocal homophobe?  

Nope, I have no 'credentials' to present to the group and wouldn't be interested in doing so if I had.  No more than I'm interested in your credentials.  I have no trophies to hold up, I'm not going to tell the class that many of my best friends are black or any of that old horseshit.  Who my friends are, wife, children, whatever has got nothing to do with you or anything I say on here.

And actually, since you're doing your best to get in a little dig at that exact spot, I'm wholly aware that deep down a part of me actually is a bit racist.  I think that's the case for most blokes of my age and upbringing.  The odd voice in my inner chorus hasn't moved on much since the '80s, y'know?  And I still catch the little f*cker trying to whisper in my ear now and then, so I've learned to respond to accusations of racism with a moment of introspection rather than with knee-jerk outrage.  Just to double check there might not be something in it.

Like I said, there are far worse things that being accused of a little bit of racism, even if the accusation is unfair.  One of those things is racism, which is rather more unfair.

 > As for anonymity, I've climbed with people here who know me, know my family.  I would be very surprised if any were to consider me racist. But you appear to know better.

As for anonymity, tell us who to contact to take up your references or stop claiming to have references.  FWIW though, I don't know better.  I only know you through your witterings on here, same way you know me.  I don't consider you racist, I consider you to be someone who has posted things on here that could easily be interpreted that way. 

7
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Dax H:

> Who is jesting?

About there being "kill chips" in the vaccines?  You are, I sincerely hope. 
(But it's perhaps it would be better not to, considering how many people seem to believe that shit and how many might be primed to start believing it if they hear it just one.. more.. time.. !)

I'm cool with the call for summary executions of hate-filled f*ckwits (though I wasn't taking that literally either).

1
 Tom Valentine 12 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

>   No more than I'm interested in your credentials.  

> As for anonymity, tell us who to contact to take up your references or stop claiming to have references.  

Make your mind up.

6
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> How many racist insults were directed at the players? Were there thousands? or were we seeing thousands of reposts of just a few? (any is too many of course) 

'Far Right Watch' ( https://www.farrightwatch.net/ ) put out an appeal on Twitter after the game last night as follows:

"Specifically, enter "to:@MarcusRashford" in a Twitter search box, and REPORT EVERY SINGLE RACIST TWEET.
At the same time, screenshot everyone you can.
Email them to farrightwatch@gmail.com.
If we can ID them and their employers ... we will."

In response to that appeal, they're now saying they had 6614 hits, and out of those they're expecting at least 1100 to be identifiable unique individuals.  That's just Marcus Rashford, but undoubtedly there will be a big overlap between those individuals and the source of racist abuse directed at other players.

Post edited at 19:19
In reply to deepsoup:

Ch4 news reported that if c900,000 tweets about 2,000 could have been abusive and c200 were ‘serious’.

 Andrew Wells 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

How representative are the social media posts where black players are hurled racial abuse? I'm not in a court of law here, or citing for my academic paper. I've personally seen a lot of comments along those lines and I'm personally unhappy with it and I don't think I just happen to live in the only social bubble where it is a thing. After all it absolutely taps into years of demonizing football fans.

1
In reply to deepsoup:

> About there being "kill chips" in the vaccines?  You are, I sincerely hope.

Ahh, that was a nod towards the thread I started 2 weeks ago about the guy I met who genuinely believes there is. 

> (But it's perhaps it would be better not to, considering how many people seem to believe that shit and how many might be primed to start believing it if they hear it just one.. more.. time.. !)

I think the population of this forum won't be swayed in to believing it. 

> I'm cool with the call for summary executions of hate-filled f*ckwits (though I wasn't taking that literally either).

Excellent, if I get in to power you can be the first member of the committee who decides who goes. 

 Cobra_Head 12 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> I mean claiming that the abuse has been exaggerated by the "woke" and isn't really a thing.  It'll be entirely a "false flag" attack next.  Stating boldly that black people are overwhelmingly opposed to the aims of the BLM movement.  Are they bollocks, whether Right-wing Renton is telling the truth about his extended family (who could be entirely fictional for all we know*) or not.

> *You can't have it both ways.  I have no problem with people being anonymous on here, but you can't remain anonymous and simultaneously claim to know better than others on the grounds of who you are or who you're related to.

> Also the rather tiresome trope that "defunding the police" is an aim of the BLM movement in the UK.  It is in the USA, and there are quite compelling reasons for it over there.  Conflating the two in an effort to discredit the movement here is pretty standard anti-anti-racist stuff. 

> And if a person is anti-anti-racist, that doesn't make them racist necessarily of course, but then again they're not not racist either.

Not very often we agree, but most of this is exactly what I was thinking.

BLM is often accused of all sorts of bullshit, which is an easy way of "scaring" people about what they're actually about, Marxist, Lefties, Communists, etc. When I'm pretty sure they're about rights for black people.

Defunding the police, isn't about not funding the police, it sounds like that, but that's also not the reality.

2
Roadrunner6 12 Jul 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Not very often we agree, but most of this is exactly what I was thinking.

> BLM is often accused of all sorts of bullshit, which is an easy way of "scaring" people about what they're actually about, Marxist, Lefties, Communists, etc. When I'm pretty sure they're about rights for black people.

> Defunding the police, isn't about not funding the police, it sounds like that, but that's also not the reality.

Yeah defund the police is an example of a great idea, with screwed up slogan. A good mate works in probation and so is fully onboard with funding the police to do police work and properly funding psyche and drug issues. Instead they went with ‘defund-the-police’ when it really isn’t the aim.

1
 Jon Stewart 12 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> But black people also dislike BLM (and overwhelmingly oppose, and would likely be the primary victims of, its defund-the-police campaign).  My extended family are a perfect examples, having zero time for the movement and utterly opposing taking the knee.  But I guess they are the wrong sort of blacks, Uncle Toms, and so forth. 

When asked about their opinions of the Black Lives Matter movement, 47% of all respondents and 74% of respondents from a BAME background had a “favourable” view. 41% of all respondents and 15% of respondents from a BAME background had an “unfavourable” view. 

Seems you're talking bollocks again.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/black-lives-matter-new-race-inequalities-commission-and-a-london-statue-review/

5
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

A properly mature society would not get so upset about losing a football match. The sort of traditionalist who wants to return to great British values, might well cite Kipling as an example of what wokeness is cancelling but conveniently ignore "If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two Impostors just the same". Similarly, angry "christian" people who resent the presence of other faiths never cite "Love thy neighbour as thyself" when throwing bottles at police horses.

2
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Really depends on the question you ask, John: 

"The polling also showed 44% of ethnic minorities felt BLM increased racial tensions."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/black-lives-matter-has-increased-racial-tension-55-say-in-uk-poll#

BLM's methods and ideals don't sit well with traditionally conservative black families. 

The numbers worsen if you look at the US, where opposition to the defund the police campaign is highest amongst the black community.  They should know.  They live in the communities that benefit from more, not fewer, police. 

11
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> I'm writing this not because I think I'm perfect - It's because I don't think last nights racial abuse at the final has been covered on the forums and silence and complicity go hand in hand. As a nation we did not deserve a win last night. Racist bullies don't deserve nice things. My utter respect goes out to the squad though, they represented the best of England.

The team are all that's good about this country; they wore the shirts with pride and took our nation to a final, spreading cheer & optimism along the way AND managed to fight racism!

There will always be racism and EVERY nation has it. Go and check out the Italian facists supporters over the next football season for a start, if you don't believe me.

Social media gives the idiots a platform and believe that malevolent actors were flaming the wars (bot accounts), but it's been great to see our nation push-back against the racists.

Members of England tearing Priti Patel a new one regarding the Conservatives fanning of culture wars is a particular high point.

As for the final, Italy played better over the 90/120 minutes. Well done to them. But England made the country proud and as always, it's usually worth looking beyond the silverware. Great bunch of lads.

Post edited at 09:15
 ali k 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

You are clearly critical of the BLM organisation and its methods of raising awareness. OK.

So if you were advising the England players, given that they had chosen as a team to support their fellow players and the fight against racism, what should they have done to show this support instead of taking the knee?

4
 PaulJepson 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

The nice thing is that if the England team continue in the direction they are going,  the less welcome these people will be in the stadiums. An inclusive, socially aware team of youngsters will eventually force the morons into hiding when they're fully outnumbered by decent humans in the stands. For the first time in my memory we don't have a team of tabloid show-ponies with the weight of the world on their shoulders. We have a team who win and lose together and make headlines about feeding children and calling out politicians. 

 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> Really depends on the question you ask, John: 

> "The polling also showed 44% of ethnic minorities felt BLM increased racial tensions."

Isn't this going to be an obvious outcome of disrupting the status quo?

> BLM's methods and ideals don't sit well with traditionally conservative black families. 

You need to pick one, people, especially conservatives might not the riots, but I'm more than certain, the ideals are supported, unless your determined to continue, to believe the allegations of Marxism and communism, which of course are right-wing slurs made to discredit the BLM movement, and little to do with truth.

> The numbers worsen if you look at the US, where opposition to the defund the police campaign is highest amongst the black community.  They should know.  They live in the communities that benefit from more, not fewer, police. 

You seem to have also taken defund the police, to mean don't have a police force.

For many, the definition is — there should be police, but their role in communities should be limited to crime prevention. The idea goes that service agencies other than police could and should respond to non-violent calls related to mental health, housing and other issues. Berkeley, California has even moved to create a separate department to handle routine traffic violations.

For others, the idea of defunding the police is limited to simply restricting money for military-style equipment.

4
 elsewhere 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Shani & PaulJepson:

Well said!

In reply to PaulJepson:

> The nice thing is that if the England team continue in the direction they are going,  the less welcome these people will be in the stadiums. An inclusive, socially aware team of youngsters will eventually force the morons into hiding 

Back to  dog fighting where they belong

1
In reply to RentonCooke:

> BLM's methods and ideals don't sit well with traditionally conservative black families. 

But if you ask them if they enjoy being racially abused they will say No. In which case they agree with the notion that black lives matter. 

Of course they don't want to align themselves with Marxists and Trotskyist revolutionaries. But if they weren't being told that BLM is an extreme left wing organisation by people like you, they wouldn't be under that misapprehension in the first place. 

Extreme right wing apologists like you and the Republitrumps in America so quickly resort to this ludicrous smoke screening and fogging of the real issues. Like calling the Democrats  "communist"; really? 

Put yourself on the side of justice and stand with black people in their long struggle against fear and murder at the hands of authorities.

Post edited at 10:02
9
 gazhbo 13 Jul 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> For the first time in my memory we don't have a team of tabloid show-ponies with the weight of the world on their shoulders. We have a team who win and lose together and make headlines about feeding children and calling out politicians. 

Quite a lot of that is just better PR and media management though isn’t it.  Kyle Walker had a load of sex parties during lock down.  Jack Grealish smashed his car up in a town centre in the early hours of the morning and probably managed to avoid a drink driving charge by running away.  Phil Foden and Greenwood were sent home for being naughty.

1
 mondite 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You seem to have also taken defund the police, to mean don't have a police force.

It is a rather poor slogan which is vulnerable to being badly distorted by those with an agenda and a paranoid fear of the all powerful conspiracy of marxists and crt academics.

RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to ali k:

> So if you were advising the England players, given that they had chosen as a team to support their fellow players and the fight against racism, what should they have done to show this support instead of taking the knee?

If a player wants to take a knee, they can.  I really don't care.  But no other player shouldn't feel coerced to have to do so, nor should fans have to accept it.  They have every damn right to boo and we should not be outraged that they do so, or jump to the automatic claim that this means they themselves are racist. 

There are plenty of other symbols, completely removed from that movement, that could be adopted.  But no, they settle on BLM's.

The Kick It Out campaign was effective.  It appeared to have mass support from fans.  Crucially, it was not political.

BLM is a brazenly political entity.  People attempt to make much of UKBLM and BLM USA being separate entities but they really are not, and few people are even really aware of the difference.  The whole organisation is an intentionally loose amalgamation of actors and if supporters can pick and choose which of those they define at any one time as being the actual BLM then so too can its detractors.  They are intentionally vague, hence the "defund-the-police, but we don't actually, sort-of, mean defund the police...but there will be fewer police" policy.  The name itself is part of the problem, and it seems to almost be baiting people; you don't support BLM? Oh, that means you don't believe black lives matter.  The three founders describe themselves as "trained Marxists" and Patrisse Cullors appears to be about as corrupt as they come (this is her response regarding her credentials when challenged on the $3million property portfolio she amassed in the last few years https://twitter.com/VanLathan/status/1382874774695600129?s=20). 

From toppling statues to proclaiming they seek the end of capitalism, no one should be forced to accept that agenda.  Not at a sporting event and not forced to treat it like a national anthem.  Yet taking a knee, their adopted symbol, has become the norm.  And fans just have to stand there and accept it.  Expressing opposition is not only not allowed but has attached to it accusations doing so is racist.  Doing anything other than shutting your mouth, raising no objections, and expressing support for the political movement has you marked out as an enemy of society.  Where have we seen that before I wonder? 

Sorry, it's bullshit and utterly divisive.  Which is, I believe, the actual aim.  It is a revolutionary movement of the old school.

25
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

What a load of nonsense. 

15
 ali k 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> There are plenty of other symbols, completely removed from that movement, that could be adopted.

And that was my question to you. Which one(s) would have your support? The players clearly wanted to do more than wear a little badge saying 'Respect' on it.

I had already prefaced my question with an acceptance of your dislike for BLM and taking the knee, so there really was no need to repeat yourself.

5
In reply to ali k:

> So if you were advising the England players, given that they had chosen as a team to support their fellow players and the fight against racism, what should they have done to show this support instead of taking the knee?

I think as well as taking the knee, a statement from the team saying something like "we are taking the knee to show our complete support in the fight against racism, but this should not be taken to imply any position or opinion with respect to BLM as a political movement"

6
In reply to RentonCooke:

> If a player wants to take a knee, they can.  I really don't care.  But no other player shouldn't feel coerced to have to do so, nor should fans have to accept it.  They have every damn right to boo and we should not be outraged that they do so, or jump to the automatic claim that this means they themselves are racist. 

Irrespective of one's views about taking the knee and BLM, the only time booing is acceptable is when watching a pantomime. Whenever my school took part in competition with spectators, like County football finals, we'd make it clear to our kids that booing the opposition wouldn't be tolerated. It's a pity all schools don't take true sportsmanship more seriously. If you don't like your team taking the knee, just stand there and shut the fvck up.

2
 mondite 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I think as well as taking the knee, a statement from the team saying something like "we are taking the knee to show our complete support in the fight against racism, but this should not be taken to imply any position or opinion with respect to BLM as a political movement"

You did read their statement about why they were taking the knee,right? 

https://www.thefa.com/news/2021/jun/12/a-message-to-england-supporters-20210611

 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

So to sum up you might not be racist (in your eyes) but you are clearly and unapologetically right wing.

Every post you go one always ends up as a rant against the left as a means of derailing the problems highlighted. In fact it appears that as far as you are concerned there are no problems racism and police brutality are things we shouldn't even be concerned about. At least that's how it comes across

16
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Quite consistent, really. When I saw the thread title I knew I'd see them here.

 elsewhere 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> It is a revolutionary movement of the old school.

A red scare warning of the old school. Strangely enough all previous red scares turned out to be far closer to hysterical frothing than prescient as the UK did not become a Communist dictatorship or revolutionary state.

 MonkeyPuzzle 13 Jul 2021
In reply to ali k:

> And that was my question to you. Which one(s) would have your support? 

Everytime I've managed to get an answer to "What form of anti-racist protest is acceptable to you?" the answer has basically boiled down to "One I can ignore or better still one that I'm not even aware of".

4
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> Irrespective of one's views about taking the knee and BLM, the only time booing is acceptable is when watching a pantomime. Whenever my school took part in competition with spectators, like County football finals, we'd make it clear to our kids that booing the opposition wouldn't be tolerated. It's a pity all schools don't take true sportsmanship more seriously. If you don't like your team taking the knee, just stand there and shut the fvck up.

Maybe.  I generally find booing distasteful. 

But, as the link (https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1413883553767636994?s=20) I posted earlier from David Lammy's own feed made the case, at a sports stadium there are generally only two ways of making your views known - booing, or cheering. 

The fans could maybe turn away, lift a leg, mutter under their breath or whistle perhaps.  But then no doubt there would just be moral outrage and claims that this was evidence of their obvious racism. 

This isn't booing the opposition.  It is booing a political statement at a sports event.  A political statement and ethos many see as destructive, divisive and which they rightly simply do not support.  But the demand seems to be, "shut up and accept".  How charmingly liberal.

Post edited at 11:39
17
In reply to mondite:

No I hadn't read the FA's statement. I have now and I think it's a good statement (obviously much better than my quickly cobbled together example).

I don't have any problem with sportspeople taking the knee but I can also understand that some may be apprehensive about doing so because some observers will interpret that as a statement of political alignment.

The issued statement should stop that kind of perception but of course it will only be partially successful since how many will read it.

As for the booing, that's completely unacceptable IMO and Johnson and Patel not condemning it was appalling.

The MP's comments about Rashford practising more were (if it weren't so serious) hilariously ironic. Why was she as an MP getting involved in football, should have been spending more time ensuring the country was properly governed. I believe she's retracted her comments so maybe not a complete idiot.

 Rob Exile Ward 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

Maybe if fans are so offended by what seems to be a genuine and heartfelt gesture by the English team they should f*ck off and follow another sport. Like cage fighting perhaps. Or cock fighting.

What sentiment is being displayed that anyone could find so offensive is beyond me.

9
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere, Duncan Bourne, Alkis:

Unfortunately, when an organisation is founded by three, self-described, "trained Marxists", states itself as a "revolutionary" movement, where its constituent parts make claims to desire, amongst other things, the dismantling of capitalism (https://uk.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund), the removing of prisons (https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/809880588106825728), and the defunding of the police, I tend to come to the conclusion that the label on the tin is probably accurate and that it is most likely a revolutionary, far-left, outfit.

I could potentially look beyond that of course, if I felt the motives of it and many of its cheerleaders were honest.

Except, unfortunately for me, when people are telling me I must support this organisation or otherwise I am a racist.  I must not speak ill of the organisation or I am a racist.  And to not support it means I am right-wing.....I get the impression I'm being asked to subscribe to something more akin to a cult, or a political party, and will oppose it on principle.  I really have little enthusiasm for nasty little left-wing authoritarians.

12
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> What sentiment is being displayed that anyone could find so offensive is beyond me.

You seem to be lacking in imagination.  Perhaps somehow missing the statue toppling and rioting of a year or so back. Or maybe haven't looked too closely at the claims being made by critical race theory proponents, which the movement bases itself on. 

Certainly, given fans clearly supported the Kick It Out campaign, they are already on-board with stamping out racism.  What they object to is evidently something different. But you seem determined not to acknowledge that.

12
 Rob Exile Ward 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

God, the term snowflake really seems to apply! 'Trained Marxists' - trained by who? What does that even mean? Have they passed exams, wear special tatoos, have funny handshakes? (Actually, funnily enough, I practically have a degree in Marxism. Trust me, it's not that scary.) It's like seeing a throwback to 50s America, where McCarthy managed to terrify the most powerful nation on Earth such that fundamental principles of democracy were abandoned.

'Dismantle capitalism' - don't we all want that? Is it really working that well when billionaires compete to get into space while a the world cries out for the most basic vaccines and resources to be distributed? I've done OK out of capitalism, but I can see the future will be better the more it is cut back and curtailed.  

17
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Although RC's points may be disguised by his right wing rhetoric, I do think he is describing a genuine problem with social media platforms.

Someone (or a few or several or many people) post something offensive (in this case it's racist but the "theory" applies to all). It's almost impossible to know who these people are (unless they're famous) and they can post from anywhere.

Other people object to the offensive posts and this objection snowballs as people (for whatever reason) post that they abhor the original offensive post(s).

The objections grow to a much larger size than the original objectionable posts.

How then do we determine the size of the actual problem and (because it may be size dependent) the appropriate action to take? The original problem may (or may not) be insignificant, but it's totally masked by the much larger size of the objections.

Since this is a known phenomenon, the whole thing can be distorted by those who (for whatever reason) wish to blow up an issue into something larger and more problematic than it may actually be.

There may be no answer to this problem without making social media platforms much more restrictive.

I think that's the nub of it. Also, at a personal level RC is seeing this via his son basically getting the overall impression from social media of "you're black, therefore you're stuffed" when in reality although lots of discrimination still exists (even though it shouldn't), it's still possible for the disadvantaged to with extra effort (which of course shouldn't be necessary) rise past that discrimination.

1
 Andrew Wells 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The England team were all called Marxists when they started taking the knee by certain struggling elements of the fanbase.

They also got a lot better at playing football at around about the same time, ironically.

2
 elsewhere 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

When in your words "supporters can pick and choose" that sounds rather democratic. I approve.

> Except, unfortunately for me, when people are telling me I must support this organisation or otherwise I am a racist.  I must not speak ill of the organisation or I am a racist.  And to not support it means I am right-wing.....I get the impression I'm being asked to subscribe to something more akin to a cult, or a political party, and will oppose it on principle.  I really have little enthusiasm for nasty little left-wing authoritarians.

I just think you froth hysterical bullsh#t and say so. I suppose that makes me a nasty little left-wing authoritarian in your eyes.

9
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> So to sum up you might not be racist (in your eyes) but you are clearly and unapologetically right wing.

No, not right-wing.  Just in monoculture like UKC, where political diversity is not encouraged, where venturing a differing viewpoint has you labelled as a racist, and where most people anywhere right of centre have long since departed, I just happen to look right-wing to you. 

This is a case of the left eating its own for not sticking to permissible dialogue, not me being unapologetically right.

> Every post you go one always ends up as a rant against the left as a means of derailing the problems highlighted. In fact it appears that as far as you are concerned there are no problems racism and police brutality are things we shouldn't even be concerned about. At least that's how it comes across

Well, if I'm arguing against BLM and they are left-wing, and I dislike the toxic philosophy of CRT, which is also left-wing, then I guess it will always look like I'm having a rant against the left. 

That statistics on police brutality, where in the US a black person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in the way George Floyd was, and where when people are polled they tend to overstate the number of police killings (usually no more than a few dozen a year) as being in the thousands, it does point to balance vanishing.  And where the ends justify the means, we end up with looting and rioting.  

This whole discussion started where I was pointing out the pernicious effects of overstating black disadvantage and how that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Keep telling someone their position is hopeless and they might just start believing you.  So, yes, I do have an issue with the focus on police misconduct and most of the claimed concern looks to me as being performative.

And where on earth did I say there are no problems with racism?  Racism exists.  Murder exists.  Crime exists.  They are all concerns.  Question is whether we go around pointing fingers at one political party, or one sweeping section of UK society, or have to accept the manifesto of one rampantly partisan social organisation because of that.  

But no.  I'm a racism denying racist.

13
In reply to RentonCooke:

> "at a sports stadium there are generally only two ways of making your views known - booing, or cheering."

Not sure this is correct. Ireland at Croke Park were silent during GSTQ. When their anthem came they blew the roof off (metaphorically). Spine tingling stuff. I'm not sure the footage captures it. The statement it made though was huge.

youtube.com/watch?v=CQ6-bYixpYE&

RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Trained Marxists' - trained by who?

You should maybe ask Patrisse Cullors, as she said it.  If she had said she was a trained fascist you wouldn't pause to consider her motivations, political stances and direction of movement?

> 'Dismantle capitalism' - don't we all want that? Is it really working that well when billionaires compete to get into space while a the world cries out for the most basic vaccines and resources to be distributed? I've done OK out of capitalism, but I can see the future will be better the more it is cut back and curtailed.  

"Don't we all want that?"  Good lord.  I seem to have stumbled in to an SWP meeting.  

Billionaires aren't your problem.  To much of the world, you are a billionaire.  In fact, if you own a house and earn a regular income in the UK you're probably in the global 1%.  Something that tends to be ignored by those always looking upwards, banging on about those who have more than them - it's always someone else who has too much.  Here's an idea, given you likely are in the top 1%-5% and given you support an end to capitalism; discard a good proportion of it and even up the balance a bit.  Quite a few lives could be saved in sub-Saharan Africa if you simply gave away 10-20%.

Though you're not the only one who has done well out of capitalism.  Bezos has of course.  But in the last 50 years so has most of the world's population.  In this time the greatest advance in human history has been realised, in anything from life-span to U5-mortality.  Most of this in Africa and Asia.  For hundreds of thousands of years we lived no differently to animals, with short brutish lives.  Yet the expansion of a certain system has brought us out of that. 

But no, lets dismantle it.  And a magical money tree will spring up in its place.  They tried that in Zimbabwe, China, Cambodia. Worked a treat.  Somethign we can really look forward to.  Thanks BLM.

13
 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> No, not right-wing.  Just in monoculture like UKC, where political diversity is not encouraged, where venturing a differing viewpoint has you labelled as a racist, and where most people anywhere right of centre have long since departed, I just happen to look right-wing to you. 

> This is a case of the left eating its own for not sticking to permissible dialogue, not me being unapologetically right.

Like I said right wing. There is nothing middle of the road about any of that

> Well, if I'm arguing against BLM and they are left-wing, and I dislike the toxic philosophy of CRT, which is also left-wing, then I guess it will always look like I'm having a rant against the left. 

> That statistics on police brutality, where in the US a black person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in the way George Floyd was, and where when people are polled they tend to overstate the number of police killings (usually no more than a few dozen a year) as being in the thousands, it does point to balance vanishing.  And where the ends justify the means, we end up with looting and rioting.  

> And where on earth did I say there are no problems with racism?  Racism exists.  Murder exists.  Crime exists.  They are all concerns.   

Yet you always seem keen to deny it though as above. You say racism is a problem but every time you argue against those who condemn it.

>Question is whether we go around pointing fingers at one political party, or one sweeping section of UK society, or have to accept the manifesto of one rampantly partisan social organisation because of that. <

Oh the irony!

Post edited at 12:37
15
 TomD89 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Dismantle capitalism' - don't we all want that? Is it really working that well when billionaires compete to get into space while a the world cries out for the most basic vaccines and resources to be distributed? I've done OK out of capitalism, but I can see the future will be better the more it is cut back and curtailed.  

No, not unless you've got a very good, well thought out and ideally proven alternative. Please explain it in detail before dismantling the system that is keeping us all doing 'OK'.

What economic system would have produced workable vaccines and distributed them quicker in your view? 

1
 elsewhere 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> where in the US a black person is more likely to be struck by lightning

About twenty lightning deaths per year (all races).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203715/injuries-and-fatalities-caused-by-lightning-in-the-us/

>and where when people are polled they tend to overstate the number of police killings (usually no more than a few dozen a year) as being in the thousands,

"usually no more than a few dozen a year" - is this a lie or ignorance?

US police killed 74 people in July 2019 (I picked this month of July but pre-Covid and there's so many more than the few a month you suggest I may have miscounted).  

There was no good official record so The Guardian assembled a database and counted 1093 killed by US police 2016 so "being in the thousands" at a few times too big is closer to the truth than a few dozen per year which is thirty times too small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_July_2019

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

When you get such basic and easily verified facts apparently wrong can you see why I might think you are talking drivel?

Now that I've given you facts have you changed your opinion or verified whether my facts or your facts are more accurate?

Post edited at 12:41
3
 jkarran 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> This isn't booing the opposition.  It is booing a political statement at a sports event.  A political statement and ethos many see as destructive, divisive and which they rightly simply do not support.

Anti-racism shouldn't be a political statement, it should be a baseline state. It isn't.

Sure, they're just booing Marxists but fully supportive of the anti-racism message... So pick one of those booing out of the crowd and ask them to explain even the basics of Marxism. What kind of answer do you think you'd get?

jk

2
 jkarran 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> That statistics on police brutality, where in the US a black person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in the way George Floyd was, and where when people are polled they tend to overstate the number of police killings (usually no more than a few dozen a year) as being in the thousands, it does point to balance vanishing.  And where the ends justify the means, we end up with looting and rioting.  

That's very specific claim regarding GF and lightning, where does it come from?

That few is doing some heavy lifting. I guess some might describe 90 odd dozen* that way.

*total, not broken down by race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States#

jk

In reply to RentonCooke:

> Billionaires aren't your problem.  To much of the world, you are a billionaire.  In fact, if you own a house and earn a regular income in the UK you're probably in the global 1%. 

I don't think you understand how big a billion is. Billionaires are very much a problem. It's one thing owning a house in the UK and so being in the glibal 1%, but its quite another to be worth $200bn, through exploitative working practices.

 Rob Exile Ward 13 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Where's Shona when you need her?!

Actually I have quite a complicated relationship with capitalism, for one thing I don't think it is so much a conscious economic system as a description of what people do automatically - a bit like gravity. Elizabeth Gaitskill had one of her characters sum it up in (I think) North and South - 'so and so was not so naive to not know that if everyone suddenly became equal,  the next day someone would get up earlier, start working harder and start becoming richer.' I actually like business and capitalism, the freedom to have good ideas then just pursue them is one that has worked for me - I don't think I would have been gainfully employed any other way.

But what do capitalists do at every opportunity? They try to create monopolies, close down competition, raise barriers to entry, lobby governments, stretch regulations and ignore wider consequences of their actions. Capitalism is certainly part of the mix of a successful society, but only when held in check by informed democratic process and complemented by other types of enterprise.

RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

We must be talking at cross purposes here.  

How many unarmed blacks are killed by police every year?  How many unlawful, George Floyd style, deaths are there? 

Taking some absolute figure, that includes all the people holding pistols to their wive's head, shooting fellow gang members, or attempting to rob the local grocery store , as indicative of excess police violence is actual drivel. 

The answer is, a couple of dozen or less seems to be the norm.  And when they use the term unarmed, this is usually taken to mean simply someone without a gun or knife. So when a murderer on the run is speeding their car through a residential neighbourhood and shot by police, that counts as unarmed too. 

Many many people are killed by police every year, that is for sure.  But the disparities between black/white/hispanic/asian are relatively small.  In a country of 300 million people.

EDIT: worth noting 100 or so US police are killed every year too.  It says something, given everything they encounter each day of their working lives, that for every 10 people killed by police, 1 police officer is also killed.

Post edited at 12:59
7
 jkarran 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

From wiki:

According to The Guardian's database, in 2016 the rate of fatal police shootings per million was 10.13 for Native Americans, 6.6 for black people, 3.23 for Hispanics; 2.9 for white people and 1.17 for Asians.

Again, I'd suggest 'relatively' is doing some impressive lifting there.

jk

 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I do agree with you there. Trial by Facebook/twitter is not pleasent.

As humans we do tend to generalise and lump people together so you get racism but also Tory=evil and everything gets black and white. Renton represents one end of the scale whilst there are plenty of left wingers who represent the other end of the scale. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

However small numbers of people do have very large effects and that shouldn't be overlooked. If one person throws a brick at someone we don't say well that's okay because there are loads more people who don't throw bricks. Really we don't want anyone to throw bricks.

>I think that's the nub of it. Also, at a personal level RC is seeing this via his son basically getting the overall impression from social media of "you're black, therefore you're stuffed" when in reality although lots of discrimination still exists (even though it shouldn't), it's still possible for the disadvantaged to with extra effort (which of course shouldn't be necessary) rise past that discrimination.<

I appreciate that is how he may see it but I also see it as black people seeing that others support them as we stumble towards a more compassionate society. It is possible to rise past discrimination as we can clearly see from people in the media and I don't think we can ever achieve a level playing field, but we can work to eliminate unnecessary discrimination.

It is hard to get a balance. As it doesn't help to overstate a problem but at the same time ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Is it better to say racism isn't a problem and point at well heeled people in the media to support that while someone keeps being the target of suspicion and treated differently by their fellows. I always feel that if people say they are having a problem then it is our duty to listen rather than dismiss them out of hand

Post edited at 13:02
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> According to The Guardian's database, in 2016 the rate of fatal police shootings per million was 10.13 for Native Americans, 6.6 for black people, 3.23 for Hispanics; 2.9 for white people and 1.17 for Asians.

Indeed.  And given whites are killed at almost 3 times the rate of Asians, why is there no similar movement in support of them?  No agonising over a disparity rate? No taking a knee for Tony Temper? 

Is it perhaps that there are a mass of other confounding factors that weigh into these figures?  That the disparities point to nothing at all resembling the claims being made?  And that in a country of 300 million people the numbers of unarmed people killed are so small that single figure changes might double or triple relative proportions?  And that none of this may have anything to do with racism?  

And this is the problem.  BLM and others are seizing on basic figures like this and extrapolating out all sorts of claims, without consideration for any nuances or other issues at play.  It is simply racism that is the answer.

Post edited at 13:14
10
 elsewhere 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

Funnily enough if you justify a lie or ignorance by adding caveats to exclude 98% of police killings things look fifty times better. Why did you come up with 98% rather than 99% or 1%?

> The answer is, a couple of dozen or less seems to be the norm. 

So unless white people are immune to lightning and only black people are killed by lightning, can you see why I might think you continue to be talking drivel?

Now that I've given you facts have you changed your opinion or verified whether my facts or your facts are more accurate?

Post edited at 13:17
3
 Andrew Wells 13 Jul 2021

I can't stand capitalism, personally, hate the system.

But I don't really think that saying we have a society where racism is still a problem has necessarily anything to do with that? Yes BLM are anti-capitalist but then who cares, they're still right when it comes to saying Black Lives Matter, they're still right when they say that Black people no matter their income or status still receive horrendous racial abuse. As it happens I disagree with a few people who are at BLM marches about a few things and vice versa (and I went to a couple of those marches myself) but I feel that saying BLM are wrong because capitalism is great is... completely off base? 

Racism exists, is a problem, is not being challenged properly by social media giants, has been shown to be all those things clearly by the football fiasco and saying any of those things has nothing to do with whether you think that electricity should be provided by a private company or a state owned utility provider. If you want to get into how actually capitalism disproportionately impacts the lives of non-white people in a negative fashion we can, but "people shouldn't say racist on social media" is not exactly a controversial opinion, is it?

1
 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> If a player wants to take a knee, they can.  I really don't care.  But no other player shouldn't feel coerced to have to do so, nor should fans have to accept it.  They have every damn right to boo and we should not be outraged that they do so, or jump to the automatic claim that this means they themselves are racist. 

But it does though, why boo otherwise? FFS!

> There are plenty of other symbols, completely removed from that movement, that could be adopted.  But no, they settle on BLM's.

Martin Luther King Jr. took a knee, was he a trained Marxist too?

Taking a knee isn't just BLM support, it was here well before them, as you well know.

> Sorry, it's bullshit and utterly divisive.  Which is, I believe, the actual aim.  It is a revolutionary movement of the old school.

It's divisive because you're listening to all the other bullshit, telling you what it is rather than simply accepting, it's a continuation of the legacy of MLK. Which of course we shouldn't need to be bothering ourselves with, because we should really have gotten to a point where race shouldn't be an issue.

The divisive part is you telling everyone, what BLM really isn't, yet believing what your told.

It makes sense for BLM to be labelled Marxist, because that's what people fear most in the US. Can't you see you're being used?

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> Indeed.  And given whites are killed at almost 3 times the rate of Asians, why is there no similar movement in support of them?  No agonising over a disparity rate? No taking a knee for Tony Temper? 

Because at a guess nobody is concerned enough about that statistic to organise themselves into a protest movement. You know you can start one if it bothers you that much.

2
 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to mondite:

> It is a rather poor slogan which is vulnerable to being badly distorted by those with an agenda and a paranoid fear of the all powerful conspiracy of marxists and crt academics.


It is, if you don't understand it.

BLM is a poor slogan if you want to take it, that "only BLM" rather than "BLM too", but I don't think they're supposed to be experts in slogans.

It makes more sense in the US than in the UK, obviously, but you still need to understand it and what it means in reality.

"Stop the polices buying military equipment" and "let's makes sure our officers are fully trained and don't use excessive force" are a little more clumsy.

Maybe you could volunteer to be their go to slogan guy.

But besides all of that, it's usually the media who decide what to disseminate from any movement.

1
RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

I can understand that saying "statistics on police brutality, where in the US a black person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in the way George Floyd was, and where when people are polled they tend to overstate the number of police killings (usually no more than a few dozen a year)" could have been worded more clearly. 

But if you can't accept this was comparing the numbers killed by lightning (17-40 a year) with the total number of unlawful killings of unarmed blacks (that is the question is it not?) then you are not engaging in this discussion with good faith.

13
 Enty 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Just out of interest. A few weeks ago one of my friends asked a question on FB.

"Do you think the England players should take The Knee before the match starts?"

3 or 4 of my good old climbing friends from the north of England simply said "No!" (with an exclamation mark)

When I asked why? I didn't get a reply.

E

Post edited at 13:36
In reply to RentonCooke:

Regardless what you think about BLM. For what it’s worth, I think you are wrong, but that isn’t my point.

The act of “taking the knee” significantly predates the BLM movement. Colin Kaepernick was doing it back in 2016, he developed it as a respectful statement in discussion with US Army veteran Nate Boyer.

Sure it is about being against racism and racial inequality, however it isn’t originated by or copyrighted by BLM. 

Post edited at 13:55
 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> But if you can't accept this was comparing the numbers killed by lightning (17-40 a year) with the total number of unlawful killings of unarmed blacks (that is the question is it not?) then you are not engaging in this discussion with good faith.<

Comparing random acts of nature with deliberate killings by those meant to protect people and thinking that's a fair comparison.

Words fail me.

8
 TomD89 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So your specifically against lobbying and monopolies, which is a better sell than deconstructing capitalism in its entirety.

At what point does one become a capitalist? Are you not one for having benefitted from it all your life and seemingly happy with how it's turned out for you? Or is it the ultra-elite capitalist at the top of the pyramid you are referring to as the problem?

You've broadened capitalistic behaviour to what we do as humans naturally as a means of free exchange, which you aren't against. So do you think in hindsight "'Dismantle capitalism' - don't we all want that?" Was a bit of a strange statement? You've not posed any alternative so I'll assume as yet there isn't one. I won't be burning down my house for promises of a better one in the future.

Obviously lobbying involves going outside of the market to leverage governmental powers to re-enforce monopolies and prop up business that would otherwise be unable to survive through voluntary transactions with a free populace. Not so clear cut as to exactly what part of the mixed system is to blame for me.

Big business in collusion with big government is the problem. The occupy movement was the closest we got to a mass awareness and rallying against this but the elites cleverly substituted it for the corporate sponsored focused outrage on topics like race, sex, gender and sexuality indentitarianism; so getting to any chance of meaningful system change won't come around again for a while. We're so busy squabbling over essentially personal preference topics now nothing will change for a good long while if ever.

Post edited at 13:48
2
In reply to RentonCooke:

If you are a black man in the US, you are around 76 times more likely to die from Police violence than a lightening strike. I can show my data sources and calculations if you like.

 mondite 13 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> What economic system would have produced workable vaccines and distributed them quicker in your view? 

Possibly the one which did succeed eg a mixed economy. In fact I am not aware of any purely capitalist system which did produce and distribute vaccines?

Its worth noting that the history of capitalism for vaccines has been somewhat mixed. Its why the UK was in the process of building VMIC prior to 2020.

 elsewhere 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> But if you can't accept this was comparing the numbers killed by lightning (17-40 a year) with the total number of unlawful killings of unarmed blacks (that is the question is it not?) then you are not engaging in this discussion with good faith.

Why would this be a comparison between the dangers of lightning to people of all races but police killings of only of black people?

This is starting to look like more than ignorance or sloppy language as you never make a mistake that exaggerates the risks of police killings to black people.

Post edited at 14:03
 jkarran 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> Indeed.  And given whites are killed at almost 3 times the rate of Asians, why is there no similar movement in support of them?  No agonising over a disparity rate? No taking a knee for Tony Temper? 

Did you miss the Trump years, 'All lives matter' and 'Blue lives matter'?

> Is it perhaps that there are a mass of other confounding factors that weigh into these figures?  That the disparities point to nothing at all resembling the claims being made?

We're getting a good way from your original claim here.

> And that in a country of 300 million people the numbers of unarmed people killed are so small that single figure changes might double or triple relative proportions? 

Do you have the breakdown by race for 'unarmed' police killings?

> And that none of this may have anything to do with racism?

It's possible it's all statistical noise, certainly in any given year but equally we can zoom out and look to the recent past across decades, then the numbers are no longer 'small'.  Given the vein of racism running right through American history you'd be asking me to strain my credulity if you wish to claim it's basically noise.

> And this is the problem.  BLM and others are seizing on basic figures like this and extrapolating out all sorts of claims, without consideration for any nuances or other issues at play.  It is simply racism that is the answer.

I'm not extrapolating anything, I'm providing facts.

jk

Post edited at 14:19
1
In reply to Enty:

> Just out of interest. A few weeks ago one of my friends asked a question on FB.

> "Do you think the England players should take The Knee before the match starts?"

> 3 or 4 of my good old climbing friends from the north of England simply said "No!" (with an exclamation mark)

> When I asked why? I didn't get a reply.

> E

I support the right for anyone to peacefully express their opinions and beliefs.

In reply to RentonCooke:

> No, not right-wing.  Just in monoculture like UKC, where political diversity is not encouraged, where venturing a differing viewpoint has you labelled as a racist, and where most people anywhere right of centre have long since departed, I just happen to look right-wing to you. 

This place is massively centre right liberal.

I think you made a great point on the Euros 2021 final thread where you pointed out that a lot of centrists with a liberal outlook sow division (whether they mean to or not) because they misidentify class bias as race bias.

Society is stacked against working class people and ethnic minorities are well represented within the working class.

> Well, if I'm arguing against BLM and they are left-wing, and I dislike the toxic philosophy of CRT, which is also left-wing, then I guess it will always look like I'm having a rant against the left. 

Why do you think Critical Race Theory is left wing? It strikes me as an idea that can just as easily be supported by those on the right as the left.

3
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You seem to have also taken defund the police, to mean don't have a police force.

To be fair, in the UK context, it's a pretty stupid slogan to adopt.

> For many, the definition is — there should be police, but their role in communities should be limited to crime prevention. The idea goes that service agencies other than police could and should respond to non-violent calls related to mental health, housing and other issues. Berkeley, California has even moved to create a separate department to handle routine traffic violations.

How is this applicable to the UK? The police aren't funded to respond to mental health calls, they end up having to respond because nothing else is available

> For others, the idea of defunding the police is limited to simply restricting money for military-style equipment.

Again predominantly applicable to the US, (although the Met do like their toys). I support many of BLMs aims but, at the risk of releating myself, but whenever Insee 'defund the police' banners in the UK it just baffles me.

 r0b 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> To be fair, in the UK context, it's a pretty stupid slogan to adopt.

That might be why no-one is adopting it in the UK (except the Conservative party 2010-2020 maybe)

 mondite 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> It is, if you don't understand it.

Yes and thats the problem. Slogans are for repeating and not for actual useful understanding. Think "brexit means brexit" or "get brexit done". As soon as you spend a minute thinking about them they fall to pieces.

Defund the police has the major problem it falls right into the easy "wahhhh they want to shut down the police entirely because they are marxist ninjas" and so on as we have seen here. Then you have to waste time explaining it and the nutters just shout over the top.

 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to mondite:

I agree "Defund the Police" is a lousy slogan.

In reply to RentonCooke:

No. Not at all. Let me break down the argument for you:

<Footballers> take the knee.

<Some people> OMG, they support the evil Marxist BLM!!

<Footballers> Erm, no, we have nothing to do with BLM, we are taking a stand against racism.

<Some people> No you are not, you are Marxists, we will boo you!

<Priti Patel> joins the room
<Priti Patel> Yes, boo them, evil Marxists!

<Footballers> But we're not doing it because of BLM, this gesture is older than BLM!"

<Lee Anderson> joins the room.
<Lee Anderson> No, I refuse to watch these woke Marxists, how dare they support BLM!

<Footballers> but... *sigh*!
<England> loses the match

<Some people> we will deface black player murals and abuse them on social media.

<Footballers> See why we were doing this!? 


<RentonCooke> I don't support their move because I do not support BLM.

<UKC> But this has nothing to do with BLM!

<RentonCooke> They are making it sound like if I do not support BLM I'm a racist!

Congratulations on intentionally or unintentionally being part of a nice deflection campaign, as per usual.

2
In reply to RentonCooke:

> What a load of nonsense. 

1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I agree "Defund the Police" is a lousy slogan.

I agree. And it could have landed the world with a genuine evil, trump, that could have been the end of us all. 

 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> Except, unfortunately for me, when people are telling me I must support this organisation or otherwise I am a racist.  I must not speak ill of the organisation or I am a racist.  And to not support it means I am right-wing.....I get the impression I'm being asked to subscribe to something more akin to a cult, or a political party, and will oppose it on principle.  I really have little enthusiasm for nasty little left-wing authoritarians.<

I feel the same about right-wing authoritarians who see anything left of Farage as a Maxist plot

2
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Also, at a personal level RC is seeing this via his son basically getting the overall impression from social media of "you're black, therefore you're stuffed" when in reality although lots of discrimination still exists

I hope RC will point to the furious backlash against the racist comments as reassuring evidence that the vast majority find them utterly abhorrent.

RentonCooke 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Alkis:

No, not part of a deflection campaign. 

Simply giving a personal viewpoint, based on a personal desire, for at least just one black kid to not have the rug pulled from under him.  

This has descended into utterly puerile stuff now, and disturbing the lack of capacity to see fault in a movement.  I've wasted far too much time contributing.  Will leave you all to it.

Post edited at 17:22
17
In reply to RentonCooke:

> No, not part of a deflection campaign. 

> This has descended into utterly puerile stuff now, and disturbing the lack of capacity to see fault in a movement. 

 

This. Is. Not. About. That. Movement.

It is about your disturbing lack of capacity to see that it is not about that movement.

3
 Ian W 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

> No, not part of a deflection campaign. 

> Simply giving a personal viewpoint, based on a personal desire, for at least just one black kid to not have the rug pulled from under him.  

> This has descended into utterly puerile stuff now, and disturbing the lack of capacity to see fault in a movement.  I've wasted far too much time contributing.  Will leave you all to it.


Perhaps if you hadnt conflated footballers taking the knee with BLM, you might not have come up against such opposition. Also using facts rather than made up statistics might also help.

2
In reply to RentonCooke:

17 - 40 unlawful killings is pretty awful considering how hard it is to get convictions against police and other law enforcement. Is it really that high?

 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> To be fair, in the UK context, it's a pretty stupid slogan to adopt.

> Again predominantly applicable to the US, (although the Met do like their toys). I support many of BLMs aims but, at the risk of releating myself, but whenever Insee 'defund the police' banners in the UK it just baffles me.

I wasn't aware the BLM in the UK are asking to defund the police. My OP was pointing out what defund the police meant in the US context only.

In reply to Alkis:

Been busy so a bit late to this debate.  I’m a keen football fan. Do any of you remember this?  The premier league players absolutely got on board with BLM. They swapped their own names on their shirts, lasted quite a while. They then started taking the knee so it’s totally understandable that many fans linked taking the knee with BLM, because it was.

Post edited at 18:25

 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

The puerile stuff started the moment you conflated racism with BLM and BLM with Marxism.

3
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

The Premier League replaced that with their own No Room For Racism campaign specifically to dissociate from the political implications of BLM. The national team taking the knee happened in the aftermath of the No Room For Racism social media boycott.

In other words, in the absence of an alternative movement, they *started* by supporting BLM and when it became obvious that it had baggage that they did not agree with they created their own. BLM neither started the taking the knee thing nor do they have a monopoly on it. 

 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Been busy so a bit late to this debate.  I’m a keen football fan. Do any of you remember this?  The premier league players absolutely got on board with BLM. They swapped their own names on their shirts, lasted quite a while. They then started taking the knee so it’s totally understandable that many fans linked taking the knee with BLM, because it was.


Well so what?

You could always look at the BLM web site and find out what they stand for.

5
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> I wasn't aware the BLM in the UK are asking to defund the police. My OP was pointing out what defund the police meant in the US context only.

I've certainly seen it on placards at UK protests, but that could just be random protesters seeing it on TV and copying it.

 MonkeyPuzzle 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

The slogan "black lives matter" pre-exists the fundraising organisation Black Lives Matter Global Network and was in common usage around the world by people who mostly had zero knowledge of BLM the organisation until, ironically enough, probably pointed to them by an angry reactionary online. 

It's a three word sentence with a clear meaning in English, not a pledge of allegiance to a communist manifesto.

In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I'm not going to agree with the statement in the OP about what the nation does or does not deserve. I do however feel let down by a minority of bigots and idiots. The vandalism of Rashford's mural for example was disgusting but fortunately, the singular prat who did this was overwhelmed by many, many more supportive messages, and England flags from fans and locals in Withington.

I'm particularly glad to see the reclamation of the England flag in opposition to racism and some of that has to be credited by the England team's stance. I can see why taking the knee has become controversial, but the team have been very clear about the message and I'm wholly supportive of what they're doing. Do I condemn the Danes for standing and applauding the England players who did or the Croatians for pointing at their respect badge instead of taking the knee? No. I can see why some might find that the gesture distracts from the core message of standing up to racism. 

Politicians criticising Rashford need to take a long hard look at themselves. Is it envy that he's doing more public good in his spare time whilst donating a larger percentage of his wealth to charity than they ever will? A Withington boy who grew up on school meals becoming successful and telling an entitled elite what to do? 

Footballers have been villainised by politician's multiple times over the pandemic, remember Handcock stating that footballers should take a pay cut whilst refusing to take one himself. Yes - they earn an absurd amount but at least it's genuine meritocracy with salaries fully taxed and contributing to public purse. Footballers like Marcus Rashford (he is no means alone) have actually put their hands in their pockets to support the NHS and do make efforts to give back to their communities. 

I think there has been a lot of progress and I'm heartened to see where racism at grounds has been identified and those responsible given lifetime bans for their clubs, there's a petition going round right now to identify these people from twitter and have them banned too. Unfortunately I think online abuse is going to continue until long after the the last idiot is banned from attending games.

Watching the Manchester Clubs play in Europe, certain countries are another 10-20 years behind still, with Italian ultras still directing monkey chants at black players and the Serie A coming up with a completely baffling anti-racism campaign involving painted monkeys. I remember City fans feeling particularly aggrieved at being fined more for coming onto the field 30 seconds late after half time (30k) than Porto for racially abusing Balotelli (20k). That being said Liverpool's staunch defence of Suarez after abusing Evra (infamously all wearing Suarez t-shirts in training after the verdict) was incredibly embarrassing and misjudged.  

I did see an attempt at anti-racism earlier in the Euros but I just don't find the angle to be helpful at ll. It was a picture of the England XI in a line and with arrows to 8/11 players wouldn't be there if not for immigration. Unfortunately this opens the door to the nonsense we've seen about the penalty takers. They're all England players, representing England and that angle never crossed my mind (at the time I was thinking that Southgate's last minute penalty subs had disastrously backfired). Also, players shouldn't feel that they're letting their race down or the immigration argument down if they fluff a chance or a penalty.

On the penalties front, I couldn't understand why more senior players were not earlier in the pecking order for taking these, and placing the weight of a game on a subs first kick of the game was risky too. About a hundred other things went wrong before Saka took the penalty and I have to admire his courage and I think he's going to be a fantastic player for England going forward. 

There is no room for racism in football but it will always carry a trace of the working class sport it has grown out of. I honestly don't care about booing when the other team has the ball, booing Fifa or Uefa, jeering when someone kicks a ball out, telling the referee they are blind or calling goal keepers shit when they switch to the opposing fans end. However, laser pens, throwing coins, physically assaulting other fans (or own fans), vandalism of public places can all go for me and should also lead to fans being banned. 

Post edited at 19:59
In reply to jkarran:

> Do you have the breakdown by race for 'unarmed' police killings?

That's the relevant statistic and I would be very surprised if it didn't show a significantly higher proportion of black victims.

I remember reading about some research which basically tested US police officer's propensity to use their firearms and how often they "shot" unarmed suspects (scenario type training).

Not surprisingly black suspects were more likely to be shot when there was actually no threat but something (eg hand movement) was perceived as a threat. What was surprising was that black officers showed similar bias to white officers.

Post edited at 19:57
1
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> I'm particularly glad to see the reclamation of the England flag in opposition to racism

You know, I had seen the pictures of the Rashford mural, festooned with hearts, post-it messages and England flags, and that hadn't crossed my mind. But I think you're right; thanks for pointing it out.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Well so what?

> You could always look at the BLM web site and find out what they stand for.

That’s a great idea. Just wait, I’ve already done that but thanks for the patronising reminder. 

1
In reply to Alkis:

You’re right. I’m OK with taking the knee, their choice and done with 100% good intent. But I’m also trying to understand why some folk boo. I reckon there’s a % of racists and a % who go ‘look, when the Prem league restarted after lockdown you supported BLM, you had it printed on your shirts, and I don’t like BLM.’  I know people who fall into the later. Left wingers with season tickets in the Stretford End.  We actually chatted months ago about will they need some form of get out clause coz taking the knee will become increasingly controversial. You can’t start a game of football with a significant minority booing and loads of folk clapping. Loads of football fans feel ‘not listened to’ (Man Utd, euro super league) and a divide is developing. Some of these fans pay a fortune of hard earned cash and are going ‘so they can take the knee but when I boo them I get slagged off and accused of racism’. Some are racist, many are not. 
Ive worked in anti racist and community cohesion initiatives  like Kick it Out, just trying to get my head around it and give a different slant. 

1
 Timmd 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> That’s a great idea. Just wait, I’ve already done that but thanks for the patronising reminder. 

The way people can presume on here is a funny one, the benefit of the doubt or exploratory questions first, can seem to not have a large presence.

Post edited at 20:55
 Andrew Wells 13 Jul 2021
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Absolutely agree. And if anyone is curious since 2007 the England national team have always donated all of their wages and winnings to charitable causes and indeed to the NHS this time around. 

Footballer's wages are a problem in the sense that society has very rich and very poor people in it. However that's not really limited to football, and demonizing footballers and football fans has been a pastime for politicians for a long time. Indeed Matt Hancock might reasonably asked well you are a cabinet minister in a majority government Mr Hancock, your gov could in fact force footballers and indeed all rich people to pay more in tax, I notice you haven't?

 Yanis Nayu 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

There’s a lot to be depressed about over the last few days but the public response to the defacing of the Rashford mural has been absolutely heart-warming. 

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Good post. I’ve been thinking about the violence from England fans (thugs) towards Italy supporters on Sunday. No one speaks to these thugs - who would want to? So I’m in danger of false second guessing but here’s a provocative thought or two.  Italian football clubs have history of hard core ‘ultras’. A Liverpool fan was stabbed to death the other year (Roma fan/murderer).  A good while back two Leeds fans were stabbed to death by Galatasary murderers. Our club team fans have had to get their act together because we were The hooligans that other hooligans looked up to l. But in the last couple of decades we have had relatively well behaved fans. But the England national team does attract thug fans. And I reckon they bond together. To quote a friend, some of that violence on Sunday would be viewed as revenge. The police and security dropped their guard on Sunday. Who agreed to an 8.00 pm kick off!!!  I don’t think I will ever go to an England game because of the probability of this sort of violence. More than happy watching Wigan Latics play in some friendly atmosphered game with other like minded fans. 

Tackling these hard core thugs is beyond education and cohesion projects. They are too far gone in my view. Given the amount of £s involved in football, I increasingly think that England games at Wembley should be all family and organised community groups. Well behaved England fans may miss out but that’s a price we may need to pay. 

1
 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> That’s a great idea. Just wait, I’ve already done that but thanks for the patronising reminder. 

Sorry you felt patronised, but your post didn't really indicate you'd looked and read it.


IF you did read it then you should know what they stand for then. So what's the issue with footballers having BLM on their shirts. Unless you don't believe what they stand for, and are convinced they're either Marxist or communists, then there's STILL no problem. They're about equal rights, pretty much the same as MLK wanted. You might of course disagree with what MLK was trying to achieve.

Post edited at 21:57
4
 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> You can’t start a game of football with a significant minority booing and loads of folk clapping.

Doesn't this happen on every international game? When they play the national anthems?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> The slogan "black lives matter" pre-exists the fundraising organisation Black Lives Matter Global Network and was in common usage around the world by people who mostly had zero knowledge of BLM the organisation until, ironically enough, probably pointed to them by an angry reactionary online. 

> It's a three word sentence with a clear meaning in English, not a pledge of allegiance to a communist manifesto.

Fully get that. But truthfully though, do you think that’s what football fans were thinking when they saw that slogan on the back of their teams shirts?  I know plenty of fans who were not happy at seeing their team adopt this slogan because, in their eyes, it was linked with that movement. They’d never heard of it before George Floyd and marches etc . For the record, I’m against the booing of taking the knee but trying to see the other side. 
Not aimed at you, but it’s been quite obvious that most people who use this forum have little interest in football (many are anti football). I asked a question earlier about ‘how many of you have seen BLM on the back of players shirts.’ Even I’d forgotten !  Fans have been banned from grounds for ages and it’s the first time in ages they have had a chance to express themselves. 

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Doesn't this happen on every international game? When they play the national anthems?

That’s a recent, unwelcome and embarrassing addition.  Genuinely don’t know how universal it is.  
 

From Gary Neville:  
The Manchester United legend wrote on Twitter: "When I played in the different countries and our [national anthem] was booed I always took it as the opposition fans trying to unsettle us, drown out our fans and never as some kind of attack on us as people. Same when we did it [to] other teams. Is it really that bad or disrespectful?"

Post edited at 22:13
 mondite 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Fully get that. But truthfully though, do you think that’s what football fans were thinking when they saw that slogan on the back of their teams shirts?  I know plenty of fans who were not happy at seeing their team adopt this slogan because, in their eyes, it was linked with that movement.

Personally I would bother trying to understand why those teams had decided to adopt that slogan as opposed to simply getting upset. Why did those fans get so upset?

 Cobra_Head 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> That’s a recent, unwelcome and embarrassing addition.  Genuinely don’t know how universal it is.  

Not on the matches I've been watching for the last 30 years, I can't remember more than a handful of matches where the national anthems have been respected.

> From Gary Neville:  

> The Manchester United legend wrote on Twitter: "When I played in the different countries and our [national anthem] was booed I always took it as the opposition fans trying to unsettle us, drown out our fans and never as some kind of attack on us as people. Same when we did it [to] other teams. Is it really that bad or disrespectful?"

yes!

>  I know plenty of fans who were not happy at seeing their team adopt this slogan because, in their eyes, it was linked with that movement.

And what's the issue with the movement, apart from it wanting equal rights for  black people?

Post edited at 22:22
5
 Duncan Bourne 13 Jul 2021
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Very good post. Thank you

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> And what's the issue with the movement, apart from it wanting equal rights for  black people?

I will ask the people who have an issue with it. And whilst it’s not easy with Covid regs etc. I will also ask the people I work with what they think of BLM. 
 

BTW, just been checking the history of booing anthems and it does indeed go way back, especially in other countries etc. 

 deepsoup 13 Jul 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> There’s a lot to be depressed about over the last few days but the public response to the defacing of the Rashford mural has been absolutely heart-warming. 

That it has.  And of course it's not the first time in recent years that the people of Manchester have responded to some twisted individual's unfathomable hate with an outpouring of love and solidarity.

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> And what's the issue with the movement, apart from it wanting equal rights for  black people?

What rights are they after exactly for black people in the UK? I wasn't aware black people had less rights here...

12
 Andrew Wells 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Realistically it's not equal rights in the eyes of the law (which is there, de jure), it's recognition of socio-economic disadvantage and institutionalised racism etc.

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Ok glad to hear we have equal rights for all races under the law here in the UK.

So what does recognition of socio-economic disadvantage and institutionalised racism look like in practice? What is the end goal?

5
 Andy Hardy 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

I would think when the %age of judges, MPs, CEOs, magistrates, QCs, Police Chief Constables, Premier League managers etc etc matches the %age of black people living in the UK to the point that no-one remarks on it.

Along the way, black people would be no more likely to die younger than white, or go to prison and a whole raft of other stuff you probably know already.

HTH

In reply to deepsoup:

> I don't consider you racist, I consider you to be someone who has posted things on here that could easily be interpreted that way. 

So it's nuance that you're against?  I don't have any doubt that RentonCooke isn't a racist based on what he's posted.  He's a regular poster on a range of subjects and is always thoughtful and interesting.  That doesn't mean I agree with him about everything but he makes me reconsider my opinions. 

Apparently you don't think he's racist either, but worry that other people, who aren't as perceptive as we are, might misconstrue his views.  'Racism-adjacent' is a horrible weaselly concept, the only purpose of which can be to accuse people of something they didn't actually do.

I'm pleased that you have discovered your own unconscious biases, but that doesn't give you the right to put the worst possible construction on someone else's opinions, especially, as in this case, when they are so well-informed. 

1
 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> So what does recognition of socio-economic disadvantage and institutionalised racism look like in practice? What is the end goal?

Better outcomes more frequently for those who currently suffer disadvantage because of who they are, where they're from, how they look, how they sound, who they love etc. In the case of BLM campaigners the focus is primarily on ethnicity but disadvantage and inequality is a broader picture and it's not zero sum.

jk

Post edited at 10:58
 elsewhere 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> when they are so well-informed. 

Repeatedly factually incorrect rather than well-informed.

4
 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Better outcomes more frequently for those who currently suffer disadvantage because of who they are, where they're from, how they look, how they sound, who they love etc. 

Again though, how is this achieved? This is a lot of nice sounding intention, but usually when people state their methods for achieving this they are at best iffy.

2
In reply to elsewhere:

> Repeatedly factually incorrect rather than well-informed.

What, based on his experience not coinciding with the results of a survey?

Post edited at 11:18
 elsewhere 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> What, based on his experience not coinciding with the results of a survey?

No. On the basis of the mostly numerical corrections I posted above.

4
 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

I'm tempted to give a one word answer: politics.

Listen. Identify and understand a problem, raise awareness and find allies, develop a solution, work towards it. Repeat with many others working different related problems. Slowly in fits and starts, with much push back from those who think they're comfortable, the world gets better.

Or sit back and enjoy your place. Laissez faire.

jk

Post edited at 11:27
1
 Cobra_Head 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> What rights are they after exactly for black people in the UK? I wasn't aware black people had less rights here...


ha ha ha , then they're not wasting their time then are they?

Of course it's not just about rights, but equal opportunities too.

Since this started off about football, name a black football manager.

Edit, I think Andy and Andrew, expressed it better than I did, above.

Post edited at 11:39
2
In reply to elsewhere:

> No. On the basis of the mostly numerical corrections I posted above.

OK, whatever, he can make his own arguments.  My point was about the insidious idea that he shouldn't express a nuanced opinion about aspects of racism and anti-racism based on his experience of being married to a woman of colour for fear that it could possibly be misinterpreted.

1
 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to jkarran:

So no specifics on methodology then? Quite keen to be politically aware and engaged, just need to know what exactly I'm engaging with. 

8
 elsewhere 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> OK, whatever, he can make his own arguments. 

I agree but if anybody uses verifiable facts they should get them correct otherwise it looks dishonest or acting in bad faith when they are persistently wrong. It also looks ill-informed.

Post edited at 11:54
1
 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> 'Racism-adjacent' is a horrible weaselly concept, the only purpose of which can be to accuse people of something they didn't actually do.

It's a term I was using slightly (only slightly) tongue in cheek.  I do not accuse Renton of anything he didn't do, I don't know whether he personally is racist or not and said so.  What I meant by it is that he often posts things on here that a racist might post.  Not things that are actually blatantly racist, of course, though he frequently opposes those who oppose racism.

He's perfectly happy to disseminate misinformation, whataboutery and outright untruths about the BLM movement for example.  Things that the proudly self-declared racists will most certainly be cheering from the sidelines.  That's the whole point of the 'dog whistle' analogy, I can't say for certain whether on not Renton has been blowing that whistle, but my god the dogs are barking.

You may think this is weaselly, but it is my honest opinion stated plainly.

That middle aged white blokes like you and me are so often more outraged to see someone accused of racism than we are by actual racism is a large part of the problem.

6
 Andrew Wells 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Well TomD89 it would mean that you wouldn't see worse socio-economic conditions, life expectancy,  levels of education, home ownership, death during childbirth and so on in non-white populations of the country. It also would mean less racial abuse, ideally. Do I really have to spell it out? Do I really need to explain what I mean by "it'd be good if the country was less racist" actually entails? Really?

1
 Andrew Wells 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Also you didn't ask that, you asked what the end goal was, so don't shift the goalposts (I you'll pardon the pun). The ways of dealing with that are complex and myriad. Protesting about it by saying "society values Black lives less, that's wrong" and challenging racial abuse following, say, a football game are two ways that seem extremely reasonable to me. 

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

You're entirely missing the point. I'm being told the ideal outcome, great. Now tell me the more important bit, how you intend to get this ideal outcome.

7
 Andrew Wells 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

You asked for the outcome mate, you said "what is the goal," you got your answer

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Yep, thanks.

So you don't care to answer the next logical question? (I assume kneeling at football games isn't the extent of the plan?).

Post edited at 12:23
5
 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> So you don't care to answer the next logical question?

Perhaps you could encourage Andrew to answer by first answering yourself.  What do you intend to do?

> (I assume kneeling at football games isn't the extent of the plan?).

I assume kneeling at football games is no part of yours?

Post edited at 12:31
 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> So no specifics on methodology then? Quite keen to be politically aware and engaged, just need to know what exactly I'm engaging with. 

What do you mean, 'what you're engaging with'?

Specifically I can give you a basic lesson on various design or fabrication techniques if you like or I could teach you to fly a glider but that's where I run out of skills, knowledge and to a degree, capability. You'll want to talk to someone else about specific social problems of interest to you and their possible solutions.

jk

Post edited at 12:49
 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Kneeling at a lads 5 aside once in a blue moon seems like a poor strategy for any meaningful change.

I don't intend to do anything nor have any suggestions because the topic is extremely complex. I can state I want a better world just like everyone else has, but we're no closer to it for doing so are we. 

Can you see a point in people saying we need to improve the comparative socio-economic situation for *insert race here* but providing no details of how? Hence why I'm questioning.

3
In reply to thread:

Nobody :

Posters on UKC : 

"Hi, I'm a white neurotypical middle-class cishet dude who likes to play devil's advocate because other peoples struggles are purely theoretical to me. It's fun to debate your right to exist! While we are here, i'd like to center my voice and perspectives about a cause that's purely abstract for me! I'm here to take up all the oxygen in the room and exhaust people who are trying to fight against injustice so that I can maintain the status quo, which I benefit from. I have no real interest in learning; your frustration is my ultimate goal, whether I know it or not."

7
In reply to TomD89:

> Can you see a point in people saying we need to improve the comparative socio-economic situation for *insert race here* but providing no details of how? Hence why I'm questioning.

I think that:

1 Bringing the issue to the attention of a largely oblivious public;

2 Explaining, as jk eloquently put it, that it isn't a zero-sum game, improving conditions for one part of society doesn't automatically mean attacking the rights of everyone else.

Still has a long way to go before you can start to expect a fully costed and resourced plan to be provided by the UKC hive mind.

Journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step kind of thing.

 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Kneeling at a lads 5 aside once in a blue moon seems like a poor strategy for any meaningful change.

Yeah, that wouldn't achieve much.  Maybe nothing.  Even 'maybe nothing' is more than absolutely nothing, which is what you achieve by doing absolutely nothing.

How about taking a knee at a massive televised international final at a major tournament, should you happen to find yourself on the team.  Worth doing?

> I don't intend to do anything nor have any suggestions because the topic is extremely complex.

Not so complex that you're unable to suggest that others are doing it wrong, apparently.  Nor does your intention to do nothing seem to inhibit you from criticising others for not doing enough.

> Hence why I'm questioning.

"Hey, I'm just asking the question dude."  You'll be 'playing Devil's advocate' next.

In reply to deepsoup:

This is a change. The Tory culture war may have lost a battalion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57828402

 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> This is a change. The Tory culture war may have lost a battalion.

Or simply witnessed a shameless and unprincipled move against Patel. My heart bleeds for her if the vultures really are starting to circle.

jk

In reply to deepsoup:

> That middle aged white blokes like you and me are so often more outraged to see someone accused of racism than we are by actual racism is a large part of the problem.

Maybe, or perhaps we are just more likely to know someone, because of their ethnicity, age and position, who has been accused (rightly or wrongly) of some sort of prejudice, rather than someone directly affected by it.

In the same way that I'm uncomfortable hearing mansplaining about sexism or straight people telling us what we need to do about about homophobia, I'm more interested to hear from black people or people in mixed race families about racism. 

What white middle-aged guys in white, middle class families' like the majority of the posters here, think should be done is less interesting, however well-intentioned (which, to be clear, I don't doubt). 

I also detect in RentonCooke's posts a US perspective, which I think is also poorly understood here.  In my experience there are nuances in the attitudes of decent, moderate, middle of the road (in their opinion) Americans that don't always survive translation.

In reply to jkarran:

> Or simply witnessed a shameless and unprincipled move against Patel. My heart bleeds for her if the vultures really are starting to circle.

Clearly the latter, but it has the same impact.

 r0b 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I also detect in RentonCooke's posts a US perspective, which I think is also poorly understood here.  In my experience there are nuances in the attitudes of decent, moderate, middle of the road (in their opinion) Americans that don't always survive translation.

It's not about being poorly understood or surviving translation, it's that "defund the police" and "Critical Race Theory" (the latest front in the American Right's culture war) have zero relevance to the discourse in the UK

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Through this discussion I think Renton has wobbled between "movement" and "organisation" when talking about black lives matter/Black Lives Matter. He might not be doing it intentionally, but he has done it, and its a way of tarring with the same brush - or to put it in terms he has used, it seems to me that it is in order to "cancel" anyone who sympathises with the slogan of "black lives matter".

The US organisation that I guess trademarked the name (although we are assured they are trained Marxists, so maybe they wouldn't trademark it, what will all property being theft and all that) might be Marxist (although I don't really see what is Marxist or even neo-Marxist about a focus on race and defunding the police - surely they should be seizing control of the means of production!) but that still doesn't mean that organisers in this country, let alone the thousands of people who marched under the slogan, are Marxist.

If it wasn't for seeing the words "woke" or "cancel" in Telegraph op-eds, and being told of the threat of Critical Race Theory by people working for rightwing think tanks (the Heritage Foundation chap quoted in this weeks Economist US section, and dozens of other articles I've read or heard), you really wonder if the vast majority of the population would have even heard of these things, let alone been bothered by them?

So instead of footballers kneeling and having BLM on their shirts, because they think its horrible that people are directly racist to black players and were horrified hearing about Breona Taylor, Tamir Rice and George Floyd getting killed by cops in the US, we now are arguing whether they are part of a sinister Marxist/Critical Race Theory conspiracy to reshape the world in the model of Venezuela. Or something. 

 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> So instead of footballers kneeling and having BLM on their shirts, because they think its horrible that people are directly racist to black players and were horrified hearing about Breona Taylor, Tamir Rice and George Floyd getting killed by cops in the US, we now are arguing whether they are part of a sinister Marxist/Critical Race Theory conspiracy to reshape the world in the model of Venezuela. Or something. 

It's always surprising how well the REDS! attack line still works, even in a modern UK context. I guess growing up through the very tail end of the cold war it just doesn't resonate with me like it clearly does with others so it always takes me a little off guard.

jk

 Cobra_Head 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TobyA:

Nice one.

Seems to me people are willing to listen to anything, to prove their point, and facts are secondary.

The easiest way to discredit someone in the US is call them Marxist or Communists, people will believe anything bad of them, once that moniker has a bit of traction.

 Cobra_Head 14 Jul 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> It's always surprising how well the REDS! attack line still works, even in a modern UK context. I guess growing up through the very tail end of the cold war it just doesn't resonate with me like it clearly does with others so it always takes me a little off guard.

> jk


That and the utter blindness of their own beliefs.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=370400691116600&set=a.235555287934475

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> Not so complex that you're unable to suggest that others are doing it wrong, apparently.  Nor does your intention to do nothing seem to inhibit you from criticising others for not doing enough.

Sorry can you point to any criticism? I double checked, I can't see that I have made any. I stated it was wrong to say black people don't have equal rights, they do. The goalpost was then changed to socio-economic, representation etc.

Quote me where I said anything that was happening was 'wrong'.

> "Hey, I'm just asking the question dude."  You'll be 'playing Devil's advocate' next.

Can you state the problem with asking questions or are you trying to get at something? Be direct, ideally after considering what I've actually written on this thread so far rather than projecting.

3
In reply to TomD89:

> Sorry can you point to any criticism? I double checked, I can't see that I have made any. I stated it was wrong to say black people don't have equal rights, they do. The goalpost was then changed to socio-economic, representation etc.

You don’t understand the concept of rights.

It is a right to not be descriminated against on the basis of colour.

It is a right not to be racially abused.

Both of these things are technically illegal, yet they happen regularly, some would argue that it is sometimes even encouraged by some politicians and that it is endemic in some public and private institutions.

It applied to other groups as well.

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Yes I understand. So beyond enshrining rights in law, which is done, what else is being proposed beyond increasing social awareness, to rectify this?

This is an open question, I'm not demanding you in particular must answer.

1
In reply to TobyA:

His repeated attraction to any thread about subjects like this, strawman arguments used as deflection tactics, constant insistence that "oh, no I'm not with x side, I just see their point" does make me wonder whether I am talking to a real person 99% of the time. I never get that same sense with other regular conservative posters here, it's not the opinions it's the supremely consistent and predictable style.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Can you state the problem with asking questions or are you trying to get at something? Be direct, ideally after considering what I've actually written on this thread so far rather than projecting.

Your questions give the very strong impression of someone who is trying to invalidate the issue under discussion by implying (note implying rather than explicitly stating) that anyone highlighting that a problem exists can only give a shit if they have detailed policy proposals with which to fix it. Unless you thought you were posting on Experienced Civil Servant and Policy Think-tank UK then that leads the conversation to an endpoint predetermined by you whereby everyone has to shut up because you've oh-so-cleverly got them to say words to the effect of "I don't personally know" which you'll view as some kind of victory.

Even jkarran's perfectly valid response about seeking meaningful good-faith political interventions - presumably involving consulting with experts in the field to design policy with a view to ongoing incremental improvement, i.e. what would actually happen in the real world - wasn't good enough for you, hence my take above.

TL;DR: You're trolling an idea you wish to mock.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, all that sounds very sensible, as always.  I was slightly confused by someone upthread say that taking a knee was nothing to do with Black Lives Matter (on the basis that Martin Luther King had done it some years previously).  I suspect if you asked a hundred people at random whether footballers kneeling before a match was anything to do with Black Lives Matter (assuming they'd heard of either) they'd say there was a link and why not?  They, like me, might not always draw a distinction between the organisation and the movement.

Not for the first time, UKC posters who are deeply invested in the detailed politics of an issue and the crucial significance of nuances they've spent hours arguing about are assuming that others automatically understand the significance of specific phrases and are using them with a specific intent. 

 TomD89 14 Jul 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

It's just a bit weird that there's so much support for an organisation like BLM, but no-one has any examples of political objectives, law/policy changes or anything beyond saying 'black lives matter' (obvious) and taking knees. Do they have anything else or? I'm not even knocking those actions just assumed there was a bit more to it.

10
In reply to Dave Garnett:

You cannot possibly claim that RentonCooke does not understand these nuances, people don't get to consistently misrepresent the opposing view with 100% accuracy out of a position of ignorance. The nail was hit in the head earlier in the thread when he was asked what ways to show support of antiracism he /would/ support, to a response of *crickets* and more "but BLM is Marxist" misdirection. 

Post edited at 15:48
 Andrew Wells 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

You may be unsurprised to hear that I don't actually have a fantastic foolproof plan to fix racism and nobody does (although there are many learned people who have put forth some pretty good ideas). However people who are subject to it protesting about that, and those of us who are not subject to it wholeheartedly supporting their protest, has often had positive results before and certainly doesn't hurt. Which is why I support them taking the knee, and think people who are criticising them for it are being muppets at best.

Post edited at 15:48
 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Yes I understand. So beyond enshrining rights in law, which is done, what else is being proposed beyond increasing social awareness, to rectify this?

Actively protecting and enforcing people's rights, ensuring they're not systematically violated through malice, ignorance or habit.

Take a tiny little piece of the inequality problem for consideration: People in recruiting positions tend, very broadly for reasons of superiority and simple numeric majority to be 'white british'. Where CVs carry the job applicant's name those with typically 'white british' names demonstrably get further through a typical filtering process than those with 'foreign' names and equivalent CVs, mostly as a result of the subtle, barely conscious biases of decent people bearing no malice. Assuming we agree that's not good, how might we fix it? Legislation seems like the wrong tool to start with, nuts sledgehammers and all that. Early education and real lifetime exposure to greater diversity from early life would probably work but it'll be slow and it doesn't happen in practice, many of our cities and schools are unhelpfully segregated, woefully lacking in diversity. Here the solution probably lies in a company policy which acknowledges attempts to avoid those biases, perhaps nameless applications*. It's not something that is best forced by law in the first instance (though that may prove ultimately necessary) but can be promoted by campaigners and advanced as good practice through tertiary and professional education.

* in practice our CVs bear plenty of subtle hints to our backgrounds beyond our names. Dealing with people who want to recruit 'people like me', people with the right school tie knowing that's a potent social filter, they're hard to deal with with or without legislation. Still, make things even a bit better and in time attitudes evolve, those remaining dinosaurs move on further from the places they can do harm, their behaviours ever more obviously abhorrent even to their peers. Just don't expect the people on the receiving end of that glacially changing discrimination to be quietly happy about the pace of progress as opportunities pass them by.

Now pick another problem, and another and another, none of them have the same solution, some you may need to raise awareness of, build alliances around to overcome inertia and opposition, some may be ripe for change but require legislative change, others may require more research funding...

jk

Post edited at 16:04
 Andy Gamisou 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> So what does recognition of socio-economic disadvantage and institutionalised racism look like in practice? 

It comes in many guises.  Some of the things referred to here I found quite eye opening as someone who has never had to deal with this sort of thing.  Came across many similar sorts of, often but not always, unintended examples of discrimination whilst investigating ethical issues for a course I'm doing:  

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/this-racist-soap-dispenser-reveals-why-diversity-in-tech-is-muchneeded/

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

In a similar vein, when I was doing my PhD we were using a hyperspectral imager to take images of skin for analysis, including amongst other things tissue oxygen saturation estimation. Well, it was used for years before on one experiment it was finally tried on black skin and did not work pretty much at all, because the algorithms we run used parts of the visible spectrum heavily absorbed by melanin. Years. It shouldn't have taken years, as it has serious implications on future clinical use of the technique!

Post edited at 16:58
 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Maybe, or perhaps we are just more likely to know someone, because of their ethnicity, age and position, who has been accused (rightly or wrongly) of some sort of prejudice, rather than someone directly affected by it.

Jesus.  No.  If that's your experience the similarity between us definitely doesn't go that far. 
I don't know anyone personally whose life has been affected by an unjust accusation of racism.  (Beyond feeling a bit upset.  Bottom lip quiver.  There there never mind.) Some sympathy from me, but no outrage required.

I also don't know anyone personally whose life has been affected by a just accusation of racism.  But if I did, well, good.  That sounds like someone whose life should be affected.  No sympathy from me this time, and again no outrage required.

I don't need to know people personally, whose lives have been affected by racism, in order to feel angry at the injustice of it. 

But as it happens I do know a few.  For example a small group of my colleagues were leaving work, very late, on the night of the 2017 Manchester arena bombing.  They must have looked a bit suspicious with their tool bags, and as they were trying to figure out how they were going to get home they were stopped and questioned by police.  The police were satisfied that they were just trying to get home from work, not 'going equipped' or carrying offensive weapons or whatever and they were then sent on their way, apart from one of them who one officer in particular had a 'bad feeling about'.  He ended up being detained and eventually released some time the following afternoon.  Can you guess how he was the 'odd one out' of the group?  (I'll give you a clue - he isn't the freakishly tall bald one, or the female, and while he does have quite an impressive beard so does one of the other lads.)

> What white middle-aged guys in white, middle class families' like the majority of the posters here, think should be done is less interesting..

.. than the one voice in this thread who claims to be "in a mixed race family", also happens to sit well out at the right-wing end of the spectrum of political views here, and seems to offer nothing about what "should be done" in any case.  Only what shouldn't be done. (Any form of protest, apparently.)

But even he says he's a middle aged middle class white male.  Has it occurred to you to try some other forum?

I suspect a large part of why middle aged white male gobshites are so overrepresented on UKC (even compared to the demographic of climbers and outdoorsy types generally) is that it's f*cking *exhausting* for them to engage in any sort of politically charged discussion here (hence our recent loss of Masbar as a poster, much to the detriment of the quality of UKC discussion).

> I also detect in RentonCooke's posts a US perspective

Nah.  But I see TobyA has already covered the same ground I was about to and made rather a better job of it than I would, so see above. (@14:05)

I don't think I've ever seen a RentonCooke post about climbing or hillwalking, or running or cycling btw.  Does he only come here to talk about politics?

Post edited at 17:46
1
In reply to deepsoup:

> That middle aged white blokes like you and me are so often more outraged to see someone accused of racism than we are by actual racism is a large part of the problem.

Not sure how relevant this is but us middle aged white blokes probably very rarely see actual acts of racism. Whereas we probably see more occurrences of people accused of racism where we can see some room for doubt.

Is it then surprising that we make more fuss about ensuring the correctness/fairness of the latter since although we hopefully abhor racism more, we've not got any direct experience to get outraged at.

I can't see any easy way to avoid that kind of experiential bias.

 Tom Valentine 14 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

What has happened to Renton Cooke? 

Has his input been stifled?

Or has he simply resigned from UKC?

Post edited at 18:39
 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Not sure how relevant this is but us middle aged white blokes probably very rarely see actual acts of racism.

I think it is relevant and you're right.  Some of us go further and extrapolate from there that the things we don't see do not exist.  So protests against them are greatly exaggerated.  Half the protesters are probably just agents provocateurs looking to cause trouble for nefarious ends.

> Whereas we probably see more occurrences of people accused of racism where we can see some room for doubt.

Well there's accused and accused isn't there.  I mean if you're in the public eye I suppose an unjust accusation of racism could lead to you losing your job or something.  If you were an entirely un-racist stand-up comedian who put out an 'edgy' tweet for example, badly misjudged it and ended up having all your gigs pulled and your agent drop you. 

Yeah, maybe that's why whatsisname isn't on the telly any more - that and because the BBC are all Marxists.

Being accused by a fellow poster on here of having said something a bit racist on a thread though, especially as an anonymous poster - so what?  Boo hoo.  Big fat hairy deal.

Being accused face to face of being racist, perhaps by someone just using it as a convenient stick to beat you with, perhaps by someone who genuinely believes it - that's not fun.  But I highly doubt it's anything like as not fun as being on the wrong end of actual racism.  (And having experienced both of those, I don't think anger is an appropriate reaction much of the time. Certainly not as an instinctive unthinking knee-jerk reaction anyway.)

I'm not at all sure it's appropriate to compare those two experiences (experiencing racism and being accused of it) as if they're somehow different aspects of the same thing. 

It seems akin to the thing you could see in some 'vox pop' interviews recently - of accusing those who protest against racism of themselves being racist. 

People who seem to be decent people, if not the brightest, saying that footballers shouldn't be taking the knee before football matches because there's no room for racism in football.  And that's why they boo.  It's baffling.  Like impoverished working class people voting Tory, or Scottish fishermen who used to sell most of their catch of shellfish in Spain thinking Brexit was going to be a good idea, but I digress..

Post edited at 18:52
2
 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> What has happened to Renton Cooke?
> Has his input been stifled?

Yes.  I reported him to the secret Marxist woke police and was just keeping him talking long enough for the rainbow stripey helicopters to arrive and take him away to be cancelled.

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> It's just a bit weird that there's so much support for an organisation like BLM, but no-one has any examples of political objectives, law/policy changes or anything beyond saying 'black lives matter' (obvious) and taking knees. Do they have anything else or? I'm not even knocking those actions just assumed there was a bit more to it.

But you didn't though did you? You didn't "assume there's a bit more to it", Baffled of UKC. You're taking a tedious and circuitous route to try and undermine other people's positions. Unfortunately for you it's transparent.

 Tom Valentine 14 Jul 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Serious answer, anyone?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Flounced off. See yesterday 17.20 post.

edit: right out of the site, it would seem.

Post edited at 21:05
1
In reply to TomD89:

> It's just a bit weird that there's so much support for an organisation like BLM,

I don't think there is that much support for an organisation called "Black Lives Matter" at all. But there is a lot of support for the sentiment that black lives matter as much as everyone else's does, but currently in various ways black people get treated as if their lives don't matter as much as everyone else's.

In reply to deepsoup:

> I don't think I've ever seen a RentonCooke post about climbing or hillwalking, or running or cycling btw.  Does he only come here to talk about politics?

I believe that in the past Renton posted under his real life name and is, or was, an active climber. I think that we bumped into each other once when we were both sport climbing at Llanymynech. I don't doubt he's a real person, and he has at times talked about his move away from the left - again, as long as I'm not getting people mixed up, he was very strongly anti-war in Iraq, when I was among the vacillating centre-left semi-Blairite types!

In reply to TobyA:

Interesting.

In reply to TobyA:

Has he gone under different pseudonyms here before? His capacity to turn every discussion he contributed to to one about ‘wokery’ and the like reminds me of Pan Ron (though not sure i ever saw RentonCooke get embroiled in long discussions about the evils of The Left in universities the way Pan Ron regularly did, so maybe not the same after all…)

In reply to Michael Hood:

Interesting.  I deal with loads of racism (including some very serious) as part of my job and yet I think I’m more understanding (or at least trying to understand) why fans have booed taking the knee. So this sort of proves your point, kinda, but I’m too tired to think straight! 

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Yep, Renton is Pan I think. I won't say his actual name because it's years since he stopped using it, and I guess he had his reasons for going over to using a pseudonym.

 deepsoup 14 Jul 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Sorry, couldn't resist.  When you asked "has his input been stifled?" it brought to mind some sort of conspiracy theory.  Something involving chloroform on a hankie perhaps.

FWIW, nobody has their input stifled on this forum other than by being banned for breaching the rules, and when that happens they remain a registered user but you see the 'restricted' notice instead of their profile.

 jkarran 14 Jul 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I thought that but had my mind changed. I think Renton was a guy who used to live in the US or be open about posting from the US and post under another natural sounding name, something Alcock maybe. David Jeffries keeps coming to mind but he was a bike racer.

PanRon had similar but different bees in his bonnet unless something changed with the user name. 

Jk


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...