Mr.Carrow

I watched River Plate beat Santa Fe of Colombia with only ten fit and available players (played an injured midfielder in goal). Obviously not premier League quality but Carrascal at no.10 and 21 year old Alvarez up front looked extremely talented. With Argentina being in another crisis and no fans in the ground I should think bargains could be had...

Pretty much all good news. Only slight negative I can see is Webber's phrasing of "staying a bit longer". Given he makes a big deal of honouring his contracts, it could be that he doesn't want to commit himself to a longer one. Whatever he decides, he should be praised to the heavens even if he does leave next year.

I'm just imagining the response had I posted Sun and Mail articles in support of my claims. Yet again Horsefly, I think you have a fair point about the Woke term. However terms such as "institutional racism" work in much the same way, encompassing many different concepts the meaning of which changes depending on the ideological bias of the person using the term. The main difference is that people who choose to use the Woke term as shorthand for various forms of identity politics authoritarianism don't call others racist bigots if they object to it.

Here in Argentina, after I've told people I'm a Norwich fan (and usually mentioning Emi), I often get the question "yes, but who do you support of the big teams?". I'm quite proud explaining the UK tradition of only supporting your local team.

Woke mentioned several times here, but keep on believing it's a phantom issue made up by the Right.... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/08/labours-khalid-mahmood-says-party-has-become-london-centric?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR1FEpYso_iALSiBcKO8V75XWVjtAIle_haX-uVOIYny3hQZFq2Q8biocUg

https://www.newsweek.com/i-left-islam-liberal-values-now-woke-liberals-are-embracing-new-religion-opinion-1586128?fbclid=IwAR2wfPzsx4yz9CxcwXxykciI-jpG4dyaJkXDIE7-lK0F9ajKtUSG2rfkyKY

"Covid gap". With respect, where do you think all the money saved last season, parachute payments plus £40m from Lewis and Godfrey went? The club are openly saying that there is room is improve the squad and that doesn't seem to be dependent on anyone leaving.

Thousands of stories such as this out there: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students?fbclid=IwAR0gUhMHILa3HmIpUQAvnakPlG1E9TX3TPjCnrRPm_uEV0bcP-uBvFNKMIU

All I'm doing is endlessly repeating myself. CRT and Critical Theory are well established in the UK as well as the US, although probably not as advanced. We have a long tradition of importing movements from the US therefore the likes of McWhorters (and many others) input should be seen as a potential early warning. On your second point, I really don't know how many times I need to repeat it. NOBODY (bar a handful of morons) IS SAYING THAT RACISM ISN'T A FACTOR and that includes the report in question. Simply framing it as all being about racism is not supported by the evidence, therefore is actually harmful to parsing the myriad different factors leading to some groups doing worse than others (even of their own racial group). In other words, not understanding a problem properly (or insisting on a purely ideological framing of it) actually impedes the prospect of solving it.

This isn't a debate. This is me presenting information that most on here don't seem to be aware of and getting the predictable reaction when ideologically certain people have their world view challenged. Purple at least engaged with the information and came up with a reasonable and thoughtful counterpoint. There is a wealth of information on this topic, Cynical Theories book, McWhorters book coming soon etc and if you don't understand the point I am making I suggest engaging with it. On your last point, again, if you want to make such a simplistic blanket statement you have to explain why black Africans are doing so well in the UK but not black Caribbeans and why the same is true for people of Indian and Pakistani origin.

This from the black linguist John McWhorter: https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neoracists

I think you are missing the point that critical theory includes historical oppression and victimisation in its calculations of the victim heirarchy (think about third wave feminism and the current furore over slavery and colonialism....). The Jews have a pretty solid claim to that, therefore have a pretty iron clad victim card to wave to counter the idea that they are currently oppressors.

He was using the dichotomy to illustrate the inherent contradictions within standpoint theory. If both sides "feel" they are victims and that is their lived experience, then where is the path to resolution? There is no nuetral, dispassionate observer because there is no objectively true position to be arrived at and somebody who isn't part of the "oppressed" group has no right to an opinion on it. I do think he could have chosen a less inflammatory example. Think about the "believe all women" phrase which went viral during Me Too and what happened to it when people on the "right side" (Biden etc) started to face allegations.

I think it's pretty obvious that the spine needs to be better and more athletic. I would hope we strengthen every single central position: ie centre back, central midfielder, number 10 and quality competition for Pukki.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/who-decides-whats-racist?fbclid=IwAR0pw9959iVapA3RMjkc12bnB_uAb1ac-3wkSCQz8I1Ex1SCPfyxjjq0vXo

Good for you. Respect.

In that case I encounter "mild unintended racism" pretty much hourly. The point is whether it is really accurate, fair or constructive to project such a loaded "nuclear" term on to well-meaning people who misstep. I've met very few people who have hate and division in their hearts and those who have have generally been in thrall to ideological certainty. Billy Bragg sang "I've got Socialism of the heart" and I used to believe that the Left were fundamentally Rousseaian and optimistic about humanity whilst the Right were Hobbesian, negative and dismal. Witnessing the abject misanthropic projections coming from the modern radical Left (plus the disinterest from the rest of the Left in standing up to them), I now have serious doubts.

Who called you Woke? If you want to define racism in terms so broad that it includes people's natural primal biases and caution then you have to take responsibility for the logical repercussions of that. It essentially brands humanity as fundamentally bad (ironically enough a repurposing of original sin) and sets up the situation for quasi-religious movements such as CRT to come along with expensive snake oil promising to cleanse certain groups of their inherent evil. We've already been down that path and we know where it leads. As I posted earlier, there is a gentler, kinder, more pragmatic path which is to accept that humanity is flawed and that people's knee jerk reactions can be uncomfortable and problematic, but that education and example can gradually overcome those issues (which all statistics show has been happening in liberal democracies). Branding whole swathes of people racist whilst claiming that the system is fundamentally racist as most on the IdPol Left do is the road to division and chaos. Also, just thinking about human reactions to other's immutable characteristics opens up an endless can of worms. Women, across cultures, prefer taller men. Does that make them prejudiced against short guys? By the same token most men wouldn't particularly want to date a woman a foot taller than them, does that make them horribly prejudiced? You could then go on into body type, complexion, hair colour etc.

Rock the Boat was spot on then, how predictable. Are you denying her lived experience then? You know that is racist, right?

Yet another rather inconvenient "opinion". But hey, the out of touch dinosaurs bodger and badger pontificating from their privileged leafy suburbs clearly know more than this informed young lady.

The point is that within a few months you would be complaining that the term "no-platformers" had been hijacked and anybody using it must be right wing and demanding it not be used. Also, the term Woke as used by liberals to define a rogue part of their own movement is far more specific than a vague term such as "male privilege" which has as much evidence against it as for it as a valid term (men being most of the suicides, homeless, addicted, incarcerated, injury and death at work, educational failures, war deaths, PTSD, drugged as children etc etc). None of the terms I listed have been proven to be accurate enough to be acceptable ways of framing the world.

Most of the links I've provided are by liberals trying to define a part of their own movement that has gone rogue. In order to define something you have to use words. You are then faced with the problem of whether you laboriously list every single nuance of the problem you are trying to highlight every time you refer to it, or whether you come up with a succinct term which broadly covers those ideas. That term unfortunately often becomes a blunt weapon and can be warped and misused for ideological reasons. I accept that this has happened with "Woke" but the truth is had another term been used (critical theory left, say) the same thing would have occurred and you would have been demanding that people don't use it. What term would you prefer for the part of the Left which is curtailing free speech and no platforming people as you state?

This from the Uber right wingers at Double Down news.

I have listed the ideas that are covered by the term Woke and repeated it when you accused me of not doing so. I think Sullivan's article above covers it well. I have also accepted that the term is blunt and clumsy but is generally used to avoid having to list the ideas I mention (for convenience). But I think that there is room for compromise here. I will accept your objections to the term and stop using it, if you accept that terms such as institutionalised racism, systemic racism, white privilege, male privilege, rape culture etc are the same kind of overly simplistic, propagandistic terms largely used to push an ideological agenda.