Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

Millwall fans boo thier own players taking the knee

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Badger said:

You don't answer the question - I suspect it is because you can't.

You say that you are against racism but cannot identify any action to support this stance. Instead you just provide further unsubstantiated claims and reiterate your belief that existing anti-racist actions should be stopped.

I repeat the questions:

 

1. What action would you recommend to support anti-racism then?

2. Here is the BLM website - illustrate what you allege - if you can.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

If you fail to answer the question this time, it will be pretty clear that you are unable to, although I it is quite you will make some bombastic assertion in faux justification of your inability to answer.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

"We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe. That’s why we are calling to #DefundPolice"

 

232674235_PA_Black-Lives-Matter-protests

 

blm.jpg

 

29335876-8397019-Police_and_protesters_c

 

PRC_153963125.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&z

 

Rather than fostering a constructive atmosphere to facilitate fairness and tolerance throughout society, the organisation promotes division, discord and anarchy.  It is usual on BLM demos for placards from SWP offshoot organisations to be widely displayed and any organisation that the SWP promotes is, almost by definition, on the far-left.  As for some of the comments by its supporters, such as "The white man shall not be our equal but our slave", “racism thrives on capitalism,” “one solution, revolution.” etc etc, they are quite clearly extreme.

 

 

 

Edited by Naturalcynic
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Badger said:

When IS its time and place? You suggest that you are opposed to racism - how do you propose that we should oppose it more effectively than has currently been the case?

I'm bored now and it's clear you have your own 'issues' to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

"We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe. That’s why we are calling to #DefundPolice"

So you are arguing that extended families and collectively caring for one another is "far left" then?

And presumably you think that a Police that kills over 1000 of its own people is keeping them safe and that the US criminal justice system is squeaky clean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jaywick_canery said:

I'm bored now and it's clear you have your own 'issues' to deal with.

You have run out of evasive tactics you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2020 at 18:31, Feedthewolf said:

You can't ban someone for booing a gesture. If the club can prove they have actually said or done anything directly racist while attending the match, then ban them for life. But booing the knee gesture is neither inherently racist nor bannable.

Frankly given that we are in the middle of a situation where only a tiny proportion of fans actually get the opportunity to attend the games I would have thought that any club would immediately ban for the foreseeable future any fans who booed their own players before the game even started whatever their motivation was!

I'm pretty sure that despite Millwall fans' well deserved rank reputation there would have still been plenty of them that would have jumped at the chance to go and cheer for their team on Saturday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jaywick_canery said:

I'm bored now and it's clear you have your own 'issues' to deal with.

It's a really simple question. Why don't you just answer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Badger said:

So you are arguing that extended families and collectively caring for one another is "far left" then?

And presumably you think that a Police that kills over 1000 of its own people is keeping them safe and that the US criminal justice system is squeaky clean?

It is far left when it's no longer a naturally occurring situation, as extended families are in some cultures, but becomes part of an ideology, which it is under BLM. There is nothing wrong with allowing either nuclear families or extended families to develop organically based upon people's choices. But this is ideology and not choice. It is about systematically undermining the nuclear family in order 5o promote a different form of family structure. 

And nobody considers a police force to be squeaky clean. Is any industry or profession free from bad individuals? But when a crazed, gun-carrying burglar is trying to break into my home, I would prefer to call the police and not a social worker. 

Edited by Rock The Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Badger said:

You don't answer the question - I suspect it is because you can't.

You say that you are against racism but cannot identify any action to support this stance. Instead you just provide further unsubstantiated claims and reiterate your belief that existing anti-racist actions should be stopped.

I repeat the questions:

 

1. What action would you recommend to support anti-racism then?

2. Here is the BLM website - illustrate what you allege - if you can.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

If you fail to answer the question this time, it will be pretty clear that you are unable to, although I it is quite you will make some bombastic assertion in faux justification of your inability to answer.

So, are you going to answer my question then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gesture were changed to 15 seconds applause or something and the message to one of general equality  tolerance and respect would this appease both camps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nuclear family model is one that's heavily supported anyway. Any single, childfree person who's aware of OECD figures on tax wedges will be fully aware of this. In fact, the nuclear family is a drift away from extended families and is by no means all that old.

Certainly for me as a proudly single and childfree guy, when I hear politicians prattling on about "hardworking families" my first thought is inevitably "well, what about people like me then?"

Fact is, a nuclear family covers far less than half the population. And we're not all exactly chasing to be in one either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friend Robbie Cowling at Colchester put out a statement regarding this and a similar occurrence at the weekend. Well worth a read if you're still of the belief that this is about Marxism or woke or somesuch bollox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If the gesture were changed to 15 seconds applause or something and the message to one of general equality  tolerance and respect would this appease both camps?

That would be too sensible 

Perhaps to keep both sides happy and things even - half the players could carry on with their extreme left wing antics while the other half could kneel and give a few sieg heils? ...... Thus keeping both extreme-left and extreme-right extremely happy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Carrow said:

So, are you going to answer my question then?

Which one? I thought I had?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Frankly given that we are in the middle of a situation where only a tiny proportion of fans actually get the opportunity to attend the games I would have thought that any club would immediately ban for the foreseeable future any fans who booed their own players before the game even started whatever their motivation was!

I'm pretty sure that despite Millwall fans' well deserved rank reputation there would have still been plenty of them that would have jumped at the chance to go and cheer for their team on Saturday.

They were not booing their players but booing the irrational support for an anarchistic group.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, paul moy said:

They were not booing their players but booing the irrational support for an anarchistic group.  

spacer.png

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

I disagree with some of this but agree with much. I do not foresee that it is possible in society at present. As I said originally,

 

"Profound changes to the allocation of resources are the result of fundamental economic change which is beyond the influence of individuals. All we can do in the meantime is to try to do what we believe is "the right thing," which in itself is a highly complex individual construct."

I cannot envisage changes on the scale that are necessary without fundamental economic change and do not anticipate that within  my lifetime. The process of fundamental change society is very slow and evolves/ revolves unevenly. I think that we would agree that capitalist society is different from feudal society and it is therefore likely, that a post-capitalist world will be different again. (Unless of course, you subscribe to the "end of history theory" and that capitalism is the ultimate expression of human society).

We are powerless to make fundamental change to fundamental change to society - even if the richest person in the world were a "do-gooder" who wanted to make everyone "happy" s/he would have only peripheral impact and society as a whole would be fundamentally unchanged. That is not to say, of course, that it is not worth bothering - it does still impact on individuals and we can make small changes to society as a whole (as part of a wider group - which is where we started with BLM). As I said, in the meantime we can only do our best to do the right thing, which is an individual construct and tbh, most of us end up compromising with our own "best-self" even then!

I don't quite understand what post capitalism (whatever that is - the fundamental drives for human beings have always been the same) means in this context. It isn't going to change the desire for justice & the concept of being rewarded for effort, which for most people means doing a job which you would not do voluntarily.

The problem is that the suspicion of many is that they're not being treated fairly & others are obtaining privilege & status which they do not deserve; one of the problems with BLM is that it assumes we are all racist (specifically white vs black) which rankles with those of us who are not, which I suspect is the overwhelming majority under 50 or so - racism was certainly much more prevalent amongst my father's generation - & we must apologise & humble ourselves for no good reason. 

Personally I would find the idea of applause much less objectionable as a sign of solidarity & general fellowship with all our fellow men, as it's much less coercive. Because whatever you may say, there's a lot of coercion going on with the kneeling situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

If you look at social attitudes surveys etc, things have been steadily improving in western democracies. I believe Corbyn was a consensus egalitarian who genuinely wanted to do something about inequality but I have serious doubts as to whether he would have been able to fend off Woke authoritarianism- it has a vicelike grip on the Left now. 

So essentially I'm an old style Leftie who believes that poverty lends a lie to meritocracy (another book recommendation: Poverty Safari) and is a scourge on western societies. Now, could you tell me how dividing ordinary people into oppressed/oppressor, victim/privileged, racist/anti-racist based on their immutable characteristics is going to unite people to come together and change things?

Badger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I thought the implication was pretty obvious in my post that I want Labour to return to a form of corbynism whilst distancing itself from Woke authoritarianism.

"They are already divided". Where is your evidence for that? Social attitudes surveys say the opposite, as does my own experience of over 20 years in a very mixed working class environment. I'd be interested to know your background?

Again, how does splitting working people into oppressor/victim classes based on immutable characteristics foster class solidarity? Please answer this time.

Actually this one (with three questions) is more recent Badger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was written about 20 years ago. Chomsky, Zizek and Stephen Fry have made similar points. The Left were warned that they were going down a self-defeating road....
"Beware of Identity politics. I'll rephrase that: have nothing to do with identity politics. I remember very well the first time I heard the saying "The Personal Is Political." It began as a sort of reaction to defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they 'felt', not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of the narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its sub-groups and "specificities." This tendency has often been satirised—the overweight caucus of the Cherokee transgender disabled lesbian faction demands a hearing on its needs—but never satirised enough. You have to have seen it really happen. From a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being reactionary; the Clarence Thomas hearings demonstrated this to all but the most dense and boring and selfish, but then, it was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance.
Anyway, what you swiftly realise if you peek over the wall of your own immediate neighbourhood or environment, and travel beyond it, is, first, that we have a huge surplus of people who wouldn't change anything about the way they were born, or the group they were born into, but second that "humanity" (and the idea of change) is best represented by those who have the wit not to think, or should I say feel, in this way."
Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
 
Edited by Mr.Carrow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

The nuclear family model is one that's heavily supported anyway. Any single, childfree person who's aware of OECD figures on tax wedges will be fully aware of this. In fact, the nuclear family is a drift away from extended families and is by no means all that old.

Certainly for me as a proudly single and childfree guy, when I hear politicians prattling on about "hardworking families" my first thought is inevitably "well, what about people like me then?"

Fact is, a nuclear family covers far less than half the population. And we're not all exactly chasing to be in one either.

All good points. And isn't nice that we can choose to live family-free, nuclear or extended as we wish, rather than having an ideology imposing a way of life upon us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

All good points. And isn't nice that we can choose to live family-free, nuclear or extended as we wish, rather than having an ideology imposing a way of life upon us. 

Unfortunately, that's not quite correct. You'll find the nuclear model is very much the pushed and promoted one. Not to mention there is plenty of research showing how any model that is not the nuclear model is stigmatised. The likes of Bella DePaulo and Elyakim Kislev have shown this for the single, and Leslie Ashburn-Nardo did this for the childfree.

(I could go on, particularly when it comes to other sexualities).

That said, I happily turn the tables nowadays and if anyone starts getting uppity at me, saying "so when are you finally going to get married/have crotch dumplings/etc." I simply say "well, when are you going to get divorced/have an abortion" in response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul moy said:

They were not booing their players but booing the irrational support for an anarchistic group.  

They were booing the actions of their players, which is exactly the same thing - we normally boo players when we don't approve of what they are doing or what they've just done, and when I say don't approve I actually mean disagree vociferously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Carrow said:
This was written about 20 years ago. Chomsky, Zizek and Stephen Fry have made similar points. The Left were warned that they were going down a self-defeating road....
"Beware of Identity politics. I'll rephrase that: have nothing to do with identity politics. I remember very well the first time I heard the saying "The Personal Is Political." It began as a sort of reaction to defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they 'felt', not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of the narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its sub-groups and "specificities." This tendency has often been satirised—the overweight caucus of the Cherokee transgender disabled lesbian faction demands a hearing on its needs—but never satirised enough. You have to have seen it really happen. From a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being reactionary; the Clarence Thomas hearings demonstrated this to all but the most dense and boring and selfish, but then, it was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance.
Anyway, what you swiftly realise if you peek over the wall of your own immediate neighbourhood or environment, and travel beyond it, is, first, that we have a huge surplus of people who wouldn't change anything about the way they were born, or the group they were born into, but second that "humanity" (and the idea of change) is best represented by those who have the wit not to think, or should I say feel, in this way."
Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
 

More thinking again. Which is not what is required. Action. Why the heck does Trump have such a big following? Because his followers don't have to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

More thinking again. Which is not what is required. Action. Why the heck does Trump have such a big following? Because his followers don't have to choose.

So you encourage your nieces and nephews to engage in thoughtless action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...