Millwall fans boo thier own players taking the knee

[Naturalcynic 642]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Explain to me in what way the anti-racism message of "Black Lives Matter" is far left; how is "taking the knee" far left? 

I refer you to my comment further up page 13.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Naturalcynic

[horsefly 4,310]

15 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

What is really depressing is that people like you get so emotional and threatened by some recommendations of some thinkers who may challenge your cosy little orthodoxy. It is basically religious thinking. You are an intellectual coward.

Pathetic! You have consistently failed to respond to the points that have been made on repeated occasions. Your only response seems to be "read x or y", clearly you are incapable of presenting the arguments yourself. The logic of the little you have put forward is infantile. To suggest that the support of millions of people for taking the knee to show racial solidarity, further entails that they support the Marxist ideology of a couple of the BLM movement's founders is utterly ridiculous. Or are you suggesting that your support for Jeremy Corbyn entails your further support for his "liking" of a blantantly anti-semitic mural that would have been at home in Na*zi Germany? Or that people who watch Disney films are thereby supporting its founder's virulent and very public anti-semitism?

We are talking about a very simple 15 second act of support for racial solidarity. It's a shame that someone who describes himself as anti-racist can't see it for what it is and instead aligns himself with bigots who would seek to undermine it. I wonder how happy you are to be associated with the likes of Britain First leader Paul Golding

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by horsefly

[paul moy 235]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

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/

The fact is that people are not now wanting to support football promoting a political organisation that itself promotes anarchy.  People are fed up with political correctness and know that anybody that calls for the dropping of this ritual is branded a racist.  

Time to call it a day on BLM and drop that mantra and correspondingly those awful black power salutes.

[ron obvious 1,514]

23 minutes ago, Badger said:

The solution is allocation based on need, rather than equality of any kind. I don't think that I can take any action to achieve this, iis beyond individuals. 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.

How do you determine 'need'?

 

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Nothing whatever wrong with promoting anti-racism.  Football has done so very successfully through its own "Kick it out" campaign.  It''s when the anti-racism message and symbolism is inextricably linked with a far-left political organisation that seemingly condones desecrating memorials and burning flags at the Cenotaph that a lot of people find unacceptable.

Utter tosh! It is ridiculous to claim that all the millions of people supporting the very simple act of taking the knee to show support for racial solidarity are thereby committed to the illegal acts you describe.The fact that some indivduals do such things does not in any way entail that others condone them or wish to repeat them.

Or shall we assume that all you right-wingers are all commited to desecrating the monuments erected to Police officers killed by terrorists:

https://news.sky.com/story/shameful-man-pictured-urinating-beside-memorial-of-officer-killed-in-attack-12006264

Edited December 7, 2020 by horsefly

[Alex Moss 2,165]

3 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

The very obvious answer, which has already been discussed ad infinitum on the preceding 12 pages, is because  the symbolism of “taking a knee” is now inextricably linked with the BLM movement which is widely seen as being an extreme political organisation with highly questionable policies, not to mention the fact that its supporters deface war memorials and burn flags at the Cenotaph.  You can’t separate the laudable sentiment of getting rid of racism from the rest of the baggage that goes with BLM.  Pretending otherwise would be akin to someone with concerns about animal welfare supporting Hitler because he was a vegetarian.

What a load of crap!

You absolutely can separate it because in case some of the small minded bigots haven’t realised, taking the knee and it’s meaning was around long before BLM!

We all know EXACTLY what taking the knee means fundamentally, and blatant racists wheeling out the old Cenotaph excuse fools no one!

 

 

[Naturalcynic 642]

2 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

What a load of crap!

You absolutely can separate it because in case some of the small minded bigots haven’t realised, taking the knee and it’s meaning was around long before BLM!

We all know EXACTLY what taking the knee means fundamentally, and blatant racists wheeling out the old Cenotaph excuse fools no one!

 

 

The tired, lazy and predictable response of the authoritarian woke left.  If you don't sign up, hook, line and sinker, to the approved message, you're a racist.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

4 hours ago, Pugin said:

Absolute gibberish. The extreme right are desperate to devalue and politicise a very laudable sign of showing solidarity with black players.

This is fundamentally exactly what it comes down to in one, Pugin 👏. Racists always seem to have an excuse for their actions, though their true feelings are as transparent as cling film.

[Badger 2,407]

27 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

30 minutes ago, Badger said:

Explain to me in what way the anti-racism message of "Black Lives Matter" is far left; how is "taking the knee" far left? 

I refer you to my comment further up page 13.

Your comment further up page 13 doesn't explain either of these points.

Of course you can't explain it - because of course they are not far left messages - you have been told to think that but are unable to explain why it is.

[Badger 2,407]

25 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

How do you determine 'need'?

 

To be able to participate in as fully as possible society without disadvantage. Some  need more to achieve this than others - e.g the old and those with reduced mobility/ physical or mental impairment. 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

The tired, lazy and predictable response of the authoritarian woke left.  If you don't sign up, hook, line and sinker, to the approved message, you're a racist.

Who’s making you or anyone sign up to anything other than respecting a simple message condoning racism AND NOTHINV MORE that takes place within 15 seconds of silence before a game?

As I say, the origin of taking the knee has been around longer than BLM and we all know exactly what it fundamentally represents. Do you think in the US, fans of the NFL all unite in solidarity as they celebrate someone pissing on a statue of Winston Churchill?

[horsefly 4,310]

38 minutes ago, paul moy said:

The fact is that people are not now wanting to support football promoting a political organisation that itself promotes anarchy.  People are fed up with political correctness and know that anybody that calls for the dropping of this ritual is branded a racist.  

Time to call it a day on BLM and drop that mantra and correspondingly those awful black power salutes.

More complete tosh of course. So do tell us which footballers are "promoting a political organisation that itself promotes anarchy".

[Badger 2,407]

38 minutes ago, paul moy said:

52 minutes ago, Badger said:

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/

The fact is that people are not now wanting to support football promoting a political organisation that itself promotes anarchy.  People are fed up with political correctness and know that anybody that calls for the dropping of this ritual is branded a racist.  

Time to call it a day on BLM and drop that mantra and correspondingly those awful black power salutes.

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.

[horsefly 4,310]

Funny how these right wingers get all "woke" and "snowflakey" over a bunch of footballers taking the knee for 15 seconds. What a bunch of wimps! Man up cry babies!

[hogesar 9,716]

The only reason i'd ever be against footballers taking the knee is that right now our lads are more likely to pull a f*cking hamstring in the process.

[Badger 2,407]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Funny how these right wingers get all "woke" and "snowflakey" over a bunch of footballers taking the knee for 15 seconds. What a bunch of wimps! Man up cry babies!

They are unable to explain their positions at all because they are simply parroting what they have been told to think. They do not realise that they have been brainwashed by the social media that they consume. It is very sad really as I am sure that some of them are quite pleasant people but just without the intellectual tools to challenge what they read and are told. 

[ron obvious 1,514]

17 minutes ago, Badger said:

To be able to participate in as fully as possible society without disadvantage. Some  need more to achieve this than others - e.g the old and those with reduced mobility/ physical or mental impairment. 

What does that mean? How much resource gets diverted to who? Who decides what constitutes disadvantage?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Funny that the closet racists can turn an argument to suit themselves.

BLM are marxists. Are they? Does that stop them being equally determined to rid the planet of racism?

What happened at Millwall was a camouflaged attempt to once again advertise the right wing vision of a society that if we followed their belief would be even more totalitarian than any Marxist one.

[jaywick_canery 28]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I don't think the majority are - most are anti-racism themselves.

What is wrong with promoting anti-racism?

In your face... nothing. In my face...everything. But then again maybe you need it eh?

[jaywick_canery 28]

11 hours ago, Alex Moss said:

That was what BringBackChippy said. Apparently he didn’t or doesn’t need reminding. Despite the fact he made some highly offensive racist comments on here not so long back, which did not go unnoticed by some of us.

I don’t know where you’ve plucked the 0.1% statistic out, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t quite the factual ratio - in fact, this thread already proves that unfortunately. 

You are entitled to your opinion of course.

[daly 507]

Hypothetical question when players leave CR and return with a different team  (Lewis Grabban) being a good example, he was booed when his name was announced. That could be deemed as racial because he’s black or the fact that NCFC fans were upset at his attitude whilst at the club

 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by daly

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

The solution is allocation based on need, rather than equality of any kind. I don't think that I can take any action to achieve this, iis beyond individuals. 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.

Who is going to decide who needs what? You? BLM?  And by what criteria? Any system for appeal against not getting what you think you need? Any examples of countries where allocation according to perceived need has been successful?

[horsefly 4,310]

OMG even The Vicar of Dibley has succumbed to the satanist Marxist BLM takeover of the world. Where will it end? Better buy a gun and retreat to a bunker before those kneeling equality spouting bas*tards come for your women and children:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/the-vicar-of-dibley-taking-the-knee-during-christmas-special-sparks-furious-debate/ar-BB1bGbJc?ocid=msedgntp

[Badger 2,407]

20 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

What does that mean? How much resource gets diverted to who? Who decides what constitutes disadvantage?

 

It is easiest to illustrate using an example. Someone who is unable to walk cannot participate in society. However, s/he is able to do so by the provision of a wheelchair + more able further to doso by the provision of lifts/ ramps etc. These are already things that we have in our society, because of a leftward shift in politics in the twentieth century away from free market capitalism, although some would no doubt call it the "political correctness." By being able to participate more fully in society, those supported with their extra needs are able to contribute and society actually benefits from a net gain, although this won't always be the case. 

Moving from an example to a general principle the level of need can be determined by a simple equation:

That which is necessary to participate fully in society - minus that which the individual can currently do in society = the amount of support that is necessary. (Of course, the formula can be re-arranged.)

I am not optimistic about the organisation/ groups "who decide" as you put it. It seems to me that there has been a concerted effort to row back from the support that was provided by the developments of the twentieth century which we see in the press and the very well-funded far right websites and "research groups." I suspect that it will take significant economic realignment to redress this: but perhaps I am just in a negative mood today.

[Badger 2,407]

18 minutes ago, jaywick_canery said:

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I don't think the majority are - most are anti-racism themselves.

What is wrong with promoting anti-racism?

In your face... nothing. In my face...everything. But then again maybe you need it eh?

I'm not quite sure what your response means? Are you saying that there is everything wrong with promoting anti-racism?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

It is easiest to illustrate using an example. Someone who is unable to walk cannot participate in society. However, s/he is able to do so by the provision of a wheelchair + more able further to doso by the provision of lifts/ ramps etc. These are already things that we have in our society, because of a leftward shift in politics in the twentieth century away from free market capitalism, although some would no doubt call it the "political correctness." By being able to participate more fully in society, those supported with their extra needs are able to contribute and society actually benefits from a net gain, although this won't always be the case. 

Moving from an example to a general principle the level of need can be determined by a simple equation:

That which is necessary to participate fully in society - minus that which the individual can currently do in society = the amount of support that is necessary. (Of course, the formula can be re-arranged.)

I am not optimistic about the organisation/ groups "who decide" as you put it. It seems to me that there has been a concerted effort to row back from the support that was provided by the developments of the twentieth century which we see in the press and the very well-funded far right websites and "research groups." I suspect that it will take significant economic realignment to redress this: but perhaps I am just in a negative mood today.

Why the switch to disabled people when the discussion surrounds BLM?

Are non-white people excluded from opportunities only afforded to white people in the UK? Can you name in what areas non-white people are excluded?

Can you explain why Asian people are the most successful group in the UK If the country is racist?

[jaywick_canery 28]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm not quite sure what your response means? Are you saying that there is everything wrong with promoting anti-racism?

Like all things... it has it's time and place.

 

 

[ron obvious 1,514]

25 minutes ago, Badger said:

It is easiest to illustrate using an example. Someone who is unable to walk cannot participate in society. However, s/he is able to do so by the provision of a wheelchair + more able further to doso by the provision of lifts/ ramps etc. These are already things that we have in our society, because of a leftward shift in politics in the twentieth century away from free market capitalism, although some would no doubt call it the "political correctness." By being able to participate more fully in society, those supported with their extra needs are able to contribute and society actually benefits from a net gain, although this won't always be the case. 

Moving from an example to a general principle the level of need can be determined by a simple equation:

That which is necessary to participate fully in society - minus that which the individual can currently do in society = the amount of support that is necessary. (Of course, the formula can be re-arranged.)

I am not optimistic about the organisation/ groups "who decide" as you put it. It seems to me that there has been a concerted effort to row back from the support that was provided by the developments of the twentieth century which we see in the press and the very well-funded far right websites and "research groups." I suspect that it will take significant economic realignment to redress this: but perhaps I am just in a negative mood today.

That's a very simple example. But even then someone has to decide how far to extend this enabling, how much resource to divert from the rest of society through taxation; taxation which often falls most heavily on those nearest the poverty line & are thus hardest hit.

How to treat the aged is a particular problem (incidentally it is essentially tied up with the present pandemic); you could theoretically use the entire resources of the NHS to keep a few people alive for a few extra days. Would this be right? Or perhaps some sort of prioritisation has to occur, no matter how uncomfortable this may be.

The definition of 'needs' has become expanded enormously over the last few decades to include categories that would have been defined as 'wants'. Who determines the distinction?

It is also unfortunately true that not all those in need of resource to participate in society are inclined to do so in any way that is beneficial to the rest of that society.

The problem is that people, in my experience, are highly complex individuals & their behaviour, their 'needs', do not fit neatly into particular pigeonholes.

Edited December 7, 2020 by ron obvious

[Badger 2,407]

9 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

That's a very simple example. But even then someone has to decide how far to extend this enabling, how much resource to divert from the rest of society through taxation; taxation which often falls most heavily on those nearest the poverty line & are thus hardest hit.

How to treat the aged is a particular problem (incidentally it is essentially tied up with the present pandemic); you could theoretically use the entire resources of the NHS to keep a few people alive for a few extra days. Would this be right? Or perhaps some sort of prioritisation has to occur, no matter how uncomfortable this may be.

The definition of 'needs' has become expanded enormously over the last few decades to include categories that would have been defined as 'wants'. Who determines the distinction?

It is also unfortunately true that not all those in need of resource to participate in society are inclined to do so in any way that is beneficial to the rest of that society.

The problem is that people, in my experience, are highly complex individuals & their behaviour, their 'needs', do not fit neatly into particular pigeonholes.

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!

[Badger 2,407]

33 minutes ago, jaywick_canery said:

Like all things... it has it's time and place.

 

 

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?