Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ron obvious

Christoph's decision

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

"however, in this context, his actions are perceived as opposition." I think you should consider that the people who kneejerk to this reaction are far more of a problem than the action itself. Being free to not stand and applaud when asked to is one of the fundamental tenets of a free democracy with free expression. In fact, some of the heroes of the 20th century are those who stood up against groupthink and coercive conformity. Have you read 1984?

If a room of people were asked to stand up and applaud something, but one person chose to stay seated and not clap; how would that be perceived?

Share this post


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

Isn't that my point? The other 21 are not protesting, they are following the anti racism movement which unless the nation is heading far right, is in the majority. Robinson and his crew are in the minority and protesting against what is reasonable and acceptable.

Given your posts about the poll tax, I'm not sure you can figure what what your point is, much less the rest of us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kirku said:

Given your posts about the poll tax, I'm not sure you can figure what what your point is, much less the rest of us

Thank you. Merry Xmas to you. Insults on sale at the moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kirku said:

If a room of people were asked to stand up and applaud something, but one person chose to stay seated and not clap; how would that be perceived?

That they are exercising their right not to be coerced into a socially approved action and maybe they have issues with some of the complexities of the argument they are being asked to approve of. Or maybe they haven't given it much thought either way therefore do not feel that actively showing support is an honest and informed reaction. How would you perceive it?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, some of the heroes of the 20th century are those who stood up against groupthink and coercive conformity...

I agree, Martin Luther King when he first knelt..... Suffragettes....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It's an utter nonsense to think -

1. People take the knee to represent the Black Lives Matter political group.

It's very obviously a gesture against racism.

2. Race issues vary from country to country.

It's the same underlying issues no matter how those issues ultimately find expression. The only way to resolve them is a united front worldwide to make these idiots realise that racism is not welcome anywhere, in any culture at any time.

Your second point is a massively oversimplification. The US situation for Black people is one that is deeply complicated and driven by historical context relatively unique to that country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been a senior journalist for 40 years and it is rare to read such an unprofessionally constructed article written by a paid reporter and published without standard editorial checks and balance required by a mainstream news outlet. On what facts is any of this rambling content based? As published, it appears to be the opinion of one employed writer who could just as easily be any member of the public- but the latter person would not have unbridled access to a credible newspaper/website.

Before publication the editor should have taken full responsibility and asked the reporter why no sources were credited? The article doesn't even hide behind the catch all anonymous credits of the tabloids of "sources close to the club", "sources close to the player", etc. 

Most fundamentally, the impression left is that the source of the article could have been the player himself- but that is totally unfair on him. Was he even approached for comment? Balance in journalism demands that he was approached and the article should publish that- reporting is not about leaving impressions.

If the content reflects the view of the player he should have articulated it. If he did not wish to comment when approached the article should have stated such. Otherwise the reader could be left feeling that the reporter was used as a mouthpiece, which is hardly a scoop.....it is propaganda. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

**** me! Is there a bigger culprit in this thread than you at deflecting? Outrageous.

 

You repeatedly post arguments on the lines of "this might happen and that would then demonstrate x". Then when challenged you introduce a different argument. Go back and actually engage with some of the points made or I have to assume you're just on a wind up (successfully in my case 😣).

 

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

What utter nonsense.  My line has been consistent throughout, and that’s that Christoph would be wise to maintain a dignified silence on why he chooses not to kneel because there are many who are already gearing themselves up for the metaphorical internet pile-on [Edit: Nuff Said - the the avoidance of doubt I have used the bold highlighting here] if he dared to admit not fully embracing the currently approved version of ideological purity.

You accused King Canary of wanting to ostracise Zimmerman. When he pointed out he hadn't said that, you didn't respond but did say "Lo and behold, the witch trial has begun."  Deflection

KC objected to the use of the words "Witch trial" and stated that he thought some people and groups might change their opinion of Zimmerman *if* he held views they disagreed with. You replied with "Standard modus operandi of the intolerant illiberal woke left.  You’re free to say what you want but if it doesn’t fit with our ideology we’ll cancel you, lobby your employer to sack you, and fill social media with why you’re such a bad person." More deflection and exactly what  I described in my post quoted above. No-one is saying Zimmerman should be cancelled, suggested lobbying for him to be sacked or post anything about him on social media. In fact, KC said exactly the opposite.

You replied "You stated that he should explain why he chooses not to kneel so that you and others can then shoot him down." Again, this at best exaggerates the truth for rhetorical effect, but is actually just a lie.

You then continued to use inflammatory language without engaging with the points other posters made to you. Deflection.

You replied to my post to object to the fact I had altered your post (despite the fact I had highlighted the text changed and specifically said that in my first sentence). You didn't reply to the point I made. Deflection.

Having said all this, my main objection to your posts is still not that you refuse to engage with the argument except in the rare case where it suits you, but you continually predict ridiculous outcomes that will not happen from so-called woke reactions that haven't occurred - as in the text highlighted in your quote above. This is just crowd baiting nonsense. Fortunately most of the posters on here are a reasonable bunch and can have a polite debate, so don't fall for this.

Nuff said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

 

You accused King Canary of wanting to ostracise Zimmerman. When he pointed out he hadn't said that, you didn't respond but did say "Lo and behold, the witch trial has begun."  Deflection

KC objected to the use of the words "Witch trial" and stated that he thought some people and groups might change their opinion of Zimmerman *if* he held views they disagreed with. You replied with "Standard modus operandi of the intolerant illiberal woke left.  You’re free to say what you want but if it doesn’t fit with our ideology we’ll cancel you, lobby your employer to sack you, and fill social media with why you’re such a bad person." More deflection and exactly what  I described in my post quoted above. No-one is saying Zimmerman should be cancelled, suggested lobbying for him to be sacked or post anything about him on social media. In fact, KC said exactly the opposite.

You replied "You stated that he should explain why he chooses not to kneel so that you and others can then shoot him down." Again, this at best exaggerates the truth for rhetorical effect, but is actually just a lie.

You then continued to use inflammatory language without engaging with the points other posters made to you. Deflection.

You replied to my post to object to the fact I had altered your post (despite the fact I had highlighted the text changed and specifically said that in my first sentence). You didn't reply to the point I made. Deflection.

Having said all this, my main objection to your posts is still not that you refuse to engage with the argument except in the rare case where it suits you, but you continually predict ridiculous outcomes that will not happen from so-called woke reactions that haven't occurred - as in the text highlighted in your quote above. This is just crowd baiting nonsense. Fortunately most of the posters on here are a reasonable bunch and can have a polite debate, so don't fall for this.

Nuff said.

Well, that’s me corrected good and proper.

Share this post


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

Well, that’s me corrected good and proper.

Excellent news.

Although possibly a little deflect-y?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of hyperbole and self serving bollox on this thread. The players have stated they wish to continue the protest, that was announced by the players union, they should be allowed to continue if they wish. Any player that choses not to should also be allowed, the amount of people projecting their beliefs or opinions on these acts is staggering.

Not every player kneels is a left leaning Marxist, not everyone who stands is a rampant racist.

People have the freedom do do what they want including booing, but that with that freedom comes consequences. The club is able to chose to ban or throw out fans who they feel damages their brand.

I have the freedom to call my boss a **, I can't moan about my lack of free speech if I get sacked.

 

As for the journalism, without knowing or quoting Zimm this should never have been published. 

 

Edited by Jimthechip
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It's an utter nonsense to think -

1. People take the knee to represent the Black Lives Matter political group.

It's very obviously a gesture against racism.

But it isn't nonsense to think that people affiliated with the BLM have tried to hijack it for their own agenda.  You see it all the time in all sorts of issues - feminism/religion/sexism etc where extremists try to take over and try to own the agenda. I've seen it even in jazz where in some online groups, extreme black views (mainly in the USA, it has to be said) sometimes come to the fore where if you are white, you are not considered to play authentic jazz because you are white (the line is "jazz is our music") - this in an age where most people consider music to be universal. Sure the heritage is there in black history and we all know that, but its quite an eye opener to see the bitterness there and makes you realise the extent of the racism problem.

Breaking down the divides is hard to do, but the work has to carry on to integrate everyone together and get the message across, but once the gestures have been spoiled by the extremists, then the best thing imo is to change the gesture or at least modify it to keep it in the public view without enabling the extremists to ruin it.

Edited by lake district canary
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Breaking down the divides is hard to do, but the work has to carry on to integrate everyone together and get the message across, but once the gestures have been spoiled by the extremists, then the best thing imo is to change the gesture or at least modify it to keep it in the public view without enabling the extremists to ruin it.

Welcome to 21st century society. Take any gesture chose your side and make you argument as extreme as you can. then immediately condemn anyone who disagrees with you. 

Quite depressing really. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thank you. Merry Xmas to you. Insults on sale at the moment?

I'm not insulting you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

But it isn't nonsense to think that people affiliated with the BLM have tried to hijack it for their own agenda.  You see it all the time in all sorts of issues - feminism/religion/sexism etc where extremists try to take over and try to own the agenda. I've seen it even in jazz where in some online groups, extreme black views (mainly in the USA, it has to be said) sometimes come to the fore where if you are white, you are not considered to play authentic jazz because you are white (the line is "jazz is our music") - this in an age where most people consider music to be universal. Sure the heritage is there in black history and we all know that, but its quite an eye opener to see the bitterness there and makes you realise the extent of the racism problem.

Breaking down the divides is hard to do, but the work has to carry on to integrate everyone together and get the message across, but once the gestures have been spoiled by the extremists, then the best thing imo is to change the gesture or at least modify it to keep it in the public view without enabling the extremists to ruin it.

Whatever someone has tried to do with a gesture does not mean the gesture has to take on that meaning. It is meant as a gesture against racism. Full stop. 

It really isn't that difficult.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimthechip said:

What a load of hyperbole and self serving bollox on this thread. The players have stated they wish to continue the protest, that was announced by the players union, they should be allowed to continue if they wish. Any player that choses not to should also be allowed, the amount of people projecting their beliefs or opinions on these acts is staggering.

Not every player kneels is a left leaning Marxist, not everyone who stands is a rampant racist.

People have the freedom do do what they want including booing, but that with that freedom comes consequences. The club is able to chose to ban or throw out fans who they feel damages their brand.

I have the freedom to call my boss a **, I can't moan about my lack of free speech if I get sacked.

As for the journalism, without knowing or quoting Zimm this should never have been published. 

The most sense posted on this thread 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

But it isn't nonsense to think that people affiliated with the BLM have tried to hijack it for their own agenda.  You see it all the time in all sorts of issues - feminism/religion/sexism etc where extremists try to take over and try to own the agenda. I've seen it even in jazz where in some online groups, extreme black views (mainly in the USA, it has to be said) sometimes come to the fore where if you are white, you are not considered to play authentic jazz because you are white (the line is "jazz is our music") - this in an age where most people consider music to be universal. Sure the heritage is there in black history and we all know that, but its quite an eye opener to see the bitterness there and makes you realise the extent of the racism problem on both sides. 

Breaking down the divides is hard to do, but the work has to carry on to integrate everyone together and get the message across, but once the gestures have been spoiled by the extremists, then the best thing imo is to change the gesture or at least modify it to keep it in the public view without enabling the extremists to ruin it.

But you are handing extremists the perfect way to shut down views they don’t like. All they need to do is start a few rumours about BLM or whatever it is, which the press, Facebook groups and Twitter bots will jump all over. By your rules the message then has to be altered by enough to disassociate it from those rumours, losing any public awareness and momentum. Surely it’s far better to let “sunlight disinfect” things and stand up for what you believe in, honestly discussing any accusations.


P.S. Didn’t know you were a jazz fan Lakey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you Zimbo

Keep politics out of football

How many more would stand but are afraid of being classed racist

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Fixed that for you.

If Kick it Out was highly effective would we see the huge under-representation of BAME people in the managerial and organisational side of the game? Would we have heard the things Greg Clarke said recently? Or the booing at Millwall and elsewhere? I could go on. I think Kick it Out themselves would say there's an awful lot more to achieve.

(I heard and to an extent agree with arguments previously put on here about the lack of BAME coaching staff being for other reasons, but still maintain that much more needs to be done to change it. No need to rehash the same arguments, but if someone feels the need to, don't let me stop you)

I'm not sure why you would make that claim. The objective of the Kick It Out campaign was never to get BAME people in managerial or organisational side of the game. So you cannot use that as a measure of its success.

Kick It Out was aimed at what was happening on the football terraces. I don't know if you were around during the 60s-80s, but if you were then you would know of the remarkable improvement in attitudes from those days to those prevalent today. By the measure of the actual goals of Kick It Out, I would say the campaign has been an ongoing success. I also believe that this success has now been driven backwards by the muscling in by BLM and its activists into an arena previously occupied in a responsible manner by KIO.

Edited by Rock The Boat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kirku said:

If a room of people were asked to stand up and applaud something, but one person chose to stay seated and not clap; how would that be perceived?

With regard to BLM specifically, this is a very easy question to answer as BLM provides us with the information that 'Silence is Violence'. It is one of their favourite slogans. In other words being silent is not only not an option but a provocation, so we can imagine what their response is for anyone not taking the knee. Indeed, there are youtube videos of BLM members bullying diners in restaurants demanding that customers raise their fist or take the knee or else face harassment of the mob, having tables overturned or drinks thrown in their face. In the example that you provide - one person choosing to stay seated and not clap - the silent person would most certainly face harassment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kirku said:

If a room of people were asked to stand up and applaud something, but one person chose to stay seated and not clap; how would that be perceived?

If you were in a room and asked to stand and applaud something you had serious doubts about or had yet to make your mind up on, what would you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, daly said:

Good on you Zimbo

Keep politics out of football

How many more would stand but are afraid of being classed racist

 

 

Your usual rubbish Daly. The vast majority of players wish to continue the protest. Nobody is accusing Zimbo of being a racist. You're just making things up again aren't you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

With regard to BLM specifically, this is a very easy question to answer as BLM provides us with the information that 'Silence is Violence'. It is one of their favourite slogans. In other words being silent is not only not an option but a provocation, so we can imagine what their response is for anyone not taking the knee. Indeed, there are youtube videos of BLM members bullying diners in restaurants demanding that customers raise their fist or take the knee or else face harassment of the mob, having tables overturned or drinks thrown in their face. In the example that you provide - one person choosing to stay seated and not clap - the silent person would most certainly face harassment.

 

I'm in the Americas so have been getting mainly US media all year. It's quite funny seeing people outright deny things which are widely reported as fact across the US media. I got vilified for using the phrase "white supremacy" on the other thread, yet this phrase is repeated like a mantra by BLM supporters as well as "white silence is violence" and openly advocating disbanding the police. The antifa woman who ran for mayor of Portland wore a Stalin and Mao print skirt. It's difficult to argue with people who haven't got a clue what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

If you were in a room and asked to stand and applaud something you had serious doubts about or had yet to make your mind up on, what would you do?

You've made my point for me. 

The perception of non-action, in both cases, will be of opposition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I'm in the Americas..It's difficult to argue with people who haven't got a clue what is going on.

It's almost like it happened on the other side of the world..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kirku said:

You've made my point for me. 

The perception of non-action, in both cases, will be of opposition. 

Well the question then is whether the action is wrong or the reaction to it? I guess you've seen the famous photo of the one person refusing to zieg heil at a N*Zi rally? Not allowing a space for neutrality or indecision is pure authoritarianism.

Edited by Mr.Carrow

Share this post


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

It's almost like it happened on the other side of the world..

I'm guessing you're never going to understand the enormous irony of that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

BLM is in the UK, too. Had you not noticed?

Must've missed the "antifa woman in a communist skirt" running for mayor of Bristol, or the diners in Zak's having their "tables overturned" for not "raising the fist".

Could it be that a sporadically organised political movement from another country has very little relevance to the anti-racism protests here? 

  • Like 1

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...