Christoph's decision

[Naturalcynic 631]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

I dont think I ever said he should be ostracised did I? It certainly shouldn't affect whether he's playing week in week out and if I was in the stadium I'd give him my full support for 90 minutes.

However, personally, if he comes out and says some nonsense along the lines of 'BLM are all marxists' then I'll certainly respect him less, as is my perogative. Equally I imagine it may make some supporter groups think twice about using Zimbo for events or as an ambassador which is also their right.

 

Lo and behold, the witch trial has begun.

[king canary 7,607]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Lo and behold, the witch trial has begun.

You've got a low bar for 'witch trial.'

Actions have consequences. Are you suggesting that a group like Proud Canaries should have to keep using him as an ambassador is it turns out they have fundamental disagreements about an issue like this? Or that each fan should not be able to change their mind on how they view a player?

Or are you just one of those people who like to howl injustice for the fact consequences exist.

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

1 hour ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It's an utter nonsense to think -

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

 

The problem is its very much been associated with BLM from the start, and TV companies such as Sky do not help by continuing to have a 'black lives matters' icon next to the score on screen, and clubs who still have massive BLM banners draped over their empty seats. Until that stops the kneeling is going to be associated with the ultra left wing BLM political group, whether its the players intentions to associate with them or not. 

I'm surprised Kick it Out haven't done more to take over the baton, so to speak and have taking the knee linked with them, or simply change that gesture to one of their own. 

Rightly or wrongly, the knee is now always going to go hand in hand with the BLM policital movement. 

 

[Naturalcynic 631]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

You've got a low bar for 'witch trial.'

Actions have consequences. Are you suggesting that a group like Proud Canaries should have to keep using him as an ambassador is it turns out they have fundamental disagreements about an issue like this? Or that each fan should not be able to change their mind on how they view a player?

Or are you just one of those people who like to howl injustice for the fact consequences exist.

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.

[king canary 7,607]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

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.

You're clearly either missing my point or arguing in total bad faith.

I specifically said a couple of posts back that it shouldn't affect him playing week in week out.

If anyone argued that based on not taking the knee that Zimmerman should be sold or dropped I'd argue strongly against it- it is illiberal as you say.

What I'm saying is, in fact, the opposite of what you suggest I'm saying. Zimmerman has right to speak his mind freely on these issues. Others have the freedom to criticise what he says or choose how it changes their view of him. 

[Naturalcynic 631]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're clearly either missing my point or arguing in total bad faith.

I specifically said a couple of posts back that it shouldn't affect him playing week in week out.

If anyone argued that based on not taking the knee that Zimmerman should be sold or dropped I'd argue strongly against it- it is illiberal as you say.

What I'm saying is, in fact, the opposite of what you suggest I'm saying. Zimmerman has right to speak his mind freely on these issues. Others have the freedom to criticise what he says or choose how it changes their view of him. 

You stated that he should explain why he chooses not to kneel so that you and others can then shoot him down.  

[HazzaJet 253]

I respect black lives just as much as white lives and would still take the knee, but is this ever going to end as it does seem to be getting a bit pointless now. I agree that it should have been done the first game or so after that guy was killed by the police officer. I can’t see how it’s going to stop racism though - there’s already been cases of fans booing it. I think the only way to bring racism down to an absolute minimum is to either bring back the death penalty or jail people for the rest of their lives for it

[Nuff Said 5,142]

3 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

You stated that he should explain why he chooses not to kneel so that you and others can then shoot him down.  

Typical.

 

What he said was that it would help if he explained, not that he *had* to. But you immediately switch into hysterical "the libs are shutting down free speech" mode.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Nuff Said

[king canary 7,607]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

You stated that he should explain why he chooses not to kneel so that you and others can then shoot him down.  

It seems to be your not actually acknowledging what I'm saying and instead arguing against your bogeyman sterotype of illeberal woke lefty.

I said I think he should explain because that is the only way this gets shut down. Right now you've got speculation on here, on social media, on the main pinkun site about his reasoning. If he ignores it then I think it is only going to become more of a thing and turn into a distraction. You may disagree, that's fine. However you are the only person on this thread who has bought up cancelling or trying to get Norwich to sack him for his views. 

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

It seems to be your not actually acknowledging what I'm saying and instead arguing against your bogeyman sterotype of illeberal woke lefty.

I said I think he should explain because that is the only way this gets shut down. Right now you've got speculation on here, on social media, on the main pinkun site about his reasoning. If he ignores it then I think it is only going to become more of a thing and turn into a distraction. You may disagree, that's fine. However you are the only person on this thread who has bought up cancelling or trying to get Norwich to sack him for his views. 

Remind me who it was who said he should explain why he acts as he does?  Explain who it was who suggested that some supporters groups might want to dissociate themselves from him?

[king canary 7,607]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Remind me who it was who said he should explain why he acts as he does?  Explain who it was who suggested that some supporters groups might want to dissociate themselves from him?

Me?

Are you saying supporters groups shouldn't be free to do that? The typical intolerant illiberal right, honestly.... 

[1902 1,167]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Massive respect to him for abstaining in this manner. The amount of pressure to toe the line over the Black Lives Mattermust be immense. 

I'm not a massive fan of Black Lives Matter. Too much of it is anti-capitalism dressed up as anti-racism. That's not to say I either love or detest capitalism, but racism is something that should be considered independently of other political questions, and Black Lives Matter falls well short on that score and definitely shouldn't be being embraced by sporting bodies in such a simpering fashion. In addition, race issues vary from country to country, yet we're literally following the US on this:

a country where black people are literally being hung from lampposts this year and the perpetrators getting away Scot free. It's not glossing over our own problems to take exception to exclusively American problems driving our own domestic agendas. 

Racism can't be considered independently of other political questions, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Me?

Are you saying supporters groups shouldn't be free to do that? The typical intolerant illiberal right, honestly.... 

Burn the heretic.

[Naturalcynic 631]

10 minutes ago, HazzaJet said:

I respect black lives just as much as white lives and would still take the knee, but is this ever going to end as it does seem to be getting a bit pointless now. I agree that it should have been done the first game or so after that guy was killed by the police officer. I can’t see how it’s going to stop racism though - there’s already been cases of fans booing it. I think the only way to bring racism down to an absolute minimum is to either bring back the death penalty or jail people for the rest of their lives for it

Are you actually advocating the death penalty or life behind bars, or was this intended to be tongue in cheek?

[king canary 7,607]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

Burn the heretic.

You haven't answered my question I see...

So to sum up your view point- Zimmerman should be free to not take the knee and say what he wants on the matter. But nobody else is allowed to criticise him or choose to respect him less based on that.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

You haven't answered my question I see...

So to sum up your view point- Zimmerman should be free to not take the knee and say what he wants on the matter. But nobody else is allowed to criticise him or choose to respect him less based on that.

So far he’s maintained his silence on the matter, probably sensibly, because no matter what he said some people would lay into him for not overtly supporting their version of ideological purity.

[HazzaJet 253]

23 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Are you actually advocating the death penalty or life behind bars, or was this intended to be tongue in cheek?

I was basically saying that I can’t see racism ever ending as I think you’re always going to get some racist people out there, and the only way to try and bring it down to and absolute minimum is very severe punishment for being racist

[1902 1,167]

26 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

So far he’s maintained his silence on the matter, probably sensibly, because no matter what he said some people would lay into him for not overtly supporting their version of ideological purity.

... This doesn't disprove the point made by King Canary. Plenty of things are treated as politically sacrosanct by large parts of our society, and in all honesty, should you stray from that you will attract criticism. That's normal in an open and free political society.

That's not actually a trait of the left or the right, it's not caused by woke culture, it's just a reflection of people feeling strongly about both the importance of symbols and holding strong political beliefs. For example if someone were to say that the cenotaph is partially a monument to jingoism, they would get absolutely pilloried on here by some. Now that would be expected and inevitable in any political culture.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, HazzaJet said:

I was basically saying that I can’t see racism ever ending as I think you’re always going to get some racist people out there, and the only way to try and bring it down to and absolute minimum is very severe punishment for being racist

To use a recent example, would you think that someone should be locked up for the rest of their life because they chose to boo what they considered to be a symbol of support for a far-left political group rather than just a generic anti-racism statement?

[king canary 7,607]

1 minute ago, 1902 said:

... This doesn't disprove the point made by King Canary. Plenty of things are treated as politically sacrosanct by large parts of our society, and in all honesty, should you stray from that you will attract criticism. That's normal in an open and free political society.

That's not actually a trait of the left or the right, it's not caused by woke culture, it's just a reflection of people feeling strongly about both the importance of symbols and holding strong political beliefs. For example if someone were to say that the cenotaph is partially a monument to jingoism, they would get absolutely pilloried on here by some. Now that would be expected and inevitable in any political culture.

Reminds me of James McLean- gets dogs abuse every year for his decision not to wear a poppy, that isn't anything to do with the left or woke people. 

[HazzaJet 253]

7 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

To use a recent example, would you think that someone should be locked up for the rest of their life because they chose to boo what they considered to be a symbol of support for a far-left political group rather than just a generic anti-racism statement?

Sorry mate - I didn’t know it was down to a political party and thought it was really just down in remembrance of that guy who got killed. Please also bear in mind that I have learning difficulties as well 

[1902 1,167]

10 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

To use a recent example, would you think that someone should be locked up for the rest of their life because they chose to boo what they considered to be a symbol of support for a far-left political group rather than just a generic anti-racism statement?

Now I'm not going to wade into the ridiculous death penalty debate, anymore than I will when I have seen message board comments saying that half the left should be hanged as traitors. It's pretty clear it's either hyperbolic or just extremists. 

However, every anti racism group is portrayed as far left in its time. Whether that is Rosa Parks and MLK or the anti-apartheid movement.

[kirku 1,332]

Zimbo is publicly opposing an initiative to use football's platform to help support racial equality.

It is naive to think that this wouldn't be noticed and questioned and, the longer the silence goes on, the more the void will be filled with uninformed nonsense.

[Ray 111]

kirku,

I agree with most of what you say, however, is standing on two feet, as we appear to be designed to do, publicly opposing. I would have thought that taking the knee was the 'publicly opposing' stance (scuse the pun), insomuch as they are publicly opposing racism.  Doing what he and thousands of other footballers have done over the years (standing up straight, ignoring diving for now) does not of course presume he is racist, it does however allow us to draw the conclusion that he is a free thinking man who questions what he sees going on around him, and for that I applaud him.  Do I necessarily agree with his thoughts, who knows I know not what they are, only he will ever know that.

[essex canary 496]

I guess cricket clubs aren't interested in taking the knee probably because ethnic minorities in that sport are predominantly Asian and BLM doesn't represent their interests albeit that the British Raj is equally implemented in racial discrimination.

In the modern day the ethnic mix of people using food banks may be informative?

In other words protesting about inequality is fine but it needs to be balanced and representative.

[kirku 1,332]

39 minutes ago, Ray said:

kirku,

I agree with most of what you say, however, is standing on two feet, as we appear to be designed to do, publicly opposing. I would have thought that taking the knee was the 'publicly opposing' stance (scuse the pun), insomuch as they are publicly opposing racism.  Doing what he and thousands of other footballers have done over the years (standing up straight, ignoring diving for now) does not of course presume he is racist, it does however allow us to draw the conclusion that he is a free thinking man who questions what he sees going on around him, and for that I applaud him.  Do I necessarily agree with his thoughts, who knows I know not what they are, only he will ever know that.

There are 22+ other people kneeling on the same pitch, it very much is public opposition. We talk all the time, what would you make of someone talking during a minute's silence?

I do not presume he is racist but I also do not "applaud him" for being "a free thinking man" because I have no idea what his motivations are.

 

[Nuff Said 5,142]

33 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I guess cricket clubs aren't interested in taking the knee probably because ethnic minorities in that sport are predominantly Asian and BLM doesn't represent their interests albeit that the British Raj is equally implemented in racial discrimination.

In the modern day the ethnic mix of people using food banks may be informative?

In other words protesting about inequality is fine but it needs to be balanced and representative.

I take it you also oppose Help for Heroes and wearing a poppy because they don't acknowledge the full political and social context behind military actions, that is they're not "balanced and representative"?

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

What he said was that it would help if he explained, not that he *had* to. But you immediately switch into hysterical "the libs are shutting down free speech" mode.

Ironically, in doing so, he is trying to prevent expression of a nuanced position!

In essence his viewpoint is that anyone that does not agree with his "authorized version" is trying to suppress free speech!

[Naturalcynic 631]

12 minutes ago, kirku said:

There are 22+ other people kneeling on the same pitch, it very much is public opposition. We talk all the time, what would you make of someone talking during a minute's silence?

I do not presume he is racist but I also do not "applaud him" for being "a free thinking man" because I have no idea what his motivations are.

 

Here we go yet again, round and round in ever-decreasing circles.  Some people consider taking a knee as being a symbol of support for the BLM movement and all that that entails, whereas others see it merely as a generic sign of opposition to racism.  For those that consider it to be the former, then if they don’t agree with the political aims of that organisation it would be perfectly reasonable not to be seen to give support to it.  Because it is so divisive, football has been naive and gullible to continue promoting it, particularly when it had its own highly successful and non-contentious anti-racism campaigns already in place.

[hogesar 9,676]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

So far he’s maintained his silence on the matter, probably sensibly, because no matter what he said some people would lay into him for not overtly supporting their version of ideological purity.

@king canary, to clarify, I agree with everything you've posted in response to Natural.

However, there is an element of this post which I think is correct. A white football player explaining why he isn't taking the knee is never going to win in the current climate, no matter the reasoning to some extent.