This language is not okay .

[horsefly 4,318]

37 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 

As a percentage of the total population I would imagine the number of trans activists is really quite small, as it is for many activist groups, but their power and influence vastly outweighs their numbers. The fact that we are all here on this football forum having these kind of conversations yet I expect most of us would be hard pressed to name a trans or BLM leader is an indication of how far and how deep these narratives have entered our daily discourses.

JK Rowling, like Rick Gervais and Dave Chapelle are too rich to cancel which doesn't mean many have not tried. Activists tried to get Chapelle removed from Netflix for jokes about a trans woman even though the story he told was very trans positive. Likewise Gervais faced cancelling for trans jokes from activists lobbying Ñetflix. I wonder what would be the reaction of NCFC had Chapelle or Gervais used one of the homophobic terms in their standup routines? Would we be calling for cancelling of comedians who use offensive terms?

But if you look at what is happening below the rarified and privileged level of celebrity comedians and wealthy authors you will find people losing their jobs because they refuse to accept gender critical theory. This is particularly true in schools and academia where refusing to accept that trans women are women will see your position terminated. Yet when asked to define what is a woman, so many suddenly find that they have to be elsewhere. There's even an example on this thread. 

If I was you I would stick to "cancelling" the National Trust's attempt to provide full historical information about the source of the wealth that built their properties. Much safer ground.

[canarybubbles 1,946]

56 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Not if they identify as strawberry blonde

That rules our Head Coach out then.

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

I am surprised this has nearly reached the end of Page 7. Surely nobody can argue against the ideal that everybody should be treated equally, with dignity and respect? Does it really matter if that ideal is promoted by Norwich City Football Club, the Norwich Women's Institute or the Norwich Marxist Trotskyite Anarcho-Syndicalist Society?

I'm beginning to think that some people are unhappy with the message but mask that by saying that they are unhappy with the messenger.

Think that last sentence nails it. 

[1902 1,167]

57 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 

As a percentage of the total population I would imagine the number of trans activists is really quite small, as it is for many activist groups, but their power and influence vastly outweighs their numbers. The fact that we are all here on this football forum having these kind of conversations yet I expect most of us would be hard pressed to name a trans or BLM leader is an indication of how far and how deep these narratives have entered our daily discourses.

JK Rowling, like Rick Gervais and Dave Chapelle are too rich to cancel which doesn't mean many have not tried. Activists tried to get Chapelle removed from Netflix for jokes about a trans woman even though the story he told was very trans positive. Likewise Gervais faced cancelling for trans jokes from activists lobbying Ñetflix. I wonder what would be the reaction of NCFC had Chapelle or Gervais used one of the homophobic terms in their standup routines? Would we be calling for cancelling of comedians who use offensive terms?

But if you look at what is happening below the rarified and privileged level of celebrity comedians and wealthy authors you will find people losing their jobs because they refuse to accept gender critical theory. This is particularly true in schools and academia where refusing to accept that trans women are women will see your position terminated. Yet when asked to define what is a woman, so many suddenly find that they have to be elsewhere. There's even an example on this thread. 

Again, with "cancelling", you are equating people not wanting to buy products (which is their choice) with the obstruction of academic freedom.

From Mary Whitehouse (who actually used legal means to enforce conservatism) through to the ridiculous poppy controversies, entertainment has always had to toe that line. If you want to watch Dave Chapelle, you are free to, but don't insist that people can't call him transphobic and encourage others to not watch him and then claim you want to live in a free society 

The conflation of two fundamentally separate issues in entertainment and academia are part of the problem, and why the idea of 'cancel culture' has a limited traction outside the right wing.

[canarybubbles 1,946]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I think the 7 pages rather proves my belief that politics should be kept out of football clubs. It’s divisive. By all means have ‘kick it out’ and a general message of tolerance for all. But once it becomes preachy and woke it’s just unhelpful imho

You are the person who opened this can of worms by coming on here and making political comments. I suspect you genuinely think they were not political because that's the way the argument is perceived. If I come on here as a gay man and criticise the club for this latest PR mess for being homophobic (which I wouldn't, btw), I am being political; if you come on here and start talking about God and family values and the Catholic church, you are not being political. It's an old trick and it often works, but logically it has no credible basis whatsoever. The church - like any major institution - is mired in politics and the rhetorical success of right-wing advocates is that they manage to create a belief that some things - religion, the royal family, sport, the nation - are 'above politics'. Nothing is. And that is categorical IMO. Nothing is.

Edited June 9, 2022 by canarybubbles

[Naturalcynic 675]

7 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

You are the person who opened this can of worms by coming on here and making political comments. I suspect you genuinely think they were not political because that's the way the argument is perceived. If I come on here as a gay man and criticise the club for this latest PR mess for being homophobic (which I wouldn't, btw), I am being political; if you come on here and start talking about God and family values and the Catholic church, you are not being political. It's an old trick and it often works, but logically it has no credible basis whatsoever. The church - like any major institution - is mired in politics and the rhetorical success of right-wing advocates is that they manage to create a belief that some things - religion, the royal family, sport, the nation - are 'above politics'. Nothing is. And that is categorical IMO. Nothing is.

And by asserting that all of this stuff is political, you inadvertently add to the case made by those (including me) that football clubs should focus on football rather than playing at politics.

[horsefly 4,318]

8 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

And by asserting that all of this stuff is political, you inadvertently add to the case made by those (including me) that football clubs should focus on football rather than playing at politics.

It does nothing of the sort. Ensuring that Carrow Road is free from racism and homophobia is not "playing at politics". It simply ensures that players and fans alike are shown equal respect, and not subjected to abuse based on skin colour or sexual orientation. Is that such an appalling thing to do in your eyes?

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

And by asserting that all of this stuff is political, you inadvertently add to the case made by those (including me) that football clubs should focus on football rather than playing at politics.

‘Playing at politics’ seems a weird expression with the argument being ‘football clubs should stick to football matters’? So should football clubs ignore their fanbase (which many would argue are the lifeblood of a club) to the point where they can’t do anything to show some kind of support for them? Should football clubs leave all that financial FairPlay stuff to the policy makers to decide what is and isn’t reasonable in the running of football clubs? As long as we just focus in training lads we don’t need to play with this politics stuff! Should football clubs ignore the Crouch report, which is a politically sanctioned look at the sustainability of the football industry? 

To say football shouldn’t ‘play at politics’ for an issue you personally don’t regard as important, you’re simultaneously disregarding all the other political aspects of football.

Football and politics are linked because they are both rooted in communities and trying to separate the two is not possible. So suggesting football should ignore LGBTQ+ or BLM etc is just a sign that these are issues you personally don’t like to talk about. Totally fair enough and no attack here, but why bother commenting at all? You’ve managed to get through 8 pages of something you don’t believe relevant to then comment on it and prolong the debate you feel so strongly about people not discussing on an open forum. Seems odd. 

[chicken 2,649]

25 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

And by asserting that all of this stuff is political, you inadvertently add to the case made by those (including me) that football clubs should focus on football rather than playing at politics.

Actually, the exact opposite.

No smoking in the ground - is that political?
No violence in the ground - is that political? 
No spectators on the pitch - is that political?
No objects to be thrown at players or other spectators - is that political?

Or are these just enforcing existing socially accepted norms?

DCB, oddly, has said he supported the Kick it Out! campaign which aimed to make racism unacceptable within fans and within the clubs themselves. Essentially agreeing that this is a societal concern that the club reinforces in the ground and with it's own staff.

Yet strangely, here we are, with the club essentially, though perhaps not in the best way, promoting LGBTQ+ and stating that these terms are also unacceptable in the ground, this is suddenly political?

Or is it just the club, once again, trying to put into place the same expectations as the vast majority of society?

Political? That argument has already been lost. Football is inherently political. Don't believe me, take a look around and see what has happened to non-FA Affiliated football leagues over the years. Why is the government feeling like it will have to get involved with English football? The Crouch report?

There isn't a single thing in our lives that isn't somehow connected to politics. You might think your personal life isn't a political arena, but that isn't particularly accurate either - well, not unless you want to ignore history.

As has been said before "keep politics out of my <insert whatever" is usually the start of trying to cancel something. The worst people for cancelling anything are often the people who moan about things getting cancelled. And we have seen this on this very thread.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,821]

3 hours ago, Bert said:

I take it it’s still ok to call gingers , gingers? 

Only a ginger can call another ginger a ginger, just remember that

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

No smoking in the ground - is that political?
No violence in the ground - is that political? 
No spectators on the pitch - is that political?
No objects to be thrown at players or other spectators - is that political?
 

As the great philosopher, Skin, opined:

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

We know a song about this, don´t we Geoffrey 🙂

 

[Badger 2,412]

14 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I love the way that when you press a leftie to name a successful Marxist country they all say that the particular country wasn't really Marxism.

If you knew anything about Marxism, you would know that Marxist theory suggests that western Europe or the US is where communism will develop first.

I think that if you really want to understand Marxism (I suspect you might not) you need to start to understand the concept of the dialectic - thesis/ antithesis/ synthesis.

There is a basic explanation below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

[Badger 2,412]

13 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I think the 7 pages rather proves my belief that politics should be kept out of football clubs. It’s divisive. By all means have ‘kick it out’ and a general message of tolerance for all. But once it becomes preachy and woke it’s just unhelpful imho

The irony is that you introduced the topic of politics into it. I am of the belief that most people in the UK are opposed to racism, sexism and homophobia, whether they are of the left, right or centre. 

There is however very-well financed groups on the far right that are opposed to such things and unfortunately highly gullible people like yourself, I fear, swallow this propaganda uncritically. It leaves you in the ridiculous position of claiming to be opposed to racism but then attacking a group on the grounds that it is opposes to "white supremacy" as you did earlier in this thread.

More than anything, your naivety* shows why the continued education is so vital!

*(possible generous?)

Edited June 10, 2022 by Badger
Corrected spelling

[Foxy2600 305]

8 Pages of high-brow academic Cambridge Uni debating club semantic twaddle for 18 year olds.

 

How on this earth is this anything to do with Football?

[Badger 2,412]

3 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

8 Pages of high-brow academic Cambridge Uni debating club semantic twaddle for 18 year olds.

 

How on this earth is this anything to do with Football?

Sorry, can I clarify, when you refer to it being "semantic" are you referring to logical semantics or lexical semantics?

[The Real Buh 3,482]

11 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

8 Pages of high-brow academic Cambridge Uni debating club semantic twaddle for 18 year olds.

 

How on this earth is this anything to do with Football?

It’s just the same old internet cringe by the “terminally online” on here as always

[Naturalcynic 675]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

The irony is that you introduced the topic of politics into it. I am of the belief that most people in the UK are opposed to racism, sexism and homophobia, whether they are of the left, right or centre. 

There is however very-well financed groups on the far right that are opposed to such things and unfortunately highly gullible people like yourself, I fear, swallow this propaganda uncritically. It leaves you in the ridiculous position of claiming to be opposed to racism but then attacking a group on the grounds that it is opposes to "white supremacy" as you did earlier in this thread.

More than anything, your naivety* shows why the continued education is so vital!

*(possible generous?)

Wow.  Hope you don’t suffer from vertigo on your high and mighty perch as you talk down to people.  Your pomposity and smug superiority know no bounds.

[chicken 2,649]

18 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

As the great philosopher, Skin, opined:

 

😍🤩🙌

Amen to that... was at the gig at the LCR a few weeks back, got to love some Skin! 

[chicken 2,649]

5 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Wow.  Hope you don’t suffer from vertigo on your high and mighty perch as you talk down to people.  Your pomposity and smug superiority know no bounds.

So because he is right he's on a "high and mighty perch" which makes him "smugly superior".

That's some pedestal you've put him on. 

[Monty13 2,252]

9 hours ago, Foxy2600 said:

8 Pages of high-brow academic Cambridge Uni debating club semantic twaddle for 18 year olds.

 

How on this earth is this anything to do with Football?

Not sure which bits were high brow or academic  from either side, plenty of twaddle though.

[Naturalcynic 675]

46 minutes ago, chicken said:

So because he is right he's on a "high and mighty perch" which makes him "smugly superior".

That's some pedestal you've put him on. 

No, he’s neither right nor wrong.  It’s his opinion, which he’s entitled to, just as others including DCB are entitled to theirs.  DCB set out his position clearly and reasonably, but received sanctimonious ridicule for it, and others waded in to sneer at his religious beliefs.  

Edited June 10, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[Badger 2,412]

6 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Wow.  Hope you don’t suffer from vertigo on your high and mighty perch as you talk down to people.  Your pomposity and smug superiority know no bounds.

Possibly - I wonder why you find is more annoying than a poster who attacks a group for challenging white supremacists? 🤔

[Naturalcynic 675]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Possibly - I wonder why you find is more annoying than a poster who attacks a group for challenging white supremacists? 🤔

You just can’t stop yourself can you?

[chicken 2,649]

32 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

No, he’s neither right nor wrong.  It’s his opinion, which he’s entitled to, just as others including DCB are entitled to theirs.  DCB set out his position clearly and reasonably, but received sanctimonious ridicule for it, and others waded in to sneer at his religious beliefs.  

Interesting. Especially considering that you and one other are adamant that you are right and everyone else isn't, especially when it comes to the likes of Marxism etc.
 

14 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

You just can’t stop yourself can you?

Actually, that's you and DCB who has track record for this type of thing. 

[chicken 2,649]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

What is it with animal-based usernames?  I’m beginning to suspect that you, Badger and the Horsey one might be the same person.

Still going? Have to have the last word? I see you are still trying to go off track to score irrelevant points of some sort. Deary me.

[Badger 2,412]

13 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

You just can’t stop yourself can you?

🤷‍♂️ 

And you bring yourself to criticise someone who objected to a group because they opposed white supremacists!  🤔

[Naturalcynic 675]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

🤷‍♂️ 

And you bring yourself to criticise someone who objected to a group because they opposed white supremacists!  🤔

“The toxic mixture of compassion and menace is unmistakable – be diverse or be re-educated!”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/10/diversity-is-conformity/

 

[Badger 2,412]

24 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

“The toxic mixture of compassion and menace is unmistakable – be diverse or be re-educated!”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/10/diversity-is-conformity/

 

So we should support white supremacists in the name of of the battle against ideological dogmatism? 

Silly me - here was I thinking it was just racism not a battle for a higher and more noble cause! 😲

[Naturalcynic 675]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

So we should support white supremacists in the name of of the battle against ideological dogmatism? 

Silly me - here was I thinking it was just racism not a battle for a higher and more noble cause! 😲

“More than anything, your naivety* shows why the continued education is so vital!

*(possible generous?)”

Badger - 9th June.