Webber makes the national news

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

31 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Err, read it again. It wasn't a suggestion, it was a question.

Do you think that Webber may be on the autistic spectrum?  One of the symptoms of autism is an inability to accept that you're wrong and everyone else is right. This may be a very difficult question for you to answer 

If there's no suggestion, there's no justification for the question.

If that's an indicator of autism you should consider a bit of soul-searching yourself, as I've yet to hear any suggestion from yourself that you might ever be wrong about anything.

Edited March 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bobzilla 144]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't agree it's racist. People have chosen to take offense on race grounds, but he never said a word about race.

But that won't stop the anti-racism inquisition and their zealotry. Repent, sinner, or suffer eternal damnation!

 

That’s lovely.

However, the guys’ family have called it out as racist.  Who do you think is the better judge of what is and isn’t racist?  The people that have to deal with it day in day out or you?

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If there's no suggestion, there's no justification for the question.

If that's an indicator of autism you should consider a bit of soul-searching yourself, as I've yet to hear any suggestion from yourself that you might ever be wrong about anything.

Why do you think he said it then?  You seem to struggle quite a bit with this sort of thing. Do you find it a bit overwhelming when the vast majority of people disagree with you? 

Edited March 27 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

1 minute ago, Bobzilla said:

 

However, the guys’ family have called it out as racist.  Who do you think is the better judge of what is and isn’t racist?  The people that have to deal with it day in day out or you?

Are you telling me that only those who have experienced a crime are fit to judge whether or not a crime has been committed?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Why do you think he said it then? 

Why did you ask the question as to whether he's intentionally damaging the club if you're not suggesting he did it to intentionally damage the club?

Why he said it: He was trying to relate his own personal interest in the purpose of the charity by relating it to people he has actually had real-life regular interaction with and are also well-known and relatable figures in the public eye.

Edited March 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Why did you ask the question as to whether he's intentionally damaging the club if you're not suggesting he did it to intentionally damage the club?

I know you find this difficult but I'm prepared to listen to other people's views. 

[Bobzilla 144]

My God this thread is utterly depressing.  Let’s just make a few points clear.

Saying that people with lower levels of life chances often end up in a life of crime is accurate.

Saying that this very often comes down to money is accurate.

Saying that this is often a racial issue is accurate - this highlights the issue of intergenerational wealth, and how social mobility is a multi-generational issue that doesn’t get fixed in one person’s lifetime.  The disadvantage here is long standing.

None of the above is racist yet.

The racist bit is by linking all of this to specific individuals.  The attitude of ‘lets apply all of this accurate profiling to an individual to make a judgement about that person and his situation by reference to a set of general criteria and a general statement about the general group they belong to.

If he’d have talked about helping young black players in disadvantaged areas from a life of crime because of the disadvantages they often suffer because of institutional racism and the issue of inter-generational wealth and how that impacts on life chances, that would have been fine.  If he’d referenced a black player that specifically had that issue (say, Jermaine Pennant, for instance), that would have been fine.  BUT HE DIDN’T.  He referenced 5 black players, two of whose families have already come out and said ‘they haven’t had those disadvantages.  They had a stable background and lived in decent areas.’  In other words, ‘you’ve just racially profiled my kid’.  And they’re right.

I don’t blame people for not immediately recognising this as racism - many people are ignorant as to what discrimination actually looks like.  However, it is deeply disappointing to have it pointed out to them and for them to still be arguing that it’s just clumsy, not racism.  It’s proof positive that we’re still not winning the war against discrimination.  As a disabled person, that leaves me pretty despondent. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

I know you find this difficult to believe but I'm prepared to listen to other people's views. 

 

[Bobzilla 144]

 

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Are you telling me that only those who have experienced a crime are fit to judge whether or not a crime has been committed?

 

No.  I’m telling you that you know **** all about things you’ve never experienced.  I’m telling you that you are disagreeing with experts.  And I’m telling you that you’ve crossed the line from pig ignorant to just plain offensive.

[Robert N. LiM 4,357]

3 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

If he’d have talked about helping young black players in disadvantaged areas from a life of crime because of the disadvantages they often suffer because of institutional racism and the issue of inter-generational wealth and how that impacts on life chances, that would have been fine.  If he’d referenced a black player that specifically had that issue (say, Jermaine Pennant, for instance), that would have been fine.  BUT HE DIDN’T.  He referenced 5 black players, two of whose families have already come out and said ‘they haven’t had those disadvantages.  They had a stable background and lived in decent areas.’  In other words, ‘you’ve just racially profiled my kid’.  And they’re right.

Great post, and this bit above is exactly the point. To be honest, I think anyone who hasn't accepted this yet is never going to, so I wouldn't waste your time any further.

I think you should be encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of people on this board do understand it.

Edited March 27 by Robert N. LiM

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

2 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

My God this thread is utterly depressing.  Let’s just make a few points clear.

Saying that people with lower levels of life chances often end up in a life of crime is accurate.

Saying that this very often comes down to money is accurate.

Saying that this is often a racial issue is accurate - this highlights the issue of intergenerational wealth, and how social mobility is a multi-generational issue that doesn’t get fixed in one person’s lifetime.  The disadvantage here is long standing.

None of the above is racist yet.

The racist bit is by linking all of this to specific individuals.  The attitude of ‘lets apply all of this accurate profiling to an individual to make a judgement about that person and his situation by reference to a set of general criteria and a general statement about the general group they belong to.

If he’d have talked about helping young black players in disadvantaged areas from a life of crime because of the disadvantages they often suffer because of institutional racism and the issue of inter-generational wealth and how that impacts on life chances, that would have been fine.  If he’d referenced a black player that specifically had that issue (say, Jermaine Pennant, for instance), that would have been fine.  BUT HE DIDN’T.  He referenced 5 black players, two of whose families have already come out and said ‘they haven’t had those disadvantages.  They had a stable background and lived in decent areas.’  In other words, ‘you’ve just racially profiled my kid’.  And they’re right.

I don’t blame people for not immediately recognising this as racism - many people are ignorant as to what discrimination actually looks like.  However, it is deeply disappointing to have it pointed out to them and for them to still be arguing that it’s just clumsy, not racism.  It’s proof positive that we’re still not winning the war against discrimination.  As a disabled person, that leaves me pretty despondent. 

I agree with a huge amount of the points you're making. However, I don't agree it's automatically profiling given that if we were to investigate each and every person he mentioned it could well be the case that it applies in the specifics. I would say Webber's position as an insider in the industry makes it plausible that he really does. The problem is, if you then start digging into that question, you then have to start raking through the pasts of the individuals, which exacerbates what Webber did do wrong, which was bringing them into it personally without their consent.

And even if the statement was profiling based on the social backgrounds, it still wasn't intended to be a condemnation of them personally as people for any reason, just a clumsy attempt to relate the wider problem of economic deprivation to football.

[dylanisabaddog 4,928]

Peter Mendham

Andy Johnson 

Carl Bradshaw 

Chris Sutton 

John Ruddy

Flynn Clarke

Ashley Barnes 

 

Edited March 27 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

8 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

 

No.  I’m telling you that you know **** all about things you’ve never experienced.  I’m telling you that you are disagreeing with experts.  And I’m telling you that you’ve crossed the line from pig ignorant to just plain offensive.

I'm not disagreeing with 'experts'. I'm disagreeing with people who make a living out of stirring up social acrimony to make themselves relevant. There was no malice or prejudice in what Webber said.

Edited March 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

5 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Great post, and this bit above is exactly the point. To be honest, I think anyone who hasn't accepted this yet is never going to, so I wouldn't waste your time any further.

I think you should be encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of people on this board do understand it.

That's the thing, if he'd mentioned Rashford and Ravel Morrison instead, two lads who'd had relatively impoverished childhoods in a rough part of southern Manchester, would it have blown up the same way?

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Just because someone mentions black players, it doesn't make what they say racist.

He was poor with his choice of words, shouldn't have mentioned individuals, but that is all.

It's getting to the point where people can't use the word "black" anymore, because the word itself is seen as racist, which is ridiculous.

 

The problem Lakey is that he only mentioned black players , even worse he named them. All he needed to have said was something along the lines of, “ several young players “.

Instead he’s blundered in in that brain-dead Webber way of his and caused a s*itstorm.

Edited March 27 by ......and Smith must score.

[shefcanary 2,409]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Andy Johnson 

Carl Bradshaw 

Chris Sutton 

John Ruddy

Flynn Clarke

Ashley Barnes 

 

Don't forget Matty Patty!

Countless others in the years before that. The archives is a good read in that sense. One day perhaps someone could list out all those players who were detained at HM pleasure whilst donning the old yellow and green. I'm a bit busy right now but may get around to it one day. It could be my first book and would make a good fund raising project for The Nest; righting the wrongs of the past by funding good things in the present!

[lake district canary 4,531]

22 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Christ this is boring. People have pointed out multiple times why what he said was racist, you keep ignoring it.

He profiled 5 black men, he attributed things to them collectively that were not true about all of them. What he said was racist.

Yes it is boring, as is every petty fogging minor thing that triggers the woke brigade on multiple subjects. 

What he said was wrong, it was mistaken, it was badly judged - and that should be all that is said about it imo.  

I'm surprised that anyone of any stature wants to say  anything about these kinds of subjects anymore, because it is a minefield of what you can say and what you can't say for fear of offending those who are just waiting for the slightest slip of the tongue to pounce and cry Racist! Sexist! or whatever "ist" it is that triggers them. 

Webber fell into the trap by daring to make a particular point, he did it badly - wrongly even - but underlying that, was a positive message about footballers, which most people seem to have ignored, in favour of shouting him down. 

 

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,986]

13 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Peter Mendham

Andy Johnson 

Carl Bradshaw 

Chris Sutton 

John Ruddy

Flynn Clarke

Ashley Barnes 

 

It’s a shame Webber wasn’t around back then to save them. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

Apparently one of the families wants to take him to court. I actually hope they do as I'd really like to see how this plays out in a court of law.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/webber-sterling-aarons-lewis-kamara-32431441

[S_81 797]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Yes it is boring, as is every petty fogging minor thing that triggers the woke brigade on multiple subjects. 

What he said was wrong, it was mistaken, it was badly judged - and that should be all that is said about it imo.  

I'm surprised that anyone of any stature wants to say  anything about these kinds of subjects anymore, because it is a minefield of what you can say and what you can't say for fear of offending those who are just waiting for the slightest slip of the tongue to pounce and cry Racist! Sexist! or whatever "ist" it is that triggers them. 

Webber fell into the trap by daring to make a particular point, he did it badly - wrongly even - but underlying that, was a positive message about footballers, which most people seem to have ignored, in favour of shouting him down. 

 

 

To most on this board it’s very clear what should and shouldn’t be said. You’re one of few who seems to be struggling. 

[sonyc 5,519]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

But that won't stop the anti-racism inquisition

Gosh, that sounds so much like a Liz Trussism....and she was worried about the anti-growth coalition. There's a lyric for a aong in there somewhere for sure.

Edited March 27 by sonyc

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,024]

16 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Yes it is boring, as is every petty fogging minor thing that triggers the woke brigade on multiple subjects. 

What he said was wrong, it was mistaken, it was badly judged - and that should be all that is said about it imo.  

I'm surprised that anyone of any stature wants to say  anything about these kinds of subjects anymore, because it is a minefield of what you can say and what you can't say for fear of offending those who are just waiting for the slightest slip of the tongue to pounce and cry Racist! Sexist! or whatever "ist" it is that triggers them. 

Webber fell into the trap by daring to make a particular point, he did it badly - wrongly even - but underlying that, was a positive message about footballers, which most people seem to have ignored, in favour of shouting him down. 

 

 

Webber did not "fall into a trap", what on earth are you on about.

Basically he opened his mouth and proved what a weapons grade bell end he is, it really is as simple as that........

[sonyc 5,519]

1 minute ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Webber did not "fall into a trap", what on earth are you on about.

Basically he opened his mouth and proved what a weapons grade bell end he is, it really is as simple as that........

Falling into a trap does rather excuse poor Stuart doesn't it?!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

3 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Webber did not "fall into a trap", what on earth are you on about.

Basically he opened his mouth and proved what a weapons grade bell end he is, it really is as simple as that........

Again. The guy obviously had no ill intent to anyone. So why are you all being such bellends jumping on the bandwagon with your stupid OTT condemnations of him?

Edited March 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,024]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Again. The guy obviously had no ill-intent to anyone. So why are you all being such bellends jumping on the bandwagon with your stupid OTT condemnations of him?

Because I do not see the point of trying to defend the indefensible...........

[Bobzilla 144]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Again. The guy obviously had no ill-intent to anyone. So why are you all being such bellends in your OTT condemnations of him?

More falling down a hole.

Are you telling me that in order for prejudice to be bad, there has to be ill intent?  That it’s an issue of intention and not outcome?  Go read up on the impact of subconscious bias and then come back for an adult conversation.

Yours,

Someone who’s actually been the victim of subconscious bias, and trust me, it sucks just as much as conscious and deliberate bias.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

3 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Because I do not see the point of trying to defend the indefensible...........

They are completely defensible as far as the accusation of racism is concerned, since he is clearly not racist; there is no evidence whatsoever of him wishing anyone ill on racial grounds.

Edited March 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[S_81 797]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Again. The guy obviously had no ill intent to anyone. So why are you all being such bellends jumping on the bandwagon with your stupid OTT condemnations of him?

Wow you’re still here grifting away on behalf of Webber. Truly embarrassing. 

[sonyc 5,519]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Again. The guy obviously had no ill-intent to anyone. So why are you all being such bellends in your OTT condemnations of him?

Intentions don't matter in this case. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,024]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

They are completely defensible as far as the accusation of racism is concerned, since he is clearly not racist; there is no evidence whatsoever of him wishing anyone ill on racial grounds.

I have never said he is a racist, I have always been clear in saying he is a bell end..........