What's new

Player watch: Danny Rose

andy00900

Probably Joking
Aug 18, 2017
518
1,113
I’m not sure points deductions is the way to go. Stadium closure fits the crime best IMO. Three strikes before first closure for three home games, and then every time it happens again, another three games. You’d pretty quickly see the crowd police itself, and anyone aiming racist abuse shutdown by the rest of the crowd.

Your right, though I dont think they need multiple warnings, max 1.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
The other side of the argument is that if you punish the clubs they will be incentivised to act more harshly with fans that commit these offences.

Fans committing acts of racism in the stands = 3 points deduction = clubs losing more money than they are likely to be fined = clubs being more proactive to stop this from happening
Additionally, the racists may start checking themselves if they think their club might suffer when they open their mouths...
 

bomberH

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2005
28,455
168,221
If it ends up racial abuse gets the club a points deduction or behind closed door matches, I nominate @riggi to dress up in Arsenal gear, make his way over to the Emirates and start shouting racial abuse at their next home game. (I was gonna suggest West Ham but I know he wouldn’t put their shirt on no matter what the circumstances).
 

rich75

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2004
7,591
3,215
Agree to a certain extent but must be careful not to stifle debate.

You want to have a debate about why racism is bad do you ? You want to debate why people shouldn't downplay racism nor try to excuse it ?

You're worried we might stifle debate ?

Oh fuck off and go hang out with the other pricks claiming their free speech is being stifled cos they're not allowed to be flat out nazis and racists anymore.
 

bomberH

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2005
28,455
168,221
You want to have a debate about why racism is bad do you ? You want to debate why people shouldn't downplay racism nor try to excuse it ?

You're worried we might stifle debate ?

Oh fuck off and go hang out with the other pricks claiming their free speech is being stifled cos they're not allowed to be flat out nazis and racists anymore.

Way over the top response. Nobody on here has come out with any outright racist statement (unless I missed one). Certainly a couple could be considered ignorant at best but not abusively racist. If someone posted something like ‘I hate blacks because etc etc’ then of course that’s an abuse of free speech and they should be banned, but if someone posts what people believe to be an ignorant statement, but the poster themselves believes to be a genuinely fair point, then honestly I see that as a good thing because a) several people can respond and show the original poster the error of their ways and more importantly b) other people on here, especially youngsters, can learn from what they read.

You’re underestimating the power of an online forum. There have been a few statements that have made me think ‘wow’ but there have been numerous replies that have shown me that the vast majority think along the same lines. And this is what the youngsters on here will see too. They may initially have had similar views but when they see the backlash, they may rethink after reading the amount of replies on the topic. I know for a fact that’s happened on the chat forums when debating topics like policing, paedophilia, death sentences etc. When some people hold different views because of the way they’re brought up for instance, sometimes the only way they’ll learn a new way of thinking is to read stuff like this online.

Not picking out anyone’s post in particular by the way, just thought your response was out of order in the context of what you were responding to.
 

Matthew Wyatt

Call me Boris
Aug 3, 2007
2,224
1,988
You want to have a debate about why racism is bad do you ? You want to debate why people shouldn't downplay racism nor try to excuse it ?

You're worried we might stifle debate ?

Oh fuck off and go hang out with the other pricks claiming their free speech is being stifled cos they're not allowed to be flat out nazis and racists anymore.
There's no debate here about whether or not racism is a bad thing, it's just what to do about it that's a question worth keeping open for conversation. It's also worth keeping it open as an attempt to educate and perhaps win over the bigots, because we can't kill them, can we? That would be wrong.
 

punkisback

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2004
4,410
7,278

This isn't suprising,
I feel that we've always had a smattering of racist fans who feel deindividuated enough to spout racist bollocks at games. I've heard the following:

When Gallas was playing for us
"Gallas you black Cword"

To a random Asian fan on the train after a Wembley game
" how did Son get on the train before us"

When we had Zokora, Jenas, Huddlestone:
"too many black players in the team"

Discussion about Aurier
"He messed about with this hair to much, them lot always do, like Pogba"

I also disagree with the "we sing what we want" chant; even though it may be well intentioned. It sounds as if we don't care about offending people,
 

wearetheparklane

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2005
2,236
993
You want to have a debate about why racism is bad do you ? You want to debate why people shouldn't downplay racism nor try to excuse it ?

You're worried we might stifle debate ?

Oh fuck off and go hang out with the other pricks claiming their free speech is being stifled cos they're not allowed to be flat out nazis and racists anymore.

lol
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
What debate is there to be had here, exactly?

As @bomberH said:

...but if someone posts what people believe to be an ignorant statement, but the poster themselves believes to be a genuinely fair point, then honestly I see that as a good thing because a) several people can respond and show the original poster the error of their ways and more importantly b) other people on here, especially youngsters, can learn from what they read.

The idea that there is no debate to be had, so often accompanied with such zealous sanctimony, is one of the things what is fuelling the rise of the alt-right. Listen to them and see what the effect of no-platforming and immediate bulldozing moral condemnation brings: siege mentality. the absolute refusal to accept that there is a differing view, and the drawing of battle lines. That's where the debate is.

How many times do we have to be shown before we learn that you. cannot. police. THOUGHT? Only persuade.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
As @bomberH said:



The idea that there is no debate to be had, so often accompanied with such zealous sanctimony, is one of the things what is fuelling the rise of the alt-right. Listen to them and see what the effect of no-platforming and immediate bulldozing moral condemnation brings: siege mentality. the absolute refusal to accept that there is a differing view, and the drawing of battle lines. That's where the debate is.

How many times do we have to be shown before we learn that you. cannot. police. THOUGHT? Only persuade.

Agree with all of that.

But I read @yankspurs ’s question “what debate is there to be had, exactly?l” not as an attempt to shut down debate about racism but as an invitation to try and start it, rather than just whinge about not being allowed to have one.

So for clarity, is there anyone here who would like to explain to us why they think there’s a case to be made in favour of racism? Or who regrets not being able to?
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,987
81,923
As @bomberH said:



The idea that there is no debate to be had, so often accompanied with such zealous sanctimony, is one of the things what is fuelling the rise of the alt-right. Listen to them and see what the effect of no-platforming and immediate bulldozing moral condemnation brings: siege mentality. the absolute refusal to accept that there is a differing view, and the drawing of battle lines. That's where the debate is.

How many times do we have to be shown before we learn that you. cannot. police. THOUGHT? Only persuade.

Absolutely. I really enjoy ethical debate but it is so difficult and frustrating. Things I assume as a given just aren't for some people.

The posts people are disagreeing with are not posts by people saying racism is acceptable. Debates are rarely that simplistic. The crux of their points seem to be suggesting Rose has less room for complaint because he is well paid and if he doesn't like it he can quit.

For me wealth does not change right from wrong and if there is a societal problem the person on the end of the wrong shouldn't have to quit.

It is frustrating that this debate has to be had but clearly there is a discussion to be had. Those I disagree with should not be banned.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,987
81,923
Agree with all of that.

But I read @yankspurs ’s question “what debate is there to be had, exactly?l” not as an attempt to shut down debate about racism but as an invitation to try and start it, rather than just whinge about not being allowed to have one.

So for clarity, is there anyone here who would like to explain to us why they think there’s a case to be made in favour of racism? Or who regrets not being able to?

I don't think the debate is saying racism is acceptable. The debate seems to be more that Rose earns a lot and has chosen a profession in the public eye so has less room to complain.

Completely nonsensical in my view but that's where the debate appears to be rather than anyone being in favour of racism.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Agree with all of that.

But I read @yankspurs ’s question “what debate is there to be had, exactly?l” not as an attempt to shut down debate about racism but as an invitation to try and start it, rather than just whinge about not being allowed to have one.

So for clarity, is there anyone here who would like to explain to us why they think there’s a case to be made in favour of racism? Or who regrets not being able to?
But that's a reductive question. It is rare to find someone who actually makes the argument for racism outside of the extreme right-wing.

ut there will be people who will believe racist tropes, not because they actually believe them, but because they have been taught to believe them or who were raised in that environment. Those are the people we need to engage with, or lose them to the extremists. But you don't win those people over to your way of thinking by shunning them.

And that requires the self-same space for debate that @wearetheparklane spoke of. If people don't feel safe to air their view, no matter how distasteful, all they will do is seek out and join those who agree with them.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Sorry @yankspurs , I think my post may have come across as more assertive than I meant. I wasn't directing any invective specifically at you. But apologies if it came across that way.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
But that's a reductive question. It is rare to find someone who actually makes the argument for racism outside of the extreme right-wing.

ut there will be people who will believe racist tropes, not because they actually believe them, but because they have been taught to believe them or who were raised in that environment. Those are the people we need to engage with, or lose them to the extremists. But you don't win those people over to your way of thinking by making demeaning them.

And that requires the self-same space for debate that @wearetheparklane spoke of. If people don't feel safe to air their view, no matter how distasteful, all they will do is seek out and join those who agree with them.


Again, I don't disagree. I was just interpreting a message that I think was being slightly misinterpreted.

If it's simply a question of whether open debate should be banned, then no, it shouldn't, for all the reasons you've given, and more.

But instead of sitting here agreeing with each other, I'd like to be able to hear from anyone who themselves feel inhibited from expressing their own opinions. I don't expect anyone to argue in favour of racism, though in society as a whole there are plenty who would like to so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or two here may also wish to, but just to be as honest as possible on the subject.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Again, I don't disagree. I was just interpreting a message that I think was being slightly misinterpreted.

If it's simply a question of whether open debate should be banned, then no, it shouldn't, for all the reasons you've given, and more.

But instead of sitting here agreeing with each other, I'd like to be able to hear from anyone who themselves feel inhibited from expressing their own opinions. I don't expect anyone to argue in favour of racism, though in society as a whole there are plenty who would like to so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or two here may also wish to, but just to be as honest as possible on the subject.
I would too. The unfortunate reality, though is that it's unlikely we'd see it on a forum like this, or indeed anywhere these days. Mainly because of the way that unwelcome views are met with such hostility.

I remember the furore around Nick Griffin being invited onto Question Time, with so many condemning the decision to give him a platform. What joy I took to see him on that stage - watching his tiny mindset and utterly bankrupt philosophy being torn apart.

But we've gotten used to pushing these people to the boundary. The likelihood of them putting their heads above the parapet is virtually non-existent.

And that's an opportunity lost.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
the American Civil Liberties Union, which is about as liberal a group as you will find, has gone to court to allow the KKK to demonstrate. my opinion is that when you let idiots expose themselves to the light of day they are usually laughed off.
 
Top