King of Otters
Well-Known Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 10,751
- 36,094
Not what I said at all. And class has nothing to do with ‘wealth’.
Football fan abuse thread
- Thread starter dontcallme
- Start date
Not what I said at all. And class has nothing to do with ‘wealth’.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,416
- 83,941
- Thread starter
- #22
Class has something to do with wealth but the lines are more blurred now but that is what you were saying.
We don't have a hooliganism problem. We have a Some-people-are-horrible-entitled-twats problem.
I see far more casual racism and homophobia on twitter than I do at football. When you listen to people who experienced actual hooliganism back in the day - where normal supporters were ambushed in alleyways with knives and bats, and gangs would burst into a bar and beat everyone to a bloody pulp - you realise how lucky we are to be a football fan these days.
Also the former hooligans or people of that era - they're now in the 50s and 60s - are much much well behaved that the 20s and early 30s we have now. They just seemed to have been told all their life they can do what they want, and that seems to lead them on believing they can be racist and homophobic.
I see far more casual racism and homophobia on twitter than I do at football. When you listen to people who experienced actual hooliganism back in the day - where normal supporters were ambushed in alleyways with knives and bats, and gangs would burst into a bar and beat everyone to a bloody pulp - you realise how lucky we are to be a football fan these days.
Also the former hooligans or people of that era - they're now in the 50s and 60s - are much much well behaved that the 20s and early 30s we have now. They just seemed to have been told all their life they can do what they want, and that seems to lead them on believing they can be racist and homophobic.
King of Otters
Well-Known Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 10,751
- 36,094
Nope. Try reading it again. I said that woke culture is rubbing up against a terrace culture that has always been ‘crass and abusive’, leading to greater scrutiny of behaviour that is actually much milder than it was 20-30 years ago.
At no point did I say that certain people ‘can sing racist or homophobic songs with immunity’, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put your own idiotic words into my mouth. I have plenty enough of my own.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,416
- 83,941
- Thread starter
- #25
Saying a culture has always been abusive when discussing racist and homophobic abuse is fairly summarised as defending the abuse. If wrong then fair enough we move on but it was a fair understanding of the words you used in the context of the discussion.
Spurs' Pipe Dreams
Well-Known Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 20,008
- 32,728
Well, this is bollocks, especially the graduate "woke culture" bollocks. I hate to break it to you but you've fallen into the culture wars meme and I'm surprised you didn't call fans and footballers "millennial snowflakes" or you could have gone with the old favourite "it's PC gone mad".
Laws against homophobia, racism, sectarianism weren't brought in by left-liberal snowflakes but Governments, Governments that we, the people, elected. Yeah Maggie had section 28 but Cameron brought in same sex marriage, most anti hooliganism in football legislation was brought in around the 80s and 90s by successive Tory and Labour Governments. Now you could say that society has changed and way back when it was okay to call a "spade a spade" but you can still call a spade a spade, you can no longer call a black man "a spade".
It's weird that "PC gone mad" is now a thing that the very people who brought it in now reject. At no point did Millenials hold power, it is the Boomer and Gen X generations who have held power for the last 30 years and they've been teaching their children inclusivity, multiculturalism and tolerance and now society is much more inclusive, multicultural and tolerant we have push back against "millennial snowflakes" or "woke culture" it's genuinely mental how people buy into this shit peddled by actual arseholes like SYL, Hatey Hopkins, Brendan O'Neil and the Tufton Street mafia.
Terrace culture is far better than it ever has been but in the last couple of years, it has taken a step backwards, why? I could take an educated guess Bannon, Breitbart, Trump and Brexit. Some major politicians in the UK and US have courted the racists, homophobes and religiously intolerant and these arseholes have been emboldened, dog-whistle politics has consequences and we are seeing this in both society and at the football ground. Have dickheads always been amongst the crowd, of course, but let's not pretend it's "woke culture" or "PC gone mad" that has highlighted these knobs, it is because a large section of our society, including politicians, have decided that what they've been promoting for the last 30+ years is now something they are railing against.
Sorry probably derailing the thread and but "woke culture" shit winds me up. Society has changed, I would argue for the better since the 70s and it will keep changing hopefully for the better but at the present...
Last edited:
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,416
- 83,941
- Thread starter
- #27
I agree we don't have a real hooligan problem.
In the modern world racist and homophobic abuse will be attacked much more quickly. In the 80s sitcoms on primetime TV would happily have a homphobic or racist joke. Nowadays a racist on a train will find themselves having a video of them put up on social media and they quickly become infamous.
Mob mentality still exists and some think they can get away with it when at a football game. Recent incidents and arrests have occurred but have always been one or two fans rather than being by a whole section. Certainly progress.
King of Otters
Well-Known Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 10,751
- 36,094
I could give a shit if you like the term ‘woke’ or not. It may be reductive, but it fairly accurately describes the phenomenon I was referring to, which is a greater scrutiny of how language is used, who it’s directed at, and by whom.
The hand wringing over terrace behaviour is pretty much down to that shift in attitude penetrating terrace culture at a slower rate than other cultural spaces, mainly dominated by the educated middle class.
Before @dontcallme gets all excited, I’m not excusing that behaviour, just describing it as I understand it.
Spurs' Pipe Dreams
Well-Known Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 20,008
- 32,728
Think you mean couldn't
King of Otters
Well-Known Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 10,751
- 36,094
An unconventional admission of defeat, but I’ll take it.
Spurs' Pipe Dreams
Well-Known Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 20,008
- 32,728
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,416
- 83,941
- Thread starter
- #32
Why continue the argument with me? I have already said now I understand where you are coming from there is no problem.
King of Otters
Well-Known Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 10,751
- 36,094
Just defining my position further, as I apparently hadn’t made it clear earlier.
Dinghy
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2005
- 6,326
- 15,561
Were you balls deep in his mother at the time?
riggi
Well-Known Member
- Jun 24, 2008
- 48,582
- 105,041
I believe I was singing about his parents ?
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
What I'm going to say is said with sorrow not anger. I'm with @King of Otters with this one. That sounds like I'm sad to be agreeing with you, Otts, but that's not what I meant. I mean my whole post is said sadly.
I'm an old leftie of long standing. I spent most of my twenties protesting against prejudice and hate - I've stood on picket lines and marched in the streets. I'm a social liberal and always will be.
But the 'woke' idea isn't bullshit (sorry @Spurs' Pipe Dreams ). It may not be the best moniker, but unfortunately, the struggle has been taken over by armchair liberals and the middle-class types who a) don't give the first fuck about anyone's rights as long as other think that they give a fuck; and b) who treat the working class as a sub-section of humanity (their emphasis is very much on the word 'sub').
The reason I stopped being active was that over time the attitude towards those we were fighting alongside became more and more patronising, more and more dismissive of what the constituency itself wanted. No, no. It was us, the young, white (in my case inaccurate, but assumed, which became educational in and of itself), able-bodied saviours, who would tell minority ethnicities and the aged and those with disabilities what they thought these groups needed.
Paternalism of the highest order, at its most insidious and invidious, to the point that it is now fascistic - intolerant of dissent (evidenced by the rise in no-platforming), wilfully ignorant of the philosophy and the knowledge and the history of the struggles, uncaring of context, cruel in its crushing of anyone who even inadvertently does something they deem offensive (see the treatment of Bobby Madley). Even the way they use the term "offensive" - they use it as a catchall. But when one actually examines it, it demonstrates how prejudicial they are, in believing that they have the right and the knowledge to speak for every member of the vulnerable group they purport to defend. They don't say 'some x people will find that offensive'. They say 'that is offensive to x people' i.e the whole group. That they rarely belong to themselves. They themselves deny any variation of thought or character within those groups. They homogenise them into one whole and treat them all the same. Pardon me, but isn't that what racists do?
I kept hearing the same sort of thing said as I saw earlier in this thread. Phrases like the one @dontcallme used:
Really, dude? Are you saying that there is a threshold of intelligence that qualifies whether someone should be treated as human by which I mean flawed? Are we all so perfect as to be able to stand in the face of another human being and judge them worthy of a fair hearing and consideration as to why they think the way they do. (I'm sorry for putting you directly in the spotlight, buddy, but there was no other way I could make my point.)
Where's the discussion over why it may be happening? Where's the hand-wringing over the conditions of the less fortunate whose circumstances make for the most fertile soil for bigotry, where the 'weeds of hatred' grow most readily? Bigotry is a symptom, it is not a disease (which I've also seen it referred to here) - it is a sign of a society with deep problems. It is fuelled by fear. When someone is afraid, they lash out and it's almost a contradiction in terms to believe that someone will lash out rationally. Are we dealing with the causes of those fears? Are we giving people enough space in which to realise that what they are doing is harmful?
No. All we have is hand-wringing over the symptoms and judging people about whose circumstances we are totally ignorant and not caring a whit for the path that has led them to taking regrettable actions. Because it's easier to just call them stupid, by which we really mean worthless. And let's also not forget the super secret reason for not asking those questions: because we're terrified of what they will reveal about us.
Perhaps if we spent a little less time condemning people for their mistakes and extended a little of that compassion that is supposed to be the foundation on which opposition to bigotry is built we may make better progress in reducing bigotry in our society. It's all well and good to point the finger and shriek; it's a lot harder to listen and think about why someone acts the way they do.
But hey, who am I to speak? I'm just the son of immigrants who had to be moved from their council house in the late 80s because of racially-motivated attacks. What would I know about it?
I'm an old leftie of long standing. I spent most of my twenties protesting against prejudice and hate - I've stood on picket lines and marched in the streets. I'm a social liberal and always will be.
But the 'woke' idea isn't bullshit (sorry @Spurs' Pipe Dreams ). It may not be the best moniker, but unfortunately, the struggle has been taken over by armchair liberals and the middle-class types who a) don't give the first fuck about anyone's rights as long as other think that they give a fuck; and b) who treat the working class as a sub-section of humanity (their emphasis is very much on the word 'sub').
The reason I stopped being active was that over time the attitude towards those we were fighting alongside became more and more patronising, more and more dismissive of what the constituency itself wanted. No, no. It was us, the young, white (in my case inaccurate, but assumed, which became educational in and of itself), able-bodied saviours, who would tell minority ethnicities and the aged and those with disabilities what they thought these groups needed.
Paternalism of the highest order, at its most insidious and invidious, to the point that it is now fascistic - intolerant of dissent (evidenced by the rise in no-platforming), wilfully ignorant of the philosophy and the knowledge and the history of the struggles, uncaring of context, cruel in its crushing of anyone who even inadvertently does something they deem offensive (see the treatment of Bobby Madley). Even the way they use the term "offensive" - they use it as a catchall. But when one actually examines it, it demonstrates how prejudicial they are, in believing that they have the right and the knowledge to speak for every member of the vulnerable group they purport to defend. They don't say 'some x people will find that offensive'. They say 'that is offensive to x people' i.e the whole group. That they rarely belong to themselves. They themselves deny any variation of thought or character within those groups. They homogenise them into one whole and treat them all the same. Pardon me, but isn't that what racists do?
I kept hearing the same sort of thing said as I saw earlier in this thread. Phrases like the one @dontcallme used:
Really, dude? Are you saying that there is a threshold of intelligence that qualifies whether someone should be treated as human by which I mean flawed? Are we all so perfect as to be able to stand in the face of another human being and judge them worthy of a fair hearing and consideration as to why they think the way they do. (I'm sorry for putting you directly in the spotlight, buddy, but there was no other way I could make my point.)
Where's the discussion over why it may be happening? Where's the hand-wringing over the conditions of the less fortunate whose circumstances make for the most fertile soil for bigotry, where the 'weeds of hatred' grow most readily? Bigotry is a symptom, it is not a disease (which I've also seen it referred to here) - it is a sign of a society with deep problems. It is fuelled by fear. When someone is afraid, they lash out and it's almost a contradiction in terms to believe that someone will lash out rationally. Are we dealing with the causes of those fears? Are we giving people enough space in which to realise that what they are doing is harmful?
No. All we have is hand-wringing over the symptoms and judging people about whose circumstances we are totally ignorant and not caring a whit for the path that has led them to taking regrettable actions. Because it's easier to just call them stupid, by which we really mean worthless. And let's also not forget the super secret reason for not asking those questions: because we're terrified of what they will reveal about us.
Perhaps if we spent a little less time condemning people for their mistakes and extended a little of that compassion that is supposed to be the foundation on which opposition to bigotry is built we may make better progress in reducing bigotry in our society. It's all well and good to point the finger and shriek; it's a lot harder to listen and think about why someone acts the way they do.
But hey, who am I to speak? I'm just the son of immigrants who had to be moved from their council house in the late 80s because of racially-motivated attacks. What would I know about it?
Last edited:
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
Just for perspective, this article makes interesting points:
The Week: The Latest News, Opinion, Sport, People & Business
The Week brings you all you need to know about everything that matters. More than a news digest – it’s an original take on world news as it happens.
theweek.com
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,416
- 83,941
- Thread starter
- #38
I don't think you took in the context of the post of mine you quoted at all. A poster said many of us are guilty of shouting obscenitiies at home. I simply stated that there is a difference between shout at a TV screen and shouting abuse at a human being.
If someone screams a racist term at a player at home to his TV screen then there is no reason to take the incident further. If he did that in a stadium then it can be taken further.
I could write a longer post defending my position but as you haven't understood the conversation you quoted I see little point.
Spurs' Pipe Dreams
Well-Known Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 20,008
- 32,728
It's a great post but I have to wholly disagree with your conclusions.
The whole de-platforming thing just simply isn't true, it's a narrative, one that's been spun with great success by Bannon. Look I'm very aware that there are people who call themselves "liberal" who try to stop SYL speaking at Oxford Uni or protest about football pundits making locker room misogynist remarks off camera.
It's interesting you pick up on the Bobby Madley case, I haven't seen the video, I'm not even sure it's been released but I have seen his excuses and his victimhood apology. The thing with this case is that he's portraying himself as the victim and that's part of the problem, people when caught out, rather than just apologising and admitting liability they portray themselves as the victim. The Madley case is interesting because that's exactly what has happened. You see the thing is, we (the public) didn't even know about the sacking until he opened up in his victimhood blog, about how he's been the victim of fat-shaming and that he's been the victim of a friend "leaking" his private message. How about you just don't take the piss out of disabled people and think that doing so is so funny you share it with others? I mean seriously...
It's like Alex Jones railing about being de-platformed from Facebook, how about Alex not being a conspiracy theory nutjob who claims that victims in a school shooting are actors and defaming the parents or how about Katie Hopkins, stop saying racist shit and accusing a cookery book writer of pissing on the cenotaph, then maybe she may still have a column and wouldn't have to sell your house to pay your libel damages.
Look I'm all for freedom of speech and I wish there was more of it, I'd rather the racists were openly racist so I can call them a racist.
One thing I am confused about in your post is that you used to go protesting but it was taken over by armchair liberals? I mean that doesn't make sense if I'm honest.
What I will say, although I could go on for a while, is that there is a massive difference between ignorance and stupidity. I genuinely don't believe anyone is stupid, it's about education on why bigotry is wrong and normally you can have that argument but atm it is shut down with the "woke" shit or "snowflake" bollocks. The number of times I've seen genuine racist shit online being questioned and then shut down because the person says that they're being called stupid and/or a racist when that's not what happens, it's just engagement and questioning of belief.
Free speech is a two-way street and people also have the free speech to call out racism, homophobia and religious bigotry, that's how free speech works. Shutting down debate is wrong but we have as a society agreed that we have the freedom to love and to believe who we want, that's freedom, if people don't like being called racist, stop being a racist, otherwise, as Bannon has said: "wear that badge with pride".
Sorry, went and came back to this a few times so may be a bit disjointed.
What I'm trying to say is that as a society we have decided that racism, homophobia and religious bigotry are wrong, people can believe they are not and that's their choice in a free society but they cannot abuse people and we have literal laws to stop this, now if people want to repeal those laws then they have to vote for a party offering that, none of the political parties is (although BJ loves a little dog-whistling), but the laws on equal rights and freedom of belief aren't going anywhere and those opinions/abuse have no place in a football stadium either.
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
I did understand the context, dude - hence my apology.
But I highlighted your post not to directly challenge it but to demonstrate that it’s indicative of a received wisdom that has permeated our society: one that treats those who commit regrettable acts as not motivated by their life experience, but purely due to their stupidity. When we use that approach, what we’re really saying is that that person has less worth, and so we should feel no compunction over meting out a harsh and severe punishment. Again, not suggesting that you’re expressly saying that, just that the idea fuels an intolerance towards people who we think ‘ought to know better’.
Unfortunately, as a species we very rarely know what’s ‘better’. We all do stupid things. And that means we have to always hold onto our compassion, even for those who commit evil. ‘There but for the grace of God’ and all that...
