Players taking the knee

I understand any club that doesn't want to make this gesture that's fine

Why I don't get are the donks that boo people making a gesture that they want to make a gesture made in good faith

Those idiots are the real issue

 

No, come on, explain what you mean.
I'm not trying to be difficult here - I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint.

You have described taking the knee as a 'filthy' gesture. You've also said your objection is nothing to do with race but is purely an objection to the kneeling gesture itself. So please explain what it is about the simple act of kneeling down that you find offensive. It's just a physical act. It's not threatening in any way, so why is it offensive to you?

 

Yes. They were all over the news and social media.

You don't see the other point of view. You can't do anything about the outright racists but you can't handle the objections of those who dislike BLM as a wider movement if you can't see where they're coming from.

 

No, we don't have to. But some people choose to, as is their right. But that wasn't my point. I'm genuinely interested in why @Tony Wilkinson finds the simple, unthreatening gesture of dropping onto one knee offensive.

 

I can see the other point of view. If people disagree with the political stance of BLM Inc then that's a totally valid stance. I have no problem with that.

What I can't accept is that the views of a tiny minority invalidate the massive global Black Lives movement. Nor do I believe that most people who object to the knee are doing so from a principled political objection, informed by the activities and views of BLM Inc.

I think that most people who oppose the knee or the wider Black Lives Matter movement do so because either
a) they believe that racism is overstated and are fed up with hearing about it, or
b) they don't want to have to think about it when they go to football matches, or
c) they are racists
not because they associate it with Marxism or defunding the police or any other political stance taken by some radical activists in Chicago.

 

I don't find it offensive in any way. Its hardly a nazi salute. Problem is its just part of the norm rather than being something that makes people stand up and take notice, like the clap for the NHS. At first it had a meaning but then when people realised the gesture was hollow the novelty wore off. Most in the NHS couldn't care two hoots about a round of applause, they want real action like a well earned payrise or moves to stop the NHS being sold off to Johnsons rich mates. Same with the knee, a well meaning gesture but as proved in Hungary completely meaningless, just a hollow gesture not backed up by action. But I guess if it makes people feel better then crack on.

 

I don't ever use the accusation of Marxism because in reality I bet 5% of people actually understand what it means.

But even in that post you've gone from accepting that people disagree with the political stance of BLM to then completely dismissing that in your 3 reasons at the end when we've gone round in circles about them being intrinsically linked.

 

What he's trying to establish is that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist , it's his go to insinuation....Having never backed a winner in his life he is forever pi55ing in the wind..

 

And if you're against the movement, you're racist. Even if you don't know it.

 

What's wrong with prison or police expansion

What's wrong surveillance and keeping data if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

What's wrong with keeping data on gangs that commit crime.

The only one I agree with on there is if a police officer is convicted of using excessive force he/she should be removed from duty that said I have personally seen officers attacked without warning and then go in heavy handed and rightly so IMO.

The one thing the black community should be doing is finding the reason why black on black crime is the biggest problem within its community. People only seem interested if the culprits are white. Well that's fine but they need to get their own house in order you can't pick and choose what is right and wrong then turn a blind eye and say black on black crime isn't a problem.

I ain't framing at any side at all I merely pointing out the only time there is uproar is when a white person is the culprit maybe rather than looking at just that the black community should look at things within. We know black knife crime for instance is a major issue yet we don't see the mass protest and violence on the streets do we.

BLM only create a issue when the culprits are white and/or are police officers tell me I am wrong. When was the last time you saw a mass protest by BLM when a black person was attacked by another black person?.

 

No I'm not. Read my post properly. I cited three reasons why I believe people oppose Black Lives Matter - only one of those was because they are racist.
And you still haven't explained why kneeling down is offensive.

 

Let's be 100% clear and I go back to what I said yesterday if the players had taken the knee before BLM did then not admitted support for them we wouldn't even be talking about an issue.

If the players had made a alternative gesture whether as what I said yesterday held banners up in front of fans before games or merely just stood in the centre circle pointing to a respect badge we wouldn't be talking about it.

But instead no matter what anyone thinks the fact remains the football federation and it's players decided to jump on the BLM bandwagon and alot of fans don't agree with that.

Also the majority who are against BLM and the taking of knee are also against the abuse which was aimed at Rashford Sancho and Saka and the culprits who are found guilty should be banned from football. So how can they be classed as being racist just because they don't agree with the taking of the knee but support black players in every other way?

 

No I didn't. I said that I think its perfectly valid to disagree with the political stance of BLM Inc but that, in my opinion, most of those who oppose the wider BLM movement (ie, not BLM Inc) do so for one of the three reasons I cited. I think that's pretty clear.

 

It could easily be argued that the black celebrities who have been critical of BLM have done very well for themselves. They aren't facing the challenges that many African Americans further down the socio-economic ladder face on a daily basis. People who've thrived under a system tend not to criticise it, or see the difficulties that others face.

What does it matter if Sky Sports highlight the 9th minute? Supporters have been highlighting all kinds of minutes throughout a game to commemorate people who have died for a few years now. Why should George Floyd's tragic demise be any different?

 

But we've agreed that most people don't differentiate or have knowledge between the two!

People on the TV or Social Media speaking or posting from the perspective of BLM (Inc) are simply accepted as speaking for BLM generally. Its the whole issue.

So not liking the actions of BLM Inc affects some of the population outlook of the movement because they don't distinguish and the two are intertwined.

As I said mate, I can't make you see.

 

You are clearly missing the point again. You are now saying because some black people are rich and famous they don't know what BLM means that's a new one I will give you that. Explain to me why mainly in America when a black person has spoken out against BLM why have they been targeted and threatened because of their views?

Also do you know who David Dorn is?

As for sky the point is clear yet again we are told there are no links but it's plain to see there is so why lie about it.

 

Mine did mind you my letterbox is at the bottom of my door.

 

You are sort of right that there is less racism nowadays but its a slow decline spanning the last 40 years. Unconscious bias is still very much the source of racism nowadays and that is a much harder thing to tackle.

 

I'll admit that the statistical analyses of these types of things are invariably fraught with problems. And statistics can be bent to support any position given enough manipulation and cherry picking.

However, when someone like Peterson comes out with nonsense like this on the 'opportunity v outcome' debate:

"The number one predictor of accomplishment in Western societies is intelligence. What’s the number two predictor: Conscientiousness. Well, what’s that? It’s a trait marker for hard work. So, who gets ahead? Smart people who work hard.""

It's particularly straightforward to effectively argue just why this is complete BS. He's arguing that everyone is born tabula rasa, with the same opportunities to climb the slippery pole. No mention of socio-economic conditions impinging on that. Or how IQ testing isn't always favourable to people who aren"t white. Or why if intelligence plus effort is such a good indicator of future success why did a 2019 study by Georgetown University find that familial wealth rather than ability and hard work predicted income levels at the age of 25?

The game is rigged from the start. Not just for ethnic minorities, but for people born without a silver spoon as well. When two thirds of the government's cabinet (2019) were privately educated and 2 of the previous 3 PM's went to Eaton. Then that perfectly highlights why intelligence and graft are far from primary indicators of just how far someone can climb.

 

not saying everyone does it but lots of racist comments behind closed doors. You know Oh this P*** B***** did this or that. And people say an offensive word when they want a Chinese. A lot of people pretend to be holier than thou when they really aren't