Racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

you don't get to decide what is it and is not racist.

---

******. If someone accuses me of racism, I have every right to defend myself if required. That's basic "Innocent until proven guilty" stuff - otherwise you can choose to get offended at anything and there's no comeback to being called a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

******. If someone accuses me of racism, I have every right to defend myself if required. That's basic "Innocent until proven guilty" stuff - otherwise you can choose to get offended at anything and there's no comeback to being called a racist.

---

you were not accused of anything.

Most of the people making such remarks, they are best ignored really, don't let them set the agenda, stick to the football.

There's a widely accepted definition of racism, as I think Tets was suggesting. Stereotyped prejudice + position of power to abuse. As Stu suggests anyone accused should be able to defend the charge.

Every football team has a shrill minority of prejudiced fans. I doubt it deters many potential players though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

you were not accused of anything.

---

Do you know what the word "If" means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

There's a widely accepted definition of racism, as I think Tets was suggesting. Stereotyped prejudice + position of power to abuse.

---

For sure.

My point is that I don't think "Go play for Jamaica" can possibly come under that definition, for the reasonvs I stated. No more than telling someone you'll lynch them is racist. (It's deplorable, and I'd support legal action on some kind of threat to cause bodily harm charge because internet bullying is a serious issue, but it's not racist just because the guy's black)

Because mentioning someone's race doesn't automatically make something racist

Stu,suggesting to a black guy that you’ll lynch him is rascist because of the historical context.In the same way as standing on his lawn with a flaming cross and a sheet over your head with eye holes cut out is rascist.White guy’s lawn.....weird behaviour,black guy’s lawn.....racist

http://cimg.tvgcdn.net/i/2016/10/28/...arliebrown.jpg

What if it's just Charlie Brown and Linus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Stu,suggesting to a black guy that you’ll lynch him is rascist because of the historical context.In the same way as standing on his lawn with a flaming cross and a sheet over your head with eye holes cut out is rascist.White guy’s lawn.....weird behaviour,black guy’s lawn.....racist

---

I was wondering if someone would make that comment alright. It has merit in fairness.

First off, my main argument was about the comment "Go play for Jamaica" I don't think that's racist in any way.

The lynching comment - I take the point, but I don't know if it necessarily holds. If you said to someone "I'll crucify you for this" and they accused you of being anti-Semitic, what would you say? I don't think Jews "own" crucifixion any more than the blacks "own" lynching. Yes, it's certainly more recent and more black-focused, not just in America - but to label it like this, to me, ignores or plays down lynching of non-blacks in other countries. There's plenty of recent cases in Central America, India and the Middle East. Why should this historic context be ignored? Why should the history of a country not at all relevant to the matter at hand hold sway?

I think to call it racist is actually to demean it - as I've stated earlier, I think it should be considered a physical threat, and treated as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I was wondering if someone would make that comment alright. It has merit in fairness.

First off, my main argument was about the comment "Go play for Jamaica" I don't think that's racist in any way.

The lynching comment - I take the point, but I don't know if it necessarily holds. If you said to someone "I'll crucify you for this" and they accused you of being anti-Semitic, what would you say? I don't think Jews "own" crucifixion any more than the blacks "own" lynching. Yes, it's certainly more recent and more black-focused, not just in America - but to label it like this, to me, ignores or plays down lynching of non-blacks in other countries. There's plenty of recent cases in Central America, India and the Middle East. Why should this historic context be ignored? Why should the history of a country not at all relevant to the matter at hand hold sway?

I think to call it racist is actually to demean it - as I've stated earlier, I think it should be considered a physical threat, and treated as such.

---

I'll make it simple for you then. Everybody who jokes about lynching black people means it in a racist way. It's technically possible to joke about lynching someone in complete ignorance of its implied meaning but, again, absolutely everyone who says it knows what they're doing.

Ok we’re in risky territory but I agree the Jews don’t own crucifixion,because crucifixion,despite the obvious exception,wasn’t historically specific to Jews.but if you said to a Jewish guy you’d send him to the gas chamber,it’s clearly rascist. The guy who sent the tweet used the word lynch on purpose,because the intent was to be racist. The point you’re making about him telling him to go play for Jamaica I can’t agree with.It’s the modus operandi of rascists to tell the subject of their abuse to return to wherever they’re from.doesnt matter if he told him to go play football or tiddlywinks,his intention was to tell Christie that he is not one of us,he belongs elsewhere and he should go there.that’s rascist in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Ok we’re in risky territory but I agree the Jews don’t own crucifixion,because crucifixion,despite the obvious exception,wasn’t historically specific to Jews.but if you said to a Jewish guy you’d send him to the gas chamber,it’s clearly rascist. The guy who sent the tweet used the word lynch on purpose,because the intent was to be racist. The point you’re making about him telling him to go play for Jamaica I can’t agree with.It’s the modus operandi of rascists to tell the subject of their abuse to return to wherever they’re from.doesnt matter if he told him to go play football or tiddlywinks,his intention was to tell Christie that he is not one of us,he belongs elsewhere and he should go there.that’s rascist in my view.

---

Oh come on Fizzer, those West Ham fans who hiss and make gas chamber jokes towards Spurs fans aren't necessarily being antisemitic.

You're playing down the struggles of all the other ethnic groups and cats who have been gassed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Do you know what the word "If" means?

---

Sorry I missed that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Because mentioning someone's race doesn't automatically make something racist

---

No, but mentioning it as a reason for wanting someone to leave makes it racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Oh come on Fizzer, those West Ham fans who hiss and make gas chamber jokes towards Spurs fans aren't necessarily being antisemitic.

You're playing down the struggles of all the other ethnic groups and cats who have been gassed.

---

Spurs have a historical link with the Jewish community in London, no other club faces that abuse from opposition fans. they are being antisemitic.
David Baddiel made a documentary about it. Can't find it online but there's this article that covers it: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...race-hate-word

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Spurs have a historical link with the Jewish community in London, no other club faces that abuse from opposition fans. they are being antisemitic.
David Baddiel made a documentary about it. Can't find it online but there's this article that covers it: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...race-hate-word

---

I know, I was satirising Stu's post to make that point :)

isms in my opinion, are not good.

Also, this should probably be split at this stage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

There's a nasty element to the internet and social media, helped by anonymity.

---

Not having a go at you but Jaysus H. Christmas Stu, welcome to the '90s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

On the Jamaica bit, I know where you're coming from, but I think it's still harmless.

---

The player, the FAI and the gardai have taken a different view

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is it really any different to shouting "**** off Christie you useless ****?" This kind of stuff - rightly or wrongly - is almost a staple of terrace talk when a player has a poor game, or scores an own goal, or whatever.

---

Yes, because you could shout that at any player. Telling a player to go to Jamaica is a clear reference to the colour of his skin, and is not something you would shout at Shane Duffy, for example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The lynch thing is definitely more of an issue - but surely the logical conclusion of your argument there is that I, as a white person, would be less entitled to be offended/insulted/threatened by someone saying they'll lynch me? But that's the very definition of racism.

---

Lynching is not historically associated with attacks on white men, so no, you're not entitled to claim it's a racist attack on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

And, you racist, tets says you don't get to choose what I find racist, so I can now call you racist all I want :)

---

No, you don't. And until it's clearly an attack on you based on your race, you don't get to claim otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

There's a nasty element to the internet and social media, helped by anonymity. (It could be argued the guy didn't mean it, but given the issues comments like these have given rise to for many people across the world, I don't think that should be allowed as a blanket defence. You make a threat like that directly to someone, you answer for it)

---

Did you go online for the first time yesterday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Threats like this, in my opinion, should be treated the same regardless of the race of the person being threatened. That's why I'd argue it's not racist. It's worse than that.

---

I'm not aware of any threats to other players, can you give an example of one, and how they were treated differently?

It's an improvement on your previous posts tets, but it's still not great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

The player, the FAI and the gardai have taken a different view

---

They have, yep; fair enough. Doesn't necessarily make it so, but it is relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Yes, because you could shout that at any player. Telling a player to go to Jamaica is a clear reference to the colour of his skin, and is not something you would shout at Shane Duffy, for example

---

But I gave the example of shouting "Go play for the North" at Darron Gibson. Is that racist? If not, why is it different? I think you could be imputing stuff that may or mayn't be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Lynching is not historically associated with attacks on white men, so no, you're not entitled to claim it's a racist attack on you.

---

I didn't claim it's a racist attack on me. (Or on Christie) I'm claiming it's a threat against me. That's the point I'm making. I said treating a threat against me differently because I'm not black would be racist. Which it would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

No, you don't. And until it's clearly an attack on you based on your race, you don't get to claim otherwise.

---

I argued the comment was racist towards white people (my race). I was being a bit facetious (hence the smiley), but it was mainly to show up your ignorant comment that only one side can decide what is/isn't racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Did you go online for the first time yesterday?

---

Not entirely sure if you have a point here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

I'm not aware of any threats to other players, can you give an example of one, and how they were treated differently?

---

Why does it have to be players? I wasn't talking about players - I was talking about people. Do you think this is the first time someone's been threatened on the internet? Do you think threats should be treated differently based on the colour of the person being threatened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

---

Something similar applies here. I know racism when i see it, and this was racism. The culprit appears to be in England though so a report to AGS will achieve bugger all as no offence was committed on Irish territory

BTTW just upped the intellectual level of this forum by about 1000% with that.

Is that correct re jurisdiction though Walsall?,is the offence committed in the territory that it’s sent or received?or possibly both?could he be technically extradited? In any event,the Uk authorities seem more draconian than ours for this type of stuff so outcome-wise for him,it could be a more severe sanction in the Uk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrisLetang

isms in my opinion, are not good.

---

For the most part I think you're correct, apart of course from altruism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

For the most part I think you're correct, apart of course from altruism

---

It there really such a thing? - https://youtu.be/DowJfUmlzeI?t=1m5s

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

For the most part I think you're correct, apart of course from altruism

---

Watch more movies OF: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091042/quotes/qt0441220

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Is that correct re jurisdiction though Walsall?,is the offence committed in the territory that it’s sent or received?or possibly both?could he be technically extradited? In any event,the Uk authorities seem more draconian than ours for this type of stuff so outcome-wise for him,it could be a more severe sanction in the Uk.

---

Free speech should not be an offence where ever you are, nobody ever died because of free speech million have died because of censorship.

Communication is not a crime!!

I assume tricky the above two posts are you kidding around.....

But if not you’re wrong on both counts,some types of communication are in fact crimes covered by incitement to hatred laws etc..,also it would not be an act of war if it’s a citizen acting the mickey and not state-sanctioned.jesus I wish we qualified for that World Cup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

I assume tricky the above two posts are you kidding around.....

---

No serious, maybe not war, provided the person could be extradited. There are other solutions, prisoner exchange etc...

But really I am sure there are better things to waste public money one than policing tweets surely?

Free speech is a right of course, a human right on which all human rights depend.

If free speech offends you move somewhere where they do not have it, you will find plenty moving the other way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

But if not you’re wrong on both counts,some types of communication are in fact crimes covered by incitement to hatred laws etc..,also it would not be an act of war if it’s a citizen acting the mickey and not state-sanctioned.jesus I wish we qualified for that World Cup

---

Well they may be crimes but they shouldn't be.

"incitement to hatred" is a ridiculous concept! Emotions are not a crime!! And they are yours nobody else's!

The best protection against hatred is free speech.

If I say go and hate so and so are you going to do it? Of course not. It is the most ridiculous law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

But really I am sure there are better things to waste public money one than policing tweets surely?

---

Watch the John Oliver section on online harassment, where tweets and other abuse has driven people to the point of suicide and beyond, and tell me if you still agree with the above. It's on YouTube; can't link from mobile I think

Free speech with no limits absolutely does not exist

Ted Walsh was sailing close to the wind last night in "Greatest Irish Sporting Moments" of the 1960s/70s. He said John Tracy looked like a Biafran while the Soviet players in the team we stuffed 3-0 looked all the same. Incidentally, that game came last behind Dublin/Kerry semi-final, Arkle, John Tracy and NZ vs All Black which walked away with almost 48%. I was one of the 6% who voted for Givens' hat trick :) unlike Brian Kerr, one of the panelists, who voted for John Tracy I think.

However, football has given us the greatest moments of both the 1980s and 1990s, according to the voting public. Ray Houghton's goal in Stuttgart in '88 and the victorious penalty shootout against Romania in 1990 have been crowned the greatest moment of their respective decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Watch the John Oliver section on online harassment, where tweets and other abuse has driven people to the point of suicide and beyond, and tell me if you still agree with the above. It's on YouTube; can't link from mobile I think

Free speech with no limits absolutely does not exist

---

What John Oliver section?


No sane person has ever been driven to the point of suicide and if you are planning legislation for the insane then you'd be insane too.

Free speech with no limits does exist by definition as you can't censor what you have not read.

IF it did not kill the censor it won't kill you either.

Free speech should be absolute and the more free speech you have the better society will be.

Nobody ever died because of free speech.

Million died because of censorship and still do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Eh? If the rascist abuse of a fellow Irish citizen offends me then I should move away? Have you totally lost your reason Tricky? Your basic position is that you support this guys right to abuse Christie over Christie's right to play football for his country without being abused because of his ethnic background. To say that people cannot be incited to hatred is beyond stupid, history has clearly shown the contrary........there was this fella once .......in Germany.....
The notion of one's behaviour influencing others is a long-standing and well established principle in the criminal justice system e.g. for section 6 Public Order, colloquially known as breach of the peace, the behaviour that you're engaged in has to 'provoke' or be likely to provoke a breach of the peace i.e. in another person, for the offence to be committed.
What if we weren't talking about an adult on a football pitch what if it's a five year old kid, you're all for people racially abusing them in the name of 'free speech'? You clearly don't even understand the concept.

---

No what I am saying is you could move to North Korea if you do not like speech but of course you would not cos life
without free speech is a hell hole, that is the point I was making.

You have every right to be offended!! Enjoy that right!!

Surely you are not that delicate that words can offend you so much? How do you cope in real life? Where people can say WTF they
like and you have no nanny to protect your delicate ears?

I literally, how did you make it through live thus far whilst experiencing the free speech that exists in reality?

I support the guys right to say what he like 100%.

Cyrus has not died, he is still alive.

Try inciting me to hate Cryus? You can't cos am not ret*rded.

You can't leglislate for idiots, you don't need too, the only people they are a danger to are themselves.

Oh and that fella in German he was not fan of free speech, so you have a lot in common you share many of the same characteristics, the use of violence to silence others.#

The law is an ass. it is there to keep the elite in power and free from criticism.

Yes of course I am all for a 5 year old being "abused" by free speech.

What do you think is going to happen to him when he grows up?

Melt like a snow flake, the 5 year old likely could not give a **** anyway, people tend to be more sensible at that age.

It is not a kinder garden is it?

There nothing you could say to me that would upset me in any way.

Are you drunk or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Are you drunk or something?

---

I'm something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

What John Oliver section?

---

Ok... I think we're through the looking glass here. I'm just going to, you know, google it for you and leave the link here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Ok... I think we're through the looking glass here. I'm just going to, you know, google it for you and leave the link here...

---

Yea that is what you do, and then post the link.


Pretty simple really!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNIwYsz7PI

Seems to me mainly about women and revenge porn for which there are laws now but of course
the solution is not to make porn videos of yourself.