Racism

[pineapple stu]

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.

[tetsujin1979]

******. 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.

[tricky_colour]

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

[Gather round]

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.

[pineapple stu]

you were not accused of anything.

Do you know what the word "If" means?

[pineapple stu]

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)

[pineapple stu]

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

[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

[KrisLetang]

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

What if it's just Charlie Brown and Linus?

[pineapple stu]

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.

[Charlie Darwin]

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.

[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.

[Charlie Darwin]

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.

[tetsujin1979]

Do you know what the word "If" means?

Sorry I missed that

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.

[tetsujin1979]

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

[Charlie Darwin]

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

[KrisLetang]

isms in my opinion, are not good.

[pineapple stu]

Also, this should probably be split at this stage

[KrisLetang]

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.

[tetsujin1979]

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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?