Politics in General
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I think if Sturgeon can get a referendum on having a referendum and wins then she has an argunent to present to Westminster/ law courts
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Well it wasn't a referendum, so it's easy to argue the point either way. A common trope however is to equate certain parties as a monolith either in support or against independence, which isn't true in any case. A fair assumption I think is that you count the seats of parties with independence on their manifesto, but I've no doubt that there are Green voters who don't necessarily support independence, but held their nose on the matter knowing that their vote would also support that agenda.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 7:15 pm Well, it seems that from the vote it's not clear either way, and when you add in the fact that people weren't just voting on whether they wanted a another referendum, it's even less clear. You could argue either way for whether a referendum should happen, but it's definitely not as clear cut as Nicola Sturgeon likes to think it is.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
The Scotland Act is very clear that the power to hold a referendum lies with the British government. This is why the 2014 referendum happened, because David Cameron agreed to it (Edinburgh Agreement). If it were me I would put an "not before x" date on it, and not rule it out altogether, but equally, kick it into the long grass. Not before 2034 for me.
You have to bear in mind that the catalyst for the 2014 referendum was the SNP majority in 2011: they did not get an overall majority in 2016 or 2021.
You have to bear in mind that the catalyst for the 2014 referendum was the SNP majority in 2011: they did not get an overall majority in 2016 or 2021.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Yep, they should have a referendum on whether to have a referendum.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:51 am
Well it wasn't a referendum, so it's easy to argue the point either way.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Why not have one soon though? Put it in writing if a limitation on follow-ups is desired. It's not a one-party issue.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:46 pm The Scotland Act is very clear that the power to hold a referendum lies with the British government. This is why the 2014 referendum happened, because David Cameron agreed to it (Edinburgh Agreement). If it were me I would put an "not before x" date on it, and not rule it out altogether, but equally, kick it into the long grass. Not before 2034 for me.
You have to bear in mind that the catalyst for the 2014 referendum was the SNP majority in 2011: they did not get an overall majority in 2016 or 2021.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: Politics in General
Referendums on issues like this have become hugely divisive, with family and friends falling out over them. Personally I hope we are never asked to vote on another Brexit type issue - and I imagine Scottish independence is even more divisive.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Also, "once in a generation" was a central tenet of the 2014 referendum.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
Maybe the 2014 referendum was at the end of a generation and the next referendum will be at the start of a new generation.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Wasn't that more of a warning than a promise though? Like "Look, we've got to get this right because we won't get another chance for a generation." A bit like "If these two countries don't start acting more diplomatically towards each other, there'll be a war." "Where was that war you promised?"Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 2:11 pm Also, "once in a generation" was a central tenet of the 2014 referendum.
Yes, the whole Brexit thing was and is an absolute shitshow. And of course the same would happen with Scottish independence. It would go on for ages after the vote with people arguing about what independence really meant just like with Brexit.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Politicians say things. Doesn't mean much unless it's down in writing. Even then...Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 2:11 pm Also, "once in a generation" was a central tenet of the 2014 referendum.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Those arguments are ongoing and have been for years. They just don't surface at a UK level so often.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:25 pm Yes, the whole Brexit thing was and is an absolute shitshow. And of course the same would happen with Scottish independence. It would go on for ages after the vote with people arguing about what independence really meant just like with Brexit.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: Politics in General
A generally accepted view over here is there will be a United Ireland vote within the next 10/15 years.
If it were to happen now, it would be a no. 15 years, I'd say it would be a yes. Anything between now and then, who knows.
If you thought the Brexit vote was bad...
If it were to happen now, it would be a no. 15 years, I'd say it would be a yes. Anything between now and then, who knows.
If you thought the Brexit vote was bad...
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Of course, the alternative is for Ireland to vote to rejoin the United Kingdom...
(I jest, but this was official Sussex TorySoc policy a couple of years ago...)
(I jest, but this was official Sussex TorySoc policy a couple of years ago...)
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
The BBC know full well what they’re doing here, and it’s appalling. Repeal of the FTPA was something in the manifesto in 2019, after that year showed that the FTPA was keeping in place a government unable to get anything done and couldn’t be removed.
Yet the BBC’s headline here, “Boris Johnson seeks for power to call election at any time”, makes it sound like a power grab and a dictatorship. The headline neglects to omit that the government will reintroduce the Parliament act. Judging by the Twitter replies, the headline’s done its job, as you’ve got people comparing him to Kim Jong-Un.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57090451
Yet the BBC’s headline here, “Boris Johnson seeks for power to call election at any time”, makes it sound like a power grab and a dictatorship. The headline neglects to omit that the government will reintroduce the Parliament act. Judging by the Twitter replies, the headline’s done its job, as you’ve got people comparing him to Kim Jong-Un.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57090451
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
As long as they continue to annoy both sides, I'm happy enough.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
- Location: Birmingham's Eastern Fleapit
Re: Politics in General
The BBC is a political Rorschach Test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test)
What you see in a story tells you a lot about views on that story. Replace Boris Johnson with Keir Starmer I wonder if there is a problem with it. Also, the Twittersphere comparing Boris to Kim Jong-Un is nowt new I imagine
N.B-Lest I sound like I'm calling anyone out, I'm not. I (a fervent republican) often view the BBC as having a pro-Monarchy bias. Overall, considering the tosh the Americans get, I'm grateful to have something that at least tries and the views of the Beeb make for an interesting comparison.
What you see in a story tells you a lot about views on that story. Replace Boris Johnson with Keir Starmer I wonder if there is a problem with it. Also, the Twittersphere comparing Boris to Kim Jong-Un is nowt new I imagine
N.B-Lest I sound like I'm calling anyone out, I'm not. I (a fervent republican) often view the BBC as having a pro-Monarchy bias. Overall, considering the tosh the Americans get, I'm grateful to have something that at least tries and the views of the Beeb make for an interesting comparison.
Last edited by Matt Rutherford on Thu May 13, 2021 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Vicar of Dudley*
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
The BBC have lots of biases but it isn't simple left/right. They have a high house price bias (right wing) but also a "woke" bias, seen as left wing.
Re: Politics in General
Deliberate capital R?
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
- Location: Birmingham's Eastern Fleapit
Re: Politics in General
No, fat finger capital R
I'm this republican-https://www.republic.org.uk/
I assure you not this-I'm a Christian who believes in evolution. I don't think they'd have me
The Vicar of Dudley*
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
- Location: Birmingham's Eastern Fleapit
Re: Politics in General
Is it less left-right and more London/South-East centric? Both of those match-London's woke-ness and the South East's obsession with house pricesGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:52 pm The BBC have lots of biases but it isn't simple left/right. They have a high house price bias (right wing) but also a "woke" bias, seen as left wing.
The Vicar of Dudley*
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
I'd much rather they report accurately, though.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:55 am As long as they continue to annoy both sides, I'm happy enough.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
The Fixed Term Parliament Act isn't worth the paper it's written on anyway. It might as well not exist.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Not much noise about anti Zionist Labour talk atm for some reason
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
The headline wasn't inaccurate.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 2:28 pmI'd much rather they report accurately, though.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:55 am As long as they continue to annoy both sides, I'm happy enough.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Maybe, dunno.Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:36 pmIs it less left-right and more London/South-East centric? Both of those match-London's woke-ness and the South East's obsession with house pricesGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:52 pm The BBC have lots of biases but it isn't simple left/right. They have a high house price bias (right wing) but also a "woke" bias, seen as left wing.
ALso, bias is about what they decide to report and give prominence to, not just how they report it. E.g. this came up as a top story on the BBC today. Do you consider it to be news?
Re: Politics in General
Well it's a newsbeat article. AIUI newsbeat's target demographic is a younger audience, so I guess if it's appearing as a top story, it's because people are engaging with it. Looking at the BBC news homepage, it's in the list on the right, not the main news articles which are basically covid and Israel.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:30 pmMaybe, dunno.Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:36 pmIs it less left-right and more London/South-East centric? Both of those match-London's woke-ness and the South East's obsession with house pricesGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:52 pm The BBC have lots of biases but it isn't simple left/right. They have a high house price bias (right wing) but also a "woke" bias, seen as left wing.
ALso, bias is about what they decide to report and give prominence to, not just how they report it. E.g. this came up as a top story on the BBC today. Do you consider it to be news?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
It was also under "top stories" on the app as well as "most read".Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 3:37 pmWell it's a newsbeat article. AIUI newsbeat's target demographic is a younger audience, so I guess if it's appearing as a top story, it's because people are engaging with it. Looking at the BBC news homepage, it's in the list on the right, not the main news articles which are basically covid and Israel.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:30 pmMaybe, dunno.Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:36 pm
Is it less left-right and more London/South-East centric? Both of those match-London's woke-ness and the South East's obsession with house prices
ALso, bias is about what they decide to report and give prominence to, not just how they report it. E.g. this came up as a top story on the BBC today. Do you consider it to be news?
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Cummings’s select committee appearance is fascinating. The media will inevitably talk about the bomb he threw at Hancock, but if you can be prepared to watch/read it, it’s such a fascinating insight into what he calls systematic Whitehall failure by pretty much everyone senior. Talks about “fundamental” groupthink problem, and that “obviously” the Civil Service is no longer fit for purpose.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I enjoyed Have I Got News For You last night.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 10:56 am Cummings’s select committee appearance is fascinating. The media will inevitably talk about the bomb he threw at Hancock, but if you can be prepared to watch/read it, it’s such a fascinating insight into what he calls systematic Whitehall failure by pretty much everyone senior. Talks about “fundamental” groupthink problem, and that “obviously” the Civil Service is no longer fit for purpose.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
What about the cricketer Ollie Robinsons' tweets then? I always find it slightly annoying that the BBC are always so vague about potentially offensive things, when really people just want to know, and you always have to go elsewhere to find the content.
Anyway, there is this Mirror article with a bit more information, but here is an image with some of his tweeting highlights in:
What do you think? Obviously tweets like this don't paint him in the best light but ultimately I don't think they're so bad that they should ruin his professional cricket career many years later.
You also have to be able to distinguish between people saying stuff for "shock value" or as a badly considered joke and someone actually holding bigoted views. Obviously he might be / might have been a massive bigot, but I don't think these tweets prove it.
By the way, the one about females who play video games - I see that as pretty much a non-event in any case. It just sounds like he's jumping the gun on his research project if anything. It's weird that it gets included when you look at the other stuff.
Anyway, there is this Mirror article with a bit more information, but here is an image with some of his tweeting highlights in:
What do you think? Obviously tweets like this don't paint him in the best light but ultimately I don't think they're so bad that they should ruin his professional cricket career many years later.
You also have to be able to distinguish between people saying stuff for "shock value" or as a badly considered joke and someone actually holding bigoted views. Obviously he might be / might have been a massive bigot, but I don't think these tweets prove it.
By the way, the one about females who play video games - I see that as pretty much a non-event in any case. It just sounds like he's jumping the gun on his research project if anything. It's weird that it gets included when you look at the other stuff.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
World gone mad.
Scrabble 400 words expigated on Scravble Go overnight without warning, cabt play JEW, ABO or FAG but FUCK and CUNT still acceptable
Footballers being compelled to take the knee
Everyones historical tweets under scrutiny.
With regards the tweets they have been available for 9 years why now
With regards these slur words its just Mattel box ticking
Scrabble 400 words expigated on Scravble Go overnight without warning, cabt play JEW, ABO or FAG but FUCK and CUNT still acceptable
Footballers being compelled to take the knee
Everyones historical tweets under scrutiny.
With regards the tweets they have been available for 9 years why now
With regards these slur words its just Mattel box ticking
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Ok maybe not completely mad
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579
Although the Equalities act might get a few racists and anti vaxers asking for their veliefs to be recognised
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579
Although the Equalities act might get a few racists and anti vaxers asking for their veliefs to be recognised
Last edited by Marc Meakin on Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Many of these are banterous and, whilst using "inappropriate" language, aren't malicious in any way...?
The ECB's modus operandii is guilty until proven innocent. They banned Ben Stokes whilst under investigation, even though he was later acquitted at a trial.
Michael Carberry has called for Robinson to be banned for life, which is just bizarre.
The ECB's modus operandii is guilty until proven innocent. They banned Ben Stokes whilst under investigation, even though he was later acquitted at a trial.
Michael Carberry has called for Robinson to be banned for life, which is just bizarre.
This is the crux of the issue. Robinson has been on the England "bench" for 12 months or so now, and has played county cricket for years.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:14 pmWith regards the tweets they have been available for 9 years why now
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I noticed that story as well. I think it's right. Well we've discussed these issues before. Someone's self-identified gender is different from their biological sex, which is a thing. People conflate the two. Apparently you can legally change your gender, but to be honest, I'm not sure there needs to be legal recognition of your gender - which is some vague nebulous concept anyway.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:17 pm Ok maybe not completely mad
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579
Although the Equalities act might get a few racists and anti vaxers asking for their veliefs to be recognised
I mean, if gender is something you can decide and not the same thing as sex, why does the law assume that it would match your sex anyway until you apply for it to change? It should be left blank.
Re: Politics in General
Compelled by who or what?
Compelled by a desire to show a display of solidarity with people suffering racist abuse?
How awful!
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Politics in General
Given that several teams have stopped making the gesture, and several individuals have spoken out saying they don't want to do it any more, it is extremely improbable that there aren't many individual footballers who currently feel that way about the gesture but feel compelled to continue making it because that is the position of their team, and it would look bad on them if they stood out as the only player not to do it.
Imagine if you were a footballer now at a high level with reservations over the effectiveness of the gesture of taking a knee. But your teammates still all seemed to be on board with it. If you choose not to do it while all your team did it then the sports media would focus on you intensely for days. Thus you would feel compelled to do it.
Basically, with a few exceptions, the decision to continue making the gesture or not has been a team one, not an individual one. Certainly not all of these team decisions will have been absolutely unanimous. Therefore there are individuals in the team who will feel compelled to do the gesture (or not do it) by their teammates' decision.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Re: Politics in General
Excellent points, well made. I suppose my question then, is that necessarily a bad thing?Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:42 amGiven that several teams have stopped making the gesture, and several individuals have spoken out saying they don't want to do it any more, it is extremely improbable that there aren't many individual footballers who currently feel that way about the gesture but feel compelled to continue making it because that is the position of their team, and it would look bad on them if they stood out as the only player not to do it.
Imagine if you were a footballer now at a high level with reservations over the effectiveness of the gesture of taking a knee. But your teammates still all seemed to be on board with it. If you choose not to do it while all your team did it then the sports media would focus on you intensely for days. Thus you would feel compelled to do it.
Basically, with a few exceptions, the decision to continue making the gesture or not has been a team one, not an individual one. Certainly not all of these team decisions will have been absolutely unanimous. Therefore there are individuals in the team who will feel compelled to do the gesture (or not do it) by their teammates' decision.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Im referring to taking the knee which is an act of a political organisatiin founded in Anerica
Whats wrong with stand up to racism and all clubs wearing this printed under their club badge and all players putting their hand of fist on it instead
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Politics in General
I think (although may be wrong) the act originated with Colin Kaepernick, predating the BLM movement (which I assume you're referring to).Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:14 amIm referring to taking the knee which is an act of a political organisatiin founded in Anerica
Whats wrong g with stand up to racism and all clubs wearing this printed under their club badge and all players putting their hand of fist on it instead
Tangentially, there have been people keen to stress that the act is a-political, presumably to distance it for BLM (the organisation). Whilst I understand the desire to separate it from that organisation (which I believe it is separate from), I don't necessarily think there is a need to claim it as a-political. If* the UK government has any failings regarding issues of racism, then the observation at the beginning of football matches potentially prompting change is explicitly political.
I say 'if' because, as the recent report stated, the UK government has no problems with racism whatsoever.
Re: Politics in General
BLM began in 2013 and Kaepernick first knelt in protest in 2016; but my impression is that the "movement" is far greater in size than any of its formally organised parts, and can't easily be distinguished from general anti-racism activism. To me, its opponents are rather too keen to make its most controversial elements the part that represents the whole. I'll happily respond to a survey and say I think the monarchy should be abolished; the fact that people who literally want to assassinate the royals might be joining me in that makes no difference.
Re: Politics in General
Exactly - I don't disagree with Callum as such, but there are many situations in life where it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that one felt compelled to do X or Y, but doing so would simply be seen as basic politeness.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Sorry to potentially bring the thread to a close but can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth as a prime example of feeling compelled to do sonething for fear of being ostracised or worse.
Like I said all teams should have an ant racist slogan on their shirt and no grand gestures required
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Politics in General
HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaMarc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:25 am can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth
Hahahahahahaha
Re: Politics in General
To be honest, it sounds like you knew on some level that this was a ridiculous point - so why go ahead and post it anyway?Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:25 am can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I was taking it to an illogical conclusionPhil H wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:21 pmTo be honest, it sounds like you knew on some level that this was a ridiculous point - so why go ahead and post it anyway?Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:25 am can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth
Croatia didnt take the knee today, does that make them racist?
If tmyou ignore simicial media which are full of keyboard warrier scum, racsm in football has declined a great since the dark days of the seventies
Raxism is far worse in America
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I think it's legitimate to question whether taking the knee is the best thing to do before each match, regardless of what you ultimately conclude.
Some stuff I've seen online is very simplistic. Basically if you're against it, you're racist. Which is ridiculous really. I think people in the crowd who actually boo their own team for taking the knee are behaving ridiculously though - it's not the way to disagree with it.
But anyway, the idea is that we want to get rid of racism and if you want to do that, it's best to be inclusive about it. Labelling people who don't like your way of going about it as racist is not going to help the situation. It should not be "us and them". I'm willing to bet that very few people actually see themselves as racist, even if a lot of people do or say things that might make you question this about them. People who says things like "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" - you really should be looking at the context and asking why these people are saying these things rather than just labelling them as racist. The same with people who are against taking the knee.
If you say "Black lives matter" and someone repsonds with "white/all lives matter", don't call them a racist. Respond more reasonably. This is something I found with 4 seconds of Googling, which is a better approach.
Basically what I'm saying is that to combat racism, you need to get people willingly on board. It's about changing the attitudes of people who don't already agree with you. If taking the knee is something that you think will do that then fine; if not, then question what it's for.
Is it a bad thing? Well, it could potentially be a fake show of solidarity on the issue, which might be considered a bad thing.
Some stuff I've seen online is very simplistic. Basically if you're against it, you're racist. Which is ridiculous really. I think people in the crowd who actually boo their own team for taking the knee are behaving ridiculously though - it's not the way to disagree with it.
But anyway, the idea is that we want to get rid of racism and if you want to do that, it's best to be inclusive about it. Labelling people who don't like your way of going about it as racist is not going to help the situation. It should not be "us and them". I'm willing to bet that very few people actually see themselves as racist, even if a lot of people do or say things that might make you question this about them. People who says things like "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" - you really should be looking at the context and asking why these people are saying these things rather than just labelling them as racist. The same with people who are against taking the knee.
If you say "Black lives matter" and someone repsonds with "white/all lives matter", don't call them a racist. Respond more reasonably. This is something I found with 4 seconds of Googling, which is a better approach.
Basically what I'm saying is that to combat racism, you need to get people willingly on board. It's about changing the attitudes of people who don't already agree with you. If taking the knee is something that you think will do that then fine; if not, then question what it's for.
I was talking to a friend last week and said that given how many people are against taking the knee, it does seem a bit of a "coincidence" that the entire English team is for it.Noel Mc wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 amExcellent points, well made. I suppose my question then, is that necessarily a bad thing?Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:42 am
Given that several teams have stopped making the gesture, and several individuals have spoken out saying they don't want to do it any more, it is extremely improbable that there aren't many individual footballers who currently feel that way about the gesture but feel compelled to continue making it because that is the position of their team, and it would look bad on them if they stood out as the only player not to do it.
Imagine if you were a footballer now at a high level with reservations over the effectiveness of the gesture of taking a knee. But your teammates still all seemed to be on board with it. If you choose not to do it while all your team did it then the sports media would focus on you intensely for days. Thus you would feel compelled to do it.
Basically, with a few exceptions, the decision to continue making the gesture or not has been a team one, not an individual one. Certainly not all of these team decisions will have been absolutely unanimous. Therefore there are individuals in the team who will feel compelled to do the gesture (or not do it) by their teammates' decision.
Is it a bad thing? Well, it could potentially be a fake show of solidarity on the issue, which might be considered a bad thing.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Politics in General
Compelled speech on a philosophical, political, or moral topic is a bad thing, yes. This is not the same as going along with something more trivial out of politeness. So what does taking the knee 'say' ? If something, it's compelled speech when people feel compelled to do it. If nothing, then why do it?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
The issue is that kneeling has been appropriated by Black Lives Matter (the organisation) which, like Extinction Rebellion, have managed to poison what should be an almost universal cause by diluting it with “tHe eNd oF cApItAlIsM” et al.
At Edgbaston this week there was a “test” event for the Test Match - a crowd of 18,000 all tested on arrival - and England didn’t kneel, but did do an anti-racism gesture. Edgbaston crowds are infamously football-ish. And there was no booing at all.
It appears the English football team have not considered doing something less controversial than kneeling, which is an oversight.
At Edgbaston this week there was a “test” event for the Test Match - a crowd of 18,000 all tested on arrival - and England didn’t kneel, but did do an anti-racism gesture. Edgbaston crowds are infamously football-ish. And there was no booing at all.
It appears the English football team have not considered doing something less controversial than kneeling, which is an oversight.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Callum just won the internet.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:19 pm Compelled speech on a philosophical, political, or moral topic is a bad thing, yes. This is not the same as going along with something more trivial out of politeness. So what does taking the knee 'say' ? If something, it's compelled speech when people feel compelled to do it. If nothing, then why do it?
There is no counter argument to this.
S:778-ochamp
Re: Politics in General
Very eloquent, hard to disagree with.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:19 pm Compelled speech on a philosophical, political, or moral topic is a bad thing, yes. This is not the same as going along with something more trivial out of politeness. So what does taking the knee 'say' ? If something, it's compelled speech when people feel compelled to do it. If nothing, then why do it?
The main retort I would have (and obviously can be disagreed with) is that there isn't concrete evidence that any of the England players (assuming that's who we're talking about) are being compelled to do it.
As you say, there have been instances reported of players not joining in (namely Wilfred Zaha). He received no ill-will in doing so. As you say, on the balance of probabilities, it's likely that there are players who feel they have to go along with it, but technically we have no concrete evidence of it.
That said, all the other arguments which have been presented as to why it is such an awful thing, are totally ludicrous.
The means by which a small (but annoyingly loud) minority have disagreed with the act is fairly disgraceful. Some of the arguments being put forward I either agree with (like Callum's) or else, whilst disagreeing with, understand and at least see the logic (like Rhys' for example).
The booing at the start of games seems just like a mirror instance of the kneeling, with which Callum's argument about compulsion can also be attributed.
I could maybe rephrase my question as:
"Is it bad to be compelled to do something, for example A - kneeling and B - booing"
My answer would probably be 'its not good no [see Callum's argument] but one is undoubtedly worse than the other [A].
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Politics in General
I can only imagine that the people who think some of the team are "just going along with it" have not been involved in team sports before. It's most likely that this group have sat inside a room and come to a consensus that they are happy to project. Those who had no view before have likely been persuaded of the arguments - let's face it, it's pretty easy to persuade people to make an anti-racist gesture. Zaha hasn't been vilified for making his own gesture for the same cause, and if he was in the England team, he would stand and everyone would respect it.
Singing a few football chants does not make England cricket fans anything like England football fans. Bear in mind that the people who are getting tickets to these games are the hard core of England football fans - it's not a proportionally smaller version of the usual Wembley crowd. It's a distillation of the chair-throwing, city square-occupying, national anthem-booing, vindaloo-snorting, knuckle-dragging twat brigade, and their racist (yes, they are racist) voices are getting hugely disproportionate airtime.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:03 pm At Edgbaston this week there was a “test” event for the Test Match - a crowd of 18,000 all tested on arrival - and England didn’t kneel, but did do an anti-racism gesture. Edgbaston crowds are infamously football-ish. And there was no booing at all.
Re: Politics in General
I'll admit before I continue that I do wonder how long the kneeling will go on, and part of me hoped that it would end after this season, which now looks unlikely, and I've also wondered if it might elevate one form of inequality to the exclusion of others.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:19 pm Compelled speech on a philosophical, political, or moral topic is a bad thing, yes. This is not the same as going along with something more trivial out of politeness. So what does taking the knee 'say' ? If something, it's compelled speech when people feel compelled to do it. If nothing, then why do it?
That said, I do actually disagree with Callum's point above - it might seem fine in principle, but in real life there are different degrees to it. "Compelled speech" arguably means something more active than joining others in taking the knee; if players were expected to take it in turn to front campaigns each month on decolonising the curriculum, asking fans to contribute to US bail funds, etc., that'd be more recognisable as "compulsion".
Well, what it definitely says is "people of colour deserve exactly the same respect as white people", and probably in some cases "this is important to my teammates who are more affected than me by this issue; my teammates are important to me, so I'll support them in this".
I have opinions about the royals, the UK national anthem, poppies and so on which many people disagree with. Generally I wouldn't sing God Save The Queen or wear poppies; I might have had a dilemma if I was expected to wear a poppy on Countdown, although I would probably begrudgingly go along with it if they insisted; but I think I'd wear a poppy if attending the funeral of an army officer where other people were doing so. Equally, I (of course) don't break the minute's silence if I go to football during remembrance fortnight or soon after a royal death.
To add to what I said in one of my other recent posts, I think it's worth noting that a search for "Marx", "Marxist", "Marxism" or "Western" on blacklivesmatter.com turns up 0 results, and "capitalism" only a sliver; one result for the latter encourages people to spend money specifically on black-owned businesses. You may well disagree with that, but it indicates that they're not opposed to capitalism per se; more to what they see as the white supremacism embedded in its current form. Moreover, I don't think any of the organised BLM groups are formally linked, and while the site I referenced might be seen as the "main" BLM website, none of the 100s/1000s of other groups can necessarily be held responsible for anything it says.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:03 pm The issue is that kneeling has been appropriated by Black Lives Matter (the organisation) which, like Extinction Rebellion, have managed to poison what should be an almost universal cause by diluting it with “tHe eNd oF cApItAlIsM” et al.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:40 pm
Basically what I'm saying is that to combat racism, you need to get people willingly on board. It's about changing the attitudes of people who don't already agree with you.
I have a bit more sympathy with this argument, although the obvious counter-argument would be that watering down their message would be allowing their opponents - some of whom are indeed being unambiguous bigots - to control the argument. The Pride movement has carried on and it's a lot less common than it used to be to hear "why do they have to make such a song and dance about being gay?"Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:03 pm
It appears the English football team have not considered doing something less controversial than kneeling, which is an oversight.
I certainly don't think binning the knee immediately after they were booed for the first time was any kind of option for the England football team.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Wearing of poppies on football shirts have been outlawed because Eufa and FIFA considered it a political statement.
So if taking the knee is aligned with BLM a Marxist political organisation then equally should be outlawed.
I maintain that stand up to racism and other initiatives that the FA have indorsed should be adopted instead.
Going backed to being compelled to do something.
There was a game between England and Germany in Berlin in the late 1930s where the England team were compelled to give the Nazi Salute.
(this falls ouside the parameters of Goodwins law i think)
So if taking the knee is aligned with BLM a Marxist political organisation then equally should be outlawed.
I maintain that stand up to racism and other initiatives that the FA have indorsed should be adopted instead.
Going backed to being compelled to do something.
There was a game between England and Germany in Berlin in the late 1930s where the England team were compelled to give the Nazi Salute.
(this falls ouside the parameters of Goodwins law i think)
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Since this just became a challenge, I would say that the meaning behind taking the knee here is just an anti-racist message, which I don't expect any of the team to disagree with. I think any disagreement comes from how you send the message - whether you take the knee or do something else. So I don't think anyone is being compelled to make a statement that they disagree with, but they might disagree with the "wording".L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:16 amCallum just won the internet.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:19 pm Compelled speech on a philosophical, political, or moral topic is a bad thing, yes. This is not the same as going along with something more trivial out of politeness. So what does taking the knee 'say' ? If something, it's compelled speech when people feel compelled to do it. If nothing, then why do it?
There is no counter argument to this.
Maybe you're right. But I've often found in meetings (not necessarily sport team meetings but generally), quite a few people just say nothing and don't necessarily like speaking out in a group.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:57 am I can only imagine that the people who think some of the team are "just going along with it" have not been involved in team sports before. It's most likely that this group have sat inside a room and come to a consensus that they are happy to project. Those who had no view before have likely been persuaded of the arguments - let's face it, it's pretty easy to persuade people to make an anti-racist gesture. Zaha hasn't been vilified for making his own gesture for the same cause, and if he was in the England team, he would stand and everyone would respect it.
I definitely agree with this. Once you commit to it, you can't then just give in to the booing.
I'm not against taking the knee by the way, but I think it's open for questioning and that's what we're doing here.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
The other thing I would say is that taking the knee is particularly associated with Black Lives Matter, rather than racism more generally, even if it might be the aim of theEngland football team for it to be about taking a stand against all forms of racism. So you could argue that the message isn't as strong if people are less clear about exactly what it means.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Politics in General
The FA have been crystal clear on this.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:31 am The other thing I would say is that taking the knee is particularly associated with Black Lives Matter, rather than racism more generally, even if it might be the aim of theEngland football team for it to be about taking a stand against all forms of racism. So you could argue that the message isn't as strong if people are less clear about exactly what it means.
Southgate has been crystal clear on this.
The players have been crystal clear on this. (I can't be bothered to find all the examples.)
I'm sure you're not aware of the above statements but the argument you have just presented sounds exactly like those who are masking their real reasons for protesting the gesture.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
It's not exactly explicit. Protesting against anti-black racism could be described like that.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:42 amThe FA have been crystal clear on this.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:31 am The other thing I would say is that taking the knee is particularly associated with Black Lives Matter, rather than racism more generally, even if it might be the aim of theEngland football team for it to be about taking a stand against all forms of racism. So you could argue that the message isn't as strong if people are less clear about exactly what it means.
They are doing this as a mechanism of peacefully protesting against discrimination, injustice, and inequality. This is personally important to the players and the values the team collectively represents.
He doesn't say what it's about. He says it's not a political stand, so nothing to do with any "Marxism" or anything else that people are accusing it of. But that's not to say that it's an inclusive anti-discrimination thing. Regardless of politics, it's still associated with black people rather than anti-racism or anti-discrimination more generally, and he hasn't addressed thatSouthgate has been crystal clear on this.Some people seem to think it's a political stand that they don't agree with. That's not the reason that the players are doing it. We're supporting each other.
There's no content there to discuss.
Edit - My point wasn't about people thinking it's to do with some political movement, but about it being about anti-black racism.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Politics in General
Ok, my point is that everyone has been very explicit that the England football team taking the knee nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter organisation, and those that argue that it either is something to do with BLM the organisation, or that the messaging has been unclear, are deliberately masking their true reasons for booing the knee.
Re: Politics in General
There's no law against me farting in Priti Patel's face, so I'm sure she'd defend my right to do so.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 65409.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 65409.html
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...?
No matter what England say, that particular gesture has become linked with the BLM organisation. Remember that in June last year Sky Sports removed "Black Lives Matter" branding from its content (replacing it with the Kick It Out and No Room For Racism charities) when @UKBLM tweeted a load of, er, controversial wording, shall we say, about Israel. Whatever one's views on Israel, the point here is it is crashingly irrelevant to their main cause, just as Extinction Rebellion walked around London last year with placards reading "socialism or extinction".
England can say "it's not supporting BLM" as much as they like, but that's never, ever going to cut through.
No matter what England say, that particular gesture has become linked with the BLM organisation. Remember that in June last year Sky Sports removed "Black Lives Matter" branding from its content (replacing it with the Kick It Out and No Room For Racism charities) when @UKBLM tweeted a load of, er, controversial wording, shall we say, about Israel. Whatever one's views on Israel, the point here is it is crashingly irrelevant to their main cause, just as Extinction Rebellion walked around London last year with placards reading "socialism or extinction".
England can say "it's not supporting BLM" as much as they like, but that's never, ever going to cut through.