Politics in General

[Gavin Chipper]

The Fixed Term Parliament Act isn't worth the paper it's written on anyway. It might as well not exist.

[Marc Meakin]

Not much noise about anti Zionist Labour talk atm for some reason

[Ian Volante]

As long as they continue to annoy both sides, I'm happy enough.

I'd much rather they report accurately, though.

The headline wasn't inaccurate.

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

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

Maybe, dunno.

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?

[Fiona T]

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.

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

Maybe, dunno.

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?

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]

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

Maybe, dunno.

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?

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.

It was also under "top stories" on the app as well as "most read".

[Rhys Benjamin]

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.

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

I enjoyed Have I Got News For You last night.

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

[Marc Meakin]

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

[Marc Meakin]

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

[Rhys Benjamin]

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.

With regards the tweets they have been available for 9 years why now

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.

[Gavin Chipper]

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 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.

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.

[Noel Mc]

Footballers being compelled to take the knee

Compelled by who or what?
Compelled by a desire to show a display of solidarity with people suffering racist abuse?
How awful!

[Callum Todd]

Footballers being compelled to take the knee

Compelled by who or what?
Compelled by a desire to show a display of solidarity with people suffering racist abuse?
How awful!

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.

[Noel Mc]

Footballers being compelled to take the knee

Compelled by who or what?
Compelled by a desire to show a display of solidarity with people suffering racist abuse?
How awful!

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.

Excellent points, well made. I suppose my question then, is that necessarily a bad thing?

[Marc Meakin]

Footballers being compelled to take the knee

Compelled by who or what?
Compelled by a desire to show a display of solidarity with people suffering racist abuse?
How awful!

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

[Noel Mc]

Footballers being compelled to take the knee

Compelled by who or what?
Compelled by a desire to show a display of solidarity with people suffering racist abuse?
How awful!

Im 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

I think (although may be wrong) the act originated with Colin Kaepernick, predating the BLM movement (which I assume you're referring to).

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.

[Phil H]

I think (although may be wrong) the act originated with Colin Kaepernick, predating the BLM movement (which I assume you're referring to).

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.

[Phil H]

Excellent points, well made. I suppose my question then, is that necessarily a bad thing?

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.

[Marc Meakin]

Excellent points, well made. I suppose my question then, is that necessarily a bad thing?

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.

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

[Noel Mc]

can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



Hahahahahahaha

[Phil H]

can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth

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]

can i mention the compulsion for young Germans to join the Hitler youth

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?

I was taking it to an illogical conclusion
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

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

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.

Excellent points, well made. I suppose my question then, is that necessarily a bad thing?

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.

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]

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?

[Rhys Benjamin]

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.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

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?

Callum just won the internet.
There is no counter argument to this.

[Noel Mc]

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?

Very eloquent, hard to disagree with.
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]

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.

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.

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.

[Phil H]

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?

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.

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".

what does taking the knee 'say' ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

It appears the English football team have not considered doing something less controversial than kneeling, which is an oversight.

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?"

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.

[Marc Meakin]

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)

[Gavin Chipper]

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?

Callum just won the internet.
There is no counter argument to this.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gavin Chipper]

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]

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.

The FA have been crystal clear on this.
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.

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

The FA have been crystal clear on this.

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.

It's not exactly explicit. Protesting against anti-black racism could be described like that.

Southgate 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.

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 that

The players have been crystal clear on this. (I can't be bothered to find all the examples.)

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]

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.

[Phil H]

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

[Rhys Benjamin]

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.

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

Yeah, fair enough. I don't really exactly follow football closely anyway. But it was pretty obvious to me that it's not about the BLM organisation.

But my (poorly made) point was that people might think it's about specifically anti-black racism rather than racism or discrimination more generally.

But if you had to summarise the message, what would you say it is?

[Gavin Chipper]

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.

You could argue that if a gesture is particularly associated with x, then to use it to mean y makes it open to misunderundering or deliberate conflation. So maybe a different gesture and everyone's happy? I'm not sure about the history of the gesture anyway. Maybe I should look it up. It's not as if BLM invented it anyway so maybe it's wrong to automatically associate it with them.

[Rhys Benjamin]

It's not as if BLM invented it anyway so maybe it's wrong to automatically associate it with them.

True. But it's not as though the Nazis invented the swastika.

[Noel Mc]

It's not as if BLM invented it anyway so maybe it's wrong to automatically associate it with them.

True. But it's not as though the Nazis invented the swastika.

Swastikas are a far more specific symbol than kneeling.
Id say over 90% of people would automatically think of Nazism if they saw a Swastika. If you show a picture of someone kneeling, I would be amazed if anywhere near 90% thought of BLM (at least automatically). I know I wouldn't.




(Totally different discussion, which we'll not get in to, but Marxism as a philosophy - it's not too bad, is it? )

[Marc Meakin]

It's not as if BLM invented it anyway so maybe it's wrong to automatically associate it with them.

True. But it's not as though the Nazis invented the swastika.

Swastikas are a far more specific symbol than kneeling.
Id say over 90% of people would automatically think of Nazism if they saw a Swastika. If you show a picture of someone kneeling, I would be amazed if anywhere near 90% thought of BLM (at least automatically). I know I wouldn't.




(Totally different discussion, which we'll not get in to, but Marxism as a philosophy - it's not too bad, is it? )

You might have to speak up about Marxism they cant hear you back in the 1930s

[Callum Todd]

Just to clarify my comments, I was speaking generally about players taking the knee in high-level, widely broadcast football (basically the Premier League and international football so far as I have seen it for myself), and not specifically about the England team, where as far as I can tell everyone seems to be fully behind the gesture.

Just on the link between the gesture and BLM, it's pretty hard to be sure of this because clearly for some people the gesture and/or reaction to it are all about BLM and for some people they aren't to do with BLM at all. Also, as touched on in this thread, there isn't really much consensus on what 'BLM' means either.

Here's a recent BBC article that explicitly states that the gesture is being made by England footballers "to show solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement." Clearly it's not "obvious" to this journalist that the gesture has nothing to do with BLM.

[Noel Mc]

You might have to speak up about Marxism they cant hear you back in the 1930s

My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek, that's probably why they couldn't hear!

[Jon O'Neill]

Just on the link between the gesture and BLM, it's pretty hard to be sure of this because clearly for some people the gesture and/or reaction to it are all about BLM and for some people they aren't to do with BLM at all. Also, as touched on in this thread, there isn't really much consensus on what 'BLM' means either.

Here's a recent BBC article that explicitly states that the gesture is being made by England footballers "to show solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement." Clearly it's not "obvious" to this journalist that the gesture has nothing to do with BLM.

No, but you can be sure that this journalist is not suggesting that the England players are showing solidarity of the cause of ending capitalism, defunding the police, Marxism, free healthcare for all, or whatever else it is that they are supposed to stand for outside of their anti-racist message.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

No, but you can be sure that this journalist is not suggesting that the England players are showing solidarity of the cause of ending capitalism, defunding the police, Marxism, free healthcare for all, or whatever else it is that they are supposed to stand for outside of their anti-racist message.

Kneeling at the start of a sports match like this -that has become known as taking the knee, as premiered in 2016 by CK- has many of the connotations that you have listed above associated with it. There have often been anti-racism gestures in sport, they have not been booed. [e.g. players in the Euros pointing to the word "respect"] This one is being booed because of the negative connotations that are intrinsically associated with "taking the knee".

Anyone who is attempting to redefine what "taking the knee" represents, is fighting a losing battle... like trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I agree with whoever said that it is now too late to stop kneeling, as that would be giving in to the thugs who are booing. But they need to let Euro 2020 be the last time they use that particular gesture to raise awareness.

[Gavin Chipper]

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel (I know I've done that one before) has spoken on the subject. Basically she's pro booing.

[Marc Meakin]

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel (I know I've done that one before) has spoken on the subject. Basically she's pro booing.

I thought she was, anti, anti booing.

[Marc Meakin]

This made me chuckle
https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1405230124396695565

[Callum Todd]

This made me chuckle
https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1405230124396695565

Richard Madeley. Legend.

[Gavin Chipper]

It seems that white working class pupils have been let down. But this generally goes under-reported. And it shows how unhelpful and simplistic terms like "white privilege" are.

Edit - I wonder if Countdown will have a special "working class" edition?

[Gavin Chipper]

By the way, I'm a regular reader of New Scientist and they're certainly quite "woke", and they've announced an internship scheme for ethnic minority people (that they've done before). I've written them a letter (well, e-mail). They'll ignore it but whatever:

It is disappointing to read that you are again running an internship scheme exclusively for people from an ethnic minority background. While it may be the case that these people are under-represented in science journalism, this is not the way to address it. Opportunity in life is based on much more than someone's ethnic background, and addressing this means taking a more nuanced approach of looking at people as individuals and their own experiences and opportunities in life rather than as simply members of a group. Diversity should also mean more than diversity of skin colour. This also comes at a time when it has been highlighted that white pupils from a working class background fair worse than those from other ethnic groups. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-57558746

Edit - When I read about the scheme in the most recent issue, although it annoyed me, I wasn't going to write in. But then this news story came out so it seemed the perfect opportunity.

[Phil H]

It seems that white working class pupils have been let down. But this generally goes under-reported. And it shows how unhelpful and simplistic terms like "white privilege" are.

Edit - I wonder if Countdown will have a special "working class" edition?

Who had "Gev turns Tory mouthpiece" on their bingo card?

The "white working class pupils" point has been mentioned well beyond the point of tedium.

[Phil H]

"The report faced immediate opposition, including from among the committee's own members... [One member] said she disowned the report and had submitted her own alternative version, which was voted down by the Tory majority."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ion-report

But I do think it's at least open to debate how helpful a term "white privilege" is - this thread makes a convincing, and crucially, good-faith argument:

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1 ... 7601978377

[Gavin Chipper]

It seems that white working class pupils have been let down. But this generally goes under-reported. And it shows how unhelpful and simplistic terms like "white privilege" are.

Edit - I wonder if Countdown will have a special "working class" edition?

Who had "Gev turns Tory mouthpiece" on their bingo card?

Haha, well hopefully you did.

The "white working class pupils" point has been mentioned well beyond the point of tedium.

Has it though? Is it not an important issue that needs to be addressed as much as inequality against black people? When does that reach the point of tedium? Perhaps these are just very inconvenient statistics for those who have a very one-dimensional view of what inequality is.

But actually, I don't think we should really be focusing so much on the fact that these pupils are white. But I do see it as a reaction against the obsession with non-white ethnicity when it comes to inequality. Wealth/poverty is a bigger predictor of future outcome than ethnicity. So while that's a reason to not go on about white working class pupils, it's also a reason not to go on about white privilege. I see them as two sides of the same coin. And you can see my views on the matter in my letter to New Scientist, where I said that we should be treating people as individuals rather than just as members of a group.

"The report faced immediate opposition, including from among the committee's own members... [One member] said she disowned the report and had submitted her own alternative version, which was voted down by the Tory majority."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ion-report

From the Guardian article:

Maurice Mcleod, chief executive of the thinktank Race on the Agenda, rejected the report’s conclusions. “Today’s education committee report is just the latest government salvo in the culture war it seems hellbent on stoking,” he said.

“Instead of honestly accepting that children from all backgrounds have been badly let down by decades of neglect, this report attempts to create unhelpful divides between children based on their race.”

Without knowing the exact context, that could easily have been written by somebody on the "other side". It seems that the "woke" (e.g. New Scientist and Channel 4) and the "anti-woke" are as guilty as each other.

But I do think it's at least open to debate how helpful a term "white privilege" is - this thread makes a convincing, and crucially, good-faith argument:

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1 ... 7601978377

Yeah, interesting. I think it's just a poor term, because it seems designed to get people's backs up. And when you look at the complexities of it, such as the many white people living in poverty, what sort of reaction do you expect when using it?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Solving any and all inequalities is not going to happen by shouting "you're just privileged" as an excuse.

[Mark James]

Solving any and all inequalities is not going to happen by shouting "you're just privileged" as an excuse.

True. What it will actually take is properly funding education and social programmes through taxation and increasing wealth redistribution. You're for that right?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Solving any and all inequalities is not going to happen by shouting "you're just privileged" as an excuse.

True. What it will actually take is properly funding education and social programmes through taxation and increasing wealth redistribution. You're for that right?

I believe in a hand up, not a hand out. I also don't believe public sector programmes like those you're advocating for work effectively and a different approach is needed.

Taxation is legalised theft, and should be as low as feasibly possible.