This chant that we are getting grief for

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Maybe stop and think about it for yourself, because you're starting to come across a bit like people who insist that a golliwog is "just a harmless doll".

That's big step to accuse somebody of taking. A bit OTT for me.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

That's big step to accuse somebody of taking. A bit OTT for me.

It's a bit of a step... but not that big, really. You can explain to someone why something is just plain wrong, but it's up to them to decide whether to accept that or not.

[Mook]

27 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's a bit of a step... but not that big, really. You can explain to someone why something is just plain wrong, but it's up to them to decide whether to accept that or not.

 

Yes, thankfully we don't have to take any piece of text you copy and paste on to the forum as gospel & we are able to form our own opinions.

 

We can agree the song has no place at the games.

[s(k)aturation]

On 22/01/2023 at 20:37, rubble-rouser said:

Well said. Some of our fans are twats. We are getting the shitty end of the stick in a way, but whataboutery doesn’t help anything.

 

 

The problem with whataboutery is the same as the problem with retaliation and revenge.

 

A significant number of people will always conveniently think retaliation and revenge are justified responses to being offended against.

 

A significant number of people causing offence will always seek justification or mitigation by citing whataboutery.

 

The usual vicious circle of never solving problems.

 

 

 

 

 

[s(k)aturation]

Double post.

[3 Stacks]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's a bit of a step... but not that big, really. You can explain to someone why something is just plain wrong, but it's up to them to decide whether to accept that or not.

Could you explain why you so heavily defended Luis Suarez for using a term to a black person that could offend a black person because of cultural reasons, but you're also completely against this chant?

 

What if the people chanting it grew up in homophobic households?

[VladimirIlyich]

4 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Could you explain why you so heavily defended Luis Suarez for using a term to a black person that could offend a black person because of cultural reasons, but you're also completely against this chant?

 

What if the people chanting it grew up in homophobic households?

Now that is just stupid.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Could you explain why you so heavily defended Luis Suarez for using a term to a black person that could offend a black person because of cultural reasons, but you're also completely against this chant?

 

What if the people chanting it grew up in homophobic households?

The Spanish word that Suarez used was (according to both the language and culture expert witnesses called before the FA panel) neither racist nor abusive. Evra accepted their opinion as correct and so do I.

 

If someone grows up in a bigoted household, you just have to hope they grow out of it when they're an adult.

[3 Stacks]

5 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The Spanish word that Suarez used was (according to both the language and culture expert witnesses called before the FA panel) neither racist nor abusive. Evra accepted their opinion as correct and so do I.

 

If someone grows up in a bigoted household, you just have to hope they grow out of it when they're an adult.

Could you link that part where Evra accepted it?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

18 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Could you link that part where Evra accepted it?

Read the panel's report of their reasons, that way you might know what you're talking about. It's good to know what you're talking about before you start flinging shit.

 

The report says Evra initially thought the Spanish word negro was equivalent to the French racist insult nègre, and that he now accepts that it's not a racist insult.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Could you link that part where Evra accepted it?

No link, but if you Google something like "FA report reasons Suarez Evra" you can download a pdf of the full report.  It's the strongest case anyone can make against Suarez, and it adds up to fuck all.  You really should read it some time.

[SasaS]

4 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Read the panel's report of their reasons, that way you might know what you're talking about. It's good to know what you're talking about before you start flinging shit.

 

The report says Evra initially thought the Spanish word negro was equivalent to the French racist insult nègre, and that he now accepts that it's not a racist insult.

 

Wait, so why did they ban him for 8 games then and fine him, and what was the handshakegate all about?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

16 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Wait, so why did they ban him for 8 games then and fine him, and what was the handshakegate all about?

They banned him for 8 games because they're incompetent shitwits with more interest in being seen to do something than in getting stuff right.

 

The handshake thing was what you can see on the video: Evra lowered his hand when Suarez approached to shake it, but then kicked off when Suarez moved along.  Nobody knows why Evra did that, but my guess is it's because he's a cunt.

[3 Stacks]

4 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Read the panel's report of their reasons, that way you might know what you're talking about. It's good to know what you're talking about before you start flinging shit.

 

The report says Evra initially thought the Spanish word negro was equivalent to the French racist insult nègre, and that he now accepts that it's not a racist insult.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/patrice-evra-exclusive-i-saw-luis-suarez-in-selfridges-after-the-incident-my-brother-wanted-us-to-have-it-out

 

"I don’t know if Luis is a racist or not, but what he said to me that day was definitely racist, and that’s why he was punished."

 

Wow yeah, seems like he really accepted it. 

 

Wouldn't mind if we had less of this sort of hypocrisy.

[SasaS]

58 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

They banned him for 8 games because they're incompetent shitwits with more interest in being seen to do something than in getting stuff right.

 

The handshake thing was what you can see on the video: Evra lowered his hand when Suarez approached to shake it, but then kicked off when Suarez moved along.  Nobody knows why Evra did that, but my guess is it's because he's a cunt.

 

No, I think they banned him (mostly) because two elements were present, context, which allows interpretation and the complaint from the injured party (therefore there was no way for them to clear him). Which is actually very similar to why "Chelsea rent boys" chant is now banned, gay fans feel it is offensive and interpretation (which you I think posted) allows to put it in the historic or not context of homophobia.

 

So Stacsy may be on to something here, (although he  would probably disagree with my reasoning).

[SasaS]

Just now, SasaS said:

 

No, I think they banned him (mostly) because two elements were present, context, which allows interpretation and the complaint from the injured party (therefore there was no way for them to clear him). Which is actually very similar to why "Chelsea rent boys" chant is now banned, gay fans feel it is offensive and interpretation (which you I think posted) allows to put it in the (historic or not) context of homophobia.

 

So Stacsy may be on to something here, (although he  would probably disagree with my reasoning).

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, 3 Stacks said:

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/patrice-evra-exclusive-i-saw-luis-suarez-in-selfridges-after-the-incident-my-brother-wanted-us-to-have-it-out

 

"I don’t know if Luis is a racist or not, but what he said to me that day was definitely racist, and that’s why he was punished."

 

Wow yeah, seems like he really accepted it. 

 

Wouldn't mind if we had less of this sort of hypocrisy.

**BREAKING NEWS**

 

Evra still claims that Suarez said racist stuff!

 

Jesus, you're such a dense, tiresome gobshite. Obviously the stuff that Evra (and Evra alone) claims Suarez said would have been racist if he'd actually said it (and I'd have been the first to call for him to be booted out of our club if he'd said it).  But the one word Suarez did say isn't racist; a fact accepted by Evra.

[3 Stacks]

10 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

**BREAKING NEWS**

 

Evra still claims that Suarez said racist stuff!

 

Jesus, you're such a dense, tiresome gobshite. Obviously the stuff that Evra (and Evra alone) claims Suarez said would have been racist if he'd actually said it (and I'd have been the first to call for him to be booted out of our club if he'd said it).  But the one word Suarez did say isn't racist; a fact accepted by Evra.

Man, shut the fuck up. 

 

The reason this chant is rightly being eradicated is because there is a group that find it offensive. You are militating for this, while at the same time, defending an incident where a black person got angry because he found something that was said to him offensive. It's ostensibly the same situation and to see a Liverpool fan try to defend one and grandstand on the other is pathetic. 

 

Grow a pair, admit your biases and get off your high horse.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

No, I think they banned him (mostly) because two elements were present, context, which allows interpretation and the complaint from the injured party (therefore there was no way for them to clear him). Which is actually very similar to why "Chelsea rent boys" chant is now banned, gay fans feel it is offensive and interpretation (which you I think posted) allows to put it in the historic or not context of homophobia.

 

So Stacsy may be on to something here, (although he  would probably disagree with my reasoning).

I'll say the same to you: read the report.

 

The panel called him guilty on 7 counts.

 

The first 5 are Evra's word against Suarez's. Evra's fourth & final version of events of what was said in the penalty box would undoubtedly be racist if Suarez had said it.  There's no audio or video evidence or any witnesses to support the allegations, but the panel - who say in their report that this is too important to just take one man's word against the other - took Evra's word over Suarez's.

 

The sixth count relates to the one word that nobody denies was said, as the two players were walking towards the referee.  Obviously, the expert witnesses took the context into consideration; the report contains a discussion of the contexts in which that word can be used as a racist insult and concluded that in this instance it was neither insulting nor racist.  Far from there being "no way for them to clear him", there's no way for them to (legitimately) call him guilty on this count, when it's clear he never breached any laws.  As for the complaint from Evra, that demands an investigation; it obviously doesn't demand a guilty verdict. He was offended because he thought the word meant something that it just doesn't. I'd compare it to Tom Adeyemi thinking he'd been called a "black bastard", but the investigation found evidence that he'd been called a "Manc bastard". Neither complaint merits a guilty verdict.

 

(As an aside, after Suarez had used the word negro, Evra immediately complained to the ref "he called me black".  The ref ignored him and later said that he hadn't heard.  I do wonder whether the ref could have dealt with it then and there and it might not have blown up so ridiculously.)

 

The seventh count is my favourite. As the two players were walking away from the ref, they were still bickering. Neither player claims that anything remotely racist was said at this point and, obviously, there's no evidence of or witnesses to anything racist, because nothing racist was said. Still, the panel decided to say that Suarez must have said something racist, because... well, he's a racist, isn't he!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Man, shut the fuck up. 

 

The reason this chant is rightly being eradicated is because there is a group that find it offensive. You are militating for this, while at the same time, defending an incident where a black person got angry because he found something that was said to him offensive. It's ostensibly the same situation and to see a Liverpool fan try to defend one and grandstand on the other is pathetic. 

 

Grow a pair, admit your biases and get off your high horse.  

It is really not the same situation at all.

 

I'd compare us dropping the "rent boys" chant to Dolly Parton or The Chicks deciding to drop the word "Dixie".  Once we realise that it's offending people we don't intend to offend, we stop doing it because we'd be twats to continue.

 

The Evra/Suarez thing is almost the exact opposite.  Evra thought that the word was racist and offensive (because his Spanish, at the time, at least) wasn't fluent enough for him to understand every word.  Once it was explained to him, by two experts in South American language and culture, that it was neither racist nor insulting, he accepted that. It's just perverse that the panel didn't accept the opinions of their own experts.

 

Read the report before deciding to rake this up again.

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I'll say the same to you: read the report.

 

The panel called him guilty on 7 counts.

 

The first 5 are Evra's word against Suarez's. Evra's fourth & final version of events of what was said in the penalty box would undoubtedly be racist if Suarez had said it.  There's no audio or video evidence or any witnesses to support the allegations, but the panel - who say in their report that this is too important to just take one man's word against the other - took Evra's word over Suarez's.

 

The sixth count relates to the one word that nobody denies was said, as the two players were walking towards the referee.  Obviously, the expert witnesses took the context into consideration; the report contains a discussion of the contexts in which that word can be used as a racist insult and concluded that in this instance it was neither insulting nor racist.  Far from there being "no way for them to clear him", there's no way for them to (legitimately) call him guilty on this count, when it's clear he never breached any laws.  As for the complaint from Evra, that demands an investigation; it obviously doesn't demand a guilty verdict. He was offended because he thought the word meant something that it just doesn't. I'd compare it to Tom Adeyemi thinking he'd been called a "black bastard", but the investigation found evidence that he'd been called a "Manc bastard". Neither complaint merits a guilty verdict.

 

(As an aside, after Suarez had used the word negro, Evra immediately complained to the ref "he called me black".  The ref ignored him and later said that he hadn't heard.  I do wonder whether the ref could have dealt with it then and there and it might not have blown up so ridiculously.)

 

The seventh count is my favourite. As the two players were walking away from the ref, they were still bickering. Neither player claims that anything remotely racist was said at this point and, obviously, there's no evidence of or witnesses to anything racist, because nothing racist was said. Still, the panel decided to say that Suarez must have said something racist, because... well, he's a racist, isn't he!

 

He was (deemed) guilty because he made a mistake of admitting he called him a negro in Spanish whilst they were bickering, which means he alluded to the colour of his skin (well, race, which you don't think exists so I will use skin colour) in an attempt to get under his skin, and that can be interpreted as racist. Plus, Evra was offended and complained.

 

More or less the only way you can be cleared from accusation of any "ism" now is on factual grounds, that you didn't say what you are accused of (Manc not black in your example), if there is an offended party, nobody will ever clear you by interpreting your words as not offensive. Which is the approach I (unlike your) mostly disagree with, and I think you are applying it selectively (inconsistently) here (when you told someone a few pages back (paraphrasing here) that no interpretation-discussion of the chant is necessary, because (gay) people find it offensive).    

[Poor Scouser T]

I understand if it offends people it should stop. No argument.

What about fat people, gingers, people with glasses, small people, tall people, bald people, cross eyed people, speech impediments etc? Where do we stop? Is we can see you holding hands to Brighton homophobic? Should we not laugh at Harry Kane? How about stuff stand up comedians come out with, routinely, is that hate speech? Eating meat in front of a fundamentalist vegetarian to piss them off, is that a criminal offence?

 

Yes if is offensive to someone it should stop. No question. It is a question of decency. For me it is not a criminal matter. I can call you a cunt but not a rent boy?  Makes no sense.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

He was (deemed) guilty because he made a mistake of admitting he called him a negro in Spanish whilst they were bickering, which means he alluded to the colour of his skin (well, race, which you don't think exists so I will use skin colour) in an attempt to get under his skin, and that can be interpreted as racist. Plus, Evra was offended and complained.

 

More or less the only way you can be cleared from accusation of any "ism" now is on factual grounds, that you didn't say what you are accused of (Manc not black in your example), if there is an offended party, nobody will ever clear you by interpreting your words as not offensive. Which is the approach I (unlike your) mostly disagree with, and I think you are applying it selectively (inconsistently) here (when you told someone a few pages back (paraphrasing here) that no interpretation-discussion of the chant is necessary, because (gay) people find it offensive).    

Different words mean different things in different languages.

 

In English, calling someone a "rent boy" as an insult has homophobic connotations. Most of us were thoughtlessly unaware of that, but now we know it's obviously right that we stop it.

 

In Spanish, addressing someone as negro is no more insulting or racist than addressing them as rubio or flaco or any other adjective used in that way.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

I understand if it offends people it should stop. No argument.

What about fat people, gingers, people with glasses, small people, tall people, bald people, cross eyed people, speech impediments etc? Where do we stop? Is we can see you holding hands to Brighton homophobic? Should we not laugh at Harry Kane? How about stuff stand up comedians come out with, routinely, is that hate speech? Eating meat in front of a fundamentalist vegetarian to piss them off, is that a criminal offence?

 

Yes if is offensive to someone it should stop. No question. It is a question of decency. For me it is not a criminal matter. I can call you a cunt but not a rent boy?  Makes no sense.

Try the Equalities Act 2010.

 

It makes sense.

[Poor Scouser T]

I've been in workplace meetings at quite senior levels were fellow attendees have been reminded to check their wallets at the end of the meeting after introducing the scouser. Check your hub caps etc, We've all had them and it fucks me off but we all shrug it off