Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - GiveItToTheShooters

#661
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 04:23:32 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 10, 2020, 04:16:57 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

That's not the lineman's fault though.

I don't think there is any need for that. As I said, the person should've been identified by his name, but if his name wasn't known, saying the black guy in a group of white people is not racism.

A manager came out in the wake of this incident and said he was referred to as the white guy when working in Africa. That wasn't (and isn't) deemed to be racist. It's all false outrage and double standards though when there is a black person involved.
Rather than dismissing it all as "false outrage" I think you'd be better placed to look at why black players are generally so on guard about potential racist incidents - it's because football has produced a litany of them and because the black players or staff themselves almost certainly have long experience of suffering from racial prejudice

I think it's quite understandable they reacted that way when they believed that a racist slur had been made

But I think the actual incident the other night was largely a misunderstanding

There is a problem with people on the internet jumping to conclusions and sticking to them at all costs which generally makes any sort of discussion around such incidents turn into a shitshow
It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

You're right on the McClean thing. Nine years now, and nothing has ever been done about the abuse that he gets. The FA's silence has been deafening for 9 years. F**kin' disgusting.

Its why I have no time for this taking the knee bullshit in football. You can't call a black man a 'black man' but McClean is anything you want to call him. You can f**k right off.
Exactly my point. Selective double standards that is doing more harm than good.
Agree on taking the knee as well, it's an empty gesture at this stage and is being forced on teams now, like their poppies every year too. Both of which shouldn't be in or be part of football.
If it was an empty gesture, there wouldn't be such opposition to it from racists, like at Millwall last weekend
There you go. You label those who don't wish to conform to the way the fake hysteria busybodies do things, like the Millwall fans. Are we now going to do a kneel before every sporting event for the rest of time? Why aren't we kneeling in solidarity for the racial abuse McClean suffers. Like the poppies, this gesture is now being forced upon football before any game. It has lost its credibility.
#662
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM

It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

1. No one would bat an eyelid if the roles were reversed because there is no lengthy history of discrimination against white people based on their race.
2. Black athletes were for years stereotyped as muscular, quick and unintelligent. Maybe, for the sake of argument, the reaction has gone too far in the other direction, but that's still better than the alternative.
3. What does fans abusing McClean have to do with the controversy over this game official? Racism is a worldwide problem. The abuse McClean gets, while terrible and something that should be dealt with, is one player making a political stand and the game struggling about what to do with it. I'd say McClean would be embarrassed to have his stance compared to what black people have and have had to deal with.
4. Snowperson... really, this type of silliness is what exercises you?
1. Doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose. It's either racist or it isn't. In this case it wasn't.
2.Banning saying a black player has pace is the result of the snowflake generation. It's not racist if it's true. This is what we're now having to deal with.
3. I'm highlighting the double standards between both incidents, obviously.
4. That is the type of language we are now being almost forced to use, as a result of the false outrage stemming from so called racial or discriminatory incidents.

I left out your conversation with Sid for space purposes.

1. It does matter. There is no historical context for a white person to get offended for being singled out or for having a racial label used against them. Whether or not the present issue is a misunderstanding is not what I'm talking about. Demba Ba and the coach MAY have been mistaken. But at least there is a reason WHY they could have misunderstood and been offended. There would be none for a white person.
2. Again, it may be an overcorrection. Still better than the alternative. Eventually we'll hopefully get to a place where it won't be a potential issue of controversy anymore.
3. There are tons of issues that don't get addressed or for which hypocrisy exists. We haven't had, to my knowledge, any active players come out as gay in top-level soccer. The first ones who do will most probably be subject to a lot of abuse. None of that means that the movement within football to stamp out racist abuse is wrong. Society and institutions never deal with every issue across the board. Its always piecemeal as things evolve.
4. Sorry, but I do not see society's move to be more inclusive, whether its race, belief, gender, sexual orientation as down to false outrage. Real people suffer from casual racism or sexism or homophobia every day of the week. "Snowperson" is a silly, cost-free price to pay. A generation or two from now no one will bat an eyelid at a term like that. And that's a good thing.
1. No it doesn't matter and there isn't a reason why. He was labelled as a black man, he is a black man, that is not racist nor is it a racial label. If a man was labelled as a white man amongst black men it wouldn't be racist, so it shouldn't be here. The fact that it is deemed to be racist highlights the false outrage and double standards.
2.  We're now at a stage where saying Usain Bolt has plenty of pace is deemed offensive. ;D There is nothing wrong with calling Usain Bolt fast, nor is anything wrong with saying it was the black man in a group of white men. It's only a topic of controversy brought about by snowflakes, and this is now where we're at.
3. They never deal with every issue across the board because it's selective as I've already said. You call a black man a black man and the woke fake-hysteria busybodies have their pitchforks out screaming racism wanting to be seen to be progressive against racism and discrimination but not a peep when there's an issue against a white person, like McClean for example. As a result, they are doing more harm than good for the cause, and a culture of double standards and snowflakism is becoming the norm.
4. The very fact you advocate the term of "snowperson" as well as changing our whole vocabulary to appease the snowflake generation (which you're clearly part of) proves my point. I bet you also get the pitchforks out when a word like this is said, in a bid to be "progressive" leading to victimisation and more harm being done than good.
Look at the language you're using

"Snowflake" x 3
"woke fake-hysteria busybodies"
"pitchforks"
"appease"
"victimisation" (which is not used not reference to those who are the victims of racism)
The real problem for you is against a white person (does that person suffer abuse because they are white? Did you answer that?)

You can't use language like this and expect people to treat your contributions as being made in good faith or with any sort of an open mind

You seem to think that you and white people are the real victims

To say that totally misses the point would be an understatement, it's just flat out wrong
Nothing wrong with the language. You're part of this snowflake and double standards generation that society is now at the behest of, it would seem.
You can't be selective.
Here's the problem with the language

People who are on the wrong end of racism are telling you (ie. white people) there's a problem

Then, in response, you use deliberately inflammatory language which dismisses racism as a problem and dismisses those who realise racism is a problem as "snowflakes"

You use language that paints white people, rather people of colour, as the real victims

That's not a good faith engagement - it's you, who does not have lived experience of this problem, telling people who actually have lived experience that they do not know what they are talking about

This sort of sums up the problem in a nutshell
You used the term "people of colour". That is now deemed to be racist. They're black. Just like the Istanbul coach. Maybe you should check your own language, and ask your fellow members of the snowflake generation what are the correct terms to use before you start preaching to others.
#663
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 04:46:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 04:29:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 04:23:17 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM

It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

1. No one would bat an eyelid if the roles were reversed because there is no lengthy history of discrimination against white people based on their race.
2. Black athletes were for years stereotyped as muscular, quick and unintelligent. Maybe, for the sake of argument, the reaction has gone too far in the other direction, but that's still better than the alternative.
3. What does fans abusing McClean have to do with the controversy over this game official? Racism is a worldwide problem. The abuse McClean gets, while terrible and something that should be dealt with, is one player making a political stand and the game struggling about what to do with it. I'd say McClean would be embarrassed to have his stance compared to what black people have and have had to deal with.
4. Snowperson... really, this type of silliness is what exercises you?
1. Doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose. It's either racist or it isn't. In this case it wasn't.
2.Banning saying a black player has pace is the result of the snowflake generation. It's not racist if it's true. This is what we're now having to deal with.
3. I'm highlighting the double standards between both incidents, obviously.
4. That is the type of language we are now being almost forced to use, as a result of the false outrage stemming from so called racial or discriminatory incidents.

I left out your conversation with Sid for space purposes.

1. It does matter. There is no historical context for a white person to get offended for being singled out or for having a racial label used against them. Whether or not the present issue is a misunderstanding is not what I'm talking about. Demba Ba and the coach MAY have been mistaken. But at least there is a reason WHY they could have misunderstood and been offended. There would be none for a white person.
2. Again, it may be an overcorrection. Still better than the alternative. Eventually we'll hopefully get to a place where it won't be a potential issue of controversy anymore.
3. There are tons of issues that don't get addressed or for which hypocrisy exists. We haven't had, to my knowledge, any active players come out as gay in top-level soccer. The first ones who do will most probably be subject to a lot of abuse. None of that means that the movement within football to stamp out racist abuse is wrong. Society and institutions never deal with every issue across the board. Its always piecemeal as things evolve.
4. Sorry, but I do not see society's move to be more inclusive, whether its race, belief, gender, sexual orientation as down to false outrage. Real people suffer from casual racism or sexism or homophobia every day of the week. "Snowperson" is a silly, cost-free price to pay. A generation or two from now no one will bat an eyelid at a term like that. And that's a good thing.
1. No it doesn't matter and there isn't a reason why. He was labelled as a black man, he is a black man, that is not racist nor is it a racial label. If a man was labelled as a white man amongst black men it wouldn't be racist, so it shouldn't be here. The fact that it is deemed to be racist highlights the false outrage and double standards.
2.  We're now at a stage where saying Usain Bolt has plenty of pace is deemed offensive. ;D There is nothing wrong with calling Usain Bolt fast, nor is anything wrong with saying it was the black man in a group of white men. It's only a topic of controversy brought about by snowflakes, and this is now where we're at.
3. They never deal with every issue across the board because it's selective as I've already said. You call a black man a black man and the woke fake-hysteria busybodies have their pitchforks out screaming racism wanting to be seen to be progressive against racism and discrimination but not a peep when there's an issue against a white person, like McClean for example. As a result, they are doing more harm than good for the cause, and a culture of double standards and snowflakism is becoming the norm.
4. The very fact you advocate the term of "snowperson" as well as changing our whole vocabulary to appease the snowflake generation (which you're clearly part of) proves my point. I bet you also get the pitchforks out when a word like this is said, in a bid to be "progressive" leading to victimisation and more harm being done than good.

So we're going to get personal here, are we?

1. You can ignore the real world issue of racism against black people and the effect it could have on their perception all you want. It doesn't make it go away.
2. Now you're getting hysterical.
3. McClean is not abused because he is a white person. His race, or anyone else's, has nothing to do with the issue he is making a stand on. The fact that supposedly "there is not a peep" has nothing to do with him being a white person.
4. I never even heard of the term "snowperson" before you raised it this morning. But I might start using it seeing how such a silly, harmless label upsets people like yourself. Victimization indeed.
1. I'm not ignoring anything. You can ignore the double standards and fake outrage all you want, but it doesn't make it not true.
2. That's the stage the snowflake generation are bringing us.
3. I'm not talking about what he has made a stand on in the past. I'm highlighting the double standards between the non-issue racist incident of the other night, to the abuse he gets, and the difference in fake outrage between both cases.
4. I'm not upset about it at all. I find it hilarious that people get offended at "snowman" and try to re-write our whole vocabulary because the snowflake generation have their pitchforks out and demand that society conforms to their new way of doing things, or else face public victimisation, which in fact un-dos what they're actually trying to do.

1. Whose fake outrage? Most responses I've seen are very measured, trying, pending any investigation, to give the benefit of the doubt to the match official while at the same time understanding why Ba and the coach could have reacted the way they did. Given that there is no grounds for a white person to even get offended for being singled out so, there is no double standard.
2.  The snowflake generation are making you got to preposterous lengths to try to make a point? Seriously, exactly what effect does it have on you if the BBC are a bit oversensitive to black players having been assigned only athletic prowess in the past? Are you getting abuse down the pub for singing the praises of Adama Traore's physique or Raheem Sterling's speed?
3. The two teams, one of which is among the biggest sporting clubs in the world, walked off the pitch in a Champions League match FFS. How would it NOT get huge exposure? McClean is a lone protester, playing for relatively minor clubs, protesting what is an uncontroversial issue, the poppy, for most British people. Maybe your ire should be aimed at his fellow Irish players who don't join him or all us Irish people who continue to support English teams, even when those players wear the poppy.
4. I've literally NEVER heard anyone get upset about the term "snowman". Maybe you could point to some examples of this menace to decent society?
1. The fake outrage of the whole population, and how they're commenting on the matter, with their pitchforks out for the 4th official. You contradict yourself there also, for some reason you seem to think white people can't be offended for being called white, but black people can be offended for being called black. That is the double standard, and people like you play a part in this double standard snowflake culture because people like you think they can tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, but you don't have that right. It's either racist, or it isn't.
2. I haven't a clue what you're on about here. I'm saying the snowflake generation are trying to turn non racist things out to be racist, and this is now the culture that they are forcing upon us. A commentator cannot now praise Sterling or Traore's speed after good play without the fear of the woke fake hysteria crowd getting their pitchforks out.
3. You're mistaken here. PSG walking off the pitch isn't the issue. It's the fake hysteria surrounding a nothing issue, a black man being called a black man. Again, I'm not talking about McClean and poppies, i'm talking about the abuse he gets for being Irish etc and the difference in the fake outrage of a black man being called a black man and McClean's racial abuse. But because he's not black and he's irish no one has the pitchforks out for those who abuse him. Double standards and fake outrage in a nutshell. It's only an issue when it suits them, and this does more harm than good.
4. I'll use another example then.
"Chairman/woman" – Chair, chairperson, convenor, head. "Manpower" – Human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce. "Sportsmanship" – Fairness, good humour, sense of fair play.
These are some of the words the snowflake generation are trying to cancel, or else you face public victimisation if you use them. This is the culture that is creeping in, and as outlined in point 2, stems from fake outrage and double standards.
#664
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 04:29:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 04:23:17 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM

It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

1. No one would bat an eyelid if the roles were reversed because there is no lengthy history of discrimination against white people based on their race.
2. Black athletes were for years stereotyped as muscular, quick and unintelligent. Maybe, for the sake of argument, the reaction has gone too far in the other direction, but that's still better than the alternative.
3. What does fans abusing McClean have to do with the controversy over this game official? Racism is a worldwide problem. The abuse McClean gets, while terrible and something that should be dealt with, is one player making a political stand and the game struggling about what to do with it. I'd say McClean would be embarrassed to have his stance compared to what black people have and have had to deal with.
4. Snowperson... really, this type of silliness is what exercises you?
1. Doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose. It's either racist or it isn't. In this case it wasn't.
2.Banning saying a black player has pace is the result of the snowflake generation. It's not racist if it's true. This is what we're now having to deal with.
3. I'm highlighting the double standards between both incidents, obviously.
4. That is the type of language we are now being almost forced to use, as a result of the false outrage stemming from so called racial or discriminatory incidents.

I left out your conversation with Sid for space purposes.

1. It does matter. There is no historical context for a white person to get offended for being singled out or for having a racial label used against them. Whether or not the present issue is a misunderstanding is not what I'm talking about. Demba Ba and the coach MAY have been mistaken. But at least there is a reason WHY they could have misunderstood and been offended. There would be none for a white person.
2. Again, it may be an overcorrection. Still better than the alternative. Eventually we'll hopefully get to a place where it won't be a potential issue of controversy anymore.
3. There are tons of issues that don't get addressed or for which hypocrisy exists. We haven't had, to my knowledge, any active players come out as gay in top-level soccer. The first ones who do will most probably be subject to a lot of abuse. None of that means that the movement within football to stamp out racist abuse is wrong. Society and institutions never deal with every issue across the board. Its always piecemeal as things evolve.
4. Sorry, but I do not see society's move to be more inclusive, whether its race, belief, gender, sexual orientation as down to false outrage. Real people suffer from casual racism or sexism or homophobia every day of the week. "Snowperson" is a silly, cost-free price to pay. A generation or two from now no one will bat an eyelid at a term like that. And that's a good thing.
1. No it doesn't matter and there isn't a reason why. He was labelled as a black man, he is a black man, that is not racist nor is it a racial label. If a man was labelled as a white man amongst black men it wouldn't be racist, so it shouldn't be here. The fact that it is deemed to be racist highlights the false outrage and double standards.
2.  We're now at a stage where saying Usain Bolt has plenty of pace is deemed offensive. ;D There is nothing wrong with calling Usain Bolt fast, nor is anything wrong with saying it was the black man in a group of white men. It's only a topic of controversy brought about by snowflakes, and this is now where we're at.
3. They never deal with every issue across the board because it's selective as I've already said. You call a black man a black man and the woke fake-hysteria busybodies have their pitchforks out screaming racism wanting to be seen to be progressive against racism and discrimination but not a peep when there's an issue against a white person, like McClean for example. As a result, they are doing more harm than good for the cause, and a culture of double standards and snowflakism is becoming the norm.
4. The very fact you advocate the term of "snowperson" as well as changing our whole vocabulary to appease the snowflake generation (which you're clearly part of) proves my point. I bet you also get the pitchforks out when a word like this is said, in a bid to be "progressive" leading to victimisation and more harm being done than good.

So we're going to get personal here, are we?

1. You can ignore the real world issue of racism against black people and the effect it could have on their perception all you want. It doesn't make it go away.
2. Now you're getting hysterical.
3. McClean is not abused because he is a white person. His race, or anyone else's, has nothing to do with the issue he is making a stand on. The fact that supposedly "there is not a peep" has nothing to do with him being a white person.
4. I never even heard of the term "snowperson" before you raised it this morning. But I might start using it seeing how such a silly, harmless label upsets people like yourself. Victimization indeed.
1. I'm not ignoring anything. You can ignore the double standards and fake outrage all you want, but it doesn't make it not true.
2. That's the stage the snowflake generation are bringing us.
3. I'm not talking about what he has made a stand on in the past. I'm highlighting the double standards between the non-issue racist incident of the other night, to the abuse he gets, and the difference in fake outrage between both cases.
4. I'm not upset about it at all. I find it hilarious that people get offended at "snowman" and try to re-write our whole vocabulary because the snowflake generation have their pitchforks out and demand that society conforms to their new way of doing things, or else face public victimisation, which in fact un-dos what they're actually trying to do.
#665
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 04:23:32 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 10, 2020, 04:16:57 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

That's not the lineman's fault though.

I don't think there is any need for that. As I said, the person should've been identified by his name, but if his name wasn't known, saying the black guy in a group of white people is not racism.

A manager came out in the wake of this incident and said he was referred to as the white guy when working in Africa. That wasn't (and isn't) deemed to be racist. It's all false outrage and double standards though when there is a black person involved.
Rather than dismissing it all as "false outrage" I think you'd be better placed to look at why black players are generally so on guard about potential racist incidents - it's because football has produced a litany of them and because the black players or staff themselves almost certainly have long experience of suffering from racial prejudice

I think it's quite understandable they reacted that way when they believed that a racist slur had been made

But I think the actual incident the other night was largely a misunderstanding

There is a problem with people on the internet jumping to conclusions and sticking to them at all costs which generally makes any sort of discussion around such incidents turn into a shitshow
It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

You're right on the McClean thing. Nine years now, and nothing has ever been done about the abuse that he gets. The FA's silence has been deafening for 9 years. F**kin' disgusting.

Its why I have no time for this taking the knee bullshit in football. You can't call a black man a 'black man' but McClean is anything you want to call him. You can f**k right off.
Exactly my point. Selective double standards that is doing more harm than good.
Agree on taking the knee as well, it's an empty gesture at this stage and is being forced on teams now, like their poppies every year too. Both of which shouldn't be in or be part of football.
#666
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM

It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

1. No one would bat an eyelid if the roles were reversed because there is no lengthy history of discrimination against white people based on their race.
2. Black athletes were for years stereotyped as muscular, quick and unintelligent. Maybe, for the sake of argument, the reaction has gone too far in the other direction, but that's still better than the alternative.
3. What does fans abusing McClean have to do with the controversy over this game official? Racism is a worldwide problem. The abuse McClean gets, while terrible and something that should be dealt with, is one player making a political stand and the game struggling about what to do with it. I'd say McClean would be embarrassed to have his stance compared to what black people have and have had to deal with.
4. Snowperson... really, this type of silliness is what exercises you?
1. Doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose. It's either racist or it isn't. In this case it wasn't.
2.Banning saying a black player has pace is the result of the snowflake generation. It's not racist if it's true. This is what we're now having to deal with.
3. I'm highlighting the double standards between both incidents, obviously.
4. That is the type of language we are now being almost forced to use, as a result of the false outrage stemming from so called racial or discriminatory incidents.

I left out your conversation with Sid for space purposes.

1. It does matter. There is no historical context for a white person to get offended for being singled out or for having a racial label used against them. Whether or not the present issue is a misunderstanding is not what I'm talking about. Demba Ba and the coach MAY have been mistaken. But at least there is a reason WHY they could have misunderstood and been offended. There would be none for a white person.
2. Again, it may be an overcorrection. Still better than the alternative. Eventually we'll hopefully get to a place where it won't be a potential issue of controversy anymore.
3. There are tons of issues that don't get addressed or for which hypocrisy exists. We haven't had, to my knowledge, any active players come out as gay in top-level soccer. The first ones who do will most probably be subject to a lot of abuse. None of that means that the movement within football to stamp out racist abuse is wrong. Society and institutions never deal with every issue across the board. Its always piecemeal as things evolve.
4. Sorry, but I do not see society's move to be more inclusive, whether its race, belief, gender, sexual orientation as down to false outrage. Real people suffer from casual racism or sexism or homophobia every day of the week. "Snowperson" is a silly, cost-free price to pay. A generation or two from now no one will bat an eyelid at a term like that. And that's a good thing.
1. No it doesn't matter and there isn't a reason why. He was labelled as a black man, he is a black man, that is not racist nor is it a racial label. If a man was labelled as a white man amongst black men it wouldn't be racist, so it shouldn't be here. The fact that it is deemed to be racist highlights the false outrage and double standards.
2.  We're now at a stage where saying Usain Bolt has plenty of pace is deemed offensive. ;D There is nothing wrong with calling Usain Bolt fast, nor is anything wrong with saying it was the black man in a group of white men. It's only a topic of controversy brought about by snowflakes, and this is now where we're at.
3. They never deal with every issue across the board because it's selective as I've already said. You call a black man a black man and the woke fake-hysteria busybodies have their pitchforks out screaming racism wanting to be seen to be progressive against racism and discrimination but not a peep when there's an issue against a white person, like McClean for example. As a result, they are doing more harm than good for the cause, and a culture of double standards and snowflakism is becoming the norm.
4. The very fact you advocate the term of "snowperson" as well as changing our whole vocabulary to appease the snowflake generation (which you're clearly part of) proves my point. I bet you also get the pitchforks out when a word like this is said, in a bid to be "progressive" leading to victimisation and more harm being done than good.
Look at the language you're using

"Snowflake" x 3
"woke fake-hysteria busybodies"
"pitchforks"
"appease"
"victimisation" (which is not used not reference to those who are the victims of racism)
The real problem for you is against a white person (does that person suffer abuse because they are white? Did you answer that?)

You can't use language like this and expect people to treat your contributions as being made in good faith or with any sort of an open mind

You seem to think that you and white people are the real victims

To say that totally misses the point would be an understatement, it's just flat out wrong
Nothing wrong with the language. You're part of this snowflake and double standards generation that society is now at the behest of, it would seem.
You can't be selective.
#667
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 04:02:47 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

That's not the lineman's fault though.

I don't think there is any need for that. As I said, the person should've been identified by his name, but if his name wasn't known, saying the black guy in a group of white people is not racism.

A manager came out in the wake of this incident and said he was referred to as the white guy when working in Africa. That wasn't (and isn't) deemed to be racist. It's all false outrage and double standards though when there is a black person involved.
Rather than dismissing it all as "false outrage" I think you'd be better placed to look at why black players are generally so on guard about potential racist incidents - it's because football has produced a litany of them and because the black players or staff themselves almost certainly have long experience of suffering from racial prejudice

I think it's quite understandable they reacted that way when they believed that a racist slur had been made

But I think the actual incident the other night was largely a misunderstanding

There is a problem with people on the internet jumping to conclusions and sticking to them at all costs which generally makes any sort of discussion around such incidents turn into a shitshow
It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.
Your post here is very good example of the culture that needs to change
The culture of double standards and fake outrage needs to change
#668
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM

It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

1. No one would bat an eyelid if the roles were reversed because there is no lengthy history of discrimination against white people based on their race.
2. Black athletes were for years stereotyped as muscular, quick and unintelligent. Maybe, for the sake of argument, the reaction has gone too far in the other direction, but that's still better than the alternative.
3. What does fans abusing McClean have to do with the controversy over this game official? Racism is a worldwide problem. The abuse McClean gets, while terrible and something that should be dealt with, is one player making a political stand and the game struggling about what to do with it. I'd say McClean would be embarrassed to have his stance compared to what black people have and have had to deal with.
4. Snowperson... really, this type of silliness is what exercises you?
1. Doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose. It's either racist or it isn't. In this case it wasn't.
2.Banning saying a black player has pace is the result of the snowflake generation. It's not racist if it's true. This is what we're now having to deal with.
3. I'm highlighting the double standards between both incidents, obviously.
4. That is the type of language we are now being almost forced to use, as a result of the false outrage stemming from so called racial or discriminatory incidents.

I left out your conversation with Sid for space purposes.

1. It does matter. There is no historical context for a white person to get offended for being singled out or for having a racial label used against them. Whether or not the present issue is a misunderstanding is not what I'm talking about. Demba Ba and the coach MAY have been mistaken. But at least there is a reason WHY they could have misunderstood and been offended. There would be none for a white person.
2. Again, it may be an overcorrection. Still better than the alternative. Eventually we'll hopefully get to a place where it won't be a potential issue of controversy anymore.
3. There are tons of issues that don't get addressed or for which hypocrisy exists. We haven't had, to my knowledge, any active players come out as gay in top-level soccer. The first ones who do will most probably be subject to a lot of abuse. None of that means that the movement within football to stamp out racist abuse is wrong. Society and institutions never deal with every issue across the board. Its always piecemeal as things evolve.
4. Sorry, but I do not see society's move to be more inclusive, whether its race, belief, gender, sexual orientation as down to false outrage. Real people suffer from casual racism or sexism or homophobia every day of the week. "Snowperson" is a silly, cost-free price to pay. A generation or two from now no one will bat an eyelid at a term like that. And that's a good thing.
1. No it doesn't matter and there isn't a reason why. He was labelled as a black man, he is a black man, that is not racist nor is it a racial label. If a man was labelled as a white man amongst black men it wouldn't be racist, so it shouldn't be here. The fact that it is deemed to be racist highlights the false outrage and double standards.
2.  We're now at a stage where saying Usain Bolt has plenty of pace is deemed offensive. ;D There is nothing wrong with calling Usain Bolt fast, nor is anything wrong with saying it was the black man in a group of white men. It's only a topic of controversy brought about by snowflakes, and this is now where we're at.
3. They never deal with every issue across the board because it's selective as I've already said. You call a black man a black man and the woke fake-hysteria busybodies have their pitchforks out screaming racism wanting to be seen to be progressive against racism and discrimination but not a peep when there's an issue against a white person, like McClean for example. As a result, they are doing more harm than good for the cause, and a culture of double standards and snowflakism is becoming the norm.
4. The very fact you advocate the term of "snowperson" as well as changing our whole vocabulary to appease the snowflake generation (which you're clearly part of) proves my point. I bet you also get the pitchforks out when a word like this is said, in a bid to be "progressive" leading to victimisation and more harm being done than good.
#669
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 03:08:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

That's not the lineman's fault though.

I don't think there is any need for that. As I said, the person should've been identified by his name, but if his name wasn't known, saying the black guy in a group of white people is not racism.

A manager came out in the wake of this incident and said he was referred to as the white guy when working in Africa. That wasn't (and isn't) deemed to be racist. It's all false outrage and double standards though when there is a black person involved.
Rather than dismissing it all as "false outrage" I think you'd be better placed to look at why black players are generally so on guard about potential racist incidents - it's because football has produced a litany of them and because the black players or staff themselves almost certainly have long experience of suffering from racial prejudice

I think it's quite understandable they reacted that way when they believed that a racist slur had been made

But I think the actual incident the other night was largely a misunderstanding

There is a problem with people on the internet jumping to conclusions and sticking to them at all costs which generally makes any sort of discussion around such incidents turn into a shitshow
It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course.

1. No one would bat an eyelid if the roles were reversed because there is no lengthy history of discrimination against white people based on their race.
2. Black athletes were for years stereotyped as muscular, quick and unintelligent. Maybe, for the sake of argument, the reaction has gone too far in the other direction, but that's still better than the alternative.
3. What does fans abusing McClean have to do with the controversy over this game official? Racism is a worldwide problem. The abuse McClean gets, while terrible and something that should be dealt with, is one player making a political stand and the game struggling about what to do with it. I'd say McClean would be embarrassed to have his stance compared to what black people have and have had to deal with.
4. Snowperson... really, this type of silliness is what exercises you?
1. Doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose. It's either racist or it isn't. In this case it wasn't.
2.Banning saying a black player has pace is the result of the snowflake generation. It's not racist if it's true. This is what we're now having to deal with.
3. I'm highlighting the double standards between both incidents, obviously. McClean didn't make a "political" stand.
4. That is the type of language we are now being almost forced to use, as a result of the false outrage stemming from so called racial or discriminatory incidents.
#670
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 02:07:58 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

That's not the lineman's fault though.

I don't think there is any need for that. As I said, the person should've been identified by his name, but if his name wasn't known, saying the black guy in a group of white people is not racism.

A manager came out in the wake of this incident and said he was referred to as the white guy when working in Africa. That wasn't (and isn't) deemed to be racist. It's all false outrage and double standards though when there is a black person involved.
Rather than dismissing it all as "false outrage" I think you'd be better placed to look at why black players are generally so on guard about potential racist incidents - it's because football has produced a litany of them and because the black players or staff themselves almost certainly have long experience of suffering from racial prejudice

I think it's quite understandable they reacted that way when they believed that a racist slur had been made

But I think the actual incident the other night was largely a misunderstanding

There is a problem with people on the internet jumping to conclusions and sticking to them at all costs which generally makes any sort of discussion around such incidents turn into a shitshow
It is absolutely false outrage, because if the roles were reversed, not an eyelid would be bat. It's similar to when James McClean gets his yearly dose, nothing is ever done about it, but when there is a black person involved people are out with their pitchforks to be seen to be being progressive and acting against discrimination when it is anything but. It's selective, and that in itself in detrimental to the whole issue surrounding stamping out racism etc.

You mentioned a formalised language regarding identification needing to be brought in, yet this is what the snowflake generation are already doing. "It's not a snowman it's a snowperson" and the BBC now not allowed to say that a black player has plenty of pace, this type of thing. That is when you know things are turning into a shitshow.
This has lead us to the point now where calling this coach a black man, even though he is a black man, is now "racist" and the linesman faces a 10 game ban, but fans being caught calling the likes of McClean all the Irish fenian c***ts of the day is par for the course. 

#671
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 10, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

That's not the lineman's fault though.

I don't think there is any need for that. As I said, the person should've been identified by his name, but if his name wasn't known, saying the black guy in a group of white people is not racism.

A manager came out in the wake of this incident and said he was referred to as the white guy when working in Africa. That wasn't (and isn't) deemed to be racist. It's all false outrage and double standards though when there is a black person involved.
#672
General discussion / Re: Premier League 20/21
December 09, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Boycey on December 09, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...
I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.
#673
Split Mayo in 2
#674
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 05, 2020, 09:52:25 PM
Glad to see Dublin win and win well! Last thing we needed was Cavan only losing by a couple of points. 


Outside of Leinster, Dublin have played a cycle of Mayo, Kerry, Donegal, Tyrone in championship the last decade.

A game like tonights game for Cavan is a baptism of reality.

Most counties are hidden away from Dublin and have no comprehension of what they are like up close.

Hoping Dublin win the final by a landslide.
You're from Mayo, a team Dublin will likely be meeting in the final. How embarassing.
#675
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
December 05, 2020, 10:51:18 PM
Quote from: Main Street on December 05, 2020, 08:17:59 PM
Quote from: Dubh driocht on December 05, 2020, 01:45:52 PM
Surely the GFA allows Irish citizens in the North to opt to play for Ireland?

The GFA does not bestow any citizenship rights to Nordies. What allows Nordies to play for Ireland is that they are Irish citizens from birth, they don't have to acquire that citizenship, it is their birthright according to the irish constitution. This has been the birthright of Nordies since Dev the phoenix, emerged from ashes of the civil war.
Though it's a pity that most nordie nationalists want to cling onto their British Nationality
You're from Monaghan