Premier League 20/21

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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.

[nrico2006]

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.

No different than identifying someone with ginger hair if they are in the company of 3 other people with black hair.

[sid waddell]

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

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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. 

[J70]

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?

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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.

[J70]

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.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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. 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.

[sid waddell]

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

[sid waddell]

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. 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

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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

[BennyCake]

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.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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. 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.

[J70]

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. 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.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

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.