Jump to content

Taking the knee.


shian
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

Black Lives Matter did not invent taking the knee at sporting events.  That was, as far as I know, down to Colin Kaepernick who was an American footballer and took the knee about five years ago during the US national anthem before a game.  He did it in protest against police killings of black men in the US.  He was demonised for his actions and branded unpatriotic - unlike the police who were doing the killings.

I have to admit I find it extremely disappointing that a simple gesture in favour of anti-discrimination is being criticised.  If you believe their should be no politics in football then we must cease putting poppies on shirts. We must stop playing national anthems before internationals.  Indeed we must stop playing internationals because countries are political entities, not sporting ones.  

 

 

Out of interest, anyone know when teams wearing poppies on shirts became commonplace?  It wasn't always so, and this was never a problem.  The problems have arisen since, when we've had the likes of FIFA attempting to ban the England team from wearing the poppy back in 2018 or whenever.  We've also had players quite recently controversially deciding not to wear the poppy.  So, one could argue that allowing political statement in the form of an emblem has created problems that weren't present prior.  This is me playing devils advocate here.  Clearly wearing the poppy itself stands for far more than mere political symbolism.

Just picking up on your last point, if I select the best players from local leagues, put them in my team and then play at county level, how is this different from picking the best players from those counties, forming a national team and then playing other countries?   In the purest sense is it not just 2 teams competing?  I'd suggest International teams are in fact "sporting ones".  Not many politicians have played centre forward for England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joe B said:

It's not bowing to a higher authority.

Why is racial equality impossible to achieve?

Because 7.7 billion people would have to define and agree what equality is and enforce it.

For equality to exist you (not personally)  would have to accept that everyone's opinion is as valid as your own.

I stated what taking the knee represents to me, not you blm or anyone else. You stated it doesn't mean that.

As we have seen many times people are not equal under the law, rules, directives or policies. Whatever your colour, race, religion etc.

In my opinion the only way to move forward and get closer to racial, or other, equality is to not see it, I don't mean ignore it. Make laws and enforce them on everyone, apply them to everyone with the same consequence. The major problem I see with this is making the enforcers, the police in particular, accountable under the same law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

Black Lives Matter did not invent taking the knee at sporting events.  That was, as far as I know, down to Colin Kaepernick who was an American footballer and took the knee about five years ago during the US national anthem before a game.  He did it in protest against police killings of black men in the US.  He was demonised for his actions and branded unpatriotic - unlike the police who were doing the killings.

I have to admit I find it extremely disappointing that a simple gesture in favour of anti-discrimination is being criticised.  If you believe their should be no politics in football then we must cease putting poppies on shirts. We must stop playing national anthems before internationals.  Indeed we must stop playing internationals because countries are political entities, not sporting ones.  

 

 

I have no idea who started taking the knee as a protest but taking the knee was used as a gesture long before America was the USA. 

Part of the criticism kaepernick received was down to the fact he was being paid and under contract to represent not on his own time and dime. Somewhat similar to people getting sacked for tweets that misrepresent companies.

As a simple rule of equality...... if people have the right to make a statement/gesture whenever or wherever they choose then people have the right to object whenever or wherever they choose.... whether people agree or disagree with the gesture or objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Guitar Ray said:

Just picking up on your last point, if I select the best players from local leagues, put them in my team and then play at county level, how is this different from picking the best players from those counties, forming a national team and then playing other countries?   In the purest sense is it not just 2 teams competing?  I'd suggest International teams are in fact "sporting ones".  Not many politicians have played centre forward for England.

For starters, if we could pick players out of the prem for England we’d do a hell of a lot better!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

I dont think anybody actually argued that they should add 'too' to the end.  I read it more as that if 'too' was added it would have taken away the phantom 'more' option.

Some of the problem surrounding issues of equality is that people are too ready to be offended without actually understanding what they are being offended about on behalf of others.

Its idealistic to expect every one to interpret it as intended.  You have to legislate for the ignorant unfortunately and adding 'too' would have done that.  Would have killed the argument surrounding the interpretation in one minute flat and those closing to deliberately misinterpret would lose there wriggle room.  Its almost as if some people would rather have a reason to be outraged than actually achieve the objective.

Until you acknowledge that the current message leaves those with a quiet objection to equality room to maneuver, you aren't getting anywhere fast.

You think? It’s literally been explained countless times. Do you think the people on here against it are now suddenly supporters? I understand people not liking the riots and even the removal of statues though I massively disagree with them. But if they still see BLM as a black supremacy movement then they are arguing in bad faith and adding ‘too’ won’t change their minds. They will just argue that racism isn’t real. Just look at the opening post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

And that's exactly the issue isn't it.  In a simple stroke you remove that argument from the ignorant.  If they chose to pick another one you then remove that and so on.  However, your stance seems to be to continue repeating the same message leaving the wriggle room and then just lambast the opposition rather than eliminate it.  Its like the argument about understanding the message is more important than the movement itself and it only diverts attention.

I get the message and as you say those that don't are chosing not to, but, why not just remove there ability to hide behind this?

Because it will dilute the message to those that are willing to hear it. Why play their games to pander to a group who will refuse to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, philmpv said:

I do think that a lot of the angst against BLM could have easily been avoided by the addition of a simple 3 letter word at the end of their name - 'too'. Your average person on the street, wrongly, interprets BLM as BLM more. Which of course they don't. I'm not against anyone taking the knee if that's how they want to show their support, but I don't think that anybody will be surprised when fans are allowed back in grounds that some will boo, whether to show their displeasure at what they see as a political statement being forced upon them or simply some because they are racist. I'd be surprised if it carried on for long after crowds are allowed back in personally

I agree with this. That, or "All Lives Matter" which is a movement EVERYONE can get behind. 

The way to eliminate racism is to eliminate segregation. We need to stop defining people by the colour of their skin. Why say "white man"/"black man" and not just say "man"?

Phrases such as "Black Lives Matter" create segregation, as again, it's separating a black life and a white life.

The idea is there, which I fully support, but the execution was very ill thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I have a different perspective.

The fact that the police killed a member of the public in the way they did is horrific.

The fact the person was black is secondary.

The objective, in my opinion, should be to stop the police abusing the powers we gave them. If we can do that everyone will be safe from such abuse, whatever colour their skin may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

Biggest load of nonsense ever.  How does it dilute the message to clarify its meaning?  You seem entrenched in your determination to lambast rather than move the debate on.  Its almost like you are happy to let people argue this so you can point at them and sneer rather than accept that a simple amendment moves the focus back to where it should be which is equality.

Never mind.

But they know what it means and choose to ignore it. You admitted that. So it doesn’t need changing as they already know. You also presume that the message is for just people who argue in bad faith. 

2 hours ago, valeparklife said:

I agree with this. That, or "All Lives Matter" which is a movement EVERYONE can get behind. 

The way to eliminate racism is to eliminate segregation. We need to stop defining people by the colour of their skin. Why say "white man"/"black man" and not just say "man"?

Phrases such as "Black Lives Matter" create segregation, as again, it's separating a black life and a white life.

The idea is there, which I fully support, but the execution was very ill thought out.

A number of years ago the government introduced legislation called ‘every child matters’. After some high profile child abuse cases. Interestingly I never heard one person get angry and argue it should be ‘every life matters’. Because it was bleeding obvious what the statement means. Maybe the government should have changed it to ‘every person matters’ or maybe that would defeat the whole point of the message.

 

 

Edited by Andyregs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Andy, you also are arguing in bad faith as you are refusing to understand that by simply adding "too" would remove the ability to argue that black live matter "more".

Surely its better to remove the obstacle and move the debate on than it is to be stubborn about a point that doesn't dilute the message.

Yes they are chosing to misinterpret it but the defiance to make that harder to argue is also chosing to allow the argument to be derailed for no other reason than to point and sneer at the ignorant.

I just don’t think an anti racist movement should pander to racists.

It only makes it harder to argue to the people who purposely choose to misinterpret it. Why change a message to argue with a group who know what the actual message is but choose to pretend not to. 
 

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Edited by Andyregs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyregs said:

But they know what it means and choose to ignore it. You admitted that. So it doesn’t need changing as they already know. You also presume that the message is for just people who argue in bad faith. 

A number of years ago the government introduced legislation called ‘every child matters’. After some high profile child abuse cases. Interestingly I never heard one person get angry and argue it should be ‘every life matters’. Because it was bleeding obvious what the statement means. Maybe the government should have changed it to ‘every person matters’ or maybe that would defeat the whole point of the message.

 

 

Perhaps because the legislation was directed at one age group and restrictive circumstances?

I wonder why it wasn't called black children matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

I just don’t think an anti racist movement should pander to racists.

It only makes it harder to argue to the people who purposely choose to misinterpret it. Why change a message to argue with a group who know what the actual message is but choose to pretend not to. 
 

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

So if you prefer the movement to be called another name, for whatever reason, you are a racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, geosname said:

Perhaps because the legislation was directed at one age group and restrictive circumstances?

I wonder why it wasn't called black children matter?

But isn’t that ageist? Doesn’t that mean that one age group is being prioritised ahead of another? In fact I’ve also got issues with age concern charities. Why aren’t they concerned about me? That’s ageist too. 

4 minutes ago, geosname said:

So if you prefer the movement to be called another name, for whatever reason, you are a racist?

That’s not what I said but a good example of someone purposely trying to miss the point. 
I said if a racist knows What it means and purposely misinterprets it because they don’t like what the message actually means (that a black life matters just as much as a white life) then they are racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyregs said:

But isn’t that ageist? Doesn’t that mean that one age group is being prioritised ahead of another? In fact I’ve also got issues with age concern charities. Why aren’t they concerned about me? That’s ageist too. 

That’s not what I said but a good example of someone purposely trying to miss the point. 
I said if a racist knows What it means and purposely misinterprets it because they don’t like what the message actually means (that a black life matters just as much as a white life) then they are racist. 

If a racist knows.................. then they are racist?

I would assume whatever a racist knows is irrelevant because they are already racist.

I doubt it's possible to make child abuse laws to prevent child abuse on OAPs or anyone who isn't a child. It's designed to protect all children in an age range.... similar to the state pension only pays to people over a certain age determined by the government.

It is illegal to engage in sexual activity with a child..... is that ageist? Should we prevent all ages from engaging in sexual activity or scrap the age limit completely? Are child protection laws a detriment to anyone in society?....... except abusers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...