Joey Barton

[GortonBlue62]

Sticking up for a racist , sexist cunting bully is a real cunts trick, think if he came after your wife or daughter with his hatred bile . Hope he gets arrested and fined for everything

I wonder how Joey's 10 year old daughter would feel about your offensive opinion of her dad?

Hope she wouldn't be too upset. She's only a kid.

Even though I think you're the opposite of what Stevie Wonder had in mind when he penned "Isn't She Lovely" I'd still defend your right to express yourself freely.

 

[GortonBlue62]

I’m sure you don’t need me or anyone else to tell you that there’s a world of difference between Bernardo’s lone tweet which was a joke between him and a mate, and Barton’s deliberately antagonistic behaviour on the same platform.

The 'line' runs directly between these two opinions.

That's an easy one for you and the other line drawing 'liberals'.

In the interests of an open society where freedom of expression is valued, even when we disagree with the opinions being aired, I say no lines. (We have laws for slander and libel already).

 

[GortonBlue62]

Couldn't be bothered reading the pages added since JB's latest outburst.

Never mind. I already know what everyone was going to say.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I wonder how Joey's 10 year old daughter would feel about your offensive opinion of her dad?

Hope she wouldn't be too upset. She's only a kid.

Even though I think you're the opposite of what Stevie Wonder had in mind when he penned "Isn't She Lovely" I'd still defend your right to express yourself freely.

Wonder what she thinks of daddy when he beats up mummy?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

He needs calling out for it, whether there's legal ground or not I'm not totally sure, but he's regularly such an arsehole that I'm all for it if that's what it takes to stop him.

His 'freedom of speech' shouldn't override other people's freedom to not suffer racist and sexist pile-ons, whether they are good at their jobs or not.

Being a twat isn't a crime, but being a twat to other people pretty much is. There's lots of laws that touch on that in one way or another.

Surely the power of the words of others should be strong enough in society to take his oxygen away, no?

Why promote the long arm of the law to defend against mere words? Which words? Said how? By whom? And who decides?

We can point and say “This word. Aggressively and derisively. Him. Us,” but where does it stop? How? By whom?

When did we lose the ability to denounce bad behavior, especially words? Have we lost the ability to simply ignore fools spouting nonsense?

And, if not, surely we need to set a very high threshold for any sort of legal jeopardy over words and their negative effects, yes?

 

[BlueHammer85]

If I recall correctly, he was employing the Elon Musk strategy of retweeting or liking fairly obviously racist and misogynistic comments about her throughout the initial row, and then claiming he never said anything racist or misogynistic or encouraged his followers to say anything racist or misogynistic.

But but but … erm, is that it ?! The world’s gone mad, obviously I hate him but come on let’s let him off the hook for this constant harassment and hatred of a black female pundit - he once said something bad about Shearer you know.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I’m sure you don’t need me or anyone else to tell you that there’s a world of difference between Bernardo’s lone tweet which was a joke between him and a mate, and Barton’s deliberately antagonistic behaviour on the same platform.

Reasonable people can disagree, but who draws the line? Where? Should it be where the sensitive want it, lest their delicate sensibilities be stressed? Or perhaps at the far end of the spectrum, where only the most hardened person might find offense?

It’s a slippery slope and once you head down it, there’s no coming back. Soon, what you say will be deemed offensive by someone and then what?

 

[mancityvstoke]

Always a ****

 

[Vienna_70]

Calling someome a paedophile is a serious allegation because you're saying that they're something that is illegal. That could be defamation of character.

Saying someone is shite at their job is not the same.

Barton said something on social media, some people agreed with him, that's doesn't make him guilty of anything. It doesn't mean he's spearheading a campaign of hate and ordering people to go after her, and there's no proof it's racist or anything like that. It seems to be the people who are crying racism that are the ones bringing that element into it in the first place.

arresting or charging him for having an opinion that some people agree with is wrong, no matter what you think of him because where do you draw the line with that? It sets a dangerous precedent that people can't have an opinion about someone's abililty without the risk of being prosecuted, despite no actual crime being committed. What kind of country do we wanna live in?. I'd rather put up with a few mouthy pricks like Barton than facilitate society going in a direction where people get arrested for nothing more than an opinion.

So calling Aluko's dad a money crook, just because he’s Nigerian isn’t racist?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Sticking up for a racist , sexist cunting bully is a real cunts trick, think if he came after your wife or daughter with his hatred bile . Hope he gets arrested and fined for everything

I find those words offensive. What’s my redress?

Can you prove he’s a racist?
Sexist?
“Cunting”? (Although I think you made that word up out of frustration and thus have exacerbated your unprovoked personal attack.)
Bully?
What trick?
Can you prove he’s a ****?
Why would you further exacerbate your hate for his speech by bringing someone else’s family into this and wishing ill on them?
Are you a judge?
Perhaps just the jury and executioner?
What exactly do you mean when you say “everything”?

Your words are, at times, both very specific and extremely broad. You make very specific personal derogatory slurs, then call for ridiculously broad punishments for the use of language.

Might I suggest you take a look in the mirror? Or does your level of justice involve the notion of “two wrongs make a right”?

Perhaps, you feel like YOU are above the same laws you would have others prosecuted under, because you feel you have some righteous, albeit preconceived, bias against the individual in question?

I’m not sure what your motives are or what effect your words might be having on him or his friends, but I think I should complain to the authorities, just in case, and let some nameless, faceless bureaucrat decide what you mean, and why you’re saying these hateful things about someone you don’t personally know.

See how easy that is???

Remove any and all context and just put your strong language out there for dissection and it looks hated filled and completely over the top…which it is, for effect. I get it, but will the snowflake jury? How will the women feel about you calling him a ****? Or wishing hated filled things are said to the wife and children of anyone who defends him? What kind of cruel monster are you to wish ill on any children, let alone children you don’t even know? Does this keyboard behavior pervade your life? Do we need to investigate the rest of your online presence for more examples of your hate?

Now…defend yourself!!!

I only bring this up because the whole thing is insidious. It presupposes your language, taken out of context, informs the world of who you are, what you believe, and pins you with a scarlet letter if you use language “we” don’t like.

There are multiple instances of way OTT posts on here. In fact, @SWP's back made a glorious one recently that was praised for its OTT ferocity. Should he get a knock on the door OR should we just accept it for what it REALLY was…a hyperbolic put down of another poster, made in the context of repeated, historic posts that have been deemed ridiculous, or even offensive in their own right?

We can read and dismiss out of hand, read and respond, or simply choose not to read at all if we already know we have no desire to read what the person has to say through experience. Simples.

Or, should we be dragged, or worse, publicly for having a bad day online?

Just sayin’

And, I had no idea you used to be a sailor, you little potty mouth!

:-)

 

[SebastianBlue]

Reasonable people can disagree, but who draws the line? Where? Should it be where the sensitive want it, lest their delicate sensibilities be stressed? Or perhaps at the far end of the spectrum, where only the most hardened person might find offense?

It’s a slippery slope and once you head down it, there’s no coming back. Soon, what you say will be deemed offensive by someone and then what?

To be fair, I have unintentionally said or done things that were offensive to someone, was called out for it, and I did my best to own up to it, make amends, and not say or do it again. I am not always successful, but I do try.

There have only been a few times where I genuinely disagreed that what I said or did was offensive (or that I felt the person was acting in bad faith saying that it was), and in those instance I tried to respectfully push back.

Generally speaking, it really has to be egregious or part of a larger pattern of unacceptable behaviour (or both, in the case of Joey Barton) for it to get someone in serious trouble or, as the right like to call it, “cancelled”.

I think some of the issue now is that for so long certain people (white men in particular) were accustomed to generally being able to say or do whatever they wanted around most other groups of people, no matter how offensive or hurtful, without much consequence, as those offended or hurt didn’t have much recourse to call out the behaviour or apply any sort of social pressure to prevent it in the first place. In some cases, it wasn’t just that there was no outlet—in many cases the person would be severely punished for even raising their concerns.

Only know that this privilege is being questioned do we have a lot of “people are too sensitive nowadays” or “people used to be much less quick to offence” or “the world has gone mad with political correctness”. People were always offended or hurt (or worse), they just couldn’t do anything about it for a very, very long time and thus most of the time there was no point in airing their grievances. And when they did things tended not to go well for them.

Do I think some of it has gone a bit far or has become a bit silly, or that it can be weaponised by bad actors? Sure, but that’s the case with most things.

Do I think the development of more sensitivity and respectful consideration of others compared to the past has a net positive impact on the world? I absolutely do.

I think often times losing privilege can seem like oppression for those that enjoyed the privilege before, and I do think a lot of the current backlash stems from that and just generally being apprehensive of how to successfully navigate this new environment.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So calling Aluko's dad a money crook, just because he’s Nigerian isn’t racist?

When does a stereotype become a racist trope?

How you never heard the term “Nigerian Prince” dropped, to loud laughter or applause, when discussing a money scam or loss of money?

Society determines these things, and their context. Do we want to be spring loaded to reflexive offense, even when it’s directed at others? Is it our duty to be outraged on behalf of others, too?

Language is a beautiful thing, especially when used artfully, but should artless language be treated differently?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

To be fair, I have unintentionally said or done things that were offensive to someone, was called out for it, and I did my best to own up to it, make amends, and not say or do it again. I am not always successful, but I do try.

There have only been a few times where I genuinely disagreed that what I said or did was offensive (or that I felt the person was acting in bad faith saying that it was), and in those instance I tried to respectfully push back.

Generally speaking, it really has to be egregious or part of a larger pattern of unacceptable behaviour (or both, in the case of Joey Barton) for it to get someone in serious trouble or, as the right like to call it, “cancelled”.

I think some of the issue now is that for so long certain people (white men in particular) were accustomed to generally being able to say or do whatever they wanted around most other groups of people, no matter how offensive or hurtful, without much consequence, as those offended or hurt didn’t have much recourse to call out the behaviour or apply any sort of social pressure to prevent it in the first place. In some cases, it wasn’t just that there was no outlet—in many cases the person would be severely punished for even raising their concerns.

Only know that this privilege is being questioned do we have a lot of “people are too sensitive nowadays” or “people used to be much less quick to offence” or “the world has gone mad with political correctness”. People were always offended or hurt (or worse), they just couldn’t do anything about it for a very, very long time and thus most of the time there was no point in airing their grievances. And when they did things tended not to go well for them.

Do I think some of it has gone a bit far or has become a bit silly, or that it can be weaponised by bad actors? Sure, but that’s the case with most things.

Do I think the development of more sensitivity and respectful consideration of others compared to the past has a net positive impact on the world? I absolutely do.

I think often times losing privilege can seem like oppression for those that enjoyed the privilege before, and I do think a lot of the current backlash stems from that and just generally being apprehensive of how to successfully navigate this new environment.

Nothing to argue with there.

I just believe “the court of public opinion” should be just that, and not a state sanctioned court, where legal sanctions (as opposed to societal rejection) occur and mark for life.

It is clear that the current court of public opinion has swung to a more sensitive place, but the pendulum is swinging back slowly. Will it ever completely change the current level of sensitivity? Time, and society, will make that determination.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

@mexico1970 @Bluesince1979 @ChicagoBlue just say what you really want to say and stop with the "buts" and "howevers".

I've been noticing a pattern with some here especially these three and it's just funny how the three of you try to play on the intelligence of other posters here.

On your first point, I find that I can read a post and agree on some things, yet disagree on others. What would you have me do? I even used the word “yet” so as not to use either of the words you appear to find offensive.

That said, could you explain your last point, please?

 

[M18CTID]

The 'line' runs directly between these two opinions.

That's an easy one for you and the other line drawing 'liberals'.

In the interests of an open society where freedom of expression is valued, even when we disagree with the opinions being aired, I say no lines. (We have laws for slander and libel already).

The fact is that you or I don’t get to decide where the line is on this. That comes down to the law, and the police and CPS have decided that there is enough of a case for Barton to answer.

 

[Crooked_rain]

So calling Aluko's dad a money crook, just because he’s Nigerian isn’t racist?

It wasn't because he's Nigerian

He was found guilty of being a financial crook when he was a senator. Look it up if you want.

See this is a problem, your brain automatically assumes he was calling him a crook because he's Nigerian when in fact he was found guilty of being a crook....

Your mind Is the one that connected the Nigerian and crook parts and missed out of the part that he actually was a crook, so I think you need readjust how you think if you're automatically connecting the two thing without the facts.

So now we can't be honest? It racist to say a fact about someone past because they're Nigerian?

Ridiculous

 

[BlueHammer85]

The 'line' runs directly between these two opinions.

That's an easy one for you and the other line drawing 'liberals'.

In the interests of an open society where freedom of expression is valued, even when we disagree with the opinions being aired, I say no lines. (We have laws for slander and libel already).

Out of interest - if it was your daughter/wife/mum who worked as a pundit and some ex footballer was constantly hounding her on Twitter and telling the world how awful she is, how she should lose her job, how she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and continually retweeting every hate message she got elsewhere, would you just accept that and brush it off ? Or would you want some form of action to be taken ?

 

[GortonBlue62]

Out of interest - if it was your daughter/wife/mum who worked as a pundit and some ex footballer was constantly hounding her on Twitter and telling the world how awful she is, how she should lose her job, how she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and continually retweeting every hate message she got elsewhere, would you just accept that and brush it off ? Or would you want some form of action to be taken ?

I'd be outraged. It'd eat me up for days. I wouldn't sleep. I'd probably devise all sorts of revenge scenarios in my head. I wouldn't like it but I'd have to lump it.

The big picture is that open societies thrive and prosper. Societies that impose limits on freedom of expression (amoung other things) decline.

Freedom of speech and the rule of law are the big picture here. I believe the law that Barton is being prosecuted under is wrong. We need a US style first ammendment.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Out of interest - if it was your daughter/wife/mum who worked as a pundit and some ex footballer was constantly hounding her on Twitter and telling the world how awful she is, how she should lose her job, how she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and continually retweeting every hate message she got elsewhere, would you just accept that and brush it off ? Or would you want some form of action to be taken

Is having an opinion about someone's ability illegal though? Is using a retweed function on a social media app illegal?

This is the issue here. We all know he's a knobhead, but being charged with what he's doing seems wrong to me. Having an opinion on someone's abililty is not illegal, retweeting is not illegal. He's not told anyone to go after her directly. He just has an opinion that some agree with and some don't. He may be heavy handed in how he let's his opinion known but it doesn't make it illegal.

By charging someone for this, it keeps lowering the bar on people's freedom to have an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it.

It's not a really about Joey Barton, we all know he's a dickhead. It's about arresting people for having an opinion on social media. It might be OK in some people's eyes to do it to Barton because he's a knob, but they won't be saying that in future when its fair game for anyone to be arrested because they aired an opinion on social media. Is that the world we wanna live in? I don't. It's not about Barton specifically. It's the precedent it sets that I don't like.

We all know Martin Niemöller's "first they came for..." quote, and if you don't, then look it up. That's the path society today is heading down. That may sound like too much of a serious claim because we're on the topic of a daft ex footy player and a daft pundit, but this is just one small example of the way things are heading.

Arresting people for an opinion? Really? I come from a family that grew up in countries like that. Nobody needs that here.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Is having an opinion about someone's ability illegal though? Is using a retweed function on a social media app illegal?

This is the issue here. We all know he's a knobhead, but being charged with what he's doing seems wrong to me. Having an opinion on someone's abililty is not illegal, retweeting is not illegal. He's not told anyone to go after her directly. He just has an opinion that some agree with and some don't. He may be heavy handed in how he let's his opinion known but it doesn't make it illegal.

By charging someone for this, it keeps lowering the bar on people's freedom to have an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it.

It's not a really about Joey Barton, we all know he's a dickhead. It's about arresting people for having an opinion on social media. It might be OK in some people's eyes to do it to Barton because he's a knob, but they won't be saying that in future when its fair game for anyone to be arrested because they aired an opinion on social media. Is that the world we wanna live in? I don't. It's not about Barton specifically. It's the precedent it sets that I don't like.

We all know Martin Niemöller's "first they came for..." quote, and if you don't, then look it up. That's the path society today is heading down. That may sound like too much of a serious claim because we're on the topic of a daft ex footy player and a daft pundit, but this is just one small example of the way things are heading.

Arresting people for an opinion? Really? I come from a family that grew up in countries like that. Nobody needs that here.

There’s a difference between some kid in his bedroom slagging someone off to a high profile celeb with millions of followers endlessly and constantly baiting 1 individual (2 if you count Vine) … it’s the constant barrage that needs to be addressed more than the context of the tweets. Turning a blind eye and saying it’s nothing is the wrong attitude.
Bullying and harassment deserves punishment.