Saurez [FA release investigation findings]

[MSP]

Re: Suarez (merged)

How the heck can you compare these two situations and their importance in society ?

Yes, of course, bullying someone because he's fat etc. is bad thing and could finish with some sad stuff like suicide etc. And of course it should not happen and that society has to take it's part in educating people of it.

But comparing it with racism is nonsense. Have you ever heard for some "antifatpeople" ideological organizations, have you ever heard of people hanging with each other just because they hate fat people, have you ever heard for parents raising their kids to primarily hate fat people etc. etc... No, I'm sure you haven't.

But I'm sure you have heard for racist ideological organizations, dumb twats hanging with each other because they share some racist views and dumb twats raising their kids to hate people because of their skin colour.

Comparing these two things and danger each of them bring to any society is nonsense at it's best. Using your words - its a fecking joke it really is

 

[spurspinter1]

Re: Suarez (merged)

If someone insults you by adding a preface to your colour then thats when it turns racist and before we start this its no different to calling someone short, fat, thin, tall or any other physical malady it is because those things are prevalent to all races and are just insults the moment you throw someones colour into the equation you are adding a negative conotation about the persons colour as well as the initial insult.

And that is BOLLOCKS - you obviously haven't been on the end of "short, fat, thin, tall or any other physical malady" have you? Discrimination (or just plain bullying) by reference to difference in physical appearance - its ALL the equal, except (and I quote) "some are more equal than others...." its a fecking joke it really is

Can you tell me of an organisation or political movement expressing its superiority to short, fat bald people. Or a time when all the skinny lanky guys were forced into slavery or killed in gas chambers. Your argument is a joke my friend.

May not be everyone's cup of tea but Stewart Lee sums this up very well. Speaking about Ron Atkinson.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqbgMX5AmMY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqbgMX5AmMY</a>

 

[Sigh]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Fat people smell.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

Re: Suarez (merged)

corky - correct! its the special status that this gets over everything else that fecks me off - and I have been subjected to one or two of the others I mentioned above on a regular basis all my life and if I wanted to, there is not a damned thing I can do about it.

So Zin Zimmer, you can feck right off because you've missed the point ENTIRELY

For the most part, especially in the UK, those who dont realise theyre racist are the ones who do the most damage...

This... they generally identify themselves by starting a sentence with "I'm not a racist but... " or ending one with "... it's political correctness gone mad".

 

[Bigga]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Sometimes human beings are fallible. Sometimes a human being's capacity for tolerance falls short. If you can honestly say you have never had a racist opinion, never been intolerant of another human being because of their ethnic origin, never formed an antipathy based on some kind of preconception all I can say is you are a better person than me.

Some of the opinions expressed on here - racism cannot be tolerated in any shape or form, is the worst thing ever etc. I find particularly unconvincing. It is as if the authors were trying to disguise their own inadequacies, their own racist tendencies by such absolute statements.

If you were a thief might you not make a tremendous deal condemning all dishonesty to convince others of your innocence? If you had a history of being cruel to animals might you not make a big show of caring for animals to convince others (and yourself) of how you love animals?

I am not a Christian but I do find this appropriate: take the beam out of your own eye before condemning your brother for the speck in his.

I am curious how you come to the conclusion that if you condemn an action you yourself must by definition be guilty of that action because by condemning it you are covering up your own inadequacies.

That is an incredible way of looking at things and basically makes everyone guilty of everything.

Look at the quality of the criticism. You find the idea that no one must ever do anything that can remotely be called racist and must be totally condemned for it convincing? But some of the posters have come across that way.

Suppose I said no-one must ever steal anything and theft is the worst thing that can ever be done. In fact if someone steals food to feed their family we sail them off to exile for life in Australia. Would you believe in my honesty? Or might you think there is something inherently wrong with my point of view, apart from it being a couple of hundred years old?

If you told me that you had never stolen anything ever and would never contemplate it and think thieves are nothing but evil I would think you were obsessed. And I wouldn't trust you. I would be much more likely to trust someone who said I used to do a bit of nicking but I straightened myself out.

If we want to kick out racism might the best strategy not be to understand what it is and define it first? Screaming out racism is wrong, I hate it, people who are racists are utter c**** etc. is not an adequate response. And I definitely would not trust such a person to have the breadth of view, to have developed the tolerance necessary to not be racist themselves.

I've read a couple of responses, now, including to my post. What you are saying is ridiculous on so many levels!! Firstly, one can understand an action, dependant on provocation/ neccesity as a one off thing.

One CANNOT attempt to use the argument you are trying to use without being laughed out of a room! When an action of offence is repeated over and over it has to be seen as an intentional action. What, then, is the need to understand it?

Secondly, do persons of ethnicity, such as myself or Evra, being victims of such verbal assaults, do we need to "understand what it is and define it first" in order to deem whether we have been racially abused or would we already know...??

Pathetic and spoken like a person with no understanding of racial abuse.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Some utter, utter bollocks in the last few pages of this thread. A sad half an hour or so for bluemoon!

 

[stony]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Some utter, utter bollocks in the last few pages of this thread. A sad half an hour or so for bluemoon!

Just read the RAWk thread instead Jay. It continues to be a source of much amusement. The gnashing of teeth on Merseyside is audible halfway down the east lancs.
Scousers want everything from an FA cup boycott to the dippers joining a new European super league. How they would qualify for such a league is still to be decided.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Just read the RAWk thread instead Jay. It continues to be a source of much amusement. The gnashing of teeth on Merseyside is audible halfway down the east lancs.
Scousers want everything from an FA cup boycott to the dippers joining a new European super league. How they would qualify for such a league is still to be decided.

RAWK is always full of it but in here you would think people would realise the difference between racist abuse and other abuse.

 

[TheMidnightBlue]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Political correctness gone mad, Evra and Suarez should just shake hands and get on with it ffs.

 

[markbmcfc]

Re: Suarez (merged)

Political correctness gone mad, Evra and Suarez should just shake hands and get on with it ffs.