Case in point, all scholarships should be targeted at "disadvantaged kids". That includes disadvantage by race, economic situation, gender, sexuality Then they should be made available to as many as possible. that's not what is happening. It;s based on race or some other single characteristic. A college class of disadvantaged kids, if that group contains black white gay straight trans and non trans kids in that group, I would think the people coming out of that class would all be better for it instead, we have colleges accepting payed scholarships by stormzy for disadvantaged black kids and refusing payed scholarships by some rich white dude for disadvantaged white kids. How about colleges only accept scholarships for disadvantaged kids and divide places equally among each group regardless of their % of the population (20% black 20% white 20% gay 20% trans 20% disabled) or something Seems sane to me and it doesn't draw lines between people, lines based purely on immutable characteristics
The word "inclusive" is used to exclude. "Positive discrimination" is an abomination of a term used to discriminate. Mind boggling mental gymnastics. But ideas that come from marxism are almost always bad. They appeal to morals but the problem is, to actually apply the ideas means you have to be immoral Its a trap
Apparently serious for Gomez. That's our back line effectively ****ed, and therefore us ****ing useless unimportant internationals.
Came here to share that news... https://www.skysports.com/football/...fender-suffers-injury-during-england-training
I know how divisive this topic can be, and there is much coldness (cold logic) toward the plight of some minorities and other groups, I do see this a lot. I am not one of those types Here's a wee critical thinking test What do you think of this? Is it right?, is it wrong? and why is it either? Or just ignore this central question that the answer to, reveals the objective truth of how we address these issues with out doing the very things we claim we are against. The answer to this is the crux of this whole matter
I think the saying he had to go bit is wrong or a tad harsh Surely he should be educated The problem here for me is that even though he apologised straight away then Explained straight away why he used the term (so not really enough time for it to be a cover up) he has ultimately still paid with his career There needs to be some balance or perspective here - the intent definitely needs to be considered Assuming that because he is of that age and generation that his comment is born of racism or ignorance seems very wrong as an ideal to me. As I said earlier Mr Clarke was the FA board member trying to get Paul Elliot accepted onto the board I once said to a larger girl who was on my course (she was floating eye level in the water) that she looked like a hippo She was indeed a larger girl - it was just a faux pa - nothing more nothing less (the animal which eluded me and I intended to say was crocodile) If I had paid with my career every time I said something wrong Oh my days...
Shades of Hodgson and the fed the monkey remark here. I cringed when I heard Clarke, and he should know better, but resigning? Can anyone honestly say it was anything more than clumsy? The FA have said far worse things about Hillsborough over the years and never been held to account imo.
I think so too Very interesting topic - hard to not get passionate about it as everyone has there own views and stance
Gonna have a back line of Robbo Williams Phillips Williams in a couple weeks time when Matip is injured then Ah well. Let’s just see if we can get CL football this year
Anyway - back to football. And Gomez. Have I ever mentioned how much I ****ing hate international breaks?
