I'm not in a position to decide what is and isn't OK, I'm in a position to listen to what the prevailing voices say and so far the prevailing voices call what he said casual racism.
Serious question - how do we differentiate between the prevailing voices and the baying mob? The prevailing voices used to claim the old herbalist woman in the woods was a witch - were they right? They very quickly became the baying mob and dragged her to the ducking stool. And any cursory glance at social media will show you that we haven't moved on very far from that. Reasonable people use their own judgement to decide whether they think something is really wrong or just a case of the mob's instinct to vilify someone - anyone, and condemn those who don't do or say the things the self-appointed arbiters of everything insist they must. I'm not defending Bentancur specifically - just questioning the wisdom of accepting public opinion as the paradigm of just thinking.
Not easy. The baying mob are very loud. You are right the types who are permanently offended on behalf of someone are very loud and make a lot of noise and are the ones who seek to end careers etc The people who should be listened to are either afraid to speak or are not being heard in the din.
I say this about politics all the time. The people who seek power are the very last who should be entrusted with it, but those who are more likely to wield it wisely are unlikely to ever want to be in that position, so we're forever doomed to be governed by the wrong sort. The loudest voices are rarely the wisest, and as you say, the reasonable people are drowned out or cowed into submission.
Real Madrid announced 19 man squad to play Liverpool. Six key players out https://www.thisisanfield.com/2024/...an-squad-to-play-liverpool-6-key-players-out/
This is my problem, no doubt Bentancur is a twat and what he said was wrong. (I think most people can accept that opinion) I just think a measured response is more helpful. Confrontational behaviour often evokes a confrontational response. When someone (or an organization) overreacts to something they cause people to dig in and become confrontational. If you want change, you educate. If you overreact to something, people dig their heels in and fight back and become worse. I think banning something for something that was misguided but intended to be light hearted is just going to push some people more resentful and turn casual racism into a future Donald Trump. I think a gentler punishment and giving them the opportunity to publicly apologize first would go a long way.
It's also fascinating that a footballer gets roundly condemned for a thoughtless comment (without any real racist intent, I'm certain -), while an openly misogynist racist bigot gets to be President of the United States of America.
With regard to Bentancur, the FA rules say he can't say what he said without facing a punishment so our opinions on that can be aired but don't hold any sway. Even if 100% of fans thought he was innocent of the charge, it doesn't matter because there's an established rule with a punishment attached. Just for balance, I think Joe Biden also has a good amount of racist comments to his name.
Certainly didn't see that coming but didn't expect it to be much entertainment Biggest fraud in the league aside from fraudiola is Eddie howe.
In the mid 90's Biden wrote (and still brags about ) the 'Crime Bill', which exploded the prison population to what it is today. The largest penal colony on the planet. Obviously with a large proportion of 'people of colour'. He also infamously said 'I don't want my kids growing up in a racial jungle' with regard to desegragation. What an awful human being that man is.
