Man arrested over racist Shola message

Or, for another example, this is the reason that mackems tend to be far more upset by insults from newcastle supporters than the other way around. We can laugh it off or ignore it because we generally are in a superior position.

 

Really? Someone wants to upset Shola before Derby day...? You don't want to see him when he's angry

On the topic of racism, monkey chants are perhaps the most confusing insult I've ever heard of. According to Darwinism, which most adhere to nowadays, we're all descended from monkeys... Therefore, when they're doing the chants, they are the ones who appear to have regressed to a previous evolutionary state (the slanted forehead, thick brow and knuckle-scraping probably don't help matters either)... I don't really understand why it is taken as being offensive, other than the fact people seem to have attributed offense to it. Some white people look like chimps/retain chimp-like features, so why are they not vocally offended by remarks or abuse about it? Peter Reid anyone? Why are the police not involved about that? Because idiotic WUMs know what pisses people off they're going to do it, especially if it provokes a very predictable response every-time.

To me, society is in transition, from sexism to reverse-sexism and racism to reverse-racism. Years of oppression leads to years of pathetic guilty-pandering. One day someone will say "do you think we've had enough of this trying to beat each other" and we'll start being level and respectful, and that's the point where we'll be happy in our own skin. What we have now is a bit of a joke. "Oh no, we only have one black in the office, best hire another one"... "Oh no, we've only got one woman on this judging panel, best get another one", "Oh no" etc etc etc. This quota bullshit especially is dragging people into conflict. Why can't companies just look at a CV and see who is the best for the job? Why should having X number of men or women or homosexual or heterosexual or transgender or black or white people matter? If the best person for a job just so happens to be another woman, homosexual, heterosexual etc, why should that physically matter?

The fact is, people hate you because you exist, and you'll never change that. Even if you are Miss Daisy and sunshine shoots out your arse and tulips spring out of your hoo-woo... They just do. Get over it. Discrimination is impossible to stop because of our chemical make-up, but you can simply stick your fingers in your ears and live your life with the people who actually like you. WUMs are cowards, so cut off their attention and they lose... There are other genuinely serious crimes society has yet to even bother about which deserve deeper theoretical and emotional investment. Of course, the generation of sue thy neighbour don't really want to hear about that.

 

Boy, its rare to read a post in which there is so much to disagree with.

 

Well kindly point towards your viewpoint, and deconstruct mine...

 

1. Darwinism does not state that we descended from monkeys.

2. Monkey chants are insulting because they express the opinion that blacks are sub human.

3. Quotas of the sort you refer to don't exist.

4. Virtually every senior position in virtually every organisation is dominated by white males.

5. It is entirely possible to reduce discrimination or to greatly increase it.

6. To increase discrimination all that is required is that those who express discrminatory views are not challenged when they do so. They will provide each other with all the attention they need to flourish and multiply.

7. It is impossible to tell what is meant by the last 2 sentences, if anything.

 

Human-beings are genetically predisposed to conflict and competition. Discrimination is thus an evolutionary necessity. If you're honest, you find certain features attractive in a partner, certain character traits arousing and find others a turn-off. Biologically you are sexist and racist (or a bisexual hermaphrodite).

Personally, I of course prefer people being nice to each other, and I'm not going to aggressively offend anyone on purpose to provoke a reaction. To that end "civility" has been quite effective on me, but it is less so in others and if that is going to manifest itself in unnecessary verbal communication (something our species has created for itself) as oppose to physical abuse, then I that's the price to pay of not having perfect evolution. You can't mentally condition everyone to follow rules (which give us "right" and "wrong"), and whatever rules we create for ourselves dictate the very subjective term "mental-health". Unless you advocate destroying those unfit for society (again, that would be warped and discriminatory), there will not be a perfect society of rule-followers, ever.

Verbal communication itself is very little about content, and more about tone and appearance (which, dare I say it, is discrimination). To that end, fans being aggressive is fans being aggressive is fans being aggressive. Make rules against all forms of verbal aggression (and my word I would shake the man's hand who brought that law into the onfield game of football), don't pick and choose. That's discrimination. In my utopia, Evra and Suarez would both have been given lengthy bans for WUMMing. It's as a whole unnecessary. Evolutionary enabled, but unnecessary. That's my thoughts anyway...

 

Mmmmm

 

Basically I agree that no one should be nasty to anyone - in a perfect world, people would accept everyone for who they are, ugly, fat, stupid (I'm not just talking about you here tash ), black, ginger, jewish etc, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. As a result, you can't ahve laws against every type of bullying.

Having a law about racial discrimination/hatred is more important than the other types of people tash/WP have mentioned because it is an attempt to improve society and culture here - as historically black people have actually been at a major disadvantage due to old fashioned views - no other types of people (fat/ginger/ugly) have been at a social disadvantage in terms of opportunities, jobs etc, though of course they still get upset if they are "bullied" - that's just nastiness, and is unpleasant, but it won't harm their position in society.

 

How about "self-harm" their position in society?

Preventative measures should be equal in intensity or focused elsewhere, not based on historical grounds (or should I go up to Scotland and apologise because my great great great great great great great great great grandad might have turned a blind eye to the burning of their village?), or whether a collective can "take it". That, as I say, is discrimination itself and so the rule-makers themselves have broken the rules.

 

You can't call someone a black **** for fear of heavy handed retribution though and accusations of racism. You can call someone a ginger **** and nothing will be done about it. There are people who think it is strange they are not allowed to use the word black in connection with a slur. Their point of view is "I know but he is black, I'm just saying what I see. I'd do the same with a with a ginger or fat person. Just because I attach the word ****, I can't see what the problem is." They can often be people who would not treat black people as anything but equal too. Are we therefore not in danger of tarring people with one brush? Are we not over sensitising the issue by saying "yeah but its different because of historical significance" How long do we hark back to days gone by to form the policy of today?

As I say I find the whole subject very confused now and I'm simply playing devils advocate of course. I just think its not as simple as some think it is.

 

If your point is that the current situation is one in which there are inconsistencies and in which some people can have intentions imputed to them that they did not in fact have, well then you are of course correct. That is inherent in moving from one set of standards to another in a highly emotive area.

This isn't simple. Sometimes rules will be made which are stupid. More often, sensible rules will be applied in a way which is stupid.

The fact that the process is imperfect, thouhg, doesn't make it not worth pursuing.

 

I'd agree with that. The method of pursuit, however, to me needs to be looked at. Educational initiative rather than through legally disparate terms seems the obvious answer if society is to progress, issued under a more rounded appreciation of acceptable behaviour.

 

Thankfully though those not wanting the subject challenged are in an ever increasing minority. That is exactly what I meant but what I was also advocating is that we will always need to look at some of the previous laws etc that have been put in place and re-evaluate them as time moves on. Is calling someone a black **** racist? It is by law but does that need to be challenged? Or do we need to challenge the fact that calling someone a ginger **** is lesser offence? I think we have to keep a open mind to how the subject is tackled and be willing to backtrack as required.

 

Undoubtedly this is the key for me. It is clear to me this is a much more progressive and successful approach. There should always be a line where legal channels are required.

 

Maybe this is all getting too heavy for a Friday, post some ladies breasts please, just to lighten the mood. Damn that's sexist isn't it?

 

I can post some man breasts if you'd prefer...




Oh **** that's fat-ist... This is a minefield...

 

Boobs ! By all means boobs !

Any colour, any gender. Life is better with boobs.

Or, as the spanish say, "Sin tetas, no hay paradiso"

 

Rep

 

Agree entirely

OP, I don't think this is one idiot, I think this is typical of all Sunderland fans, no class whatsoever.

 

please log in to view this image