Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
FA Chief resigns
Comments
-
You may be right about the development of the game, but the new trend of denying biological reality because it doesn't conform with 'right on' attitudes is ridiculous. It is becoming distinctly Orwellian, in fact.jamesking93 said:
I seriously think the women's game isn't as good because of the FA. During Edwardian times women's football was far more popular than it is now, closing in on, and often eclipsing, the popularity of men's football. During WW1 particularly with men away the women's game flourished in the UK. In the 1920s the FA banned women's teams from using football ground associated to an FA team, forcing the vast majority to disband. Women's football then went into the doldrums until the 1990s. If the women's game had been allowed to continue to develop football would look very different now.DOUCHER said:DOUCHER said:KBslittlesis said:
Dear God.DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
I’m struggling to understand if you’re being serious or just a wum.
So I’ll just say this.
All the while people like you think the way they do and are in football (even just as a fan) there will be no change. We will keep having to say Black Lives Matter. We will keep having to ask the question ‘why won’t a gay footballer come out’. We will keep wondering why the women’s game just isn’t as good.
You, Clarke & pretty much all of those shiny arsed eejits in their offices in the FA should be, as the Kick it Out campaign so eloquently put it, ‘consigned to the dustbin of history’.
Do you think football is racist? do you think any chairman would not employ a black manager if he thought he would be the best man for the job? Why do they happily pay lots of money to black players? Can you answer me that please rather than trotting out the usual nonsense.
Do you seriously think the women's game isn't as good because of the fa? Why can't we just be honest - they're nowhere near as good at it as men - simple. no WUM, just being truthful - nobody is stopping anybody watching or playing women's football
Women are not as good as men at football because of anatomy and physiology, not sexism. Blame evolution, not the FA.
I agree with those here pointing out that the reporting of this current matter has muddied the water somewhat. The BBC are saying, basically, that he had to resign for use of the word 'coloured' and omit to mention that he also said that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, amongst other gaffes.
Intent is crucial here. If someone does not intend to cause offence and is genuine and reasonable, then people should put their pitchforks away and get a life. The permanently outraged Twitter PC Police can go and fuck themselves in such situations, IMHO. This is not such a case, however. This fella just showed that he is a bit of a moron and thus unsuitable to be the head of an organisation with this much power and influence. End of.
Given the state of football, I would be surprised if he is the only example. Stockley Park, anyone?2 -
Whether women’s football is as “good” as men’s is subjective; whether it had its growth stunted by the FA is objectively true.bigstemarra said:
You may be right about the development of the game, but the new trend of denying biological reality because it doesn't conform with 'right on' attitudes is ridiculous. It is becoming distinctly Orwellian, in fact.jamesking93 said:
I seriously think the women's game isn't as good because of the FA. During Edwardian times women's football was far more popular than it is now, closing in on, and often eclipsing, the popularity of men's football. During WW1 particularly with men away the women's game flourished in the UK. In the 1920s the FA banned women's teams from using football ground associated to an FA team, forcing the vast majority to disband. Women's football then went into the doldrums until the 1990s. If the women's game had been allowed to continue to develop football would look very different now.DOUCHER said:DOUCHER said:KBslittlesis said:
Dear God.DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
I’m struggling to understand if you’re being serious or just a wum.
So I’ll just say this.
All the while people like you think the way they do and are in football (even just as a fan) there will be no change. We will keep having to say Black Lives Matter. We will keep having to ask the question ‘why won’t a gay footballer come out’. We will keep wondering why the women’s game just isn’t as good.
You, Clarke & pretty much all of those shiny arsed eejits in their offices in the FA should be, as the Kick it Out campaign so eloquently put it, ‘consigned to the dustbin of history’.
Do you think football is racist? do you think any chairman would not employ a black manager if he thought he would be the best man for the job? Why do they happily pay lots of money to black players? Can you answer me that please rather than trotting out the usual nonsense.
Do you seriously think the women's game isn't as good because of the fa? Why can't we just be honest - they're nowhere near as good at it as men - simple. no WUM, just being truthful - nobody is stopping anybody watching or playing women's football
Women are not as good as men at football because of anatomy and physiology, not sexism. Blame evolution, not the FA.
I agree with those here pointing out that the reporting of this current matter has muddied the water somewhat. The BBC are saying, basically, that he had to resign for use of the word 'coloured' and omit to mention that he also said that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, amongst other gaffes.
Intent is crucial here. If someone does not intend to cause offence and is genuine and reasonable, then people should put their pitchforks away and get a life. The permanently outraged Twitter PC Police can go and fuck themselves in such situations, IMHO. This is not such a case, however. This fella just showed that he is a bit of a moron and thus unsuitable to be the head of an organisation with this much power and influence. End of.
Given the state of football, I would be surprised if he is the only example. Stockley Park, anyone?9 -
Britons, beer and foreigners. Unfortunatley not a good combination.Dazzler21 said:
It highlights the racism seen in indian restaurants week in and week out (when there's no global pandemic).seth plum said:Worth posting.
One function of humour is to be provocative.
That sketch fulfils that requirement.
I remember the original scene and whilst it was definitely funnier, this still made me smile at how accurately it takes the piss out of the relatively common behaviour of lagered up Brits in Indian restaurants. And I also had to cringe a bit too. It's so accurate.1 -
BrentfordAddick said:
I'll bite. What you say about the very best getting the best jobs regardless of race/sexuality etc is true, pretty much. The question is, are there barriers to *reaching* the top. Look at what Clarke said. Now imagine a teacher picking teams at school or a coach at a kids Saturday training class. He's got a decent local kid with Nigerian parents and a decent local kid with Korean parents. Does an inbuilt subconscious bias kick in that sees the first one picked? Think about the proportion of black footballers vs the number of black managers. Should they be so different? Sure, if a black manager does brilliantly in the Championship then they will get considered for Premier League jobs. But how do they get those Championship jobs?DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.
i understand the unconscious bias stuff but i don't go with that - how many black managers have really made a great success of it and made themselves THE choice? Chris hughton has done decent jobs and he is at a decent level - should he be offered a top prem job on basis of what he's done? Chris Powell did great at Charlton but has done very little since - Paul Ince did ok to start with but not pulled up any trees - i listen to people like Emil Heskey and Les Ferdinand who are trotted out occasionally to complain about the lack of black managers but both struggle to stringa sentence together - same with Paul Elliot -its painful listening to him sometimes and as for Clinton Morrison. Now you are gonna say this is racist but its nothing of the sort - if any one of thosde managers had done a continually outstanding job they would be up there and sought after. John Barnes had a great chance at Celtic, what did he do? Too many excuses made - why do miserable dour scots make good managers? i don't know any more than i don't know why black managers, when given a job don't generally tend to excel but to keep saying it is due to racism, i just don't buy it.4 -
I didn't refer to how 'good' it was (as a spectacle, presumably), which would be subjective, I entirely agree.
I referred to how good they were at it, which is objective and measurable.
Please do not, wilfully or otherwise, misrepresent what I have said.
I fully agree about the development of the game. Stopping women participating in the game appeared to be a decision based upon spite, rather than anything else. Thankfully the world has moved on.
0 -
stoneroses19 said:
That’s a ridiculous example to use. The fact your sons team won 10-0 has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition team being gay.DOUCHER said:PaddyP17 said:
Why are there no openly gay footballers?DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
(Earlier you said you admired Greg Clarke for being who he was - i.e. a homophobe. So maybe that's part of why.)
probably because there a very small percentage and they don't want to seem different - that and the nature of football crowds - my son played an all gay team the other sunday - they beat them 10-0 - now of course there are going to be some very good gay footballers but if that team were a representative cross section, i'd say there just aren't many gay pro footballers - saying it how it is i'm afraid - just good old common sense - i know we can't use common sense any more and have to 're educate' ourselves but i'm quite happy with my views - i welcome all sorts, have no problems with any minority groups and i have lots of examples and evidence to back that up - just find things have gone way too far with all this PC crap
i didn't say they were useless because they were gay but they certainly weren't out of the upper echelons of sporting ability - if i see an outstanding all gay team i'll let you know0 -
Then don't create the straw man of people blaming the FA for women being less proficient at football. That is also a misrepresentation.bigstemarra said:I didn't refer to how 'good' it was (as a spectacle, presumably), which would be subjective, I entirely agree.
I referred to how good they were at it, which is objective and measurable.
Please do not, wilfully or otherwise, misrepresent what I have said.
I fully agree about the development of the game. Stopping women participating in the game appeared to be a decision based upon spite, rather than anything else. Thankfully the world has moved on.0 -
You have a point. Fair enough.
Apologies to Jamesking93. He was referring to the state of the game, not the players.
I shall take a dose of my own medicine....
Touche!4 -
Excuse me, what is this? Someone conceding a point on the Internet? ... Better look out the window for any flying pigs!bigstemarra said:You have a point. Fair enough.
Apologies to Jamesking93. He was referring to the state of the game, not the players.
I shall take a dose of my own medicine....
Touche!7 - Sponsored links:
-
0
-
Moreover, I guarantee you they'd get utterly fucking annihilated if they played the Stonewall team we used to play in the Islington midweek league a few years ago. Absolutely mint side, and dirty bastards with itstoneroses19 said:
That’s a ridiculous example to use. The fact your sons team won 10-0 has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition team being gay.DOUCHER said:PaddyP17 said:
Why are there no openly gay footballers?DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
(Earlier you said you admired Greg Clarke for being who he was - i.e. a homophobe. So maybe that's part of why.)
probably because there a very small percentage and they don't want to seem different - that and the nature of football crowds - my son played an all gay team the other sunday - they beat them 10-0 - now of course there are going to be some very good gay footballers but if that team were a representative cross section, i'd say there just aren't many gay pro footballers - saying it how it is i'm afraid - just good old common sense - i know we can't use common sense any more and have to 're educate' ourselves but i'm quite happy with my views - i welcome all sorts, have no problems with any minority groups and i have lots of examples and evidence to back that up - just find things have gone way too far with all this PC crap4 -
Leroy Ambrose said:
Moreover, I guarantee you they'd get utterly fucking annihilated if they played the Stonewall team we used to play in the Islington midweek league a few years ago. Absolutely mint side, and dirty bastards with itstoneroses19 said:
That’s a ridiculous example to use. The fact your sons team won 10-0 has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition team being gay.DOUCHER said:PaddyP17 said:
Why are there no openly gay footballers?DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
(Earlier you said you admired Greg Clarke for being who he was - i.e. a homophobe. So maybe that's part of why.)
probably because there a very small percentage and they don't want to seem different - that and the nature of football crowds - my son played an all gay team the other sunday - they beat them 10-0 - now of course there are going to be some very good gay footballers but if that team were a representative cross section, i'd say there just aren't many gay pro footballers - saying it how it is i'm afraid - just good old common sense - i know we can't use common sense any more and have to 're educate' ourselves but i'm quite happy with my views - i welcome all sorts, have no problems with any minority groups and i have lots of examples and evidence to back that up - just find things have gone way too far with all this PC crap
My pals son used to play for Stonewall and they also won a world gay championship tournament.Leroy Ambrose said:
Moreover, I guarantee you they'd get utterly fucking annihilated if they played the Stonewall team we used to play in the Islington midweek league a few years ago. Absolutely mint side, and dirty bastards with itstoneroses19 said:
That’s a ridiculous example to use. The fact your sons team won 10-0 has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition team being gay.DOUCHER said:PaddyP17 said:
Why are there no openly gay footballers?DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
(Earlier you said you admired Greg Clarke for being who he was - i.e. a homophobe. So maybe that's part of why.)
probably because there a very small percentage and they don't want to seem different - that and the nature of football crowds - my son played an all gay team the other sunday - they beat them 10-0 - now of course there are going to be some very good gay footballers but if that team were a representative cross section, i'd say there just aren't many gay pro footballers - saying it how it is i'm afraid - just good old common sense - i know we can't use common sense any more and have to 're educate' ourselves but i'm quite happy with my views - i welcome all sorts, have no problems with any minority groups and i have lots of examples and evidence to back that up - just find things have gone way too far with all this PC crap
He used to go to Mallory and is now settled in Hastings with his partner.....nice fella too.
Unfortunately my pal (his dad), died last year and I sadly travelled down to Hastings for his funeral.....he was one of the old 60’s Lewisham Mods.3 -
You seem to think that it's all straight forward. I'd like to suggest it's far from it as this thread is evidence to.ShootersHillGuru said:
That’s the point. They are black peoples not green, orange or purple. They don’t want to be called “coloured” and surely it’s not too difficult to learn to use the word black. The time will come eventually when everyone is just called people but until man can move on from its petty labels, the least we can do is respect what people want.lancashire lad said:I don't know what Clarke said and have no intention of wasting my time finding our, he's gone and from what the majority of you say rightly so with which I can only concur.
What I do take exception to is the use of the word "coloured' to describe people of different ethnic mixes, what's wrong with it, it is a word that aptly describes the subject, if you suggest that I should use the expression "people of colour" then that is PC taken too far. After all we are all coloured as white and pink are colours!
Meghan Markle refers to herself as a 'person of color'. As has been said before, people of a certain age were told that 'coloured' is the polite way to refer to a black person.
If you listened to LBC today, you would have heard a bloke say that he wanted to be referred to as 'coloured' and is miffed that he can't. Another fella doesn't like being called 'coloured' or a 'person of colour' he wants to be referred to as 'brown'.
Why would someone be highly offended to be called something that another person prefers to be referred by?
For as long as I can remember, I have ridden classic 'Jap' bikes, at no point has this term ever been used in a derogatory way to my knowledge. This term is now frowned up in the USA and crossing the Pond. Why is the shortening of Japanese considered offensive by some people but the shortening of British not considered offensive by anyone?
Petty labels can be useful at times, how else would we describe someone likely to contract Sickle Cell for example?
Greg Clarke is a knob BTW and based on his comments, was an obstacle to moving UK football into a better place.8 -
Not resigning his position at FIFA.0
-
Just a couple of hours after Greg Clarke told he was staying on as FIFA VP at the request of UEFA... he’s now gone after a call with UEFA. right across this storyUEFA: Greg Clarke leaves role as FIFA vice-president too. “Following telephone call this morning between UEFA President and Greg Clarke, they agreed with Greg Clarke’s proposal that he should step down with immediate effect from position as UEFA representative on FIFA Council.”1
-
I often wonder WHO decides what is the correct term, or when a term is considered offensive. It's not as if the group affected is polled, and that after 2 million votes were counted, they agreed that term X was offensive now, and that term Y should be used instead. You see a spokesperson on the news saying "this is offensive to the black/Polish/gay/Christian etc" community, but what gives them the authority to be offended on behalf of all those people anyway, when there will also be individuals who couldn't care less.TellyTubby said:
You seem to think that it's all straight forward. I'd like to suggest it's far from it as this thread is evidence to.ShootersHillGuru said:
That’s the point. They are black peoples not green, orange or purple. They don’t want to be called “coloured” and surely it’s not too difficult to learn to use the word black. The time will come eventually when everyone is just called people but until man can move on from its petty labels, the least we can do is respect what people want.lancashire lad said:I don't know what Clarke said and have no intention of wasting my time finding our, he's gone and from what the majority of you say rightly so with which I can only concur.
What I do take exception to is the use of the word "coloured' to describe people of different ethnic mixes, what's wrong with it, it is a word that aptly describes the subject, if you suggest that I should use the expression "people of colour" then that is PC taken too far. After all we are all coloured as white and pink are colours!
Meghan Markle refers to herself as a 'person of color'. As has been said before, people of a certain age were told that 'coloured' is the polite way to refer to a black person.
If you listened to LBC today, you would have heard a bloke say that he wanted to be referred to as 'coloured' and is miffed that he can't. Another fella doesn't like being called 'coloured' or a 'person of colour' he wants to be referred to as 'brown'.
Why would someone be highly offended to be called something that another person prefers to be referred by?
For as long as I can remember, I have ridden classic 'Jap' bikes, at no point has this term ever been used in a derogatory way to my knowledge. This term is now frowned up in the USA and crossing the Pond. Why is the shortening of Japanese considered offensive by some people but the shortening of British not considered offensive by anyone?
Petty labels can be useful at times, how else would we describe someone likely to contract Sickle Cell for example?
Greg Clarke is a knob BTW and based on his comments, was an obstacle to moving UK football into a better place.
7 -
I have a passion for Native American History. The "acceptable" terminology used to describe the indiginious people has changed many times over the years, from Redskins to Indians, to Native Americans. In Canada the "in" language is "First Nations People". When I met an indiginious person on a very poor reservation in South Dakota, he was happy to be described as "Indian".killerandflash said:
I often wonder WHO decides what is the correct term, or when a term is considered offensive. It's not as if the group affected is polled, and that after 2 million votes were counted, they agreed that term X was offensive now, and that term Y should be used instead. You see a spokesperson on the news saying "this is offensive to the black/Polish/gay/Christian etc" community, but what gives them the authority to be offended on behalf of all those people anyway, when there will also be individuals who couldn't care less.TellyTubby said:
You seem to think that it's all straight forward. I'd like to suggest it's far from it as this thread is evidence to.ShootersHillGuru said:
That’s the point. They are black peoples not green, orange or purple. They don’t want to be called “coloured” and surely it’s not too difficult to learn to use the word black. The time will come eventually when everyone is just called people but until man can move on from its petty labels, the least we can do is respect what people want.lancashire lad said:I don't know what Clarke said and have no intention of wasting my time finding our, he's gone and from what the majority of you say rightly so with which I can only concur.
What I do take exception to is the use of the word "coloured' to describe people of different ethnic mixes, what's wrong with it, it is a word that aptly describes the subject, if you suggest that I should use the expression "people of colour" then that is PC taken too far. After all we are all coloured as white and pink are colours!
Meghan Markle refers to herself as a 'person of color'. As has been said before, people of a certain age were told that 'coloured' is the polite way to refer to a black person.
If you listened to LBC today, you would have heard a bloke say that he wanted to be referred to as 'coloured' and is miffed that he can't. Another fella doesn't like being called 'coloured' or a 'person of colour' he wants to be referred to as 'brown'.
Why would someone be highly offended to be called something that another person prefers to be referred by?
For as long as I can remember, I have ridden classic 'Jap' bikes, at no point has this term ever been used in a derogatory way to my knowledge. This term is now frowned up in the USA and crossing the Pond. Why is the shortening of Japanese considered offensive by some people but the shortening of British not considered offensive by anyone?
Petty labels can be useful at times, how else would we describe someone likely to contract Sickle Cell for example?
Greg Clarke is a knob BTW and based on his comments, was an obstacle to moving UK football into a better place.1 -
I met two Canadian sociologists who said the correct term should be North American Aboriginals0
- Sponsored links:
-
I think the truth is closer to the actual term doesn't matter. Most of them have factual or historically inoffensive origins. It's how the term has been historical used that's the issue.cafc999 said:
Until someone gets offended by that term.seth plum said:I met two Canadian sociologists who said the correct term should be North American Aboriginals
For example there is nothing wrong with the word Paki it's short for Pakistani. It's how it was used, in the recent past, that makes it offensive now.0 -
Leroy Ambrose said:
Moreover, I guarantee you they'd get utterly fucking annihilated if they played the Stonewall team we used to play in the Islington midweek league a few years ago. Absolutely mint side, and dirty bastards with itstoneroses19 said:
That’s a ridiculous example to use. The fact your sons team won 10-0 has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition team being gay.DOUCHER said:PaddyP17 said:
Why are there no openly gay footballers?DOUCHER said:
just out of interesdt, how does football need to move forward? what is wrong with it? if ever there is an industry where the employers totally ignore anything other than ability it is football - if a chairman thought somebody was going to score him 30 goals a season or be a manager that was going to win him the league, he wouldn't care whether that person was black, yellow, pink, green, one legged, female / male , non binary, a rapist, mugger or a bank robber - the idea that football is in some way racist or any other ist for that matter is complete nonsense. THere are loads of black footballers because they are good at it, there aren't so many black managers if any because clearly they aren't so good at it and there aren't many asian players because they aren't generally good at it. Discrimination doesn't come into it - its nonsense.KBslittlesis said:Read everything he said.It’s out there.
The BBC etc seem to have cherry picked the coloured & look at the IT department quotes.
I’m disappointed they haven’t used everything he said today as it might make those think it’s ‘PC gone mad’ think again.
The man is a fossil, like many others around him.
All the while these types are still involved, football will never move forward.
(Earlier you said you admired Greg Clarke for being who he was - i.e. a homophobe. So maybe that's part of why.)
probably because there a very small percentage and they don't want to seem different - that and the nature of football crowds - my son played an all gay team the other sunday - they beat them 10-0 - now of course there are going to be some very good gay footballers but if that team were a representative cross section, i'd say there just aren't many gay pro footballers - saying it how it is i'm afraid - just good old common sense - i know we can't use common sense any more and have to 're educate' ourselves but i'm quite happy with my views - i welcome all sorts, have no problems with any minority groups and i have lots of examples and evidence to back that up - just find things have gone way too far with all this PC crap
well, i don't know but i guess if there is a selection procedure to get in - i.e all the best gay players in the country - then they might although i doubt it. The captain of the gay team that lost 10-0 was excessively violent in his tackles and should have been sent off - its not all about aggression!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
From memory the word was a catch all for a vast area. It was all encompassing like saying Norwegians were the same as Greeks. Also thugs would go out 'paki bashing' where they attacked people with a brown skin.Cafc43v3r said:
I think the truth is closer to the actual term doesn't matter. Most of them have factual or historically inoffensive origins. It's how the term has been historical used that's the issue.cafc999 said:
Until someone gets offended by that term.seth plum said:I met two Canadian sociologists who said the correct term should be North American Aboriginals
For example there is nothing wrong with the word Paki it's short for Pakistani. It's how it was used, in the recent past, that makes it offensive now.
See also 'queer bashing'.0 -
The word 'paki' has literally *never* been used in the UK as anything other than a pejorative term. Simply saying it used to be acceptable because it's a contraction of a word is factually inaccurate, at best - or deliberately disingenous at worst.Cafc43v3r said:
I think the truth is closer to the actual term doesn't matter. Most of them have factual or historically inoffensive origins. It's how the term has been historical used that's the issue.cafc999 said:
Until someone gets offended by that term.seth plum said:I met two Canadian sociologists who said the correct term should be North American Aboriginals
For example there is nothing wrong with the word Paki it's short for Pakistani. It's how it was used, in the recent past, that makes it offensive now.9 -
0
-
I didn't say it used to be acceptable. As you say it's never been used as anything other than a pejorative term. And as @seth plum correctly it was used as a catch all. That's why it's offensive.Leroy Ambrose said:
The word 'paki' has literally *never* been used in the UK as anything other than a pejorative term. Simply saying it used to be acceptable because it's a contraction of a word is factually inaccurate, at best - or deliberately disingenous at worst.Cafc43v3r said:
I think the truth is closer to the actual term doesn't matter. Most of them have factual or historically inoffensive origins. It's how the term has been historical used that's the issue.cafc999 said:
Until someone gets offended by that term.seth plum said:I met two Canadian sociologists who said the correct term should be North American Aboriginals
For example there is nothing wrong with the word Paki it's short for Pakistani. It's how it was used, in the recent past, that makes it offensive now.
If it hadn't been used like that there would be nothing wrong with the word. The word is not, in itself, offensive is it.0 -
It’s strange that Australian cricket broadcasters still refer to The Pakis.....and the Pakistani team and guests in the broadcasting booths don’t seem to give a toss.
I think one of the reasons that Pakistanis disapproved of its usage in the UK was because we were also calling Indians Pakis, which they absolutely hated and vice versa Indians hated being referred to as Pakis.
Tell me I’m wrong.3 -
Have to disagree, that term was definitely harmful even 5/10 years ago.Showmetheway2gohome said:Sorry I’m wrong but I thought saying coloured people is less offensive than saying black people.obviously I’m wrong but sure when I was at school they was on about banning saying things like black board or black listed because of it being offensive and it was best to say coloured. I remember about 5/10 years ago my daughter coming home from school saying her teacher had told her off for saying we had a chinky.To me totally harmless remark that we still use today when we have a Chinese takeaway
think the world is going a bit mad when thousands have died from a pandemic and we are worried what word to use to describe someone. Perhaps everyone should where name tags so we can call them by there actual names.4 -
You're wrong0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4dGMQC2aR4
https://youtu.be/dzhH2hlNSfs
