Sterling tattoo OUTRAGE

Originally Posted by Cream

Gaza performed out of his skin in Euro 96.

tore a strip off Scotland

Originally Posted by waynes ear's

tore a strip off Scotland

and cried like Nani...

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

Judging an act that contains no overt racism to be covertly racist on no evidence is just silly.

I think that's ridiculous tbh, but fair enough.

Originally Posted by utd99

People don’t like him mate

Which I have never disputed.

He isn't the only footballer out there who is both prominent and dislikeable, but few others have the consistent treatment he has recieved.

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

Which I have never disputed.

He isn't the only footballer out there who is both prominent and dislikeable, but few others have the consistent treatment he has recieved.

But you do accept it may just be because people don’t like him?

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

(Mourinho) In fact I've said several times that I don't think he's a bad bloke

a non-entity like Sterling

Bit racist.

Originally Posted by Buck

9 minutes on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF3jTYjXEe8

Very good point from Nev tbf.

Originally Posted by Clownbones

Asking for facts and scientific evidence when discussing a newspaper article/headline, which centres around tone, seems disingenuous.

Aside from literally labelling him with some racist tag (which no newspaper would do) what would you consider evidence, Irk? (I'm genuinely asking too. Not being a dick.)

Papers, as clumsy as they are, rarely go around overtly stating their opinion/position. It's how they manage to get away with so much shit and hide away like the sniveling shits they are.

They let their position bleed through, bit by bit, which the odd choice of word here, the odd bit of framing there.....leading to exactly the kind of Foden example that started this whole thread. And not just on the issue of race. On anything.

Can we 'prove' they're being racist? Probably not
ffs
, but outside a KKK rally, where do you see something as overt as calling someone a .
.... You know..... It's more subtle than that. Very hard to prove, but equally, I don't think sterling's accounts and examples of similar articles with very different tones depending on the race of the subject should simply be dismissed as %@#$&!s .

These are the discussions that need to be had . Sterling should be able to say this without being dismissed. People should be allowed to question whether the racism exists to the degree people suggest without being labelled ignorant and racist before the conversation even gets going.

Asking for some kind of evidence to back up an assertion of racism is not disingenuous. Taking things at face value, then arguing the toss while still adducing no evidence or in fact not even being able to point to the actual racism is idiotic.

“A word here, framing there, subtle differences” - is it a secret jigsaw that has to be put together?

This new doublethink definition of racism as something insidious, unconscious yet conscious, hidden yet visible to those that are attuned to the special “tone” and that infests all society is %@#$&!s as well.

Look for it hard enough you can find it. Black people arent doing too bad considering we apparently live in 1800s Alabama.

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

There clearly is a strong sub conscious racism in society and especially in the media towards black people however I don't think that's the main reason that Sterling has been targeted by the likes of the Daily Mail as otherwise surely Rashford or Lingard would come in for the same treatment but they don't

Let's be honest this hate campaign against Sterling started when he made the unforgivable and almost sacrilegious decision to force a move away from Liverpool to City

If he had gone from Southampton to City does anyone think he'd have got half the abuse

This clear and sub conscious bias that doesnt affect all black players? What kind of racism doesn’t apply to an entire race?

If it’s selective and only applies to certain members of a race and not others then how can that meaningfully be called racism - which is the hatred of a race based on them being of that race?

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Very good point from Nev tbf.

No it’s not.

Cole plays in the US because that’s where old past it premiership footballers go for a last payday. He’s 37 years old.

He was targetted in the papers because, like beckham, he was going out with a pop star and had affairs. He still didnt get half the shit beckham did despite, unlike beckham, getting caught speeding at over 100mph in a residential area, getting fined for giving it the “big I am” to a copper, and shooting a student in the face with an air gun.

As has been pointed out he was never redeemed by scoring a last minute wonder goal for the national team when all looked lost.

And, god forbid, any black player gets effigies of him burnt a la beckham as you racism hunters would be claiming it was recreating deep south style lynchings.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

Asking for some kind of evidence to back up an assertion of racism is not disingenuous. Taking things at face value, then arguing the toss while still adducing no evidence or in fact not even being able to point to the actual racism is idiotic.

“A word here, framing there, subtle differences” - is it a secret jigsaw that has to be put together?

This new doublethink definition of racism as something insidious, unconscious yet conscious, hidden yet visible to those that are attuned to the special “tone” and that infests all society is %@#$&!s as well.

Look for it hard enough you can find it. Black people arent doing too bad considering we apparently live in 1800s Alabama.




This clear and sub conscious bias that doesnt affect all black players? What kind of racism doesn’t apply to an entire race?

If it’s selective and only applies to certain members of a race and not others then how can that meaningfully be called racism - which is the hatred of a race based on them being of that race?



No it’s not.

Cole plays in the US because that’s where old past it premiership footballers go for a last payday. He’s 37 years old.

He was targetted in the papers because, like beckham, he was going out with a pop star and had affairs. He still didnt get half the shit beckham did despite, unlike beckham, getting caught speeding at over 100mph in a residential area, getting fined for giving it the “big I am” to a copper, and shooting a student in the face with an air gun.

As has been pointed out he was never redeemed by scoring a last minute wonder goal for the national team when all looked lost.

And, god forbid, any black player gets effigies of him burnt a la beckham as you racism hunters would be claiming it was recreating deep south style lynchings.

It's not special tone. It's just tone. And not just tone. Do you not agree that papers have agendas ? They don't have political leanings? Biases? Do you agree that tone can and does exist? If so, why reduce it to 'special' or imply that anyone who claims something has tone thinks they're special?

Are they overt? Is there 'evidence' or 'facts'. Well, no, but that's sort of the point. That these things manifest themselves in things like tone, the occasional word thrown in there. They can't just call him racist names (which would be clear evidence). That's not going to happen.

It's not evidence that it definitely exits, nor should it just be dismissed as %@#$&!s.

I'd argue that it's very much NOT taking things at face value. The face value of the criticism of sterling spending money on a house is exactly that. Criticism of that act.

I think it's important to determine what we mean by 'evidence' in the context of a newspaper. You have suggested I have offered none, while i never claimed to have any.

That was the main point of my reply. To point out that evidence is a hard thing to define and pin down in these cases.

Again, what would be evidence to you in this case?

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

No it’s not.

Cole plays in the US because that’s where old past it premiership footballers go for a last payday. He’s 37 years old.

He was targetted in the papers because, like beckham, he was going out with a pop star and had affairs. He still didnt get half the shit beckham did despite, unlike beckham, getting caught speeding at over 100mph in a residential area, getting fined for giving it the “big I am” to a copper, and shooting a student in the face with an air gun.

As has been pointed out he was never redeemed by scoring a last minute wonder goal for the national team when all looked lost.

And, god forbid, any black player gets effigies of him burnt a la beckham as you racism hunters would be claiming it was recreating deep south style lynchings.

It was more his point that when the white players are up, they get the hero worship. I think that's undoubtedly a reasonable point.

Rooney's list of mistakes is a lot longer than Cole's. And certainly Sterling's.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

It was more his point that when the white players are up, they get the hero worship. I think that's undoubtedly a reasonable point.

Rooney's list of mistakes is a lot longer than Cole's. And certainly Sterling's.

Rooney got nasty coverage for being common and a scouser, which is just as bad.

I think I’m missing Irk’s reasoning here, as it sounds like now nothing is racist, ever, and if you think it is you’re thick. Explain it better, Mary Mary Quite Contrary.

Originally Posted by Knockers

Rooney got nasty coverage for being common and a scouser, which is just as bad.

I think I’m missing Irk’s reasoning here, as it sounds like now nothing is racist, ever, and if you think it is you’re thick. Explain it better, Mary Mary Quite Contrary.

I think his point is that, while we might not like it, we live in an evidence based judicial society. If I’m going to accuse you of something I need to come up with evidence - some reasonable measure of proof - that you actually did it; now while I may not be able to do that, and you may be as guilty as sin, it doesn’t matter because to do away with at least that basic level of due process leads to something far far worse.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I do think if he'd been black he'd be in jail by now

Why? Are you suggesting if he were black he would have undoubtedly committed a crime by now, or that he would have been imprisoned simply for being black?

Originally Posted by utd99

I think his point is that, while we might not like it, we live in an evidence based judicial society. If I’m going to accuse you of something I need to come up with evidence - some reasonable measure of proof - that you actually did it; now while I may not be able to do that, and you may be as guilty as sin, it doesn’t matter because to do away with at least that basic level of due process leads to something far far worse.



Why? Are you suggesting if he were black he would have undoubtedly committed a crime by now, or that he would have been imprisoned simply for being black?

That's fine on an individual, legal level... but that's not what this is. We're not talking about one incident, from an individual, that requires due process and an outcome. We're talking about institutions, made of many individuals, with perhaps 'leanings' or whether you wanna call it.

It's hard to pin down. With either hard evidence or notions of what we sense.

Originally Posted by Clownbones

It's not special tone. It's just tone. And not just tone. Do you not agree that papers have agendas ? They don't have political leanings? Biases? Do you agree that tone can and does exist? If so, why reduce it to 'special' or imply that anyone who claims something has tone thinks they're special?

Are they overt? Is there 'evidence' or 'facts'. Well, no, but that's sort of the point. That these things manifest themselves in things like tone, the occasional word thrown in there. They can't just call him racist names (which would be clear evidence). That's not going to happen.

It's not evidence that it definitely exits, nor should it just be dismissed as %@#$&!s.

I'd argue that it's very much NOT taking things at face value. The face value of the criticism of sterling spending money on a house is exactly that. Criticism of that act.

I think it's important to determine what we mean by 'evidence' in the context of a newspaper. You have suggested I have offered none, while i never claimed to have any.

That was the main point of my reply. To point out that evidence is a hard thing to define and pin down in these cases.

Again, what would be evidence to you in this case?

Something, anything, amounting to racism. Not just because you feel it to be so from the ‘tone’, a concept so vague as to be meaningless.

Let’s be clear here. The assertion is that the media is institutionally racist. I say there is no evidence of this, that quiite the opposite is the case - the evidence is that they are not and that there is no such thing as institutional racism. You say there is. The onus is on you to demonstrate it. You concede you cannot provie any evidence. That would suggest none exists. Yet you continue to asset you are correct. This is called faith. You believe in an idea based on nothing.

You might as well ask me what evidence I need of unicorns.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

Something, anything, amounting to racism. Not just because you feel it to be so from the ‘tone’, a concept so vague as to be meaningless.

Let’s be clear here. The assertion is that the media is institutionally racist. I say there is no evidence of this, that quiite the opposite is the case - the evidence is that they are not and that there is no such thing as institutional racism. You say there is. The onus is on you to demonstrate it. You concede you cannot provie any evidence. That would suggest none exists. Yet you continue to asset you are correct. This is called faith. You believe in an idea based on nothing.

You might as well ask me what evidence I need of unicorns.

Would you agree that the Mail is institutionally racist then?

Originally Posted by utd99

Why? Are you suggesting if he were black he would have undoubtedly committed a crime by now, or that he would have been imprisoned simply for being black?

Was a deliberate exaggeration pal.

Originally Posted by Clownbones

That's fine on an individual, legal level... but that's not what this is. We're not talking about one incident, from an individual, that requires due process and an outcome. We're talking about institutions, made of many individuals, with perhaps 'leanings' or whether you wanna call it.

It's hard to pin down. With either hard evidence or notions of what we sense.

It’s not just legal, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to permeate through society. Do you really want an environment where simple accusation is enough? What’s to stop all of us from doing it? Do you really trust people to be judges?

Just because you may not be in a courtroom, let’s not pretend there aren’t real world consequences for people unjustly caught in the crosshairs of the thought police if you arm them with enough credibility.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

Something, anything, amounting to racism. Not just because you feel it to be so from the ‘tone’, a concept so vague as to be meaningless.

Let’s be clear here. The assertion is that the media is institutionally racist. I say there is no evidence of this, that quiite the opposite is the case - the evidence is that they are not and that there is no such thing as institutional racism. You say there is. The onus is on you to demonstrate it. You concede you cannot provie any evidence. That would suggest none exists. Yet you continue to asset you are correct. This is called faith. You believe in an idea based on nothing.

You might as well ask me what evidence I need of unicorns.

I have not said that institutional racism exists.

I have no claim to prove.

Why do you keep writing tone in inverted commas like it doesn't exist?

Do you not think tone exists?

We're talking about newspapers. Writing. Writing has tone. Do you disagree?

Is that evidence of racism? No. So please stop suggesting I am saying it does. I am not.

It's not just about tone either. It's the frequency of coverage. It's the images that are used. Particular words. everything. Everything that can create and suggest an bias to some disagree, Whatever that bias can be.

I am saying that asking for evidence in this instant, when it comes to something like racism, is difficult. It isn't black and white (wheeeey!). Outside of a KKK rally, you don't find something so blindngly obvious (the extreme end of a spectrum.). Prejudice, bias exists on a scale and the further down the scale you go, the harder it is to pin down.

'Something, anything amounting to racism'

Like what?

Some people are citing the Foden example as their evidence (rightly or wrongly). You don't agree with it.

What would be racist to you?

The unicorn example is ridiculous. Racism exists. Unicorns don't. We're just trying to determine if it's exists here.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Was a deliberate exaggeration pal.

Ah.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

And the reason you know all those things happened? The media told you.

If wayne wasnt black you’d nnot have heard a peep about it all.

Again, nobody had said other players get an easy ride. As Neville points out, some of the stuff Beckham and Rooney went through was brutal. But his point about their hero status is true. As is the fact that for all you want to portray Sterling as a @#%&!, he hasn't ever really done anything wrong.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

You certainly are. And Ill add edeliberately misrepresenting what Im saying. Ive been crystal clear as have cream and utd99. If you don’t understand the arguments so far perhaps you are thick.

I must be. You said this earlier about secret racists: Until tbey do something overtly racist there is no problem.

I’d say it is a problem tbh and it’s not crystal clear why you’re fulminating about people finding it all a tad uncool. Overall it’s a good thing if people worry about coming over a bit racist and temper their behaviour accordingly.