West Brom Sack Darren Moore; Bilic as Replacement?

[Danny]

I think football fans are far too keen to quash any suggestions of racism within the game, the discussion needs to be broad and I think valid points were made on Talksport (never said that before). 

[Dan+]

I don't think Durham's as bad as he's made out to be. There are times when he is obviously trolling and being a twat but he does make the odd good point.

What he says there, I don't think you can totally brush it all off as rubbish just like that, but I've always been a bit uncomfortable with this idea that the minute you bring racism into an argument it becomes some kind of trump card where you can't question it, and I feel like that about a number of things as well - effectively gives people a license to bend things to suit themselves.

Criminals using mental health as an excuse for their behaviour as well is another one. I'm not having it. It's just a trump card.

You've got to aim some stick at the likes of UEFA as well. This lot who perpetrate this anti-racism message for no reason other than to virtue signal yet when the chips are down they're harder on people who breach advertising rules, they're trivialising the matter as far as I'm concerned.

You need to be harder on proven racists and make an example on them but I'm not comfortable with branding West Brom racist for sacking Darren Moore either. It'll be exactly the same with Macclesfield as well if they ever sack Sol Campbell.

[Large]

2 hours ago, Cannabis said:

What an absolute load of bollocks, why do people give this weapon the time of day? Been living off this "troll" status for years. 

So you honestly believe that there's not one iota of probability of what he says? Why not?

[Large]

5 minutes ago, Cannabis said:

There aren't successful black managers because the ones that have managed have been shite, it's nothing to do with race. 

West Brom felt a change was needed so they sacked him - simple as. If they were as racist as the media is making up then they wouldn't have hired him in the first place.

Just snowflakes being snowflakes. Racism this, let's be PC that.

Well as I've said, people can choose to completely ignore the fact that they gave other managers who were white a lot more slack than they seem to have given the black one all they like, but it's happened. It might have nothing to do whatsoever with colour, and I really do hope so, but I cannot see how faced with the facts anyone can rule it out. And saying the fact they hired him in the first place proves they're most definitely not racist is nonsense. How many times you heard a racist argue they aren't becasue they've got black mates?

[Large]

1 minute ago, Cannabis said:

Strange how a white manager being sacked has never been down the racism then? It's a poor argument all round. A complete non-story.

You are correct. I don't disagree at all that it's not even a consideration for white managers, but again how has that anything to do with the facts surrounding this specific situation? It's a poorer argument to make saying this is definintely not anything to do with racism just becasue it's not.

[Danny]

You can't be racist to white people, so they can't be sacked because of it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

You can't be racist to white people, so they can't be sacked because of it.

You ought to go to China then. They're racist about anyone that's not the type of Asian they are. I think they're probably more xenophobic than racist tbh, but it's definitely a strange experience being white there.

You can be racist to anyone who's a different race to you. I wouldn't advise being racist to people of different racists, because it's what massive dickheads do and is a sign of being extremely low intelligence.

But I do think in a country that's overwhelmingly white, it's a lot harder to point to the sacking of a white person and say it's because they were white... which is obviously the case in England.

I do think the Darren Moore sacking is a bit weird... because they're confirmed for playoffs and he'd done well with them last year after just taking over. So all in all, not a bad season for him. But as mentioned earlier in the thread, it did look as though the wheels had come off for them. Playing like shit home and away with no sign of an answer doesn't exactly bode well for their promotion hopes - and ultimately, getting promoted is what's going to be what determines whether WBA had a successful season or not.

[Danny]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You ought to go to China then. They're racist about anyone that's not the type of Asian they are. I think they're probably more xenophobic than racist tbh, but it's definitely a strange experience being white there.

You can be racist to anyone who's a different race to you. I wouldn't advise being racist to people of different racists, because it's what massive dickheads do and is a sign of being extremely low intelligence.

But I do think in a country that's overwhelmingly white, it's a lot harder to point to the sacking of a white person and say it's because they were white... which is obviously the case in England.

I do think the Darren Moore sacking is a bit weird... because they're confirmed for playoffs and he'd done well with them last year after just taking over. So all in all, not a bad season for him. But as mentioned earlier in the thread, it did look as though the wheels had come off for them. Playing like shit home and away with no sign of an answer doesn't exactly bode well for their promotion hopes - and ultimately, getting promoted is what's going to be what determines whether WBA had a successful season or not.

Racism is systemic discrimination, that just doesn't exist for white people as much as we like to tell ourselves differently.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

Racism is systemic discrimination, that just doesn't exist for white people as much as we like to tell ourselves differently.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

It doesn't need to be systematic to be racist. I think systematic racism is a different type of racism to just "ordinary" racism - it's the bigger societal problem than "ordinary" racism, because it's engrained in society... but that doesn't mean you can't be racist towards white people.

[Danny]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

It doesn't need to be systematic to be racist. I think systematic racism is a different type of racism to just "ordinary" racism - it's the bigger societal problem than "ordinary" racism, because it's engrained in society... but that doesn't mean you can't be racist towards white people.

No but the vast, vast majority of racism in the world is systemic, influenced by governments, media, education...everything down to everyday racism is influenced in some way by the system in which those people exist.

There maybe a corner somewhere in the world where it's of no advantage to be white, but for the vast majority of this planet having white skin is a natural advantage and racism against white people doesn't exist because of that.

[nudge]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You ought to go to China then. They're racist about anyone that's not the type of Asian they are. I think they're probably more xenophobic than racist tbh, but it's definitely a strange experience being white there.

You can be racist to anyone who's a different race to you. I wouldn't advise being racist to people of different racists, because it's what massive dickheads do and is a sign of being extremely low intelligence.

Or just to any of the gazillion new Chinese conclaves in other countries within the Belt & Road area really. Most of the shops, restaurants, cafés will not serve you, owners will not rent their property for you, and you will be very unwelcome anywhere near any of Chinese establishments generally. 

[Danny]

1 minute ago, Cannabis said:

The levels of stupidity that you bring to conversations of this ilk are truly baffling. 

Coming from you that makes me feel better.

[Danny]

Just now, Cannabis said:

You have no idea how much your opinion doesn't bother me - an idiot and SJW rolled into one.

Why would I care if it bothers you? You're a bigot. Quite happy to be an SJW if it means my thought process doesn't involve shouting out "religion of peace", thinking black face is normal or being completely ignorant to the restrictions black coaches and managers face within the UK.

[Danny]

1 minute ago, Cannabis said:

Perhaps with enough posts of this tone, the happy rainbow bubble you want the world to live in can become a reality . No need to respond further, I've made my two cents quite clear about your idiocy although I do understand that it won't be the last time that I have to pull you up on such bizarre and quite frankly laughable views.

Righto matey

[Dr. Gonzo]

34 minutes ago, Danny said:

There maybe a corner somewhere in the world where it's of no advantage to be white, but for the vast majority of this planet having white skin is a natural advantage and racism against white people doesn't exist because of that.

There's pretty large corners of the world where it's of no advantage to be white. Not just in China as I mentioned (most populated country on the planet), but as @nudge mentioned all of those countries in Africa on that One Belt, One Road/Belt & Road/whateverthefuckthey'recallingitnow area are now having that racism imported into Africa (which is racism against whites and blacks! a truly unifying form of racism).

There's kids in America who've gotten the shit kicked out of them for being white in inner city high schools, I know this because it was in my local news. Those kids are just as much of victims as racism as the Middle Eastern kids in another part of San Diego who experienced bullying because their parents are from the Middle East, cos they've got brown skin not white skin.

Racism exists everywhere, not all racism has to be systemic racism - there's a distinction between them. I think saying stuff like "you can't be racist towards white people" takes away from any real meaningful progress on society dealing with racism. Like with most complex issues, it's not just black and white () - there's plenty of grey area. Obviously systemic racism is a bigger problem than racism that exists which isn't systemic.

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

There's pretty large corners of the world where it's of no advantage to be white. Not just in China as I mentioned (most populated country on the planet), but as @nudge mentioned all of those countries in Africa on that One Belt, One Road/Belt & Road/whateverthefuckthey'recallingitnow area are now having that racism imported into Africa (which is racism against whites and blacks! a truly unifying form of racism).

There's kids in America who've gotten the shit kicked out of them for being white in inner city high schools, I know this because it was in my local news. Those kids are just as much of victims as racism as the Middle Eastern kids in another part of San Diego who experienced bullying because their parents are from the Middle East, so they've got brown skin not white skin.

Racism exists everywhere, not all racism has to be systemic racism - there's a distinction between them. I think saying stuff like "you can't be racist towards white people" takes away from any real meaningful progress on society dealing with racism. Like with most complex issues, it's not just black and white () - there's plenty of grey area. Obviously systemic racism is a bigger problem than racism that exists which isn't systemic.

Them being white isn't the issue though, it's the politics and history of racism behind being white that contributes towards it. It's the advantage that being white brings from historic racism/colonialism, that advantage of being white in a country that grooms you into believing you are better than people who aren't white, simply because you are. It's a reaction from that same culture that tells young black people that their lives aren't worth anything in America, that largely the reason they are there is because their skin colour means they are worth nothing and that they will always be at a disadvantage. Black inner city kids will grow up in extremely harsh conditions and harsher than most in America, they are forcibly at the bottom of society and it is dangerous every single day to simply be black and live in America. Them targeting a white kid is them acting out against the systemic racism that has put them in this situation, because they have not freely chose to be in it. They are not targeting the white kids solely because they are white, like black people are consistently targeted solely because they are black. The external social and political circumstances that effect their thought processes and decision making is associating the white kid with the racial, social and political injustices they, their families and their ancestors have had to face. The white kids getting the shit kicked out of them are just caught in the backlash of centuries of oppression, which is really, really unfortunate for them. And it's not right that anyone is bullied or beaten for no reason whatsoever. But it is not racism. The issue is far too complex to simply call that an act of racism.

Regarding Asia/Africa....I've probably bitten off too much than I can chew, so I'm not going to carry the discussion on there as simply I don't know enough about that route and day to day life in China in general. I was generalising, and do believe that it applies largely to most of the globe and of course there are countries where being white would either mean I'd be killed straight away or kidnapped for ransom money, but for a lot of those countries, say African for example, that's still not an act of racism because of the historical/colonial context that applies. Racism is a lot more complex than just "black kids beat a white kid up, that's racist too".

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, Danny said:

Them being white isn't the issue though, it's the politics and history of racism behind being white that contributes towards it. It's the advantage that being white brings from historic racism/colonialism, that advantage of being white in a country that grooms you into believing you are better than people who aren't white, simply because you are. It's a reaction from that same culture that tells young black people that their lives aren't worth anything in America, that largely the reason they are there is because their skin colour means they are worth nothing and that they will always be at a disadvantage. Black inner city kids will grow up in extremely harsh conditions and harsher than most in America, they are forcibly at the bottom of society and it is dangerous every single day to simply be black and live in America. Them targeting a white kid is them acting out against the systemic racism that has put them in this situation, because they have not freely chose to be in it. They are not targeting the white kids solely because they are white, like black people are consistently targeted solely because they are black. The external social and political circumstances that effect their thought processes and decision making is associating the white kid with the racial, social and political injustices they, their families and their ancestors have had to face. The white kids getting the shit kicked out of them are just caught in the backlash of centuries of oppression, which is really, really unfortunate for them. And it's not right that anyone is bullied or beaten for no reason whatsoever. But it is not racism. The issue is far too complex to simply call that an act of racism.

Regarding Asia/Africa....I've probably bitten off too much than I can chew, so I'm not going to carry the discussion on there as simply I don't know enough about that route and day to day life in China in general. I was generalising, and do believe that it applies largely to most of the globe and of course there are countries where being white would either mean I'd be killed straight away or kidnapped for ransom money, but for a lot of those countries, say African for example, that's still not an act of racism because of the historical/colonial context that applies. Racism is a lot more complex than just "black kids beat a white kid up, that's racist too".

I don't agree with that. Them kicking the shit out of a white kid isn't them kicking out at the systemic racism of the society - that kid also had nothing to do with how society is racist. It's just a different form of racism because it's not systematic.

Think about it like this, why are they targeting the white kid as a way of "acting out against the systemic racism" if it's not because of his race? Systematic oppression can exist in other ways without race, as well. What makes it racist is because it's discrimination based on race.

Racism is complex, but it doesn't have to be more complex than the dictionary definition of racism by adding in rules about what races can or can't be racist.

[Danny]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't agree with that. Them kicking the shit out of a white kid isn't them kicking out at the systemic racism of the society - that kid also had nothing to do with how society is racist. It's just a different form of racism because it's not systematic.

Think about it like this, why are they targeting the white kid as a way of "acting out against the systemic racism" if it's not because of his race. Systematic oppression can exist in other ways without race, as well. What makes it racist is because it's discrimination based on race.

Racism is complex, but it doesn't have to be more complex than the dictionary definition of racism by adding in rules about what races can or can't be racist.

Not consciously no, but the systemic racism that has been forced upon them plays apart. Of course him being white plays apart, they're not going to take that anger out on a Mexican. But it's not solely because he's white, the external factors such as slavery, segregation, day to day racism that has plagued black people and put on them by white people since they were brought over to America will influence the culture in which they live. What they're doing is a direct result of the racist system in which they have to live in, but that system isn't designed to cause harm to white people.

The difference between them attacking white kids and white kids attacking them is because white kids are taught consciously and subconsciously that they are better than black kids and that black kids skin colour alone is a reason to hate them. For the black kids beating up the white kids, there are social, economical and political oppression's that have spanned centuries that them and their ancestors have had to suffer that create situations like these.

The "rules" were added in when the white race began systemically oppressing the planet, specifically non-whites. Creating a utopia where this is not the case so that white people can be considered valid targets of racism is whataboutism at it's finest. Bad things can happen to non-deserving white people in the backlash to centuries of systemic, social and economical racism, but it is not racism.

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 minutes ago, Danny said:

Not consciously no, but the systemic racism that has been forced upon them plays apart. Of course him being white plays apart, they're not going to take that anger out on a Mexican. But it's not solely because he's white, the external factors such as slavery, segregation, day to day racism that has plagued black people and put on them by white people since they were brought over to America will influence the culture in which they live. What they're doing is a direct result of the racist system in which they have to live in, but that system isn't designed to cause harm to white people.

The difference between them attacking white kids and white kids attacking them is because white kids are taught consciously and subconsciously that they are better than black kids and that black kids skin colour alone is a reason to hate them. For the black kids beating up the white kids, there are social, economical and political oppression's that have spanned centuries that them and their ancestors have had to suffer that create situations like these.

The "rules" were added in when the white race began systemically oppressing the planet, specifically non-whites. Creating a utopia where this is not the case so that white people can be considered valid targets of racism is whataboutism at it's finest. Bad things can happen to non-deserving white people in the backlash to centuries of systemic, social and economical racism, but it is not racism.

I don't think it has anything to do with whataboutism - it's just me saying there's a definition to racism, which is discrimination based on race. And that's different to systemic racism where there's society systematically discriminating based on race. Both are a problem.

Systemic racism is a far greater problem. I think trying to shift the definition of racism as it is in dictionaries to the definition of systemic racism does nobody any favours in terms of actually getting society to do something about race issues - I think that definition of racism, where you can't be racist against white people, is just going to create more pushback from white people on issues of race. And that pushback is going to slow down society's progress in getting rid of systematic racism, leading to more generations where they have to experience that shite.

[Danny]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think it has anything to do with whataboutism - it's just me saying there's a definition to racism, which is discrimination based on race. And that's different to systemic racism where there's society systematically discriminating based on race. Both are a problem.

Systemic racism is a far greater problem. I think trying to shift the definition of racism as it is in dictionaries to the definition of systemic racism does nobody any favours in terms of actually getting society to do something about race issues - I think that definition of racism, where you can't be racist against white people, is just going to create more pushback from white people on issues of race. And that pushback is going to slow down society's progress in getting rid of systematic racism, leading to more generations where they have to experience that shite.

But it’s a systemic issue before anything else, because of the context surrounding why the boys have chosen the white kid. They won’t hate a white person because they’re white, they’ll do it because of historical and current oppression. There is a system of racism already oppressing them before the issue can just be “we hate white people”, hence why the actual crime is not racist. If anything it’s a fucked up form of friendly fire.

Regarding white people not liking that racism doesn’t apply to them and not liking that, I think that’s just tough shit for white people who dont understand the privilege they have, and that the more white people that wake up to the the racist society they’re groomed to enable the better for society as a whole as we can help try and disable that and help create an inclusive society instead.

[Dr. Gonzo]

27 minutes ago, Danny said:

But it’s a systemic issue before anything else, because of the context surrounding why the boys have chosen the white kid. They won’t hate a white person because they’re white, they’ll do it because of historical and current oppression. There is a system of racism already oppressing them before the issue can just be “we hate white people”, hence why the actual crime is not racist. If anything it’s a fucked up form of friendly fire.

Regarding white people not liking that racism doesn’t apply to them and not liking that, I think that’s just tough shit for white people who dont understand the privilege they have, and that the more white people that wake up to the the racist society they’re groomed to enable the better for society as a whole as we can help try and disable that and help create an inclusive society instead.

It’s literally changing the definition of racism. Picking on a kid because of his white ancestors participating in society being systematically racist is picking on him because of his race. That’s a textbook definition of racism. Just because it’s more rare because it’s a majority race, that doesn’t make it not racially motivated.

Twisting definitions to further a social or political point is, at best, confusing and unhelpful. And at worst, it’s an impediment to getting people to understand and acknowledge systematic racism

[Danny]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

It’s literally changing the definition of racism. Picking on a kid because of his white ancestors participating in society being systematically racist is picking on him because of his race. That’s a textbook definition of racism. Just because it’s more rare because it’s a majority race, that doesn’t make it not racially motivated.

Twisting definitions to further a social or political point is, at best, confusing and unhelpful. And at worst, it’s an impediment to getting people to understand and acknowledge systematic racism

If you are oppressed by the same group of people long enough you will act out towards people of that group, regardless of their position within your oppression. That is not racism. There is context behind that crime. Attacking the white person is subconsciously attacking the system. When roles are reversed there is no system to attack, just people because of their skin colour alone.

Those black kids aren’t going around beating anyone who isn’t black, they’re beating people of the race that has oppressed them. Their actions are a direct result of systemic racism towards them. There are far too many external factors causing this attack to happen for it to be solely racist. It not being racist doesn’t make it right, or acceptable. But racism doesn’t apply here. Whereas when it’s the other way round the only external factor is that you’re taught that you’re better than the person being beaten because of their skin colour. Black people aren’t taught that they’re better than people because of their skin colour.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

If you are oppressed by the same group of people long enough you will act out towards people of that group, regardless of their position within your oppression. That is not racism. There is context behind that crime. Attacking the white person is subconsciously attacking the system. When roles are reversed there is no system to attack, just people because of their skin colour alone.

Those black kids aren’t going around beating anyone who isn’t black, they’re beating people of the race that has oppressed them. Their actions are a direct result of systemic racism towards them. There are far too many external factors causing this attack to happen for it to be solely racist. It not being racist doesn’t make it right, or acceptable. But racism doesn’t apply here. Whereas when it’s the other way round the only external factor is that you’re taught that you’re better than the person being beaten because of their skin colour. Black people aren’t taught that they’re better than people because of their skin colour.

It might have context but it’s still racist. Because at the heart of it they’re kicking the shit out of this kid because he’s white, even if they have their reasons. The kids not an oppressor just because he’s white, he’s 8 years old ffs. If anything, I’m sure the attack made him and his family think very differently of the Black and Mexican neighbors he has.

Redefining words that have existing meaning is dangerous. We live in an era where terrorism is now almost exclusively associated with people of Middle Eastern descent, even when you’ve got terror attacks perpetrated by white people.  There’s nothing in the dictionary that says terrorism has a certain colour, but it’s dangerous (and bigoted) when the media doesn’t call white right radical terrorism what it is: terrorism. By the same token, it’s dangerous to insist that only some races being discriminated against isn’t racist.

If/when another culture becomes the dominant culture (looking at you, China) you’ll definitely want to have hoped the goalposts haven’t shifted and racism still matches the Oxford dictionary definition

[Danny]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It might have context but it’s still racist. Because at the heart of it they’re kicking the shit out of this kid because he’s white, even if they have their reasons. The kids not an oppressor just because he’s white, he’s 8 years old ffs. If anything, I’m sure the attack made him and his family think very differently of the Black and Mexican neighbors he has.

Redefining words that have existing meaning is dangerous. We live in an era where terrorism is now almost exclusively associated with people of Middle Eastern descent, even when you’ve got terror attacks perpetrated by white people.  There’s nothing in the dictionary that says terrorism has a certain colour, but it’s dangerous (and bigoted) when the media doesn’t call white right radical terrorism what it is: terrorism. By the same token, it’s dangerous to insist that only some races being discriminated against isn’t racist.

If/when another culture becomes the dominant culture (looking at you, China) you’ll definitely want to have hoped the goalposts haven’t shifted and racism still matches the Oxford dictionary definition

It’s not redefining the words, they’ve been given definitions through history. But at this point let’s agree to disagree

[Dr. Gonzo]

Pretty strange they still haven't appointed a manager