George Floyd (2 Viewers)

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

In your opinion.

As a white person I find it offensive and racist. It infers all white people are weak and fragile.
Sounds silly doesn't it?

The fact that you are even considering this angle makes you a racist in the eyes of some on this thread. How dare you even consider that any reference to your skin colour, as you see it, by (and worse still) a black person, would be considered as racist.
But then again most of them condemning you are white. They won't have it any other way.

 

---

[djr8369]

Yes, your point makes a lot of sense. But that is not the reality of what's going on.

Without looking to sidestep this time, lets say the insult wasn't 'snowflake', but was 'polar bear', and let's say 'water buffalo' was a 'black rimmed television' - what would the outcome be?

It would be exactly the same as above. A black person could be allowed to get offended about the television comment, and the white person would be ignored for making such a nonsense accusation.

That is not equal. Until we have equal rules, there will be racism one way or another.

Your point rests on the presumption that these are both just about the colour of the object and the individual being insulted. My entire point was that that is not the case.

“Until we have equal rules, there will be racism one way or another” I’m not sure what your intention is here but it comes across a bit like your main worry about racism is whether there are a very clear set of rules to stop white people feeling offended.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You can't make arrests on a case by case basis by thinking about it in this context. Perhaps give the aggressor a questionnaire before wacking them.

By using the term 'aggressor' you've just said that the assumption is that the black community are the ones to have caused the problem.

I'm saying the reason that that has occurred could be for a number of factors.

For example, if an institutional bias in the police results in more black people being stopped and more frequently, the willingness to co-operate erodes and the black community start to resist or be more problematic, fed up of the situation. Thus the police end up being more heavy handed and start thinking black people are far more troublesome and approach altercations with the black community with a heavier hand to start with, expecting it will be needed. This makes the black community even worse, resulting in an even more heavy handed approach, leading to more distrust and so on in a vicious circle. All started due to discrimination in who and who doesn't get stopped due to racial profiling.

Of course there will also be wrong'uns who will use that narrative as a defence when in fact they were problematic and caused the escalation.

It's not a simple "black people require more heavy handed policing ergo it's the black people causing the problem". It'd be like saying in Nazi Germany "the Jews are more likely to resist arrest and require heavy handed policing. So the Jews' are the problem"

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Your point rests on the presumption that these are both just about the colour of the object and the individual being insulted. My entire point was that that is not the case.

“Until we have equal rules, there will be racism one way or another” I’m not sure what your intention is here but it comes across a bit like your main worry about racism is whether there are a very clear set of rules to stop white people feeling offended.

I don't think white people are offended any more than black people.
However, if a black person called me a white honky I might state that in the current climate of taking offence at anything he ( or she) might retract that because it causes offence and is overtly racist
I might remind them I haven't heard that since Love Thy Neighbour back in the early 70s.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

By using the term 'aggressor' you've just said that the assumption is that the black community are the ones to have caused the problem.

I'm saying the reason that that has occurred could be for a number of factors.

For example, if an institutional bias in the police results in more black people being stopped and more frequently, the willingness to co-operate erodes and the black community start to resist or be more problematic, fed up of the situation. Thus the police end up being more heavy handed and start thinking black people are far more troublesome and approach altercations with the black community with a heavier hand to start with, expecting it will be needed. This makes the black community even worse, resulting in an even more heavy handed approach, leading to more distrust and so on in a vicious circle. All started due to discrimination in who and who doesn't get stopped due to racial profiling.

Of course there will also be wrong'uns who will use that narrative as a defence when in fact they were problematic and caused the escalation.

It's not a simple "black people require more heavy handed policing ergo it's the black people causing the problem". It'd be like saying in Nazi Germany "the Jews are more likely to resist arrest and require heavy handed policing. So the Jews' are the problem"

I've not said the black community are the aggressors.
If the police need to use force to arrest anyone, black or white, then clearly there's some aggression used to resist arrest.
I made a 3 line statement. Where's the reference to solely black people ?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Your point rests on the presumption that these are both just about the colour of the object and the individual being insulted. My entire point was that that is not the case.

“Until we have equal rules, there will be racism one way or another” I’m not sure what your intention is here but it comes across a bit like your main worry about racism is whether there are a very clear set of rules to stop white people feeling offended.

Again, it is all about perception. To try and insist that there are equal measures for all races is quite frankly incorrect.

I certainly want racism eradicated, but using logic like yours is not going to do that. Neither will an organisation like BLM.

 

[djr8369]

Buffalo is to do with build, size and strength as the snowflake is about mindset though, right?

As I have said, you can make anything racist if you want. It's interesting to see people shit themselves when I say Gammon or Snowflake is racist but then not allow the same thing to be said when you change things around a bit.

Just detracts from and dilutes actual racism.

You can’t just make anything racist though. You’re ignoring all history and context and being defensive rather than think about what might actually be racist and then claiming others are diluting “actual racism”.

In fairness I understand and that’s why I’m not trying to belittle or insult anyone. I thought the same thing for years “everything’s racist nowadays” rather than actually stop and listen and have some introspection. It’s a very small mindset shift. Having these conversations is not diluting racism though. Dismissing these more subtle incidents of racism does make people they aren’t feeling heard though and divides us.

That doesn’t mean people can’t make out something is racist when it isn’t or “play the race card”. Those things can happen but they are rare and those phrases are thrown around too readily.

 

[Sick Boy]

Spent the last 3-4 days in Brighton, first time I’ve had more than a passing visit in years. While the city has its issues with homelessness and drugs, the atmosphere where people can be comfortable being themselves is a breath of fresh air. As CC4L said it does turn you into being a bit of a hippy but as places go in this country it’s a model for how to break some of the divides you can see on here.

Brighton is unlike anywhere else in the UK, it’s a fantastic city that should be a model for others to follow.

 

[djr8369]

Spent the last 3-4 days in Brighton, first time I’ve had more than a passing visit in years. While the city has its issues with homelessness and drugs, the atmosphere where people can be comfortable being themselves is a breath of fresh air. As CC4L said it does turn you into being a bit of a hippy but as places go in this country it’s a model for how to break some of the divides you can see on here.

Amazing place. Really makes a difference how people can just completely be themselves and feel comfortable.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Again, it is all about perception. To try and insist that there are equal measures for all races is quite frankly incorrect.

I certainly want racism eradicated, but using logic like yours is not going to do that. Neither will an organisation like BLM.

I wonder if describing anyone as a water buffalo in terms of being racist was ever an issue pre George Floyd .
I'm guessing it wasn't.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I've not said the black community are the aggressors.
If the police need to use force to arrest anyone, black or white, then clearly there's some aggression used to resist arrest.
I made a 3 line statement. Where's the reference to solely black people ?

The argument is that police are more likely to need to use force against black people, therefore black people are more aggressive. That's the implication in that statement.

Of course there will be people that require that force to be apprehended but we've seen plenty of incidents of peaceful protestors sitting/kneeling at the police going in with batons and pepper spray. What aggression was there to warrant the use of force? If one of the protestors reacts to that provocation then the people say "had to use force as they were being aggressive" when the reason they were being aggressive was because of initial police aggression escalating it.

It'd be like if someone kept repeatedly punching you, you don't react so they continue punching you. You do react by punching back and then they and all their mates start kicking the crap out of you saying "he was being aggressive - we had no choice".

 

[Ring Of Steel]

I wonder if describing anyone as a water buffalo in terms of being racist was ever an issue pre George Floyd .
I'm guessing it wasn't.

And as usual you’d be wrong.

 

[clint van damme]

The fact that you are even considering this angle makes you a racist in the eyes of some on this thread. How dare you even consider that any reference to your skin colour, as you see it, by (and worse still) a black person, would be considered as racist.
But then again most of them condemning you are white. They won't have it any other way.

And there are people on this thread who would try to say men in white hoods burning a cross on a black families lawn wasn't racist and would it be racist if they burnt it on a white persons lawn and if they had hoods on how do you know they weren't black themselves!

 

[skybluetony176]

You cannot even remember what I said, you would just rather write on here like a 5 year old rather than going back to examine my points and debate them. It's easier just to shout racist and virtue-signal. Perhaps you should go the way of some of your counterparts on here?

Accept you cannot debate me and block me.

Blah blah Idris Elba blah blah his fault blah blah blah some other random black persons fault.

And no I won’t block you, precisely because I’m not five. Kind of ironic that you challenge me to block you in the same post you accuse me of behaving like a five a year old.

 

[skybluetony176]

They’re translucent.

 

[skybluetony176]

White people do have the ability to do that. This just isn’t an example of racism and to claim it as such is just distracting from racist issues. An accusation some have levelled at black people.

It’s fine to question it and have a discussion about it though. As it is about the water buffalo comment. The difference is “snowflake” is an insult commentating on the mindset of individuals and suggesting they are too easily offended. It has nothing to do with race or skin colour and has no historical connection to racism. Referring to a black person as an animal can be done to infer they are of a lower species and has a long historical precedent.

To say these are the same and imply it’s about picking and choosing offence or give better rights to some over others seems wilfully obtuse or at the least ignorant of context and history.

Best post on here in weeks.

 

[clint van damme]

Best post on here in weeks.

The bars pretty low

 

[skybluetony176]

I wonder if describing anyone as a water buffalo in terms of being racist was ever an issue pre George Floyd .
I'm guessing it wasn't.

There was a very high profile case in the US just a few years ago.

 

[shmmeee]

Water buffalo incident - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Skybluefaz]

Yes, your point makes a lot of sense. But that is not the reality of what's going on.

Without looking to sidestep this time, lets say the insult wasn't 'snowflake', but was 'polar bear', and let's say 'water buffalo' was a 'black rimmed television' - what would the outcome be?

It would be exactly the same as above. A black person could be allowed to get offended about the television comment, and the white person would be ignored for making such a nonsense accusation.

That is not equal. Until we have equal rules, there will be racism one way or another.

What the fuck are you going on about? Black rimmed telly? It would help to equal things up if black people could go to the shop and not end up murdered by a copper. Your right to be offended is not the most important thing going on here.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

What the fuck are you going on about? Black rimmed telly? It would help to equal things up if black people could go to the shop and not end up murdered by a copper. Your right to be offended is not the most important thing going on here.

lol, perfectly put. That’s what it all boils down to, talk about wanting racism “eradicated” but then refusing to accept any other view or opinion until it aligns with his, which as we know involves praising Tommy Robinson, lying about people playing “the race card”, and when the people who actually do suffer racism speak out it’s dismissed and seen as a way to make him apologise for being white. I guess some people are just wired differently ultimately, not sure how you change that unfortunately.

 

[skybluetony176]

What the fuck are you going on about? Black rimmed telly? It would help to equal things up if black people could go to the shop and not end up murdered by a copper. Your right to be offended is not the most important thing going on here.

He’s having a debate.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

What the fuck are you going on about? Black rimmed telly? It would help to equal things up if black people could go to the shop and not end up murdered by a copper. Your right to be offended is not the most important thing going on here.

No, the whole 'debate' is about racism. If all races are equal then someone should be able to get offended as much as the next person regardless of skin colour.

You can pretend to not know what I'm talking about if you like. For someone who claims to care you really have a funny way of trying to combat racism.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

He’s having a debate.

I wish I could.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

lol, perfectly put. That’s what it all boils down to, talk about wanting racism “eradicated” but then refusing to accept any other view or opinion until it aligns with his, which as we know involves praising Tommy Robinson, lying about people playing “the race card”, and when the people who actually do suffer racism speak out it’s dismissed and seen as a way to make him apologise for being white. I guess some people are just wired differently ultimately, not sure how you change that unfortunately.

How would you like to fight racism?

I have never said genuine cases of racism should be thrown out or that me being white is a trigger point. My whole argument is that people trying to argue racism over pathetic reasons does a lot to damage genuine cases of it.

Someone earlier talked about rape convictions and they were right to do so. So many racists don't get convicted because there are many false accusations along with the genuine ones. Who loses? The genuine victims.

Not really sure how what I've said there is incorrect or in fact racist.

 

[covcity4life]

Fucking hell this is actually annoying now. No one is going to dispute that when black people are subjected to racism that sometimes it is comparing them to animals or being sub human are they? No one will deny that at least? Maybe we can to start building from that.

Check out the the game podcast from the times. Latest episode last 10 mins they talk about David silva and yaya toure and how the media talk about them so differently. They use the beast word lol. It's most defintley a thing and hopefully now it's out in the open it will stop. Even Clive tydlsey said commentators need to learn from this bias

 

[Skybluefaz]

No, the whole 'debate' is about racism. If all races are equal then someone should be able to get offended as much as the next person regardless of skin colour.

You can pretend to not know what I'm talking about if you like. For someone who claims to care you really have a funny way of trying to combat racism.

Look at the thread title, your Miss World take on racism doesn't really cut it for me. I do stuff to combat racism in the real world, I haven't done anywhere near enough but I'll endeavor to do more. Writing words on a football forum is really not combating racism.

 

[Skybluefaz]

Fuck sake.

 

[clint van damme]

Fuck sake.

It says racially motivated but has that got the sign off from the race relations experts on here?

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

And as usual you’d be wrong.

Yeah, i bet you've heard loads of black people called water buffalo long before George Floyd was killed. Yeah right.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Look at the thread title, your Miss World take on racism doesn't really cut it for me. I do stuff to combat racism in the real world, I haven't done anywhere near enough but I'll endeavor to do more. Writing words on a football forum is really not combating racism.

How morally high are you , good Sir ?

 

[clint van damme]

Yeah, i bet you've heard loads of black people called water buffalo long before George Floyd was killed. Yeah right.

Did you know what a bugaloo was before George Floyd?
I didn't,and if you did it means something totally different now.

Things change

 

[clint van damme]

How morally high are you , good Sir ?

What's your definition of racism because you're dismissing everyone else's??

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

lol, perfectly put. That’s what it all boils down to, talk about wanting racism “eradicated” but then refusing to accept any other view or opinion until it aligns with his, which as we know involves praising Tommy Robinson, lying about people playing “the race card”, and when the people who actually do suffer racism speak out it’s dismissed and seen as a way to make him apologise for being white. I guess some people are just wired differently ultimately, not sure how you change that unfortunately.

Absolutely hilarious. I thing you're a lost cause.....unfortunately.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Did you know what a bugaloo was before George Floyd?
I didn't,and if you did it means something totally different now.

Things change

Well I can't answer that because I don't know when George Floyd found out what it was .