Racism in Football

[bobzy]

8 minutes ago, 7392craig said:

A group can claim to be about equality whilst their opinion/means of achieving so can be incorrect. To keep it short, I believe racial equality is fundamental to a flourishing society, without it all we do is minimise the pool of potential, as talent and iq are limited as in any society. I don’t believe that blm’s views towards equity or how it is to be achieved, nor their stance on modern racism is anything more than damaging towards this, IMO. The BLM organisation has helped raise some important issues, which can only be a good thing. But it seems clear to me that it’s not them that have the answers.

That's fair - even if very vague.  To me, it seems a bit odd to be against a movement because they "don't have the answers".  I'd assume that highlighting the issues and raising awareness of, say, police brutality against black people would be a good thing even if the method of doing so isn't something you'd approve of.  In the same way that taking a knee is a good thing because it highlights the racism issue even if you think some people attribute it to a different thing altogether.

I'm guessing you wouldn't say you're "against" taking the knee (even though it clearly doesn't have the answers)?

 

Edit:  Sounds like entrapment - not after that at all.  Just struggle to see why anyone wouldn't be in favour of an anti-racism symbol - particularly if those minorities who are impacted want to do it.  Baffles my mind, it does.

Edited July 14, 2021 by bobzy

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Rolta said:

Maybe you could be specific. I'm interested in the answer too, but what you've put here is a little vague.

I’m with @7392craig to an extent. USA BLM do not have the, or all the, answers and solutions to racism. Because of the federal nature of the states, defund the police maybe is necessary in a handful of states, but in others definitely not. They are an “organisation” that is pretty much very radical and charged up with “righteousness”, but their range of solutions and statements is as much emotional as practical in many instances. 

[HalfTimePost]

Defund the Police is very very very different in the US.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/612682/

Cities and States get their own budgets for police and whilst it's similar here, the sheer size of those cities means that the Mayors of say New York or the regional governments have much bigger influences than say The Mayor of London. It's a political thing, the election races for those are so much bigger and hard fought than the comparisons here, Police funding is an easy win, so the budgets are disproportionate. Lobbyists etc have a huge influence and in some areas the funding to the police force and literally militarizing it is insane. The 'government' contracts are huge.

Defund the Police isn't saying remove their funding and **** the police off. (I'm sure there are some extremist teenagers that would love that but it's not the ask with Defund the Police). Its asking for the military over-funding of the police to be reduced, and for the excessive contracts to be spent on welfare, outreach, rehabilitation and other programs rather than beating people into submission in a rigged system. 

It is not asking for the police as an institution to be removed and everybody self-governs. The US incarcerates people at rates much higher than other NATO countries, military funding is double in GDP terms. Massachusetts imprisons more people than all but 9 countries in the world. It is a very different argument for a very different nation. 

There are some parallels in the UK, this article does a better job of articulating it than I will. But to be clear, Defund the Police is a slogan (a poor one imo, but nvm)  but it doesn't mean remove the Police and all of its funding. https://www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/20060

There are bits I disagree with, like abolishing prisons, but I do agree that some sentences would be better served with rehabilitation than imprisonment. But again, different in the US because of the sheer rate of incarceration.

 

[7392craig]

31 minutes ago, bobzy said:

That's fair - even if very vague.  To me, it seems a bit odd to be against a movement because they "don't have the answers".  I'd assume that highlighting the issues and raising awareness of, say, police brutality against black people would be a good thing even if the method of doing so isn't something you'd approve of.  In the same way that taking a knee is a good thing because it highlights the racism issue even if you think some people attribute it to a different thing altogether.

I'm guessing you wouldn't say you're "against" taking the knee (even though it clearly doesn't have the answers)?

 

Edit:  Sounds like entrapment - not after that at all.  Just struggle to see why anyone wouldn't be in favour of an anti-racism symbol - particularly if those minorities who are impacted want to do it.  Baffles my mind, it does.

@Rolta Just to save time.

Firstly, I was speaking about BLM the organisation, not the movement itself, my apologies.

I think an organisation that specifically excludes members of other races is racist itself and will inevitably cause racial tension. The ‘protests’ made little sense to me, destroying public and private property is a crime, has no place and the level of your outrage should not be correlated to the authenticity of your argument. I disagree that society is in a pandemic of racism. I disagree with the idea of equity being the answer to disparity. In regards to police brutality against black people, there is no evidence. White officers do not kill black suspects at a higher rate compared with non white officers. I’m not a racist because I oppose the blm narrative. I support all movement that is away from racial inequality, I believe blm is actually doing greater harm than good.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by 7392craig

[7392craig]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

I’m with @7392craig to an extent. USA BLM do not have the, or all the, answers and solutions to racism. Because of the federal nature of the states, defund the police maybe is necessary in a handful of states, but in others definitely not. They are an “organisation” that is pretty much very radical and charged up with “righteousness”, but their range of solutions and statements is as much emotional as practical in many instances. 

To be more specific in my point. The blm organisation implies that black people are under some sort of existential threat, that is why so many of their approaches are emotionally charged. It does not mean that I oppose change that has came about because of their occurrence. I believe racism exists and we should make constant attempt to eradicate this where possible. Change is needed per example, where necessary. The idea that radical change is needed or even necessary is where I disagree.

[bobzy]

21 minutes ago, 7392craig said:

@Rolta Just to save time.

Firstly, I was speaking about BLM the organisation, not the movement itself, my apologies.

I think an organisation that specifically excludes members of other races is racist itself and will inevitably cause racial tension. The ‘protests’ made little sense to me, destroying public and private property is a crime, has no place and the level of your outrage should not be correlated to the authenticity of your argument. I disagree that society is in a pandemic of racism. I disagree with the idea of equity being the answer to disparity. In regards to police brutality against black people, there is no evidence. White officers do not kill black suspects at a higher rate compared with non white officers. I’m not a racist because I oppose the blm narrative. I support all movement that is away from racial inequality, I believe blm is actually doing greater harm than good.

 

I don't think you understand the police brutality issue if this is your summation.

I also find it quite alarming that you think the protests over someone being killed for having a fake $20 note (apparently?) made little sense.  It's absolutely outrageous that any police officer would have dealt with anyone that way.  Destroying public property is obviously a crime - but killing someone (whilst stating they can't breathe) for a counterfeit note whilst in a position of power is about a million times worse - and that was the tip of the iceberg in a long history of over-zealous enforcement against black civilians.  Of course protesting made sense.

You're pretty vague in your dislike of the movement/organisation/whatever, but that's obviously your call.  I haven't seen anything that suggests they exclude members of other races (source?) and you haven't said what their narrative is that you oppose nor how they're doing greater harm than good.  It's all just soundbite stuff.

I won't profess to being knowledgeable with what the organisation is doing as, frankly, I don't really know nor pay much attention to matters over the pond but I'd hope those who have strong feelings against something could offer a bit more as to why they are bad.  In the same way that someone who is against footballers taking the knee would have a good reason as to why they shouldn't.  Sadly, it seems that those against it are racist to some extent.

Edited July 14, 2021 by bobzy

[tomav84]

in other news, a group chat between pompey u18s has been leaked, containing several racial slurs. spinning a positive on the story, fair play to whichever lad has leaked it. brave thing to do standing up to a group at that age rather than just following the tide

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57833838

Quote

Racist abuse: Portsmouth to investigate claims academy players racially abused England stars

 

[7392craig]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don't think you understand the police brutality issue if this is your summation.

I also find it quite alarming that you think the protests over someone being killed for having a fake $20 note (apparently?) made little sense.  It's absolutely outrageous that any police officer would have dealt with anyone that way.  Destroying public property is obviously a crime - but killing someone (whilst stating they can't breathe) for a counterfeit note whilst in a position of power is about a million times worse - and that was the tip of the iceberg in a long history of over-zealous enforcement against black civilians.  Of course protesting made sense.

You're pretty vague in your dislike of the movement/organisation/whatever, but that's obviously your call.  I haven't seen anything that suggests they exclude members of other races (source?) and you haven't said what their narrative is that you oppose nor how they're doing greater harm than good.  It's all just soundbite stuff.

I won't profess to being knowledgeable with what the organisation is doing as, frankly, I don't really know nor pay much attention to matters over the pond but I'd hope those who have strong feelings against something could offer a bit more as to why they are bad.  In the same way that someone who is against footballers taking the knee would have a good reason as to why they shouldn't.  Sadly, it seems that those against it are racist to some extent.

The killing of George Flloyd doesn’t need to be argued, it was a horrific incident that deserved all the attention it got. But I don’t accept it as evidence that black people are under threat any more than any other race by the police. If that is where we differ then so be it. I certainly have never opposed any footballers/sportspersons use of it so far. Racism in open society is the lowest in history. Online however is another problem, social media has given a platform to the small majority of racists that cause genuine harm to each individual who suffers. The hate they receive is real and needs to be stamped out. I don’t see the issue as a reflection of larger society however.

[HanoiVillan]

18 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said:

Defund the Police isn't saying remove their funding and **** the police off. (I'm sure there are some extremist teenagers that would love that but it's not the ask with Defund the Police). Its asking for the military over-funding of the police to be reduced, and for the excessive contracts to be spent on welfare, outreach, rehabilitation and other programs rather than beating people into submission in a rigged system.

It is not asking for the police as an institution to be removed and everybody self-governs. The US incarcerates people at rates much higher than other NATO countries, military funding is double in GDP terms. Massachusetts imprisons more people than all but 9 countries in the world. It is a very different argument for a very different nation.

One thing about 'defund the police' and 'abolish the police' in American political discourse is that people did not agree about what they meant. However, some people - and not just 'extremist teenagers' but often the very activists who brought the demand into the public domain in the first place - said that they did literally mean they wanted defunding and/or abolition. One such activist famously wrote a piece in the NYT with the very clear title 'Yes, We Literally Mean Abolish the Police'; you can find it here - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html - I would excerpt it but I have run out of free articles for the month, but if you read it you can see she really is calling for abolition.

The organisation that were first to protest George Floyd's murder are called the Black Visions Collective, and here they are explaining their stance:

Other people had different but often confusing interpretations. One Vox article that asked seven scholars to explain the terms returned the following 7 answers:

• 'By “abolish the police,” I mean building a world where we do not rely on anti-Black, white supremacist institutions of order to regulate society. This means that alternative forms of order might be embraced, like community care networks and justice structures rooted in restoration rather than punishment.'
• 'I feel that it is worthwhile to have some advocate for completely eliminating the institution and then re-creating something that is deemed to be more just and humane.'
• '“Police abolition” and “defund the police” are not terms I came up with, and different people mean different things when they use those terms. But a shared objective among most defund proponents, which I also share, is that we need to reset public safety in order to eliminate our overreliance on law enforcement, discrimination, and avoidable harm in public safety, including unnecessary police killings.'
• 'There are a lot of different terms floating around right now — defund, dismantle, disband — but what it comes down to is a call for the abolition of policing. This does not mean that when you dial 911 there won’t be someone to respond to your emergency; it means that the right person will respond with the right skills and tools to provide the care needed.'
• 'Abolition demands that we acknowledge that throughout US history, Black people have been disproportionately subjected to state-sponsored punishment — by design.'
• 'Police abolition to me is a framework for thinking about and imagining alternatives to the nation’s current model of policing . . . Abolition imagines a world without policing and asks: “What does it take to get us there?” To me, this practice of both imagining a better alternative and asking “How do we get there?” is how we get to defunding as a policy proposal. So to me, police abolition includes proposals to defund the police, and reinvestment of that money in otherwise underserved and marginalized communities.'
• 'We are talking about both reallocating funds and imagining a future beyond the institutions of policing that we currently have.'

(from: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-minneapolis)

I think you can see from these answers why these slogans of 'defund the police' and 'abolish the police' have been very hard for potential allies to defend in the time since - because they are hard to explain, contested, and seem to be biased toward people with university educations - which is why they were very counter-productive slogans, but they were what they were.

[bobzy]

38 minutes ago, 7392craig said:

The killing of George Flloyd doesn’t need to be argued, it was a horrific incident that deserved all the attention it got. But I don’t accept it as evidence that black people are under threat any more than any other race by the police. If that is where we differ then so be it. I certainly have never opposed any footballers/sportspersons use of it so far. Racism in open society is the lowest in history. Online however is another problem, social media has given a platform to the small majority of racists that cause genuine harm to each individual who suffers. The hate they receive is real and needs to be stamped out. I don’t see the issue as a reflection of larger society however.

I mean, it's not really a case of 'differing opinion' - statistically, black people are shot at a higher rate than any other race.  Here's a very brief overview:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

If you're black, you're about 2.5 times more likely to be fatally shot by police than if you're white.  As per the link, you're also almost twice as likely to be fatally shot by police if you're hispanic rather than white.  Now, there could be reason for this sort of correlation - maybe police more often shoot people who are involved in violent crime?  It would make sense.  Again, statistically, you're more likely to be involved (or, found guilty of) in violent crime if you're of minority race in the United States.  But people have researched these sort of things and analysed data.  There are an abundance of articles about it - such as this one, from 2015 (so before anyone really cared about BLM) looking at fatal police shootings:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12269

To quote a piece from the summary;

"The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed."

And that's just fatal shootings.  Whether it's unconscious racial bias or a deeper rooted problem, fatal police force is proportionally greater against black people than white people.  Factually.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it there as we're getting wildly off topic r.e: the issue in football.  FWIW, I think racism is on the rise again and has been for a few years since we saw a very significant shift to the right side politically - and, actually, dangerously more to the far-right.  Therefore, I'm not sure we are experiencing "racism in open society" being the lowest in history, or certainly not any more.

Edited July 14, 2021 by bobzy

[a m ole]

Reminder for the deliberately obtuse, the following:

Black Lives Matter Global Network

Black Lives Matter

’black lives matter’

Are three different things. Conflating them is your issue, not anyone else’s. Stop being a **** moron and shut up.

[StanBalaban]

18 hours ago, av1 said:

I have no idea why sports players use social media, but if they did leave it sort of admits defeat which I don’t think is the way forward. 

For those with a higher profile, being on social media is a very lucrative venture. As an extreme example, Ronaldo earns a huge amount more from his social media content than any footballing contract he's had.

Also, players like Mings and Rashford have important social projects that need discussion and promotion.  

[AvonVillain]

10 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

This could well be true. On the other hand we divvy up parts of reality, like society, economics and politics and see them somehow as separate. They are not.

There is no one answer here, should politics play any part in sport or economics is an ongoing debate, so I do disagree with this. For example, the reason there's so much backlash against companies trying to flog there wares to us wrapped in a topical moral message, is because it is as hollow and cynical as it looks.

10 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

That it has lost meaning for Zaha, is fair enough. Has it lost meaning for Tyrone? And most importantly, perhaps, has it lost meaning for the people that "boo"? These are the people who we are trying to reach. And if we are are looking for meaning then there's all kind of existential angst we can delve into. What is the meaning of football and supporting a club? Now, do we reach the people that "boo", that is an interesting question?

I think a part of the problem, as has been fleshed out over and over in this thread, is the pretending to know with certainty how people feel when they boo the knee, which of course I don't, but I'm now willing to consider this in more of an open-minded way, as others are not, which I think covers the existential angst of meaning, desire, action that I'm interested in, and you refer. To continue to talk about 'reaching the people who boo' is a continual search for the horse after it has bolted, specifically when speaking about taking the knee. Which in my opinion is why the message needs to evolve, as this action now seems to be creating a growing resentment. I know it's easier just to dismiss people as thick or racist or whatever, because then you don't have to think about or deal with them.

It's much more difficult to get to grips with the nuance. Just to bring it back to my original point and change of heart on this; do you/anyone really believe that the Vila fans who booed the taking of the knee at VP were all acting out of racist beliefs? Because I don't. So you have to contend with the question: Why were they booing?

[bobzy]

32 minutes ago, AvonVillain said:

It's much more difficult to get to grips with the nuance. Just to bring it back to my original point and change of heart on this; do you/anyone really believe that the Vila fans who booed the taking of the knee at VP were all acting out of racist beliefs? Because I don't. So you have to contend with the question: Why were they booing?

Absolutely, yes.

There are different levels of/to racism, but if your players have specifically stated that, for them, taking the knee is to deliver an anti-racist message and you then boo them taking the knee, then you're going against that message.

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, bobzy said:

I mean, it's not really a case of 'differing opinion' - statistically, black people are shot at a higher rate than any other race.  Here's a very brief overview:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

If you're black, you're about 2.5 times more likely to be fatally shot by police than if you're white.  As per the link, you're also almost twice as likely to be fatally shot by police if you're hispanic rather than white.  Now, there could be reason for this sort of correlation - maybe police more often shoot people who are involved in violent crime?  It would make sense.  Again, statistically, you're more likely to be involved (or, found guilty of) in violent crime if you're of minority race in the United States.  But people have researched these sort of things and analysed data.  There are an abundance of articles about it - such as this one, from 2015 (so before anyone really cared about BLM) looking at fatal police shootings:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12269

To quote a piece from the summary;

"The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed."

And that's just fatal shootings.  Whether it's unconscious racial bias or a deeper rooted problem, fatal police force is proportionally greater against black people than white people.  Factually.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it there as we're getting wildly off topic r.e: the issue in football.  FWIW, I think racism is on the rise again and has been for a few years since we saw a very significant shift to the right side politically - and, actually, dangerously more to the far-right.  Therefore, I'm not sure we are experiencing "racism in open society" being the lowest in history, or certainly not any more.

While I have broadly the same views as craig and some of the other people in this thread who agree with the black rights movement but not BLM the organisation, I agree with you on this point. I'll throw in my two cents on why I think the rhetoric of the BLM organisation is misguided though, as you were asking for that in a previous post.

The key issue for me is that their stated end goal is not looking for a society where people are treated equally whatever the colour of their skin (in their view, that is erasing the culture of black people). Philosophically I just can't get on board with that; I don't think society is improved if divisions are baked in at such a basic level. I also think the idea of there being a "protected" black culture is a problem, because their view is that white culture is shared with society as a whole (as it is the dominant culture) whereas the culture of ethnic minorities is protected so that only people belonging to that minority can be part of it. Again, I just don't think society is improved if ideas and culture isn't allowed to freely flow both ways. To say that it's fine for a black man to freely adopt any part of white culture while a white man would be racist if they wore their hair in dreadlocks doesn't seem defensible intellectually, and clearly trying to enforce such a rule would be an absolute minefield in practice (assigning everyone a specific level of blackness / whiteness so they can be granted appropriate social permissions feels like we're going back to apartheid, frankly).

In more concrete terms, I also think their belief that all the problems faced by black people stem from the colour of their skin is muddling cause and effect, and is then used to support faulty policy solutions. They've correctly identified problems that need fixing but their solutions are not the correct ones.

Like I said, I agree with you that black people have a harder time in life than white people. I also believe they face some unique challenges that a white person of the same socio-economic group would not. But I think by far the single biggest factor in someone's success in life is their socio-economic status and the opportunities it gives them, rather than the colour of their skin. If a company was looking to train a new architect and a young Barack Obama walked in alongside a white yob like Joey Barton, I find it difficult to believe they'd overlook Obama's eloquence and education just because of the colour of his skin (although Obama wouldn't have got to where he did if he was born to a single mother in the ghetto). The problem isn't that the black candidates have dark skin, it's that the average black man isn't given as many opportunities to become a good candidate as the white man is. Same effect, different cause.

However, if you believe the problem is that poor people lack opportunities and black people are disproportionately poor, the solution is to improve opportunities for poor people in general knowing that will disproportionately benefit black people. If you believe the problem is ethnicity, the solution is to give assistance only to black people. Although the average white person has an easier life than the average black person, there are still poor white people who I believe face as many disadvantages as black people do (e.g. I'm sure white traveller communities probably get profiled by police just as much as black people do, etc) and therefore it's again not desirable or morally defensible to apply a solution based purely on race. It's a recipe for social division.

So that's basically where I am. I'm anti-racism and I believe BLM have highlighted problems that need to be fixed, and I'm obviously happy to support solutions that I know will benefit black people more than any other ethnic group because that's the entire point of the black equality movement. But I think solutions or aspirations that go further and exclude people based on the colour of their skin are actively counterproductive. Hence BLM the organisation isn't particularly helpful.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[sparrow1988]

This is not meant as a dig at anyone here, but take the knee, don't take it and raise a fist, stand tall, whatever the protest against racism may be...

 

[bobzy]

14 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

While I have broadly the same views as craig and some of the other people in this thread who agree with the black rights movement but not BLM the organisation, I agree with you on this point. I'll throw in my two cents on why I think the rhetoric of the BLM organisation is misguided though, as you were asking for that in a previous post.

The key issue for me is that their stated end goal is not looking for a society where people are treated equally whatever the colour of their skin (in their view, that is erasing the culture of black people). Philosophically I just can't get on board with that; I don't think society is improved if divisions are baked in at such a basic level. I also think the idea of there being a "protected" black culture is a problem, because their view is that white culture is shared with society as a whole (as it is the dominant culture) whereas the culture of ethnic minorities is protected so that only people belonging to that minority can be part of it. Again, I just don't think society is improved if ideas and culture isn't allowed to freely flow both ways. To say that it's fine for a black man to freely adopt any part of white culture while a white man would be racist if they wore their hair in dreadlocks doesn't seem defensible intellectually, and clearly trying to enforce such a rule would be an absolute minefield in practice (assigning everyone a specific level of blackness / whiteness so they can be granted appropriate social permissions feels like we're going back to apartheid, frankly).

In more concrete terms, I also think their belief that all the problems faced by black people stem from the colour of their skin is muddling cause and effect, and is then used to support faulty policy solutions. They've correctly identified problems that need fixing but their solutions are not the correct ones.

Like I said, I agree with you that black people have a harder time in life than white people. I also believe they face some unique challenges that a white person of the same socio-economic group would not. But I think by far the single biggest factor in someone's success in life is their socio-economic status and the opportunities it gives them, rather than the colour of their skin. If a company was looking to train a new architect and a young Barack Obama walked in alongside a white yob like Joey Barton, I find it difficult to believe they'd overlook Obama's eloquence and education just because of the colour of his skin. The problem isn't that the black candidates have dark skin, it's that the average black man isn't given as many opportunities to become a good candidate as the white man is. Same effect, different cause.

However, if you believe the problem is that poor people lack opportunities and black people are disproportionately poor, the solution is to improve opportunities for poor people in general knowing that will disproportionately benefit black people. If you believe the problem is ethnicity, the solution is to give assistance only to black people. Although the average white person has an easier life than the average black person, there are still poor white people who I believe face as many disadvantages as black people do (e.g. I'm sure white traveller communities probably get profiled by police just as much as black people do, etc) and therefore it's again not desirable or morally defensible to apply a solution based purely on race. It's a recipe for social division.

So that's basically where I am. I'm anti-racism and I believe BLM have highlighted problems that need to be fixed, and I'm obviously happy to support solutions that I know will benefit black people more than any other ethnic group because that's the entire point of the black equality movement. But I think solutions or aspirations that go further and exclude people based on the colour of their skin are actively counterproductive. Hence BLM the organisation isn't particularly helpful.

Appreciate the more detailed response with nuances - will edit this and respond in time!

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, AvonVillain said:

It's much more difficult to get to grips with the nuance. Just to bring it back to my original point and change of heart on this; do you/anyone really believe that the Vila fans who booed the taking of the knee at VP were all acting out of racist beliefs? Because I don't. So you have to contend with the question: Why were they booing?

 Because they’re contrarian, stubborn, selfish idiots who see bringing someone else up as dragging them down. The type of person who says “this is the least racist country in the world” without thinking for a second why that is - it’s certainly nothing to do with them. God forbid something happens and they’re not centre of attention.

People **** suck.

[Villaphan04]

9 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

I live in the USA. I am not sure what the perceived problem with being associated with Black Lives Matter actually is? I can give you my observations.

Black Lives Matter enjoys majority support here (in California) and is completely mainstream. I live in a luxury golf community, they have BLM in ten foot high letters in the tennis courts as you pull into the parking lot of the clubhouse. The cheapest home here is $1.6M , its hardly a hotbed of marxists.  I dont know of anyone in this community who doesn't support Black Lives Matter (including the resident Republicans who are of the "no taxes thanks" variety rather than the bigoted fool Trumper kind). I would say maybe 20% of the shops I visit in the area have BLM posters in the windows, its a common t shirt to see on people of all skin colours I am happy to say.

Don't let anyone fool you into thinking Black Lives Matter is reviled or viewed as some kind of weird marxist political extremist group over here. It isnt. It is seen for exactly what it is, a response to hundred of years of racial injustice and in particular the long track record of American police murdering people of colour. That is the agenda. Stop people getting murdered and abused just because they are black. If you are on board with that, people shouldn't be murdered or abused because they are black, then you will have no problem with BLM.

Anyway if that helps some info.

 

 

 

I completely agree with what you've said, though I have seen plenty of opposition to this in general around the east coast (I've seen plenty of "Trump Won" flags recently which was shocking) and in fact many people whom refer to California as a Communist state. 

 

There was just a kerfuffle about the USWNT and "not respecting" the anthem and I saw plenty of folks getting really angry over it. 

[foreveryoung]

2 hours ago, a m ole said:

 Because they’re contrarian, stubborn, selfish idiots who see bringing someone else up as dragging them down. The type of person who says “this is the least racist country in the world” without thinking for a second why that is - it’s certainly nothing to do with them. God forbid something happens and they’re not centre of attention.

People **** suck.

You have very strong views and that's fine, but I feel you are disrespecting alot of people when not knowing the reason why, an this is what we need to find out. I very much doubt everyone who boos is a racist, an to think they are is just wrong.

I think it's very basic, in that they think it's linked to BLM and they believe it should be that all lives matter. I'm all for anything to help the cause, but "black lives matter" just does not sit right with people, even the anti racists.