Racism Part two

[lapal_fan]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Who said that? Where is it from? Is asking for the source so there can be some context being 'nit-picky'?

I'm asking questions -- if you want to immediately retreat to a position of claiming that I'm not arguing in 'good faith' then I think that says more about the position you are taking than the one I am, frankly.

If you genuinely think that I'm not then you are under no obligation to respond and engage with any questions I am asking.

Edit: 'Marxism' means many, many different things to many, many people. Thinking that it is one single,simple thing is a huge error.

I think sometimes Snowman you're after detail that people can't find at your request in a timeline you seem to want it. 

It's fine asking for evidence of everything, but you also need to understand this is a smelly-arsed football fan forum first and foremost and people are probably working in the middle of the day and VT probably is a small distraction from that which is the equivalent to making a cuppa in the office. 

That doesn't necessarily mean they cannot get involved in the discussion because they cannot get all the data you want to justify them being involved, that's on you tbh (imo). 

From my perspective, it just seems @Davkaus has read something, has an opinion on it and just wanted to share that.  It doesn't really need to turn into an inquisition on it.

Not everything has to be part of a process, just take it for what it is - idle chatter in most cases.  

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I think sometimes Snowman you're after detail that people can't find at your request in a timeline you seem to want it. 

You're way, way wide of the mark, here.

I wasn't the person who posted an apparently verbatim quote from someone with no indication as to the source or the context.

If a poster is going to go in search of a quote and reproduce it on VT then it's customary and good form (allowing, obviously, for forgetting) to include a link to the source.

31 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

It's fine asking for evidence of everything

I'm not asking for 'evidence of everything'.

31 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

...they cannot get all the data you want to justify them being involved, that's on you tbh (imo). 

That's absolute rubbish.

If a poster is going to quote other people or use data in support of an argument then it is up to them to supply sources and context for those quotes and that data. It is most definitely not up to other people to go and search them out for themselves.

Edited June 30, 2020 by snowychap

[Follyfoot]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53226508

Quote

 

There is "evident bias" in some football commentary relating to the skin tone of players, according to a new study.

In 80 televised games analysed across four European leagues, including the Premier League, players with a lighter skin tone were praised more often for their intelligence and work ethic.

Meanwhile, those with darker skin tones were "significantly" more likely to be "reduced to their physical characteristics or athletic ability", such as their pace and power.

The research, conducted by Danish firm RunRepeat in association with the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), concluded that the findings showed "bias from commentators".

Got to be honest never noticed this, there is genetic reason why black athletes are quicker, not sure if that was taken into consideration and also wonder if this type of punditry was prevalent with the commentators of yesteryear, (Big Ron excluded) Hugh Johns, Motty , Moore and Stindstat, Brackely and the rest?  

 

[Rob182]

32 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

Lou also need to understand this is a smelly-arsed football fan forum first and foremost

Please provide evidence that the posters on here have smelly arses! 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Rob182 said:

Please provide evidence that the posters on here have smelly arses! 

Please don't!

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

there is genetic reason why black athletes are quicker

At the risk of raising the ire of @lapal_fan, would you like to tell us what this 'genetic reason' apparently is?

[Follyfoot]

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

At the risk of raising the ire of @lapal_fan, would you like to tell us what this 'genetic reason' apparently is?

Physical differences in the length of the limbs and the structure of the body mean the centre of gravity tends to be higher in the bodies of black people, making them quicker especially in full out races of 10 seconds or less which is an above average time in a football match for a player to be at full pelt

Edited June 30, 2020 by Follyfoot

[lapal_fan]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You're way, way wide of the mark, here.

I wasn't the person who posted an apparently verbatim quote from someone with no indication as to the source or the context.

If a poster is going to go in search of a quote and reproduce it on VT then it's customary and good form (allowing, obviously, for forgetting) to include a link to the source.

I'm not asking for 'evidence of everything'.

That's absolute rubbish.

If a poster is going to quote other people or use data in support of an argument then it is up to them to supply sources and context for those quotes and that data. It is most definitely not up to other people to go and search them out for themselves.

Apologies, I meant evidence FOR everything, referring to you asking to provide evidence on whatever it is you are asking for. 

It's the posters choice to include evidence or not, just because they may choose to quote something in a thread, absolutely does not mean they MUST provide the source for it, even if - as you say - it's poor form if they don't and it also slows down whatever point they are trying to make - but sometimes, in the WAY you ask for the evidence, it seems a bit militant/process heavy/school teacher-y. 

As I said, you do whatever you want, but it does come across as a bit "cold" from my perspective. 

(and I know that's not the case)

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Physical differences in the length of the limbs and the structure of the body mean the centre of gravity tends to be higher in the bodies of black people, making them quicker especially in full out races of 10 seconds or less which is an above average time in a football match for a player to be at full pelt

Yep, I think I'll ask for a bit more on this claim.

Some reasons why this is 'genetic', some explanation of why and how this is associated to the colour of someone's skin and some sources for all of this, please.

[Follyfoot]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Yep, I think I'll ask for a bit more on this claim.

Some reasons why this is 'genetic', some explanation of why and how this is associated to the colour of someone's skin and some sources for all of this, please.

you wont because I am going back to work 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

Apologies, I meant evidence FOR everything, referring to you asking to provide evidence on whatever it is you are asking for.

Again, you're wrong.

I'm not asking for 'evidence FOR everything' - you're making up a daft strawman.

I'm asking for evidence when people make a claim about something based on something else (like the above where the poster is claiming that 'there is genetic reason why black athletes are quicker') or a context (or a source) when people quote something or take something from somewhere else and use it (especially verbatim) to support something they've already said.

14 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

It's the posters choice to include evidence or not

Well, in that it's everyone's choice whether or not to do the right thing, yes.

The right thing, if you're going to quote someone else, is to say who it is and where you're getting it from. It's the right thing with regard to the person whom you are quoting and it is the right thing with respect to the specific posters with whom you are interacting and anyone else who may wish to join in the thread/conversation.

The onus should absolutely not be upon everyone else to search out the evidence, supporting info, acknowledgments, &c. for claims that are made by a person (when those claims are based on other things, e.g. data, quotes, &c.).

Arguing such is just bizarre.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

you wont because I am going back to work 

I already have - the request was in the post to which you replied.

 

[Chindie]

There are some genetic differences that lend, for example, some people with some types of African heritage an edge in some respects. The most common example being that people whose ancestry hails from a specific part of West Africa have a higher chance of having a higher level of fast twitch muscle which is beneficial to sprinting.

But... This doesn't mean that every black person is a better sprinter, and it doesn't even mean that every person with heritage from that specific part of Africa is a better sprinter. It just means that a person with that background has a slightly higher chance of having a slightly higher percentage of fast twitch muscle. Meaning is an interesting quirk but doesn't really mean anything ultimately.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

At the risk of raising the ire of @lapal_fan, would you like to tell us what this 'genetic reason' apparently is?

I saw a really good TV programme a few years ago,, presented by the US athlete and commentator Michael Johnson, looking into Black Athletes and why they are so good at different events. He went into the history of slavery and the transport of people from Africa and the Caribbean to the US. Apart from being horrifying in its description of their conditions and treatment he explained how those awful conditions, which led to so many deaths and injuries, also led to a kind of "natural selection", whereby only the strongest slaves with particular attributes of strength and so on survived and how their genes had been passed on through generations, leading to both the physical and medical strengths and vulnerabilities being kind of concentrated or exaggerated as a consequence. I've probably not explained it that clearly, and definitely not as well as MJ did. 

I can't access Youtube from work, but a google search gives this: (I can't see it ,I just get "Access Denied" but hopefully you can). I suspect this might be the programme. or here

 

[Keyblade]

On the subject of defunding the police, Toronto City Council voted down a bill to reduce the $1bn budget by 10% in 2021.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I saw a really good TV programme a few years ago

Yes, I've seen and heard similar arguments.

Michael Johnson is an intelligent, eloquent man and he may well make a case for why he thinks that black athletes might be very good at some events but that doesn't equate to a genetic reason why black athletes are quicker.

Adam Rutherford covered the trope in one of the chapters in his recent book - How to argue with a Racist.

The basis of his point is that it's a very complex thing to look at (the 'genetics of sporting success'), that to identify simply along the lines of our rather arbitrarily defined 'race' classifications isn't very good and that it ignores a myriad of other factors which can also impact upon athletic ability.

That's before one gets in to problems with the idea of taking elite athletes (or elite anything) as a good representative selection for a 'race', a nation, a continent, &c.

 

 

[blandy]

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

Yes, I've seen and heard similar arguments.

Michael Johnson is an intelligent, eloquent man and he may well make a case for why he thinks that black athletes might be very good at some events but that doesn't equate to a genetic reason why black athletes are quicker.

Adam Rutherford covered the trope in one of the chapters in his recent book - How to argue with a Racist.

The basis of his point is that it's a very complex thing to look at (the 'genetics of sporting success'), that to identify simply along the lines of our rather arbitrarily defined 'race' classifications isn't very good and that it ignores a myriad of other factors which can also impact upon athletic ability.

That's before one gets in to problems with the idea of taking elite athletes (or elite anything) as a good representative selection for a 'race', a nation, a continent, &c.

Sure. I added what I recalled to the convo. That's all.  I found the programme interesting as sports lover and as a (reasonably, I hope) enquiring sort of person. I can't recall the exact detail and can't watch it again at work, because all video is blocked, but it's worth a watch IMO.

edit. Now I’m free from work pc it does equate to a genetic reason why black US athletes (not all black people) have a genetic "advantage".  I’m not a geneticist or remotely qualified to know if what it says is truly right, but that’s the whole premise.

Edited July 1, 2020 by blandy
Added last sentence due to video access

[KentVillan]

There is a fairly horrendous chapter in one of the Secret Footballer books where he (Dave Kitson) outlines some pretty questionable beliefs about how black and white players can coexist tactically in a football team.

Basically boils down to black players being quick and / or powerful, and white players being more intelligent, so you play white players in the middle and black players down the wings (or something).

I suspect this kind of attitude, whether explicit or not, is still quite prevalent.

It slightly overlooks how thick 90% of professional footballers are, regardless of skin colour.

Edited June 30, 2020 by KentVillan

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53226508

Got to be honest never noticed this

 

I've complained about this for years. It's obvious once you notice it.

Black players are always (not literally always, just more often) powerful, beasts, quick, pacey. White players more often described as cultured, intelligent, good technique etc.

 

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I've complained about this for years. It's obvious once you notice it.

Black players are always (not literally always, just more often) powerful, beasts, quick, pacey. White players more often described as cultured, intelligent, good technique etc.

I notice it with strikers, it's ridiculously noticeable with Wesley for example and it was with lukaku too

There is a stereotype with big black guys who play up top, more or less all of them are lazily described in the same manner as Drogba even if they play nothing like him