Racism and Abuse in football | Page 3 | Vital Football

Racism and Abuse in football

GreenNeedle said:
You can criticise things that surround an issue without discrediting the issue itself. Lots of people have issues with BLM, Antifa, Soros which does not mean they disagree with the issues of racism. Because you criticise Soros you are then told you are an anti semite..........even if you never knew he was Jewish.

This is the main problem. There are lots of groups with varying problems, many around their tactics or those that live on the peripherie of them yet any criticism is an immediate attack on that criticsm because you cannot possibly criticise anything with a message of [insert very real problem in society] without being anti that message.

BLM itself has made quite a lot of people rich, lots of celebs jump on these trains (you have to hope for unselfish reasons,) lots of politicians and their masters jump on the train and quite often fund it for mostly their own gain.

You only had to watch the US 2016 election where both Hilary and Trump would just continually drop in lists of [insert minority] as if just giving them a mention meant it was believable that you were fighting for them. This the same Hillary who started the birther issue when she wanted to beat Obama. Trumps "wall" in 2016 is bad bad, racist. Hillary's "wall" in 2008 wasn't?

Watch the rallies from either side in the US every time (not just 2016) Not just the politicians and all their allies that will reel off the minorities in their statements but their supporters in the audience with their banners!!!

"women for Trump", "Latinos for Trump", "Gays for Biden." We even had it here for a while with Corbyn!! Banners"Jews for Corbyn." "Jews against Corbyn."

People question not the subject but quite often groups that utilise something that needs to change for their own benefit. More often than not for political, monetary or power gain.

Maintaining those divides is essential to these powerful people to ever let it diminish, so as that divide closes they highlight issues more, they extend what they encompass as being in that divide and they make sure they set either side of the divide against each other to try and open it up again.

Most times the people with the power and money that are funding or promoting these things are the architects of the problem getting (or appearing) worse because they want it to get worse because it pulls more power or money to them.

Marcus Rashford is a bit different because he is a normal fella, that came from the bottom and just wants to help. The danger is when powerful people latch on to him. use it for political or status gain and then it starts to go wrong.
Click to expand...

I can't let that go. You have repeated at least four lies which are used to discredit progressive movements. I'm absolutely sure that you've done it unwittingly, but that's the way these things work - insidious and repeated disinformation that people slowly start to believe.
This is the way it works. As MaineRoad says, tactics like this are just a way of justifying equivocation in situation where real action needs to be taken.
 
Abuse in football - tell me about it. I have to put the headphones on in the house otherwise I get what is that rabble
 
tinnionsrightfoot said:
I can't let that go. You have repeated at least four lies which are used to discredit progressive movements. I'm absolutely sure that you've done it unwittingly, but that's the way these things work - insidious and repeated disinformation that people slowly start to believe.
This is the way it works. As MaineRoad says, tactics like this are just a way of justifying equivocation in situation where real action needs to be taken.
Click to expand...

1 - It began among her supporters and she never denied it. She was happy to let it run when it suited her back then. Roll forward 8 years and all is forgotten especially by her or anyone supporting her.

2 - She voted for the secure fence act in 2006. She was still stating in 2015 her support for a "physical barrier." Obama voted for the "fence" as well.
Wall or fence? A difference? The wall trump has built is quite literally a fence. It became a political football. Bush's fence (that Obama and Hillary supported and yes did vote for) became an issue of language. Wall/fence/physical barrier. It became an anti Trump thing to try and pretend Trump's wall was any different to Bush's fence that Obama and Hillary voted for and so Hillary was against a wall?? that would look just like the fence she voted for and supported??

3 - Lots of people attached to "honourable" causes get rich. What about the "black lives matter foundation" that hijacked the name of the cause yet has nothing to do with those that founded BLM?

4 - People have heard of Soros because he has a history of funding things he "believes in" which end up earning him money. Most people have no idea he is a Jew until they are called an anti-semite for bringing his name up. It is just another shame-word to attempt to close down any scrutiny.
 
Norfolk Imp said:
One thing I've noticed (not on here) is on the Nostalgia 70's Footie Facebook sites, posters are quick to moan about players today 'taking the knee' and screaming BLM is a Marxist organisation, yet I guarantee none of them have read Das Kapital let alone even heard of it?

All this 'proper football' nonsense compared to today. I regularly tune in to ITV4 Big Match revisited on Saturday mornings, but some of the games are that poor (eg: Spurs v Chelsea 75') it reminded me of Sunday League football let alone Division 4, the standard was that bad.

There's no wonder England never qualified for tournaments in that decade. :shake:
Click to expand...

And the Baseball Ground pitch made Dull's surface look like a billiard table:geek:
 
GreenNeedle said:
1 - It began among her supporters and she never denied it. She was happy to let it run when it suited her back then. Roll forward 8 years and all is forgotten especially by her or anyone supporting her.

2 - She voted for the secure fence act in 2006. She was still stating in 2015 her support for a "physical barrier." Obama voted for the "fence" as well.
Wall or fence? A difference? The wall trump has built is quite literally a fence. It became a political football. Bush's fence (that Obama and Hillary supported and yes did vote for) became an issue of language. Wall/fence/physical barrier. It became an anti Trump thing to try and pretend Trump's wall was any different to Bush's fence that Obama and Hillary voted for and so Hillary was against a wall?? that would look just like the fence she voted for and supported??

3 - Lots of people attached to "honourable" causes get rich. What about the "black lives matter foundation" that hijacked the name of the cause yet has nothing to do with those that founded BLM?

4 - People have heard of Soros because he has a history of funding things he "believes in" which end up earning him money. Most people have no idea he is a Jew until they are called an anti-semite for bringing his name up. It is just another shame-word to attempt to close down any scrutiny.
Click to expand...

1) But that's not what you said. What you said originally was not true.
2) That too is not what you said. What you said originally was not true.
3) You still haven't named anybody
4) The only reason you've heard of George Soros is because he's a bogeyman to the hard right (and the hard left) who have spent years promoting anti-semeitic conspiracy theories. Even the BBC says so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-49584157

I ask myself whether it's worthwhile having this debate, but it's when this kind of disinformation gets ignored that we end up with people like Donald Trump.

Ooh, I nearly proved Godwin's law then.
 
I know the modern world likes to read everything literally but:

1 She personally did not start it no. someone who she does not know (probably) started it.

2 OK she didn't vote for a wall. She voted for a fence that looks like Trump's wall.

3 all 3 BLM founders get paid for talks, appearances etc. Sharpton gets paid mega money from his civil rights movement. Same with all of these "we believe in" projects. We have them over here too. Shami got paid loads as director at "Liberty" Owen Jones earns loads from writing, then doing activism, then tweeting to his million followers about his activism and thus selling loads of books, getting appearance fees on telly "all because he believes in these things."

Of course criticising Owen Jones means I must be a homophobe.

Does that BBC article really state that only know about him because of blah, blah? Is that the BBC reality check department. LOL. Most people know the name Soros from the early 90s. Does the BBC mention that in their enlightening article? OR are they trying to erase that to state that Breitbart and the Canary or something made him a bogeyman in recent times?

Soros' name has pretty famous for decades. He is a bogeyman to anyone who sees a leech in action. Nothing to do with his religion he could be agnostic and he would still be a supposed left wing "philanthropist" that is the biggest capitalist going.

I am in complete agreement that all discrimination is disgusting and would support anything that would eliminate it but my point was that in many many cases these things turn into bandwagons that ruin their chances of achieving as much progress as they should.
 
tinnionsrightfoot said:
I can't let that go. You have repeated at least four lies which are used to discredit progressive movements.
  • "Because you criticise Soros you are then told you are an anti semite..........even if you never knew he was Jewish." The only reason anybody has heard of Soros is because he's Jewish. You may not know that, but the only reason you that he's come to your attention is because he's Jewish.
    4 - People have heard of Soros because he has a history of funding things he "believes in" which end up earning him money. Most people have no idea he is a Jew until they are called an anti-semite for bringing his name up. It is just another shame-word to attempt to close down any scrutiny.
Click to expand...
This is the way it works. As MaineRoad says, tactics like this are just a way of justifying equivocation in situation where real action needs to be taken.[/QUOTE]

I could comment on the other points, but the comments about George Soros interested me because I have heard of him in connection with,

1) the run on the pound in the 90's,
2) The fact that the American right seemed to hate him,
3) There are comments about the fact that he is left wing, rich, Jewish and 2) above (1) seems to have been largely forgotten in the UK),

but other than that, I had never really looked at the context. It seems that (in an unsurprisingly familiar story) he is vilified far more widely than I realised, much of the vilification is based on fictitious stories and social media amplification, and that he is an easy target because he is rich and undertakes philanthropic donations. There is a strong suggestion that it is driven by anti-Semitism, but in my opinion that isn't needed as a motive, it could just be a consequence of the type of supporters who perpetuate the slander (as an aside, I think there is a topic of discussion about why a man with Soros' resources hasn't made public legal challenges against some of what has been said about him).

In other words, it is a (generally speaking) uncoordinated, broadly right-wing conspiracy theory that has been adopted and amplified locally to suit whatever political expediency is prevalent in the territory that perpetrates it and Soros' religion can be woven into the narrative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-49584157
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethco...-truth-about-the-obsession-with-george-soros/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...195582-d1e9-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/risin...laims-george-soros-behind-us-unrest-adl-says/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.