USA Riots/ Protests (Now UK also) | Page 74 | Vital Football

USA Riots/ Protests (Now UK also)

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
That was how I felt with the conclusion, but also, the question is a bit simplistic, is the UK racist. And I would imagine a few of the kids perhaps felt compelled to vote how the rest were.
Yeah, undoubtedly it would've hit the same conclusion and in asking the question you are leading - given the age group, as you say, a bit of peer pressure to conform as well maybe. I think it may have been a better watch (from where I sit) if they'd had an older age group who thought about their experiences more (maybe later episodes do??) and came to their own conclusions in some ways.
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
No, sticks with the same kids. Some bits were awkward viewing, you just wanted to give them a hug, if only we could give the whole world a bit of a hug (after a few get a slap maybe!)

I do remember a teacher at my middle school asking the class if they were against the IRA but supported their aims (of a united Ireland obv). The **** (and he was a ****) then raised his hand, so the rest of the class did the same, apart from me. Caused me no end of hassle, I didn't give a fuck, and it was at that stage I realised I wasn't one of the crowd. Didn't know what peer group pressure was back then, but nice to know even then, I didn't follow it!
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
Re the study for what it's worth - typing as I read so if I contradict myself bear with.

2073 statements from PL, Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1 but only 80 games looked at.

643 'unique players of various races and skin tones' looked at - with skin tone coming from Football Manager 2020's database determination.

They are working on the basis that 'bias exists' because the distribution of comments (despite skin tone) aren't similar - a fair point, but they don't seem to have taken into account player makeup %'s to balance that.

Edit - they have. 643 players, 433 classified as light skin tone, 210 as dark skin tone. That does significantly change my thoughts - but the question about which players were looked at remains valid.

They also claim this is a large sample size to help justify their conclusions...and I would patently disagree with that, as presumably 20 games in each division in an entire season, well it's not just player makeup in each division that hasn't been qualified here, it also takes no account of which sides have featured and what their own player makeup % is or the players in those teams with established physical style traits that will always get leaned on.

To not make this an essay, the results are interesting but some of their determining factors to comments seem a little trite and soft. ie commentators comment more on athletic, speed, strength when discussing black players - but again not knowing who was looked at, if you're talking about the likes of Sterling, Mings, Sissoko et al, I wouldn't say it was bias to highlight their strengths.

Just as I wouldn't say it was bias to say Jack goes down too easily, our Hourihane is lightweight etc etc.

They tag these as being stereotypes with a bias - but Sissoko is imposing physically, Sterling is quick and athletic and so on - but there is a larger distinction there that is actually believable in some ways when it comes to the topics of commentator conversation ie athletic abilities much in the way someone else commented above about the 100 metres and White Men Can't Jump.

With that said, discussing hard work, form, quality, leadership and background had some interesting results that I find more believable as bias - darker skill tones don't work as hard, don't have the same quality or intelligence and can't be leaders for example.

That jumps out more as potentially being unconscious bias because of the historical overtones.

Edit - to reduce bias and add additional commonality, far from perfect but they did multiple the comments about dark tone to more match the number of white tone players looked at. Again the flaw there is the doubling and not knowing the players, but having read it now I'm of a mind to definitely accept there is unconscious bias - but not necessarily racism in the true sense as the study needs to go deeper as short of the stereotypes involved....it doesn't prove malice, discrimination, it doesn't disprove that the comments can't actually be factual about a players strengths....it simply shows for me, it needs a closer look.

With all of that said, the citations and papers used to define 'racial bias' 'stereotypes' and the like, have already grounded themselves on the side of the fence they sit.

ie Rada & Wulfemeyer (2005) “Portraying African Americans as naturally athletic or endowed with God-given athleticism exacerbates the stereotype by creating the impression of a lazy athlete, one who does not have to work at his craft.”

Doesn't mean a black player can never be praised or commented on for holding those exact skills and it doesn't automatically mean they are lazy. It's not white privilege to suggest Jack, Ronaldo, Messi, Gazza were naturally skillful who didn't have to work at their craft. Just as it doesn't apply to the likes of Thierry Henry, Ronaldinho, Pele etc. Athleticism itself is not racist - James Milner for example, he worked as hard for that drive as someone like Vieria.

Again though it's a bloody good read, it hasn't been thrown together to suit the moment without putting the work in to show what it claims. Given my comments above, to repeat myself, it may not intrinsically prove institutionalised racism or bias with deliberate malicious intent - but there are some stark standouts (even without the additional details I mention above that would be needed) that are too wide to not acknowledge.

What it shows is it's worthy of further investigation in a fair wider study - as looking at their methodology, it was 20 games per league (selected at random so we still don't know the clubs) but they only took commentary from 15 minute segments, randomly selected from each of the 80 games - to provide an overview of the 90 minutes. So it doesn't account for which players were shining, which were shrinking, which team were on top and whether players had crumbled or grown etc - building wider, whether they were returning from injury and needed to get up to speed etc.

It also rightly acknowledged negative comments aren't automatically racial bias, and to me at least, we are back to knowing which commentators featured - age, background etc - because they seemed to have looked at 'in the heat of the moment and without chance to think' how easily each commentator slipped into a normal routine of language.

“analysis centered around what was said about whom and how frequently.”

So without meaning to call out each commentator, it would also be nice to know (80 games, 2 commentators a piece?) whether it was a smaller number of individual commentators skewing the results for everyone else or whether it was more broadstroked.

In terms of skin tone re Football Manager they also admit themselves the possibility for mis-identification which was also good to see. They didn't qualify on race, heritage, creed, nationality - they purely went on FM's 1-20 skin tone rating. But there are naturally issues there.

If anyone is an anal as me, that was a good read, but I'd have liked it to have gone further and I'd have certainly liked a differentiation between results from each of the leagues chosen.
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
No, sticks with the same kids. Some bits were awkward viewing, you just wanted to give them a hug, if only we could give the whole world a bit of a hug (after a few get a slap maybe!)

I do remember a teacher at my middle school asking the class if they were against the IRA but supported their aims (of a united Ireland obv). The **** (and he was a ****) then raised his hand, so the rest of the class did the same, apart from me. Caused me no end of hassle, I didn't give a fuck, and it was at that stage I realised I wasn't one of the crowd. Didn't know what peer group pressure was back then, but nice to know even then, I didn't follow it!
One of the reasons I turned off was I wasn't in the right mood for it and it was difficult viewing (despite my above comments), in some ways struck me as a little bit cruel to the kids given the ages - especially those who did clearly look uncomfortable - I know why they put those moments in, but I'd have rather not seen kids of that age trying to find an answer they thought the questioner wanted when basically a lot of them just looked like they wanted to go outside and pretend to be a tree (and at that age that is all they should be preoccupied with!).

LOL fair play. Not quite the same, but one teacher asked us to bring in music we listened to normally at home. We got the standard Take That, pop shit, cRap, dance music and all the rest that people of my age were supposed to listen to. I went in with something like the BeeGees or jazz, classical deliberately to be different.

But that was what I listened to. 5 people quietly asked me to record them a tape - spoke volumes to me.
 
Re the study for what it's worth - typing as I read so if I contradict myself bear with.

2073 statements from PL, Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1 but only 80 games looked at.

643 'unique players of various races and skin tones' looked at - with skin tone coming from Football Manager 2020's database determination.

They are working on the basis that 'bias exists' because the distribution of comments (despite skin tone) aren't similar - a fair point, but they don't seem to have taken into account player makeup %'s to balance that.

Edit - they have. 643 players, 433 classified as light skin tone, 210 as dark skin tone. That does significantly change my thoughts - but the question about which players were looked at remains valid.

They also claim this is a large sample size to help justify their conclusions...and I would patently disagree with that, as presumably 20 games in each division in an entire season, well it's not just player makeup in each division that hasn't been qualified here, it also takes no account of which sides have featured and what their own player makeup % is or the players in those teams with established physical style traits that will always get leaned on.

To not make this an essay, the results are interesting but some of their determining factors to comments seem a little trite and soft. ie commentators comment more on athletic, speed, strength when discussing black players - but again not knowing who was looked at, if you're talking about the likes of Sterling, Mings, Sissoko et al, I wouldn't say it was bias to highlight their strengths.

Just as I wouldn't say it was bias to say Jack goes down too easily, our Hourihane is lightweight etc etc.

They tag these as being stereotypes with a bias - but Sissoko is imposing physically, Sterling is quick and athletic and so on - but there is a larger distinction there that is actually believable in some ways when it comes to the topics of commentator conversation ie athletic abilities much in the way someone else commented above about the 100 metres and White Men Can't Jump.

With that said, discussing hard work, form, quality, leadership and background had some interesting results that I find more believable as bias - darker skill tones don't work as hard, don't have the same quality or intelligence and can't be leaders for example.

That jumps out more as potentially being unconscious bias because of the historical overtones.

Edit - to reduce bias and add additional commonality, far from perfect but they did multiple the comments about dark tone to more match the number of white tone players looked at. Again the flaw there is the doubling and not knowing the players, but having read it now I'm of a mind to definitely accept there is unconscious bias - but not necessarily racism in the true sense as the study needs to go deeper as short of the stereotypes involved....it doesn't prove malice, discrimination, it doesn't disprove that the comments can't actually be factual about a players strengths....it simply shows for me, it needs a closer look.

With all of that said, the citations and papers used to define 'racial bias' 'stereotypes' and the like, have already grounded themselves on the side of the fence they sit.

ie Rada & Wulfemeyer (2005) “Portraying African Americans as naturally athletic or endowed with God-given athleticism exacerbates the stereotype by creating the impression of a lazy athlete, one who does not have to work at his craft.”

Doesn't mean a black player can never be praised or commented on for holding those exact skills and it doesn't automatically mean they are lazy. It's not white privilege to suggest Jack, Ronaldo, Messi, Gazza were naturally skillful who didn't have to work at their craft. Just as it doesn't apply to the likes of Thierry Henry, Ronaldinho, Pele etc. Athleticism itself is not racist - James Milner for example, he worked as hard for that drive as someone like Vieria.

Again though it's a bloody good read, it hasn't been thrown together to suit the moment without putting the work in to show what it claims. Given my comments above, to repeat myself, it may not intrinsically prove institutionalised racism or bias with deliberate malicious intent - but there are some stark standouts (even without the additional details I mention above that would be needed) that are too wide to not acknowledge.

What it shows is it's worthy of further investigation in a fair wider study - as looking at their methodology, it was 20 games per league (selected at random so we still don't know the clubs) but they only took commentary from 15 minute segments, randomly selected from each of the 80 games - to provide an overview of the 90 minutes. So it doesn't account for which players were shining, which were shrinking, which team were on top and whether players had crumbled or grown etc - building wider, whether they were returning from injury and needed to get up to speed etc.

It also rightly acknowledged negative comments aren't automatically racial bias, and to me at least, we are back to knowing which commentators featured - age, background etc - because they seemed to have looked at 'in the heat of the moment and without chance to think' how easily each commentator slipped into a normal routine of language.

“analysis centered around what was said about whom and how frequently.”

So without meaning to call out each commentator, it would also be nice to know (80 games, 2 commentators a piece?) whether it was a smaller number of individual commentators skewing the results for everyone else or whether it was more broadstroked.

In terms of skin tone re Football Manager they also admit themselves the possibility for mis-identification which was also good to see. They didn't qualify on race, heritage, creed, nationality - they purely went on FM's 1-20 skin tone rating. But there are naturally issues there.

If anyone is an anal as me, that was a good read, but I'd have liked it to have gone further and I'd have certainly liked a differentiation between results from each of the leagues chosen.
Any chance of more detail here Mike?
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
So BLM (the movement, not the cause) shows its true colours (no pun intended).

The Premier League says its Black Lives Matter campaign is to send the message that it is unacceptable to treat black people differently to anyone else - and not an endorsement of a political movement.

A series of tweets from the Black Lives Matter UK account about Palestine has prompted criticism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53242328

Was only a matter of time, but the PL can't now surely back them any longer as they have proven themselves a polemic anti social political movement.
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
Just looking through the official BLM feed, it sounds like Corbyn on steroids and anyone commenting sensibly is being shut down quicker than a Russian calling Putin a gimp.

Those out there looking for equality and change that needs to happen must be crying that this wide left/right (I'm actually unsure) wing bunch of fucking idiots has completely hijacked their cause and phrase for what I can only assume is a quick way to make a buck and make themselves feel self important because they can't get boy/girl/bi-friends (other things available in different colours).

Bunch of wankers are setting a just cause back decades (again).
 

Stephen Jay Hawkings

Vital Champions League
lol, at least that proves I read it!

Good analysis of the study though, I do agree there are factors which should be looked at more closely and it's hard to get a complete picture.

I think getting a differentiation of results from each league as you suggested would show a lot more, as we really have no idea how foreign commentators commentate on games, or at least I don't anyway.
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
I'm used to people not reading my posts - I'm slightly shocked lol

Yes, definitely needs a second look with a wider category and more details accounted for rather than assumptions as (without being critical) it has come to the conclusion it started out to find - but looking at it, it was far starker than I expected based on the press reports.

It needs splitting apart as without being anti Italy - we all know the bloody race problems they've got that hit the headlines in football, I want to know their figures and then ours etc.

Again, maybe it'll show nothing....maybe it would change the results. But are we factoring in 'negro' as a negative comment in La Liga when it is simply a description? (whether or not you can argue it's an unnecessary description in football - and I'd say not, you can say international without saying England, Ecuador, Africa, US - it's a nominator not really required in my view - whilst still being perfectly factual).

It's those little bits I'd love a more indepth study to iron out so it simply removes the doubt/question.

But given my initial reticence...reading the fuller report, well, there's something going on even if it wouldn't tick my liberal 'racism' box and I can understand why some get antsy about the 'something going on' even if it's not malicious. If that makes sense again - long day, I've actually tried to use my words carefully for a change lol.
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
So BLM (the movement, not the cause) shows its true colours (no pun intended).

The Premier League says its Black Lives Matter campaign is to send the message that it is unacceptable to treat black people differently to anyone else - and not an endorsement of a political movement.

A series of tweets from the Black Lives Matter UK account about Palestine has prompted criticism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53242328

Was only a matter of time, but the PL can't now surely back them any longer as they have proven themselves a polemic anti social political movement.
I wonder how many who broke lockdown, or the likes of the PL and other bangwagon jumping corporations actually looked into the organisation?

Will they continue to take the knee or whatever they call that American (for me must follow America, it is doing so well as a country) gesture (which isn't a criticism of the American's civil rights movements making that gesture just us being so woke as to follow - and now the fist in the air as well).

Right on, is all cool, but ffs, read what you are backing first.

Kick Racism Out Of Football was slogan enough one would have thought.
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
I wonder how many who broke lockdown, or the likes of the PL and other bangwagon jumping corporations actually looked into the organisation?

Will they continue to take the knee or whatever they call that American (for me must follow America, it is doing so well as a country) gesture (which isn't a criticism of the American's civil rights movements making that gesture just us being so woke as to follow - and now the fist in the air as well).

Right on, is all cool, but ffs, read what you are backing first.

Kick Racism Out Of Football was slogan enough one would have thought.
Very few I imagine. Easy to jump on a bandwagon (understandably in this case) but not realise the slogan and the fake party raising funds for themselves are actually different. I didn't realise to begin with, and I consider myself mildly intelligent (don't giggle).

It's a good question, does Tyrone Mings support defunding the police and ending capitalism, or did he latch to the phrase? He's not alone to answer that question.

The coppers in the US taking a knee in support (rightly in my humble), did they realise they were supporting the political causes that have now been snuck in?

The fist is disgusting in my mind and I say that as a card carrying liberal. Take a knee is pathetic, but that's the US, leave them to it. We nod the head and bow in effect - we kneel for the Queen. Everything else is media driven bandwagon hugging bollocks and it's doing my tits in because it's been expectedly hijacked and absolute idiots are now wanting their 'victim' 15 minutes of fame and they are too dumb to realise they are shitting on the people they claim to support.

What really bugs me is Black voices with clout who point out BLM is wrong are being ignored...they are exactly who the media should be listening to about how the movement has been hijacked - but it doesn't suit the faux liberal we must support brigade who don't give a shit, but don't want to lose money.

It shouldn't but it annoys me and that's why the language comes out. We should be better, I think most people are, whether it's racism, sexism whatever. But any element of the debate of equality gets hijacked by those out for themselves who want cash, not equality but to have their moment in charge and the media lap it up, pander, companies follow worrying about sales or boycotts and we get the lunatics running the asylum because they shout the loudest and apparently you can't point out they are self serving pricks who don't give a toss about the cause they proclaim to head up.

It might be time for bed?
 

colavfc

Vital 1st Team Regular
BLM openly working to defund the police arnt exactly helping their stereotype for criminality are they. You have to wonder about the real motivation for having this as an ethos.
Now, they could have really helped themselves here. And raised money for specialist training for the police, training that they could have been involved with.
The idiot liberals in this country just jump on bandwagons for the sake of it to try and make themselves look good.
I wonder if we could exclude them from any help they need from the police when their time comes for help?
 
I'm waiting to see how this being forced to interview a black candidate works when a PL club needs a new manager.
I think they said there are 6 black head coaches/managers out of 100 clubs, that percentage is about a representative of the population of this country isn't it? Or do we then have to base it on the fact that 40% of players are black or whatever the percentage is? 40% being way above the average of the general population.

We all know clubs head hunt managers, just like all the corporate jobs paying millions a year. You or I are not going to get one and that has nothing to do with colour. Its who you know. Most people get or have got a job via the who you know system.
 

wittonite

Vital 1st Team Regular
So BLM (the movement, not the cause) shows its true colours (no pun intended).

The Premier League says its Black Lives Matter campaign is to send the message that it is unacceptable to treat black people differently to anyone else - and not an endorsement of a political movement.

A series of tweets from the Black Lives Matter UK account about Palestine has prompted criticism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53242328

Was only a matter of time, but the PL can't now surely back them any longer as they have proven themselves a polemic anti social political movement.
They must have read my e-mail from three weeks back.
Still waiting for a response.