Get Moscon out

nickice

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

Please do show me where I condoned racist comments....

It may not have been your intention, but your post earlier reads like you are saying that racist comments are just another form of "trash talking", and that you shouldn't crack down on it unless you are going to crack down on all other insults between riders.

I said point to where I've condoned not to where you've inferred (wrongly might I add). Just because I think a punishment is too severe (six months for a racist comment despite having already being suspended by Sky) doesn't mean I condone the original act. I condone neither racist abuse nor any other abuse (I've never abused anyone while playing sport and it's a side of sport that I hate)

I've clearly stated that I don't condone racist comments (I even said what Moscon said was very ignorant). Redivision stated that racial abuse was worse than a punch. I'm still waiting for some evidence as to why that's the case (especially as the law would agree with me) What is it about racial abuse that makes it worse than physical abuse when physical abuse is worse than other forms of verbal abuse (let's not forget that things can be said that are just as deeply hurtful) I'm not talking about simple trash talking (I mentioned that as it would be the logical conclusion to his argument).

redvision

nickice wrote:

Redivision stated that racial abuse was worse than a punch. I'm still waiting for some evidence as to why that's the case (especially as the law would agree with me) What is it about racial abuse that makes it worse than physical abuse when physical abuse is worse than other forms of verbal abuse (let's not forget that things can be said that are just as deeply hurtful) I'm not talking about simple trash talking (I mentioned that as it would be the logical conclusion to his argument).

FFS, right, let me make this clear, in my opinion racism is worse than a punch because, usually, a physical wound will heal whereas emotional suffering may not.

The law sees both physical and verbal abuse as crimes.

Moscon is not only accused of using racist comments, he is also accused of deliberately pushing another rider off his bike. If he is found to have committed both offences in my opinion he should be banned for several years. This is my opinion. I am not stating law I am stating what I consider would be a fair punishment. And again, this is only if the allegations are proven.

I am not getting drawn in to this any further with you as your stance and comments suggest you condone racism or at least fail to recognise the damage it causes.

nickice

redvision wrote:

nickice wrote:

Redivision stated that racial abuse was worse than a punch. I'm still waiting for some evidence as to why that's the case (especially as the law would agree with me) What is it about racial abuse that makes it worse than physical abuse when physical abuse is worse than other forms of verbal abuse (let's not forget that things can be said that are just as deeply hurtful) I'm not talking about simple trash talking (I mentioned that as it would be the logical conclusion to his argument).

FFS, right, let me make this clear, in my opinion racism is worse than a punch because, usually, a physical wound will heal whereas emotional suffering may not.

The law sees both physical and verbal abuse as crimes.

Moscon is not only accused of using racist comments, he is also accused of deliberately pushing another rider off his bike. If he is found to have committed both offences in my opinion he should be banned for several years. This is my opinion. I am not stating law I am stating what I consider would be a fair punishment. And again, this is only if the allegations are proven.

I am not getting drawn in to this any further with you as your stance and comments suggest you condone racism or at least fail to recognise the damage it causes.

So, even though I've explicitly stated that I don't condone racism and I've never racially abused anyone, that somehow I still condone racism because you, erroneously, believe my comments suggest that. If that were the case, wouldn't I just say it? There really wouldn't be much cost for me in doing so considering this is essentially an anonymous internet forum.

I certainly would never condone racism and wouldn't condone racist comments (though I do think that some people have probably made racist comments in the heat of the moment and they shouldn't be condemned forever for that). I repeat, if you think an emotional scar is left from racial abuse do you at least recognise that it can be left by other abuse and in that case are those other types of abuse more serious than physical harm?

And by the way, your argument has one fatal error. Physical violence can also cause psychological damage and often does.



And whatever he said to Reza would almost certainly not meet the threshold of a crime in the UK. Of couse, we still don't know what he actually said.

salsiccia1

nickice wrote:

And whatever he said to Reza would almost certainly not meet the threshold of a crime in the UK. Of couse, we still don't know what he actually said.

This is the Internet perfected

nickice

Salsiccia1 wrote:

nickice wrote:

And whatever he said to Reza would almost certainly not meet the threshold of a crime in the UK. Of couse, we still don't know what he actually said.

This is the Internet perfected

What I mean is that we can probably take a guess at what he said but we don't know exactly what it was. A Public Order offence would be pretty difficult to prosecute if someone made a remark during an argument in a sports event.

cruff

Matthewfalle wrote:

I think I'd rather be punched in the face - but by a cyclist not Anthony Joshua.

Not sure about letting Bouhanni chin me to be honest........

I wouldn't worry. He'd probably miss.

orraloon

Cruff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I think I'd rather be punched in the face - but by a cyclist not Anthony Joshua.

Not sure about letting Bouhanni chin me to be honest........

I wouldn't worry. He'd probably miss.

Or at least mistime it.

mididoctors

I am highly dubious of the motives of those arguing the racist case as not as bad. While its true the proposition that racist abuse is always worse than a punch in the face is a bit silly and highly subjective it's more telling how much investment some posters put into this exchange over something that could have washed by unremarked.

the very act of seizing on this as a demonstration racial abuse is not the worse thing in the world is an apologist position. intentional or not.

nickice

mididoctors wrote:

I am highly dubious of the motives of those arguing the racist case as not as bad. While its true the proposition that racist abuse is always worse than a punch in the face is a bit silly and highly subjective it's more telling how much investment some posters put into this exchange over something that could have washed by unremarked.

the very act of seizing on this as a demonstration racial abuse is not the worse thing in the world is an apologist position. intentional or not.

Yet the whole debate started because of a comment that racist abuse was worse than physical abuse (a simplistic notion that your yourself disagree with) and has continued on from there. Nobody has said that racism or racist abuse isn't bad it's just that maybe, just maybe, Moscon has already been punished enough for it. He was suspended and, more importantly, his reputation has been permanently damaged: He will be forever known as a racist (whether he is a KKK-style racist or just an ignorant fool who made a one-time racist remark is anyone's guess. I suspect he may have the kind of casual slightly racist attitude I often saw when living in Southern Europe) Believing he's been punished enough is not apologism. I actually think there is an arguable case for racist abuse being worse than other types of abuse (though it wasn't made in this thread) but the point was that every argument redivision used to support racist abuse being worse than physical abuse could also be used to say that any type of verbal abuse is worse than physical abuse. That was the logical conclusion to the arguments presented by the OP.

And this whole forum is about debate. I've seen pages and pages of debate about minor matters. I like to debate and so do some other people. If you ascribe other motives to my opinions (other than the one's I've actually given) then that's both foolish and wrong. And if you think I (or any other poster) is a racist or bigot say it directly and provide some concrete evidence of it. If I'm guilty of anything, it's not letting things go once I get into them. I have no hidden motives.

Vino'sGhost

Nicely put. It’s a shame that this forum isn’t about debate. It is however about closing down alternative views by ascribing the guilty with titles and “crimes”. It is the very worst of the bullying liberal mob.

andyp

You poor snowflake.

Vino'sGhost

andyp wrote:

You poor snowflake.

Nicely done a prime example .

salsiccia1

Can we just agree that physical violence and racism are both unacceptable and bad things? This thread is so dispiriting.

ocdupalais

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Can we just agree that physical violence and racism are both unacceptable and bad things? This thread is so dispiriting.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from not properly reading this thread, it’s that violent racists like you like to twist things around to suit their own agenda. I’m not agreeing with nothing!

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Can we just agree that physical violence and racism are both unacceptable and bad things? This thread is so dispiriting.

I think anyone sane would agree to part one of this.

I originally brought it up in regard to someone saying he should have got a six month ban which I felt was disproportionate. I made the comparison with Grivko's ban which happened a little before Moscon. I think Sky took that as a guideline as to an appropriate ban - both were angry outbursts. I think they were right.

Bo Duke

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Nicely put. It’s a shame that this forum isn’t about debate. It is however about closing down alternative views by ascribing the guilty with titles and “crimes”. It is the very worst of the bullying liberal mob.

The red caped moral crusader will be along soon to tell us that we're all wrong. 5 times whilst stamping his tiny feet.

nickice

The sad thing is that whenever somebody calls you a racist or bigot (or whatever other 'phobe' exists now), a lot of people will believe it just because your accuser has written it and nobody would accuse of you of that for no good reason or so they believe...

ocdupalais

nickice wrote:

The sad thing is that whenever somebody calls you a racist or bigot (or whatever other 'phobe' exists now), a lot of people will believe it just because your accuser has written it and nobody would accuse of you of that for no good reason or so they believe...

Depends what you regard as “a lot of people”: whatever that number is, I’d wager that a far greater number don’t give a toss... and a greater number still have never heard of you and would be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the basis that they’ve never heard of you.
It’s not all about you, you know? For the vast majority of us, it’s about me.

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Nicely put. It’s a shame that this forum isn’t about debate. It is however about closing down alternative views by ascribing the guilty with titles and “crimes”. It is the very worst of the bullying liberal mob.

No one has stopped you saying it.

Most of us don’t agree with it.

It’s not shutting it down. It’s frequent disagreement.

Suck it up.

nickice

OCDuPalais wrote:

nickice wrote:

The sad thing is that whenever somebody calls you a racist or bigot (or whatever other 'phobe' exists now), a lot of people will believe it just because your accuser has written it and nobody would accuse of you of that for no good reason or so they believe...

Depends what you regard as “a lot of people”: whatever that number is, I’d wager that a far greater number don’t give a toss... and a greater number still have never heard of you and would be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the basis that they’ve never heard of you.
It’s not all about you, you know? For the vast majority of us, it’s about me.

I was mainly meaning 'you' in an impersonal form. Words like bigot and racist are often used to discredit an opponent and can harm their reputation (which is why Frankie Boyle won his libel case against the Daily Mirror). Of course, reputation on an internet forum is not particularly important if you're not using your real name but throwing words aroung like the ones mentioned is just lazy debating.

This is a good article
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... te/395252/

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Nicely put. It’s a shame that this forum isn’t about debate. It is however about closing down alternative views by ascribing the guilty with titles and “crimes”. It is the very worst of the bullying liberal mob.

No one has stopped you saying it.

Most of us don’t agree with it.

It’s not shutting it down. It’s frequent disagreement.

Suck it up.

I didnt mean me. I meant in general. I dont care if you agree with me or not.

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Nicely put. It’s a shame that this forum isn’t about debate. It is however about closing down alternative views by ascribing the guilty with titles and “crimes”. It is the very worst of the bullying liberal mob.

No one has stopped you saying it.

Most of us don’t agree with it.

It’s not shutting it down. It’s frequent disagreement.

Suck it up.

I didnt mean me. I meant in general. I dont care if you agree with me or not.

A lot of people with unsavoury views complain their views are shut down, and cry bullying.

Beyond the frequent inherent irony in the position, it's just a p!ss poor moan because their arguments weren't convincing enough. Usually, because they're sh!t and unsavoury arguments. If they were convincing, people would be engaging with them a lot more.

"waaah, no-one agrees with me. waaaah, everyone says my views are sh!t apart from a bunch of equally stupid people waaaah".

Grow up.

blazing_saddles

Hilarious.
The idea that weekendcyclingfan, was interested in debate, I mean.

Anyhows, there is an interesting parallel coming from this weekend's rugby:-

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/bastare ... obic-slur/

Fair to say that those commenting upon the incident below the article are more divided.

ocdupalais

nickice wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

nickice wrote:

The sad thing is that whenever somebody calls you a racist or bigot (or whatever other 'phobe' exists now), a lot of people will believe it just because your accuser has written it and nobody would accuse of you of that for no good reason or so they believe...

Depends what you regard as “a lot of people”: whatever that number is, I’d wager that a far greater number don’t give a toss... and a greater number still have never heard of you and would be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the basis that they’ve never heard of you.
It’s not all about you, you know? For the vast majority of us, it’s about me.

I was mainly meaning 'you' in an impersonal form. Words like bigot and racist are often used to discredit an opponent and can harm their reputation (which is why Frankie Boyle won his libel case against the Daily Mirror). Of course, reputation on an internet forum is not particularly important if you're not using your real name but throwing words aroung like the ones mentioned is just lazy debating.

This is a good article
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... te/395252/

Yes - I knew exactly what ‘you’ meant. I, meaning ‘me’, was being facetious.
Sometimes, words like ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ might also be used because an opponent is displaying distinctly bigoted and racist tendencies, no?
While I’m inclined to agree with you that such terms are overused and too readily bandied about, your advice on what constitutes good or poor debating is deafening claxon to me.
I instantly think of Martin in the Simpsons


Trouble is, so many of these threads end up as tedious explorations of terminally shallow minds attached to profoundly needy egos.

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Nicely put. It’s a shame that this forum isn’t about debate. It is however about closing down alternative views by ascribing the guilty with titles and “crimes”. It is the very worst of the bullying liberal mob.

No one has stopped you saying it.

Most of us don’t agree with it.

It’s not shutting it down. It’s frequent disagreement.

Suck it up.

I didnt mean me. I meant in general. I dont care if you agree with me or not.

A lot of people with unsavoury views complain their views are shut down, and cry bullying.

Beyond the frequent inherent irony in the position, it's just a p!ss poor moan because their arguments weren't convincing enough. Usually, because they're sh!t and unsavoury arguments. If they were convincing, people would be engaging with them a lot more.

"waaah, no-one agrees with me. waaaah, everyone says my views are sh!t apart from a bunch of equally stupid people waaaah".

Grow up.

Awwwww is didums invoking the anger of the crowd? bless. I thought you had more to offer. In other news innocent Froome had a one time non repeatable kidney problem........

rick_chasey

Well now you’ve convinced me.

Bo Duke

The Tooting Revolutionary Guard will not back down once he's decreed everyone else is wrong.

haydenm

nickice wrote:

And whatever he said to Reza would almost certainly not meet the threshold of a crime in the UK. Of couse, we still don't know what he actually said.

Yeah from a skim through of this debate I think this is basically why you are arguing. There are lots of things in sport that would or wouldn't be considered a crime in the UK but that isn't relevant. It is up to the sport's governing bodies to police and decide what sort of image they want to sport to have. This is why I would tend to agree that racist abuse in this case IS worse than physical abuse because racist abuse has the potential to affect more people than just the victim. It looks worse for the sport imo

Violence shouldn't be tolerated, but can occasionally boil over in a competitive environment (see rugby). Racist abuse doesn't just flare up, I think it says more about you as a person than punching someone would and I think it should come with the strictest penalties possible from the governing body.

Edit, just seen the date of the last post, apologies to bring it all back up

andyp

Cycling Weekly are reporting that there was an 11 hour hearing at UCI HQ in Aigle on Monday, in relation to the Reichenbach crash at Tre Valle Varesine last autumn.

No news on an outcome, or when we can expect one yet.

Vino'sGhost

andyp wrote:

Cycling Weekly are reporting that there was an 11 hour hearing at UCI HQ in Aigle on Monday, in relation to the Reichenbach crash at Tre Valle Varesine last autumn.

No news on an outcome, or when we can expect one yet.

Things move quickly at UCI HQ dont they