LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
It's ironic that it's only at the point that people get angry about it that taking the knee starts to make sense.rick_chasey said:So the “free speech union” group who are behind the “free speech in universities” campaign from the govt want to ban footballers who take the knee
0 -
I understood that not to be the case.rick_chasey said:So the “free speech union” group who are behind the “free speech in universities” campaign from the govt want to ban footballers who take the knee
I thought they were against fans being banned for booing players who take the knee, which is totally different.0 -
Are they a Coopsteresque group of nutters?ballysmate said:
I understood that not to be the case.rick_chasey said:So the “free speech union” group who are behind the “free speech in universities” campaign from the govt want to ban footballers who take the knee
I thought they were against fans being banned for booing players who take the knee, which is totally different.
Just asking for a friend who agrees with that view0 -
Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.0 -
It certainly has happened in some places here.
In the US, there were thousands booing at the start of it. Trump pretty much advocated that Kapaernic (sp) be lynched.0 -
I thought in the US the issue was that players were kneeling during the anthem, thus (in some peoples’ eyes) disrespecting ‘Murica.
In all the matches I’ve seen here that’s not the case - it’s a very brief event unrelated to any other aspect of the game (like an anthem or a minute of clapping).
So why are were some people booing?0 -
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.0 -
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.0 -
There is no apart. It is that simple.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Where does booing national anthems fall under this?ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
I think basically you're fine to boo taking the knee... But it does make you a bit of a plank.0 -
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
0 -
Perhaps it does. Not arguing otherwise.Jezyboy said:
Where does booing national anthems fall under this?ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
I think basically you're fine to boo taking the knee... But it does make you a bit of a plank.
But just pointing out the seeming error in RCs post in regard to the free speech union and footballers.
0 -
Completely agree. My abhorrence of racism was formed by my school allowing Enoch Powell to give us a talk in the mid-80s. He was compelling, eloquent and, in my mind, an utterly narrow-minded racist. A fantastic learning experience that invigorated the whole Sixth Form and provoked debate for months. You can’t go through life assuming that people don’t have the intelligence to interpret and consider alternative views.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
So what do you think the people booing players taking the knee are thinking? You never said..,0 -
And football clubs should be able to set whatever behaviour rules they like within the law. It's a childish perversion of the idea of free speech: instead of freedom from state persecution for saying this or that, now people want to be free from any consequences arising from their actions whatsoever.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Those demanding the 'right' to boo someone taking a knee seem unprepared to see things they disagree with.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If I have to enter the realms of mind reading I would guess that some do it because they are racist, some do it because they disagree with some of the aims and actions of BLM, some do it because they see the whole kneeling thing as a tick in the box for some of the people doing it, some will do it because they don't like being preached to and some will do it because their mates are doing it. Some will do it to boo specific players in a tribal way. Other reasons are available.
Football crowds have never been renowned for their intelligence.0 -
Nobody is proposing players be banned from taking the knee. Fans are being banned for showing their dissent.rjsterry said:
Those demanding the 'right' to boo someone taking a knee seem unprepared to see things they disagree with.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
That sees to be the position of the free speech union.
Just for clarity, I am not advocating the booing, it is stupid.0 -
pinkbikini said:
Completely agree. My abhorrence of racism was formed by my school allowing Enoch Powell to give us a talk in the mid-80s. He was compelling, eloquent and, in my mind, an utterly narrow-minded racist. A fantastic learning experience that invigorated the whole Sixth Form and provoked debate for months. You can’t go through life assuming that people don’t have the intelligence to interpret and consider alternative views.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
So what do you think the people booing players taking the knee are thinking? You never said..,
His eloquence and intelligence made him dangerous. He certainly had a way with words, and it was interesting rereading some of his quotes. Alongside the infamous one(s) were some of worth:
"History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen."
was one that caught my eye.0 -
I realise that. They are free to make their feelings on taking the knee known outside of the stadium. Or within the stadium in a manner that doesn't involve booing. They're being banned for their behaviour, not for their 'commentary' on players' actions.ballysmate said:
Nobody is proposing players be banned from taking the knee. Fans are being banned for showing their dissent.rjsterry said:
Those demanding the 'right' to boo someone taking a knee seem unprepared to see things they disagree with.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
That sees to be the position of the free speech union.
Just for clarity, I am not advocating the booing, it is stupid.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
I realise that. They are free to make their feelings on taking the knee known outside of the stadium. Or within the stadium in a manner that doesn't involve booing. They're being banned for their behaviour, not for their 'commentary' on players' actions.ballysmate said:
Nobody is proposing players be banned from taking the knee. Fans are being banned for showing their dissent.rjsterry said:
Those demanding the 'right' to boo someone taking a knee seem unprepared to see things they disagree with.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
That sees to be the position of the free speech union.
Just for clarity, I am not advocating the booing, it is stupid.
If as you seem to be suggesting, people are getting banned for the act of booing and not for showing their dissent at taking of the knee, there is no need for clubs to bother rushing to get fans back inside the grounds post covid restrictions. I'm sure most fans can find something to boo during a game.
If booing is the problem and someone gets banned for booing the taking of the knee, then why are they not banned for booing the ref, the opposing centre forward etc.?0 -
Surely by now we've got past the idea that racism is anything to do with intelligence.briantrumpet said:pinkbikini said:
Completely agree. My abhorrence of racism was formed by my school allowing Enoch Powell to give us a talk in the mid-80s. He was compelling, eloquent and, in my mind, an utterly narrow-minded racist. A fantastic learning experience that invigorated the whole Sixth Form and provoked debate for months. You can’t go through life assuming that people don’t have the intelligence to interpret and consider alternative views.ballysmate said:
I agree, it is up to the club to decide what they will tolerate. Their rules.kingstongraham said:
It's within the remit of the club to decide what level of "free speech" they want to tolerate in their ground, I'd suggest. There are a lot of levels short of incitement to violence that they claim not to tolerate.ballysmate said:
Whether anyone wants to boo the taking of the knee or anything else it is obviously a personal decision. People will agree with the sentiment or not.pinkbikini said:Why would someone want to boo players taking the knee (apart from the obvious reason)?
Obv. I’m all for free speech (if that’s what the aim of the uni group really is) but it’s amazing that Williamson saw it as so important to push through now. I mean, he’s obviously got nothing else on his plate that the party are concerned about. Really weird.
From the point of view of free speech, you should be able to boo or express alternative views short of incitement to violence.
If we are to have free speech we must be prepared to hear things we disagree with or don't like.
So what do you think the people booing players taking the knee are thinking? You never said..,
His eloquence and intelligence made him dangerous. He certainly had a way with words, and it was interesting rereading some of his quotes. Alongside the infamous one(s) were some of worth:
"History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen."
was one that caught my eye.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So I'd argue it isn't, unfortunately. That's the whole problem. If it gets to a point at which it is, then great.elbowloh said:0 -
You can find plenty of examples of Noble laureates who held racist views.elbowloh said:0 -
If you want a more nuanced answer I'd say wanting to properly subjugate people and persecute people on the premise of their race probably is extremist now, but I would say that a willingness recognising that more subtle forms of still racism exist and that it is still not equal by any stretch (the original meaning of woke, right?), is definitely beyond the majority, and arguably, not recognising that is essentially supporting a racist status quo, right?
So if you're supporting a racist status quo, then surely you're still kinda racist?0 -
Here’s one for you SC - Micheal Bury (of big short fame) is expecting Weimar style hyper inflation after a mega stock crash.0
-
Burry claimed the "market is dancing on a knife's edge" in a recent series of Tweets that argued rampant speculation has caused a huge bubble in the equity market.
Even worse for bitcoin investors, Burry doesn't see gold or the digital asset as a way to prevent losses in the event of an "inflationary crisis" following a market crash.
"In an inflationary crisis, governments will move to squash competitors in the currency arena. $BTC #gold," the investor said.
Burry recently tweeted a string of quotes discussing Germany's path to hyperinflation in the 1920s.
He sees America's current trajectory as replay of the post-World War I mishaps that eventually led to a 320% monthly inflation rate in the country.
If Burry is right again, investors won't be able to argue that they weren't warned.
"People say I didn't warn last time," Burry said in a tweet. "I did, but no one listened. So I warn this time. And still, no one listens. But I will have proof I warned."
https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-michael-burry-big-short-analysis-long-term-future-tenuous-2021-2-10301086630 -
I guess there is a debate around how bad the subtle forms are and when it comes to inequality, what percentage of the issues are down to racism and what is down to social/class problems. Having said that when you get people saying how great Colston was (with not even a single qualification) you do start to think maybe there are a lot of idiots about.rick_chasey said:If you want a more nuanced answer I'd say wanting to properly subjugate people and persecute people on the premise of their race probably is extremist now, but I would say that a willingness recognising that more subtle forms of still racism exist and that it is still not equal by any stretch (the original meaning of woke, right?), is definitely beyond the majority, and arguably, not recognising that is essentially supporting a racist status quo, right?
So if you're supporting a racist status quo, then surely you're still kinda racist?
I think that the BLM movement has sprung from American racism, and that the social problems between the two countries are fairly different.0 -
I don’t see it myselfrick_chasey said:Here’s one for you SC - Micheal Bury (of big short fame) is expecting Weimar style hyper inflation after a mega stock crash.
0
