Quinn Simmons benched for tweet

salsiccia1

Is it hyperbole though?

DeVlaeminck said:

salsiccia1 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

salsiccia1 said:

blazing_saddles said:

In a truly non-racist society, surely a white guy could and would randomly use both black and white emojis, as would a black guy?
To me the idea that a white person cannot use a black symbol is at best, counter-productive.
Atm, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle in our society.

But we don't live in a non-racist society. And a white guy who openly supports a white-supremacist, has flirted with right-wing views previously and wants to make a point to a journalist (who was possibly unwise to comment as she did) using a black emoji is guaranteed to inflame things. Simmons might not be racist but that deliberate choice doesn't reflect well when things are so febrile.

When you say he openly supports a white supremacist you mean he supports the elected President of his country - sounds less dramatic.

But the President of his country is a white supremacist. He's got so blatant that anyone supporting him is tacitly supporting that because they're obviously not concerned enough about it to stop supporting him.

Well I don't agree he's blatantly a white supremacist - that's like people who call anyone right of Tony Blair a fascist.

About 30% of Asian voters supported Trump, even 1 in 10 black voters. He may favour policies that impact less favourably on BAME people whether directly or indirectly but saying he's blatantly a white supremacist is laying it on rather thick.

I don't even like the guy or his policies but this kind of hyperbole just inflames the debate.

Is it hyperbole, though?

As reported by Reuters:

Trump deflected a question asking him to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, instead calling on one group to “stand back and stand by” and then attacking left-wing activists.

Senior federal officials, including at the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, this month warned that white supremacist groups pose a rising threat of violence in the United States.

I don't want to get into a political debate, as I do try to stay neutral in politics but this isn't about politics, it's about human decency. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

gweeds

I’m at the point where I’m done with trying to understand how anyone can support that POS. To suggest he’s not a white supremacist is now just laughable.

If you support him, despite everything you’ve seen in the last 4 years and everything you know about it, you’re now complicit and deserve all the shit that comes your way.

ddraver

Seems there has been some mutual backpedalling

https://twitter.com/TrekSegafredo/status/1311727423097110532?s=20

DeVlaeminck

gweeds said:

I’m at the point where I’m done with trying to understand how anyone can support that POS. To suggest he’s not a white supremacist is now just laughable.

If you support him, despite everything you’ve seen in the last 4 years and everything you know about it, you’re now complicit and deserve all the censored that comes your way.

I'm certainly not supporting him - that's why I explicitly said so above - but he isn't blatantly a white supremacist. What policies has he put in place that would class him as one - or policy statements ?

The group he told to stand down are certainly a bunch of patriots and right wing - not my cup of tea - but they are hardly Trump's core support and they do have black and non-white members amongst their leadership anyway.

ddraver

DeVlaeminck said:

but they are hardly Trump's core support

Really? That's exactly what they are. That's why he's playing to them so damn hard.

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck said:

salsiccia1 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

salsiccia1 said:

blazing_saddles said:

In a truly non-racist society, surely a white guy could and would randomly use both black and white emojis, as would a black guy?
To me the idea that a white person cannot use a black symbol is at best, counter-productive.
Atm, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle in our society.

But we don't live in a non-racist society. And a white guy who openly supports a white-supremacist, has flirted with right-wing views previously and wants to make a point to a journalist (who was possibly unwise to comment as she did) using a black emoji is guaranteed to inflame things. Simmons might not be racist but that deliberate choice doesn't reflect well when things are so febrile.

When you say he openly supports a white supremacist you mean he supports the elected President of his country - sounds less dramatic.

But the President of his country is a white supremacist. He's got so blatant that anyone supporting him is tacitly supporting that because they're obviously not concerned enough about it to stop supporting him.

Well I don't agree he's blatantly a white supremacist - that's like people who call anyone right of Tony Blair a fascist.

About 30% of Asian voters supported Trump, even 1 in 10 black voters. He may favour policies that impact less favourably on BAME people whether directly or indirectly but saying he's blatantly a white supremacist is laying it on rather thick.

I don't even like the guy or his policies but this kind of hyperbole just inflames the debate.

I think he just knows a reasonable proportion of his supporters sympathise with those views and doesn't want to distance himself from them.

RichN95.

I'm surprised that Trek were originally so harsh, something they've backtracked from. One of the iconic quotes of modern sport was Michael Jordan's "Republicans buy sneakers too"

DeVlaeminck

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

but they are hardly Trump's core support

Really? That's exactly what they are. That's why he's playing to them so damn hard.

They are an element of his support but you don't win an election relying on groups like that - so yes I agree he doesn't want to alienate them but to portray all Trump supporters as extremists, white supremacist etc is a mistake. It's a mistake because it allows the left to write off a whole swathe of the population who feel disillusioned and disenfranchised as extremist bigots and write their concerns off along with that.

Same mistake we've seen in the UK and it just let's people like Trump and Johnson into power.

m.r.m.

blazing_saddles said:

I may be older, but I don't get it.
In a truly non-racist society, surely a white guy could and would randomly use both black and white emojis, as would a black guy?
To me the idea that a white person cannot use a black symbol is at best, counter-productive.
Atm, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle in our society.

Folks are automatically assuming he must be racially motivated to have done so, but how does this relate to José Been, who is white?
Is it because of his right wing political stance?

Not sure why JB thought it would be a good idea to wade into the US political debate either. Sport's commentators tend to keep any views they have to themselves as personal views can sometimes land them in hit water too.

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't get why a white person can't use a black emoji either or vice versa however we are where we are and if that is considered a racial slur of some sort I can see why he needs to be suspended for it if he did it knowingly with that intention.

What would you both call it if he doesn't usually use that color of emoji, but rather used it in this case specifically? What do you think is the intention behind that?

DeVlaeminck

m.r.m. said:

blazing_saddles said:

I may be older, but I don't get it.
In a truly non-racist society, surely a white guy could and would randomly use both black and white emojis, as would a black guy?
To me the idea that a white person cannot use a black symbol is at best, counter-productive.
Atm, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle in our society.

Folks are automatically assuming he must be racially motivated to have done so, but how does this relate to José Been, who is white?
Is it because of his right wing political stance?

Not sure why JB thought it would be a good idea to wade into the US political debate either. Sport's commentators tend to keep any views they have to themselves as personal views can sometimes land them in hit water too.

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't get why a white person can't use a black emoji either or vice versa however we are where we are and if that is considered a racial slur of some sort I can see why he needs to be suspended for it if he did it knowingly with that intention.

What would you both call it if he doesn't usually use that color of emoji, but rather used it in this case specifically? What do you think is the intention behind that?

I've already said above *in the post you quote* that if he did it as a racial slur he deserves to be suspended. It's quite clear if you read what I wrote that I'm not disagreeing with what I assume your point is.

DeVlaeminck

Its bizarre that I can post that I disagree with Trump, don't like him and agree that Simmons should be suspended for his tweet but because I don't think Trump is quite the reincarnation of Hitler that that is seen as "laughable".

Then because I accept that as a white person I shouldn't use a black emoji - but at the same time regretting that that is the reality - someone will try and imply I condone what Simmons did. How fycking clear does it have to be for you - I disagree with his tweet and he deserves to be suspended.

Lanterne_Rogue

ddraver said:

Seems there has been some mutual backpedalling

Ah, they've finally got around to talking to the PR guys about how you get out of here... Interesting that it takes the standard line of "sorry you took offence" but actually acknowledges why people might have.

m.r.m.

I didn't mean to attack you. I apologize for it coming across like that. In fact, I greatly respect your cycling knowledge.
I was asking pointedly because you start off saying you don't get why a white person can't use a black emoji and vice versa. That is like the debate why black people can use the n-word, but white people can't.
Life hasn't been the same for both groups. Treatment of each group by the other hasn't been the same. Implementation of systems to the disadvantage of the other and other groups has not been the same. That is why it can all be incendiary.

That is why it's touchy, because very often those who benefitted from the advantages and privilege of their skin color (in this case) are those who carry the largest burden of responsibility of changing things for the better. Because the very same privilege has afforded them to be in the position of actually being able to make a difference. Instead they willfully ignore the issues regardless of how much focus or attention is vested upon them and then act all surprised when they get called on it (I sincerely don't mean you specifically here anymore DeVlaeminck).

But see Drew Brees on the Colin Kaepernick controversy on this. This was a controversy taking place within the boundary of his profession. This controversy went on and on for years. Yet, Brees managed to not know what it was actually about for years and years and was surprised when people didn't buy it and suddenly was willing to learn about it and back track when all other options were no longer available (while still maintaining his good guy image).

As a foreigner living in a predominantly white country I have been verbally abused. Questioned & detained by police.
I was spat at as a kid/teenager by an elder lady. I was punched. I was able to extricate myself from those latter situations without getting hurt of having to hurt anyone; but the ownness was on me to manage it, regardless of my age. Why does it have to be on the people being abused to manage themselves and the situation?
This isn't just about skin color either. The same principle applies to women having to deal with male misogyny. It even recently came up in cycling in regard to the Marion Rousse cartoon.

It's frustrating to read or hear all the people "who don't get" why something is racist, or misogynistic or insensitive or x. You don't get it because in truth you don't want to. Otherwise you'd be less lazy and do the work to understand (no offense, this again is not directed at DeVlaeminck or Blazing, who are both awesome members of this board!!).

I don't usually try to get on soap boxes. Maybe this makes things a little clearer for some. Either way, I really enjoy this forum and watching cycling is so much more fun with all of you to discuss it with.

DeVlaeminck

My position is this. I completely get why it is racist to use a black hand emoji in our society as it is. But it's an act that has acquired that meaning rather than one which is intrinsically racist - in the way that say being spat at because of your colour is.

It's a bit like say the wearing of a remembrance poppy . I sometimes wear one and I see it as commemorating loss rather than anything jingoistic. However if I had been attending a republican funeral in Ireland I would not wear a poppy because (as I understand it ) doing so in that context represents a show of support for British forces in Ireland and that would clear be crass and insensitive.

So I don't agree I have been lazy - I may have a different view but people do sometimes think things through and come to different conclusions. A black hand emoji is not akin to a gollywog - it's not a stereotype, it's not intrinsically linked to something from history where one race were enslaved, belittled or done down it is simply another colour of hand.

There is no analogy with misogyny here - would it be misogynistic if I used a female emoji because I do sometimes use a female shoulder shrug one because a male version isn't on my phone. Now if that became a way of belittling women I'd stop using it in the same way I would not use a black hand - but I would still regret that was necessary.

bompington

DeVlaeminck said:

However if I had been attending a republican funeral in Ireland I would not wear a poppy because (as I understand it ) doing so in that context represents a show of support for British forces in Ireland and that would clear be crass and insensitive.

Not sure you do understand it - the reason you wouldn't wear a poppy at a republican funeral is that you'd probably get lynched. We'll ignore for now the 70,000 or so Irishmen who fought in WW2...

DeVlaeminck

No the reason I wouldn't wear a poppy is out of respect for the people at the funeral. I think you are probably doing a disservice to republicans if you think at every funeral you would be lynched just for wearing a poppy but hey ho.

Your comment about Irishmen who fought in WW2 is a complete irrelevance so why would I have mentioned that?

Shall we ignore the fact you've not actually put forward any argument or response to what I wrote? Is that because you don't have one but felt like opening your gob anyway ?

No_Ta_Doctor

DeVlaeminck said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

but they are hardly Trump's core support

Really? That's exactly what they are. That's why he's playing to them so damn hard.

They are an element of his support but you don't win an election relying on groups like that - so yes I agree he doesn't want to alienate them but to portray all Trump supporters as extremists, white supremacist etc is a mistake. It's a mistake because it allows the left to write off a whole swathe of the population who feel disillusioned and disenfranchised as extremist bigots and write their concerns off along with that.

Same mistake we've seen in the UK and it just let's people like Trump and Johnson into power.

Sorry, but the mistake here is to imagine that the Proud Boys and white supremacy represent an extreme opinion. This is mainstream, even if some of it is usually left unspoken. From Trump's own policies - Muslim travel ban, putting kids in cages, calling Mexicans rapists, removing DACA protection, dog-whistle racism re suburban zoning - to the long history of voter suppression, gerrymandering, police violence, white supremacy is the norm, not extremism.

The Proud Boys claim not to be racist, but say they're "Western Chauvinists" - which is essentially shorthand for "white men built western civilisation and you should thank us for it". This is inherently racist, and also extremely mainstream.

The Proud Boys can be considered extremist not because of their political views, but because they manifest those views in acts of violence.

Of course most white supremacists reject the label. It's bad PR to be openly racist and they're in bad faith when they fail to examine and acknowledge the racism of their politics. This is where arguments like "I'm not racist because Islam isn't a race, it's a religion" come from. Again, this is entirely mainstream.

bompington

DeVlaeminck said:

Shall we ignore the fact you've not actually put forward any argument or response to what I wrote? Is that because you don't have one but felt like opening your gob anyway ?

Yes, to both questions

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

My position is this. I completely get why it is racist to use a black hand emoji in our society as it is. But it's an act that has acquired that meaning rather than one which is intrinsically racist -

Can I introduce you to semiotics?

ddraver

Given that we're all hugging again I'd say our only disagreement was on what "Core Voter" means...

Which is fairly small fry

DeVlaeminck

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

My position is this. I completely get why it is racist to use a black hand emoji in our society as it is. But it's an act that has acquired that meaning rather than one which is intrinsically racist -

Can I introduce you to semiotics?

By all means Rick ! Not a word I was familiar with but it seems like it may be applicable.


And moving on - not in response to Rick but to NTD - if the definition of white supremacy is so broad as to include anyone that supports Trump then it rather dilutes the meaning of the term. If you want to argue Trump has a disregard for racial equality or that his policies impact disproportionately on different ethnic groups I could be see some merit in that argument.

There is no need to start banding about phrases like white supremacist to oppose Trump - it's actually counter productive because you just appear an extremist. It may make you feel good but it feeds his support - you take the bait and either can't see it or don't care.

rick_chasey

So I guess the challenge if you're trek is this:

Seems like either action, either reprimanding Quinn or not doing anything would likely alienate some people, right?

davidof

I've no idea who Quim Simmons is and because I'm one of those lazy deplorable people talked about above I can't be bothered to look but does he have a habit of posting racist stuff on Twitter?

However it is clear that if you are representing a product you shouldn't really do more than posting a few race and cat pics on social media.

Michael Jordon is right to point out that even Republicans buy sneakers - there are plenty of "left wing" celebs who've damaged the products they represent lately with some of their comments.

yorkshireraw

Jordan was asked to explicitly endorse a Democratic candidate (if I recall correctly from the brilliant 'The Last Dance' series on Netflix), primarily I think because the candidate was black and Jordan was obviously one of (if not the) highest profile black people in the US (and globally).
Jordan was in effect staying out of politics, whereas QS is openly showing support for a particularly divisive candidate. He's entitled to do that of course, but then others are entitled to ask if he supports / holds some of the extreme views of said candidate.

RichN95.

yorkshireraw said:

Jordan was asked to explicitly endorse a Democratic candidate (if I recall correctly from the brilliant 'The Last Dance' series on Netflix), primarily I think because the candidate was black and Jordan was obviously one of (if not the) highest profile black people in the US (and globally).
Jordan was in effect staying out of politics, whereas QS is openly showing support for a particularly divisive candidate. He's entitled to do that of course, but then others are entitled to ask if he supports / holds some of the extreme views of said candidate.

I brought up the Jordan quote from Trek's perspective rather than Simmons's

yorkshireraw

RichN95. said:

yorkshireraw said:

Jordan was asked to explicitly endorse a Democratic candidate (if I recall correctly from the brilliant 'The Last Dance' series on Netflix), primarily I think because the candidate was black and Jordan was obviously one of (if not the) highest profile black people in the US (and globally).
Jordan was in effect staying out of politics, whereas QS is openly showing support for a particularly divisive candidate. He's entitled to do that of course, but then others are entitled to ask if he supports / holds some of the extreme views of said candidate.

I brought up the Jordan quote from Trek's perspective rather than Simmons's

ah, yes makes sense.

Doug_guillory

It seems that the meaning of the emoji is central to the issue, and after searching the internet I can hardly find any information about what it might mean. Some said that a white person using a black emoji is improper, something like cultural appropriation. It's curious that Trek or Quinn don't give an explanation of what was intended. I feel for Quinn, and I'm wondering if this isn't a very extreme punishment for cultural appropriation.

davidof

yorkshireraw said:

Jordan was asked to explicitly endorse a Democratic candidate (if I recall correctly from the brilliant 'The Last Dance' series on Netflix), primarily I think because the candidate was black and Jordan was obviously one of (if not the) highest profile black people in the US (and globally).

Bit racist isn't it.

RichN95.

davidof said:

yorkshireraw said:

Jordan was asked to explicitly endorse a Democratic candidate (if I recall correctly from the brilliant 'The Last Dance' series on Netflix), primarily I think because the candidate was black and Jordan was obviously one of (if not the) highest profile black people in the US (and globally).

Bit racist isn't it.

It wasn't because the candidate was black, it was because the incumbent Republican, Jesse Helms, was one of the most racist people in the Senate. This was in Jordan's home state of North Carolina.

m.r.m.

DeVlaeminck said:

My position is this. I completely get why it is racist to use a black hand emoji in our society as it is. But it's an act that has acquired that meaning rather than one which is intrinsically racist - in the way that say being spat at because of your colour is.

It's a bit like say the wearing of a remembrance poppy . I sometimes wear one and I see it as commemorating loss rather than anything jingoistic. However if I had been attending a republican funeral in Ireland I would not wear a poppy because (as I understand it ) doing so in that context represents a show of support for British forces in Ireland and that would clear be crass and insensitive.

So I don't agree I have been lazy - I may have a different view but people do sometimes think things through and come to different conclusions. A black hand emoji is not akin to a gollywog - it's not a stereotype, it's not intrinsically linked to something from history where one race were enslaved, belittled or done down it is simply another colour of hand.

There is no analogy with misogyny here - would it be misogynistic if I used a female emoji because I do sometimes use a female shoulder shrug one because a male version isn't on my phone. Now if that became a way of belittling women I'd stop using it in the same way I would not use a black hand - but I would still regret that was necessary.

I can see your point. I also retract my comment about being lazy, because it wasn't actually directed at you (or Blazing) at all. Your posts just put me on a bit of a rant in that direction.

I agree with your view regarding casually tossing the notion around that someone is a white supremacist. In a way it doesn't apply to Trump per se, because Trump doesn't really have any strongly held beliefs beyond wanting to enrich himself. That is all he really cares about. However, he does empower Stephen Miller who clearly is a white supremacist.

If someone still is a Trump supporter, to me they can only fall into 3 categories. Either they are dumb, lazily uninformed or a horrible person. Even if you entirely ignore the corruption and lies, the separation of more than 4000 children from their families with largely no means of being able to return them to their mothers as a tactic to deter migration/people seeking asylum is genuinely evil in the literal sense of the word. Even if you ignore all of his other failings, I personally don't think you can know of this and still support him because he is potentially good for your tax bracket and not be considered a horrible person.

That last paragraph applies to Quinn Simmons as well. However, I don't think he needs to lose his job. I think it's much more meaningful and beneficial to the world, if these situations are used as teaching examples for everyone.