Having lived in South Africa before (for 7 odd years), Brit blacks have it good and have NO idea of what real racism is/looks like.
Calling someone a ''black cant'' isn't racist at all. However, lynching someone because they're black and then posing for pics next to their dead body (while grinning from ear to ear) is.
Black Brits and PC-lefties use the word 'racism' all willy and nilly and in so doing, spit in the faces of those that have experienced REAL racism.
Well Saurez' face didn't look like he was aggressively saying anything to me.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
Jay, he did not use the word 'negrito'...that was a red herring created by the Press.
.............
Created by Liverpool fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the media created that. Which Liverpool fans do you think had actually heard of that word before the media got hold of it? You'd have to be very stupid to believe that.
It's quite easy to be snide looking innocent, he was also pinching his skin at the same time he said it, he knew exactly what he was doing
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds(Spurs 0-5 LFC Know your place (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by UnitedRedMacca - First with the news!! (U2024)
posted 4 minutes ago
Whichever it was - there's no reason to make a reference to someone's colour on a pitch.
-----------------
It's against the rules referencing skin colour in any way Jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's the crux of it for me. As you said before, when we looked at law E1(b) I believe it was, it said you cannot reference skin colour, race or religion etc. I don't believe it even mentioned that it had to be abusive, just no mention to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't but there is a separate rule that doubles it if it is deemed to be used in an abusive way, which it was
Tis why I was up in arms that JT didn't get 8 too. That was utterly wrong
No, the media created that.
.............
Utter bollox.
I saw it on here, by cretins like yourself trying to convince yourselves and the rest of us long before any media got wind of it.
Well where does it stop Cal? Do we have the word 'black' banned?
racism is racism doesn't have to end in death.In this country I like to think we have won
the argument.
- - - ---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I'm not fan of John Terry but I think he was unfairly treated by the FA.
I repeat, calling someone a 'black cant' is NOT racist. Offensive?Yes.Rude?Definately. But racist? No chance!!!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by ButchBarry_MulletsAreBack (U17994)
posted 5 minutes ago
Having lived in South Africa before (for 7 odd years), Brit blacks have it good and have NO idea of what real racism is/looks like.
Calling someone a ''black cant'' isn't racist at all. However, lynching someone because they're black and then posing for pics next to their dead body (while grinning from ear to ear) is.
Black Brits and PC-lefties use the word 'racism' all willy and nilly and in so doing, spit in the faces of those that have experienced REAL racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody thinks Suarez is, or was, racist
It was racial abuse, not racism
now, what is that other classic some of the Liverpool fans recently claimed?
Oh yes, that biting is only looked on as dispicable in the UK, and nowhere else.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
He didn't just say why black though did he? He also said, in reply to evra asking why he had kicked him "because you're black".
Now, again, that isn't necessarily racist, and Evra's story changed about 3 times during the whole shambolic affair, but "why black" isn't the only thing Suarez said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Evra said he said "because you are black". Suarez said he said "why black"? It would be easy to confuse that as 'por que' means why and 'porque' means because. Now if Evra's version is correct I would say that is racist as you've stated you've done something to another because of their colour.
However there is no way to prove which version is correct and you'd probably side with the person who's speaking in his mothertongue
Sorry vid, that just isn't correct. That word/phrase was on media outlets within hours. It certainly wasn't created by fans.
.............
It was on here within hours as well.
I marvelled at how many experts you had on Uraguyan culture, on your board, at the time.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
No, the media created that.
.............
Utter bollox.
I saw it on here, by cretins like yourself trying to convince yourselves and the rest of us long before any media got wind of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so who were these Liverpool fans who were so fluent in the Uruguayan dialect of Spanish who knew about this slang word? You're being very foolish if you think this is the case.
Now perhaps there were some Liverpool fans saying it after the media put it out there but certainly not before.
However there is no way to prove which version is correct and you'd probably side with the person who's speaking in his mothertongue
-----------------
You mean the guy that blatantly lied about biting in the WC and then admitting to it after being asked to do so by Barca, despite the fact that in the meantime he had received support from everyone, including his own president
Let it go Toor. He did the deed and did the time
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I have no problem with that whatsoever but if anyone believes Suarez wasn't using it in an aggressive manner, then in my opinion, they are deluding themselves
=================================================
Well, that's a different argument from the one you were debating.
When the language experts were asked to determine whether Suarez's conversation with Evra constituted an aggressive context, they said "it depends whose story you believe as to what was said".
If you believe Evra's version of it, then the context would be deemed aggressive. If you believe Suarez's, then it wouldn't. That was their verdict.
As you've just demonstrated, we don't have to guess which version you believe, though I bet you can't tell us what that version was. (It's the version that the FA's tribunal believed, and that's what mattered in this case).
Either way, the argument as to whether it's ok to say 'black man' in English is completely irrelevant, it wasn't said in English, and it has different connotations in Spanish. depending on how it is said. That was clearly established in the report.
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 11 seconds ago
We'll never know for sure and the thing that was made the whole thing worse, for me personally, was that he was convicted on the word of evra.
-----------------------
great
Suarez admitted to referencing skin colour
That is not allowed in any context
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Man Utds new kit deal - 750 million
Page 15 of 23
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
posted on 14/7/14
Having lived in South Africa before (for 7 odd years), Brit blacks have it good and have NO idea of what real racism is/looks like.
Calling someone a ''black cant'' isn't racist at all. However, lynching someone because they're black and then posing for pics next to their dead body (while grinning from ear to ear) is.
Black Brits and PC-lefties use the word 'racism' all willy and nilly and in so doing, spit in the faces of those that have experienced REAL racism.
posted on 14/7/14
Well Saurez' face didn't look like he was aggressively saying anything to me.
posted on 14/7/14
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
Jay, he did not use the word 'negrito'...that was a red herring created by the Press.
.............
Created by Liverpool fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the media created that. Which Liverpool fans do you think had actually heard of that word before the media got hold of it? You'd have to be very stupid to believe that.
posted on 14/7/14
It's quite easy to be snide looking innocent, he was also pinching his skin at the same time he said it, he knew exactly what he was doing
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds(Spurs 0-5 LFC Know your place (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by UnitedRedMacca - First with the news!! (U2024)
posted 4 minutes ago
Whichever it was - there's no reason to make a reference to someone's colour on a pitch.
-----------------
It's against the rules referencing skin colour in any way Jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's the crux of it for me. As you said before, when we looked at law E1(b) I believe it was, it said you cannot reference skin colour, race or religion etc. I don't believe it even mentioned that it had to be abusive, just no mention to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't but there is a separate rule that doubles it if it is deemed to be used in an abusive way, which it was
Tis why I was up in arms that JT didn't get 8 too. That was utterly wrong
posted on 14/7/14
No, the media created that.
.............
Utter bollox.
I saw it on here, by cretins like yourself trying to convince yourselves and the rest of us long before any media got wind of it.
posted on 14/7/14
Well where does it stop Cal? Do we have the word 'black' banned?
posted on 14/7/14
racism is racism doesn't have to end in death.In this country I like to think we have won
the argument.
- - - ---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I'm not fan of John Terry but I think he was unfairly treated by the FA.
I repeat, calling someone a 'black cant' is NOT racist. Offensive?Yes.Rude?Definately. But racist? No chance!!!
posted on 14/7/14
what?
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
comment by ButchBarry_MulletsAreBack (U17994)
posted 5 minutes ago
Having lived in South Africa before (for 7 odd years), Brit blacks have it good and have NO idea of what real racism is/looks like.
Calling someone a ''black cant'' isn't racist at all. However, lynching someone because they're black and then posing for pics next to their dead body (while grinning from ear to ear) is.
Black Brits and PC-lefties use the word 'racism' all willy and nilly and in so doing, spit in the faces of those that have experienced REAL racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody thinks Suarez is, or was, racist
It was racial abuse, not racism
posted on 14/7/14
now, what is that other classic some of the Liverpool fans recently claimed?
Oh yes, that biting is only looked on as dispicable in the UK, and nowhere else.
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
He didn't just say why black though did he? He also said, in reply to evra asking why he had kicked him "because you're black".
Now, again, that isn't necessarily racist, and Evra's story changed about 3 times during the whole shambolic affair, but "why black" isn't the only thing Suarez said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Evra said he said "because you are black". Suarez said he said "why black"? It would be easy to confuse that as 'por que' means why and 'porque' means because. Now if Evra's version is correct I would say that is racist as you've stated you've done something to another because of their colour.
However there is no way to prove which version is correct and you'd probably side with the person who's speaking in his mothertongue
posted on 14/7/14
Sorry vid, that just isn't correct. That word/phrase was on media outlets within hours. It certainly wasn't created by fans.
.............
It was on here within hours as well.
I marvelled at how many experts you had on Uraguyan culture, on your board, at the time.
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
No, the media created that.
.............
Utter bollox.
I saw it on here, by cretins like yourself trying to convince yourselves and the rest of us long before any media got wind of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so who were these Liverpool fans who were so fluent in the Uruguayan dialect of Spanish who knew about this slang word? You're being very foolish if you think this is the case.
Now perhaps there were some Liverpool fans saying it after the media put it out there but certainly not before.
posted on 14/7/14
However there is no way to prove which version is correct and you'd probably side with the person who's speaking in his mothertongue
-----------------
You mean the guy that blatantly lied about biting in the WC and then admitting to it after being asked to do so by Barca, despite the fact that in the meantime he had received support from everyone, including his own president
Let it go Toor. He did the deed and did the time
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
I have no problem with that whatsoever but if anyone believes Suarez wasn't using it in an aggressive manner, then in my opinion, they are deluding themselves
=================================================
Well, that's a different argument from the one you were debating.
When the language experts were asked to determine whether Suarez's conversation with Evra constituted an aggressive context, they said "it depends whose story you believe as to what was said".
If you believe Evra's version of it, then the context would be deemed aggressive. If you believe Suarez's, then it wouldn't. That was their verdict.
As you've just demonstrated, we don't have to guess which version you believe, though I bet you can't tell us what that version was. (It's the version that the FA's tribunal believed, and that's what mattered in this case).
Either way, the argument as to whether it's ok to say 'black man' in English is completely irrelevant, it wasn't said in English, and it has different connotations in Spanish. depending on how it is said. That was clearly established in the report.
posted on 14/7/14
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 11 seconds ago
We'll never know for sure and the thing that was made the whole thing worse, for me personally, was that he was convicted on the word of evra.
-----------------------
great
Suarez admitted to referencing skin colour
That is not allowed in any context
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 15 of 23
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20