Rage Online

Quite.

If I am right, a player who uses an adjective like 'black' as part of an insult or expletive is guilty of racist behaviour. This is correct, because such behaviour is unacceptable. It does not mean that the player is a racist, although he might be.

So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.

The Enforcer wrote:Next thing we'll be signing that murderer again as goalkeeping cover.

Sorry, which goalkeeper have we signed that's been prosecuted for murder?

joepoolman wrote:

The Enforcer wrote:Next thing we'll be signing that murderer again as goalkeeping cover.

Sorry, which goalkeeper have we signed that's been prosecuted for murder?

This one below, not prosecuted for murder, but as bad as murder in my book.

Brahma Bull wrote:I guess the parents of the two young children who were killed on the M6 by Luke McCormick and his Range Rover, charged with death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol, would suggest otherwise.

Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.

Lots of people are fat, black or useless at football. And some are bald, some are bastards and some have big noses – it’s just true.

What is not true is that the people who support the team down the A420 are not all six-fingered inbred scum who are so bad we need hundreds of police to keep them apart from Oxford fans. Or for that matter there are no blind referees but no one makes a fuss about that kind of slander when it’s hurled from the terraces. Nor do many people complain when women officials are discriminated against (the top lino in the Prem for years is female). And it’s not a crime to be gay but as far as I know the number of current players in the top 92 teams who have ‘come out’ is a big fat zero.

In essence, football fans in general hold double standards as soon as they get through the turnstile. And I’m not saying get over it, far from it, it’s just a fact and people throwing stones at a new signing from inside a glasshouse need to think before they type.

Brahma Bull wrote:

Jimski wrote:Drink driving is bad, no doubt about it, but it's nothing like the same kind of issue as racism, let's be honest.

I guess the parents of the two young children who were killed on the M6 by Luke McCormick and his Range Rover, charged with death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol, would suggest otherwise.

Why would they suggest otherwise? Of course that was uttelry awful and tragic, but racism is another kettle of fish entirely. Racism is a societal hate crime, which has been a source of genocide among other things (if we're going to start comparing worst case scenarios).

Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.

I suggest maybe you have a word with Mr Akinfenwa, and he'll explain it to you.

Jimski wrote:

Brahma Bull wrote:

Jimski wrote:Drink driving is bad, no doubt about it, but it's nothing like the same kind of issue as racism, let's be honest.

I guess the parents of the two young children who were killed on the M6 by Luke McCormick and his Range Rover, charged with death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol, would suggest otherwise.

Why would they suggest otherwise? Of course that was uttelry awful and tragic, but racism is another kettle of fish entirely. Racism is a societal hate crime, which has been a source of genocide among other things (if we're going to start comparing worst case scenarios).

Effectively you are saying Hylton's crime (using a racist word? I don't even know what the exact offence was), is worse than killing two young children? Unbelievable!!

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that racism should be considered a more serious societal problem than drink driving. The worst effects of racism are worse than the worst effects of drink driving (bad as that might be in the case of death).

Racism causes offence to far more than just the particular target against which it is aimed. A whole section of society may feel targetted when someone gets a banana hurled at them (say). When there are victims of drink driving it is individually awful, but there's no section of society at which it is aimed. It's simply a tragic but unintended consequence of a stupid and senseless crime.

So I'm not really wanting to compare the specific outcomes of individual cases, but rather arguing that racism is a worse problem (indeed in a worse *category* of problem) for society than is drink driving.

Part of my post was to try to distinguish between the act and the intentions of the perpetrator - something enshrined in law, but always difficult to do.

A player who utters a racist insult may be a racist: that is, he hates people of a different ethnic background, or (worse) he believes that they are in some way inferior. On the other hand, he may have just been elbowed in the face, and the response he comes out with contains a racist dimension which, on reflection, was incidental. That is why a player's response and subsequent conduct are so important.

I have done a lot of work with travellers, and some football fans and others still use phrases which travellers find really offensive - I suspect often unknowingly.

Old Abingdonian wrote:Part of my post was to try to distinguish between the act and the intentions of the perpetrator - something enshrined in law, but always difficult to do.

A player who utters a racist insult may be a racist: that is, he hates people of a different ethnic background, or (worse) he believes that they are in some way inferior. On the other hand, he may have just been elbowed in the face, and the response he comes out with contains a racist dimension which, on reflection, was incidental. That is why a player's response and subsequent conduct are so important.

I have done a lot of work with travellers, and some football fans and others still use phrases which travellers find really offensive - I suspect often unknowingly.

Obviously there are shades of racism, just as there are, if people want to compare it to drink-driving (which seems an odd comparator to me, but there you go) then many people have driven just a notch above the limit (and quite unknowingly, perhaps), whereas some can have an absolute skinful and drive a family off the road.

The gist of some of the posts on this thread can be summerised in the following way: 1) The player in question has been found guilty of racially abusing a fellow professional while on the pitch. They have served their 'time'. Let's not worry too much about it, and move on. 2) Even if we should concern ourselves with the matter, then remember that racism is an ill-defined term (and I don't really understand it, or have bothered to inform myself what it means to any great extent), and plenty of people are racist according to whatever definition I choose for the purposes of argument. 3) Even if Hylton's behavior was racist according to my cereal-box definition and I've been made to care about it to the extent of posting something on a forum, then one has to remember that prejudice exists everywhere, and comes in infinite amount of forms (to the extent that I can describe traffic offenses as prejudicial). 3 combined with 2 means that I am both so highly confused about the matter and lack any real motivation to try to understand it, that I am desperately hoping 1 happens, and it all just goes away without me having to challenge my own views or trying to understand anyone else's. Meanwhile, there is such an overwhelming amount of hatred and bile around that even if it doesn't go away it's never going to get any better because human beings (football fans especially) are such monumental tossers by their very nature that trying to change anything is like flogging a dead horse.

ty cobb wrote:If we signed Suarez I for one would not be concerned about his past record, I would be happy with his record in front of goal rather than things he has already been punished for.

With this chap I am more concerned about his record in front of goal which is pretty awful for a striker and the fact he seems to be one of Waddocks ex players which suggests the net isn't being case as wide as it should.

Hylton or Benao. I know who I'd rather have leading the line next season.

My concern also.

He is effectively the same player Beano was 5 years ago, so we've exchanged a proven long term loyal experienced asset, for unproven Conference striker, with a previous penchant for abusive racist behaviour. That's not the sort of signing I want this club to be making. He had better turn out to be bloody good at this level and at a much reduced cost than Beano and with no more evidence of anything abusive towards another element of society.

SmileyMan wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, and once punishment is served, given a second chance. If you don't base your justice system around those principles, you're lost.

Since serving the ban, has he repeated the behaviour? If not, then it's up to us to forgive him - he's fulfilled his side of the social bargain.

That depends not just on whether he has changed his output, but also whether he has changed his attitude.

It is no more acceptable to be racist behind closed doors than it is to be racist in public.

Dartford Ox wrote:So, if I say "Akinfenwa is a fat useless striker" that is OK. But if I say "Akinfenwa is a black useless striker" that is offensive?

Both are insults.

I don't understand why one is illegal and the other not.

Because the second one implies uselessness as a result of ethnicity and is ergo racist. The first one is insulting but not racist.

Are you suggesting all insults should be made illegal, or are you suggesting racism should not be illegal? Either way, have a rethink.

GodalmingYellow wrote:That depends not just on whether he has changed his output, but also whether he has changed his attitude.

It is no more acceptable to be racist behind closed doors than it is to be racist in public.

"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."

That's a dangerous road you're heading down, friend.