Well, you can't tell people what they can or cannot be offended by. That's very arrogant. If someone finds something offensive then you gotta respect that. Some of the comments on this thread....geez.
Sterling shouldnt back a guy who is beinging called racist when he isnt.. ye ok. Tell me what sterlings past got to do with it tho?
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
comment by NuJerzeyTwork (U22254)
posted 1 minute ago
Well, you can't tell people what they can or cannot be offended by. That's very arrogant. If someone finds something offensive then you gotta respect that. Some of the comments on this thread....geez.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally, people need to understand that just because they are offended by something, it doesn't give them the right to tell someone that they've done something wrong.
Yes but he didnt post that
If Sterling says it isn't racist then it isn't racist. Sterling's opinion is the most important one when it comes to race issues.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The image that Silva used didn't.
I haven't yet seen anyone justify calling this racism. Seems to me he simply claimed that his mate looked like the cartoon.
I'm open to being corrected but so far, no one has.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 10 seconds ago
If Sterling says it isn't racist then it isn't racist. Sterling's opinion is the most important one when it comes to race issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly more relevant than an offended 30 year old white man.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The image that Silva used didn't.
I haven't yet seen anyone justify calling this racism. Seems to me he simply claimed that his mate looked like the cartoon.
I'm open to being corrected but so far, no one has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
But the image has historic references to race, which Busby implied it didn’t. The fact the spears have been removed to make the image less racists doesn’t change that. The major difference is that gollywogs are more famous.
And I'll add, those calling it 'naive' for posting on a public forum are only saying that because there are now armies of permanently offended people, looking for anything to go made about.
And that is their issue, not the person making the joke. We shouldn't let these lunatics win.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by NuJerzeyTwork (U22254)
posted 1 minute ago
Well, you can't tell people what they can or cannot be offended by. That's very arrogant. If someone finds something offensive then you gotta respect that. Some of the comments on this thread....geez.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally, people need to understand that just because they are offended by something, it doesn't give them the right to tell someone that they've done something wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That 'someone' has done something wrong by offending the other party. When bigots are called out for their bigotry, they also invoke the old "Politacally Correctness" gone mad argument. Wrong is wrong. Period.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the earlier logos don't look good at all:
https://www.lahistoriadelapublicidad.com/imagenes_noticias/200.jpg
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 52 seconds ago
But the image has historic references to race, which Busby implied it didn’t. The fact the spears have been removed to make the image less racists doesn’t change that. The major difference is that gollywogs are more famous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the company and their advertising partners have changed that. If the image in its current form was regarded as racist then it would have been removed. It hasn't.
To judge Silva for what the character used to be is absurd. You can only judge him on what he has actually used.
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
This is probably going to end up being another story where the anti-snowflake brigade get more riled up than the people who are offended by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston conforming to this very nicely indeed.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 10 seconds ago
If Sterling says it isn't racist then it isn't racist. Sterling's opinion is the most important one when it comes to race issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly more relevant than an offended 30 year old white man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought everyone is supposed to be equal...isn't that what the slogan says
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
This is probably going to end up being another story where the anti-snowflake brigade get more riled up than the people who are offended by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston conforming to this very nicely indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty pathetic post from you.
I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm explaining it - I'm not remotely offended by it.
But I reckon I have more interest in this than you, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
Winston, that doesn’t really negate the issue of historical references to race. I also wouldn’t be so sure to assume that what isn’t considered culturally racist in Spain as an authority on the wider issue with regard to these sort of images.
If you want to tackle racism. You cant make everything towards black people racist. He thought mendy looks like that toon. He wasnt on about the past of it
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 12 seconds ago
Winston, that doesn’t really negate the issue of historical references to race. I also wouldn’t be so sure to assume that what isn’t considered culturally racist in Spain as an authority on the wider issue with regard to these sort of images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it does.
The character has been changed and isn't regarded as racist.
There's lots of things in society that have roots in racism but are just part and parcel of life.
Ultimately if the image is deemed acceptable in its current form then there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to reference it in their own posts.
I'm surprised they charged him, given the circumstances I thought it was more a matter of education required and there wasn't any form of intent that required punishment.
By doing this, i think it risks making it a more contentious issue than it needed to be.
It doesn’t negate the historical references because they still exist, Busby implied they didn’t when compromg them to gollywogs. I’d also argue the cartoon is regarded as racist, hence why this is an issue.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
This is probably going to end up being another story where the anti-snowflake brigade get more riled up than the people who are offended by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston conforming to this very nicely indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty pathetic post from you.
I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm explaining it - I'm not remotely offended by it.
But I reckon I have more interest in this than you, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty pathetic post from you.
I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm explaining it - I'm not remotely offended by it.
But I reckon I have more interest in this than you, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem pretty riled up to me Winston.
If you are struggling to see how the tweet potentially...... "breaches FA Rule E3(1) as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute.".....then more fool you.
The key word there is 'potentially', he may be found by the independently panel that he is free from any punishment.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
It doesn’t negate the historical references because they still exist, Busby implied they didn’t when compromg them to gollywogs. I’d also argue the cartoon is regarded as racist, hence why this is an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they do exist.
But they have no relevance to Silva's social media post.
_Viva_Vida (U6044)
I'm riled up at your previous post, yes.
It was pathetic and not necessary on a thread that has a decent discussion going on.
Fack off and play with the traffic, priick.
Sign in if you want to comment
Bernardo Silva Charged over Tweet
Page 6 of 14
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 2/10/19
Well, you can't tell people what they can or cannot be offended by. That's very arrogant. If someone finds something offensive then you gotta respect that. Some of the comments on this thread....geez.
posted on 2/10/19
Sterling shouldnt back a guy who is beinging called racist when he isnt.. ye ok. Tell me what sterlings past got to do with it tho?
posted on 2/10/19
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by NuJerzeyTwork (U22254)
posted 1 minute ago
Well, you can't tell people what they can or cannot be offended by. That's very arrogant. If someone finds something offensive then you gotta respect that. Some of the comments on this thread....geez.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally, people need to understand that just because they are offended by something, it doesn't give them the right to tell someone that they've done something wrong.
posted on 2/10/19
Yes but he didnt post that
posted on 2/10/19
If Sterling says it isn't racist then it isn't racist. Sterling's opinion is the most important one when it comes to race issues.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The image that Silva used didn't.
I haven't yet seen anyone justify calling this racism. Seems to me he simply claimed that his mate looked like the cartoon.
I'm open to being corrected but so far, no one has.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 10 seconds ago
If Sterling says it isn't racist then it isn't racist. Sterling's opinion is the most important one when it comes to race issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly more relevant than an offended 30 year old white man.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The image that Silva used didn't.
I haven't yet seen anyone justify calling this racism. Seems to me he simply claimed that his mate looked like the cartoon.
I'm open to being corrected but so far, no one has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
posted on 2/10/19
But the image has historic references to race, which Busby implied it didn’t. The fact the spears have been removed to make the image less racists doesn’t change that. The major difference is that gollywogs are more famous.
posted on 2/10/19
And I'll add, those calling it 'naive' for posting on a public forum are only saying that because there are now armies of permanently offended people, looking for anything to go made about.
And that is their issue, not the person making the joke. We shouldn't let these lunatics win.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by NuJerzeyTwork (U22254)
posted 1 minute ago
Well, you can't tell people what they can or cannot be offended by. That's very arrogant. If someone finds something offensive then you gotta respect that. Some of the comments on this thread....geez.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally, people need to understand that just because they are offended by something, it doesn't give them the right to tell someone that they've done something wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That 'someone' has done something wrong by offending the other party. When bigots are called out for their bigotry, they also invoke the old "Politacally Correctness" gone mad argument. Wrong is wrong. Period.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
The orginal image had the black caricature, with pronounced features, holding spears. I’m sure you know about the racist connotations of such images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the earlier logos don't look good at all:
https://www.lahistoriadelapublicidad.com/imagenes_noticias/200.jpg
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 52 seconds ago
But the image has historic references to race, which Busby implied it didn’t. The fact the spears have been removed to make the image less racists doesn’t change that. The major difference is that gollywogs are more famous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the company and their advertising partners have changed that. If the image in its current form was regarded as racist then it would have been removed. It hasn't.
To judge Silva for what the character used to be is absurd. You can only judge him on what he has actually used.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
This is probably going to end up being another story where the anti-snowflake brigade get more riled up than the people who are offended by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston conforming to this very nicely indeed.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 10 seconds ago
If Sterling says it isn't racist then it isn't racist. Sterling's opinion is the most important one when it comes to race issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly more relevant than an offended 30 year old white man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought everyone is supposed to be equal...isn't that what the slogan says
posted on 2/10/19
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
This is probably going to end up being another story where the anti-snowflake brigade get more riled up than the people who are offended by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston conforming to this very nicely indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty pathetic post from you.
I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm explaining it - I'm not remotely offended by it.
But I reckon I have more interest in this than you, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
posted on 2/10/19
Winston, that doesn’t really negate the issue of historical references to race. I also wouldn’t be so sure to assume that what isn’t considered culturally racist in Spain as an authority on the wider issue with regard to these sort of images.
posted on 2/10/19
If you want to tackle racism. You cant make everything towards black people racist. He thought mendy looks like that toon. He wasnt on about the past of it
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 12 seconds ago
Winston, that doesn’t really negate the issue of historical references to race. I also wouldn’t be so sure to assume that what isn’t considered culturally racist in Spain as an authority on the wider issue with regard to these sort of images.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it does.
The character has been changed and isn't regarded as racist.
There's lots of things in society that have roots in racism but are just part and parcel of life.
Ultimately if the image is deemed acceptable in its current form then there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to reference it in their own posts.
posted on 2/10/19
I'm surprised they charged him, given the circumstances I thought it was more a matter of education required and there wasn't any form of intent that required punishment.
By doing this, i think it risks making it a more contentious issue than it needed to be.
posted on 2/10/19
It doesn’t negate the historical references because they still exist, Busby implied they didn’t when compromg them to gollywogs. I’d also argue the cartoon is regarded as racist, hence why this is an issue.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
This is probably going to end up being another story where the anti-snowflake brigade get more riled up than the people who are offended by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston conforming to this very nicely indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty pathetic post from you.
I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm explaining it - I'm not remotely offended by it.
But I reckon I have more interest in this than you, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty pathetic post from you.
I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm explaining it - I'm not remotely offended by it.
But I reckon I have more interest in this than you, so maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem pretty riled up to me Winston.
If you are struggling to see how the tweet potentially...... "breaches FA Rule E3(1) as it was insulting and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute.".....then more fool you.
The key word there is 'potentially', he may be found by the independently panel that he is free from any punishment.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
It doesn’t negate the historical references because they still exist, Busby implied they didn’t when compromg them to gollywogs. I’d also argue the cartoon is regarded as racist, hence why this is an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they do exist.
But they have no relevance to Silva's social media post.
posted on 2/10/19
_Viva_Vida (U6044)
I'm riled up at your previous post, yes.
It was pathetic and not necessary on a thread that has a decent discussion going on.
Fack off and play with the traffic, priick.
Page 6 of 14
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11