Kelvin MacKenzie attacking Liverpool again

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:29 pm

Greenmile wrote:No one should have to learn to "put up with" racism.

Some people are racist, regardless of what you think you cannot change that. There will always be racist people somewhere, you just have to accept that and live your own life.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:30 pm

KRBFC wrote:Lock him up throw away the key, how dare he call a white man a gorilla. I honestly wonder how some people get through life, you must spend a fortune on tissue while reading a newspaper or watching a comedian like Frankie Boyle.

This is my favourite post on this thread.

I think you've completely misread Frankie Boyle's comedic method.

By the way, here's an article on the history of simianisation, which I know you aren't going to read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conve ... 45322.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:30 pm

I love it when a person wants to infer a thing from something I wrote (apparently I said that gorillas are intelligent) but won't allow other people to infer a thing from something someone else wrote. He must be the only one allowed to do this inferring stuff.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:31 pm

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:You just keep polishing your I-Don't-Care-About-Anything medal.

I certainly don't give a toss about an irrelevant writer calling a white man an ape.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:32 pm

KRBFC wrote:I certainly don't give a toss about an irrelevant writer calling a white man an ape.

Unfortunately, he's not irrelevant.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:33 pm

fidelcastro wrote:We're going around in circles, Rowls, but I think it's pretty obvious what he meant. Anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can see that. A pity that you seem educated beyond your own intelligence.

OK.

I *think* the idea that McKenzie deliberately intended to be racist here is pigswill and codswollop of the highest order.

You *think* the article was deliberately racist.

Neither of us can prove our cases. Unless there is evidence of him confessing to your version of events it will be entirely down to his word.

But even if I was inclined to believe your *thoughts* on the matter I find your willingness to condemn the man out outright racism to be dangerous and worrying. Particularly as so many appear to be supportive of this stance.

Q. Why is it worrying for me?

A. It's worrying because it is essentalaly trial without evidence. You want him to be convicted of "Possible Racism". You are effectively accusing the man of committing thought crime.

OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?

A. No. I'm happy for people who are racist to receive social approbation. But if we're to go around publicly proclaiming people to be "racist" then we ought to have the dignity and sense to have evidence of the fact. Fair trials are a pretty fundamental human right. OK, so we're discussing the matter on an internet forum and not a court room but I rather believe that the civilised notion of fair trials should be adopted by civilised people no matter what the circumstances.

I hope that clarifies things fidel.

All the best and goodnight.

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:33 pm

KRBFC wrote:Some people are racist, regardless of what you think you cannot change that. There will always be racist people somewhere, you just have to accept that and live your own life.

I'm glad Martin Luther King didn't just accept that some people were racist.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:34 pm

KRBFC wrote:Some people are racist, regardless of what you think you cannot change that. There will always be racist people somewhere, you just have to accept that and live your own life.

I will say it again, I do not have to accept racism. Would you have said the same to MLK, Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? (for clarity, I'm not comparing myself to them)

Edit - Fidel beat me to it

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:35 pm

KRBFC wrote:Some people are racist, regardless of what you think you cannot change that. There will always be racist people somewhere, you just have to accept that and live your own life.

Does that also apply to managers who don't play "attractive" football?

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:35 pm

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:Unfortunately, he's not irrelevant.

I have no idea who Mackenzie is nor do I ever read The Sun. So to me, Mackenzie is irrelevant.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:37 pm

KRBFC wrote:I have no idea who Mackenzie is nor do I ever read The Sun. So to me, Mackenzie is irrelevant.

Try empathising with others. Don't worry, it doesn't mean you're gay.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:37 pm

Greenmile wrote:You're siding with Mackenzie. Mackenzie is a racist. You're siding with a racist. Looks like I've touched a nerve - I've never known you to swear on here before.

Edit - in reply to post 84, obviously.

I always swear at people who accuse me of racism or siding with racists. ALWAYS.

It doesn't happen that often because the bast majority of people (even those I disagree with vehemently) are decent people.

You have lowered yourself to the level of a racist.

If you knew ANYTHING about me as a person or my private life you would be embarrassed to kingdom come to even think about calling me a racist or even "siding with a racist".

If you saw somebody dishing out racist abuse maybe you'd tell them to eff off? That's what's happened here. You're the one dishing out crap and I'm the one who's told you to shut up with swear words.

You should apologise. And if you do I'll apologise for swearing.

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:37 pm

Fair play Rowls, but you haven't changed my mind.

Goodnight to you too.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:38 pm

KRBFC wrote:I have no idea who Mackenzie is nor do I ever read The Sun. So to me, Mackenzie is irrelevant.

I wouldn't so readily admit to being so blinkered but fair play.

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:38 pm

Greenmile wrote:I will say it again, I do not have to accept racism. Would you have said the same to MLK, Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? (for clarity, I'm not comparing myself to them)

Edit - Fidel beat me to it

Like he knows who any of those people are!

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:41 pm

Rowls wrote:OK.

I *think* the idea that McKenzie deliberately intended to be racist here is pigswill and codswollop of the highest order.

You *think* the article was deliberately racist.

Neither of us can prove our cases. Unless there is evidence of him confessing to your version of events it will be entirely down to his word.

But even if I was inclined to believe your *thoughts* on the matter I find your willingness to condemn the man out outright racism to be dangerous and worrying. Particularly as so many appear to be supportive of this stance.

Q. Why is it worrying for me?

A. It's worrying because it is essentalaly trial without evidence. You want him to be convicted of "Possible Racism". You are effectively accusing the man of committing thought crime.

OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?

A. No. I'm happy for people who are racist to receive social approbation. But if we're to go around publicly proclaiming people to be "racist" then we ought to have the dignity and sense to have evidence of the fact. Fair trials are a pretty fundamental human right. OK, so we're discussing the matter on an internet forum and not a court room but I rather believe that the civilised notion of fair trials should be adopted by civilised people no matter what the circumstances.

I hope that clarifies things fidel.

All the best and goodnight.

So you think he should be entitled to a "fair trial" but the only evidence you will accept is a signed confession? You do realise that most racists don't think they are racists, don't you?

Besides, we are judging him on "his word" - the words that were printed in a national "newspaper" where he called a man with Nigerian heritage a gorilla.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:41 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:Does that also apply to managers who don't play "attractive" football?

No because I can change the style of play. It was all part of the plan, I'd sign up to this forum and build up a fanbase before submitting my managerial application. Call me delusional but I believe I could get that group of players playing better stuff than Yawn Dyche. I may lack experience in the role but I can easily see Dyches faults before him.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:41 pm

fidelcastro wrote:Like he knows who any of those people are!

And if he doesn't they're irrelevant.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:41 pm

fidelcastro wrote:Like he knows who any of those people are!

I'm sure they do know two out of 3, possibly all 3 of them.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:44 pm

Greenmile wrote:So you think he should be entitled to a "fair trial" but the only evidence you will accept is a signed confession? You do realise that most racists don't think they are racists, don't you?

Besides, we are judging him on "his word" - the words that were printed in a national "newspaper" where he called a man with Nigerian heritage a gorilla.

He's also released the statement since saying he wasn't aware of Barkley's Nigerian heritage.
Most people won't be aware of it either, because he's Caucasian, with Caucasian features.

If you gave the average person in the street a picture of Ross Barkley and asked them to describe him, before today they'd be likely to describe him as some white bloke in his 20's.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:45 pm

Greenmile wrote:So you think he should be entitled to a "fair trial" but the only evidence you will accept is a signed confession? You do realise that most racists don't think they are racists, don't you?

Besides, we are judging him on "his word" - the words that were printed in a national "newspaper" where he called a man with Nigerian heritage a gorilla.

This is so ignorant I shall not pass comment on it

I hope you see sense and apologise.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:45 pm

Spiral wrote:Try empathising with others. Don't worry, it doesn't mean you're gay.

Extremely weird how you keep mentioning sexuality. Does your family know?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:47 pm

Rowls wrote:I always swear at people who accuse me of racism or siding with racists. ALWAYS.

It doesn't happen that often because the bast majority of people (even those I disagree with vehemently) are decent people.

You have lowered yourself to the level of a racist.

If you knew ANYTHING about me as a person or my private life you would be embarrassed to kingdom come to even think about calling me a racist or even "siding with a racist".

If you saw somebody dishing out racist abuse maybe you'd tell them to eff off? That's what's happened here. You're the one dishing out crap and I'm the one who's told you to shut up with swear words.

You should apologise. And if you do I'll apologise for swearing.

I have never called you a racist and I'm happy to apologise if I gave that impression, but stand my my view that you are siding with a racist here. Your private life is irrelevant - I'm judging you on your statements here on this thread.

I need no apology from you for swearing, but you might want to think about apologising for most of your other statements on this thread.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:47 pm

Rowls wrote:This is so ignorant I shall not pass comment on it

I hope you see sense and apologise.

Offended? Wanting an apology? You sure you're not left wing, Rowls?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:49 pm

I love the notion of an Internet football forum having to give a 'fair trial' to a man who has made a living out of being nasty and unfair to people, peoples and religions, often causing significant emotional and long term distress. Be fair to Kelvin MacKenzie? Ha!! Live by the sword die by the sword mate!!

If he's been unfairly accused and it's caused him problems then tough ****.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:55 pm

KRBFC wrote:No because I can change the style of play. It was all part of the plan, I'd sign up to this forum and build up a fanbase before submitting my managerial application. Call me delusional but I believe I could get that group of players playing better stuff than Yawn Dyche. I may lack experience in the role but I can easily see Dyches faults before him.

Your quivering bottom lip posts cheer everyone up after a poor result. Don't change.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:57 pm

Sidney1st wrote:He's also released the statement since saying he wasn't aware of Barkley's Nigerian heritage.
Most people won't be aware of it either, because he's Caucasian, with Caucasian features.

If you gave the average person in the street a picture of Ross Barkley and asked them to describe him, before today they'd be likely to describe him as some white bloke in his 20's.

The old 'sorry I'm just **** at my job excuse'. Worked for Brooks.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:57 pm

Greenmile wrote:I have never called you a racist and I'm happy to apologise if I gave that impression, but stand my my view that you are siding with a racist here. Your private life is irrelevant - I'm judging you on your statements here on this thread.

I need no apology from you for swearing, but you might want to think about apologising for most of your other statements on this thread.

You have not understood what I said.

I swore at you for accusing me for excusing and "siding" with a racist.

And why would anyone do that if they weren't a racist themselves? "I'm not a racist but I'm standing up for racist?" How does that work.

The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

Furthermore you don't have the sense our courtesy to avoid the ambiguity of whether I'm siding "with a racist" (your words) or siding with somebody you think is a racist, even though you have no proof.

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:02 pm

I know I said "fair play" on a previous post, Rowls, but after reading it again, please can you clarify this post of yours:

"OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?"

If that's not a typo, then yes you are supporting a racist.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:05 pm

Sidney1st wrote:He's also released the statement since saying he wasn't aware of Barkley's Nigerian heritage.
Most people won't be aware of it either, because he's Caucasian, with Caucasian features.

If you gave the average person in the street a picture of Ross Barkley and asked them to describe him, before today they'd be likely to describe him as some white bloke in his 20's.

He's supposed to be a journalist. He should have done so every basic research on his target before writing his hit piece.

Best case scenario if you believe his subsequent statement (and I don't) is that he's utterly incompetent at his job and should be fired anyway.

Edit - again, I've been beaten to the punch (this time by Bordeauxclaret). In my defence, I'm a very slow typist.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:05 pm

martin_p wrote:I love the notion of an Internet football forum having to give a 'fair trial' to a man who has made a living out of being nasty and unfair to people, peoples and religions, often causing significant emotional and long term distress. Be fair to Kelvin MacKenzie? Ha!! Live by the sword die by the sword mate!!
If he's been unfairly accused and it's caused him problems then tough ****.

The personal distress McKenzie (which I imagine is very little) has nothing to do with it.

If you want to live in a society where accusations and witch-hunts are a mainstay of life then I suggest a life somewhere like Zimbabwe, Russia or one of several other crappy countries.

No, the internet does not have to enforce the kind of levels of proof the courts require (I thought I'd already made that point but maybe you missed it) but people who are eager for trials without evidence really ought to think of the consequences. Sorry to be so serious but that, to me, is a serious issue. I think of it as one of the bedrocks of our society.

So go ahead and say "I think he's a racist even though there's no proof." Be my guest martin.

Just don't imagine it's a good argument or one that will withstand any kind of scrutiny.

As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

You can say 'live by the sword die by the sword' all you like but all you're really doing is seizing the moral lowground.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:07 pm

Rowls wrote: The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

You're doing that inference thing again. Why don't you just ask him what he meant?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:11 pm

Rowls wrote:You have not understood what I said.

I swore at you for accusing me for excusing and "siding" with a racist.

And why would anyone do that if they weren't a racist themselves? "I'm not a racist but I'm standing up for racist?" How does that work.

The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

Furthermore you don't have the sense our courtesy to avoid the ambiguity of whether I'm siding "with a racist" (your words) or siding with somebody you think is a racist, even though you have no proof.

Now then Rowls, do I really need to put a disclaimer at the end of each of my posts saying "this is my opinion" just for you? (does this sound familiar to you?)

My proof is the article he wrote. For me, comparing someone with Nigerian heritage to a gorilla is a racist act (apparently for apologists like yourself, it isn't - we may have to agree to disagree). Someone who commits racist acts is a racist.

Accusing you of siding with racists is not the same as accusing you of being a racist. Your motivations are a mystery to me but if I had to hazard a guess, it would be something to do with your unthinking dislike of any viewpoint that is vaguely left wing or liberal.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:12 pm

fidelcastro wrote:I know I said "fair play" on a previous post, Rowls, but after reading it again, please can you clarify this post of yours:

"OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?"

If that's not a typo, then yes you are supporting a racist.

No.

NO NO NO!!!!

It does NOT mean that at all.

What it means is I would be supporting the right of a man who may or may not be a racist (even though perhaps I suspect he might be a racist) to be judged by standards superior to "well I think he might be a racist so therefore he IS a racist and let's condemn him". The universe certainly does not begin and end between my ears. That's just the place I interpret it.

What if he isn't a racist?
What is all of a sudden Britain started locking up people on the grounds that they "might" be racist?
What sort of country would that be?
What sort of people would do that?

There's a good reason why courts insist upon these kind of burdens.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:12 pm

Rowls wrote: No, the internet does not have to enforce the kind of levels of proof the courts require (I thought I'd already made that point but maybe you missed it) but people who are eager for trials without evidence really ought to think of the consequences. Sorry to be so serious but that, to me, is a serious issue. I think of it as one of the bedrocks of our society.

And maybe you missed the ' ' round 'fair trial' (I thought it was obvious I wasn't being literal but maybe you missed it).

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:13 pm

Here's a suggestion. For the purpose of this suggestion, it's irrelevant whether McKenzie was being racist or not; this is to do with the wider world of racism.

It's pretty clear that in most people's minds, especially that of the most strongly anti-racists, gorillas (and presumably other primates) are closely associated with black people. Not white people, because if for example Tony Adams had been accused of having stupid eyes like a gorilla - this of course is assuming Adams doesn't have a black ancestor that I have somehow missed - then there would be no accusation of racism. For that matter, if Adams had been accused of having eyes like a snow leopard, it wouldn't be racist; and presumably accusing (say) Ian Wright of having eyes like a snow leopard wouldn't be racist. The problem is that if you accuse a black man of having eyes like a gorilla, there is an instant link "black man" and "gorilla". It's built to many people's pysche - they hear someone refer to a gorilla when there's a black man in the room, and they link them.

This needs to change, frankly. We need to get away from this link. I know why the link appeared, it's because of racist behaviour chucking bananas at John Barnes and making jungle noises and all the rest of the vile nonsense. But sadly, the vile nonsense of racist football fans linking black men and primates has become an accepted link in well-meaning people's minds. We need to break the link. When we see a black man and a gorilla mentioned in the same sentence, we need to go back to the more old-fashioned blank surprise, "what are you on about" - let the racists know that they are not talking sense.

The point is, I suppose, that I'm one of those who didn't know that Barkley had a Nigerian grandfather. And that means I didn't realise that he was a different sort of person from say Tony Adams, who needs treating differently from Tony Adams because Adams doesn't have a Nigerian grandfather. The idea that Ross Barkley is a different sort of person from Tony Adams, just because he's got a black grandfather, worries me.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:15 pm

Rowls wrote:No.

NO NO NO!!!!

It does NOT mean that at all.

What it means is I would be supporting the right of a man who may or may not be a racist (even though perhaps I suspect he might be a racist) to be judged by standards superior to "well I think he might be a racist so therefore he IS a racist and let's condemn him". The universe certainly does not begin and end between my ears. That's just the place I interpret it.

What if he isn't a racist?
What is all of a sudden Britain started locking up people on the grounds that they "might" be racist?
What sort of country would that be?
What sort of people would do that?

There's a good reason why courts insist upon these kind of burdens.

Don't forget, only Rowls is allowed to infer.

Awayfromburnley · Post by **Awayfromburnley** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:16 pm

I feel like I've walked into that barbers scene, where they are all arguing, from Coming to America.

My head hurts.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:16 pm

Greenmile wrote:Now then Rowls, do I really need to put a disclaimer at the end of each of my posts saying "this is my opinion" just for you? (does this sound familiar to you?)

You don't need to do that. But I think you'd do well to understand the ambiguity in your previous post.

Greenmile wrote:My proof is the article he wrote. For me, comparing someone with Nigerian heritage to a gorilla is a racist act (apparently for apologists like yourself, it isn't - we may have to agree to disagree). Someone who commits racist acts is a racist.

You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Greenmile wrote:Accusing you of siding with racists is not the same as accusing you of being a racist. Your motivations are a mystery to me but if I had to hazard a guess, it would be something to do with your unthinking dislike of any viewpoint that is vaguely left wing or liberal.

I've already explained why I say it's very close to being the same thing and has the same effect.

And you also should start to acknowledge the difference between posting opinions and posting accusations.

You can have whatever opinion you want but you cannot post whatever accusation you want. That is what you really need to learn.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:18 pm

martin_p wrote:Don't forget, only Rowls is allowed to infer.

There's nothing "inferred" in the post you've quoted martin. It's a logical argument.

I'd like to see you try and pick holes in it.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:18 pm

Unless one of the mods think I've crossed a line and ban me, I can post exactly what I want, and will continue to do so.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:20 pm

dsr wrote:Here's a suggestion. For the purpose of this suggestion, it's irrelevant whether McKenzie was being racist or not; this is to do with the wider world of racism.

It's pretty clear that in most people's minds, especially that of the most strongly anti-racists, gorillas (and presumably other primates) are closely associated with black people. Not white people, because if for example Tony Adams had been accused of having stupid eyes like a gorilla - this of course is assuming Adams doesn't have a black ancestor that I have somehow missed - then there would be no accusation of racism. For that matter, if Adams had been accused of having eyes like a snow leopard, it wouldn't be racist; and presumably accusing (say) Ian Wright of having eyes like a snow leopard wouldn't be racist. The problem is that if you accuse a black man of having eyes like a gorilla, there is an instant link "black man" and "gorilla". It's built to many people's pysche - they hear someone refer to a gorilla when there's a black man in the room, and they link them.

This needs to change, frankly. We need to get away from this link. I know why the link appeared, it's because of racist behaviour chucking bananas at John Barnes and making jungle noises and all the rest of the vile nonsense. But sadly, the vile nonsense of racist football fans linking black men and primates has become an accepted link in well-meaning people's minds. We need to break the link. When we see a black man and a gorilla mentioned in the same sentence, we need to go back to the more old-fashioned blank surprise, "what are you on about" - let the racists know that they are not talking sense.

The point is, I suppose, that I'm one of those who didn't know that Barkley had a Nigerian grandfather. And that means I didn't realise that he was a different sort of person from say Tony Adams, who needs treating differently from Tony Adams because Adams doesn't have a Nigerian grandfather. The idea that Ross Barkley is a different sort of person from Tony Adams, just because he's got a black grandfather, worries me.

Sorry - Tony Adams' eyes?

Marvin Sordell is often compared to a fish because of his eyes. The gorilla though is different. Racists have historically used the monkey as a negative comparison to black people so in the circumstance of this newspaper article, when comparing Barkley with an animal seemed arbitrary - it's suspicious that a gorilla was chosen. It might've been innocent. But it's The S*n. So I don't believe it was, at all.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:22 pm

Rowls wrote:There's nothing "inferred" in the post you've quoted martin. It's a logical argument.

I'd like to see you try and pick holes in it.

Correct, the inference was in the post you were NO NO NOing to.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:24 pm

Rowls wrote:The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

Siding with a racist, much like accusing someone of racism, is not as bad as racism. I'm struggling to see how you don't get that.

Also, enough for you to do what? Have a paddy and swear at me on a messageboard? I think I'll live.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:25 pm

Greenmile wrote:Unless one of the mods think I've crossed a line and ban me, I can post exactly what I want, and will continue to do so.

Sure.

You can post whatever you want.

We can all do that.

But we do well to consider other people when posting. I am very abrasive when arguing but I would not post the kind of accusations you have posted. We'd also do well to consider what kind of legal considerations we ought to consider when posting on public forums.

The accusation that I am "siding with a racist" would stand a half decent chance of being found libellous.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:27 pm

Take me to court then. I suspect the evidence on this thread would be sufficient to acquit me of libel.

Edit - there is a faint possibility that Mackenzie himself could have a case against me, but I reckon he might be a bit busy over the next few days. Not writing for a national newspaper though, hopefully.

And that's me off to bed. Gnight.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:27 pm

You don't half tangle yourself in knots Rowls - this might sound like a bit of a paradox but sometimes trying to be too clever is...well....a bit dumb !

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:27 pm

martin_p wrote:Correct, the inference was in the post you were NO NO NOing to.

Maybe you're using a different definition but I genuinely don't see it. I wrote that as implacably as I could after the "no no no" bit.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:28 pm

Rowls wrote:As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

Being upset about the article: right or wrong?

I know where you're going with this, your only recourse is to create a distinction between an act of racism and the person carrying out the act. (Nonsense logic, but God bless you if you want to try). MacKenzie has since pleaded ignorance of Barkley's heritage, a de facto admission of the legitimacy of the claim against him? So was an intent to upset people through the use of dog-whistles part of his remit? Wait, does that make him a racist? Does that make his actions racist? It's his job to upset people, right? Racism upsets people, right? Are people right to be 'upset' about an article that might accidentally be construed as racist or are we wrong to be 'upset' about an article that wasn't intended to 'upset' people by using rhetoric that might, as per

Rowls wrote:As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

...'upset' people?

It's just, his appeal to ignorance doesn't reconcile with...

Rowls wrote:As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

...So either you're wrong or he's wrong. Pick one.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:31 pm

TVC15 wrote:You don't half tangle yourself in knots Rowls - this might sound like a bit of a paradox but sometimes trying to be too clever is...well....a bit dumb !

I sometimes do try myself in knots but not here TV15.

It's just basic reasoning as far as I'm concerned.

Greenmile wrote:Take me to court then. I suspect the evidence on this thread would be sufficient to acquit me of libel.

I have neither time and inclination nor the money to be bothered. I doubt a victory would pay for it. Any right-minded judge would award such a snowflake a pittance in damages.

If you were a journalist and I were famous it would be different but if I were famous I would be tapping away having arguments here.