Thatcher was politically to the left of Rowls.Falcon wrote:That story is a massive pile of bull excrement, and I'm probably what Rowls would term an elitist leftie i.e. anyone left of his own position.
However, it certainly doesn't say "Burnley fans are racist", so the OP is also a massive pile of bovine doo-doo.
Absolute weirdy beardy left wing ******** on a staggering scale.The desire to control his own labour, an aspect of blackness historically ill-received by white folk – was enough to override his on-pitch brilliance.
Braindead wrote:Anyway back to the article.
My favourite quote has to be with regards to Daniel Sturridge:
Absolute weirdy beardy left wing ******** on a staggering scale.
Does the writer have any evidence for his assertion that Sterling's refusing to play for Liverpool because he couldn't bear to get only £55k per week is nothing to do with the dislike? A very relevant question, which I'm sure wasn't addressed, is why does Sterling get more stick than other black men?TomBenderson wrote:It says completely the opposite of that. The writer would have made himself clearer by writing; "this attitude is not a consequence of poor summer performances, not simply a different manifestation of the hounding suffered by others deemed responsible for England’s failures " because that's what he means. There's no other way to read the sentence (carefully) and in full. As you admitted, you'd only skimmed the article so that may be why you missed it.
The article is pretty poor and badly written, imo, but you can't stick the word "not" into a sentence he wrote and say that what he means to say. That's even more dishonest than the OP's choice of thread title.TomBenderson wrote:It says completely the opposite of that. The writer would have made himself clearer by writing; "this attitude is not a consequence of poor summer performances, not simply a different manifestation of the hounding suffered by others deemed responsible for England’s failures " because that's what he means. There's no other way to read the sentence (carefully) and in full. As you admitted, you'd only skimmed the article so that may be why you missed it.
Err possibly because it was an article in that left wing rag The New Statesman.Imploding Turtle wrote:What has the left got to do with it?
This what you saidTomBenderson wrote:I didn't say that's he meant to say anything other than what he said. That's a typically dishonest way you've twisted what I said.
To which I replied...TomBenderson wrote:The writer would have made himself clearer by writing; "this attitude is not a consequence of poor summer performances, not simply a different manifestation of the hounding suffered by others deemed responsible for England’s failures " because that's what he means.
(emphasis mine again)I wrote:"you can't stick the word "not" into a sentence he wrote and say that what he means to say.
Braindead wrote:Err possibly because it was an article in that left wing rag The New Statesman.
Evidence?biggles wrote:seems like some of the media have 'targeted' Burnley [both the town and club] as the definition of racists. mind you, some of our idiotic fans have contributed to this.
biggles wrote:Evidence? do your own research. you know full well that Burnley has been linked in the national media to racism a number of times. possibly more times than any other place/club. i think you will find that Burnley will be the first place that the media will name in future when writing an article on racism in a general. Burnley has been labelled, by the media, as the archetypical town of racism and they will use it again and again. Over the past few years when I've mentioned Burnley the first two things people link it to is football and racism.
Yes, I agree with you, the website is absolute left wing codswallop, and this particular journalist seems to have lost exactly what message he is trying to portray in a sea of embarrassing generalisations.Imploding Turtle wrote:Oh, so you were calling the website "absolute weirdy beardy left wing ******** on a staggering scale" and not the article. That's good, because if you were calling the article that then you'd be making mistake of generalising about the left as the author is about white people throughout history.
Hi IT, the writer of the NS article (1) has racism in title; (2) contrasts treatment of (some) white footballers and manager(s) and (some) black footballers; (3) the writer says of Sterling " in the most recent round of Premier League games, fans of Burnley felt unable to let him be."Imploding Turtle wrote:You're the one that said Burnley have been targeted as a definition of racism, it's your job to back up your claims, not mine.
I honestly have no idea who Harris is? but yeah I definitely thought Harris (whoever the fck that is) wrote an article about me that I haven't read.HatfieldClaret wrote:KRBFC,
your posts show you for what you are, ignorant.
You're so vain, you thought Harris' article was about you.....
Actually, it could have been.
I have no real gripe with your views on the article, just the way you tried to reinforce them by telling us that the author meant the opposite of what he actually said in that particular sentence, then accusing me of being dishonest for pointing out that that's a bit dishonest. Edit - you even called me "typically dishonest" which implies dishonesty is habitual on my part.TomBenderson wrote:All right. Let's not argue about the semantics. Do we agree that the writer is saying that the treatment meted out to Sterling comes from a different motivation than that doled out to the #whiteprivilege other people he mentions? That's the only clarity I was trying to make sure was understood. However much I disagree with it (and I do) there's no sense in having his view unclear. The other reading of that sentence would run counter to, and invalidate, the rest of the article.
Hi PaulPaul Waine wrote:Hi IT, the writer of the NS article (1) has racism in title; (2) contrasts treatment of (some) white footballers and manager(s) and (some) black footballers; (3) the writer says of Sterling " in the most recent round of Premier League games, fans of Burnley felt unable to let him be."
But, I guess if we'd not played City just before the article was written it's quite possible that the writer would have named instead whichever team was playing City that day.
I believe the unpackaging of this article by TomBenderson here is pretty accurate. I'm astounded, but not particularly surprised that some people here are pretending they do not actually see the not so subtle race baity social justice motive desperately screeching out at them from this tabloidy rag whatever it is. Unless people really can't see it, then in the words of the great turtle they must be stupid idiots.TomBenderson wrote:Take the drivel out of the text to leave the gist.
"Most of the journalists writing such stories are white, and the newspaper proprietors definitely are. Meanwhile, Roy Hodgson, the white person who was largely responsible for England’s failure and who did everything possible to evade that responsibility, remained curiously unpilloried."
Therefore it looks like it might be about race. If not, why mention the colour of these people? He doesn't mention their shoe size or what breakfast cereal they prefer. But we'll not hurry to a conclusion.
"However people excuse themselves, this attitude is not a consequence of poor summer performances, simply a different manifestation of the hounding suffered by others deemed responsible for England’s failures – David Beckham in 1998, Philip Neville in 2000, Urs Meier in 2004 and Cristiano Ronaldo in 2006."
Ok. So when white people take the flak, it's about the obvious - it's about football. No, this is something else. Very clearly the writer is saying this stick Sterling gets is not about footballing matters.
"...in the most recent round of Premier League games, fans of Burnley felt unable to let him be."
OK. Still continuing to talk about the aggravation Sterling gets, we now find Burnley fans are definitely part of it. It's about "something else" but we don't know what yet. It's probably race because 'Roy' didn't get any stick but we haven't been told but the writer has made the clear link himself : 1) some players get hounded unreasonably 2) it's not about footballing performance 3) Burnley fans are part of it so let's see 4) what it is about in the next para...
"...the problem... only began after he agitated for a transfer away from Liverpool... Sterling’s... desiring better money and a better job appears to have affronted guardians of morality up and down the country... (he) deems himself entitled to wealth and success. And such behaviour is not always appreciated. Minorities with ability are one thing; minorities who refuse to suppress themselves are something else."
So, it's about fans - including specifically Burnley fans - being affronted by a black player not just taking what was offered.
It's not difficult to read and interpret unless you're either stupid or so intent on giving yourself the ability to call things racist and simultaneously deny it that you refuse to read it properly. There are both types of posters on here.
I don't see anyone really defending the article, just a few pointing out the thread title is a little "post-truth".morpheus2 wrote:I believe the unpackaging of this article by TomBenderson here is pretty accurate. I'm astounded, but not particularly surprised that some people here are pretending they do not actually see the not so subtle race baity social justice motive desperately screeching out at them from this tabloidy rag whatever it is. Unless people really can't see it, then in the words of the great turtle they must be stupid idiots.
Thats a pretty polite way to call it bullshit.Greenmile wrote:I don't see anyone really defending the article, just a few pointing out the thread title is a little "post-truth".
I think if we read through, we have a few people who refuse to see this article for what it obviously is, and are a little offended that the thread is a critique of a piece in a revered left leaning rag.Greenmile wrote:I don't see anyone really defending the article, just a few pointing out the thread title is a little "post-truth".
Wouldn't a semicolon be called for there to mean what you say? I'm pretty **** with how to use commas and semicolons though, but I think this might be when one is better than a comma.TomBenderson wrote:
Just like;
"City's loss at Everton was not a one-off, simply a bad day at the office." You would not argue in that construction that the loss was "simply a bad day at the office".
I'm reading what he wrote. You are adding your own words to make it say what you think it says. Yet it's my ability to interpret what he meant that's lacking??TomBenderson wrote:I apologize for being rude but I think it's your ability to interpret the passage that's lacking; aided and abetted as I've said by the rather tortured and poor construction employed by the writer.
The writer says the absolute opposite of what you've taken from it.
"However people excuse themselves, this attitude is not a consequence of poor summer performances, simply a different manifestation of the hounding suffered by others deemed responsible for England’s failures"
The writer this attitude is NOT about the performances. The way the sentence is constructed the phrases "a consequence... performances" and "simply a different... failures" must both be read as preceded by "is not".
Just like;
"City's loss at Everton was not a one-off, simply a bad day at the office." You would not argue in that construction that the loss was "simply a bad day at the office".
I'd also ask you to think why the writer thinks people are excusing themselves, unless it's from attitude they shouldn't have.
This shouldn't dissolve into semantics and it's mostly Harris' fault but the allegation he makes is as clear as it is stupid.
I've read it through again and I can't see what you're talking about. Can you quote a couple of them for me?morpheus2 wrote:I think if we read through, we have a few people who refuse to see this article for what it obviously is, and are a little offended that the thread is a critique of a piece in a revered left leaning rag.
I was neither being pedantic nor was I denying clarity be a thing for whish writers aim for.TomBenderson wrote:The rules are all much less rigid than pedants would have us all believe which is why clarity rather than brevity or clever phrasing should always be the thing a writer checks for. The writer here has clearly failed although I still contend that, taking the sentence as a whole, including the first phrase the only logical reading is that the two clauses are equivalents, not opposites.
For what it's worth, a semi-colon would not be right, leaving a whole clause with no obvious verb and no obvious way of implying a verb.
Hi Greenmile, good point, though is the New Statesman marketing itself as a "provocative" political magazine (if that isn't a tautology)?Greenmile wrote:Hi Paul
Re your point (1), wouldnt the headline (the most provocative part of the article, imo) have been written by someone else, after the article had been handed in?
Agree with your second paragraph. I don't think Burnley is being singled out, particularly.
Haven't got the time, but if you've read through again you'll have found there are one or two people on here who refuse to believe that there is any insinuation or implication from this article (which should be clear to anyone that it is a race baiting piece) that the Burnley fans picking on the black player were doing it for any other reason than racism...the whole theme is black vs white, the desire to cause racial division in some of these tabloids both left and right is unforgivable.Greenmile wrote:I've read it through again and I can't see what you're talking about. Can you quote a couple of them for me?
morpheus2 wrote:I think if we read through, we have a few people who refuse to see this article for what it obviously is, and are a little offended that the thread is a critique of a piece in a revered left leaning rag.
I don't know, you tell me. I get really offended when someone critiques the Daily Mail, so I'm guessing you lefties are offended when someone has a go at your particular little flagships..Imploding Turtle wrote:Who is offended by critique of the article?
The only criticism for something other than the article is for the OP who has made a claim about the article that is clearly unsupportable.
Post #37 was criticising the OP for lying about what is contained in the article. That's not the same as being offended by a critique of the article, otherwise you'd be forced to admit that everyone else criticising the article is also offended by it. Including you.morpheus2 wrote:Actually, the chap in post 37 comes across as quite offended.
martin_p wrote:I'm not sure some people on this thread know what 'being offended' means as they seem to equate disagreeing with something or pointing out things he/she think are wrong with 'being offended'.
Nah, post 37 is clearly very hurt and offended, pretends that they cannot see that the article more than insinuates that Burnley fans were being racist towards the black player, poster 37 was very defensive, almost foaming at the mouth in their scathing denial of the obvious essence of the race baiting article. Shame really, I thought people of intelligence would have accepted this article for what it obviously is.martin_p wrote:I'm not sure some people on this thread know what 'being offended' means as they seem to equate disagreeing with something or pointing out things he/she think are wrong with 'being offended'.