"Burnley Fans are Racist" - The New Statesman

[bfccrazy]

[quote="Greenmile"]
Having said that, my conversation with TomBenderson has left me thinking that the English language has evolved much more than I thought it had since I left school.[/quotfe]

Something my old man regularly says, even the context of words is different "gay" being happy "queer" being strange.

Say that nowadays and it's a huge hill to climb explaining yourself afterwards.

[Greenmile]

I meant typical of the dishonesty and twisting in this kind of debate; not typical of you. I see how it came across but, to be honest, I don't know your posts so could/would never have said that about you. Apologies it wasn't more clearly put.

Thank you Tom - I understand how I have mis-read your intentions now. Your apology is very much accepted and appreciated, too.

Re your question, I can only really refer you back to post 85. I don't want to be drawn into defending the article itself, as that would be nigh on impossible (and would make me a hypocrite, given my reply to Morpheus2, above).

I'm not saying my reading of the author's intentions is right and yours is wrong, just that I don't have to add anything to what was written, or correct it to infer what I did in post 85.

The point I was originally trying to make is that it is not fair to "correct" what someone writes in order to criticise the "corrected" version. I think (hope?) we can both agree that the article is a load of confused, rambling nonsense.

[Imploding Turtle]

You're making quite the habit of assuming posts made in good faith are "dushonest", Tom.

Hopefully the more reasonable Tom, benefit-of-the-doubt giving Tom will return and this current Tom will go away.

[Conroy92]

In all honesty, while it may not downright say it, it reads to me as though they are suggesting that sterling suffered more abuse at turf moor due to the colour of his skin. I'm not on anyone's side here but let's not forget they have actually named Burnley Fc and suggest that the fans have "targeted" sterling. They may not say for what, but then they start talking about racism which kind of suggests it!

[Conroy92]

Seems to me that a lot of people saying "the op's title is way over the top" are taking this, way over the top.

[Rowls]

He does, but if you think that makes the article about Burnley fans then you're deluded. It uses a match involving Burnley as an example, nothing more.

I don't know where you've got the idea that I ever said the article was "about Burnley fans". Sorry to bring up an internet trope but this is real Straw Man stuff.

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't know where you've got the idea that I ever said the article was "about Burnley fans". Sorry to bring up an internet trope but this is real Straw Man stuff.

Talking of strawman, "Burnley fans are racist".

Self-awareness isn't in your vocabulary, is it?

[Autobahn]

Start the car lads..

http://www.typicalcity.org/2017/01/17/r ... was-white/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rowls]

Implying something isn't the same as saying it though, is it? Your thread title includes quotation marks, which usually signify a direct quote, especially when followed by a person or publication to whom you seem to be attributing the quote.
But I think you knew that, didn't you? It's a pure "clickbait" title if ever I've seen one.

1. Implying something very strongly is just as good as saying it.
2. Quotation marks can be used provide indirect quotes.
3. Well of course I want people to read my threads and respond to them. What would be the point otherwise? You want me to apologise for choosing a title that enticed people to join the debate? This is odd. If I want to start a thread that nobody will read or reply to I'll post it on the old Clarets Mad.

The OP in this thread links to an article in the New Statesman that clearly implies Burnley fans are racist for booing Raheem Sterling. I've discussed thread title with martin_p earlier on the thread. If your criticism is that my thread title is 'too tabloid' rather than 'not broadsheet enough' (NB: I'm not quoting you directly here) then I can live with it.

But it's been fun. Some people on here are apparently now so diametrically opposed to anything I say or do that they've decided the article doesn't say what it clearly does.

I'll enjoy using this knowledge in the future.

[Greenmile]

1. Implying something very strongly is just as good as saying it.

No it isn't, and you've already admitted the article is "not very explicit" (note the accurate use of quotation marks)

2. Quotation marks can be used provide indirect quotes.

I thought an indirect quote is something like "Rowls said that one can provide indirect quotes with quotation marks", so the entire point is not to use the quotation marks (as in "Rowls said "Quotation marks can be used provide indirect quotes""). As I've alluded to though, it's a long time since I studied English, so maybe you're using the term in a way I'm not familiar with.

3. Well of course I want people to read my threads and respond to them. What would be the point otherwise? You want me to apologise for choosing a title that enticed people to join the debate? This is odd. If I want to start a thread that nobody will read or reply to I'll post it on the old Clarets Mad.

By "clickbait", I meant a totally misleading headline (thread title) to draw people in which misrepresents the content of the article itself (the linked article). I'm happy you've enticed a lot into replying, and happier that many of them have joined me in pointing out the dishonesty of the title.

The OP in this thread links to an article in the New Statesman that clearly implies Burnley fans are racist for booing Raheem Sterling. I've discussed thread title with martin_p earlier on the thread. If your criticism is that my thread title is 'too tabloid' rather than 'not broadsheet enough' (NB: I'm not quoting you directly here) then I can live with it.

That's certainly part of my criticism - you always struck me as a more broadsheet kind of poster, albeit not the broadsheets that I usually agree with.

But it's been fun....

Agreed.

[Greenmile]

Seems to me that a lot of people saying "the op's title is way over the top" are taking this, way over the top.

You're right. I am definitely this guy (sorry, embedded pictures are beyond my technical capabilities)

https://xkcd.com/386/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[boyyanno]

Whilst the overall topic of the article appears to attempt to draw attention to potential racist behaviour in the stands in general, the writer has specifically mentioned our Club and insinuated our behavior was racist. Check the following quotes:

"Even before the Euros, Sterling was regularly jeered at away grounds and by away supporters, despite no especial animus between him and them or his club and their club – in the most recent round of Premier League games, fans of Burnley felt unable to let him be.

Ideally, we’d deem this part of the pantomime hatred that’s simply part of football’s charm and move on, the problem being it’s only ever directed at him"

That specifically mentions our Club and uses it as an example of the sort of behaviour he is trying to portray happens. I agree he could have inserted various clubs names with a variety of players to make his point, but he didn't, he used us.

You could certainly infer that the writer is saying fans of Burnley were racist towards Sterling, certainly he's saying most fans are. It's a poor article in my opinion, I certainly think players are targeted in the stands for their actions rather than their skin colour.

[Rowls]

Hi Greenmile

I suppose you might have thought the thread title was a direct quote but only if you think the person who said it was somebody called The New Statesman.

I was hoping people would use personal knowledge to understand that the NS is a journal and then make the correct conclusion that the indirect quote summarizes a point in their article. As I've said before, I've discussed it with martin_p.

Clickbait isn't necessarily misleading - it's just enticing.

My OP is clear as day. I say an article accuses Burnley fans of being 'racist' and I link to an article which clearly implies that Burnley fans are 'racist'.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi Greenmile

I suppose you might have thought the thread title was a direct quote but only if you think the person who said it was somebody called The New Statesman.

I was hoping people would use personal knowledge to understand that the NS is a journal and then make the correct conclusion that the indirect quote summarizes a point in their article. As I've said before, I've discussed it with martin_p.

Clickbait isn't necessarily misleading - it's just enticing.

My OP is clear as day. I say an article accuses Burnley fans of being 'racist' and I link to an article which clearly implies that Burnley fans are 'racist'.

I assume when you call The New Statesman "leftist" that means you're not literally using a left-wing server as a host. So if a website can be attributed to be "leftist", like people can, then why can't a quote be attributed to it?

But using your logic then no newspaper is right-wing or left-wing, now can quotes ever be attributed to them because they're not people. Maybe they're just printed on left-wing and right-wing sheets of paper. Or maybe the trees from which the paper is made is where these newspapers get their political views.

Try harder.

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile

I suppose you might have thought the thread title was a direct quote but only if you think the person who said it was somebody called The New Statesman'.

I'm not having that. In that context, a publication is the same as a writer. e.g. If you say The Sun says "x" (or "x" - The Sun) it's the same as saying a particular journalist writing for The Sun says "x". No one would think you mean somebody called The Sun.

[Rowls]

I assume when you call The New Statesman "leftist" that means you're not literally using a left-wing server as a host. So if a website can be attributed to be "leftist", like people can, then why can't a quote be attributed to it?

You could attribute a quote to a publication if it appeared in an editorial.

But of course, I haven't attributed any quote to the NS which remains, a left-leaning journal.

[Rowls]

I'm not having that. In that context, a publication is the same as a writer. e.g. If you say The Sun says "x" (or "x" - The Sun) it's the same as saying a particular journalist writing for The Sun says "x". No one would think you mean somebody called The Sun.

Come come Greenmile,

You've been stretching your argument to tenuous levels for post after post now.

The fact remains the article states exactly what I said it stated - it implies Burnley fans are 'racist'. No amount of picking about my use of quotation marks is going to change that.

[Imploding Turtle]

You could attribute a quote to a publication if it appeared in an editorial.

So you admit you were wrong or lying in the thread title when you attributed a quote to The New Statesman. And you will of course apologise to Greenmile for mocking him for thinking there is a person called The New Statesman, which he of course doesn't think.

[Rowls]

So you admit you were wrong or lying in the thread title when you attributed a quote to The New Statesman. And you will of course apologise to Greenmile for mocking him for thinking there is a person called The New Statesman, which he of course doesn't think.

Oh, I added an edit to a post above which answers this silliness. Goodbye.

[Imploding Turtle]

But of course, I haven't attributed any quote to the NS which remains, a left-leaning journal.

"Burnley Fans are Racist" - The New Statesman

[Rowls]

Here you are.

A simple article explaining that quotation marks do not always equate to a direct quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Greenmile]

From your link - "Scare quotes, shudder quotes,[1][2] or sneer quotes[3][4][5] are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense.[6] They may be used to imply that a particular expression is not necessarily how the author would have worded a concept.[7] Scare quotes may serve a function similar to verbally preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called"[8]—they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are mis-used, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.[9]"

So now you're saying that the quotation marks mean the writer was ironically calling us racist.

Who did you say was stretching their argument to tenuous levels, again?

[Imploding Turtle]

I stand by what I said about your post recently. You seem to think dishonest means "told a lie". As I said before, dishonesty has nuance. Using flawed logic to push a point beyond any sense that it may have is also a form of dishonesty. You should take it as a compliment because the only other explanation I had for that exchange was that you were lacking in understanding of some relatively straightforward stuff.

"Dishonest" implies intent. And there nothing wrong with my logic. You certainly didn't show that there was.

[aggi]

"Burnley fans are elephants" - Rowls

I like this new idea of quotes where you can make them up.

[Rowls]

So now you're saying that the quotation marks mean the writer was ironically calling us racist.

You're very limited in your thinking aren't you?

I placed them around the -indirect- quote to distance them from myself.

There are plenty who can teach me all sorts about language and English and I'm willing to learn. But none of you who have attempted to pick apart what I've written have done anything. I spoke sensibly to martin_p about the alternative ways it could have been phrased but the way it was phrased is perfectly acceptable and accurate.

[Greenmile]

You're very limited in your thinking aren't you?

And you are unnecessarily insulting to those who point out you're wrong.

There's no need to distance yourself from a "quote" (that's how to use a scare-quote, by the way) which you're attributing to someone else.

[Rowls]

I'm only matching the tone of your sarcastic response here Greenmile.

[Sidney1st]

"Burnley fans are elephants" - Rowls

I like this new idea of quotes where you can make them up.

I can do a baby elephant impression......

[Sidney1st]

So are we racist or not?
Just so I know.

[Greenmile]

I'm only matching the tone of your sarcastic response here Greenmile.

So you don't know what sarcasm is either?

[morpheus2]

morpheus2 wrote:
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.

Actually I've just had a quick peep through the thread and note that you yourself have 'liked' at least one of the posts that emphasise my point.

I thought it might have been on this one, but I can't find it anymore...

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.

No, you are correct, can't see any denial of the clear message in that post, it must have been somewhere else.

[Paul Waine]

So are we racist or not?
Just so I know.

My summary of the article - plus my commentary:
1) not known whether the journalist or someone else at NS wrote the title;
2) Rowls wrote a separate Subject heading for BeeHoleEnd - no problem with this - seems to follow the style that many use on here;
3) A guy called Daniel Harris wrote the article. Apparently he is a ManU fan (but lives in London and doesn't/didn't attend OT, in protest at Glazers. His father and grandfather were Mancunians and reds). This from Manchester Evening News posted (somewhere) above;
4) DH presented argument that both newspapers writing about football and fans ("stands") are "racist" (my inverted commas). Argument being that black players are "called out" for actions that white footballers aren't called out for;
5) Ashley Cole - turned down £55k (have I got the number right) at Arsenal and moved to Chelsea;
6) Daniel Sturridge - (can't remember) criticised more than other players (possibly) - for England performance in 2016 euros?
7) Raheem Sterling - blamed by fans for England euros defeat - and booed by fans when he plays;
8) Roy Hodgson and most/all white players not blamed for England euros defeat - according to DH;
9) DH does not mention Raheem Sterling's tweet - I forget what it was, but suggested he felt unfairly criticised;
10) DH probably picked out the Burnley v Man City game as it was a recent game - and just before he wrote the article (though we are assuming this because of the NS publication date);
11) No indication that DH attended the Burnley v ManC game;
12) Why mention Burnley? Is it because Burnley voted strongly for Brexit? Is it because there have been racial disturbances in the town? Is it because in DH view Burnley fits the "stereo type" of a "white, racist, working class, northern town?" (And, Burnley is not yet a popular, established Premier League team);
13) Are there other clubs that could have been mentioned? or do the other clubs fit other "stereo types" so, not good examples?
14) Maybe if DH had been writing after Tristran Hunt had indicated he was resigning as Stoke MP, DH would have mentioned Stoke (or am I stereo typing Stoke without reason)?
15) Do Londoners have a view of the northern towns and cities (or just towns and not the larger cities) that is an unfair stereo type? Do they not also see the working class areas of London and other southern towns and cities?

Just a thought.

[ontario claret]

In a democracy, everybody is entitled to their opinion, as long as it's not violently expressed. This is just old garbage re-wrapped in an old bed sheet. No wonder the lefties are losing all credibility.

[rejected]

I have not read EVERY post on this thread but have skimmed it.

I'd like to point out that you literally play US every week and over the last month I have heard absolutely no racist comments from your fans #JustSaying

[martin_p]

I don't know where you've got the idea that I ever said the article was "about Burnley fans". Sorry to bring up an internet trope but this is real Straw Man stuff.

Well again, you've done exactly the same as Daniel Harris in your original post, I.e. You've strongly implied it, both in the thread title and the content of the first post. You certainly failed to mention that in a fairly long article about the perceived difference in treatment between black and white players, Burnley were mentioned once!

[Rowls]

Well again, you've done exactly the same as Daniel Harris in your original post, I.e. You've strongly implied it, both in the thread title and the content of the first post. You certainly failed to mention that in a fairly long article about the perceived difference in treatment between black and white players, Burnley were mentioned once!

You'll have o quote where I've "strongly implied" the article is about Burnley fans. It isn't. I've never claimed it is. He just uses Burnley fans as an example to insinuate his opinion.

I can quote Harris implying Burnley fans are 'racist'.

You cannot quote me implying the article is "about Burnley fans". If you find any quote that comes close I'll accept an error but, without trawling through what I've written, I have never claimed the article is "about Burnley fans".

You've made an error here martin_p.

[Paul Waine]

Well again, you've done exactly the same as Daniel Harris in your original post, I.e. You've strongly implied it, both in the thread title and the content of the first post. You certainly failed to mention that in a fairly long article about the perceived difference in treatment between black and white players, Burnley were mentioned once!

Hi martin, what do you think of DH's article? What do you think of my summary of the article and additional comments?

(I think we've "done to death" Rowls choice of subject, grammar and the rest).

[martin_p]

Hi martin, what do you think of DH's article? What do you think of my summary of the article and additional comments?

(I think we've "done to death" Rowls choice of subject, grammar and the rest).

Hi Paul. As I've said elsewhere on the thread I think it's a poor article that is far too 'black and white' (pardon the pun). There's lots of different reasons people booed Sterling, some will have had a racist edge, most won't. It also conveniently re-writes history to suit the narrative by claiming the Hodgson got little stick (and there are other examples of this). The Burnley mention doesn't bother me as it is clearly mentioned as an example in the wider context of Sterling getting stick from most opposition fans. The underlying thrust of the argument, I.e. That there is racism in football, is difficult to argue with. But the author is seeing it where it perhaps doesn't exist.

[ontario claret]

Splitting hairs sometimes becomes a cottage industry on this site.

[aggi]

12) Why mention Burnley? Is it because Burnley voted strongly for Brexit? Is it because there have been racial disturbances in the town? Is it because in DH view Burnley fits the "stereo type" of a "white, racist, working class, northern town?" (And, Burnley is not yet a popular, established Premier League team);

One fairly obvious reason missed from this list, we played them just before the article came out and were probably the most recent example.

[Wile E Coyote]

200 posts of hand wringing, and nothing said. burnley fans are racist... there you go.

[Wile E Coyote]

200 posts of hand wringing, and nothing said. burnley fans are racist... there you go.

its become a pointless term, the reality is complex, but think of what the word means.
to suggest a small northern town in 2017 is not racist is ridiculous. of course we are.

[Falcon]

Think it's time this thread was put to bed. We're arguing about the interpretation of the word 'offended' re whether someone was offended by someone's else's interpretation of the opinion put forward in a different someone else's article

[Rowls]

We've been round the houses several times over.

I was genuinely surprised some people who come across as intelligent have tried to claim the article does not imply the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

The article clearly implies the thousands of our fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

I sent three direct tweets to the journalist who wrote the piece and copied him a link in the hope he would answer some simple questions.

He evidently doesn't want to confirm his intent in writing the article because he hasn't responded, despite being highly active on twitter.

The only conclusion I can come to is that he wants to be able to imply Burnley fans are 'racist' without having to explicitly confirm or deny it.

It's a serpentine, spineless article designed to spread hatred. It is the ultimate disservice to the true spirit of equality.

[KRBFC]

its become a pointless term, the reality is complex, but think of what the word means.
to suggest a small northern town in 2017 is not racist is ridiculous. of course we are.

Did you really just quote and reply to yourself?
I think you forgot to log out as Wile and sign is your other username.

[biggles]

the article states "fans of Burnley felt unable to let him be". not "a couple of fans of Burnley" or "a small number of fans of Burnley" not even "some fans of Burnley". i bet that people [the loony left in their capital of Islington especially] all over the country, with no connection to Burnley nor football knowledge, will read the comment and infer [wrongly, of course] that ALL Burnley fans are racist.

[claretdom]

Don't say the left.. turtle can't help himself on seeing that word

[MK-Claret]

Those who know me, know that i have a mixed heritage. And as stated by a previous poster i hate everyone equally.Yes of course some Burnley fans are racist it is mirror of the social make up of the area.
But i must admit i have never had a problem at Burnley since the 70's and yes that was bad i got a lot of stick but not as much as the players lol. I have been going on the turf since 1973 and of course there is always an under current of racism , you hear it int he pubs at work and yes on a football ground. But it is not as vocal as it once was, and for me everyone has a right to their opinion.But somethings are left best kept themselves, blimey some Burnley fans take the p**s out of people with ginger hair shock horror.The key word is SOME, like i say its not ALL Burnley fans.I' m proud to be a Claret and take pride in telling people that i was born in Burnley!

[ontario claret]

Burnley is a closed society, although less so than it used to be. Some embrace that, others know that there are bigger fish to fry. To each their own.

[ontario claret]

For me, I've always loved that "We are Burnley, and we don't care" attitude. I would probably be the same if I was born there.