"Burnley Fans are Racist" - The New Statesman

[ontario claret]

In Burnley, people like KRBFC and Imploding Turtle co-exist (although the Turtle, I believe, was born in Scotland). Kind of unbelieveable.

[Imploding Turtle]

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.

Only particularly stupid people would consider that to be insulting to all Burnley fans.

[morpheus2]

Only particularly stupid people would consider that to be insulting to all Burnley fans.

As you yourself are aware, people, particularly most people are stupid. Therefore most people will consider this article which uses the term 'Fans of Burnley' to be referring to all Burnley fans.
The Journo needs to know that fans of Burnley are unhappy about this.

[morpheus2]

Not all Burnley fans are unhappy about it of course, that would be stupid, just some.

[Chobulous]

Only particularly stupid people would consider that to be insulting to all Burnley fans.

Particularly stupid people, as most of his past contributions show, are everybody but Imploding Turtle. In his mind at least.

[Corky]

Do we have a Press/Media Department at Burnley. Would, could, should (!) they take this up with the New Statesman to clarify what they meant. I understand that Rowls had tried without success.

In terms of simple grammatical English "fans of Burnley" suggests ALL fans. He could have been more reasonable with his wording if he has said - some of the Burnley faithful.

Also on a more personal note why do types like Imploding Turtle and others, rather than trying to explain their point, indulge in insults, as above to biggles. I am sure they are all very nice people but it suggests a touch of arrogance and ignorance in their makeup.

[martin_p]

Do we have a Press/Media Department at Burnley. Would, could, should (!) they take this up with the New Statesman to clarify what they meant.

In order to achieve what?

[Corky]

Peace of mind, I was thinking. Given this thread is still ongoing some sort of closure would help.

[martin_p]

You really think the BFC media department should be getting involved in messageboard discussions?? Who exactly is lying awake at night because of this article?

[Corky]

Clearly it is exercising a lot of minds on this board. It all depends on how serious the perceived insult is taken by fans of the club and indeed the club itself.

I appreciate there is a temptation to ignore it (I probably would have) but others demonstrably have not.

I would hope that no-one is lying awake at night over this article but given the longevity of this thread my suggestion was just another option thrown into the debating melting-pot.

Whether the clubs media department get involved or not is I guess up to them. I am sure by now that they will be aware of the furore.

[martin_p]

I'm not sure half a dozen people on a messageboard counts as a 'furore'!

[Corky]

Nor am I but then I don't need to be; as you rightly point out it is only a message board. Sadly some folks forget that and get all deep and meaningless.

[biggles]

Only particularly stupid people would consider that to be insulting to all Burnley fans.

i guess that muppett turtle is feeling particularly insulted then. needs to get out more, the buffoon.

[Imploding Turtle]

Also on a more personal note why do types like Imploding Turtle and others, rather than trying to explain their point, indulge in insults, as above to biggles. I am sure they are all very nice people but it suggests a touch of arrogance and ignorance in their makeup.

Do you know that in the past i've been criticised for using research and sources to help explain my point of view? I use this in posts by providing links offering context and background on what informs my opinions while also explaining them. Sometimes in doing so I call other opinions stupid. Then idiots, like a few in this thread, can't stop crying about being insulted.

I understand why you think I might be one of those who can only resort to insults rather than explain my point of view, but i can only understand that on the assumption that you're largely ignorant of my post history. And that's fine.

I've explained my opinion earlier in the thread.

[biggles]

Do you know that in the past i've been criticised for using research and sources to help explain my point of view? I use this in posts by providing links offering context and background on what informs my opinions while also explaining them. Sometimes in doing so I call other opinions stupid. Then idiots, like a few in this thread, can't stop crying about being insulted.

I understand why you think I might be one of those who can only resort to insults rather than explain my point of view, but i can only understand that on the assumption that you're largely ignorant of my post history. And that's fine.

I've explained my opinion earlier in the thread.

No, you blithering idiot turtle, it's because of your post history that people think that.

[Imploding Turtle]

No, you blithering idiot turtle, it's because of your post history that people think that.

[biggles]

[Paul Waine]

Do we have a Press/Media Department at Burnley. Would, could, should (!) they take this up with the New Statesman to clarify what they meant. I understand that Rowls had tried without success.

Good point, Corky.

I've I was setting up a press relations function I'd being setting it up with the objective of promoting the good name of the club.

Whether or not a fans message board exists and whether or not that mb has discussed the NS article I'd expect the PR team to (a) be aware of the article and (b) to be in contact with the NS and the writer to discuss the article. PR would need to know why the writer/NS published the article and mentioned Burnley. Whether the NS/article is small and unimportant or whether it is important, the article falls into the "negative" publicity box.

Does negative publicity benefit the club? Of course not.

Earlier in the season Andre Gray was suspended for his (old) tweets.

We are all waiting, excitedly, for news of new signings. Maybe negative publicity makes it harder to sign some players? Maybe negative publicity makes it harder to get the "big money" sponsorship that can assist the club with the aims to be a successful Premier League team.

I'd want the PR function to be pro-active about "negatives." Maybe the PR function is already dealing with this. Maybe it doesn't require a public response. Maybe their success will measured by next time NS/DH wants to write about racism in football he doesn't mention "Burnley fans." Better still, maybe DH will write about Burnley fans, but this time in a positive manner. Maybe he will say that there is no (or only very limited) racism amongst Burnley fans. Maybe Burnley can be identified amongst the clubs who have successfully "kicked it out."

UTC

[ontario claret]

When you start using "research and sources", it stops being an opinion and becomes a certain version of history. That is what Stalin did. Coming out soon, "The History of the World, According to Imploding Turtle". Sure to be a seller, but certainly not a best seller.

[Imploding Turtle]

When you start using "research and sources", it stops being an opinion and becomes a certain version of history. That is what Stalin did. Coming out soon, "The History of the World, According to Imploding Turtle". Sure to be a seller, but certainly not a best seller.

So doing some research in order to have an informed opinion, and being able to cite sources when making claims, is Stalinism?

[ontario claret]

I'm just saying, you're continuously making statements that your view of the world is the only legitimate view. You run down those with dissenting views by claiming certain facts. Facts, as everybody has come to realize, can be twisted in all kind of ways. "Truthiness" is the current buzzword. There are conservative historians. There are liberal historians. There are socialist historians. There are communist historians. There are fascist historians. What they are all really doing is commenting on history through their own particularly-shaded glasses. Everybody has the right to comment. But when it gets to the point of personal insults, it no longer becomes commentary. (And I made no reference to Stalinism. Stalin, through his control of Russian media, created his own personal version of communism. I was referring to his techniques.)

[Devils_Advocate]

When you start using "research and sources", it stops being an opinion and becomes a certain version of history. That is what Stalin did. Coming out soon, "The History of the World, According to Imploding Turtle". Sure to be a seller, but certainly not a best seller.

Have an opinion and make things up but please dont have any actual facts to back up your argument...please....think of the children

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm just saying, you're continuously making statements that your view of the world is the only legitimate view. You run down those with dissenting views by claiming certain facts. Facts, as everybody has come to realize, can be twisted in all kind of ways. "Truthiness" is the current buzzword. There are conservative historians. There are liberal historians. There are socialist historians. There are communist historians. There are fascist historians. What they are all really doing is commenting on history through their own particularly-shaded glasses. Everybody has the right to comment. But when it gets to the point of personal insults, it no longer becomes commentary. (And I made no reference to Stalinism. Stalin, through his control of Russian media, created his own personal version of communism. I was referring to his techniques.)

I'm not sure what you're smoking but I won't apologise for expecting people who make wild arguments to be able to back those arguments up with verifiable facts. If someone tells me that Trump's administration removed all references to LGBT and Climate change from the White House website on the day he took office i'd expect that claim to stand up to scrutiny before i'll believe it.

If you can't make an argument without fearing that someone will ask you to back up what you say with facts, or reacting negatively when they do, then that's says a lot about how much faith you have in the veracity of your own argument.

[ontario claret]

How do you prove something that is no longer there? And there's another "winning" statement. "I'm not sure what you're smoking". Just for future reference, I've never touched marijuana in my life, although that could change at any time. I'm sure that you're entirely confident in your viewpoint, Turtle. I just think that you go overboard in belittling those who disagree with you, on many topics.