Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton to boycott Social Media
Comments
-
Funny (well not really) but as owners of kennels where we have had every type of dog stay here that did not know us from Adam (or Eve) we’ve only ever had one dog bite us (him not me).jimmymelrose said:
Well, I wouldn't shout and swear at you but if you are on the same pavement as me with one of those potentially vicious animals I'd cross the road.Redmidland said:I have to echo what @TCE said (except the comment on me, LOL), as you all know Mrs RM and I have 5 GSD's at home which we bred, and Mrs RM trains them to a very high level (you may know one of them starred in 2 Hollywood films) but, much the same as @TCE, we get abuse on the street because they are German Shepherds, yet we have to put up with smaller dogs having a go at ours, but like @TCE's dogs, they are trained not to react. Then we get comments on social media, most of them very nice, but always some nasty ones. Yet they won't say it to our faces when with the dogs, I wonder why!!!! They are chicken shit keyboard warriors that deserve to be banned completely and forever from all social media.
These same types of people wouldn't dare say to Pearce's face what they type!
Fuck them I say and if they want to argue please come and knock on my door, I'll let them explain their thoughts directly to the dogs!!
You may not like how a lot of people feel about your dogs but it's simple. They are fearful of them. You may not understand this but given that they do not know you or your animals, it makes sense to avoid you.
Perhaps the people who've shouted and sworn at you weren't able to avoid you and your dog's barked at them. In fear all people, in fact all species, will react violently.
It was a chihuahua cross, who was a rescue & used to have its mouth taped because it barked too much. Hubby was trying to put its harness over its head. So quite understandable really.
Its never the dogs, it’s the humans on the end that would make me cross the road rather than the floofs.3 -
It's not a strange view if you read my argument. 280 characters is still too little to allow any meaningful debate and plays into the hands of those who throw slogans or at worst abuse.Chizz said:
The way to get racists to express fewer racist views is to give them more space in which to express them? That's a strange view.jimmymelrose said:There's a lot of interesting posts on this thread with arguments and ideas new to me.
However, there's one thing I've always hated about Twitter and that is the limit of 140 characters. It's impossible to make a reasoned argument with such a limit. Therefore only those who refuse to substantiate an argument use Twitter to push their ideas. All possible debate gets reduced to a slanging match. Potential intelligent posts go elsewhere leaving idiots to benefit with no-one to question their nonsense.
It should be no surprise that it has become what it is. If you want to clean it up, simply remove the character limit.
(By the way, the character limit has been increased to 280).0 -
I absolutely agree with the aspiration, but there is no line in the sand that will suddenly eradicate centuries of privilege and depravation. There is no level playing field.Dazzler21 said:Typed out a response, then deleted it several times. Apologies, should be on house of commoners but wanted to put across a response to @seth plum
I had heard of and had seen what Morgan Freeman had said, I have never heard of Michael Holding and had to google him (probably because I am not a cricket fan). Morgan Freeman's message must therefore be reaching a wider audience. It doesn't make it more valid, but you'll find more people have heard and understood it.
His message is clear if we all stop talking about race it begins a level of correction by itself, he is no longer described as a black man, he is just a man.
It's similar to how children think. Do children care about race? Not until it is nurtured into them to do so. They are just boys and girls. No grey areas.
The goal is the same, the journey is different.
One journey makes people feel guilty for how people of their race have acted over history, a history in which they were not a part of.
The other draws a line and says from now on there are no races, just people.
I suppose a question might be as to which achieves the goal sooner? I think it's a combination but it leans heavier towards Freeman's message as it is less antagonistic towards people that are not part of the problem.
Personally I cannot wait for a world where we don't care about pigmentation or features that relate to differing races, because as cheesy as it is, we all belong to one race, the Human one.6 -
I've re-read your post and I apologise, I don't think you meant what I replied with. However, I'm still a bit confused at your point, are you suggesting that in the rise of the BLM movement and other anti racism campaigns that this caused racism to increase?DiscoCAFC said:
I never said that and really think you need to read my post again. Totally lost how you think I described people who have been subjected to racism have been imagining it? Got no idea where you got that from me!colthe3rd said:
So first off you're accusing people who have been subject to racism that it probably didn't happen and they are imagining it?DiscoCAFC said:I don't think that's going to acheive anything and in fact I think it will just prolong the situation even more.
Have you noticed there's been so many reports of racial abuse at black and non-white players ever since the BLM started? I think the real issue is it's in people's minds a lot more and it's getting that way more guilty racist people are going to take to social media to be keyboard warriors.
Here's my solution:
1: If someone is guilty of racial abuse on social media punish them even further.
2: Stop talking about racism!!! Morgan Freeman (one of my favourite actors) is spot on here IMO. He does not want a Black History month and wants to be referred to as Morgan Freeman, not the famous black actor.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
Then you go on to use an example of Morgan Freeman talking about black history month and use that as an analogy that people should stop talking about racism? The clue is in the title of the video, he is talking about black history month. I would imagine he would not have the same feeling about not talking about racist abuse.
Also tell me do you have this same opinion when talking about other things? Should victims of bullying stop talking about it? What about homophobia? Misogyny? Rape?
What a very strange post.I’m saying it’s been in peoples minds a lot more now BLM have been in the limelight and more guilty people have been spouting racist abuse at players. Did my quote of “ it's getting that way more guilty racist people are going to take to social media to be keyboard warriors” not give you a indication what I was on about?
Now if you still think I describe people who have been subjected to racism have been imagining it then you need help mate.1 -
But that is Twitter’s Social Media USP, like photos are Instagrams USP, video hosting / YouTube etc.jimmymelrose said:
It's not a strange view if you read my argument. 280 characters is still too little to allow any meaningful debate and plays into the hands of those who throw slogans or at worst abuse.Chizz said:
The way to get racists to express fewer racist views is to give them more space in which to express them? That's a strange view.jimmymelrose said:There's a lot of interesting posts on this thread with arguments and ideas new to me.
However, there's one thing I've always hated about Twitter and that is the limit of 140 characters. It's impossible to make a reasoned argument with such a limit. Therefore only those who refuse to substantiate an argument use Twitter to push their ideas. All possible debate gets reduced to a slanging match. Potential intelligent posts go elsewhere leaving idiots to benefit with no-one to question their nonsense.
It should be no surprise that it has become what it is. If you want to clean it up, simply remove the character limit.
(By the way, the character limit has been increased to 280).Community blogs / discussion forums (such as this) are a better suiter for potentially more longer reads / in depth debate / specialism.Each type of social media platform does not (and should not) be a ‘fit for all’4 -
As I get most of my matchday information from CAFC tweets and the opposing teams tweets, I expect to be very quite on the matchday thread on Saturday0
-
No worries.colthe3rd said:
I've re-read your post and I apologise, I don't think you meant what I replied with. However, I'm still a bit confused at your point, are you suggesting that in the rise of the BLM movement and other anti racism campaigns that this caused racism to increase?DiscoCAFC said:
I never said that and really think you need to read my post again. Totally lost how you think I described people who have been subjected to racism have been imagining it? Got no idea where you got that from me!colthe3rd said:
So first off you're accusing people who have been subject to racism that it probably didn't happen and they are imagining it?DiscoCAFC said:I don't think that's going to acheive anything and in fact I think it will just prolong the situation even more.
Have you noticed there's been so many reports of racial abuse at black and non-white players ever since the BLM started? I think the real issue is it's in people's minds a lot more and it's getting that way more guilty racist people are going to take to social media to be keyboard warriors.
Here's my solution:
1: If someone is guilty of racial abuse on social media punish them even further.
2: Stop talking about racism!!! Morgan Freeman (one of my favourite actors) is spot on here IMO. He does not want a Black History month and wants to be referred to as Morgan Freeman, not the famous black actor.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
Then you go on to use an example of Morgan Freeman talking about black history month and use that as an analogy that people should stop talking about racism? The clue is in the title of the video, he is talking about black history month. I would imagine he would not have the same feeling about not talking about racist abuse.
Also tell me do you have this same opinion when talking about other things? Should victims of bullying stop talking about it? What about homophobia? Misogyny? Rape?
What a very strange post.I’m saying it’s been in peoples minds a lot more now BLM have been in the limelight and more guilty people have been spouting racist abuse at players. Did my quote of “ it's getting that way more guilty racist people are going to take to social media to be keyboard warriors” not give you a indication what I was on about?
Now if you still think I describe people who have been subjected to racism have been imagining it then you need help mate.
That’s what I think IMO. I think Morgan Freeman summed it up well when we should stop talking about Race and racism will decline. Now the BLM and other groups are in the limelight the awareness is in peoples minds but I also think it brings out the worst in the guilty ones at the same time. I don’t think racism will ever go away no matter how much we all try to stamp it out as there’s imbeciles out there.
I do however think social media, the government and all the football governing bodies need to step up on this. There’s too many shortcuts for those who like to abuse players online. Maybe once these 3 groups may take action then this issue might decrease.0 -
I've spoken to @chizz and he's changed his mind. Meet him in the Barge Pole in Abbey Wood, next Friday @ 8pm. He'll be the bare-chested bloke in tracksuit bottoms and a fur coat.Huskaris said:
Thanks for the lol Chizz, fancy a pint?Huskaris said:This whole campaign is a classic example of doing fuck all about a serious topic. "Something must be done, but nothing too serious."
Not pointing the finger of Charlton, but if anyone thinks that a single internet scumbag will change their mind because a football team have stopped tweeting for a few days, they are living on a different planet.
I have thought about this long and hard, and the only solution is to remove internet anonymity.
Anonymity turns people into scumbags, just look at protests in a huge crowd. Anonymity turns mentally fragile people into complete arseholes, because they hate their life and want you to hate yours too.5 -
Seems we started boycotting playing football last night.
4 -
If Charlton want to do something, then each to their own, they are allowed to, but the question is always: what do you want to happen?I may be a cynic in my old age, but, to me, phrases like "need to do more" and "raising awareness" ring too much of "I have changed my social-media profile picture, so can someone else come along and magic up a solution to the problem please".As is clear from this thread, the social-media companies absolutely do focus (and spend) on this already, and would stop it if they were able, but the technology just does not exist. So many solutions have been offered in the past and they all have massive flaws. Ban people: ok but they can just set up a new account or a shared IP address. Asking the social-media companies to moderate every post essentially ends social media. Make everyone use their real names: ok, but we have a big problem with doxing already and now we are suggesting that everyone will know who you are and so often where you live and work.Without concrete, practicable things that you are campaigning for, then any action like this will have more than a whiff of being seen to do something showy (which does not cost anything) to improve the corporate brand. (Whether that impression is fair or not.)I have the same criticism with BLM as a whole. I honestly do understand the frustration: too often it seems to present that there is an easy button that could be pressed to make everything right and this is not happening because of a lack of will. But the reality is that, quite rightly, UK society has been driving out racism for years and has been hugely successful - all the easy wins have been won.If you do not have specific and practicable goals then your protest risks coming across as preachy and self-serving, and worse than that, in constantly driving this to the top of people's thinking then I am sure it does make things worse. You want to make some teenager write rude words on the internet? Try a load of adults preaching at them that it is a very naughty thing to do.And the tragedy is that we were so getting there as a society in this country - until recently major research was telling us how much we had rid society of racism. Now, in trying to help, we risk raising this demon again.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
I think the danger here @SteveKielyCambridge is making perfect the enemy of good.
This boycott will not, and doesn't claim it will, end all abuse and racism in general. That is not possible and it's not the aim.
It's asking the platforms to do more, to respond more quickly and more forcefully so that users (players and fans in this case) feel better able to use the platforms without seeing or being subject to abuse and when it occurs it is dealt with.
You are right that we are getting there as a society, things are getting so much better, IMHO, and this move is just part of it.
Go back and listen to black players in the 80s (there is a good video of Paul Mortimer and Carl Leaburn talking about the racist abuse they suffered on the terraces.
That was considered OK bu many and just something they had to put up with by others. It was often ignored by the media and the clubs because somehow talking about it would make it worse. Now that abuse has reduced on the terraces but is still there on social media so the focus moves there.
You said
Ban people: ok but they can just set up a new account or a shared IP address. Asking the social-media companies to moderate every post essentially ends social media. Make everyone use their real names: ok, but we have a big problem with doxing already and now we are suggesting that everyone will know who you are and so often where you live and work.
The admins know the real name for all the people on this site but there is no doxing because that isn't in the public realm so no, not everyone has to know who you are or where you live. That is a strawman argument.
You also said
If you do not have specific and practicable goals then your protest risks coming across as preachy and self-serving, and worse than that, in constantly driving this to the top of people's thinking then I am sure it does make things worse.
But you offer no evidence to back this up. How does pointing out that the Rangers player Kamara got abused both on the pitch and on social media "make things worse"?
You went on to say
You want to make some teenager write rude words on the internet? Try a load of adults preaching at them that it is a very naughty thing to do.
Firstly, what makes you think all the abuse is coming from teenagers. Lots of older racists and abusers out there. Look at the guys at Chelsea caught on film abusing Stirling.
And it's not "naughty". It is vile, nasty, racist abuse and harassment.6 -
I would say, and perhaps others too, that the major research that came out recently regarding ridding society of racism is flawed.SteveKielyCambridge said:If Charlton want to do something, then each to their own, they are allowed to, but the question is always: what do you want to happen?I may be a cynic in my old age, but, to me, phrases like "need to do more" and "raising awareness" ring too much of "I have changed my social-media profile picture, so can someone else come along and magic up a solution to the problem please".As is clear from this thread, the social-media companies absolutely do focus (and spend) on this already, and would stop it if they were able, but the technology just does not exist. So many solutions have been offered in the past and they all have massive flaws. Ban people: ok but they can just set up a new account or a shared IP address. Asking the social-media companies to moderate every post essentially ends social media. Make everyone use their real names: ok, but we have a big problem with doxing already and now we are suggesting that everyone will know who you are and so often where you live and work.Without concrete, practicable things that you are campaigning for, then any action like this will have more than a whiff of being seen to do something showy (which does not cost anything) to improve the corporate brand. (Whether that impression is fair or not.)I have the same criticism with BLM as a whole. I honestly do understand the frustration: too often it seems to present that there is an easy button that could be pressed to make everything right and this is not happening because of a lack of will. But the reality is that, quite rightly, UK society has been driving out racism for years and has been hugely successful - all the easy wins have been won.If you do not have specific and practicable goals then your protest risks coming across as preachy and self-serving, and worse than that, in constantly driving this to the top of people's thinking then I am sure it does make things worse. You want to make some teenager write rude words on the internet? Try a load of adults preaching at them that it is a very naughty thing to do.And the tragedy is that we were so getting there as a society in this country - until recently major research was telling us how much we had rid society of racism. Now, in trying to help, we risk raising this demon again.
Loads of people, including academics that were falsely cited as contributing to the research have criticised such research in depth. Not as a way of keeping a pot boiling, but because the report was flawed, and those promoting the report are at liberty to answer those criticisms if they wish, and if they can.
They can start by countering the critique from the United Nations (sorry can’t do the link on this tablet...I need a computer mouse).
I disagree that that UK society has been driving out racism successfully for years. I used to think the UK was heading in a good direction but I was wrong. Looking back now at the plethora of Mail and Express anti immigrant headlines, added to by the likes of Farage and a stance supported by millions of voters in several forms of elections and votes over the last five years has utterly changed my previous optimism.
I agree that pinning anti racist initiatives down to practical action is difficult, and indeed any taking place currently is not easy to discern, especially as the real challenge is not so much changing job adverts or the number of racially profiled stops and searches, but challenging what is in hearts and minds of millions of British people.
I do wonder if the position you’re taking is that by talking about racism these days we’re fuelling it, and it is best to keep quiet about it.
Personally I think that trying to change the hearts and minds of millions of British people is a huge challenge that will take years, a range of educational initiatives, and by keeping the issue at the top, front and centre of societal discourse.
If we have common ground it is probably around token gestures not doing the job. I would not get rid of them because of that, but develop and increase them to a point they go beyond tokenism.
I don’t see much hope for improvement in what remains of my lifetime.1 -
Racism will never disappear unfortunately. Humans will discriminate against someone who is different to them them it’s a primal instinct we have.0
-
Really good points made by both of you and I probably agree with you both more than I come across as having done. But, me being me, just to come back on a couple of points!@Henry Irving I take the point on pushing to 'do more', but the reality is that any account found guilty of racist abuse by, say, Twitter will be banned for life - what is the 'more' that might possibly be done in a situation where anyone can just set up a new account? I don't expect any campaign to have every detail worked out, but they do at least need an idea of how what they want might conceptually be possible, or else one comes across as not being serious.On doxing, I had understood that the proposal was that nobody should be able to hide behind an avatar name, because if everyone knew who they are then peer pressure would stop them from behaving badly; is that not right?Over-exposure and acting out in reaction to perceived preaching are both perfectly well attested sociological realities, they apply across all society and it seems unlikely that they would not operate here.This is particularly true when there is a suspicion of a degree of self-service at no price - after all, would any of us be totally shocked to find that this turned up on a grant application somewhere down the line as proof of CAFC's value to society?@seth plum I think you are referring to recent political report on the subject, which I personally found compelling, but I appreciate that you may not. But I was really talking about the type of research that was part of that report, such as that done by Ipsos Mori (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/attitudes-race-and-inequality-great-britain). The improvements cited are staggering:
The vast majority, 89%, claim they would be happy for their child to marry someone from another ethnic group, and 70% strongly agree. This is an improvement from January 2009, when 75% said they would be happy overall, and 41% strongly.Similarly, the vast majority (93%, nearly all of them strongly disagreeing at 84%) disagree with the statement that, “to be truly British you have to be White”. In October 2006, 82% disagreed, 55% strongly. The proportion who agree with the statement has fallen from 10% to 3% in the last 14 years.If you care to look up the numbers for other countries in Western Europe or the world more generally, tend to be eye-watering. The UK (often along with Sweden) are absolute bastions of good practice.To mix my bird metaphors: we are so lucky to live in the black swan society and must be hugely wary not to kill the golden goose.2 -
I am interested in the report you cite that there has been a change in responses to a question regarding marriage and colour.SteveKielyCambridge said:Really good points made by both of you and I probably agree with you both more than I come across as having done. But, me being me, just to come back on a couple of points!@Henry Irving I take the point on pushing to 'do more', but the reality is that any account found guilty of racist abuse by, say, Twitter will be banned for life - what is the 'more' that might possibly be done in a situation where anyone can just set up a new account? I don't expect any campaign to have every detail worked out, but they do at least need an idea of how what they want might conceptually be possible, or else one comes across as not being serious.On doxing, I had understood that the proposal was that nobody should be able to hide behind an avatar name, because if everyone knew who they are then peer pressure would stop them from behaving badly; is that not right?Over-exposure and acting out in reaction to perceived preaching are both perfectly well attested sociological realities, they apply across all society and it seems unlikely that they would not operate here.This is particularly true when there is a suspicion of a degree of self-service at no price - after all, would any of us be totally shocked to find that this turned up on a grant application somewhere down the line as proof of CAFC's value to society?@seth plum I think you are referring to recent political report on the subject, which I personally found compelling, but I appreciate that you may not. But I was really talking about the type of research that was part of that report, such as that done by Ipsos Mori (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/attitudes-race-and-inequality-great-britain). The improvements cited are staggering:
The vast majority, 89%, claim they would be happy for their child to marry someone from another ethnic group, and 70% strongly agree. This is an improvement from January 2009, when 75% said they would be happy overall, and 41% strongly.Similarly, the vast majority (93%, nearly all of them strongly disagreeing at 84%) disagree with the statement that, “to be truly British you have to be White”. In October 2006, 82% disagreed, 55% strongly. The proportion who agree with the statement has fallen from 10% to 3% in the last 14 years.If you care to look up the numbers for other countries in Western Europe or the world more generally, tend to be eye-watering. The UK (often along with Sweden) are absolute bastions of good practice.To mix my bird metaphors: we are so lucky to live in the black swan society and must be hugely wary not to kill the golden goose.
I am not convinced that those responses paint enough of a picture though.
Only last week or the week before for example we had the story of the police officer assaulting a black man, causing severe injury, as he left a graveyard with his kids after putting flowers on his dead wife’s grave. The guy had his legs swiped away and he was hospitalised in a case where the judge said it was racial profiling.
I of course would also point to the votes I alluded to earlier, but also to other stuff like the issue of BLM demonstrations, and the institutional outrage about the statue of a slaver.
I suspect that if the mori organisation asked different questions of certain racial groups the findings would be different.
Are you following the case involving Stephen Yaxley Lennon at the moment? A person who had been able to garner vociferous support. A phenomena that would not have happened with such intensity in previous years.
Now I am well aware that I would be characterised as someone who would see racism everywhere he looked.
My answer would be that some of us have to be vigilant or complacency sets in.
(I think black swan was a film, but alas I haven’t seen it).
Only the other day on this very site a poster felt confident enough to make allusions to Chinese Takeaways when discussing clothes labelling.
Attitudes are current, and although that one comment was no big deal in isolation, would you say that the phrase ‘going for a Chinky’, or ‘Chinky takeaway’ or the assumption that people with a certain look all work in the Chinese food sector are things that no longer happen?
You and I have differing world views, you the optimist, me the pessimist I would say.
1 -
@seth plum I think in this context "black swan" implies that our society is an outlier or unusual exception to the rule, in reference to a philosophical idea called the black swan problem. IIRC (and this is not guaranteed) it relates to the statement "if all swans we've seen are white, then all swans are white" being falsified by the existence of a black swan. @SteveKielyCambridge was that where you were coming from there?As far as the idea of people having to use their real names on Social Media to stop people behaving abusively goes, I think how some people behave on Facebook has shown that doesn't necessarily follow. In addition, there are all sorts of people who need to use pseudonyms for entirely legitimate reasons - victims of domestic violence / stalking, LGBT people who aren't out to their families, people who work in jobs where they are contractually forbidden to make comment to the media without permission, women who want to discuss non-female stereotypical topics without being patronised or hit on.I should also point out that not all the mods know the real names of people on here - we can see your email addresses, but they don't necessarily have your names in, and as far as I'm aware any additional information you provide when signing up isn't shared beyond those processing it.1
-
Totally irrelevant to this thread but @ross1 are you 70 odd years old ?ross1 said:As I get most of my matchday information from CAFC tweets and the opposing teams tweets, I expect to be very quite on the matchday thread on Saturday
I think i read you were born around or near to our FA Cup Final win on another thread and this threw me because of you using tweets for matchday updates (thank you btw) I just assumed you were a young kid 20ish
5 -
I think that's a bit of a naive view. My mum loves to tell a story of my first day at primary school, when I met another kid and we became firm friends (like kids do when they're 5). When I told my nan (a horrible, nasty woman who had pretty much no redeeming qualities) that his name was Corey, her first response was to ask me 'what colour is he'. I said he was purple - because he had a purple jumper**. Nice story... but it's still playing out now up and down the land 40 years later. We had 20-odd years where I think racism was genuinely on the wane - we were told when we were kids growing up that as older generations faded away, race would simply become a non-issue. Clearly that was bollocks, and plenty of the kids I grew up with are now clearly racist - and what's worse - we now have social media platforms where people can hide completely anonymously behind false identities and spout utter shit.DiscoCAFC said:
No worries.colthe3rd said:
I've re-read your post and I apologise, I don't think you meant what I replied with. However, I'm still a bit confused at your point, are you suggesting that in the rise of the BLM movement and other anti racism campaigns that this caused racism to increase?DiscoCAFC said:
I never said that and really think you need to read my post again. Totally lost how you think I described people who have been subjected to racism have been imagining it? Got no idea where you got that from me!colthe3rd said:
So first off you're accusing people who have been subject to racism that it probably didn't happen and they are imagining it?DiscoCAFC said:I don't think that's going to acheive anything and in fact I think it will just prolong the situation even more.
Have you noticed there's been so many reports of racial abuse at black and non-white players ever since the BLM started? I think the real issue is it's in people's minds a lot more and it's getting that way more guilty racist people are going to take to social media to be keyboard warriors.
Here's my solution:
1: If someone is guilty of racial abuse on social media punish them even further.
2: Stop talking about racism!!! Morgan Freeman (one of my favourite actors) is spot on here IMO. He does not want a Black History month and wants to be referred to as Morgan Freeman, not the famous black actor.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
Then you go on to use an example of Morgan Freeman talking about black history month and use that as an analogy that people should stop talking about racism? The clue is in the title of the video, he is talking about black history month. I would imagine he would not have the same feeling about not talking about racist abuse.
Also tell me do you have this same opinion when talking about other things? Should victims of bullying stop talking about it? What about homophobia? Misogyny? Rape?
What a very strange post.I’m saying it’s been in peoples minds a lot more now BLM have been in the limelight and more guilty people have been spouting racist abuse at players. Did my quote of “ it's getting that way more guilty racist people are going to take to social media to be keyboard warriors” not give you a indication what I was on about?
Now if you still think I describe people who have been subjected to racism have been imagining it then you need help mate.
That’s what I think IMO. I think Morgan Freeman summed it up well when we should stop talking about Race and racism will decline. Now the BLM and other groups are in the limelight the awareness is in peoples minds but I also think it brings out the worst in the guilty ones at the same time. I don’t think racism will ever go away no matter how much we all try to stamp it out as there’s imbeciles out there.
I do however think social media, the government and all the football governing bodies need to step up on this. There’s too many shortcuts for those who like to abuse players online. Maybe once these 3 groups may take action then this issue might decrease.
I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect it lies somewhere in between the "NO CENSORSHIP OF ANYTHING, EVER! OMG MA FREEDOMS!" brigade, and the hand-wringing "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" viewpoint. At some point there HAS to be some kind of accountability - as said multiple times before, freedom of expression is not freedom to abuse/freedom from consequences - but what form that takes, I don't know. Perhaps a kind of 'quality filter', where the more you're willing to 'prove' yourself as a real person (real name, 2FA for your account to prove it's you posting etc), the better 'rating' you have (and thus people are able to filter out 'low quality' or bot accounts) - but that has problems as well (for instance, social media is a godsend for people living in repressive/authoritarian regimes, and there are serious privacy/data protection concerns around it as well as a host of other problems).
One thing's for sure - the genie is well and truly out of the bottle - and social media has exposed some of us as nasty, bigoted little shits who need a fucking good kicking (and who would likely get it if they expressed their views in public)
** Plot twist - he turned out to be an absolute fucking arsehole, but it had nothing to do with the colour of his skin (or, indeed, his jumper)5 -
There was an item on the news this morning regarding social media.
It turns out that people with lost dogs put out an appeal on their computers, then one got contacted by a stranger saying ‘I’ve got your dog, give me £1000 or I’ll kill it’.
Pretty nasty way of taking advantage,0 -
Not all abuse on twitter is racist
Where does this fit into the "don't talk about it, you only make it worse" debate
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
And as some background to this, she was a Charlton player in 2019 when her phone was hacked which lead to this abuse.
Huge respect to Steve Adamson for this
5 -
Answers the questions about what the boycott aims, and doesn't aim, to achieve and lists specific actions it wants the social media companies to take.clive said:
It also asks the government to act.3 -
And it is very clear that the club don't see this boycott as a "solution" to the problem, it's just one part of a bigger picture.Henry Irving said:
Answers the questions about what the boycott aims, and doesn't aim, to achieve and lists specific actions it wants the social media companies to take.clive said:
It also asks the government to act.1 -
They should tweet a link to it so more people can see itthenewbie said:
And it is very clear that the club don't see this boycott as a "solution" to the problem, it's just one part of a bigger picture.Henry Irving said:
Answers the questions about what the boycott aims, and doesn't aim, to achieve and lists specific actions it wants the social media companies to take.clive said:
It also asks the government to act.0 -
I don’t think anyone or any organisation who will fall silent today for a brief period expects the action to suddenly change the mindset of the, sadly large number of incurably ignorant people in our society.
What should be expected is that the social media giants who make significant financial gains from their platforms, invest some of these gains in protecting the very users who help create their wealth.
It won’t be a simple fix, but that doesn’t mean that the process shouldn’t happen.
On-line hate and abuse comes from all areas. Many are anonymous, but many aren’t and the process of abuse - get banned - come back - abuse again - get banned - come back - abuse again, etc, etc. Has to stop.
The seeming impunity of people who continuously abuse others on social media is unacceptable and the sooner that users who spout hate understand that they can be located and properly punished, the sooner it will begin to decline.
It won’t stop, as punishment has never stopped crime and it never will, but that shouldn’t mean that keeping things as they are is an acceptable solution.
For every person who can laugh off 7 years of continuous abuse, 7 years of having their family abused, 7 years of having their heritage abused amid threats of physical violence, there are those who truly suffer, sometimes permanently.
We have to do something, don’t we?6 -
Interesting discussion... I have just procrastinated my way to this paper. Not read it in full, bit it shows that tolerance in terms of race and sexuality is increasing for all age groups, but a recent trend of less tolerance to "immigrants"
https://journals.sagepub.com › pdfAre today's youth more tolerant? Trends in ... - SAGE Journals
Seems an interesting read0 -
For me, peer pressure is going to be important. If your mates challenge your views it's going to be more resonant than if someone from a group you don't like or respect is challenging you. It's more likely to happen in a respectful manner is well than having insults flying about0
-
True, but it's not always easy to challenge your friends. I've got friends who've said things that I thought crossed a line but I was too worried about causing a rift or an argument to say so out loud. Its not a frequent thing either (just all of us several several sheets to the wind) but that actually made it more awkward as there was the legitimate chance he was just being a drunk idiot in the moment.McBobbin said:For me, peer pressure is going to be important. If your mates challenge your views it's going to be more resonant than if someone from a group you don't like or respect is challenging you. It's more likely to happen in a respectful manner is well than having insults flying about
I'm not proud of it but I would be very surprised if I'm the only one to have been in this particular situation.5 -
I get that, and know that I say a lot of things to my friends that I wouldn't say at work for example, and certainly I say things that I wouldn't want played back to be in court, gallows humour and all that. That's more with close friends, many of whom I've known for donkeys years and I don't know if I'd be friends with them if I met them for the first time today... But there have been times when I've stepped in of someone went too far, and I've been called out for being a twat as well, and actually thought about itthenewbie said:
True, but it's not always easy to challenge your friends. I've got friends who've said things that I thought crossed a line but I was too worried about causing a rift or an argument to say so out loud. Its not a frequent thing either (just all of us several several sheets to the wind) but that actually made it more awkward as there was the legitimate chance he was just being a drunk idiot in the moment.McBobbin said:For me, peer pressure is going to be important. If your mates challenge your views it's going to be more resonant than if someone from a group you don't like or respect is challenging you. It's more likely to happen in a respectful manner is well than having insults flying about
I'm not proud of it but I would be very surprised if I'm the only one to have been in this particular situation.0
