While (I think) we can all agree that abusing someone for their race or sexual orientation is not at all welcome, there is also the reality that "when wine sinks, words swim" and the contents of the heart becomes clear to all when people are drunk. A football ground is a place where many are intoxicated and things aren't pleasant to hear and see. Sometimes really obnoxious.
But banning people from anything should always be an absolute last resort. There is also a danger that we just want to create a very middle class, polite, nice all seated comfy event where everyone knows the social rules of polite society when it's a working class sport for working men and women often people with crap lives, dire working conditions and "the game" on Saturday was always this outlet for working class people to come together and get a release. . This is not an appeal for people to be allowed to abuse others with impunity but it is an appeal to all those woke "tolerant" individuals to be tolerant of ALL people. Not just the ones that are currently in vogue.
To ban someone who is obnoxiously rude does nothing to change the behaviours you don't like. In my experience, obnoxiously rude people are like that because of being around obnoxiously rude people all their lives. They have had awful lives. Surely accepting and involving such people (two things obnoxious people have possibly rarely experienced in their lives) who are obnoxiously rude may go a long way to changing their unwelcome behaviours.
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
"Woke" indeed.
WmT:
All sounds very good. But the question is WHO are the intolerant here?
1. Are they ~ People demanding the banning of people who say obnoxious things at football matches when they are drunk ~ banning sounds pretty intolerant to me.
Or are they ~ people who say obnoxious things when they are drunk at football matches to various people they feel like abusing?
It sounds like there is A LOT of intolerance going on everywhere in this age.
I agree with your last point ~ we should indeed defend a tolerant society. And that starts with how much tolerance is in ME. For all persons we are found left wanting in this area of tolerating others.
If people haven’t got the decency and respect to act without causing offence then they should be sharply reminded of how to behave by the boys in blue.
While (I think) we can all agree that abusing someone for their race or sexual orientation is not at all welcome, there is also the reality that "when wine sinks, words swim" and the contents of the heart becomes clear to all when people are drunk. A football ground is a place where many are intoxicated and things aren't pleasant to hear and see. Sometimes really obnoxious.
But banning people from anything should always be an absolute last resort. There is also a danger that we just want to create a very middle class, polite, nice all seated comfy event where everyone knows the social rules of polite society when it's a working class sport for working men and women often people with crap lives, dire working conditions and "the game" on Saturday was always this outlet for working class people to come together and get a release. . This is not an appeal for people to be allowed to abuse others with impunity but it is an appeal to all those woke "tolerant" individuals to be tolerant of ALL people. Not just the ones that are currently in vogue.
To ban someone who is obnoxiously rude does nothing to change the behaviours you don't like. In my experience, obnoxiously rude people are like that because of being around obnoxiously rude people all their lives. They have had awful lives. Surely accepting and involving such people (two things obnoxious people have possibly rarely experienced in their lives) who are obnoxiously rude may go a long way to changing their unwelcome behaviours.
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
"Woke" indeed.
WmT:
All sounds very good. But the question is WHO are the intolerant here?
1. Are they ~ People demanding the banning of people who say obnoxious things at football matches when they are drunk ~ banning sounds pretty intolerant to me.
Or are they ~ people who say obnoxious things when they are drunk at football matches to various people they feel like abusing?
It sounds like there is A LOT of intolerance going on everywhere in this age.
I agree with your last point ~ we should indeed defend a tolerant society. And that starts with how much tolerance is in ME. For all persons we are found left wanting in this area of tolerating others.
So alcohol is the get out of jail free card, is it?
1. Banning people who say unlawful things - yes. 2. Alcohol is not an excuse for unlawful behaviour - no court in the land would accept that defence.
Forgive me for my drink driving your honour, it wasn’t my fault I was pissed at the time
While (I think) we can all agree that abusing someone for their race or sexual orientation is not at all welcome, there is also the reality that "when wine sinks, words swim" and the contents of the heart becomes clear to all when people are drunk. A football ground is a place where many are intoxicated and things aren't pleasant to hear and see. Sometimes really obnoxious.
But banning people from anything should always be an absolute last resort. There is also a danger that we just want to create a very middle class, polite, nice all seated comfy event where everyone knows the social rules of polite society when it's a working class sport for working men and women often people with crap lives, dire working conditions and "the game" on Saturday was always this outlet for working class people to come together and get a release. . This is not an appeal for people to be allowed to abuse others with impunity but it is an appeal to all those woke "tolerant" individuals to be tolerant of ALL people. Not just the ones that are currently in vogue.
To ban someone who is obnoxiously rude does nothing to change the behaviours you don't like. In my experience, obnoxiously rude people are like that because of being around obnoxiously rude people all their lives. They have had awful lives. Surely accepting and involving such people (two things obnoxious people have possibly rarely experienced in their lives) who are obnoxiously rude may go a long way to changing their unwelcome behaviours.
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
"Woke" indeed.
WmT:
All sounds very good. But the question is WHO are the intolerant here?
1. Are they ~ People demanding the banning of people who say obnoxious things at football matches when they are drunk ~ banning sounds pretty intolerant to me.
Or are they ~ people who say obnoxious things when they are drunk at football matches to various people they feel like abusing?
It sounds like there is A LOT of intolerance going on everywhere in this age.
I agree with your last point ~ we should indeed defend a tolerant society. And that starts with how much tolerance is in ME. For all persons we are found left wanting in this area of tolerating others.
So alcohol is the get out of jail free card, is it?
1. Banning people who say unlawful things - yes. 2. Alcohol is not an excuse for unlawful behaviour - no court in the land would accept that defence.
Forgive me for my drink driving your honour, it wasn’t my fault I was pissed at the time
Was watching Question Time the other night. Can't quite remember the context, but an older fella on there used the phrase "it's woke gone mad" (or words to that effect). Of course, what he failed to grasp is that being woke is a really good thing and not a pejorative term.
Anyway, the quite brilliant Jess Phillips (Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding) was on the panel and her reply to him was: "why is it so difficult just to be nice and civil to people?"
There truly are some nasty creatures out there in everyday life. But hey, it's just 'bants' (that awfully lazy and moronic term that is used to mask ignorance and prejudice, and underpin a lack of intelligence).
There was a Policeman in the away end openly videoing our fans - I couldn’t believe how stupid some of the people around me were openly chanting homophobic abuse, and abuse at their goalkeeper, and the Policeman simply stood there and filmed them - they could see he was filming them, but carried on - idiots
Sounds like Lordflashheart heard homophobic chanting from the Charlton end , maybe that’s why some assumed it was Charlton fans amazingly enough . Sad times whatever pricks behaved like this .
Certainly did, and also shouts at their goalkeeper suggesting he was sexually abused by his father when he was a little boy - I mean, call him out saying he is crap keeper etc, but the sexual abuse shouts were plain wrong - unfortunately, such a small away end, that was sold out, coupled with the fact I had a decent standing position where I could see (I’m not the tallest) mean’t I couldn’t move - and before anyone says ‘why didn’t you say anything’, having looked at those saying it, I wasn’t going to get beaten up by pissed up yobs (which having assessed matters, I decided would likely happen)
Interesting to see where you draw the line on what is and isn’t acceptable in a football stadium. Shouting at someone that they’re crap at their profession is abuse, so why do you think that’s acceptable?
For the record, I’m not saying it isn’t acceptable - I’m not offended by football chants (especially on someone else’s behalf), but it is interesting to see that some versions of abuse are horrifying and others are fine.
So, you are saying - for example - if the Palace keeper made that howler he did against Millwall against us, we can’t ridicule him because it might upset him !!!
It’s part and parcel of football - if we are going down the route of treating everything as abuse on a level playing field e.g. homophobic abuse is as bad as ridiculing the oppo keeper (for example) for a complete howler of an error, then the world is going mad
You’ve missed my point. I’m simply pointing out the subjectivity of what you think is and isn’t acceptable.
Everyone has their own line and wants the law to reflect their own opinions - why is your opinion correct and someone offended by it wrong? We can agree there should be zero tolerance on homophobia and racism, but why is it acceptable to abuse someone at their place of work? It’s a difficult answer.
For the record, I love that aspect of football and I’m wary of efforts to sanitise it. It’s one of the few places people can come together and show primal energy that doesn’t get released anywhere else in their life. It’s the same energy that causes two strangers, who would usually hate each other, to embrace after a last minute winner. It can also lead to mindless violence, which is the yin and yang.
There was a Policeman in the away end openly videoing our fans - I couldn’t believe how stupid some of the people around me were openly chanting homophobic abuse, and abuse at their goalkeeper, and the Policeman simply stood there and filmed them - they could see he was filming them, but carried on - idiots
Sounds like Lordflashheart heard homophobic chanting from the Charlton end , maybe that’s why some assumed it was Charlton fans amazingly enough . Sad times whatever pricks behaved like this .
Certainly did, and also shouts at their goalkeeper suggesting he was sexually abused by his father when he was a little boy - I mean, call him out saying he is crap keeper etc, but the sexual abuse shouts were plain wrong - unfortunately, such a small away end, that was sold out, coupled with the fact I had a decent standing position where I could see (I’m not the tallest) mean’t I couldn’t move - and before anyone says ‘why didn’t you say anything’, having looked at those saying it, I wasn’t going to get beaten up by pissed up yobs (which having assessed matters, I decided would likely happen)
Interesting to see where you draw the line on what is and isn’t acceptable in a football stadium. Shouting at someone that they’re crap at their profession is abuse, so why do you think that’s acceptable?
For the record, I’m not saying it isn’t acceptable - I’m not offended by football chants (especially on someone else’s behalf), but it is interesting to see that some versions of abuse are horrifying and others are fine.
So, you are saying - for example - if the Palace keeper made that howler he did against Millwall against us, we can’t ridicule him because it might upset him !!!
It’s part and parcel of football - if we are going down the route of treating everything as abuse on a level playing field e.g. homophobic abuse is as bad as ridiculing the oppo keeper (for example) for a complete howler of an error, then the world is going mad
You’ve missed my point. I’m simply pointing out the subjectivity of what you think is and isn’t acceptable.
Everyone has their own line and wants the law to reflect their own opinions - why is your opinion correct and someone offended by it wrong? We can agree there should be zero tolerance on homophobia and racism, but why is it acceptable to abuse someone at their place of work? It’s a difficult answer.
For the record, I love that aspect of football and I’m wary of efforts to sanitise it. It’s one of the few places people can come together and show primal energy that doesn’t get released anywhere else in their life. It’s the same energy that causes two strangers, who would usually hate each other, to embrace after a last minute winner. It can also lead to mindless violence, which is the yin and yang.
Was watching Question Time the other night. Can't quite remember the context, but an older fella on there used the phrase "it's woke gone mad" (or words to that effect). Of course, what he failed to grasp is that being woke is a really good thing and not a pejorative term.
Anyway, the quite brilliant Jess Phillips (Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding) was on the panel and her reply to him was: "why is it so difficult just to be nice and civil to people?"
There truly are some nasty creatures out there in everyday life. But hey, it's just 'bants' (that awfully lazy and moronic term that is used to mask ignorance and prejudice, and underpin a lack of intelligence).
Impact, not intent.
I don't think the gentleman in question "failed to grasp" anything. You clearly did.
And being "civil" and "nice" ( as if being "nice" was a virtue. Yuk!) are not words I would immediately think of when thinking of woke people (pejorative intended) Intolerant, angry, hostile, disingenuous, fake, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, virtue signalling, insincere, cruel,hypocritical, deluded, vicious.
I agree that in the battle woke Vs non woke extremes are always used/straw man arguments etc to make a point and so no point is ever really successfully made on either side.
For what it's worth and without employing one of these aforesaid extremes to make a point ...
One of the things about woke that many see through now is that it is a "new religion" that is, woke with its creed and commandments and virtue-signalling and of course ~ excommunication aka "cancel culture". Rules of who to tolerate and those to demonise. Having successfully binned organised religion they have simply started their own one! " The Church of Woke". Unfortunately there is no Salvation on offer here.
They have their heretics, they have the ever changing witch hunts ~ feminist, demon fan herself JK Rowling once the queen of such ideologies is now being burned at the stake for having the "wrong" view on Trans issues. And on it goes. It won't stop there. The far-left never does. It attacks everyone in sight ~ (find a "victim" and attack the "perceived" perpetrator.) those that are not "civil" or "nice", and then it attacks itself. And implodes.
Woke will be no different. And for that ...I thank God.
It definitely wasn’t just 1 or 2 Charlton fans who were chanting abuse. We
were a row or two in front of and to the side of the drummer and there were 30-40
or more around us churning out abuse for most of the game. The abuse wasn’t
just directed at Cheltenham players. As much, if not more, was directed at the
Charlton players, particularly in the second half. The only ones that seemed to
escape were Mason Burstow and Chuks Aneke plus Johnnie Jackson and Jason Euell.
A number of players on both sides were called ‘paedo’,’
poof’ and were said to ‘take it up the a*se’. Whether that was specifically intended
to be homophobic or was just moronic is a moot point. Either way, it happened
loud and clear. On the plus side I didn't hear any racist comments.
The most common term shouted was probably ‘f*cking
sh*t c*nt’, which applied to at least 8 Charlton starting players plus all the
subs, the Cheltenham players (especially their goalkeeper), supporters and the
match officials.
If you want some January transfer rumours - Famewo was
told to f*ck off back to Norwich, Blackett-Taylor to f*ck off back to Tranmere,
Leko to f*ck off back to Birmingham. At one point Elliot Lee was serenaded as
the White Pele at another he was told to f*ck off back to Luton.
The @CAFCofficial Twitter account said “A big thank
you to the 1,519 travelling Addicks for keeping us going until the end this
afternoon. Immense as always.”. They clearly didn’t hear what was being chanted.
A lot of noise but certainly not encouragement.
How
widespread the abuse was amongst the Charlton fans is hard for me to tell as I
couldn’t hear beyond my immediate surroundings. I may have been unlucky to be
in the area with the moronic element.
It definitely wasn’t just 1 or 2 Charlton fans who were chanting abuse. We
were a row or two in front of and to the side of the drummer and there were 30-40
or more around us churning out abuse for most of the game. The abuse wasn’t
just directed at Cheltenham players. As much, if not more, was directed at the
Charlton players, particularly in the second half. The only ones that seemed to
escape were Mason Burstow and Chuks Aneke plus Johnnie Jackson and Jason Euell.
A number of players on both sides were called ‘paedo’,’
poof’ and were said to ‘take it up the a*se’. Whether that was specifically intended
to be homophobic or was just moronic is a moot point. Either way, it happened
loud and clear. On the plus side I didn't hear any racist comments.
The most common term shouted was probably ‘f*cking
sh*t c*nt’, which applied to at least 8 Charlton starting players plus all the
subs, the Cheltenham players (especially their goalkeeper), supporters and the
match officials.
If you want some January transfer rumours - Famewo was
told to f*ck off back to Norwich, Blackett-Taylor to f*ck off back to Tranmere,
Leko to f*ck off back to Birmingham. At one point Elliot Lee was serenaded as
the White Pele at another he was told to f*ck off back to Luton.
The @CAFCofficial Twitter account said “A big thank
you to the 1,519 travelling Addicks for keeping us going until the end this
afternoon. Immense as always.”. They clearly didn’t hear what was being chanted.
A lot of noise but certainly not encouragement.
How
widespread the abuse was amongst the Charlton fans is hard for me to tell as I
couldn’t hear beyond my immediate surroundings. I may have been unlucky to be
in the area with the moronic element.
That's a really good report HA. Thanks for sharing. I can sort of understand the logic behind abusing the opposition: Intimidates, unsettles, forces mistakes, offends etc
I've never quite worked out how abusing your OWN players though can achieve anything but MORE mistakes MORE bad results.
I sing for the full 90 and get behind the team (whatever the performance) as though Jacko had personally picked me as "the 12th Man". COYA!
Was watching Question Time the other night. Can't quite remember the context, but an older fella on there used the phrase "it's woke gone mad" (or words to that effect). Of course, what he failed to grasp is that being woke is a really good thing and not a pejorative term.
Anyway, the quite brilliant Jess Phillips (Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding) was on the panel and her reply to him was: "why is it so difficult just to be nice and civil to people?"
There truly are some nasty creatures out there in everyday life. But hey, it's just 'bants' (that awfully lazy and moronic term that is used to mask ignorance and prejudice, and underpin a lack of intelligence).
Impact, not intent.
I don't think the gentleman in question "failed to grasp" anything. You clearly did.
And being "civil" and "nice" ( as if being "nice" was a virtue. Yuk!) are not words I would immediately think of when thinking of woke people (pejorative intended) Intolerant, angry, hostile, disingenuous, fake, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, virtue signalling, insincere, cruel,hypocritical, deluded, vicious.
I agree that in the battle woke Vs non woke extremes are always used/straw man arguments etc to make a point and so no point is ever really successfully made on either side.
For what it's worth and without employing one of these aforesaid extremes to make a point ...
One of the things about woke that many see through now is that it is a "new religion" that is, woke with its creed and commandments and virtue-signalling and of course ~ excommunication aka "cancel culture". Rules of who to tolerate and those to demonise. Having successfully binned organised religion they have simply started their own one! " The Church of Woke". Unfortunately there is no Salvation on offer here.
They have their heretics, they have the ever changing witch hunts ~ feminist, demon fan herself JK Rowling once the queen of such ideologies is now being burned at the stake for having the "wrong" view on Trans issues. And on it goes. It won't stop there. The far-left never does. It attacks everyone in sight ~ (find a "victim" and attack the "perceived" perpetrator.) those that are not "civil" or "nice", and then it attacks itself. And implodes.
Woke will be no different. And for that ...I thank God.
Amen to that.
Not sure wokeism did for revealed religion, the leaders through the ages of the main faiths saw to that together with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason - Thomas Paine lives on - hallelujah.
Fictional books such as the Bible are not required to control the masses (as was their intention) or to engender respect for ones fellow man.
Notice that the CPS have agreed that the chant currently aimed at Chelsea players will be regarded as a homophobic slur and now face potential prosecution if fans are caught singing it.
Was watching Question Time the other night. Can't quite remember the context, but an older fella on there used the phrase "it's woke gone mad" (or words to that effect). Of course, what he failed to grasp is that being woke is a really good thing and not a pejorative term.
Anyway, the quite brilliant Jess Phillips (Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding) was on the panel and her reply to him was: "why is it so difficult just to be nice and civil to people?"
There truly are some nasty creatures out there in everyday life. But hey, it's just 'bants' (that awfully lazy and moronic term that is used to mask ignorance and prejudice, and underpin a lack of intelligence).
Impact, not intent.
I don't think the gentleman in question "failed to grasp" anything. You clearly did.
And being "civil" and "nice" ( as if being "nice" was a virtue. Yuk!) are not words I would immediately think of when thinking of woke people (pejorative intended) Intolerant, angry, hostile, disingenuous, fake, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, virtue signalling, insincere, cruel,hypocritical, deluded, vicious.
I agree that in the battle woke Vs non woke extremes are always used/straw man arguments etc to make a point and so no point is ever really successfully made on either side.
For what it's worth and without employing one of these aforesaid extremes to make a point ...
One of the things about woke that many see through now is that it is a "new religion" that is, woke with its creed and commandments and virtue-signalling and of course ~ excommunication aka "cancel culture". Rules of who to tolerate and those to demonise. Having successfully binned organised religion they have simply started their own one! " The Church of Woke". Unfortunately there is no Salvation on offer here.
They have their heretics, they have the ever changing witch hunts ~ feminist, demon fan herself JK Rowling once the queen of such ideologies is now being burned at the stake for having the "wrong" view on Trans issues. And on it goes. It won't stop there. The far-left never does. It attacks everyone in sight ~ (find a "victim" and attack the "perceived" perpetrator.) those that are not "civil" or "nice", and then it attacks itself. And implodes.
Woke will be no different. And for that ...I thank God.
Colours to the mast there. I reckon I could pretty much nail which papers you read, which radio stations you listen to, how you vote, what you think of Brexit, Sadique Khan, Lewis Hamilton and Gary Lineker all from that one post.
It definitely wasn’t just 1 or 2 Charlton fans who were chanting abuse. We
were a row or two in front of and to the side of the drummer and there were 30-40
or more around us churning out abuse for most of the game. The abuse wasn’t
just directed at Cheltenham players. As much, if not more, was directed at the
Charlton players, particularly in the second half. The only ones that seemed to
escape were Mason Burstow and Chuks Aneke plus Johnnie Jackson and Jason Euell.
A number of players on both sides were called ‘paedo’,’
poof’ and were said to ‘take it up the a*se’. Whether that was specifically intended
to be homophobic or was just moronic is a moot point. Either way, it happened
loud and clear. On the plus side I didn't hear any racist comments.
The most common term shouted was probably ‘f*cking
sh*t c*nt’, which applied to at least 8 Charlton starting players plus all the
subs, the Cheltenham players (especially their goalkeeper), supporters and the
match officials.
If you want some January transfer rumours - Famewo was
told to f*ck off back to Norwich, Blackett-Taylor to f*ck off back to Tranmere,
Leko to f*ck off back to Birmingham. At one point Elliot Lee was serenaded as
the White Pele at another he was told to f*ck off back to Luton.
The @CAFCofficial Twitter account said “A big thank
you to the 1,519 travelling Addicks for keeping us going until the end this
afternoon. Immense as always.”. They clearly didn’t hear what was being chanted.
A lot of noise but certainly not encouragement.
How
widespread the abuse was amongst the Charlton fans is hard for me to tell as I
couldn’t hear beyond my immediate surroundings. I may have been unlucky to be
in the area with the moronic element.
Have you ever considered going to watch Fulham or Reading or even lawn bowls?
I sang shit songs as a youth and older. I have invaded pitches. Especially when they gave Arsenal the Arthur Wait and it was raining at Selhurst. And have always accepted swearing and horrible goading of the opposition as part of the package. As for the homophobic abuse I don’t understand the uproar. Get over it, the people singing it are pissed and don’t mean it or are idiots to be pitied. My 2 gay daughters wouldn’t give a shit.
the McCarthyite witch hunt of anyone who doesn’t fit the current template (which by the way I agree with is the right way to be) annoys me.
I do not agree with what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it. I reckon
In this post: 'guh, just get over the abusive thing that's happening to you, you whining child'.
Also in this post: 'WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE THE ABUSERS ALONE THEY HAVE RIGHTS WHEN WILL THE WITCH HUNTS END!???!!?!'
It's weird when someone is offended by abuse being criticised to the point where they're claiming that the abusers are the true victims, but I guess the life of a bigot is a strange one.
Confirmed to Mick Everett, the Charlton Head of Match Day Operations by Cheltenham police that the three arrested for homophobic abuse were Cheltenham fans not Charlton fans.
There were 3 ejections of Charlton fans , 2 for alcohol related and 1 for failing to comply.
That is really good news.
No, it's really not.
How is homophobic abuse good news?
Jesus Christ…
Well, I don’t think Henners has ever turned water into wine 🤔
I don't think Jesus ran a museum either, and I'm sure he also got more promotes
I'm not saying Henry and Jesus are related but At Bromley Addicks back in the day, I saw Henry feed 75 people with one fish and 20 chips.
There's always a push back against any movement forward. That's why they are called "reactionary". More distasteful is the use of the language of oppression by the people who until now have been doing the oppressing.
I find use of the word woke is very useful in determining the kind of person you're dealing with from the off. It's pretty depressing what has happened with it but it serves its own purpose now as a bullshit detector. Woke used to mean that you were alert to racial prejudice and discrimination and originated in the black community. As with many, many other things, it was then co-opted by wider mainstream spaces and started to have a broadening usage covering more and more progressive ideas until it was essentially appropriated to mean whatever liberal idea people wanted it to mean. Predictably, as it became more and more popular the populist right got hold of it and started using it negatively, which not only diluted its value further but killed it for everyone; no-one wants to being using a slang word their 60-odd year old dad is using. This cynically took the word over and now you see garden variety racists using the word to dismiss any attempt to point out bigotry without having the explain themselves. Can't justify why we shouldn't shout abuse at trans people? Ah it's fine, just say the person defending them is woke and move on! You see idiots using it talking about video games, razors and football clubs when it used to be a shorthand for pointing out serious systemic discrimination in society. It's sad in its own way to see yet another example of attempts to discuss inequality being dismantled, but it's useful now to know that when someone uses it in a sentence you can turn your ears off because a lot of bad faith strawmanning is on its way.
Amazes me that whenever this sort of thing happens it's never, ever within in earshot of the "well, I would have said something" type of people.
As I say above, I wasn’t prepared to get thumped, and having looked at the group who were chanting, my judgement was that I probably would have got thumped + to the Stewards / Police it would look like I was fighting, whereas I would have only been defending myself - that would have meant being thrown out and possibly arrested, which for a 51 year old who has never been in trouble, wouldn’t be great, and could have implications in terms of my job, which I have worked very hard over 35 years to get to where I am
Simple as that
I agree with you.
I meant that whenever someone hears this sort of thing you always get "I would have said something to them" or "Why didn't you confront them?", it just never seems to happen in front of those people who "would definitely have said something". Guess the point I was making is that it's very easy to say you would have done if you're not the one witnessing it.
Two people have since said they have seen it and challenged it, so I stand corrected but I have never seen anyone do it.
Quite a few years ago, my late Father called out someone in the West Stand (yes, the West Stand !!) who was shouting racist abuse during matches - Dad would have been mid 60’s years old at the time - the bloke turned around and told him to F off, and if he carried he would see Dad outside the ground afterwards - Dad obviously didn’t ‘meet’ him after the game, but made a note of where he sat, and when the bloke left the match, Dad went over and made a note of row and seat number - he then wrote to the club, and the bloke wasn’t seen again - the Club refused to discuss it further with Dad, but he could only surmise that the bloke had had his season ticket taken off him
These days I imagine the Club would get the Police involved, but different times back then (it was during Prem days)
Probably still waiting in Macros car park :- )
Seriously, well done your dad.
I've called people out but there have been other times I've decided discretion was the better part of valour (bottled it) because I'm not trained in armed and unarmed combat like @KBslittlesis
In the 80s I once clipped a youth in front of me round the ear’ole because he’d been loudly making monkey noises at black players for the first 15 minutes of the match. Wouldn’t have done it I’d been on my own, or if I hadn’t been 6’3” and standing a step higher than him on the terrace. He did stop though.
Woke simply means anti racist, there is nothing wrong with that, and plenty right.
No, it doesnt "simply mean anti racist". The meaning of words can evolve and change over time.
I agree that the meaning of words can evolve and change over time. However linguistic analysis is certainly not ‘just semantics’, nor is it simply a matter of checking a dictionary. It may well turn out that the meaning of certain words in the end are down to the person using them. For example I know the word ‘gammon’ is used, but to me it has no discernible meaning, however to me ‘woke’ means anti racist, and by association being ‘anti-woke’ means being pro racist.
Woke simply means anti racist, there is nothing wrong with that, and plenty right.
No, it doesnt "simply mean anti racist". The meaning of words can evolve and change over time.
I agree that the meaning of words can evolve and change over time. However linguistic analysis is certainly not ‘just semantics’, nor is it simply a matter of checking a dictionary. It may well turn out that the meaning of certain words in the end are down to the person using them. For example I know the word ‘gammon’ is used, but to me it has no discernible meaning, however to me ‘woke’ means anti racist, and by association being ‘anti-woke’ means being pro racist.
Woke simply means anti racist, there is nothing wrong with that, and plenty right.
No, it doesnt "simply mean anti racist". The meaning of words can evolve and change over time.
I agree that the meaning of words can evolve and change over time. However linguistic analysis is certainly not ‘just semantics’, nor is it simply a matter of checking a dictionary. It may well turn out that the meaning of certain words in the end are down to the person using them. For example I know the word ‘gammon’ is used, but to me it has no discernible meaning, however to me ‘woke’ means anti racist, and by association being ‘anti-woke’ means being pro racist.
I’ve always taken woke to mean anti-discrimination, including anti racist. A lot of young people are described as woke quite unfairly. They’ve often gone to multi-racial schools, and see racism as absurd, which is hard for those promoting racism to accept.
Woke simply means anti racist, there is nothing wrong with that, and plenty right.
No, it doesnt "simply mean anti racist". The meaning of words can evolve and change over time.
I agree that the meaning of words can evolve and change over time. However linguistic analysis is certainly not ‘just semantics’, nor is it simply a matter of checking a dictionary. It may well turn out that the meaning of certain words in the end are down to the person using them. For example I know the word ‘gammon’ is used, but to me it has no discernible meaning, however to me ‘woke’ means anti racist, and by association being ‘anti-woke’ means being pro racist.
so basically you use it to suit your argument
I think you will find that is a feature of the way a lot of words are used, like ‘professional’, or ‘obviously’ or ‘just’ (not as in justice). So you are right, if I am labelled ’woke’ it is clearly a compliment, and a ‘war on woke’ promoted by others is a way to identify my enemies. Linguistic analysis is an established and respected branch of Philosophy.
I find use of the word woke is very useful in determining the kind of person you're dealing with from the off. It's pretty depressing what has happened with it but it serves its own purpose now as a bullshit detector. Woke used to mean that you were alert to racial prejudice and discrimination and originated in the black community. As with many, many other things, it was then co-opted by wider mainstream spaces and started to have a broadening usage covering more and more progressive ideas until it was essentially appropriated to mean whatever liberal idea people wanted it to mean. Predictably, as it became more and more popular the populist right got hold of it and started using it negatively, which not only diluted its value further but killed it for everyone; no-one wants to being using a slang word their 60-odd year old dad is using. This cynically took the word over and now you see garden variety racists using the word to dismiss any attempt to point out bigotry without having the explain themselves. Can't justify why we shouldn't shout abuse at trans people? Ah it's fine, just say the person defending them is woke and move on! You see idiots using it talking about video games, razors and football clubs when it used to be a shorthand for pointing out serious systemic discrimination in society. It's sad in its own way to see yet another example of attempts to discuss inequality being dismantled, but it's useful now to know that when someone uses it in a sentence you can turn your ears off because a lot of bad faith strawmanning is on its way.
Was watching Question Time the other night. Can't quite remember the context, but an older fella on there used the phrase "it's woke gone mad" (or words to that effect). Of course, what he failed to grasp is that being woke is a really good thing and not a pejorative term.
Anyway, the quite brilliant Jess Phillips (Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding) was on the panel and her reply to him was: "why is it so difficult just to be nice and civil to people?"
There truly are some nasty creatures out there in everyday life. But hey, it's just 'bants' (that awfully lazy and moronic term that is used to mask ignorance and prejudice, and underpin a lack of intelligence).
Impact, not intent.
I don't think the gentleman in question "failed to grasp" anything. You clearly did.
And being "civil" and "nice" ( as if being "nice" was a virtue. Yuk!) are not words I would immediately think of when thinking of woke people (pejorative intended) Intolerant, angry, hostile, disingenuous, fake, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, virtue signalling, insincere, cruel,hypocritical, deluded, vicious.
I agree that in the battle woke Vs non woke extremes are always used/straw man arguments etc to make a point and so no point is ever really successfully made on either side.
For what it's worth and without employing one of these aforesaid extremes to make a point ...
One of the things about woke that many see through now is that it is a "new religion" that is, woke with its creed and commandments and virtue-signalling and of course ~ excommunication aka "cancel culture". Rules of who to tolerate and those to demonise. Having successfully binned organised religion they have simply started their own one! " The Church of Woke". Unfortunately there is no Salvation on offer here.
They have their heretics, they have the ever changing witch hunts ~ feminist, demon fan herself JK Rowling once the queen of such ideologies is now being burned at the stake for having the "wrong" view on Trans issues. And on it goes. It won't stop there. The far-left never does. It attacks everyone in sight ~ (find a "victim" and attack the "perceived" perpetrator.) those that are not "civil" or "nice", and then it attacks itself. And implodes.
Woke will be no different. And for that ...I thank God.
Colours to the mast there. I reckon I could pretty much nail which papers you read, which radio stations you listen to, how you vote, what you think of Brexit, Sadique Khan, Lewis Hamilton and Gary Lineker all from that one post.
Comments
For me it means you're free to do what you want until you start to impact on and hurt other people.
Anyway, the quite brilliant Jess Phillips (Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding) was on the panel and her reply to him was: "why is it so difficult just to be nice and civil to people?"
There truly are some nasty creatures out there in everyday life. But hey, it's just 'bants' (that awfully lazy and moronic term that is used to mask ignorance and prejudice, and underpin a lack of intelligence).
Impact, not intent.
And being "civil" and "nice" ( as if being "nice" was a virtue. Yuk!) are not words I would immediately think of when thinking of woke people (pejorative intended) Intolerant, angry, hostile, disingenuous, fake, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, virtue signalling, insincere, cruel,hypocritical, deluded, vicious.
I agree that in the battle woke Vs non woke extremes are always used/straw man arguments etc to make a point and so no point is ever really successfully made on either side.
For what it's worth and without employing one of these aforesaid extremes to make a point ...
One of the things about woke that many see through now is that it is a "new religion" that is, woke with its creed and commandments and virtue-signalling and of course ~ excommunication aka "cancel culture". Rules of who to tolerate and those to demonise. Having successfully binned organised religion they have simply started their own one! " The Church of Woke". Unfortunately there is no Salvation on offer here.
They have their heretics, they have the ever changing witch hunts ~ feminist, demon fan herself JK Rowling once the queen of such ideologies is now being burned at the stake for having the "wrong" view on Trans issues. And on it goes. It won't stop there. The far-left never does. It attacks everyone in sight ~ (find a "victim" and attack the "perceived" perpetrator.) those that are not "civil" or "nice", and then it attacks itself. And implodes.
Woke will be no different. And for that ...I thank God.
It definitely wasn’t just 1 or 2 Charlton fans who were chanting abuse. We were a row or two in front of and to the side of the drummer and there were 30-40 or more around us churning out abuse for most of the game. The abuse wasn’t just directed at Cheltenham players. As much, if not more, was directed at the Charlton players, particularly in the second half. The only ones that seemed to escape were Mason Burstow and Chuks Aneke plus Johnnie Jackson and Jason Euell.
A number of players on both sides were called ‘paedo’,’ poof’ and were said to ‘take it up the a*se’. Whether that was specifically intended to be homophobic or was just moronic is a moot point. Either way, it happened loud and clear. On the plus side I didn't hear any racist comments.
The most common term shouted was probably ‘f*cking sh*t c*nt’, which applied to at least 8 Charlton starting players plus all the subs, the Cheltenham players (especially their goalkeeper), supporters and the match officials.
If you want some January transfer rumours - Famewo was told to f*ck off back to Norwich, Blackett-Taylor to f*ck off back to Tranmere, Leko to f*ck off back to Birmingham. At one point Elliot Lee was serenaded as the White Pele at another he was told to f*ck off back to Luton.
The @CAFCofficial Twitter account said “A big thank you to the 1,519 travelling Addicks for keeping us going until the end this afternoon. Immense as always.”. They clearly didn’t hear what was being chanted. A lot of noise but certainly not encouragement.
How widespread the abuse was amongst the Charlton fans is hard for me to tell as I couldn’t hear beyond my immediate surroundings. I may have been unlucky to be in the area with the moronic element.I've never quite worked out how abusing your OWN players though can achieve anything but MORE mistakes MORE bad results.
I sing for the full 90 and get behind the team (whatever the performance) as though Jacko had personally picked me as "the 12th Man". COYA!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60031427
I think you’d enjoy it a lot more.
However linguistic analysis is certainly not ‘just semantics’, nor is it simply a matter of checking a dictionary.
It may well turn out that the meaning of certain words in the end are down to the person using them. For example I know the word ‘gammon’ is used, but to me it has no discernible meaning, however to me ‘woke’ means anti racist, and by association being ‘anti-woke’ means being pro racist.
So you are right, if I am labelled ’woke’ it is clearly a compliment, and a ‘war on woke’ promoted by others is a way to identify my enemies.
Linguistic analysis is an established and respected branch of Philosophy.