2 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Regardless of your standpoint on this discussion to infer that anyone questioning your viewpoint is effectively themselves an apologist for racism is groundless and frankly ridiculous. People can have differences of opinion without them automatically being classified in such a manner.

There's a difference between disagreement and outright and repeated denialism (cf. It can't be racist cos there are white angolans etc), and I would argue the threshold for the latter has been met by at least a couple of posters. 

2 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Racist gaslighting is denying the reality of racism,  downplaying the significance or impact of racist actions or comments.

This is exactly what you have been doing. 

Just now, g3.7 said:

This is exactly what you have been doing. 

No - I have been very clear - multiple times - that racist actions or comments are abhorrant.

I have also been very clear of my view that the song isnt racist. It makes no reference to race, skin colour or ethnicity.   It is however xenophobic.

Stop making sh*t up.

 

1 minute ago, nonotnowjim said:

No - I have been very clear - multiple times - that racist actions or comments are abhorrant.

Just not the ones in the song fernandez sung? 

10 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

Sorry the format (and content) of your post is a mess, but you have said there are plenty of fans of colour who don't think it is racist, yet you have only been able to provide a single example to back this up. So I'll repeat - this is an outlier (or minority) view, and it is on you to prove it is not. 

Apology accepted, i understand the intellectually challenged may sometimes find it difficult to read and interpret. 

I also apologise for not knowing the name and views of every coloured person on this forum, i'll DM everyone and find out for you. I didn't realise you had already gathered this information. 

2 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

Just not the ones in the song fernandez sung? 

Not racist.

Xenophobic - yes

Offensive - yes

Badly judged - Certainly

Racist - no

Edited July 19, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

1 minute ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I also apologise for not knowing the name and views of every coloured person on this forum, i'll DM everyone and find out for you. I didn't realise you had already gathered this information. 

Yikes. 

1 minute ago, g3.7 said:

Yikes. 

I actually think that you are a race-baiter/racial demagogue.... seems like you are simply trying to exploit racial issues to provoke conflict or gain attention. All a bit weird.

The United States cricket team is 98% Indian/Pakistani and comedians love making jokes about it. The jokes can definitely be perceived as insensitive but at its very core there is no malice. I view the chant the same way but it can easily be perceived as downplaying their accomplishments because they are black Africans. Not to mention this was at a larger, global scale and had absolutely nothing to do with their Copa win. 

Instead of doubling down, I wish the Argentine players would simply apologize for their insensitivity and admit their complete lack of awareness. 

7 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

There's a difference between disagreement and outright and repeated denialism (cf. It can't be racist cos there are white angolans etc), and I would argue the threshold for the latter has been met by at least a couple of posters. 

But you are doing exactly the same, and in fact becoming more directly offensive with those holding different views than yours. In fact your assumption that @nonotnowjim is an apologist for racism has in fact bitten you on the arse when his partner and child have had first hand experience of racism.

You seem to have taken this whole issue and created your own soapbox about this, using it as an opportunity to declare anyone that disagrees with you as an apologist.

I personally think there is a racial undertone in the video but that is only due to the knowledge I had of previous instances with monkey related characterisations which, granted, do not appear evident in this instance. The points being made by @nonotnowjim and others also has valid foundations, but i still disagree on the cultural difference stuff as i believe it to be a small world now due to the internet. I can actually see both sides of the argument so what does that me an apologist for?

7 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

Yikes. 

Go on then, enlighten me. Person of colour has been used for as long as i remember. What's the correct term this year? 

Guys, let's not let some overpaid Argentinians in a bus cause discord in a friendly forum community. 

1 minute ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The United States cricket team is 98% Indian/Pakistani and comedians love making jokes about it. The jokes can definitely be perceived as insensitive but at its very core there is no malice. I view the chant the same way but it can easily be perceived as downplaying their accomplishments because they are black Africans. Not to mention this was at a larger, global scale and had absolutely nothing to do with their Copa win. 

Instead of doubling down, I wish the Argentine players would simply apologize for their insensitivity and admit their complete lack of awareness. 

Fully agree.

The incident has understandably stirred up controversy, so an apology from all would be good.... but while it is clear that the content of the song was ill-judged and offensive, it's crucial to differentiate between inappropriate behavior and racism.

Yes the song was inappropriate because it generalised and oversimplified the backgrounds of French footballers, reducing their diverse heritages and individual stories to a single narrative. This not only disrespects the personal identities but also perpetuates a narrow and inaccurate view of their contributions and achievements. The notion that a players origin should be a defining characteristic in a professional setting is both reductive and dismissive of the hard work and talent that each player brings to the sport.

Yes the song lacks sensitivity and awareness of the complex historical and social contexts surrounding immigration and identity in France.

But it remains that the song did not explicitly mention race, skin color, or ethnicity - and so while it was certainly inappropriate and offensive, it does not meet the criteria for being labeled as racist. Racism involves discrimination or prejudice based on race, and the song did not overtly target any racial group or promote racial superiority or inferiority.

They should let this debacle serve as a reminder of the importance of thoughtful and respectful discourse, especially in the public domain, where words and actions can have far-reaching impacts.

 

19 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

There's a difference between disagreement and outright and repeated denialism (cf. It can't be racist cos there are white angolans etc), and I would argue the threshold for the latter has been met by at least a couple of posters. 

Also I am not quite sure what you mean here. Disagreement is exactly the very definition of repeated denial of the opinion of another person. That's why we would be in disagreement. 

3 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Fully agree.

The incident has understandably stirred up controversy, so an apology from all would be good.... but while it is clear that the content of the song was ill-judged and offensive, it's crucial to differentiate between inappropriate behavior and racism.

Yes the song was inappropriate because it generalised and oversimplified the backgrounds of French footballers, reducing their diverse heritages and individual stories to a single narrative. This not only disrespects the personal identities but also perpetuates a narrow and inaccurate view of their contributions and achievements. The notion that a players origin should be a defining characteristic in a professional setting is both reductive and dismissive of the hard work and talent that each player brings to the sport.

Yes the song lacks sensitivity and awareness of the complex historical and social contexts surrounding immigration and identity in France.

But it remains that the song did not explicitly mention race, skin color, or ethnicity - and so while it was certainly inappropriate and offensive, it does not meet the criteria for being labeled as racist. Racism involves discrimination or prejudice based on race, and the song did not overtly target any racial group or promote racial superiority or inferiority.

They should let this debacle serve as a reminder of the importance of thoughtful and respectful discourse, especially in the public domain, where words and actions can have far-reaching impacts.

 

Like @El regreso said, Don’t bring logic and common sense into this

Just now, Ukraine Bolt said:

Like @El regreso said, Don’t bring logic and common sense into this

lol - I am just tyring to find anything to distract me from actually having to do work in my day job (civil rights/anti discrimination lawyer)

12 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Go on then, enlighten me. Person of colour has been used for as long as i remember. What's the correct term this year? 

Yes. "'person of colour'. Not 'coloured person'. 

There's an important difference.

12 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

In fact your assumption that @nonotnowjim is an apologist for racism has in fact bitten you on the arse when his partner and child have had first hand experience of racism.

It's an evidence-based contention, not an assumption. 

And his family being of colour is irrelevant. It's like the old "my best friend is black so I can't be racist" line of logic. 

10 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Also I am not quite sure what you mean here. Disagreement is exactly the very definition of repeated denial of the opinion of another person. That's why we would be in disagreement. 

No, it's a different thing. You and I are disagreeing on a couple of things in my above post. There isn't denialism from either of us there. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

1 minute ago, WhiteWall said:

I personally think there is a racial undertone in the video but that is only due to the knowledge I had of previous instances with monkey related characterisations which, granted, do not appear evident in this instance.

It is not an undertone though is it? it is a racist song created by some Argentinian fans.  it is song designed to antagonise the opposition and it is designed to be offensive.  Offensive in a straightforward racist way. Enzo and the lads hear the song for a couple of years and they repeat it later on their bus.  They know the song is offensive and they quickly tell Enzo to stop streaming live.

Enzo is left stranded and he apologises. All on his own - where are all his buddies when he needs them? I do not think Enzo is a racist, but he did a stupid thing and he apologised for it.  He has already admitted his guilt here.

The whole debate is that some folks think it is not a racist chant and some folks think it is a racist chant. imho it is racist song/chant. the 'lyrics' are offensive and the reason they are offensive is because they are racist. Anyways we can all agree/disagree on that forever.

the big question for Chelsea is what will the impact be for our squad/team. How divided will the squad team be? will Enzo the elder be able to settle this in the dressing room?  Will this Enzo v. the black lads debate be streamed live?

2 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

Yes. "'person of colour'. Not 'coloured person'. 

There's an important difference.

Do you not see how overly pedantic this is?

3 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

It's an evidence-based contention, not an assumption. 

And his family being of colour is irrelevant. It's like the old "my best friend is black so I can't be racist" line of logic. 

Dress it up how you want, its still your personal assumption. You aren't judge, jury and executioner. 

2 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

And his family being of colour is irrelevant. It's like the old "my best friend is black so I can't be racist" line of logic. 

Seriously, go f**k yourself.

Calling me racist - when I have been very clear about how i find racism abhorrent, and very clear about the real predujice my family have experienced - is an absolute dick move. All because I dont agree with your warped logic. Grow up. 

1 minute ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Do you not see how overly pedantic this is?

Dress it up how you want, its still your personal assumption. You aren't judge, jury and executioner. 

As I said, he is a race-baiter

 

6 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Fully agree.

The incident has understandably stirred up controversy, so an apology from all would be good.... but while it is clear that the content of the song was ill-judged and offensive, it's crucial to differentiate between inappropriate behavior and racism.

Yes the song was inappropriate because it generalised and oversimplified the backgrounds of French footballers, reducing their diverse heritages and individual stories to a single narrative. This not only disrespects the personal identities but also perpetuates a narrow and inaccurate view of their contributions and achievements. The notion that a players origin should be a defining characteristic in a professional setting is both reductive and dismissive of the hard work and talent that each player brings to the sport.

Yes the song lacks sensitivity and awareness of the complex historical and social contexts surrounding immigration and identity in France.

But it remains that the song did not explicitly mention race, skin color, or ethnicity - and so while it was certainly inappropriate and offensive, it does not meet the criteria for being labeled as racist. Racism involves discrimination or prejudice based on race, and the song did not overtly target any racial group or promote racial superiority or inferiority.

They should let this debacle serve as a reminder of the importance of thoughtful and respectful discourse, especially in the public domain, where words and actions can have far-reaching impacts.

 

I think the next universal woke trend will be: "if you don't like racing competitions then you are a racist (unless the drivers are white)"

 

You just can't say anything anymore. 

2 minutes ago, TheCeleryKing said:

It is not an undertone though is it? it is a racist song created by some Argentinian fans.  it is song designed to antagonise the opposition and it is designed to be offensive.  Offensive in a straightforward racist way. Enzo and the lads hear the song for a couple of years and they repeat it later on their bus.  They know the song is offensive and they quickly tell Enzo to stop streaming live.

Enzo is left stranded and he apologises. All on his own - where are all his buddies when he needs them? I do not think Enzo is a racist, but he did a stupid thing and he apologised for it.  He has already admitted his guilt here.

The whole debate is that some folks think it is not a racist chant and some folks think it is a racist chant. imho it is racist song/chant. the 'lyrics' are offensive and the reason they are offensive is because they are racist. Anyways we can all agree/disagree on that forever.

the big question for Chelsea is what will the impact be for our squad/team. How divided will the squad team be? will Enzo the elder be able to settle this in the dressing room?  Will this Enzo v. the black lads debate be streamed live?

It isnt a racist song.

It is a song that generalises and oversimplifies the backgrounds of French footballers, reducing their diverse heritages and individual stories to a single narrative. It is a song that lacks sensitivity and awareness of the complex historical and social contexts surrounding immigration and identity in France.

But it remains that the song did not explicitly mention race, skin color, or ethnicity.  Racism involves discrimination or prejudice based on race, and the song did not overtly target any racial group or promote racial superiority or inferiority. Therefore, it is not racist.

I agree with you that Enzo is likely not racist.  I would also agree that some argentine fans, who sing this whilst making monkey noises are racist. But the song, in of itself, and in the specific context in which it was sung on that bus, is not racist.