Then why may I ask? Surely among all those people there would be at least one who is capable of running a football club? One who is capable of coaching a top football team and one who is capable of refereeing a PL football match?
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
Then why may I ask? Surely among all those people there would be at least one who is capable of running a football club? One who is capable of coaching a top football team and one who is capable of refereeing a PL football match?
I duno why, thats why i said it would need investigated, it could very well be racism a few posts up.
Just saw the news that FA has launched a diversity code in trying to get rid of the old boys network. All the PL clubs have signed off apart from Southampton who is waiting for the PL code to come out.
Dwight Yorke said he was not even given a chance for an interview. There is certainly racism not only in football but every job in the UK. It's not only for black ethnicity but also against Asian and Muslims too.
You have to look the same as the person hiring you or else you are different and would find it hard to get a top job.
Yes there are and will be incompetent managers but how many of black managers are given chances that white managers get? Not much. Give a good black manager chances like Moyes gets or Bruce gets and eventually they will make it.
You have to look the same as the person hiring you or else you are different and would find it hard to get a top job.
Yes there are and will be incompetent managers but how many of black managers are given chances that white managers get? Not much. Give a good black manager chances like Moyes gets or Bruce gets and eventually they will make it.
Yes (he's a former player which might be unusual for an executive role) but it does stand to reason that over time we'll see more African Americans in these and coaching roles in the league.
For sure, that‘s the case in Europe. It‘s not a UK thing.
Certainly in UK too. Maybe not as bad as in Europe.
An adage we were taught in med school was that "uncommon presentation of a common disease is more common than an uncommon disease" meaning that you should go about by trying to exclude the usual suspects first before looking into more obscure possibilities.
Racism, as a social disease is common, and it would make sense to exclude it first before looking at less likely causes.
Which is the opposite i suppose of what i was saying.
I was always of thought if you jump to racism first and it isnt, that gives racists more opportunity to shout down genuine cases, with a "here we go again" or the "boy the cried wolf" attitude.
I get what you mean. I wouldn't go so far as to label it racism, but rather to acknowledge racism as a very probable cause. If I can't find evidence to exclude it though, it's probably it.
No one here thinking accusations of racism demands substantial evidence? It's not a small thing to be accused of
Its definitely a fine line.
Isnt that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral principle.
I get that, but can you call something racist without racist evidence, or do you assume racism and try to prove otherwise like jaqen said?
What is racist evidence? If someone is involved in a car crash I don't assume racism, but if they were shouting "white power" I might. I just don't see what cases you're thinking of where people just assume racism where there is no "racist evidence".
We're talking about the lack of black referees in the PL and whether this is due to racism.
Follow the posts back
Edit that probably sounds a bit bitchy
Racism is a bias, and apart from people admitting to it (which is unlikely) there will be no solid proof. It can still be detected though through patterns of action on an individual level and statistics on a larger level.
It's common enough that you can attribute to it anomalous patterns and statistics that cannot otherwise be explained.
I don't think the innocent until proven guilty bit applies because racism is not the crime, it's the motive. The crime is unfair treatment. Once it's established that X has been treated unfairly, and Y cannot come up with a plausible justification then it's safe to assume that the motive is racism.
No, it's not.
Care to elaborate?
I agree with you When have no black referees or any in the board of a football club then if it's not racism then what?
What's (not) plausible?
What if race is not in the picture, is it then safe to assume whatever you want?
There is no need to assume hypotheticals when you have racism, a real issue, despite you trying to pretend otherwise.
To answer the absurd hypothetical, you can assume whatever bias the numbers suggest. All the refs are tall? Heightism. All are Lords? Classism. All young? Ageism, etc. As long as the numbers show a bias you should assume the most logical and proceed to prove or exclude from there.
Edit: implausible would be to attribute significant anomalies to coincidence, or in the case of refs and coaches there not being enough interested candidates, for example.
Y can't disprove X's accusation of racism, therefore racism. wtf.. Claim a teapot circling Jupiter, you can't disprove it, safe to assume teapot circling Jupiter?
That kind of thinking is why all kinds of discrimination don't disappear, or extremely slowly.
To take the focus of racism for a moment, let's look at women at the top of the world's largest organizations and their boards. There are extremely few. Is that because of anti-women attitudes? There is little to no direct evidence; you won't find recordings of discussions about filling positions where people outright disqualify someone because they are a woman. People that consciously think these things are clever enough to not say them openly (since they know it's commonly acceptable); and people with unconscious biases (which is extremely common) will only provide implicit examples because of the nature of their bias. Nonetheless, I hope we can all agree that there obviously is discrimination against women; there is no way over 50% of humanity just happens to be less qualified.
It's the same with racism. This can take all kinds of forms. Maybe non-white people relatively often feel that positions of power and influence are not for them in this society, and so they don't consider that they could be a referee. Maybe non-white refs meet with more aggression or less respect from players, and are more often too discouraged to continue. Maybe it' s a leaky pipeline, where a relatively high proportion of non-white refs does not make it into the next level at each transition. And maybe there are other factors. But there is no way that it's a total coincidence that, in a sport where a significant percentage of players is non-white, so few refs (and coaches, for that matter) are non-white.
I need to prove (and fight against) the "discrimination". The racism just explains it and gives a better idea how to go about it. Racism is the pathogen not the disease.
It's not extremely slowly. We've been here for a 200.000+ years. Racism, at least in the west, is near non-existent compared to 60 years ago, let alone 200 or 2000 years. There will always be some form of discrimination. Either obvious or by someones definition.
How many women are willing and able to do what it takes to be at the top? I'm not saying they can't. How many would sacrifice everything to be at the top of business? It's kinda hard to put a number to it. Is it 50%? No probably not. 10, 5, 2, 1, 0,1? What about men?
Coincidence? No. But why racism? Computer scientists. I'm pretty sure there's a disproportionate numeber of whites and asian, at least in the west. Is that racism towards black people? I didn't actually look at any numbers, think I've seen/heard it somewhere though. Pick a different profession if it suits you better. This btw would likely apply to men vs women also
there is enough black players too in the football leagues. It is not the work force that is the issue though there is the problems there too. It is the top positions in football. The coaches, the referees, the Board etc. Anyone who has not experienced racism is never going to understand it. Anyone who is a racist will never accept there is racism.
But most forms of discrimination have long been accepted. Look at the 19th century: a lot of white men openly considered women and non-whites inferior. In that climate, you cannot expect change. So the 200,000-years timeline is a strawman argument, in my view. Only in the last few decades have the tides on those opinions definitely turned. But the actual reversal of discrimination in practice is lagging far behind. People aren't walking the talk. So yes, I do think change is coming far too slowly.
I think that, in your examples, you are looking too much for explicit discrimination. A lot of discrimination, however, plays out on a subtler, societal level.
Consider coding: my pre-teen daughter currently loves to code: there are kids websites to learn coding, and she can spend hours on that. But as she grows older, she will experience a society where coders are nearly exclusively men, and where women are supposed to have different interests. This will shape her opinion on coding, and she might shift into something else. (As much as we might try to not let these things influence her.)
Or top jobs: the social environment at the top of many companies is very male-centric, in the sense that people are expected to have personality characteristics that are more common in men and that social forms often focus on behaviour most common among men. The argument 'do women really want it' does not consider that, and thus enters the discussion one stage too late. As a result, rather than considering whether the work climate is appropriate for all of humanity, the argument implicitly accepts that it's a white-man's world (pretty much saying 'it's just like that, what can you do?'), and takes it from there.
(Obviously, these are not cases of racism, but other types of discrimination; but I think the societal dynamics are the same.)
Is this a strategy? Claim strawman, then use strawman. It happens over and over in these discussions
You seem to be saying this is somehow unjust and needs rectifying. Different groups, populations, ethnicities, even genders, can't seek different outcomes.
It's not obviously discrimination. If you're going to claim this discrimination, you have to claim it for every instance the outcome is not equal.
Dude, several western countries are lead by actual racists (The US and the UK to name two). That implies a significant proportion of the population is OK with racism.
When someone tells you that racism is near non existent in the west you stop engaging with them on that topic.
Yep, and they'd have been voted in by a majority of the population (in Trumps case, slightly below majority). They're not all racist, of course, but i'd guess there's a bit of a correlation there.
Agreed - though tbf the poster did state "compared to 200/2000 years ago" - if that makes it better.
If that's the yard stick we are golden
true true. "Hey you should be happy, we've made progress. So be grateful!"Dude, that's actually, really, debatable. Although I'd probably argue you're correct about the US. You can name anyone, anything, if you just stretch definitions enough. You do of course know not only whites voted for these people? You will of course come up with some explanation for this, why that's not relevant. But that's what you'll have to do, rationalize this stuff in your head to exclude everything not agreeing with your opinion.
Are you the gatekeeper? Please tell me the % of populations in the west who are racist, today vs 60 years ago. Really, I want to know. You must know, making a claim like this.
About 26% of the voting age population voted Tory in 2019 .
I didn't though, did I