Raheem Sterling

[villain]

Fair enough, but I don't think I've suggested that racism doesn't exist, merely that it isn't as significant a factor in this case as is being made out. It's very possible that his race has exacerbated the treatment he's received from the media, but I don't think it's the root cause of it. I'd give more credit to the circumstances of his moving from Liverpool for example, than his ethnicity. It seems like the narrative is that Sterling has been deliberately picked out because of his race, which I don't believe to be the case. I can see why people would feel that way though, especially if they had personally experienced racism.

I'd be interested to know where the policy of 'if a black person tells you its racist, its racist' ends though, because I do think that is potentially dangerous territory. Surely there's huge variety amongst black people about what they actually consider racist, you're talking about a hugely diverse group of people with hugely diverse opinions on both ends of the spectrum. The way I was raised was to question what people say, and the idea of taking someone's statement at face value because of their ethnicity doesn't sit right with me.

I didn't suggest that what black people feel doesn't exist, or at least if it came off that way that's a failure in communication on my part. It's just that I'm dubious about this particular case, honestly it would be fascinating to me to recreate Sterling's career, the same behaviour and career moves, but as a white guy and see the differences in how he was treated. Do I think there would be differences? Absolutely, but again I'm not sure what the extent of those differences would be. I think he would have received similar stick for the tattoo for example, and for posing with a picture of himself next to a diamond encrusted sink immediately after a defeat. These are the kind of actions that the tabloid press in this country jump on regardless of ethnicity. The rumours about the number of children he had etc possibly wouldn't come about, but then there are stereotypes associated with young, working class men in that regard so I'm not entirely sure. But it's very possible that in that case, it was a racially motivated rumour.

Just to clarify, I don't think people should have to carry themselves a certain way. People should feel free to express themselves as individuals in any way they see fit, I was merely stating that in mainstream media it's inevitable that certain personalities and characters will receive more positive coverage than others. Is that fair? No, in a perfect world the media would give equal coverage to everybody, but that's the reality of the world we live in. The likes of Joshua, Kante, Scott Parker, Lampard etc will always receive more favourable coverage than more flamboyant, confident personalities like Fury, McGregor, Mayweather, Pogba. I said it earlier but I'll say it again, British culture in particular looks down upon extravagance or showy behaviour, the stiff upper lip and reserved stereotype still has weight in the country. That is a problem and as a nation we need to be more accepting of individual expression, but I'm not necessarily sure that attitude is motivated by racism.

I was meant to reply to this yesterday, but i've been quite busy.
Long story short - it's quite clear we won't agree on whether the attacks on Sterling are racially motivated or not.

When it comes to a supposed 'policy' of when black people say something is racist and when it's not - again, that's for black people to decide and not really a conversation that you can dictate. Very few times are there situations where something causes a wide variety of opinion on whether something is racist or not. That's not to say that all black people are singular monoliths with a grouped mindset - but rather racism is unexplainable and unless you can experience it, you just won't know, also that feeling is generally universal. Even more reason why questioning why not all black players have come forward to agree with Raheem was really quite bizarre and unnecessary.
I'm struggling to think of a recent incident where there was large differing opinions from black people on whether something was racist or not, and nothing is coming to mind. It's usually non black people who jump in and tell us something isn't racist, like this topic.

Finally you talk of the British media looking down on flamboyant personalities - yet Sterling hasn't shown himself to be flamboyant in anyway.
He's rich, so he does rich people things like buy things with unnecessary diamonds/gold but any multi-millionaire does the same thing. Richard Branson has his own island, Alan Sugar a personalised Rolls Royce and a private jet, The Queen's palace is literally draped in gold and diamonds, Jim Ratcliffe has 2 super-yachts and bought a box in the Royal Albert for nearly £3m - these are flamboyant personalities that show off their wealth and extravagance. When you put that into context where is the harm in buying your mum a house, buying some jewellery or wearing expensive clothes? Nothing. This idea of looking down on 'bling culture' is really steeped in a lot of ignorance about why bling culture is a thing, and it's also hypocritical when you look at the people who are really flamboyant with their wealth.

Raheem by all accounts is quiet and keeps to himself, nobody here can describe his personality or say he is particularly loud or expressive because he comes across quite reserved.
So I'm just not buying this idea that his coverage is down to the British culture/values, especially when you compare those who are really lavish and flamboyant - versus those who are young and rich. But again - we can agree to disagree.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Haven’t read the whole thread, but props to the usual posters who’ve the patience to break things down and go around in circles with people who clearly lack the capability of empathy for the subtle/subconscious racism debate.

It really is quite incredible how people can employ two completely different standards for assessing opposing narratives of a situation, depending on their own preconceived notions. It makes a productive debate/discussion impossible.

Take Sterling being the Yardie father to many children for example. I would assert that the person who puts it down to a standard tabloid story gone innocently wrong due to the media company having being fed a fake report (poor them), has already decided that racism is definitely not at play here before discussion has even begun. One cannot seriously and honestly suggest this as the more viable context, completely ignoring the media company’s willingness to run with a completely unconfirmed story painting the picture of the ‘archetypal’ Jamaican man with multiple sexual partners/baby mothers - or basically a dysfunctional young black man. Remind me what Sterling has done to deserve such denigration again?

No one is saying that the moment a person of colour shouts racism, it is expected it should automatically ring true without requiring evidence. The above however, requires jumping through some hoops to come to the conclusion that racism is not at play.

I'd argue that it is you that lacks the capability for a debate when you've decided to completely misrepresent what was written.

I never argued it had got 'innocently wrong'. My suggestion was that I don't think the story was invented purely by the press, but that they received a story and likely ran with it without doing further research because of an existing stereotype. I simply find that easier to believe than journalists deciding to make up a story just because they're racist and wanted to attack Sterling.

As for suggesting I 'lack the capability of empathy', I find these personal digs at other peoples character because they perceive a situation differently to you to be extremely dull. It's ad hominem at its worst, if you have a problem with an argument then attack its content not the moral fibre of the person arguing.

 

[villain]

I'd argue that it is you that lacks the capability for a debate when you've decided to completely misrepresent what was written.

I never argued it had got 'innocently wrong'. My suggestion was that I don't think the story was invented purely by the press, but that they received a story and likely ran with it without doing further research because of an existing stereotype. I simply find that easier to believe than journalists deciding to make up a story just because they're racist and wanted to attack Sterling.

As for suggesting I 'lack the capability of empathy', I find these personal digs at other peoples character because they perceive a situation differently to you to be extremely dull. It's ad hominem at its worst, if you have a problem with an argument then attack its content not the moral fibre of the person arguing.

Once again, you find it easier to believe something you literally made up, rather than believe the british media are racist - and you wonder why all the black people in this thread don't even bother arguing their case?
But at the same time, if we said nothing - then you would carry on believing racism just doesn't occur either - so it's a lose lose situation.

You do lack empathy. I wish you would stop trying to make out like you're here for an intelligent debate and open to learn things from a different perspective - when you just admitted that you find it easier to believe a made-up lie, than to believe what black people have been saying for years.

I think i'm at the point where I'm just gonna stop talking about racism on here, it's pointless.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Once again, you find it easier to believe something you literally made up, rather than believe the british media are racist - and you wonder why all the black people in this thread don't even bother arguing their case?
But at the same time, if we said nothing - then you would carry on believing racism just doesn't occur either - so it's a lose lose situation.

You do lack empathy. I wish you would stop trying to make out like you're here for an intelligent debate and open to learn things from a different perspective - when you just admitted that you find it easier to believe a made-up lie, than to believe what black people have been saying for years.

I think i'm at the point where I'm just gonna stop talking about racism on here, it's pointless.

You realise that the media being given information for a story is literally how a vast majority of tabloid articles come about, right? This isn't some crackpot theory I've conjured out of nowhere, it's an extremely common occurrence. Sure, you get examples where stories are simply manufactured, but a majority of the time there will be some form of flimsy evidence they can cite if they are questioned about the legitimacy of their story. All I've said is that I think it's very possible this is what happened in this situation and you've reacted by acting I have invented a ludicrous story in order to deny the existence of racism. It's a ridiculous over exaggeration of what I have actually said. I also think it's very possible that it is simply a racist journalist who decided to invent a story, I simply presented a very realistic alternative possibility (of which I have as much evidence to support as you do) of how it could have come about.

I don't know if it was simply a racially motivated invention from some journalist, but nor do you. If the mere idea of me questioning these motives and suggesting an alternative idea has you reacting this way, then we're at a very dangerous point in how we discuss racism in this country. When have I suggested you say nothing? I have no problem whatsoever with you or others saying you think racism is the cause of these kind of those stories, I think it's very plausible, it's not me who wants to shut down opposing views or discussion.

I'm not open to different perspectives because I think one explanation is more logical than the other? Alright, I guess. If you're at the point where you can't even discuss racism on this forum (Which compared to most platforms is very much leaning to your side in these sort of debates, with only a few people who would make alternative suggestions) then where would you discuss it? Only in an echo chamber where nobody else has a opinion on a situation which is different from your own?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I appreciate you are ‘attempting’ to be fair in treating people equal. But could you mellow down on your tone. It’s actually kind of offensive not only to call someone idiot or dickhead of any colour, but to use it against race. Have some manners.

Your completely missing the point to and are coming across like a ‘idiot’ yourself.

What has Sterling actually done to make you think he's an idiot?

Whats wrong with his character? This is what I find hilarious.

Is it bad character to not wash your car during bad weather?
Is it bad character to have an ice-cream with your fiance after you've lost a football match?
Is it bad character to get a tattoo in honor of your father?
Is it bad character to buy your mother who raised you alone from childhood and worked herself to the bone for you a fancy house and give her everything she's ever wanted?
Is it bad character when you have one child and the media implies you have many from different mothers?
Is it bad character when you say "I'll never touch a gun" and the media says you said "I'll never touch a gun again."
Is it bad character to eat at Greggs just because you are wealthy?
Is it bad character to shop at Poundland?

Sterling spends money... bad fecker rubbing his cash in our faces. Disgusting.
Sterling doesn't spend money... tight bastard who won't spend his huge wages. Disgusting.

Comparing Sterling who has done feck all wrong to a woman beater like Collymore is completely off base and unfair.

What has Sterling done to be labelled a bellend? What character traits has he shown that means everything he does is somehow negative? And that he has about 15 kids from 10 different mums? A pretty classic racial trope about the black man.

What the actual!

What has Sterling done to deserve being labelled the same as those knobs? You believed everything that has been printed by our great british press? That's the nub of the matter and you completly fell for it all! And Sterling is the bellend?

Bravo for missing the point. Half of you in some weird defence of a ‘Black Man’

I don’t give a shit about the colour of his skin. He’s uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time.

He is a phenomenal footballer. That’s what he’s good at, and at times, he’s the best player in the best 1-Day team in Europe.

Just because I choose to point out these things at a time he’s embroiled himself in a race debate, doesn’t take away from the fact that he’s dull, doesn’t speak well about the game, isn’t too bright and doesn’t really have anything to offer me when he opens his mouth to talk about football.

I acknowledged that I support the post he made. Abuse is awful, for whatever reason.

But he’s just painfully uninteresting.

Anyone thinking I’m basing that on tabloid headlines, as opposed to things he’s actually said and done... you’re wrong. I don’t read the news. I’m being fair with the guy.

Not everyone has an electric personality. But to label it racism to point out that a black guy doesn’t have one... it’s so reductive. It’s so stupidly and ridiculously reductive.

There are worthwhile hills to die on. Pretending that Raheem Sterling is someone that you’d want to spend time with, is not one of them.

Maybe it’s me. I support the player, not the person. He has my full support in an England shirt. If he scored the winner in a World Cup final I’d Hug him in the street if I saw him. I wouldn’t ask him for an original thought though. He’s good at kicking a ball.

 

[Costanza]

Bravo for missing the point. Half of you in some weird defence of a ‘Black Man’

I don’t give a shit about the colour of his skin. He’s uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time.

He is a phenomenal footballer. That’s what he’s good at, and at times, he’s the best player in the best 1-Day team in Europe.

Just because I choose to point out these things at a time he’s embroiled himself in a race debate, doesn’t take away from the fact that he’s dull, doesn’t speak well about the game, isn’t too bright and doesn’t really have anything to offer me when he opens his mouth to talk about football.

I acknowledged that I support the post he made. Abuse is awful, for whatever reason.

But he’s just painfully uninteresting.

Anyone thinking I’m basing that on tabloid headlines, as opposed to things he’s actually said and done... you’re wrong. I don’t read the news. I’m being fair with the guy.

Not everyone has an electric personality. But to label it racism to point out that a black guy doesn’t have one... it’s so reductive. It’s so stupidly and ridiculously reductive.

There are worthwhile hills to die on. Pretending that Raheem Sterling is someone that you’d want to spend time with, is not one of them.

Maybe it’s me. I support the player, not the person. He has my full support in an England shirt. If he scored the winner in a World Cup final I’d Hug him in the street if I saw him. I wouldn’t ask him for an original thought though. He’s good at kicking a ball.

In your original post you called him a "fecking idiot", "insufferable", a "dickhead", a "twat" and a "bellend". And grouped him in with a man who assaulted his wife. A totally proportionate and fair response to someone being a bit reserved

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Bravo for missing the point. Half of you in some weird defence of a ‘Black Man’

I don’t give a shit about the colour of his skin. He’s uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time.

He is a phenomenal footballer. That’s what he’s good at, and at times, he’s the best player in the best 1-Day team in Europe.

Just because I choose to point out these things at a time he’s embroiled himself in a race debate, doesn’t take away from the fact that he’s dull, doesn’t speak well about the game, isn’t too bright and doesn’t really have anything to offer me when he opens his mouth to talk about football.

I acknowledged that I support the post he made. Abuse is awful, for whatever reason.

But he’s just painfully uninteresting.

Anyone thinking I’m basing that on tabloid headlines, as opposed to things he’s actually said and done... you’re wrong. I don’t read the news. I’m being fair with the guy.

Not everyone has an electric personality. But to label it racism to point out that a black guy doesn’t have one... it’s so reductive. It’s so stupidly and ridiculously reductive.

There are worthwhile hills to die on. Pretending that Raheem Sterling is someone that you’d want to spend time with, is not one of them.

Maybe it’s me. I support the player, not the person. He has my full support in an England shirt. If he scored the winner in a World Cup final I’d Hug him in the street if I saw him. I wouldn’t ask him for an original thought though. He’s good at kicking a ball.

You're wasting this time, this thread is basically a witch hunt if you dare to put across an unpopular view.

I also find it funny that you're taking a ton of stick for calling him a bellend, on a forum where plenty of your own players get ripped to shreds. But it's automatically racially motivated if it happens to be a black player? I guess when Lukaku gets called a donkey that's also because he's black?

 

[villain]

You realise that the media being given information for a story is literally how a vast majority of tabloid articles come about, right? This isn't some crackpot theory I've conjured out of nowhere, it's an extremely common occurrence. Sure, you get examples where stories are simply manufactured, but a majority of the time there will be some form of flimsy evidence they can cite if they are questioned about the legitimacy of their story. All I've said is that I think it's very possible this is what happened in this situation and you've reacted by acting I have invented a ludicrous story in order to deny the existence of racism. It's a ridiculous over exaggeration of what I have actually said. I also think it's very possible that it is simply a racist journalist who decided to invent a story, I simply presented a very realistic alternative possibility (of which I have as much evidence to support as you do) of how it could have come about.

I don't know if it was simply a racially motivated invention from some journalist, but nor do you. If the mere idea of me questioning these motives and suggesting an alternative idea has you reacting this way, then we're at a very dangerous point in how we discuss racism in this country. When have I suggested you say nothing? I have no problem whatsoever with you or others saying you think racism is the cause of these kind of those stories, I think it's very plausible, it's not me who wants to shut down opposing views or discussion.

I'm not open to different perspectives because I think one explanation is more logical than the other? Alright, I guess. If you're at the point where you can't even discuss racism on this forum (Which compared to most platforms is very much leaning to your side in these sort of debates, with only a few people who would make alternative suggestions) then where would you discuss it? Only in an echo chamber where nobody else has a opinion on a situation which is different from your own?

I realise thats how media is given information for their story, but what you fail to realise is that I read those reports - and not once did they mention any sources close to the player. It was simply reported as facts, and the language they used to describe him and his lifestyle was coded.

Then look at this tweet from The Sun;


These stories have been happening for years.

Like I said - you're welcome to believe that this has nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his apparent 'flamboyant personality', but without evidence of such flamboyancy, and only a made up assumption, despite years worth of articles on the guy with coded language that's covered in racism - it's no surprise that this discussion is going no where.

There is no logic in racism, if you're trying to seek out clear signs that a journalist or a paper is racist, you just won't find it. I'm not trying to stifle your opinion, nor live in an echo chamber - but I know when a debate is fruitless and when it's not. I'd rather not argue with hypothetical made up situations.

 

[padr81]

Bravo for missing the point. Half of you in some weird defence of a ‘Black Man’

I don’t give a shit about the colour of his skin. He’s uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time.

He is a phenomenal footballer. That’s what he’s good at, and at times, he’s the best player in the best 1-Day team in Europe.

Just because I choose to point out these things at a time he’s embroiled himself in a race debate, doesn’t take away from the fact that he’s dull, doesn’t speak well about the game, isn’t too bright and doesn’t really have anything to offer me when he opens his mouth to talk about football.

I acknowledged that I support the post he made. Abuse is awful, for whatever reason.

But he’s just painfully uninteresting.

Anyone thinking I’m basing that on tabloid headlines, as opposed to things he’s actually said and done... you’re wrong. I don’t read the news. I’m being fair with the guy.

Not everyone has an electric personality. But to label it racism to point out that a black guy doesn’t have one... it’s so reductive. It’s so stupidly and ridiculously reductive.

There are worthwhile hills to die on. Pretending that Raheem Sterling is someone that you’d want to spend time with, is not one of them.

Maybe it’s me. I support the player, not the person. He has my full support in an England shirt. If he scored the winner in a World Cup final I’d Hug him in the street if I saw him. I wouldn’t ask him for an original thought though. He’s good at kicking a ball.

Uninteresting isn't that a bad thing in a pro-footballer.

Uneducated? So, He could still be intelligent, because he chose a job where he could making millions over going to university or school. I'd say using your God given gifts to the best of their ability and being so rich you can retire at 35 when he will still have time to go and get an education if he wants is a pretty damn good situation to be in. I'd also say anyone charging into a thread and comparing the personality of a lad who is uninteresting and undeserving of anyone's time to a piece of shit woman beater like Collymore is showing said poster is uneducated on the subject they've just charged in to.

Undeserving of anyone's time... Why? Who is more deserving of ones time? You find him undeserving of anyone's time yet you clearly felt the need to storm into a thread about him, use your time to post a load of shit and then try and defend your shit by saying he's boring and not worth your time would suggest you are completely talking out of your arse.

When you see the media writing unfair things about him, people are right to call them out regardless of the color of his skin and when they feel it is racially motivated they are right to point that out too.

Who in the honor of Christ said its racism to say he has no personality? People think its racism because Sterling gets reported differently in the media, people think what happened Saturday was racism because the guy called him a "black bastard".

Well done you came into a thread on someone not deserving of your time, wrote a shit post.
You think people should ignore discussions on whether a man has been racially abused because you find the person "uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time."

Maybe just maybe he wouldn't ask you for an original thought either. You obviously think you are intellectually superior to him for some reason even though you've never had a conversation with him or even met him.

Also to show how uneducated are on Raheem in general, of all his skills on a football pitch most people would say "kicking a ball" is his biggest weakness and the very issue that keeps him away from being a real world class player.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

I realise thats how media is given information for their story, but what you fail to realise is that I read those reports - and not once did they mention any sources close to the player. It was simply reported as facts, and the language they used to describe him and his lifestyle was coded.

Then look at this tweet from The Sun;


These stories have been happening for years.

Like I said - you're welcome to believe that this has nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his apparent 'flamboyant personality', but without evidence of such flamboyancy, and only a made up assumption, despite years worth of articles on the guy with coded language that's covered in racism - it's no surprise that this discussion is going no where.

There is no logic in racism, if you're trying to seek out clear signs that a journalist or a paper is racist, you just won't find it. I'm not trying to stifle your opinion, nor live in an echo chamber - but I know when a debate is fruitless and when it's not. I'd rather not argue with hypothetical made up situations.

I'll take your word for it on those stories, since the Sun has since deleted them so it's hard to check again. There's likely an archive somewhere of it so I might try and dig it up later. It's pretty common that with a story of that nature though they will completely omit the 'sources close to the player' line and simply report it as fact, since journalism in this country is at such a dire point that plenty often feel with very flimsy evidence (or very possibly in this case, none at all) that they have the right to post it as fact. People rarely actually ask for evidence, and players don't have the time to go about forcing papers to bring down each and every article


I don't think it has 'nothing' to do with race, in fact having seen everything that has been written about him I'm very inclined to believe that racism has been a motivating factor. I also don't think it's about his 'flamboyant personality' (Like I said before, I think the primary motivator has been the circumstances of his move to Manchester City) so again it's a case of that simply isn't the argument that I'm making. If it was, I could understand you being frustrated but it isn't. During the whole 'flamboyant personality' debate, I was merely pointing out that the media prefers certain personality types and tends to favour them with nicer coverage. I don't think Sterling is that flamboyant, but with an assault rifle on his leg, posing next to diamond encrusted sinks etc there's enough there for the media to not exactly treat him like a Scotty Parker type. I agree that plenty of the language used against him has been very suspect and there's definitely some very dodgy stereotypes the media have latched on to.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Uninteresting isn't that a bad thing in a pro-footballer.

Uneducated? So, He could still be intelligent, because he chose a job where he could making millions over going to university or school. I'd say using your God given gifts to the best of their ability and being so rich you can retire at 35 when he will still have time to go and get an education if he wants is a pretty damn good situation to be in. I'd also say anyone charging into a thread and comparing the personality of a lad who is uninteresting and undeserving of anyone's time to a piece of shit woman beater like Collymore is showing said poster is uneducated on the subject they've just charged in to.

Undeserving of anyone's time... Why? Who is more deserving of ones time? You find him undeserving of anyone's time yet you clearly felt the need to storm into a thread about him, use your time to post a load of shit and then try and defend your shit by saying he's boring and not worth your time would suggest you are completely talking out of your arse.

When you see the media writing unfair things about him, people are right to call them out regardless of the color of his skin and when they feel it is racially motivated they are right to point that out too.

Who in the honor of Christ said its racism to say he has no personality? People think its racism because Sterling gets reported differently in the media, people think what happened Saturday was racism because the guy called him a "black bastard".

Well done you came into a thread on someone not deserving of your time, wrote a shit post.
You think people should ignore discussions on whether a man has been racially abused because you find the person "uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time."

Maybe just maybe he wouldn't ask you for an original thought either. You obviously think you are intellectually superior to him for some reason even though you've never had a conversation with him or even met him.

Also to show how uneducated are on Raheem in general, of all his skills on a football pitch most people would say "kicking a ball" is his biggest weakness and the very issue that keeps him away from being a real world class player.

Yes. I am intellectually superior to Raheem Sterling. In every way that he is my athletic superior.

That’s not an insult to him, or me.

For what it’s worth, YOU have drawn an equivalence between Collymore and Sterling. I didn’t. I merely pointed out the twats that blame the colour of their skin for the fact that people point out that they’re dickheads.

My point : People don’t hate Sterling because he’s black. They dislike him because he’s dislikable.

Much of the Media can be racist. But not all negative press about Black people is racism.

It’s painfully obvious. Wake up.

 

[11101]

You're wasting this time, this thread is basically a witch hunt if you dare to put across an unpopular view.

I also find it funny that you're taking a ton of stick for calling him a bellend, on a forum where plenty of your own players get ripped to shreds. But it's automatically racially motivated if it happens to be a black player? I guess when Lukaku gets called a donkey that's also because he's black?

That point was made in his performance thread last year. It's also why Pogba is described as big and strong apparently. There was a whole thread on that.

If i were you id just keep quiet until everyone scuttles back to the Current Events board and this thread can be about his football again.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

That point was made in his performance thread last year. It's also why Pogba is described as big and strong apparently. There was a whole thread on that.

If i were you id just keep quiet until everyone scuttles back to the Current Events board and this thread can be about his football again.

Probably a good idea.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

I'd argue that it is you that lacks the capability for a debate when you've decided to completely misrepresent what was written.

I never argued it had got 'innocently wrong'. My suggestion was that I don't think the story was invented purely by the press, but that they received a story and likely ran with it without doing further research because of an existing stereotype. I simply find that easier to believe than journalists deciding to make up a story just because they're racist and wanted to attack Sterling.

So you don’t find anything inherently racist in the media actively participating in the defemation of a man using unfounded claims which use a negative stereotype of the man’s ethnicity?

Ok.

As for suggesting I 'lack the capability of empathy', I find these personal digs at other peoples character because they perceive a situation differently to you to be extremely dull. It's ad hominem at its worst, if you have a problem with an argument then attack its content not the moral fibre of the person arguing.

I assure you it was in no way a dig, just a factual observation. It’s difficult to envisage how these incidents would be perceived by a person for whom things like that article are not an isolated incident - rather a drop in an ocean of societal, institutional, and structural racism - when you yourself have experienced nothing like it and thus would not be aware of all the creative ways these things are dressed up. Of course I’m not claiming you are inherently incapable because you’re not a PoC, but you’ve evidently demonstrated it in your posts.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Let’s not try detract from the argument at hand by preemptively victimising yourself.

 

[Kostur]

Let’s not try detract from the argument at hand by preemptively victimising yourself.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Let’s not try detract from the argument at hand by preemptively victimising yourself.

Yeah, let's not try to detract from the topic at hand after I've totally misrepresented your argument and accused you of lacking empathy. That would be awful.

I'm not a victim, I'm just also not a fan of armchair psychologists telling me I lack empathy because I take a difference stance to them in an argument and view a situation differently to them. You're the one detracting because you decided to start attempting to assassinate my character rather than simply countering my points. I don't know how you expect people to react when you make such assertions based on very limited exposure to them. Empathy is a pretty big thing to say people 'clearly lack', it's not a casual statement to throw about.

Being overly emotional in debates isn't helpful anyway, all it does is prevent you from being able to think in more objective terms, or from the other persons perspective. It also makes you rush to conclusions and generalisations about the person you're debating with, which we've seen plenty of evidence of in this thread. I can have empathy for Sterling's situation (Which is shit, leave him alone and let him get on with his football) whilst also trying to analyse why he may have experienced some of the treatment he has. It could be all put down to racism, but I don't think this is necessarily the case. Is it a factor in some of his coverage? Absolutely, but I'd rather have a sensible discussion about that rather than automatically assuming every article or media published about him is automatically racism, and that any suggestion there could be another explanation is horribly offensive.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Yeah, let's not try to detract from the topic at hand after I've totally misrepresented your argument and accused you of lacking empathy. That would be awful.

I'm not a victim, I'm just also not a fan of armchair psychologists telling me I lack empathy because I take a difference stance to them in an argument and view a situation differently to them. You're the one detracting because you decided to start attempting to assassinate my character rather than simply countering my points. I don't know how you expect people to react when you make such assertions based on very limited exposure to them. Empathy is a pretty big thing to say people 'clearly lack', it's not a casual statement to throw about.

Being overly emotional in debates isn't helpful anyway, all it does is prevent you from being able to think in more objective terms, or from the other persons perspective. It also makes you rush to conclusions and generalisations about the person you're debating with, which we've seen plenty of evidence of in this thread. I can have empathy for Sterling's situation (Which is shit, leave him alone and let him get on with his football) whilst also trying to analyse why he may have experienced some of the treatment he has. It could be all put down to racism, but I don't think this is necessarily the case. Is it a factor in some of his coverage? Absolutely, but I'd rather have a sensible discussion about that rather than automatically assuming every article or media published about him is automatically racism, and that any suggestion there could be another explanation is horribly offensive.

You haven’t actually addressed anything in my post and are now going off on a tangent.

Thanks anyways, apologies if I upset you.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

You haven’t actually addressed anything in my post and are now going off on a tangent.

Thanks anyways, apologies if I upset you.

You've come in to the thread, told me that I (and others) lack empathy, totally misrepresented an argument and then when you've been called out for it you have accused me of victimising myself. I then respond to that and before I've had a chance to respond to your post of actual substance, you've had the nerve to get back on your high horse and tell me that I'm the one going off on a tangent. This from the person who was deciding to be an armchair psychologist 5 minutes ago.

Quality stuff, it really is.

 

[EasyE]

United are on soon lads...

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

This isn't an exchange of perspectives here because you're constantly dismissing everything to the contrary, didn't respond to anything that I said, but that's probs because it seems you didn't grasp any of it seeing as you think my posts were somehow [intent in] attacking you and have subsequently gone on the defensive. And you keep repeating the same post over and over again.

You've won the internet lad, I've no interest I pursuing this grand debate with you. It's one of the reasons I rarely venture in to these discussions.

 

[africanspur]

Bravo for missing the point. Half of you in some weird defence of a ‘Black Man’

I don’t give a shit about the colour of his skin. He’s uninteresting, uneducated and undeserving of anyone’s time.

He is a phenomenal footballer. That’s what he’s good at, and at times, he’s the best player in the best 1-Day team in Europe.

Just because I choose to point out these things at a time he’s embroiled himself in a race debate, doesn’t take away from the fact that he’s dull, doesn’t speak well about the game, isn’t too bright and doesn’t really have anything to offer me when he opens his mouth to talk about football.

I acknowledged that I support the post he made. Abuse is awful, for whatever reason.

But he’s just painfully uninteresting.

Anyone thinking I’m basing that on tabloid headlines, as opposed to things he’s actually said and done... you’re wrong. I don’t read the news. I’m being fair with the guy.

Not everyone has an electric personality. But to label it racism to point out that a black guy doesn’t have one... it’s so reductive. It’s so stupidly and ridiculously reductive.

There are worthwhile hills to die on. Pretending that Raheem Sterling is someone that you’d want to spend time with, is not one of them.

Maybe it’s me. I support the player, not the person. He has my full support in an England shirt. If he scored the winner in a World Cup final I’d Hug him in the street if I saw him. I wouldn’t ask him for an original thought though. He’s good at kicking a ball.

Blah blah blah, huge post unrelated to the initial post you made.

You called Sterling a bellend. We didn't ascribe that to him, you did. You lumped him in with the likes of Sol and Collymore who, yes, are asses. It doesn't need to be said that people of any race can be asses.

When asked to explain how sterling is a bellend, you've started going on about his intelligence and whether he'd have anything you'd want to listen to about the game? Or that he's interesting or that I'd want to spend time with him?

What? Who the hell said any of those things? I couldn't care less about sterling's intelligence. I don't know whether he's interesting or not, I've literally never heard him speak and there are pretty much no footballers I'd like to spend time with because I'm not a 14 year child.

So... Again, what has he done to be a bellend and what does his lack of interesting personality have to do with any of this?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I was meant to reply to this yesterday, but i've been quite busy.
Long story short - it's quite clear we won't agree on whether the attacks on Sterling are racially motivated or not.

When it comes to a supposed 'policy' of when black people say something is racist and when it's not - again, that's for black people to decide and not really a conversation that you can dictate. Very few times are there situations where something causes a wide variety of opinion on whether something is racist or not. That's not to say that all black people are singular monoliths with a grouped mindset - but rather racism is unexplainable and unless you can experience it, you just won't know, also that feeling is generally universal. Even more reason why questioning why not all black players have come forward to agree with Raheem was really quite bizarre and unnecessary.
I'm struggling to think of a recent incident where there was large differing opinions from black people on whether something was racist or not, and nothing is coming to mind. It's usually non black people who jump in and tell us something isn't racist, like this topic.

Finally you talk of the British media looking down on flamboyant personalities - yet Sterling hasn't shown himself to be flamboyant in anyway.
He's rich, so he does rich people things like buy things with unnecessary diamonds/gold but any multi-millionaire does the same thing. Richard Branson has his own island, Alan Sugar a personalised Rolls Royce and a private jet, The Queen's palace is literally draped in gold and diamonds, Jim Ratcliffe has 2 super-yachts and bought a box in the Royal Albert for nearly £3m - these are flamboyant personalities that show off their wealth and extravagance. When you put that into context where is the harm in buying your mum a house, buying some jewellery or wearing expensive clothes? Nothing. This idea of looking down on 'bling culture' is really steeped in a lot of ignorance about why bling culture is a thing, and it's also hypocritical when you look at the people who are really flamboyant with their wealth.

Raheem by all accounts is quiet and keeps to himself, nobody here can describe his personality or say he is particularly loud or expressive because he comes across quite reserved.
So I'm just not buying this idea that his coverage is down to the British culture/values, especially when you compare those who are really lavish and flamboyant - versus those who are young and rich. But again - we can agree to disagree.

Would you say that you have more in common with me; a white English guy working at an investment fund. Or Raheem Sterling.

Serious question.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Blah blah blah, huge post unrelated to the initial post you made.

You called Sterling a bellend. We didn't ascribe that to him, you did. You lumped him in with the likes of Sol and Collymore who, yes, are asses. It doesn't need to be said that people of any race can be asses.

When asked to explain how sterling is a bellend, you've started going on about his intelligence and whether he'd have anything you'd want to listen to about the game? Or that he's interesting or that I'd want to spend time with him?

What? Who the hell said any of those things? I couldn't care less about sterling's intelligence. I don't know whether he's interesting or not, I've literally never heard him speak and there are pretty much no footballers I'd like to spend time with because I'm not a 14 year child.

So... Again, what has he done to be a bellend and what does his lack of interesting personality have to do with any of this?

It’s really can begin and doesn’t need to go any further than;

“I got a whopping great big tattoo of a gun on my leg because my father got killed by one and I vowed never to touch one. It’s on my leg and I shoot with my right foot so it’s got a deeper meaning”

Anyone that has those words fall out of their mouth is a tool.

If you think highly of him, great. I don’t, and I’ve said as much.

Hand on heart, would you have an issue with me calling him a bellend if he was white?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

In your original post you called him a "fecking idiot", "insufferable", a "dickhead", a "twat" and a "bellend". And grouped him in with a man who assaulted his wife. A totally proportionate and fair response to someone being a bit reserved

Aye. Probably went in a little too hard.

I stand by any one of those. Probably didn’t need to pull out the juvenile thesaurus to make that point 5 times though.

However, I didn’t mention Collymore and his domestic abuse case. I was merely calling him into focus for his “I’m black, they hate me” schtick.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

What the feck does that have to do with anything? I never stated that racists don't exist (like the moron who threw a banana on the pitch) so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion that was being had about Sterling's case. Had I been sat here disputing the existence of racism in the United Kingdom, you might have a point.

The type of 'attitude' I've displayed is to not immediately accept the ongoing narrative and to suggest that there are other factors at play. I find it more incredible that a poster like you (who has added nothing to this discussion, zilch) feels so comfortable on your high horse of moral superiority that you can come in here and start questioning other peoples attitudes. I'll say it again, I've seen some of what you have written in the past and I won't be lectured on attitudes or ignorance by you.

So... what's your actual point at this juncture? Genuine question.

Because you sound like you're foaming at the mouth but not it's not really clear about what...

Do you think that Sterling lied about being racially abused against Chelsea? If so, why would you think that? What history does Raheem have that makes you think he'd do that...?

In a divisive political climate, where a few weeks ago one of your own supporters threw a banana skin at a player, why on Earth would you assume that the player in question (Sterling) was making it up (against Chelsea fans...).

Or do you think that there is NO racism in the press' treatment of Sterling?

You stated earlier that you genuinely believe that the story perpetuated by the right-wing gutter press of him having loads of children by different mothers, when he's in fact a doting father of 1, was simply a case of 'someone telling them that and them believing it'...

This kind of statement by yourself does make it seem like you're perhaps not completely up to speed on these sorts of matters - so that's why myself and others have spoken to you in an educational manner.

There's also the fact that, based on your own posts, you obviously don't really understand racism - and you become bitter and defensive when people try to explain elements of it to you.

This makes debate with you on the subject a bit of a non-starter because you're ill-informed, and have never actually experienced the phenomenon of which you're trying to talk about, but are becoming defensive and at times rude, with people who do understand it, and have experienced it.

I want to avoid a merry-go-round of squabbling and silly back and forths, so if you reply, answer my bolded questions so we know where we stand and it's clear what your actual point is.

 

[iammemphis]

First time venturing into this thread and honestly suprised at the amount of emotional hatred towards Sterling, certainly perplexing. What has he actually done to deserve being verbally assaulted at any opportunity by certain fans and accused on here of being really thick and hateable? I find it bizarre. I actually think he talks very well and seems well grounded. His fecking dad was shot dead when he was just a kid and has managed to work hard on his talent to become a world class football player. Whenever i have heard him talk he comes across humble and is grateful for what he has.

The dedication and commitment growing up, travelling hour long journeys 3/4 nights a week to training and coming back not knowing where he was gonna sleep that night as his family were moving around hostels. Fair play to him. I will criticise his performances, particularly for England, like any other fan, but people need to educate themselves and stop buying into the media agendas (particularly The Sun and Daily Mail) into stirring shit so they sell papers.

 

[africanspur]

It’s really can begin and doesn’t need to go any further than;

“I got a whopping great big tattoo of a gun on my leg because my father got killed by one and I vowed never to touch one. It’s on my leg and I shoot with my right foot so it’s got a deeper meaning”

Anyone that has those words fall out of their mouth is a tool.

If you think highly of him, great. I don’t, and I’ve said as much.

Hand on heart, would you have an issue with me calling him a bellend if he was white?

I think pretty much anyone who gets a tattoo is a bit of a tool tbh, I think it is a pretty silly thing to do. I wouldn't say that would make someone a bellend though and you're still to say all these things that make him a bellend.

Who says I think highly of him? Where are you getting all of these strawmen? You seem to think I have some kind of sterling shrine. I literally don't give him a second thought unless we're playing Man City or he gets another ridiculous story about him in the media.

It completely depends. If you said Terry was a bellend, I'd agree. If you said Giggs was a bellend, I'd agree. If you said Maradona was one, Neymar was one, Campbell was one, Drogba when he first arrived was one, etc etc, I'd agree. If you said Kane was a bit of a bellend about the goal claim thing last season, I'd agree. If you said Vertonghen can be a bellend on the field, I'd agree. Ramos yes. Redknapp yes. Carragher yes. Or Alonso.

If you said Eriksen was one, I'd be a bit confused. Or Mata. Or Cristiansen. Or any number of white footballers where I saw no reason to call them a bellend. Id say exactly the same thing. What exactly makes you say that they are a bellend.

For some reason, you seem to think that a) everyone here worships sterling (when most people couldn't care less about him

and b) that you're needed to provide some much needed balance by pointing out that he's dull, not particularly well educated and has stupid tattoos (ie like a good 80% of footballers) and that black people can also be asses, in a thread about the potentially racist abuse he suffered last weekend amidst the backdrop of how he is treated by the media. Or that he's a bellend.

Great.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

So... what's your actual point at this juncture? Genuine question.

Because you sound like you're foaming at the mouth but not it's not really clear about what...

Do you think that Sterling lied about being racially abused against Chelsea? If so, why would you think that? What history does Raheem have that makes you think he'd do that...?

In a divisive political climate, where a few weeks ago one of your own supporters threw a banana skin at a player, why on Earth would you assume that the player in question (Sterling) was making it up (against Chelsea fans...).

Or do you think that there is NO racism in the press' treatment of Sterling?

You stated earlier that you genuinely believe that the story perpetuated by the right-wing gutter press of him having loads of children by different mothers, when he's in fact a doting father of 1, was simply a case of 'someone telling them that and them believing it'...

This kind of statement by yourself does make it seem like you're perhaps not completely up to speed on these sorts of matters - so that's why myself and others have spoken to you in an educational manner.

There's also the fact that, based on your own posts, you obviously don't really understand racism - and you become bitter and defensive when people try to explain elements of it to you.

This makes debate with you on the subject a bit of a non-starter because you're ill-informed, and have never actually experienced the phenomenon of which you're trying to talk about, but are becoming defensive and at times rude, with people who do understand it, and have experienced it.

I want to avoid a merry-go-round of squabbling and silly back and forths, so if you reply, answer my bolded questions so we know where we stand and it's clear what your actual point is.

Great post, good sir.

 

[Chairman Steve]

In terms of racism amongst football fans, I think (and like to hope) that the majority of racism (if not all of course) that is generated is from when general football tribalism goes over the top and too far. People get caught in the moment emotionally as well as possible intoxication too, which means they’re not exactly in the soundest of minds and their tongue is faster than their thought process.

The football fan mentality is typically a game of oneupmanship, where you’ve got to have the last word or a point no-one can come back too, no matter what the boundaries are. A lot of Utd and Liverpool animosity stems from this approach where it goes from playful banter to a wound-up extreme. A hypothetical example:

“Our centre forwards much better than yours. He’s got X goals whilst yours has half that!”
“Yeah well, we’re above you in the table mate!”
“Oh yeah! Well we’ve won this competition X times to your Y times!”
“... Yeah well Hillsborough/Munich!”

In this Sterling case, I would like to think that it’s a bunch of blokes getting really caught up in the emotions of the game and tribalism is at ludicrous level and they want to give some form of abuse to an opposing player who is good and could cause their team to lose. They should have probably gone with the standard “Booo you’re shit mate” instead of the going too far racial epithet which they probably thought would be more disruptive to said opposing player in an attempt to throw him of his game, and not because of his sheer ethic background.

Again, this is what I hope it is. Tribalism taken too far and people not thinking before they speak.

 

[Tarrou]

The Mail and Sun print racist stories because that is what their readers want to read. Just look at the comments sections if you doubt that is true.

 

[RoadTrip]

In terms of racism amongst football fans, I think (and like to hope) that the majority of racism (if not all of course) that is generated is from when general football tribalism goes over the top and too far. People get caught in the moment emotionally as well as possible intoxication too, which means they’re not exactly in the soundest of minds and their tongue is faster than their thought process.

The football fan mentality is typically a game of oneupmanship, where you’ve got to have the last word or a point no-one can come back too, no matter what the boundaries are. A lot of Utd and Liverpool animosity stems from this approach where it goes from playful banter to a wound-up extreme. A hypothetical example:

“Our centre forwards much better than yours. He’s got X goals whilst yours has half that!”
“Yeah well, we’re above you in the table mate!”
“Oh yeah! Well we’ve won this competition X times to your Y times!”
“... Yeah well Hillsborough/Munich!”

In this Sterling case, I would like to think that it’s a bunch of blokes getting really caught up in the emotions of the game and tribalism is at ludicrous level and they want to give some form of abuse to an opposing player who is good and could cause their team to lose. They should have probably gone with the standard “Booo you’re shit mate” instead of the going too far racial epithet which they probably thought would be more disruptive to said opposing player in an attempt to throw him of his game, and not because of his sheer ethic background.

Again, this is what I hope it is. Tribalism taken too far and people not thinking before they speak.

Even if this is the case, isn’t it irrelevant? If, at your most emotional state, you defer to saying something racist, what does that say about your true subconscious or underlying views?

It might not mean he is inherently racist in the traditional and every day sense, but it means you sufficiently lack respect for the race to be able to get to that point, and so actually that is an inherent form of racism in itself.

 

[RochaRoja]

Yes. I am intellectually superior to Raheem Sterling.

Sorry but are we just going to let this one slide?

 

[villain]

Would you say that you have more in common with me; a white English guy working at an investment fund. Or Raheem Sterling.

Serious question.

Based on your posts in here, Sterling quite easily.
Now what was the point of that question?

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Sorry but are we just going to let this one slide?

He probably is.

Or at least perhaps not more naturally 'intelligent', but certainly better educated (look at Sterling's social media posts as examples of that).

Are we going to start pretending Sterling is particularly bright now?

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

So... what's your actual point at this juncture? Genuine question.

Because you sound like you're foaming at the mouth but not it's not really clear about what...

Do you think that Sterling lied about being racially abused against Chelsea? If so, why would you think that? What history does Raheem have that makes you think he'd do that...?

In a divisive political climate, where a few weeks ago one of your own supporters threw a banana skin at a player, why on Earth would you assume that the player in question (Sterling) was making it up (against Chelsea fans...).

Or do you think that there is NO racism in the press' treatment of Sterling?

You stated earlier that you genuinely believe that the story perpetuated by the right-wing gutter press of him having loads of children by different mothers, when he's in fact a doting father of 1, was simply a case of 'someone telling them that and them believing it'...

This kind of statement by yourself does make it seem like you're perhaps not completely up to speed on these sorts of matters - so that's why myself and others have spoken to you in an educational manner.

There's also the fact that, based on your own posts, you obviously don't really understand racism - and you become bitter and defensive when people try to explain elements of it to you.

This makes debate with you on the subject a bit of a non-starter because you're ill-informed, and have never actually experienced the phenomenon of which you're trying to talk about, but are becoming defensive and at times rude, with people who do understand it, and have experienced it.

I want to avoid a merry-go-round of squabbling and silly back and forths, so if you reply, answer my bolded questions so we know where we stand and it's clear what your actual point is.

I've stated my point over and over in other posts. I don't see why I should have to outline it again just because you struggle with reading. I've never even mentioned the abuse Sterling received from Chelsea fans, I have every reason to believe they were racially abusing him. Football fans can be utter dicks and I have heard racist abuse from the stands myself. This isn't a stance I've ever even debated on here, so the fact you wouldn't even be aware on that is enough to completely dismiss you in this discussion. You've come in without actually reading what people have written properly and have made assumptions probably by skim reading certain posts.

And no, I don't think there has been 'no' racism in how the press have covered Sterling. I think that there are a number of factors involved in the way he's been covered by the press, and I'm not willing to put down all the negative articles written about him to the fact he's black. That doesn't mean that some haven't been racially motivated, just that as a rule I question assumptions, something which I think is of vital importance. I stated earlier that I believed that it's very possible the press were sold a false story, and then ran it despite it being flimsy because they likely trusted in a stereotype. I don't know if that stereotype is related to his Jamaican roots, or the fact he's a young working class footballer. It's very possible it is the former, as for 'not being up to speed' my theory has as much genuine evidence to support it as yours does. You want to immediately assume it was the invention of a racist journalist on the basis of what? The fact racism exists in society? Take that to court, see how far you get.

As for becoming defensive or rude, I haven't been either to the posters who have debated in an intelligent manner. I've been rude to you and another poster because you have both offered nothing to the discussion and come in with patronising posts which assume the moral high ground based on absolutely nothing. If somebody tells me I have no empathy then quite generally I do revert to defending myself, I don't find this to be an unnatural position and it isn't me that started with ad hominem in this debate.

As for being 'ill informed', I'll take that with a pinch of salt because it appears that it happens to be that anybody who diverts from the narrative in this thread is immediately slapped with this accusation. I also don't need to have experienced a phenomenon to understand it, and even if I did this discussion isn't about me understanding what it is like to be racially abused. It's about whether Raheem Sterling has been targeted by the press because of his race. The idea that you can't contribute to this discussion without 'experiencing it' is utterly ludicrous. I also won't be called 'ill informed' by somebody who has arrived in the thread and clearly has no understanding of what I have actually been debating, you have literally just made assumptions and that's pretty obvious from the fact you weren't sure whether I thought Sterling was lying about being abused by the crowd.

Should we ban white judges or juries when we have trials related to race crimes? They couldn't possibly understand the crime at hand, so surely they should be replaced? This is the level we're debating at now, it is absolutely identity politics.

 

[RoadTrip]

He probably is.

Or at least perhaps not more naturally 'intelligent', but certainly better educated (look at Sterling's social media posts as examples of that).

Are we going to start pretending Sterling is particularly bright now?

The definition of intelligence in the oxford dictionary is as follows:

“The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.”

Raheem Sterling is one of the best at his trade on the planet. He has quite clearly demonstrated a unique ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills in his trade.

I don’t know who the other poster is so can’t compare relatively. But in my eyes, it’s clearly apparent that Sterling is intelligent.

Whether he is uneducated or not bright, I don’t know.

And as a separate point, I have read through this thread. At first, I had sympathy of your view that some bits might not be outright down to racism. And I still do think that - that sometimes we say something is racist when it isn’t always the case or isn’t always the sole factor pertinent (and I’m absolutely not saying that about these articles or about the Chelsea fan, which are clear evidence of racism). But as I read on, I realised that quite evidently you’re not here for a discussion or debate. And you’re not only providing another perspective. Or you’re not trying just be the devils advocate. In any of those scenarios you’d be open to listening and accepting opposing views. You’d be able to accept if someone says something that disapproves your theorem. Except you don’t. You’re incapable of that. If someone provides a valid rebuttal you find another thing that could make that void, increasingly becoming more and more farcical and illogical.

 

[Posh Red]

He probably is.

Or at least perhaps not more naturally 'intelligent', but certainly better educated (look at Sterling's social media posts as examples of that).

Are we going to start pretending Sterling is particularly bright now?

Just because he doesn't have the best spelling and grammar doesn't mean he's stupid, or 'an idiot' as the poster described him. And in my opinion Raheem's comparison between two news articles does demonstrate a certain level of intelligence. It's certainly got people talking and he presented his argument well.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

The definition of intelligence in the oxford dictionary is as follows:

“The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.”

Raheem Sterling is one of the best at his trade on the planet. He has quite clearly demonstrated a unique ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills in his trade.

I don’t know who the other poster is so can’t compare relatively. But in my eyes, it’s clearly apparent that Sterling is intelligent.

Whether he is uneducated or not bright, I don’t know.

And as a separate point, I have read through this thread. At first, I had sympathy of your view that some bits might not be outright down to racism. And I still do think that - that sometimes we say something is racist when it isn’t always the case (and I’m absolutely not saying that about these articles or about the Chelsea fan, which are clear evidence of racism). But as I read on, I realised that quite evidently you’re not here for a discussion or debate. And you’re not only providing another perspective. Or you’re not trying just be the devils advocate. In any of those scenarios you’d be open to listening and accepting opposing views. You’d be able to accept if someone says something that disapproves your theorem. Except you don’t. You’re incapable of that. If someone provides a valid rebuttal you find another thing that could make that void, increasingly becoming more and more farcical and illogical.

So all top level footballers are of exceptional intelligence? That's a strange way to define it. I would argue a lot of the sport is more down to muscle memory and athleticism, there are obviously tactical elements but I don't think you would have to be particularly intelligent if you were brought up your entire life playing the sport. There are plenty of athletes who aren't particularly intelligent.

Examples please? There are numerous points made in this thread which I have later said could be evidence of racism, in particular the story about his imaginary kids. I'd like to hear an example of something illogical that I've suggested.

 

[RoadTrip]

So all top level footballers are of exceptional intelligence? That's a strange way to define it. I would argue a lot of the sport is more down to muscle memory and athleticism, there are obviously tactical elements but I don't think you would have to be particularly intelligent if you were brought up your entire life playing the sport. There are plenty of athletes who aren't particularly intelligent.

Examples please? There are numerous points made in this thread which I have later said could be evidence of racism, in particular the story about his imaginary kids. I'd like to hear an example of something illogical that I've suggested.

In response to the first paragraph, yes. Every single professional footballer (up to a level) has exceptional intelligence. You simply have a stereotyped view of what intelligence is, which specific skills and knowledge fall into the definition of intelligence, and what it looks like.

In response to the second paragraph, I’m not going to trawl through and find examples. I don’t have the time. But, that was my observation of you and your posts. I don’t need to justify it. It’s an opinion, not a fact. So if you disagree (and I suspect you do, and do feel free too), then that’s all good.