RAWK Goes Into Meltdown (2011/2012)

Plechazunga said:
I also suspect that had the Suarez-Evra thing been the other way round, most on here would be peddling the same arguments about PC gone mad and the shades of meaning of 'negrito'.

You can see the same sort of thing in most racism threads, there's always a load of cretins saying, "I wouldn't care if someone called me 'whitey'" or "There's nothing racist about calling someone a black bastard if he is actually black".
Click to expand...
Completely disagree

I'd say the majority of people on here are able to criticise Rooney after all his stupid moments
 
From RAWK, responding to Sky's line Suarez refuses to apologise

Get off his case FFS.
Innocent man should not be forced to apologise - he stands by his belief, it reminds me of the Guildford 4 this

It's just ridiculous.
 
How do they not understand the need to apologise over the use of such a word regardless of the intentions when it's been shown to cause offence? Alan Hansen didn't hesitate when he made a lesser faux pas on MotD. Maybe they should sack King Kenny and put him in charge.

As it stands, Suarez is saying, 'Yes, I referred to Evra by the colour of his skin, but I don't care if he took offence'. That's the thought process of a racist, surely?
 
gerrydaly said:
From RAWK, responding to Sky's line Suarez refuses to apologise

Get off his case FFS.
Innocent man should not be forced to apologise - he stands by his belief, it reminds me of the Guildford 4 this

It's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

“Depending on who ends up in the wrong, one of us will have to apologise.”

:lol:
 
gerrydaly said:
From RAWK, responding to Sky's line Suarez refuses to apologise

Get off his case FFS.
Innocent man should not be forced to apologise - he stands by his belief, it reminds me of the Guildford 4 this

It's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It's actually rather disgusting.

I still prefer to laugh, though --

love:the:game@RAWK said:
Why was there not a statement from Yaya Toure to confirm Suarez’s previous use of the word ‘negro’ in a conciliatory sense, in another highly-competitive and ‘unfriendly’ situation?
[...]
And if that’s all the Commission were basing their judgement on, what qualifies men that read documents and summaries behind desks, settle contract disputes, arguing over fine points of civil law all day, to pass judgement on such highly subjective matters as witness demeanour and credibility. Where were the Sports Psychologists or Behavioural Experts? Someone to point out the fact that, when questioned about why he got kicked by Evra, it would’ve been extremely unlikely for Suarez to respond with “Because you are black” whilst shrugging his shoulders in the manner he did on TV, which is a very defensive gesture – and is much more in line with Suarez’s version of saying it was a normal foul. I’m no expert, but I’d imagine if you really wanted to hurt/wind up someone with a racist statement like that, your body language would be very different, instead of protesting innocence with a shoulder shrug you’d maybe point a finger, do it with a smirk, enjoy watching it land, maybe lean in and whisper it, etc.
Click to expand...
Luis Suarez - LFC Don't Appeal but Maintain Player's Innocence - Discussion ***
[my bolding]

Can 'previous use of the word ‘negro’ in a conciliatory sense' ever be topped? Doubt it. :lol:
 
Plechazunga said:
I also suspect that had the Suarez-Evra thing been the other way round, most on here would be peddling the same arguments about PC gone mad and the shades of meaning of 'negrito'.

You can see the same sort of thing in most racism threads, there's always a load of cretins saying, "I wouldn't care if someone called me 'whitey'" or "There's nothing racist about calling someone a black bastard if he is actually black".
Click to expand...

I suspect you would be wrong , well in my case anyway.
If any player of ours was found Guilty of racist abuse to another player , I would want him out of the club.
Even more so if the said player had also been found out to be lying about it.
 
Plechazunga said:
I also suspect that had the Suarez-Evra thing been the other way round, most on here would be peddling the same arguments about PC gone mad and the shades of meaning of 'negrito'.

You can see the same sort of thing in most racism threads, there's always a load of cretins saying, "I wouldn't care if someone called me 'whitey'" or "There's nothing racist about calling someone a black bastard if he is actually black".
Click to expand...

I disagree. This place has far more objectivity and sense IMO in general than RAWK. No comparison.
 
buckooo1978 said:
Completely disagree

I'd say the majority of people on here are able to criticise Rooney after all his stupid moments
Click to expand...

Varies, I'd. I think the majority thought a 2-game ban for "Whatfeckingwhatgate" was harsh, though there was definite disagreement there, whereas I don't think too many people thought he didn't deserve a ban for kicking that lad in Montenegro.
 
Plechazunga said:
I also suspect that had the Suarez-Evra thing been the other way round, most on here would be peddling the same arguments about PC gone mad and the shades of meaning of 'negrito'.

You can see the same sort of thing in most racism threads, there's always a load of cretins saying, "I wouldn't care if someone called me 'whitey'" or "There's nothing racist about calling someone a black bastard if he is actually black".
Click to expand...

So all people are the same and will react the same way? There would probably be a few but I dont think it would be tolerated on here. As others have said, think a good amount of posters on here have enough sense not to subject to that kind of behavior.

These type of arguments are a bit weak in the sense that you assume that one group of people will react the same as another. For the fans that subject themselves to tribalism, I think it highly depends on the action of the club as we've seen in this case. If Liverpool actually did the sensible thing, I dont think we'd be seeing these comments like we are now.
 
Plechazunga said:
I also suspect that had the Suarez-Evra thing been the other way round, most on here would be peddling the same arguments about PC gone mad and the shades of meaning of 'negrito'.
Click to expand...
I just discovered that you said most, not some, so I'll have to jump on the 'The Caf isn't that bad!' bandwagon.

I just can not agree the majority of Caftards are the kind of knuckle-dragging Daily Mail reading tinfoilhatters you're describing here. I suspect you've spent too much time in the Current Events forum. Never forget that even if a board (any board) has 0.01% nutters, they'll always dominate any kind of CE sub-forum.

Back on topic --

index.php
 
It's a lot of factors involved. How the club reacts, yes. But the group of people do matter as well. Actually, the culture those people are set in. The way this place is run is fantastic and it sets the tone for the kind of discussion that is encouraged/discouraged.
 
I found the wording of this unintentionally hilarious...Since they've waffled on so long they're now using "racism" as short hand for "anti-racism"

Fundamentallly, truth and integrity are even more important than Racism ... Without those being properly observed everything else becomes diluted and decomposes.
Click to expand...

Come on guys, it's all good fun being racist, but the truth is more important.
 
What I still don't get is how this whole event has increased Liverpool supporters respect for the guy, he's been quite poor this season but because he (accidentally or not) racially offended and stood by it he's now an icon. For what exactly?
 
Mockney said:
I found the wording of this unintentionally hilarious...Since they've waffled on so long they're now using "racism" as short hand for "anti-racism"



Come on guys, it's all good fun being racist, but the truth is more important.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Good spot.
 
A constant throughout the last few weeks or so is Terry's case being brought up a lot and how if Terry is found guilty in court it'll be all swept under the carpet by the FA and they won't do anything else.

Seriously. I know we think that Terry gets preferential treatment by the FA etc but I think most know that it wouldn't be left at the court punishing him and no pitch ban/removal of captains armband or whatever.
 
So, the mods of RAWK ban rawkites who don't support Suarez right? Awww, they created their own little utopia.

Their tagline is possibly right though: Suarez is not a racist, but he did in fact said something racist.

Another thing, Suarez is found guilty and, in Dalglish own words, he should apologize to Evra.
 
TheBombardier/RAWK said:
Delighted with the statements from Luis and Kenny. The club and players are absolutely correct to stand by Luis in the face of unjustified, exaggerated and unproven allegations and the unprecedented hysteria and witch hunt instigated by the Manc-loving media. Not one media pundit has dared to contemplate that Luis might actually be innocent although perhaps niaive. The player's union have a duty to protect players who have had allegations made against them and should'nt automatically assume guilt.

Anyway, what a monumental miscalculation by Ferguson in encouraging the French slime ball Evra to pursue his allegation and brilliant tactical move by Kenny in refusing to appeal. The result, Luis missed the Man City game and Man City proceeded to win 3-0. Had Suarez been playing the result could have been different. Furthermore, Suarez will make his return for the Man Utd game having effectively been rested for 8 games. What price Suarez to get the winner at Old Trafford on his return?
Click to expand...

facepalm.gif


Yeah, what a miscalculation indeed. They just don't get it...

Has been quite a few though saying that Suarez/the club should do another statement apologising for any offence caused as it'd take some heat off Liverpool, but the damage has already been done pretty much.
 
And one more before I watch the match:

Red Beret/RAWK said:
I remember reading a comment a few days ago; pointed out that whilst your average moronic fan has been booing Suarez non stop he's had no stick at all from rival players on the field on this. Just made me wonder what this might do to Evra's reputation long term and whether he might come off worse for it.

As for the press digging dirt on LFC being racist, bring the tw@ts on.
Click to expand...
 
I didn't think anything would ever top the shite that forum used to spout about Benitez but I was wrong. The nonsense they come out with is beyond belief. If my club handled a racism case in this manner I'd be totally embarrassed, but they just react to it with the same misplaced pride and bombastic bullshit they react to everything with. Goons.
 
It all just reminds me of religious apologists. They have their beliefs, which will not be changed no matter what, and they mould the facts to fit their narrative. As soon as you say something that contradicts their beliefs, they immediately defend them. No "shit, maybe you're right" moments of clarity from them. Just more backtracking and re-drawing of borders, then tin hats on and rifles at the ready.
 
Dont know where to begin with this one:

To be fair- and I cannot believe I'm saying this about a Daily Mail article- he does point out that that Evra's allegations remain uncorroborated. That's a small plus in a world where the fecal stench of lies insisting that a smoking gun was under the pillow, with Suarez's guilt irrefutable have risen like creamed semen to the top of the glass.
Click to expand...
:wenger:
 
They are currently harassing people on twitter (Ollie Holt among others) and finishing their posts with "...and they haven't replied yet" as though the people they are bothering have been stunned into silence by the scouse logic/video of Evra/picture of a chocolate bar/Diane Abbott story they have just tweeted to them.
 
It's fun making the deluded fans on twitter squirm

I made a Liverpool fan earlier admit that yes he thinks it's ok to make a skin colour reference to a black person during an argument.

His argument was that if you didn't mean it in a malicious way, it was fine.

He also said a black person had no right to be offended by a skin colour reference during an argument if the skin colour reference was not meant to be malicious.

When I pulled him up for deciding what black people should and shouldn't find offensive, he started out of nowhere pretending to be black. :lol:

Until his recent images link on his profile turned up a picture of him at a football match. Safe to say definitely not black. Very much white.

I don't even bother debating with them, I just like to break down for them exactly what they're saying and make them admit it to themselves. Then they can live with it.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
:lol: Pulled a TMRD. Link?
Click to expand...

I'd like to keep myself anonymous, thank you. ;)

I might put a transcript up of some of the best bits.

I've got him in a bit of a pickle now.

His basic argument is that because negro isn't offensive in its common Spanish meaning then it's ok to refer to a black person as it during an argument.

I've asked him if using that same logic, it's ok to refer to a black person as monkey during an argument, being as its common meaning isn't offensive.

He is really struggling to answer. Keeps changing tac and being evasive. I mean it's a pretty simple question with a pretty straightforward answer (by no means an argument winner), but he's tied himself in so many knots that he's starting to doubt himself and can't even answer a question like that for fear of tying himself up further.

FWIW, I don't think this guy is racist, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time. I just think he's really naive and needs to see the error of his ways.
 
I've had to get this off me chest... couldn't sleep, so wrote it in the early hours. It's littered with innaccuracies, but I hope, no more so than the National Press and TalkShite has done to us.

I feel better now, got all my rage out :P


A LETTER OF THANKS

Dear Football Association,

Many thanks for your 115 pages of bumf. We really enjoyed poring through that on New Year's Eve. Splendidly timed to be glossed over by the Media Hacks (whoops no, it wouldn't have been them now would it on NYE?) I'm sure you didn't intend such a weighty and important landmark ruling to be left to the Office Juniors to skim through...taking the first page and then the Conclusions and Blackberrying the highly subjective bullet points to the Seniors....

....still, what does it matter, eh? You'd already released your judgement right in time for the Xmas news vacuum, so that by the time the aforementioned 115 page bumf was released, the faux moralising, xenophobic English media had hung, drawn and quartered Mr Suarez without recourse as to how you actually came by that judgement.

Oh, you've always done it that way you say? That's OK then. It never crossed your minds that this ground-breaking judgement might have needed a little more care in it's release?

Those of us who have stood back a little - indeed those of us who DID read the 115 page report - which excludes 95% of the English Media - going by their published ignorance on the subject - have noticed that there are several, nay, many inconsistencies in your hallowed judgement. They're there for all to see, if they take off the blinkers provided by every National Newspaper since the charge against Suarez was made.

But of course you got away with it didn't you? Your 'Independent' Panel - nice touch that - Independent, it really sounds sort of unbiased, completely disinterested - but of course, selected by you, the FA, was absolutely under no pressure at all to make an example, was it? Nice touch that other rule that once a judgement is found, it cannot be overturned on Appeal, just the length of ban can be altered, love it!

There was surely no background coercion to make absolutely sure that the Civil Court 'Balance of Probability' found against Mr Suarez. Mighty handy indeed was it that the Criminal Court proof of 'Beyond reasonable doubt' wasn't necessary here.

The er, 'Independent Panel' was of course NEVER pressed to find in favour of Mr Evra - a gentleman of whom it was stated at a previous FA hearing over his bad-tempered incident at Stamford Bridge to be an 'unreliable witness' - in order to facilitate a huge raspberry to the magnificently senile Mr Sepp Blatter of FIFA - you remember him, the scheming England hater and cause of National embarrassment over the failed World Cup bid.

You'll never forget the hideously ignominious walk from the Voting Room that night, unable to look the the triumphally traitorous delegates of other nations in the eye, will you? Revenge has burned deeply, the scars have still not healed.

Not for one moment do we believe that you had to avoid - at all costs - further embarrassment in front of Mr Blatter, the famously ham-fisted, mendacious apologist for racism in football when your own highly regarded and much vaunted former head of the Commission of Racial Equality, the magnificent Lord Herman Ouseley, implicitly threatened to resign from the FA Council unless stronger measures were taken against racism in English football in order to keep 'the momentum' up in the avowed fight.

We also don't believe for a minute that Lord Ouseley had any conflict of interest whatsoever in pressing for a favourable verdict on Mr Evra, considering he only sits on the Board of Manchester United's Charitable Foundation alongside such a luminary as Eamonn Holmes.

No, we believe you were essentially fair-minded in allowing Mr Evra several meetings with the FA to view the videos of the incident before the Hearing so that he would sound er, 'convincing', when it came to give his submission, whilst denying Mr Suarez the same opportunity so that he indeed did seem 'inconsistent' when giving his testimony to the Panel.

We agreed that you were completely right to expunge the part of the testimony of Mr Hernandez where he alluded to the fact that he and all the other Manchester United Spanish-speaking team mates regularly referred to Mr Evra in conversation with him as 'negro' - due to him not being an 'expert witness'.

We were also heartened to see that you were scathing over the testimony of both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt for their misunderstanding of the use of the term 'negro' in colloquial Spanish, whereas you bent over backwards to justify the misunderstanding of Mr Suarez' use of the word 'negro' by Mr Evra.

We were also pleased to see that you were entirely accommodating to Mr Evra as regards the number of times the actual word 'negro' was used. Though he claimed Mr Suarez called him 'negro' 10 times in his post match interview with Canal +, then changed it to 5 times, you managed to settle on 7 times between you, despite the 'unreliable' Mr Suarez admitting to using the word once in an interview with Uruguayan television.

Of course, the fact that if he'd felt guilty about the word's use, he would have denied saying it at all, just like that nice Mr Emre of Newcastle United did in a previous hearing so that the case against him was not proven.

So really, we just have to say 'Thanks' for polarizing most of the Country's opinion against Mr Suarez and by extension, Mr Dalglish ensuring that wherever Suarez goes in future he will be known as a racist - probably the most bitter and shameful description of a man possible in this day and age.

We know both you and Mr Evra said he wasn't a racist, but hey, you know what folk are like, it'll stick. We realise you had a higher motive that got hideously blurred somewhere along the lines and we realise that sometimes some poor sod has to be crushed under the wheels of the Anti-Racism Artillery's onward dash, sorry, 'Momentum'.

We just feel that the whole process has been undignified, dirty and highly subjective rather than objective and there are millions of uncomprehending folk in Latin America who feel the same.

Justice has not been blind here, it's been myopic, but thanks anyway.

Best wishes,

The Red half of the 'Managed Decline' City.

PS Say 'Hi' from us to 'Brave' John Terry, the England Captain and remind him how lucky he is to be arraigned before a Criminal Court where the burden of proof is considerably higher than the 'balance of probability' and the fact that being sub judice, no comment can be made on his case...
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
But of course you got away with it didn't you? Your 'Independent' Panel - nice touch that - Independent, it really sounds sort of unbiased, completely disinterested - but of course, selected by you, the FA, [...]
Click to expand...
Still failing to realise that their own club accepted the panel. Would be silly to let facts get in the way when you're ranting of course, as there would be nothing to write long posts about then.
 
How the author sees himself whilst writing that letter:

leslie2.jpg


How he actually appears:

2.gif
 
I bet the FA are reading that now, and reconsidering their verdict. Soon, they'll declare Suarez Man of the Year, and will retrospectively award Liverpool another League title to counteract all those crooked refs' decisions & so thwart the evil of Mr Alex Ferguson. King Kenny will abdicate, and retire to a well-deserved stay in his local. The newly-annointed King Rafa will be carried on the shoulders of the masses, back to his throne made of stats, and all will be well in the Republic of Scouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.