Sam Kerr allegations

moses said:
It's a woman thing. Backed up by sexual.assualt stats.
Click to expand...
See now I agree with this, but the problem I have with this from a political standpoint is that the are other aspects of the political landscape backed up by stats equally as damming that if mentioned are either shut down or whataboutery is raised.

I believe that in order to have a fair and ultimately equal soceity one must always follow the statistics even if they are prejudiced and unfair.

Unfortunately this is where a lot of people subscribe to the culture wars by willfully ignoring statistics in politics that are considered not appropriate to mention.

It's ludicrous to suggest men have equal to fear, but that has to be followed throughout soceity not just when you can rail against a subject that is currently accepted in online politics.
 
SER19 said:
What is this post? Access to notes? What are you talking about. And secondly, if you're making a 'calculated comment on my posting history' completely unprompted (you engaged me) then is this the forum for it. Do you have a message you want to send me privately or is this some sort of performative show for the forum? Completely bizarre exchange this has been.
Click to expand...

No. From the outset I asked of you had previous issues with women in football. You said you weren't answering and leaving the thread. So I checked. And I was right.

You decided that was hysterical. I just pointed out that it wasn't. I think posting history is relevant in certain topics.
 
moses said:
No. From the outset I asked of you had previous issues with women in football. You said you weren't answering and leaning the thread. So I checked. And I was right.

You decide that was hysterical. I just pointed out that it wasn't. I think posting history is relevant in certain topics.
Click to expand...

You're totally derailing the thread here. I said you were hysterical to say something about 'awful women everywhere' - such a bizarre post. (disingenuous post too) Then followed up with some insinuation about 'we' who 'have access to notes'. Really really strange id recommend cooling off on this for a day and if you want to message me about something after please feel welcome to. There's a very strange personal edge to this and I don't want to continue it in a thread others are trying to read
 
Red Star One said:
I think it's not my fecking business to decide or debate on this and I don't waste time sorting my friends in categories "race A, race B", I'm just accepting their identity and that's it. Like I have a good friend here that's half northern Italian half Ivorian, born in Spain. He identifies himself as Spanish, Italian, European, Ivorian, Western African, black (but not fully), white (but not fully) and mixed race all at the same time. Does it seem a little bit overwhelming and confusing for me? Yes, maybe. Am I really in position to debate this or categorize him myself? Not at all, he's my friend - not my black friend, not my white friend, not my mixed race friend.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, but it is a complex issue for a lot of mixed race people. Especially while they grow and carve out their identity. Like you I think people can present their ethnicity how they see fit, but ideally you want to be able to associate with or relate to, all parts of your racial makeup.
 
moses said:
Just an aside. As an avid reader of history and a big fan its relevance, I find the dismissing of the late 2010's mindset as hilarious.
Click to expand...
History existed and cannot be changed, the only thing that can be changed is the future. Creating resentment or any inequality creates a divide that will ultimately result in a swing in the political spectrum as already seen around the world.

It might seem well meaning and relevant but it is absolutely detrimental long term no matter how 'hilarious' it may seem.

I've fought the rise of social media culture wars online for the best part of 12 years now, I said back before Brexit that it will bring about the degrading of soceity and I stand by that.

I am aware of the irony of appearing on social media in order to decry it... But nowadays there are few other platforms.
 
SER19 said:
You're totally derailing the thread here. I said you were hysterical to say something about 'awful women everywhere' - such a bizarre post. (disingenuous post too) Then followed up with some insinuation about 'we' who 'have access to notes'. Really really strange id recommend cooling off on this for a day and if you want to message me about something after please feel welcome to. There's a very strange personal edge to this and I don't want to continue it in a thread others are trying to read
Click to expand...

Not derailing at all. All very relevant considering your strong opinions in this thread.

And yes, when I was looking back at your posting history to see if you were who I remembered, there are user notes.

I don't see how any of this is strange. You posted some pretty strong and in my opinion quite disagreeable opinions in this thread. There is always a reaction to posting of that nature.
 
moses said:
Not derailing at all. All very relevant considering your stirring opinions in this thread.

And yes, when I was looking back at your posting history to see if you were who I remembered, there are user notes.

I don't see how any of this is strange. You posted some pretty strong and in my opinion quite disagreeable opinions in this thread. There is always a reaction to posting of that nature.
Click to expand...
my mod notes must be a madness :o
 
SER19 said:
You're totally derailing the thread here. I said you were hysterical to say something about 'awful women everywhere' - such a bizarre post. (disingenuous post too) Then followed up with some insinuation about 'we' who 'have access to notes'. Really really strange id recommend cooling off on this for a day and if you want to message me about something after please feel welcome to. There's a very strange personal edge to this and I don't want to continue it in a thread others are trying to read
Click to expand...
As mods, when we see someone posting bizarre takes, we obviously have an additional interest, beyond just discussing the topic. It's been pointed out many times that there is a moderation section of poster profiles where we can leave notes. They show that this is your usual perspective when the subject concerns women. Yes, that's personal, but also relevant, cause it provides important context to your posts in this thread.
 
moses said:
Just checked. None, not one. :lol: bizarre.



You just have a load of warnings. I think you've been here a long time and the mods try to argue it put with you. And then give you the warning.

Now we are derailing the thread!
Click to expand...
Fair enough :lol:
 
Cheimoon said:
As mods, when we see someone posting bizarre takes, we obviously have an additional interest, beyond just discussing the topic. It's been pointed out many times that there is a moderation section of poster profiles where we can leave notes. They show that this is your usual perspective when the subject concerns women. Yes, that's personal, but also relevant, cause it provides important context to your posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
You'll need to set up a working party to decide what sort of 'ists to label in this thread as nobody seems to be clear on what they hate and why.
 
moses said:
Not derailing at all. All very relevant considering your stirring opinions in this thread.

And yes, when I was looking back at your posting history to see if you were who I remembered, there are user notes.

I don't see how any of this is strange. You posted some pretty strong and in my opinion quite disagreeable opinions in this thread. There is always a reaction to posting of that nature.
Click to expand...
Cheimoon said:
As mods, when we see someone posting bizarre takes, we obviously have an additional interest, beyond just discussing the topic. It's been pointed out many times that there is a moderation section of poster profiles where we can leave notes. They show that this is your usual perspective when the subject concerns women. Yes, that's personal, but also relevant, cause it provides important context to your posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about women's football. It was about a criminal trial, and i felt kerr shouldn't have been charged and as said as much. I said the officer should have let it go but that her other conduct was vile and disgusting. There is absolutely nothing in here that I said that isn't paraphrased by at least a couple of other users. Id say the exact same if it was John Terry or Luis Suarez
 
Tarrou said:
must be wild being famous and your drunken stupidity turns into this much mess
Click to expand...
Yes, but knowing it's a possibility means you should manage things a bit better. Have a driver organised. It is dearer but discretion is part of the deal.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
Is it a small error when you're entire point was made whilst thinking she was black and whataboutism?

Your point had nothing to do with her or this thread, and everything to do with you wanting to get something of your chest in a thread you initially thought was appropriate.

I don't think it's a small error at all, you've just been called out.
Click to expand...

I have clearly said I didn't think she was black in the post you are replying to but thats obviously going to be completely ignored because otherwise perhaps, just perhaps you are making absolutely no point other than to try and argue and suggest that my point was something that it wasn't. Much easier to decide my opinions based on vagaries than what I have explicitly told you since you "called me out". You truly are doing gods work out there. Anyway, continue the good fight ;)
 
Wibble said:
None of them have dark skin in the way Sam Kerr does even though most people you may well consider that they may not have solely Anglo heritage. If it has never occurred to you that Sam Kerr has significant non-anglo heritage I refer you to a Specsavers advert.
Click to expand...

Even with Mediterranean heritage she would still be white. ‘White’ in 2025 doesn’t just encompass those of Anglo heritage, she looks like a white woman with a tan to me.
 
Righteous Steps said:
Even with Mediterranean heritage she would still be white. ‘White’ in 2025 doesn’t just encompass those of Anglo heritage, she looks like a white woman with a tan to me.
Click to expand...

I also thought she was white but I was wrong.

She's talked (way before this whole situation) about being picked on at school because she is part Indian. Being bullied by white people because you aren't white enough and then being told "you're white" by you or me must be exhausting.
 
I think this is a cut and dry case for racism. If you refer to someone's skin color or ethnicity in a negative way, you're being racist. The John Terry and Anton Ferdinand case is a clear example of this. John Terry referred to him as a "black cnut" . It was the black that did him in. Had he just called him a cnut, we would've never heard about it, it was the fact that he brought his colour into the fight that made it racist.

The argument that the cop wasn't offended by it or didn't report it doesn't absolve it of being racist. I'm Chinese and sometimes my friends make jokes. While it doesn't bother me because i know they care about me, it's still racist.
 
Righteous Steps said:
Even with Mediterranean heritage she would still be white. ‘White’ in 2025 doesn’t just encompass those of Anglo heritage, she looks like a white woman with a tan to me.
Click to expand...

She looks largely white but I would never think she wasn't mixed race based on her facial features/structure. Based on her nationality I assumed Aboriginal. I think mixed race is so common these days that we are so used to seeing people who are a mix that is a few generations old ie. less obvious because its a grandparent that introduced it. Its easy to only think of someone as mixed race if they look more 50:50 rather than 80:20 etc.
 
McTerminator said:
And? Your own race doesn’t factor in the definition of racism.
Click to expand...

That's not the point that you made, here is what you said.
McTerminator said:
Have to say think it’s wrong and a double standard that she was cleared.

What she said was racist.

While I would agree it was in heated circumstances and wasn’t particularly vitriolic, that isn’t the standard applied to a white person making a similar comment about another race so I don’t see this result as just.
Click to expand...
 
afrocentricity said:
Does that mean she is not white? I tell my mixed race children they are both black and Mediterranean...
Click to expand...

it's a fair point, although in her case during the court proceedings she described herself as 'Anglo-Indian'. given her description of the officer as a 'white privileged man', on top of her accounts of discrimination and racism growing up in Australia, I think it's fair to say she doesn't consider herself a white person.
 
duffer said:
I also thought she was white but I was wrong.

She's talked (way before this whole situation) about being picked on at school because she is part Indian. Being bullied by white people because you aren't white enough and then being told "you're white" by you or me must be exhausting.
Click to expand...

Colorism is definitely a thing but her heritage is largely European. The same thing happen to people in southern Europe and frankly pretty much everywhere.
 
stepic said:
it's a fair point, although in her case during the court proceedings she described herself as 'Anglo-Indian'. given her description of the officer as a 'white privileged man', on top of her accounts of discrimination and racism growing up in Australia, I think it's fair to say she doesn't consider herself a white person.
Click to expand...
I hear ya
 
JPRouve said:
That's not the point that you made, here is what you said.
Click to expand...
Sure, but her colour is irrelevant to whether her words are racist so my perception of her and your original reply are irrelevant too.

Even if it did, as other posters have since pointed out, it appears she doesn’t view herself as white in any event.
 
McTerminator said:
Sure, but her colour is irrelevant to whether her words are racist so my perception of her and your original reply are irrelevant too.

Even if it did, as other posters have since pointed out, it appears she doesn’t view herself as white in any event.
Click to expand...

Again that's not the point you made. And it's also worth mentioning that the judgement wasn't about whether her statement was racist or not but whether she harassed someone or not. And that judgement has nothing to do with the fact that she is a predominantly white, Anglo-indian lesbian woman. Her actions simply don't quality as harassment, therefore it can't be racially aggravated harassment.

Also it's important to mention that minorities are generally sentenced more harshly, so your point should be a non starter.
 
JPRouve said:
Again that's not the point you made. And it's also worth mentioning that the judgement wasn't about whether her statement was racist or not but whether she harassed someone or not. And that judgement has nothing to do with the fact that she is a predominantly white, Anglo-indian lesbian woman. Her actions simply don't quality as harassment, therefore it can't be racially aggravated harassment.

Also it's important to mention that minorities are generally sentenced more harshly, so your point should be a non starter.
Click to expand...
Fair point and I can’t disagree there.

However, using a person’s whiteness as an insult is still racist and I find it disappointing that it is being treated as a non-event which I struggle to believe would be the case if it were a similar incident targeting someone’s blackness.

Edit: I am thinking of the recent incident with Cavani for example
 
mctrials23 said:
"Yes I called him stupid and white but I wasn't insulting the colour of his skin"

The mind boggles. Of course you were. The bullshit idea that racist is only present in certain directions is utterly bonkers. Black people are massively racist as much as white people and every other race. Just because you have a been an oppressed minority doesn't mean you aren't being racist when you use the colour of someones skin to insult them.
Click to expand...

mctrials23 said:
I have clearly said I didn't think she was black in the post you are replying to but thats obviously going to be completely ignored because otherwise perhaps, just perhaps you are making absolutely no point other than to try and argue and suggest that my point was something that it wasn't. Much easier to decide my opinions based on vagaries than what I have explicitly told you since you "called me out". You truly are doing gods work out there. Anyway, continue the good fight ;)
Click to expand...
Floors yours. What did literally anything you initially said have to do with Sam kerr, a dominantly white mixed raced woman with no black in her, calling a police officer white.
 
McTerminator said:
Fair point and I can’t disagree there.

However, using a person’s whiteness as an insult is still racist and I find it disappointing that it is being treated as a non-event which I struggle to believe would be the case if it were a similar incident targeting someone’s blackness.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, it can also be a descriptor and people often do it when they insult someone. If in an argument I say "You tall basterd", the insult is basterd not tall and I'm not being heightist. Now I won't definitely state that what she said was or wasn't racially motivated but I suspect that she simply went with the perfectly usual insult tactic which is to describe the target and add curse words.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
Floors yours. What did literally anything you initially said have to do with Sam kerr, a dominantly white mixed raced woman with no black in her, calling a police officer white.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ I really need to spell it out for you.

"Black people are massively racist as much as white people and every other race."

People had been claiming that you can't be racist against white people or that racism is a white people only issue.

"Sam kerr, a dominantly white mixed raced woman with no black in her, calling a police officer white."

Now correct me if I am wrong here, but most people when they are using race to insult someone tend to only do it when they consider themselves a different race to the person they are insulting. Calling someone "stupid and white" probably means that she doesn't consider herself white despite the fact she largely is.

So if we follow this train of thought. My very very simple point is that people, no matter their race, can be racist. In the UK and US which makes up most of our cultural reference point, the vast majority of talk around racism centres around black people. Again, hence "Black people are massively racist as much as white people and every other race."

I really really hope this has cleared up what was a very short and basic comment that you have somehow fixated on despite plenty of other posts talking in non-specific and even general points about race relations etc. If it hasn't then I give up and i'm out. Think what you will.
 
So what is take from this thread is Sam Kerr's ethnicity has bamboozled the caf, so much so that she has transcended race by, ironically, being racist.
 
JPRouve said:
Not necessarily, it can also be a descriptor and people often do it when they insult someone. If in an argument I say "You tall basterd", the insult is basterd not tall and I'm not being heightist. Now I won't definitely state that what she said was or wasn't racially motivated but I suspect that she simply went with the perfectly usual insult tactic which is to describe the target and add curse words.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right, but I’m not sure that argument gets paid any heed in different circumstances (again Cavani).

Safest to avoid those descriptors for everyone.
 
McTerminator said:
However, using a person’s whiteness as an insult is still racist and I find it disappointing that it is being treated as a non-event which I struggle to believe would be the case if it were a similar incident targeting someone’s blackness.
Click to expand...

if you read the transcript, her initial description of him being a 'white privileged man' was because he could not empathise with their situation, he couldn't believe they could actually be frightened about being locked in a car by a taxi driver and not let out. he couldn't empathise, in her eyes, because white men like him do not face the same fears and anxieties as women, particularly women of colour. being a white man is still a position of privilege in society, even though it shouldn't be.
 
JPRouve said:
Not necessarily, it can also be a descriptor and people often do it when they insult someone. If in an argument I say "You tall basterd", the insult is basterd not tall and I'm not being heightist. Now I won't definitely state that what she said was or wasn't racially motivated but I suspect that she simply went with the perfectly usual insult tactic which is to describe the target and add curse words.
Click to expand...
I don’t have much of an opinion on this whole situation, but that seems a very odd way to interpret the insult, to me.
 
It's shocking that she was acquitted.

Had the colour of the involved parties and the ethnic reference of the insult been transposed, there is no way in hell the perpretrator gets off.
 
JPRouve said:
If in an argument I say "You tall basterd", the insult is basterd not tall and I'm not being heightist.
Click to expand...

I would say...no, it's very much the other way around.

"Bastard" is a generic insult. What could potentially hurt the individual in question is obviously the "tall" part, not the "bastard" part.

Unless I've misunderstood something here (and that is entirely possible) - no, you are being "heightist"...or whatever you want to call it: you're suggesting that the person's height is something negative, clearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.