You`re making sense and that can`t be tolerated. Have a view that you explain and give examples of why you have that view and it`s a `vendetta` now. Apparently.
Sam Kerr | Found not guilty of racially aggravated harassment
- Thread starter ryansgirl
- Start date
- Status
Right. So he got vilified in the English media (as the England captain, in England, in a far more popular sport) , and banned for games, by the FA.
In terms of the direct comparison. They both got taken to court. They both got found not guilty.
It’s fascinating the absolute surface level take these opinions are. You clearly haven’t read into the details of this case at all, listened to what she had to say, understood on what basis she was found not guilty, or even bothered to listen or reply to the many, many posts in this thread which have explained why these takes, and others like it, are so basic and incorrect.
I can only assume this is just out of spite or laziness rather than incompetence.
So she wasn't caught in camera bringing a police officers race into the equation then?
Because I could have sworn she did?
At that point, whether she felt like she wasn't being listened too, or if she felt intimidated by the officer, there's zero excuse to bring race into the equation, especially on a derogatory manner, which is most definitely the case here.
The many posts on here almost defending this behaviour are doing so on a basis of how they believe Kerr was feeling at that point, no one knows how she was feeling at that point, but one thing is for sure, she was drunk and using race in a manner that befits that of someone's drunk grandma reminiscing about how 'things were in her day'.
There's a reason she hired more PR gurus during this trial....
Embarrassing all round, and will be very interesting to see how her sponsors handle the fallout.
I agree that the charge was ridiculous for what it actually was,
For a start she isn't black, she's just as much white as she is Indian, and she also has some fillipino lineage, so it would almost be like me saying it, with some alter ethnicity down the line.
However, that's where the agreement ends, and I'm not sure there is much room for accusing others of ignorance, spite or. laziness when you have pointlessly posted quote a few poor takes. Such as this.
'won’t people think of the poor white people living in a predominantly white country! oh the horrors we face!'
In fact a lot of your posts on this matter have been in a similar vein.
Do you realise how unhelpful this kind of thing is? You think this is helpful, logical or productive line of thinking? It feeds into the very heart of the far right, creates social divides, and stokes the fires of the culture wars.
Its puerile, unhelpful, and belongs in the past.
you’re just repeating your complete non-understanding of everything that took place. Have you even read anything about this case?
It may help actually reading before commenting, here’s one but there’s been many others in here from other posters trying to explain:
Given she was found, again - not guilty - her sponsors are not going to care at all and she will be back playing within a month, as she should be.
firstly, utterly irrelevant whether she's black or not? weird comment. the point is she isn't white.
and secondly, no, acknowledging one's own white privilege in a white society is not puerile, unhelpful or belonging in the past. do you think white people have it tougher than others, tougher than black people have it in the USA? tougher than brown immigrants have it moving here in an increasingly racist UK? you seem to be another in a long list of people who have missed the point completely.
Champ wrote of Sam Kerr`s attitude and behaviour `....one thing is for sure, she was drunk and using race in a manner that befits that of someone`s drunk grandma reminiscing of `how things were in her day` `.
You nailed it perfectly, the contradiction of Sam`s approach in playing the victim in this case and defending offensive. regressive words and behaviour and somehow those she affected and insulted are all to blame because apparently it`s self evident she should get a pass.
You nailed it perfectly, the contradiction of Sam`s approach in playing the victim in this case and defending offensive. regressive words and behaviour and somehow those she affected and insulted are all to blame because apparently it`s self evident she should get a pass.
Yep, I was responding to what she was charged with which was racially aggravated harassment. She was not charged with saying something racist and nobody is arguing that she did not but people keep popping up in this thread who clearly haven’t actually bothered reading up on the case at all.
No, I have read about the case, and I know full well the details she gave as to why she brought in race into the equation. I do like that the only comeback you have is to insinuate that I know nothing of the case, when I probably know the exact same information as your good self.
However, This doesn't equate however to her using the term 'stupid and white'...
Perhaps using the term 'male' and 'privileged' might have been better?
Using race in any negative context does not have excuses, and is in this context racist, there's no two ways about it.
And yes, I am very sure her sponsors will care, any headlines like these are bound to carry over consequences.
I mean there's plenty of players who have been found not guilty of allegations yet haven't had the same career trajectory after those came to light ....
its kinda interesting watching some of you losing your shit about racism, while showing no empathy towards people who experience racism......
that isn't a 'comeback', it's me giving you the opportunity to excuse yourself for having such a shitty misread of the entire case. but i guess you just have an incredibly shitty reading of the entire case.
given you have apparently read the case, you'll know that she did call him a 'white privileged male' earlier in the transcript. if you knew that, that may have been a significant clue for you about her intended usage of the word 'white'. but no, you have bizarrely maintained the act of calling out white privilege is racism, even after the court ruling.
good grief.and no, she literally hasn't lost any sponsors.
It is racism, near enough every article, newspeak or conversation around the case is pretty much in agreement with this.that isn't a 'comeback', it's me giving you the opportunity to excuse yourself for having such a shitty misread of the entire case. but i guess you just have an incredibly shitty reading of the entire case.
given you have apparently read the case, you'll know that she did call him a 'white privileged male' earlier in the transcript. if you knew that, that may have been a significant clue for you about her intended usage of the word 'white'. but no, you have bizarrely maintained the act of calling out white privilege is racism, even after the court ruling.
and no, she literally hasn't lost any sponsors.
The fact that Kerr got off the charge is more to do with the legal aspect rather than no actual racism taking place, that's hard to dispute but I'm sure you'll try for whatever reason.
Why then did she feel the need to bring race into this at all?
It's plain and simple, she's in the wrong, she made a huge error, she was lucky to get away with it, and she's had to apologise to her teammates and to the public (seems strange to apologise for not doing anything wrong eh but there you go!?)
And no she hasn't lost sponsors yet, but there's a very good chance she will.
given you are clearly incapable of digesting anything anyone is telling you, and continue to just repeat one falsehood after another, i'll be ignoring you now.
That's racist.
This debate is boring.
She and her partner were dicks. The taxi driver was a dick. The policeman was a dick. It’s a bit of a storm in a teacup and no one comes out of it looking good.
She and her partner were dicks. The taxi driver was a dick. The policeman was a dick. It’s a bit of a storm in a teacup and no one comes out of it looking good.
If any of the concerned parties had realized that in the hours following the incidents, it would have never been a big story. We have all been idiots at some point, own it and move on.
Do I think white people have it tougher than others. No. I
Do I think white people have it tougher than black people in the USA. No.
I mean even if I thought it was equal, which l don't, I never claimed they had it tougher.
The problem is exactly as I said and as you claimed of the other poster, you look at it far too simplistic.. You think about yourself, your needs, your thoughts, your desires, your privilege and cannot grasp that other people exist, and have their own lives needs thoughts and desires.
You think that the answer to rectify this is to universally and rudely give more privilege or justice the other way in order to counteract this power difference. It isn't.
All you are doing is creating a larger divide, resentment amongst the vast majority of white people who are not nuanced in social issues and only care about their basics. Because you feel privileged doesn't mean they do, and when people have it tough and read something like what you wrote ( not me Im aware of my own privilege in soceity even though I am not entirely white), it turns them towards the right. They don't feel privileged, even if compared to a black person in the same situation they are. They don't want to listen to your ramblings about how they should still be grateful and check their privilege. These are exactly the kinds of people and voters you need not to drift to Populist parties. It's Lazy thinking.
You then say ' an increasingly racist uk'.
If the UK Is getting increasing racist.. And I agree it probably is.. . Then the people fighting for social justice including supposedly yourself are clearly doing something wrong.
If your answer to doing something wrong is to double down on it then there's something wrong with the modus operandi.
I don't disagree with the notion of soceity and racial privileges, I strongly disagree with the way it's supposedly dealt with by those claiming to be pro social justice.
I'm not using the term left wing to describe it because nowadays that's a culture wars term and means nothing. Pigeonhole politics is for the blind.
In fact in a perfect world everyone would be left wing... Unfortunately we don't live in a world where everyone has same values concerns and thought processes.. This is why nationist parties are trending upwards.
At some point the penny has to drop or it will only get worse.
I'm pretty sure racial tensions and issues have gotten worse since this kind of thinking became popular in the mid 10s.
So why was one treated so different in the media, which then lead to the FA getting involved and the other wasn't?
Let's be honest, until it went to court nobody knew much about it. Do you honestly believe it would have been the same say should Bruno go out in London tonight and do the same?
Of course I have. And I listened what she had to say, live on camera to the police officer, which for me is a lot more damning that what she's told to say by the lawyers of Chelsea football club.
She's a racist & a brat as well. She comes from a family of thugs too. Her Dad has been found guilty of assault & her brother a former star Australian Rules footballer has been in and out of jail due to similar instances and with drugs.
Exactly & she vomited in a taxi and broke it's window.
She got away with one …next time she may not be so lucky
I'm white. If someone called me 'stupid and white' I can't say I'd be particularly offended, I wouldn't cry about it, I wouldn't try and sue. But if a judge asked me 'does this qualify as a racist comment?' then, logically and intellectually, of course the answer is yes.
Because racism is only an outrage when white people experience it. That's the new Trumpian, fascist, 'reverse racism' world that we live in now.
There used to be a belief that black or Asian people couldn't be (politically) racist in a white society, because of the lack of power. Racism is manifested in the ability to deny people jobs, housing, opportunities, promotions (the glass ceiling etc.)
In this it was distinguished from 'prejudice', which is slurs, erroneous beliefs about competence etc., which can be held and implemented by any race about any other. However, a member of the majjority group engaging in prejudice was still disproportionately harmful because of the existence of societal inequality
Nowadays, because of undoubted strides that black and Asian people have made in Western societies, but also because of the comeback of fascism across Europe and in America (perhaps as a direct result of those strides), this distinction no longer exists, and a lot of white people believe that black people no longer experience any racism in any form, and that resultant prejudices are equal (calling someone a 'white' something is exactly the same as calling someone a 'black' something, because everything is equal now in our new Utopia).
Me too.
Taking a thread off topic
Few pages more and cop and taxi driver will become racists and Kerr will be a victim in all this.
So you just ignored the part where she described the officer as a ‘white privileged male’ when he was disbelieving the fact two women could be frightened about being locked in a taxi? Got it.
If someone calls you a ‘white privileged male’ is that racist too, logically and intellectually?
White people making themselves great victims of racism in modern society is really something isn’t it
But she said white ...
How on earth isn't that the same thing?
Look at that white knight.
Yes. To say otherwise is churlish and incorrect.
The definition of racism is antagonism of someone based on their ethnicity...this 100% fits the bill.
Not in the least. I'm white, male and to some degree that gives me privilege. To hear it stated discriminates against me precisely zero.
And your definition is rubbish. A more typical one is,
Last edited:
I'm not sure where you pulled churlish from. Anyway, the key to the part you are struggling with is historically is intertwined with power dynamics. The pejorative use of black was used to show perceived or implied inferiority. The use of white here is about institutional privilege.
Calling out privilege does not equate to racism. Do you deny that white people enjoy privilege because of their whiteness? If so you’re denying that racism agaisnt non-white people exists.
Not really, the use of white here is to use someone's race in a derogatory manner,
Again, there's no defending that, it is what it is.
You're right, but using someone's race in a derogatory manner is racism, and that's what happened here.
This argument ignores the historical and structural context of racism. Racism has never been just about individual insults, it has always been tied to institutional power, oppression, and structural violence. The language used in these interactions is often a reaction to that reality, not an attempt to reinforce or create a new system of racial hierarchy.
Speaking in absolutes makes the discussion simplistic and ignores the nuance of power dynamics. There is a clear defence for her actions, which has been explained to you here and upheld in court when she was found not guilty. Acting as though the mere mention of "white" is equivalent to racism is a misrepresentation of the issue and lacks historical perspective.
Again, I'm acting like the bringing up of anyone's ethnicity in derogatory terms is fundamentally racist.
Of that there's no doubt.
Whatever context you may wish to paint this in, using race in a derogatory and demeaning manner is racism in its purist form.
- Status