Tammy Abraham: England prepared to walk off over racist abuse

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Trying to follow you. Are you saying that the abuse that Johnson gets is the equivalent of racist abuse of footballers? Is your stance that the footballers should shut up and get on with it?

Or, is your stance that some forms of abuse are acceptable and black footballers should be given special priority?

Abuse is abuse, isn't it?

[ragingpup]

Or, is your stance that some forms of abuse are acceptable and black footballers should be given special priority?

Abuse is abuse, isn't it?

I would say that to call Johnson or Corbyn or any public figure a tosser etc isn't acceptable and is extremely unpleasant. I personally wouldn't do it, but I think public figures generally accept that such abuse is part of their job, 'comes with the territory' so to speak. I don't think Johnson would want to have someone shouting such a thing at a public event arrested although persistence could be breach of the peace or something. However, if such a figure was black, is it the same thing to shout "you black tosser" do you think? Or how about someone omitting tosser and simply going for "you n*****" and making monkey noises which is what was happening on Monday. Is that the same thing also?

So my sense is that racist abuse is worse that general abuse that doesn't highlight a person's skin colour. Not that this excuses general abuse. But one is more likely to get you arrested than the other, and I think that's for a reason.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

just wondered where these guys fit into all this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48488732

[John2]

Or, is your stance that some forms of abuse are acceptable and black footballers should be given special priority?

Abuse is abuse, isn't it?

I suspect you're fishing, you can't really be that daft, but I'll play along.

Abuse is intentionally harming a person, be it physically or psychologically.

In cases where it is trying to upset someone, I'd argue that abuse isn't all equal, it depends on the thing you're being abusive about.

If I saw Gary Glitter I'd be very tempted to shout some abusive things at him, however that would be for actions he has carried out. Ideally as a society, nobody would abuse anyone, but sometimes human nature kicks in and we're all guilty.

Implying that racist abuse considering people have zero control over their race is 'equal' to abuse someone receives as a negative reaction to things they have actively chosen to say or do is completely different.

Or do you think shouting things at Gary Glitter is exactly as bad as making monkey chants at black players? Please answer.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I suspect you're fishing, you can't really be that daft, but I'll play along.

Abuse is intentionally harming a person, be it physically or psychologically.

In cases where it is trying to upset someone, I'd argue that abuse isn't all equal, it depends on the thing you're being abusive about.

If I saw Gary Glitter I'd be very tempted to shout some abusive things at him, however that would be for actions he has carried out. Ideally as a society, nobody would abuse anyone, but sometimes human nature kicks in and we're all guilty.

Implying that racist abuse considering people have zero control over their race is 'equal' to abuse someone receives as a negative reaction to things they have actively chosen to say or do is completely different.

Or do you think shouting things at Gary Glitter is exactly as bad as making monkey chants at black players? Please answer.

No, I’ve said all I want on this.

Btw you need better bait

[John2]

No, I’ve said all I want on this.

Btw you need better bait

I exposed the ridiculousness of your argument, that'll do for me!

[ragingpup]

just wondered where these guys fit into all this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48488732

Its an interesting question and leads into art and censorship. Looks an awful band and very dubious shock tactics to get a either a gullible fanbase of idiot commies or a discerning hipster appreciation of self deprecating satire. I have no idea about the bands in question so no idea which applies.

But not sure what it has to do with the undesirability and illegality of calling black players n****** and monkey chanting at them? Are you suggesting that because we allow free speech in art to go as far as allowing extremely contentious attention seeking and ultimately undesirable (I'd be glad for them not to exist!) shock bands that we have to allow monkey chants and racist insults? I understand where you are coming from but I think that the expressing extreme political views of 'death to rival politicians' is a very different consideration on censorship and what we should accept as a society to base monkey chanting and racist abuse at individuals simply based on the colour of their skin. each should be discussed separately in my (agenda-ed) opinion and not one used to justify the legitimacy of the other, which is what many on the far right are trying to do with the 'free speech' agenda.

[John2]

I suspect you're fishing, you can't really be that daft, but I'll play along.

Abuse is intentionally harming a person, be it physically or psychologically.

In cases where it is trying to upset someone, I'd argue that abuse isn't all equal, it depends on the thing you're being abusive about.

If I saw Gary Glitter I'd be very tempted to shout some abusive things at him, however that would be for actions he has carried out. Ideally as a society, nobody would abuse anyone, but sometimes human nature kicks in and we're all guilty.

Implying that racist abuse considering people have zero control over their race is 'equal' to abuse someone receives as a negative reaction to things they have actively chosen to say or do is completely different.

Or do you think shouting things at Gary Glitter is exactly as bad as making monkey chants at black players? Please answer.

We've had the discussion about "context" many times before Brin if you want to acquaint yourself with the concept.