O/T:- MOTD Commentary

[i961pie]

Huh? I think you’re reading too much into what’s written on a football message board.

If people don’t want to be accused of racism or ***ism it might be an idea not to write things that are racist or ***ist.

It seems to be always you though that sees some ism around every corner?

[drillerpie]

My take on this is that the rules of speech that BFP has become accustomed to following, dictate that you may only make a reference to person's race, gender or any other demographic if it is to compliment that person or demographic or to point out discrimination against that person or demographic.

Hence you are allowed to say ad infinitum that Kamala Harris is the first black vice president and the first south-Asian vice president, but when sorting out a breach of discipline at a football match you can't tell your fellow match official to send the black coach off as a way of identifying which coach broke the rules, because then you get your name and photo broadcast around the world alongside accusations of being a racist.

You are allowed to point out that a match official is female however, but you can't use the word female to identify a commentator you don't like because you think her commentary is amateurish, because that is ***ist.

According to the same rules, you can also make sweeping generalisations about sections of society, providing the section you belong to or are defending is higher up the perceived oppression hierarchy than the one you are criticising.

This is why you are able to read in the Guardian that female politicians handle Covid better than men (which may even be true, but at the moment I'd say is not proven) because they are more caring and compassionate, but if a male journalist generalises about a female group, he's a misogynist.

You can also read (as I did last week) that female footballers are better role models than male footballers, but Suzanne Moore can't express her female perspective about the trans issue without being labelled a danger to her colleagues and forced out. The logical extension of this brave new intersectional world is that being a black male-to-female trans person is something akin to a royal flush, and allows you to say anything about anyone.

All of this is because critical race theory and intersectionality have become so widespread throughout the media that they are now the hegemonic moral codes, so depending on which newspaper you read you may well be exposed to them every day.

If you never listen to opposing points of view, or you lack the capacity for independent thought, then you come to accept them, perhaps even unthinkingly.

[maddogslater]

Politically I veer left, however your post is spot on driller

[TheBlackHorse]

... spot on Driller

[crazyfists]

Whatever the reason, whether it's tone, trying too hard or just cause we're not used to it, women commentary is really annoying. Maybe in 40 years when people have grown up with it more it might be more tolerable but at the moment it's not for me.

[crazyfists]

My take on this is that the rules of speech that BFP has become accustomed to following, dictate that you may only make a reference to person's race, gender or any other demographic if it is to compliment that person or demographic or to point out discrimination against that person or demographic.

Hence you are allowed to say ad infinitum that Kamala Harris is the first black vice president and the first south-Asian vice president, but when sorting out a breach of discipline at a football match you can't tell your fellow match official to send the black coach off as a way of identifying which coach broke the rules, because then you get your name and photo broadcast around the world alongside accusations of being a racist.

You are allowed to point out that a match official is female however, but you can't use the word female to identify a commentator you don't like because you think her commentary is amateurish, because that is ***ist.

According to the same rules, you can also make sweeping generalisations about sections of society, providing the section you belong to or are defending is higher up the perceived oppression hierarchy than the one you are criticising.

This is why you are able to read in the Guardian that female politicians handle Covid better than men (which may even be true, but at the moment I'd say is not proven) because they are more caring and compassionate, but if a male journalist generalises about a female group, he's a misogynist.

You can also read (as I did last week) that female footballers are better role models than male footballers, but Suzanne Moore can't express her female perspective about the trans issue without being labelled a danger to her colleagues and forced out. The logical extension of this brave new intersectional world is that being a black male-to-female trans person is something akin to a royal flush, and allows you to say anything about anyone.

All of this is because critical race theory and intersectionality have become so widespread throughout the media that they are now the hegemonic moral codes, so depending on which newspaper you read you may well be exposed to them every day.

If you never listen to opposing points of view, or you lack the capacity for independent thought, then you come to accept them, perhaps even unthinkingly.

Ha ha good post, tell Laddo mate. Also messageboards with no disagreements are boring and unrepresentative of life itself.

[BigFatPie]

My take on this is that the rules of speech that BFP has become accustomed to following, dictate that you may only make a reference to person's race, gender or any other demographic if it is to compliment that person or demographic or to point out discrimination against that person or demographic.

Hence you are allowed to say ad infinitum that Kamala Harris is the first black vice president and the first south-Asian vice president, but when sorting out a breach of discipline at a football match you can't tell your fellow match official to send the black coach off as a way of identifying which coach broke the rules, because then you get your name and photo broadcast around the world alongside accusations of being a racist.

You are allowed to point out that a match official is female however, but you can't use the word female to identify a commentator you don't like because you think her commentary is amateurish, because that is ***ist.

According to the same rules, you can also make sweeping generalisations about sections of society, providing the section you belong to or are defending is higher up the perceived oppression hierarchy than the one you are criticising.

This is why you are able to read in the Guardian that female politicians handle Covid better than men (which may even be true, but at the moment I'd say is not proven) because they are more caring and compassionate, but if a male journalist generalises about a female group, he's a misogynist.

You can also read (as I did last week) that female footballers are better role models than male footballers, but Suzanne Moore can't express her female perspective about the trans issue without being labelled a danger to her colleagues and forced out. The logical extension of this brave new intersectional world is that being a black male-to-female trans person is something akin to a royal flush, and allows you to say anything about anyone.

All of this is because critical race theory and intersectionality have become so widespread throughout the media that they are now the hegemonic moral codes, so depending on which newspaper you read you may well be exposed to them every day.

If you never listen to opposing points of view, or you lack the capacity for independent thought, then you come to accept them, perhaps even unthinkingly.

You’re over complicating matters as usual. It’s actually very very simple. I don’t think people should have a pop at female football commentators simply on the basis that they’re women. Women can commentate on men’s football matches just as well as men. It’s historical fact that they haven’t had the same chance to do so.

I must say, after reading some of the contributions to this thread( BFP has psychological problems, you can’t commentate on cricket unless you’ve played at ‘the highest level’, women should commentate on women’s sport, men should commentate on men’s sport) the fact that you’ve decided to write a treatise on my views is odd.

[upthemaggies]

You’re over complicating matters as usual. It’s actually very very simple. I don’t think people should have a pop at female football commentators simply on the basis that they’re women. Women can commentate on men’s football matches just as well as men. It’s historical fact that they haven’t had the same chance to do so.

I must say, after reading some of the contributions to this thread( BFP has psychological problems, you can’t commentate on cricket unless you’ve played at ‘the highest level’, women should commentate on women’s sport, men should commentate on men’s sport) the fact that you’ve decided to write a treatise on my views is odd.

You don't *think* anything, you parrot deranged lefty BS and think that makes you morally superior to everybody else here and gives you the right to label other posters. You ain't perfect, far from it. I think you're a nasty piece of work.

[BigFatPie]

You don't *think* anything, you parrot deranged lefty BS and think that makes you morally superior to everybody else here and gives you the right to label other posters. You ain't perfect, far from it. I think you're a nasty piece of work.

Hahaha. Says the bloke who gets his world view from Russia Today.

[i961pie]

My take on this is that the rules of speech that BFP has become accustomed to following, dictate that you may only make a reference to person's race, gender or any other demographic if it is to compliment that person or demographic or to point out discrimination against that person or demographic.

Hence you are allowed to say ad infinitum that Kamala Harris is the first black vice president and the first south-Asian vice president, but when sorting out a breach of discipline at a football match you can't tell your fellow match official to send the black coach off as a way of identifying which coach broke the rules, because then you get your name and photo broadcast around the world alongside accusations of being a racist.

You are allowed to point out that a match official is female however, but you can't use the word female to identify a commentator you don't like because you think her commentary is amateurish, because that is ***ist.

According to the same rules, you can also make sweeping generalisations about sections of society, providing the section you belong to or are defending is higher up the perceived oppression hierarchy than the one you are criticising.

This is why you are able to read in the Guardian that female politicians handle Covid better than men (which may even be true, but at the moment I'd say is not proven) because they are more caring and compassionate, but if a male journalist generalises about a female group, he's a misogynist.

You can also read (as I did last week) that female footballers are better role models than male footballers, but Suzanne Moore can't express her female perspective about the trans issue without being labelled a danger to her colleagues and forced out. The logical extension of this brave new intersectional world is that being a black male-to-female trans person is something akin to a royal flush, and allows you to say anything about anyone.

All of this is because critical race theory and intersectionality have become so widespread throughout the media that they are now the hegemonic moral codes, so depending on which newspaper you read you may well be exposed to them every day.

If you never listen to opposing points of view, or you lack the capacity for independent thought, then you come to accept them, perhaps even unthinkingly.

This