The Chelsea Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramires
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 35K
  • Views Views 3M
Danyul said:
Just because a court of law decided he wasn't guilty/couldn't be found guilty, doesn't mean you can't decide for yourself when there is already evidence. I guess OJ is innocent then?

Maybe in this case the term should be "ignorant until he's proven guilty".
Click to expand...

Well sure, let's follow that logic for a bit.

I decide for myself SAF raped a goat. I don't have enough evidence but that doesn't mean he is innocent. Right?

There's a reason courts follow certain protocol, that is so you can't just throw random **** at people until something eventually sticks.
 
Tyton said:
Well sure, let's follow that logic for a bit.

I decide for myself SAF raped a goat. I don't have enough evidence but that doesn't mean he is innocent. Right?

There's a reason courts follow certain protocol, that is so you can't just throw random **** at people until something eventually sticks.
Click to expand...

So how is that SAF thing similar to Terry? There is evidence that Terry was racist just look at the link. Again, he clearly says "You f..... black c......"

As far as im concerned I think that is racist
 
On BBC on Di Canio's blog there is a bit where he says that all the media talks about are rascism and referees and I agree.

Let it go guys, wait to see the result of this rascism scandel and then come out an say stuff. Just 1 question if I called Steven Gerrard a scouse c... or someone calls me a London c.. is that as bad because to be honest I think calling someone a black c... is just as bad but I'm sure there have been many times when that has happened but nothing happens
 
Little_Alexander said:
Just 1 question if I called Steven Gerrard a scouse c... or someone calls me a London c.. is that as bad because to be honest I think calling someone a black c... is just as bad but I'm sure there have been many times when that has happened but nothing happens
Click to expand...

I've asked this like 20 times and no one ever comes up with a decent answer.
 
Subtle said:
I've asked this like 20 times and no one ever comes up with a decent answer.
Click to expand...

The other two are not a play/attack on race. its still abuse and shouldn't be in the game mind. But you call a black liverpudlian a scouse ****, its not racist.
 
Mike. said:
The other two are not a play/attack on race. its still abuse and shouldn't be in the game mind. But you call a black liverpudlian a scouse ****, its not racist.
Click to expand...

So? Racism isn't special, ironically by treating it as if it is you just discriminate more.
 
Mike. said:
He wasnt found innocent, this really needs to be made clear. The judge didnt believe him, but there was just enough reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Yes he was. The default starting position for each citizen is innocence, it is then up to prosecution to establish guilt. They were not able to do to the extent that the law requires, so Terry results to his default position. Innocence.

Oh and I happen to believe Terry is guilty btw, the problem is that I'm not going around trying to impose my own personal belief and imagined states of law on people.
 
Last edited:
Mike. said:
It's a hate crime, and hate crimes are treated differently
Click to expand...


Ah so it's hate when you distinguish someone based on the colour of their skin but when it's based on the region that they're from, it's different. That seems about as logical and non-hypocritical as a man that spreads racist sentiments accusing an anti racism body of not doing their job.
 
Subtle said:
Ah so it's hate when you distinguish someone based on the colour of their skin but when it's based on the region that they're from, it's different. That seems about as logical and non-hypocritical as a man that spreads racist sentiments accusing an anti racism body of not doing their job.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what your point is, hate crimes, (based on sexuality/gender/race/religion) have always been treated differently, and with more severity. I'm not the one who set the rules on that. By all means take it up with government if you feel its illogical.
 
Mike. said:
I'm really not sure what your point is, hate crimes, (based on sexuality/gender/race/religion) have always been treated differently, and with more severity. I'm not the one who set the rules on that.
Click to expand...

He asked why the two forms of discrimination are treated differently.

Just 1 question if I called Steven Gerrard a scouse c... or someone calls me a London c.. is that as bad
Click to expand...

So far your answer is "because". So, like I said, I must have asked the same question 20 times and have never received an actual reason.

That's without even going into all the things that are wrong with that list of "hate crime" groups, like the fact that discriminating against scousers is arguably far worse than discriminating against someone's faith because one of those is a matter of choice, and one is not.
 
Subtle said:
He asked why the two forms of discrimination are treated differently.



So far your answer is "because". So, like I said, I must have asked the same question 20 times and have never received an actual reason.

That's without even going into all the things that are wrong with that list of "hate crime" groups, like the fact that discriminating against scousers is arguably far worse than discriminating against someone's faith because one of those is a matter of choice, and one is not.
Click to expand...

Its not my answer, it just happens to be an answer, because some rules just happen to be arbitary. And some organisations see certain things as worse than others, usually in an attempt to resolve previous injustices.

Personally being called a black c*** would offend a me a lot more than london/manc ****
 
Last edited:
Subtle said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because there is something inherently personal about being attacked for your skin colour in that manner, its really hard to explain, and frankly its not something I'm completely comfortable talking about. But i can tell you from personal experience its a lot more painful.
 
I think the issue here is intangible, and something we can't really explain too well. It's just that in the pyramid of discriminatory language and hurtful speech, calling someone a ****** far outweighs, for example, calling him a Croydon ****. That's just how it is. We can argue the principles of it all day, but that's just how it is, in the same way calling someone a **** is worse than calling them a muppet.
 
GodCubed said:
calling someone a ****** far outweighs, for example, calling him a Croydon ****. That's just how it is.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is yes, it is completely illogical and arbitrary?

Like I'm not trying to be insensitive, but the guy asked why one was more offensive than the other and we're still coming back with "because".
 
You need to read a little more history. In the past (and this is a very basic explanation of this), with black people referred to a "coloured", they were routinely denied entry to areas open to whites for the reason purely of their race, the colour of their skin. "You're coloured, you cant' go there" "You can't use that, you're coloured". If you throw in another insult, for good measure, you just say "black ****". It has so many insults thrown in to one, the assumption that they are sub human, a second class of citizen, an inherent sense of attacking them personally but also belittling, focusing on the differences and the historical connotations they have - and while things have certainly improved, there is certainly still existing prejudice.

The "Croydon ****" or "Scourse *******" insults just don't have those connotations behind them.
To quote Mike, "And some organisations see certain things as worse than others, usually in an attempt to resolve previous injustices." - agreed, but also they are highlighted to such a degree because it is seen as important to not retreat back to acceptable racism even in a "mild" form, it is seen as more beneficial to not return to those days entirely precisely by taking such a harsh stance on it.
 
Tyton said:
Well sure, let's follow that logic for a bit.

I decide for myself SAF raped a goat. I don't have enough evidence but that doesn't mean he is innocent. Right?

There's a reason courts follow certain protocol, that is so you can't just throw random **** at people until something eventually sticks.
Click to expand...
Not logical at all. It's not that you don't 'have enough evidence' for SAF raping a goat. You have NONE. Whereas there is evidence of Terry being racist, but I guess the judge decided it wasn't strong enough (which is a bs reason anyway).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top