Off Topic International Break Thread

Like I said earlier, If anyone said black, white, Muslim, Jewish, gay, lesbian ****wit then it wouldn’t be ok (correct) but if it’s a whole country then it’s ok?

I’m sorry but that makes zero sense and not acceptable.

 

But surely his nationality is a matter of fact, I don't think that the whole nation is being castigated by HBIC.

Personally I don't see this description as offensive the use of the nation being like saying that Hugo is a great French goalkeeper, it just describes his nationality.

 

Saudi Arabia is a disgusting country with medieval laws that has zero respect for the human rights of those who do not conform within it's borders.

Can I say that?

Trump is a sociopath who lies and cheats to get his own way so what does that make the people who in clear sight of him now still vote to have him as their leader? ****wits?

Can I say that?


I have moderated on here for 12 years perhaps you would like me to stand down? So far we have not banned people for their views unless they attack another poster. We have banned a small number of posters who caused disruption to the bulk of the posters.

King your motivations are laudable (be nice to people) but in the world we live in many things need to be called out by good people and that will include opinions that we may not agree with. We already have a society increasingly uncomfortable with criticism of religion, I don't like that but I have to put up with it because my comments would be misunderstood amid the present climate. PC has a lot to answer for and it's clear that one of the reasons for the rise of a figure like Trump is the reaction against PC promoted by the 'nice' Democrats. It's a good example of how PC achieves the polar opposite of what it is intended for.

Please feel free to debate the values of this board and continue to call me or any of our moderators out. We are here because you agree to our presence if you think that needs looking at then go ahead.

 

Hopefully no one thinks a change is needed, all 3 of you guys do a great job here. That said, I recoil at phrases like "National Inability", always have and always will. I agree the intention is in a grey area and I wouldn't like to label HBIC because of it, but I don't personally like the phrase. I am more ambivalent about "Slovenian ****wit" - the nationality is irrelevant and seems to tarnish the whole country, but in the end it is just descriptive - as TCM says, we use descriptive words often where not necessary.

In my opinion, not deleting is the right response. Registering dislike is a right though, and, like KH, I didn't like it. No more, no less.

 

The views I am expressing on here are my own, I am not speaking on behalf of the other two moderators. The three of us always discuss our course of action so that when a ban occurs it has been agreed by the three of us. We do not have to consult one another when we delete a post that clearly attacks another poster but we would consult if it was felt a ban was called for. Over the years the 3 of of us have usually had little problem agreeing a course of action. Over the 12 years the Spurs not606 has established IMO a very decent group of posters who often disagree but do this with respect for the contrary view. Even visitors from other clubs respect that situation so we don't often have to resort to the banning course.
I think it's a good idea that every so often we examine those values to make sure they work for the benefit of the board.

 

It helps us to know who we need to ban, too.

Seriously though, I wholeheartedly agree with Spurf on this point.
We're here because you want us here. If that changes, then we should be removed.

I can understand why King's objecting to Croydon's language, but I'm not convinced that he crossed any lines, which is why I didn't chip in until now.
Happy to see it debated, though. People should always be free to point out things on here that make them uncomfortable.
If you don't want to do it publicly, then we'll always reply to PMs.

 

Firstly, thanks to KH and everyone else for talking about it civilly. It's good that we can have these conversations and no one feels like they can't speak up on it.

Personally I didn't like the ****wit comment either and I don't agree with HBIC's reasoning. **** refereeing is **** refereeing and we see plenty of that from English refs in the PL. As it was specifically about a handball rule being applied badly, we've seen that very rule being used far worse in the PL this season too. Hopefully everyone can agree, at least, that tangential references to nationality are not the best way to get your point across, as we can see since people will respond to the nationality reference rather than the actual point you make.

There's a big difference between Saudi Arabia's regime and Saudi Arabia as a nation, or it's people specifically, Spurf.

I disagree that political correctness is responsible for Trump too. You've got a large number of people who believe some really far-out conspiracy theories who made Trump their saviour, then they're bolstered by single issue voters, the spread of fake news and a lot of racism. Like "woke", it's current incarnation, political correctness has very loose meaning and people project on to it whatever grievances they want.

 

I was trying to be nice about Trump supporters but yes I am sure they are as you describe but it's the rejection of PC values that attracts racists.

Saudi Arabia? what's the difference, the regime is the nation. Basically it's a family owned state with values they impose on their subjects but don't stick to themselves. What's to like?

 

Just as an example of what I'd deem to be an acceptable mention of nationality, here's a clip from last night:

If someone were to say something about maintaining the standard for Uruguayan strikers, then I wouldn't see that as prejudice.
It's a dig at Suarez and Cavani being dirty. It's not saying that Uruguayan's are bad in general.
Do people think that's wrong or unacceptable?

 

Depends, do we still have that swear jar on here for every time somebody mentions that racist cannibal?

 

Tonight's Nations League matches:

England v Iceland.
Northern Ireland v Romania.
Israel v Scotland.
Republic of Ireland v Bulgaria.
Wales v Finland.

All matches kick-off at 7.45pm and they're all on Sky.

 

Also, Lo Celso got an assist in Argentina's 2-0 win over Peru

Which was a World Cup qualifier not Nations League, but on the plus side not a pointless friendly

 

I very rarely feel the need to use ‘offensive language’ but accept it is used a lot when discussing football matters. I think the use of Slovenian in this instance was acceptable as it correctly identified which particular ****wit we are referring to among the number of people we are calling ****wits. If we described him as a great Slovenian referee would that be considered racist. I don’t think so.

 

Sanchez reportedly had a 'mare in Colombia's 6-1 loss to Ecuador last night

Even if we take the usual qualifiers into account, i.e. Quito being at 2850m elevation (for comparison, Sanchez and Lerma play at elevation of 11m, Rodriguez at 70m, Juan Cuadrado at 239m for Juve, while Jefferson Murillo plays at 1018m for Deportivo Cali...****'s sake lockdown is making me Google weird facts these days) that would be enough to excuse losing by two or three, but not being 2-0 down within ten minutes and 4-1 down at half time

 

Well you're clearly referring to Suarez, as you say. And you're also deliberately excluding Uruguayan players who aren't strikers, so it's easy to see that you're not casting aspersions about Uruguayan's in general.

The flip of this would be Souness' "very latin" comment about Lamela, which only excepts non-South American players.

 

For anyone that missed that nonsensical rant:

 

It's not that anyone's automatically xenophobic/racist, regardless, it's that it can be interpreted so. You can't interpret praising someone the same way.

 

Unfortunately Sanchez having a 'mare' is something of a recurring theme, shame but I fear that he may never reach the levels that he suggested possible earlier in his career. He should have the required attributes to be a top defender, but he needs to go somewhere to recover his confidence and an easier league maybe France or Portugal maybe best for him.

 

Admittedly I haven't seen the match, but I'm going to wager Croydon Council's budget for the remainder of the year that Sanchez wasn't at fault for all six goals

While this is based on little more than the match timeline, it does say a lot that Luis Orejuela, Johan Mojica and Mateus Uribe - the starting FBs and DM - were all hooked in the 41st minute when they were 4-0 down, especially as Mojica and Uribe were replaced with Frank Fabra and Wilmar Barrios, who are both like-for-like subs

It also has to be said that the starting lineup had some...let's say "interesting" choices, namely
* Juan Cuadrado was bafflingly deployed in a midfield three, hence Orejuela started at RB for his fourth cap
* Uribe is more of a box-to-box than a DM, yet he started an away match in the centre of midfield ahead of Barrios
* Fabra has twice as many caps at LB in the same timeframe as Mojica does, yet Mojica started
* Camilo Vargas started in goal for his eighth cap, even though David Ospina is their starting keeper

In short, singling out Sanchez really doesn't stack up, as the coach made a series of baffling decisions with his starting lineup, and it has to be said Ecuador have started qualifiers strong with a 4-2 win over Uruguay in Quito and an away win over Bolivia in La Paz in the even more elevated La Paz in the three games before last night, while Colombia's three qualification matches have seen them gubbed at home by Uruguay and draw with the equally faltering Chile so experimentation should not have been the order of the day