Tottenham vs The Scum

[thfcsteff]

Even better is Saka's PR team managing to conflate legitimate criticism of his failure with racism.

Turned him from a fudge up to a hero overnight. Incredible work.

Hahahaha, you cannot help yourself can you.
BTW you might want to add ‘in your opinion’ as what you’ve basically done there is accusatory without a shred of evidence.

 

[thfcsteff]

Yes, of course.

My point is that his PR people have very cleverly associated all legitimate criticism of him with the (comparatively small) amount of racism aimed at him.

By doing so, they've managed to stop all legitimate criticism as they can now just claim it all to be racism.

First of all, you really need to be careful. You have NO evidence. And secondly, your supposition is precisely that. YOUR supposition, YOUR ‘expectations’. The work of a single person. FWIW I think your supposition says an awful lot more about you than anything else.

 

[thfcsteff]

One is too many of course.

But his PR team have cleverly taken away the tactical advantage that criticism of his performance would have given his opponents. Telling Lampard he let his country down was not only hilarious but also made him significantly underperform.

Had we given Saka the same treatment (although it would have been entirely wasted in a friendly) our fans would have been labelled racist for doing so.

You just don’t get it.
I might feel sorry for you…a little bit…because you don’t see the bigger picture. You’ll respond and claim you do, but you don’t. You don’t understand it. Such things are not part of your vista, you cannot process them.

On your other claim of ‘faux racism being used to shut down legitimate criticism’, you do know that is part of the EDL playbook, right? While I’m here, why don’t you explain ‘faux racism’ in this context? Is it abuse by less than 10 people? 5? Are monkey emojis ‘faux racism’? Do tell. And if there is one false accusation of racism among 99 legitimate ones, call me old fashioned but I think I’ll give the majority of cases focus and attention as opposed to screaming about the odd bellend.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I think we would all agree we have been on an upward curve the last 15 years or so (the last 3-4 years aside) whereas they have fallen quite spectacularly from where they were around 2004. I don’t think fixation is the word I would use when it comes to our hunger from trophies. They are not the be all and end all, but I do think successful teams have to back up success with trophies. Not taking anything away from our success but we need trophies too. The big clubs are successful domestically in their league campaigns AND win things also. I’d say there is a somewhat dismissive attitude towards trophies by some, coincidentally at a period where we don’t win many . Our identity for 50 years was that we were a cup team. I.e. a team that didn’t really challenge for titles, but were very adept at winning cups. I think some of that identity has been lost. That is also part of the game as attitudes towards cup competitions has changed and people are so obsessed with the premier league and the champions league. Whilst I believe it’s simplistic and a little harsh to put us down for not winning things, I do also feel we are in the position where we can and should be able to challenge for top 4/PL titles AND also win trophies. If we want to take the next step that is what we need to do IMO.

I think as @Raziel says, none of us are against trophies, it's just we're more bought in to the longer plan atm. Yes, we miraculously got close with Poch, at a time where realistically we were still in a progressing stage. I think this has raised expectations that are still hard to meet in this league.

And let's get it right, this is an effing tough league to be a top dog in. That's why I appreciate the long term view/plan, and we are in the later stages of that plan. (Annoyingly delayed for the last 3 years, with covid and dodgy alarm systems). That will see us compete EVERY season, and most likely in every competition, and surely some trophies wil result from that.

I do wonder if we had won that 90mins of football in the Wanda Vs Liverpool how much leeway/breathing space/brownie points it would have given Levy/the club compared to now?

 

[Gazza]

No. That happened because you have continuously and insidiously posted about black players in particular in a distasteful fashion. You have openly admitted discriminating against your swathes of make-believe Muslim employees, you hold special hatred for that religion whilst maintaining a flimflam narrative against all religions, and you’re generally a cretinous weasel who tried to hide his ingrained bigotry and prejudice.

Well to be honest disliking a religion as it doesn't hold up to your own scrutiny is not racist. Religion is a theology and the non disbelievers shouldn't be considered in the slightest of being racist. I mean Muslims in Saudi Arabia are they any other religion phobic? ... its just accepted and deemed OK, but when people outside who disagree or even strongly oppose it are seen as racist? Doesn't make sense.

 

[AuroRaman]

Well to be honest disliking a religion as it doesn't hold up to your own scrutiny is not racist. Religion is a theology and the non disbelievers shouldn't be considered in the slightest of being racist. I mean Muslims in Saudi Arabia are they any other religion phobic? ... its just accepted and deemed OK, but when people outside who disagree or even strongly oppose it are seen as racist? Doesn't make sense.

I’m not saying disliking religions is racist. But holding particular disregard for the predominantly brown-tinged followers of one specific religion continuously, then covering oneself by saying ‘I hate all religions tho’, repeatedly, draws suspicions.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Well to be honest disliking a religion as it doesn't hold up to your own scrutiny is not racist. Religion is a theology and the non disbelievers shouldn't be considered in the slightest of being racist. I mean Muslims in Saudi Arabia are they any other religion phobic? ... its just accepted and deemed OK, but when people outside who disagree or even strongly oppose it are seen as racist? Doesn't make sense.

It isn't accepted by good people. Saudi as a nation state doesn't represent its people or the faith for most of us. They are effin assholes.

 

[Caitano]

Which scum is this thread about? Just wondering who I should be hating

 

[AuroRaman]

Which scum is this thread about? Just wondering who I should be hating

There is no scum. Only ‘faux-scum’. We all love each other really. Except Arsenal. They are scum.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I’m not saying disliking religions is racist. But holding particular disregard for the predominantly brown-tinged followers of one specific religion continuously, then covering oneself by saying ‘I hate all religions tho’, repeatedly, draws suspicions.

I can’t speak for Scara, but I think it’s an acceptable viewpoint to be disbelieving of all religions but to believe that some religions are potentially worse or more misguided than others. This is Richard Dawkins view. Christianity used to be anachronistic and somewhat dangerous but has largely grown out of that behaviour whereas some Muslim beliefs and ideals are very much out of touch with western values. But it is more the theology and framework he objects to rather than the people who hold the beliefs. You often hear people erroneously describe people criticising a religion as “racist” which is silly because Islam is not a race.

 

[DTA]

I can’t speak for Scara, but I think it’s an acceptable viewpoint to be disbelieving of all religions but to believe that some religions are potentially worse or more misguided than others. This is Richard Dawkins view. Christianity used to be anachronistic and somewhat dangerous but has largely grown out of that behaviour whereas some Muslim beliefs and ideals are very much out of touch with western values. But it is more the theology and framework he objects to rather than the people who hold the beliefs. You often hear people erroneously describe people criticising a religion as “racist” which is silly because Islam is not a race.

This view point though is steeped in racism and/or otherisation though.

When certain Western commentators talk of Islam they do so as a homogenous group. They take the absolute worst of those that feel they are representing the religion and group all Muslims in to being in someway represented by this group(s). If this was done to Christianity the KKK or other far right cûnts would be said to be a representative of that faith. Or atheists would be represented by nazis and stalinist communists.

It goes further than this:

When you talk about Muslims equality for women for example this is done through the lense of wahabism or some variation there of. Why?

 

[glasgowspur]

This view point though is steeped in racism and or/otherisation though.

When certain Western commentators talk of Islam they do so as a homogenous group. They take the absolute worst of those that feel they are representing the religion and group all Muslims in to being in someway represented group. If this was done to Christianity the KKK or other far right cûnts would be said to be a representative of that faith. Or atheists would be represented by nazis and stalinist communists.

It goes further than this:

When you talk about Muslims equality for women for example this is done through the lense of wahabism or some variation there of. for example. Why?

Why?
Because its easy, and most bigots are dumb.

 

[Gazza]

It isn't accepted by good people. Saudi as a nation state doesn't represent its people or the faith for most of us. They are effin assholes.

Was used as an example but there are other countries that do not encourage or support the choice of people to practice their religion openly or on equal footing.

 

[DTA]

Was used as an example but there are other countries that do not encourage or support the choice of people to practice their religion openly or on equal footing.

All wahabist (or variation there of) based systems though are they not?

And if you look into that sect, you will see it was very much nurtured and facilitated by Western support of facist royalists from ww1 onwards.

 

[Gazza]

All wahabist (or variation there of) based systems though are they not?

And if you look into that sect, you will see it was very much nurtured and facilitated by Western support of facist royalists from ww1 onwards.

In this respect its their understanding of their religion which probably goes against your own understanding. They will say that you are wrong as you will of their interpretation.

Context etc or modernisation I've read into it. But whatever it is, causes a massive divide between religion, cultures and politics.

But just to not agree with any religion doesn't make anyone racist. Drawing cartoons, or insulting a religion should he met with calm and freedom of speech. Hating a group of people is not ok.

 

[Jurgen the German]

This view point though is steeped in racism and/or otherisation though.

When certain Western commentators talk of Islam they do so as a homogenous group. They take the absolute worst of those that feel they are representing the religion and group all Muslims in to being in someway represented by this group(s). If this was done to Christianity the KKK or other far right cûnts would be said to be a representative of that faith. Or atheists would be represented by nazis and stalinist communists.

It goes further than this:

When you talk about Muslims equality for women for example this is done through the lense of wahabism or some variation there of. Why?

But it is not racism to criticise bad ideas. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. I have never been there but they don’t appear to experience some of the same problems the Arab Muslim countries do with sexism towards women, homophobia or suicide bombers. So yeah it’s more of a problem in the Arab world particularly than for Muslim majority countries as a whole. It’s a tiny minority of people who have extremist views but any is too many. We have to be able to criticise bad ideas and have open debates about some of tue problems caused by all religions whether it’s anti-abortion laws in America which religion is the catalyst for or any other problem which has its roots in theism.

 

[DTA]

In this respect its their understanding of their religion which probably goes against your own understanding. They will say that you are wrong as you will of their interpretation.

Context etc or modernisation I've read into it. But whatever it is, causes a massive divide between religion, cultures and politics.

But just to not agree with any religion doesn't make anyone racist. Drawing cartoons, or insulting a religion should he met with calm and freedom of speech. Hating a group of people is not ok.

Your missing the point. Whatever they think of the right way to represent the religion is irrelevant they no more represent Muslims (as if Muslims are one group) then the Nazi's or starlinists represent you as an athiest.

 

[Raziel]

I can’t speak for Scara, but I think it’s an acceptable viewpoint to be disbelieving of all religions but to believe that some religions are potentially worse or more misguided than others. This is Richard Dawkins view. Christianity used to be anachronistic and somewhat dangerous but has largely grown out of that behaviour whereas some Muslim beliefs and ideals are very much out of touch with western values. But it is more the theology and framework he objects to rather than the people who hold the beliefs. You often hear people erroneously describe people criticising a religion as “racist” which is silly because Islam is not a race.

Religion is a stupid idea that should be ridiculed at every opportunity, that applies to ALL religion.

All religion is dangerous, and the reason it's dangerous is it's practitioners believe their beliefs apply to other people (so, clearly not harmless to let someone believe whatever they want). I don't completely buy the idea that Christianity as progressed (perhaps away from Holy wars), if you look at the behavior of Christians in southern America, I'd argue their wish for government isn't a huge stretch from an Islamic Government view.

However, it is clear that people will use religion (once it's not theirs) to act a certain way against minorities, and that is the challenge.

 

[DTA]

But it is not racism to criticise bad ideas. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. I have never been there but they don’t appear to experience some of the same problems the Arab Muslim countries do with sexism towards women, homophobia or suicide bombers. So yeah it’s more of a problem in the Arab world particularly than for Muslim majority countries as a whole. It’s a tiny minority of people who have extremist views but any is too many. We have to be able to criticise bad ideas and have open debates about some of tue problems caused by all religions whether it’s anti-abortion laws in America which religion is the catalyst for or any other problem which has its roots in theism.

As you say Indonesia is the most populist Muslim country, why would fringe groups with fascist ideas get to represent the ideology of 'the muslims' yet the most populist country not?

And not just Indonesia. Turkey gave the vote to women before many European countries. Its had a female head of state yet America hasn't.

And there are variations within the Arab countries as well, Tunisia is million miles away from Saudi I'm terms if ideology for example.

 

[thfcsteff]

By the way, just to remind people, the catalyst for this exchange was an accusation that a PR firm has manufactured a racist claim which can be employed at any time in the future when their 'client' is having a brick match.

I'd comment but it speaks for itself...