Early signs are good at bradford city

[RoyMac5]

50 minutes ago, big bad ram said:

Just to clarify, I never once accused B4 of being racist or derogatory towards the player. 
 

I merely stated that there could have been another way to identify him other than his skin colour.  I have since replied to B4 to acknowledge that he did not mean to cause offence and moved on. 
 

I suggest the people who seem outraged at my comment to also do the same. 

Why? Is there something wrong with being black? You are not making it clear. Does the lad not want to be known as a black player?

I'm being serious, I cannot see your problem. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by RoyMac5

[TF Ram]

 

19 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why? Is there something wrong with being black? You are not making it clear. Does the lad not want to be known as a black player?

I'm being serious, I cannot see your problem. 

I’m sure he is very proud to be a black player and rightly so. 
 

I would also think he would want to be known as just a football player. 
 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, big bad ram said:

 

I’m sure he is very proud to be a black player and rightly so. 
 

I would also think he would want to be known as just a football player. 
 

Perhaps he'd like to be a black role model for younger players.

Anyway you are missing my point, so enough.

[TF Ram]

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Perhaps he'd like to be a black role model for younger players.

Anyway you are missing my point, so enough.

He can be a black role model without being labelled. 
 

I am the one missing the point here yes. 
 

Good day to you sir. 

[RamuelLJackson]

With these issues it's always best to consider harm rather than offence - whether there is any potential harm in using an expression. I'd say there isn't any here, and that (a couple of) people are acting with great motives but coming at things from a wrong angle.

Anyway, hopefully we can agree we're all part of Liam Rosenior's Black & White Army

[LERam]

On 10/07/2022 at 13:07, big bad ram said:

I have read this forum long enough to know there was nothing meant by it as B4 seems like the most genuine person out there. 
 

It’s just frustrating that even in 2022 skin colour is still used as a way to identify people. 

People need to get over it... I understand why it's frustrating but you have to read a situation. Obviously nothing meant by it.

It shouldn't be an issue to identify someone by how they look. If identifying them as black or white narrows it down or helps then I don't see an issue. 

Maybe I'm not woke enough... 

PS I haven't read pages 2 onwards so apologies if this has already been discussed and closed.

[DCFC27]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why? Is there something wrong with being black? You are not making it clear. Does the lad not want to be known as a black player?

I'm being serious, I cannot see your problem. 

No. I believe he would like to be know as a football player and not defined by the colour of his skin. 
There are far more ways to describe someone than the colour of their skin, especially on a football pitch where you have multiple options - 

position 

number 

style of play 

left foot/right foot 

etc etc. 

Just to let you know 2022 btw… 

 

 

[tomsdubs]

Came in here to see some footy discussion and ended up in a Tory manufactured culture war.

[Mucker1884]

On 10/07/2022 at 13:34, TexasRam said:

Thought the big lad upfront looked ok 

Was it this guy in the background?  Not very PC of you!
Why not simply say the guy in the pink and orange socks?  Why even bring his size into it?
Just think on next time... nobody would have been offended by pink soc... oh... erm... err... 

?

 

 

[Wolfie]

4 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

Came in here to see some footy discussion and ended up in a Tory manufactured culture war.

Quick, someone slag off the Pope / Mohammed and I reckon we've covered all forbidden bases.

[BucksRam]

[DCFC27]

1 hour ago, LERam said:

People need to get over it... I understand why it's frustrating but you have to read a situation. Obviously nothing meant by it.

It shouldn't be an issue to identify someone by how they look. If identifying them as black or white narrows it down or helps then I don't see an issue. 

Maybe I'm not woke enough... 

PS I haven't read pages 2 onwards so apologies if this has already been discussed and closed.

Err don't think this is a new "woke" issue. I think for decades it's been widely inappropriate to describe someone solely on the colour of their skin. Really inappropriate. Obviously nothing meant by it, but it's worth picking it up and saying.  "Appreciate nothing meant by it B4 but referring to someone solely on the colour of their skin can be offensive, try describing them in another for example... ".  No massive woke war of words needed just a PM from one of the mods, probably the post removing/editing and move on. 

[LERam]

22 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

Err don't think this is a new "woke" issue. I think for decades it's been widely inappropriate to describe someone solely on the colour of their skin. Really inappropriate. Obviously nothing meant by it, but it's worth picking it up and saying.  "Appreciate nothing meant by it B4 but referring to someone solely on the colour of their skin can be offensive, try describing them in another for example... ".  No massive woke war of words needed just a PM from one of the mods, probably the post removing/editing and move on. 

I get what you're saying re a quick word, etc etc. And I dont want to keep going back and forth as it clearly has started to just escalate. B4 seeing post after post about it probably stresses him out as well so apologies for adding another. 

There's clearly opposing views, I don't see the harm in what's being said but maybe being a middle aged white man means I just don't understand. You describe someone to identify them from the crowd, that could be skin colour, hair colour, size, clothing.

But anyway, these discussions rarely end in everyone agreeing, and me putting my 2 cents doesn't help either so let's all get back to the football ??

[Crewton]

34 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

Err don't think this is a new "woke" issue. I think for decades it's been widely inappropriate to describe someone solely on the colour of their skin. Really inappropriate. Obviously nothing meant by it, but it's worth picking it up and saying.  "Appreciate nothing meant by it B4 but referring to someone solely on the colour of their skin can be offensive, try describing them in another for example... ".  No massive woke war of words needed just a PM from one of the mods, probably the post removing/editing and move on. 

He didn’t actually describe him solely by the colour of his skin tbf, he also described his sex/gender. Let's hope he guessed right, eh? 

[Ram1988]

8 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

No. I'm not having this. An 'identifier' was used to point out the player - that was all there was, no hidden agenda, no derogatory point being made, no slight on the person being identified. He's a young black lad, there is no point of education to make.

 

I agree. There was no derogatory remark or intent by B4. However the other poster made a good point.

Anyways let's all move on and back to the football before the post slips further and further away from the Bradford game.

On that note, do we think any of the trailsits will be offered a contract?

[RIMBAUD]

6 minutes ago, Ram1988 said:

I agree. There was no derogatory remark or intent by B4. However the other poster made a good point.

Anyways let's all move on and back to the football before the post slips further and further away from the Bradford game.

On that note, do we think any of the trailsits will be offered a contract?

I think oduroh and glover are here because we already think they’re good enough. (especially the former). I think both will be signed. 

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, DCFC27 said:

Err don't think this is a new "woke" issue. I think for decades it's been widely inappropriate to describe someone solely on the colour of their skin. Really inappropriate. Obviously nothing meant by it, but it's worth picking it up and saying.  "Appreciate nothing meant by it B4 but referring to someone solely on the colour of their skin can be offensive, try describing them in another for example... ".  No massive woke war of words needed just a PM from one of the mods, probably the post removing/editing and move on. 

Weird. When giving the police a description of somebody, skin colour is almost the first you’d use. Describing skin colour is absolutely fine because there is nothing wrong with being any skin colour. So why would it be offensive?

 

 

[Ram1988]

28 minutes ago, RIMBAUD said:

I think oduroh and glover are here because we already think they’re good enough. (especially the former). I think both will be signed. 

I think Oduroh is a must. Bright young player with raw talent and has had the footballing schooling from Man City. We desperately need right backs too. He looked impressive on Saturday and hopefully this can be a sign of things to come.

I'd give Glover a chance from what I've seen too if his wages are sensible. Especially as we need players not only for our first team but U23s too. If he signed he could feature in the first team at times and also the U23's.

[Mucker1884]

11 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Weird. When giving the police a description of somebody, skin colour is almost the first you’d use. 

Not always!

When I was mugged and beaten to a pulp in the street years ago, I mentioned her 5' 2" height, and her missing arm, before I even got to skin colour.
She was also a very fast runner... despite her club foot!

 

[SillyBilly]

13 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Weird. When giving the police a description of somebody, skin colour is almost the first you’d use. Describing skin colour is absolutely fine because there is nothing wrong with being any skin colour. So why would it be offensive?

 

 

yes, the only way you defeat racism is by making the colour of skin as insignificant as whether they wear glasses or have freckles, or whatever for that matter. I would imagine it is actually highly offensive to a lot of people of colour to suggest offense on their behalf by use of a factual physical descriptor. Really quite patronising attitude IMO. I do wonder if society will ever be capable of maturing without being led by the 1% offended-by-everything expressing faux outrage on behalf of someone else who isn't actually offended.