|
Post by Gods on Nov 10, 2020 19:26:07 GMT
What term should one use to describe all players who are not white without causing offence?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 10, 2020 19:26:51 GMT
What term should one use to describe all players who are not white without causing offence? Footballers
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 10, 2020 19:27:12 GMT
Heās calling for Gary Lineker to take his role. What the. Is a whitesplainer !!!!!! Iāve no idea but I bet a blacksplainer would be racist š¤ And this is the problem. People will say far worse and nothing will happen. Itās about consistency and being truly fair and equal. I donāt think Collymore is in a position to take the higher ground after his past discrepancies. Whatās the worse offence - Assaulting your female partner or using innapropriate words in a speech. I do wonder nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Nov 10, 2020 19:31:00 GMT
Not sure Stan āthe wife beaterā Collymore would be so selective during his dogging exploits at Cannock Chaseš¤ Collymore is a borderline racist himself.
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Nov 10, 2020 19:32:34 GMT
What's the difference between the wording of " a coloured person " and " people of colour " POC ? A term which is quite accepted in todays climate. I don't use either. Think they are both condescending but is there a difference ?
|
|
|
Post by StaffordPotter on Nov 10, 2020 19:35:07 GMT
What gets me about this is there is no context to it. Do we actually know how many non-white folk actually apply for positions on these boards? People forget this is a country largely populated by white people, so the ratio is going to be more on one side than the other.
|
|
|
Post by 1982stokie on Nov 10, 2020 19:36:33 GMT
Interesting how he is out raged about race but then uses a term like whitesplainer which is a fascist term itās self
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 10, 2020 19:36:49 GMT
Genuinely, does anyone know what "acceptable language" is when talking about diversity and discrimination? Seems to me the only way to not fall foul of what is acceptable or not is to not reference such things at all and simply refer to everyone as people. Do that and you'd probably be accused of not giving acknowledgement to those who would be classed as being in a "minority" be that on grounds of colour, sexuality or whatever. Skin colour, race, religion, gender, sexuality don't matter a jot to me. I judge everyone I meet on their merits as a person and I'm fully aware of racism that still exists in today's society. Seems to me, however, that Mr Clarke has fallen foul of almost trying to be too politically correct certainly in the context of referencing non-white footballers. It's his job to know these things, he has been paid loads of money to be chair of an organisation that that has strict codes of conduct when it comes to equality. The least he can do is know how to follow them. He couldn't be arsed despite being paid sheds load. In your job it may not be the case, but in his job it is most certainly the case. He has to resign I'm afraid I'm not defending him. I was asking a question. I am from a family where my grandad was black and my dad, uncles and aunt were not black but most definitely not white either. My moral compass is always irked the most by matters of racism or criminality towards children, both of which I find completely abhorrent. Even so, I don't know what the political correct terminology is these days but a "coloured person" was the PC terminology in the not too distant past. It was a word used where people tried to avoid attaching a colour to a person. Maybe Mr Clarke should know what is or isn't acceptable. Equally it would be very good if everyone knew, including you, me, Lakeland and anyone else for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by ursemboys on Nov 10, 2020 19:39:06 GMT
Probably not and he should know better given the training he should have been on. But I know a lot of my older relatives think "coloured" is the PC term and not the one that shouldn' be used. It's no defence in this case as he should know better. Yet a couple of my mates who's dad is from the Caribbean call themselves coloured and half caste and it doesn't offend them at all. My best friend is black and he said he aint bothered which term I use but he does think neither is required just a guy or bloke is fine.
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Nov 10, 2020 19:40:08 GMT
Interesting how he is out raged about race but then uses a term like whitesplainer which is a fascist term itās self Have a look through his tweets and some of the language he uses when describing white people. The bloke is a massive hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 10, 2020 19:41:44 GMT
You are probably correct when you suggest that a lot of people don't know what language they should use in these circumstances. But the head of the FA SHOULD know what language to use. He's the head of a big organisation which is tasked with controlling a game played by hundreds of thousands of (very diverse) people and watched by millions more. Because the average person (including you and I) might find the question of the language to use in diversity discussions tricky, is no excuse for the top man. Being at the top has responsibilities as well as big perks! It's an absolute minefield being in a top job for such a media scrutinised outfit though. You can have all the money in the world but one innocent slip of the tongue and its all over. I'm sure him and his family will get a few thousand death threats for good measure. Cancel culture licks balls. That is a very fair point!
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 10, 2020 19:43:44 GMT
What term should one use to describe all players who are not white without causing offence? Footballers Yes indeed, buts it's funny you know, 'coloured' used to be the word used by people striving to be desperately polite and 'right on' and yet it's application has ended up hanging this poor old sod out to dry!
|
|
|
Post by 1982stokie on Nov 10, 2020 19:44:06 GMT
Interesting how he is out raged about race but then uses a term like whitesplainer which is a rascist term itās self
|
|
|
Post by 1982stokie on Nov 10, 2020 19:45:17 GMT
Not sure how I posted that twice I was trying to edit
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 10, 2020 19:45:42 GMT
Yes indeed, buts it's funny you know, 'coloured' used to be the word used by people striving to be desperately polite and 'right on' and yet it's application has ended up hanging this poor old sod out to dry! Yep, I think it was just the straw that broke the camels back with him as he has a bit of history with these kind of bloopersš¤·š»āāļø
|
|
|
Post by ursemboys on Nov 10, 2020 19:49:31 GMT
Interesting how he is out raged about race but then uses a term like whitesplainer which is a rascist term itās self Stan I dont give a f what you want NOW, you woman beating wanker.
|
|
|
Post by christhepotter on Nov 10, 2020 19:56:50 GMT
Probably not and he should know better given the training he should have been on. But I know a lot of my older relatives think "coloured" is the PC term and not the one that shouldn' be used. It's no defence in this case as he should know better. Yet a couple of my mates who's dad is from the Caribbean call themselves coloured and half caste and it doesn't offend them at all. This
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 10, 2020 20:02:28 GMT
Yes indeed, buts it's funny you know, 'coloured' used to be the word used by people striving to be desperately polite and 'right on' and yet it's application has ended up hanging this poor old sod out to dry! Yep, I think it was just the straw that broke the camels back with him as he has a bit of history with these kind of bloopersš¤·š»āāļø Yes I guess it was. Must admit though when Channel 4 warned me ahead of the news item that language likey to be offensive to the elderly or infirm would follow I put the cat out, turned the volume down and braced myself for the 'n' bomb ! After all that in a funny way I was pleasantly surprised :-)
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 10, 2020 20:07:01 GMT
Yep, I think it was just the straw that broke the camels back with him as he has a bit of history with these kind of bloopersš¤·š»āāļø Yes I guess it was. Must admit though when Channel 4 warned me ahead of the item that highly offensive language would follow I put the cat out, turned the volume down and braced myself for the 'n' bomb ! After all that in a funny way I was pleasantly surprised :-) Pisserš¤£
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Nov 10, 2020 20:12:46 GMT
Yet a couple of my mates who's dad is from the Caribbean call themselves coloured and half caste and it doesn't offend them at all. This Calling yourself something and being called something are two entirely different things. Just because some people might like having their balls trodden on doesn't mean everyone else does, or should. There are things I call myself at times that I wouldn't expect/or like others to call me in any context.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Nov 10, 2020 20:16:29 GMT
Careful ladies, Stan's angry and might go postal with his fists again.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 10, 2020 20:23:13 GMT
Probably not and he should know better given the training he should have been on. But I know a lot of my older relatives think "coloured" is the PC term and not the one that shouldn' be used. It's no defence in this case as he should know better. Weāve almost come full circle now āpeople of colourā is a preferred term. I can understand why people get confused but fully agree that for someone in his position itās a really bad, really basic mistake to make. Is it? I missed that memo š
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Nov 10, 2020 20:35:31 GMT
This may be a case of "straw and camels back" with Clarke's history of, shall we say, ill chosen words. I will admit to being very confused as to what terminology is currently acceptable, not just in terms of race but in most matters, and I have absolutely NO IDEA what cis is supposed to mean, or how to use it. All that aside, the picture tweeted by Stan Collymore suggests that, whatever Clarke may or may not say, his actions in encouraging diversity within football, and at the top of the FA in particular, do seem to have been pretty ineffectual. Black footballers have been fairly common in most clubs for around 50 years now, so how come there are still so few in coaching, management and administration? All governing bodies in the sport need to take a long hard look at themselves imho Cisgender simply means people who aren't trans or gender neutral and identify as their birth sex. Presumably most of the world's population falls into this category, but true to form everything has to have a label attached to it these days. And I suppose the word 'normal' isn't PC enough.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 10, 2020 20:43:43 GMT
If he'd have watched Alan Hansen on MOTD a mere 9 years ago and the subsequent outcry he might have actually remembered it was unacceptable.
I do accept that most people in the FA might not have seen a populist football show. I suspect they are too busy reading the FT as it's far more relevant to their day job.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Nov 10, 2020 20:55:07 GMT
If homosexuality was a lifestyle choice and I was a footballer I'd get shagged by a man just to get on homophobic peoples nerves. But I can't do that, because homosexuality is not a fucking lifestyle choice. Amazing that the person that thinks that also says things he also thinks which are complete shit. I'm sure Greg doesn't think he's racist or homophobic either, because he clearly hasn't spent any time trying to understand anyone else's position other than his own. Bloody FA gammon twat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2020 21:02:32 GMT
All I've learnt from this thread is that Stan Collymore isn't whiter than white.
Greg Clarke has played the white man and resigned.
And bayernoatcake isn't the black sheep of the family for once.
š¤
|
|
|
Post by skip on Nov 10, 2020 21:22:34 GMT
The resignation was not just because if the use of the term coloured, he also said there were more South Asians than Afro Caribbeans in IT departments because they have different career interests and described gay footballers as making a lifestyle choice. Lazy and out of date stereotypes. Curious as to how you'd break down each bit of that - a genuine question not stirring* If not that, then why are there more AC than SA in IT? If not a life choice, how would you describe the choice of a footballer not to come out?Because if I was millionaire gay footballer I probably CBA either.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 10, 2020 21:58:08 GMT
This may be a case of "straw and camels back" with Clarke's history of, shall we say, ill chosen words. I will admit to being very confused as to what terminology is currently acceptable, not just in terms of race but in most matters, and I have absolutely NO IDEA what cis is supposed to mean, or how to use it. All that aside, the picture tweeted by Stan Collymore suggests that, whatever Clarke may or may not say, his actions in encouraging diversity within football, and at the top of the FA in particular, do seem to have been pretty ineffectual. Black footballers have been fairly common in most clubs for around 50 years now, so how come there are still so few in coaching, management and administration? All governing bodies in the sport need to take a long hard look at themselves imho His language today was careless and inappropriate (I wouldn't go any stronger than that) and he has done the honourable thing by resigning. But to be fair to him he has tried harder than any of the other 4 Chairs of the FA whilst I have been on the FA Council to increase diversity at all levels of the game, with some (certainly not yet enough) success. For example, when my female colleague as the other supporter rep. on the FA Council resigned, Greg put a lot of personal pressure on me (too much in fact) to ensure that we didn't replace her with another white male like me. It wasn't my decision, and in the event, after a proper appointment process a white man was appointed, who is supremely qualified to do the job and is excellent at it. The FA Council as a whole has become a lot more diversified since I joined it in 2007. It needed to be and there is still some way to go to make it representative of football as a whole. To take the picture of the FA Board posted by Collymore, there are 10 members of the FA Board, 4 of whom are women and 1 is BAME. Again, not ideal on diversity but not as bad as some portray it and better than many organisations. Crucially however, the only positions on it over which the Chairman has any control are the other 3 independents, 2 of whom are women. The others are appointed externally by the PL/EFL and the County FAs. He is the only one of the 5 Chairs to ever ask for a private meeting with me or ring me up ( as opposed to the other way round which is quite common ! ) to get my/our views. I've no idea who will replace him - but could we do worse than him - for sure we definitely could. Over the last few weeks, I have been far more concerned about his role in and Project Big Picture than I am about his commitment to diversity
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 10, 2020 22:06:31 GMT
This may be a case of "straw and camels back" with Clarke's history of, shall we say, ill chosen words. I will admit to being very confused as to what terminology is currently acceptable, not just in terms of race but in most matters, and I have absolutely NO IDEA what cis is supposed to mean, or how to use it. All that aside, the picture tweeted by Stan Collymore suggests that, whatever Clarke may or may not say, his actions in encouraging diversity within football, and at the top of the FA in particular, do seem to have been pretty ineffectual. Black footballers have been fairly common in most clubs for around 50 years now, so how come there are still so few in coaching, management and administration? All governing bodies in the sport need to take a long hard look at themselves imho His language today was careless and inappropriate (I wouldn't go any stronger than that) and he has done the honourable thing by resigning. But to be fair to him he has tried harder than any of the other 4 Chairs of the FA whilst I have been on the FA Council to increase diversity at all levels of the game, with some (certainly not yet enough) success. For example, when my female colleague as the other supporter rep. on the FA Council resigned, Greg put a lot of personal pressure on me (too much in fact) to ensure that we didn't replace her with another white male like me. It wasn't my decision, and in the event, after a proper appointment process a white man was appointed, who is supremely qualified to do the job and is excellent at it. The FA Council as a whole has become a lot more diversified since I joined it in 2007. It needed to be and there is still some way to go to make it representative of football as a whole. To take the picture of the FA Board posted by Collymore, there are 10 members of the FA Board, 4 of whom are women and 1 is BAME. Again, not ideal on diversity but not as bad as some portray it and better than many organisations. Crucially however, the only positions on it over which the Chairman has any control are the other 3 independents, 2 of whom are women. The others are appointed externally by the PL/EFL and the County FAs. He is the only one of the 5 Chairs to ever ask for a private meeting with me or ring me up ( as opposed to the other way round which is quite common ! ) to get my/our views. I've no idea who will replace him - but could we do worse than him - for sure we definitely could. Over the last few weeks, I have been far more concerned about his role in and Project Big Picture than I am about his commitment to diversity BAME you say
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 10, 2020 22:25:51 GMT
This may be a case of "straw and camels back" with Clarke's history of, shall we say, ill chosen words. I will admit to being very confused as to what terminology is currently acceptable, not just in terms of race but in most matters, and I have absolutely NO IDEA what cis is supposed to mean, or how to use it. All that aside, the picture tweeted by Stan Collymore suggests that, whatever Clarke may or may not say, his actions in encouraging diversity within football, and at the top of the FA in particular, do seem to have been pretty ineffectual. Black footballers have been fairly common in most clubs for around 50 years now, so how come there are still so few in coaching, management and administration? All governing bodies in the sport need to take a long hard look at themselves imho His language today was careless and inappropriate (I wouldn't go any stronger than that) and he has done the honourable thing by resigning. But to be fair to him he has tried harder than any of the other 4 Chairs of the FA whilst I have been on the FA Council to increase diversity at all levels of the game, with some (certainly not yet enough) success. For example, when my female colleague as the other supporter rep. on the FA Council resigned, Greg put a lot of personal pressure on me (too much in fact) to ensure that we didn't replace her with another white male like me. It wasn't my decision, and in the event, after a proper appointment process a white man was appointed, who is supremely qualified to do the job and is excellent at it. The FA Council as a whole has become a lot more diversified since I joined it in 2007. It needed to be and there is still some way to go to make it representative of football as a whole. To take the picture of the FA Board posted by Collymore, there are 10 members of the FA Board, 4 of whom are women and 1 is BAME. Again, not ideal on diversity but not as bad as some portray it and better than many organisations. Crucially however, the only positions on it over which the Chairman has any control are the other 3 independents, 2 of whom are women. The others are appointed externally by the PL/EFL and the County FAs. He is the only one of the 5 Chairs to ever ask for a private meeting with me or ring me up ( as opposed to the other way round which is quite common ! ) to get my/our views. I've no idea who will replace him - but could we do worse than him - for sure we definitely could. Over the last few weeks, I have been far more concerned about his role in and Project Big Picture than I am about his commitment to diversity Well it is widely-used, and as far as I know, regarded as appropriate terminology. If that changes, I won't use it.
|
|