Current Page: 48 of 64
Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Ozzy Osbone (IP Logged)
Date: 30 June, 2020 23:29

Because BLM is a marxist, anti Israel cult and we have to do what they say these days.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: andy si (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2020 08:02

Quote:
Ozzy Osbone
Because BLM is a marxist, anti Israel cult and we have to do what they say these days.

thumbs down I'll take your work on that one...

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Polemik (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2020 08:30

Quote:
andy si
Quote:
Polemik
Quote:
Stu69
What is going on with these Canadian billionaires and Williams!! Good positive news!! (About F1!)
[www.planetf1.com]

BAD JOKE (Sm147)thumbs up

Williams started out with Saudia to get them positioned on their way to the top... why not have a connection with Israel if it gets them moving from the bottom? Israeli cycling program in World Tour is/was doing ok. Why shouldn't they make a start in F1 racing to do something similar?

Because the Williams team is a racing team and not a platform for policy making and state promotion!! Israel is absolutely nothing in motorsport. And Nissany is a disastrous driver. No thanks, I'm not interested.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2020 08:35 by Polemik.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Gunk (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2020 10:51

Quote:
Polemik
Williams team is a racing team and not a platform for policy making and state promotion!!

That's funny. Seem to remember Venezuela being on the rear wing back in the days of Maldonado.

You really can't be fussy where this kind of money comes from. From fags to foreign despots it's always been the way.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Polemik (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2020 14:40

some good news :

[www.motorsport.com]

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: andy si (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2020 18:04

Quote:
Polemik
Quote:
andy si
Quote:
Polemik
Quote:
Stu69
What is going on with these Canadian billionaires and Williams!! Good positive news!! (About F1!)
[www.planetf1.com]

BAD JOKE (Sm147)thumbs up

Williams started out with Saudia to get them positioned on their way to the top... why not have a connection with Israel if it gets them moving from the bottom? Israeli cycling program in World Tour is/was doing ok. Why shouldn't they make a start in F1 racing to do something similar?

Because the Williams team is a racing team and not a platform for policy making and state promotion!! Israel is absolutely nothing in motorsport. And Nissany is a disastrous driver. No thanks, I'm not interested.

Everybody who is advertising in F1 is doing it for exposure and promotion of themselves, their product or their business. They pay well to excellent money for it. I would think Williams are interested in such advertising partners if you're not.

Correct me if I'm wrong... wasn't it Patrick Head who said: ''it's funding that keeps our racecars going around the track!''



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2020 18:06 by andy si.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: shriekback (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2020 23:31

Quote:
IanSmithISA
Good morning,
Yes, why not?

1) Bernie does believe it but it isn't true, okay he is wrong and there is an opportunity for education but why shouldn't he say it?

That it's wrong is not a good enough reason to not say it?! What is then? Seriously, your question makes no sense at all. Besides, couldn't one regard the condemnation he is receiving from the likes of Lewis Hamilton as something of the education you are calling for? So then what are you even arguing for?

Quote:
IanSmithISA
2) Bernie does believe it and it is true, the elephant in the room. This idea isn't "allowed" to be even mentioned because it undermines the narrative that EVERYTHING that happens to a group isn't in anyway a consequence of their own actions.

This simply shows that you have no understanding of what racism--of the kind that is being widely protested around the world right now--even is. If you have the bankrupt (and I should note, very convenient) idea that it is merely a matter of private opinion regarding people of other races, and has nothing to do with structures of power and how they shape the lives of all of us, then I suppose it is thinkable that black people could hold such opinions in higher proportion than people of other races. That is NOT what racism is, however, or at least that is FAR from all that it is.

It is also only intellectual laziness, or plain disingenuousness, that would allow you to suggest that any recognition of the fact that there are large forces at work on all of us (the operation of institutions, for instance) that have a lot to do with the course of our lives requires that one also believe that "EVERYTHING that happens to a group isn't in anyway a consequence of their own actions.". The claim is complete nonsense in any case. I would be remiss point out, however, that it is very typical for racists to think in terms of assigning fault to groups (i.e. whole races) for their actions. Do you seriously think Black people around the world (or White people, for that matter) "act" deliberately as a group? How do they coordinate such complex action? By what mechanisms? Is there no dissent among those billions? Am I then the only one being left out of these group deliberations? No is one is asking me, after all, what actions my race should take.

No wonder you are defending Bernie here. It seems that you rather think like him.

Quote:
IanSmithISA
A3) Bernie doesn't believe it and it is a publicity stunt, okay then its bad.

So then he shouldn't have said it? So you agree that one should not say some "bad" things? Isn't the idea that Bernie, in all honesty, denied that he, as dictator of F1--a global operation--for decades, failed to take any action at all to counter how that operation participated in institutional racism, then denied that there was even a problem to address, and then blamed the victims of that non-existing problem for it anyway, more "bad" than the idea that he made these claims merely as part of a disingenuous publicity stunt? Who is accusing him of the latter anyway? This seems like another deliberate red herring.


Quote:
IanSmithISA
4) Or another reason?
Why are you so sure that he is wrong, do you believe that all groups of people are equally racist or that some group are better than others and are less racist?

But isn't this the idea that you don't like, surely if you believe that one group of people is better than another then.....

Here we go again with the "groups" nonsense.

Seriously Ian. Both you and Bernie Ecclestone need to educate yourselves. If you don't think that developing a more nuanced and responsible understanding of matters of global justice are worthy of such an effort, then you might at least keep your uninformed views to yourself. They aren't worth broadcasting and only contribute to the problem (assuming that was not your actual purpose here).


Quote:
IanSmithISA
Bye

Ian

Bye!

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: The Terminator (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 07:42

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent post Shriekback.

I haven't been on here much during lockdown, been waiting for the racing to return, had a quick look at recent posts and I am very impressed with the way you have responded to "bye Ian's" post.

Thank you for the intelligent and articulate way you have put across your heartfelt argument. You sir have my total respect.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: IanSmithISA (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 12:23

Good morning,

Thank you for your response, you clearly spent a significant amount of time on it.

The post that you replied to was a response to one
Ecclestone, 89, told CNN that "in lots of cases, black people are more racist than what white people are".
This OK to say Ian??


Where I was asking why what Bernie said was wrong as I genuinely donít understand why others thought that it was wrong and the body of response were the possible reasons that I thought that others may have had for thinking it was wrong.

I saw three possible cases, Bernie either believed or didnít believe what he said and what he said was either correct or incorrect. I had hoped that those on the Bernie was wrong side would say that it is reason n becauseÖÖÖ

Whilst your arguments were in many places quite eloquent they were actually answers to a different question.

Unfortunately you also weakened your case by the personal insults and the refusal to accept that any viewpoint other than yours is valid.

You also appeared to have difficulty with the acceptance of social grouping when it didnít suit your case yet were very will to embrace it when it became essential to a meaningful concept of racism.

I was very disappointed by the bit that I have highlighted in red where you took a sentence and reversed its meaning by removing the words before EVERYTHING.

Possible Reason Why The Statement Was Unacceptable
1) Bernie does believe it but it isn't true, okay he is wrong and there is an opportunity for education but why shouldn't he say it?

That it's wrong is not a good enough reason to not say it?! What is then? Seriously, your question makes no sense at all. Besides, couldn't one regard the condemnation he is receiving from the likes of Lewis Hamilton as something of the education you are calling for? So then what are you even arguing for?

That it's wrong is not a good enough reason to not say it?
If the person saying it believes it to be true then no it is not wrong to say it, a huge portion of any political debate is people saying things that they believe to be true.

What is then?
Saying something that you believe to be untrue.

Seriously, your question makes no sense at all.
The proposition that someone is free to say what they believe to be true is a generally a pretty basic freedom.

Besides, couldn't one regard the condemnation he is receiving from the likes of Lewis Hamilton as something of the education you are calling for?
I am not calling for anything, remember this was one of the possible reasons for the specific statement by Bernie being wrong so it was a postulate that he was wrong.

So if you accept the postulate then it is good that he said it and the view is shown to be flawed.

So then what are you even arguing for?
I am not arguing for anything, there had been posts that a certain statement was obviously unacceptable and no willingness to explain why it was obvious, this was suggested as one possible answer.

Possible Reason Why The Statement Was Unacceptable
2) Bernie does believe it and it is true, the elephant in the room. This idea isn't "allowed" to be even mentioned because it undermines the narrative that EVERYTHING that happens to a group isn't in anyway a consequence of their own actions. [i]

[i] This simply shows that you have no understanding of what racism--of the kind that is being widely protested around the world right now--even is.

No, what it shows is that I asked a question as to why a statement was relevant to that debate.

If you have the bankrupt (and I should note, very convenient) idea that it is merely a matter of private opinion regarding people of other races, and has nothing to do with structures of power and how they shape the lives of all of us, then I suppose it is thinkable that black people could hold such opinions in higher proportion than people of other races. That is NOT what racism is, however, or at least that is FAR from all that it is.
What you have done here is to take an issue, allocate a statement that is not about that issue and then said that statement must be bad because the issue is bad.

It is also only intellectual laziness, or plain disingenuousness, that would allow you to suggest that any recognition of the fact that there are large forces at work on all of us (the operation of institutions, for instance) that have a lot to do with the course of our lives requires that one also believe that "EVERYTHING that happens to a group isn't in anyway a consequence of their own actions.".
It is particularly sad that to create your case you have deliberately extracted part of the sentence

This idea isn't "allowed" to be even mentioned because it undermines the narrative that EVERYTHING that happens to a group isn't in anyway a consequence of their own actions.

and reversed its meaning by removing the words before EVERYTHING.

You have kept the the sentence after EVERYTHING and even left the upper case in place to suggest that the sentence didn't say that some things that happen are within a groups control and some are not but used it suggest that I wrote that everything is the responsibility of that group.

The claim is complete nonsense in any case. I would be remiss point out, however, that it is very typical for racists to think in terms of assigning fault to groups (i.e. whole races) for their actions. Do you seriously think Black people around the world (or White people, for that matter) "act" deliberately as a group? How do they coordinate such complex action? By what mechanisms? Is there no dissent among those billions? Am I then the only one being left out of these group deliberations? No is one is asking me, after all, what actions my race should take.
A lovely use of sarcasm unfortunately it has nothing do with the question of why was the one statement under discussion unacceptable.

No wonder you are defending Bernie here. It seems that you rather think like him.
This is where things start to go wrong for you as this is just an implied insult.

Possible Reason Why The Statement Was Unacceptable
A3) Bernie doesn't believe it and it is a publicity stunt, okay then its bad.
So then he shouldn't have said it? So you agree that one should not say some "bad" things?
Yes.

Isn't the idea that Bernie, in all honesty, denied that he, as dictator of F1--a global operation--for decades, failed to take any action at all to counter how that operation participated in institutional racism, then denied that there was even a problem to address, and then blamed the victims of that non-existing problem for it anyway, more "bad" than the idea that he made these claims merely as part of a disingenuous publicity stunt?
Again this doesnít address the question of why was the statement under discussion wrong, you are now starting to adopt the argument that Bernie is bad so anything he says is bad.

Who is accusing him of the latter anyway? This seems like another deliberate red herring.
Again you are forgetting that I am proposing possible answers as to why the statement is bad and as Bernie is famous for remarks such as White Goods and Women it would be reasonable to suggest that this wasnít meant as a serious comment.

Possible Reason Why The Statement Was Unacceptable
4) Or another reason?
Why are you so sure that he is wrong, do you believe that all groups of people are equally racist or that some group are better than others and are less racist?
But isn't this the idea that you don't like, surely if you believe that one group of people is better than another then.....

Here we go again with the "groups" nonsense.
I am confused here as racism as discussed in general and recognised in your earlier argument is inherently one or more groups acting differently to one or more other groups.

If you reject grouping you must reject racism.

The statement under discussion was black people are more racist than what white people to which there are only four possible answers.

The question is unanswerable, they are more, they are less or they are the same.

As I understand your arguments your answer would be that the question is unanswerable because the question is meaningless as the notion of a black group and a white group is nonsense.

As you mockingly suggested earlier indeed there is not a structure where my ďgroupsĒ get together in the same way as there was never a formal structure for the old grouping of Working Class, Middle Class and Upper class yet these groups did functionally exist and they did have mostly one or two attitudes to most issues.

Seriously Ian. Both you and Bernie Ecclestone need to educate yourselves. If you don't think that developing a more nuanced and responsible understanding of matters of global justice are worthy of such an effort, then you might at least keep your uninformed views to yourself. They aren't worth broadcasting and only contribute to the problem (assuming that was not your actual purpose here).
It's hard to respond to this because it is basically just you donít agree and you have the correct views.

Bye

Ian

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: CLOVERLEAF 888 (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 18:35

Maybe, you guys should carry this argument on via pm instead.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: speed (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 19:12

Quote:
CLOVERLEAF 888
Maybe, you guys should carry this argument on via pm instead.

+1

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Stu69 (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 19:41

Hope the old codger can change nappies cos he wonít be invited to many GPs in future!
[uk.yahoo.com]

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: shriekback (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 22:23

Quote:
IanSmithISA
Good morning,
Thank you for your response, you clearly spent a significant amount of time on it.

You're welcome. I teach political philosophy for a living, however, so it took less time than you might think.

Quote:
IanSmithISA
The post that you replied to was a response to one
Ecclestone, 89, told CNN that "in lots of cases, black people are more racist than what white people are".
This OK to say Ian??


Where I was asking why what Bernie said was wrong as I genuinely donít understand why others thought that it was wrong and the body of response were the possible reasons that I thought that others may have had for thinking it was wrong.

I'm glad to hear that you were being genuine. Please then read my response again. It might help with your understanding. I'll only address one more part of your response that I think may help further.

Quote:
IanSmithISA
You also appeared to have difficulty with the acceptance of social grouping when it didnít suit your case yet were very will to embrace it when it became essential to a meaningful concept of racism.

You are conflating people being put into groups and treated in differentiated ways according to those groupings, and people acting and believing as groups. Of course I embrace the former (not that I approve of it, mind you, but as a fact that is necessary to explain social reality). Of course I reject the latter, at least if the groups in question are "races."

People have been and remain organized into groups via the concept of race. The very concept of race as we are familiar with it today--the assignment of a range of characteristics to a group of people associated with each other through some irrelevant external identifiers such as skin color--was developed precisely in order to justify the enslavement, exploitation, and dispossession of large groups of people who had not previously identified with each other as a group. What are now "Black" people did not identify with each other as having anything meaningful in common (having similar skin color, outside of a racist context, has little meaning) until they were labeled a "race" and treated in a common (and highly oppressive) fashion. Now, of course, in many ways they do identify with each other. What choice have they had? Oppression, exploitation--always backed by violence--will tend to do that.

The concept of race has zero scientific basis. We are a single species and have been divided into "races" as a mechanism of power. Those mechanisms of power have operated such that people do now identify with those categories in many ways. Until those mechanism of power are transformed, we have little choice. I don't wish to positively identify with being "white," but I can't deny that is how I am viewed by others, and with real consequences. If I deny it, I also deny that I enjoy a wide range of (unearned) privileges. Were I to be of African heritage and had dark skin, denying that I was "black" would make it pretty mysterious, for instance, why I find it harder to get bank loans... or why I am way more likely to be imprisoned or even killed by the police.

By the way, much of this differential treatment has little if anything to do with any individual's opinions. That is what the notion of institutional racism is meant to capture. Racism functions much more effectively through tax structures, how funding for educational institutions is organized, etc. than hateful beliefs (in White, Black, or any other "race" of people). The low taxation on inherited wealth in the US, for instance, serves to maintain wealth disproportionately in white families. People may defend it for reasons that have nothing to do with race, but the effects remain highly racialized. It doesn't help the effort to root out that institutional racism when those who play more determining roles in institutions (people like Ecclestone, for example) deny that institutional racism is a reality and prefer to talk instead about their groundless opinions of Black people, i.e. when they are racists.

Nothing in this contradicts my rejection of an attribution of agency to "races" as you seem to suppose. Perhaps one could attribute agency to nations, the French let's say, insofar as they have a government that one could (naively) argue organizes and represents some kind of common will of the people who are granted citizenship in the part of the earth circumscribed and labeled "France." But how, outside of some idiotic racist nonsense, can one claim that Black people, White people, Asian people, etc. in any way act as a group and could be held responsible for their actions? I'm not denying they are responsible for their actions, I'm denying that the question even makes sense because I think it's absurd to attribute acts to such groups. It's a 5-year-old's understanding of social reality.

That is the very gesture of racism, however. A racist, such as Bernie Ecclestone, attributes characteristics and agency to people according to a system of racial identification (organized, again, for the sake of oppression, exploitation, and dispossession). "Blacks people are... " "Black people believe..." "Black people do...". You too seem to embrace this highly problematic way of thinking. If it isn't intentional, if you are genuine in your lack of understanding, then you have some work to do. I sincerely hope your reading this serves as a small start.

Quote:
speed
Quote:
CLOVERLEAF 888
Maybe, you guys should carry this argument on via pm instead.

+1

Maybe, you guys could mind your own frivolous business and skip our posts if you don't wish to read them. We are, after all, discussing "News and Stuff" pertinent to F1. Isn't that the purpose of this forum?

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: dot_com (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2020 23:48

Quote:
Stu69
Hope the old codger can change nappies cos he wonít be invited to many GPs in future!
[uk.yahoo.com]

Wow. I felt old when I became a father in my 30ís.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: CLOVERLEAF 888 (IP Logged)
Date: 03 July, 2020 01:29

Still reckon you guys should give it a rest and take this elsewhere for the sake of peace and harmony. Believe me I do skip over your posts.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: shriekback (IP Logged)
Date: 03 July, 2020 02:53

You might consider that silence in the face of defenses of racism for the sake of "peace and harmony" is precisely what allows racism to persist. Besides, peace and harmony for whom?

Since you're skipping our posts, you can hardly claim to be bothered by them anyway.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Stu69 (IP Logged)
Date: 03 July, 2020 06:01

Donít skip this! It is interesting! Good and reasonably simple article about front wing aerodynamics.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: j-s (IP Logged)
Date: 03 July, 2020 06:18

Ecclestone will Ecclestone. Good to see him being called out. Also, the permanently offended woke-ologists are a joke. I have sympathy for neither.

Let's go racing. Yay

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Stuart L (IP Logged)
Date: 03 July, 2020 07:41

Gentlemen, ladies and anybody who identifies as gender fluid, neutral, or unsure.....,.

Start your power units (engines in old parlance), we are go go go go for this v unusual F1 season.

Re: News and Stuff!
Posted by: Andrew Hooper (IP Logged)
Date: 03 July, 2020 07:51

Very unusual is putting it mildly.

Current Page: 48 of 64
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net