England FA chief Greg Clarke resigns after using racist phrase

[dontcallme]

I simply take issue with the statement "Again we all need to change our views over time as things do become less acceptable over time ".

I think we do need to change our view over time. That is pretty evident.

Certain views do become less acceptable over time. That is pretty evident.

That doesn't mean you have to change all your views. It also doesn't mean you have to agree with everyone.

But whether you like it or not things do change. Clarke wouldn't have been asked to resign if he had done this 20 years ago. Times have changed.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

This thread has turned ugly.

Bet nobody saw that coming...

 

[brasil_spur]

It's not about whether or not there's a reason to change, I take issue with the idea that you say people need to change.

Nobody needs to change their views because people like yourself personally disapprove. You might think they're the most repulsive views and opinions ever, that doesn't mean people should be forced to change them.

Didn't say anything about forcing people to change.

I think you might be confusing yourself here though with the definition of the word "need":

verb

1. 1.
   require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable.

There's no mention of force here, it purely indicates that something is essential or very important - IMO having evolving ideas and views is definitely very important if not essential for all people in a productive and functional society.

At a very simplistic level (and we're now way off course) if people weren't required to change their ideas, then things like murder, rape and torture would still be something we would see everyday in society and would be accepted (as they were many hundreds of years ago). Society doesn't simply wake up one day and declare all murder is ideologically wrong, it happens in a slower more incremental fashion and as it does people in that society need to change their views on the acceptability of it. The same very much goes for racism and homophobia (again the points being discussed in relation to Greg Clarke's comments).

Also "people like yourself" - you mean people who give a shit about a healthy society?

 

[Duck]

I think we do need to change our view over time. That is pretty evident.

Certain views do become less acceptable over time. That is pretty evident.

That doesn't mean you have to change all your views. It also doesn't mean you have to agree with everyone.

But whether you like it or not things do change. Clarke wouldn't have been asked to resign if he had done this 20 years ago. Times have changed.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I strongly disagree.

Whether or not it's acceptable for an FA chairman to use that kind of language is up for debate, but I strongly object to the notion that "we all need to change our views" and conform to whatever views "society" deems acceptable. For me, that is a direct violation on personal liberty, and any attempt to police that sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[Shadydan]

It's not about whether or not there's a reason to change, I take issue with the idea that you say people need to change.

Nobody needs to change their views because people like yourself personally disapprove. You might think they're the most repulsive views and opinions ever, that doesn't mean people should be forced to change them.

This is not just a personal thing but this is to do with the wider society, the bottom line is that if you don't change your views you're going to be left behind and if for example you hold the same dated views and express the same comments in a workplace for example you might find yourself in trouble with HR or if even in public someone is not going to like what you've said, this is life for the better and we just need to accept it.

 

[brasil_spur]

Nope, not one bit. Nobody should ever need to change their views on anything because people like yourself deem it unacceptable. It's their choice, their business, their freedom of thought. Simple as that.

It's not "people like me", it's called society - if you want to be a part of a society i'm sorry to tell you but you do need to change your views on things. You do have the option anytime to remove yourself from society and form your own way of living with your own principles, but that's not the society that you currently live in.

 

[brasil_spur]

It's not about whether or not there's a reason to change, I take issue with the idea that you say people need to change.

Nobody needs to change their views because people like yourself personally disapprove. You might think they're the most repulsive views and opinions ever, that doesn't mean people should be forced to change them.

Again you're simply straw-manning my argument. I have not said that anyone should be forced to change their views. Although in a modern society that is exactly what happens because we enforce repulsive and offensive views that people express and take action on through our laws.

So what you're saying isn't applicable at all to the way modern society functions.

And please stop using this "people such as yourself" wording, you have no idea what point you're trying to make with this wording and it frankly comes across as bigoted.

 

[brasil_spur]

You're entitled to that opinion, but I strongly disagree.

Whether or not it's acceptable for an FA chairman to use that kind of language is up for debate, but I strongly object to the notion that "we all need to change our views" and conform to whatever views "society" deems acceptable. For me, that is a direct violation on personal liberty, and any attempt to police that sets a dangerous precedent.

A dangerous precedent of what? A forward thinking and progressive and inclusive society?

Also no-one is stating (apart from you) that we all need to change our views to whatever society (not in quotation marks because it's not a vague thing - it's very tangible) deems acceptable. However the laws that we lay down have always been aligned to this concept, so stating that people can hold whatever views they want is not in keeping with the recent (past several thousand years or so) history of mankind.

 

[dontcallme]

You're entitled to that opinion, but I strongly disagree.

Whether or not it's acceptable for an FA chairman to use that kind of language is up for debate, but I strongly object to the notion that "we all need to change our views" and conform to whatever views "society" deems acceptable. For me, that is a direct violation on personal liberty, and any attempt to police that sets a dangerous precedent.

I clearly said you don't have to agree with society, so you're arguing with me by agreeing with me.

But when it comes to your job then if you don't change then in some jobs you might find yourself in trouble, just like Clarke was.

 

[Tucker]

This thread has gone a bit quackers.









I will get my coat.

 

[dontcallme]

This thread has gone a bit quackers.









I will get my coat.

Make sure you tuck it in.













I will join you.

 

[GMI]

There’ll be no old white guys left in positions of power at this rate.

Joe Biden says hi. ?

 

[E17yid]

Joe Biden says hi. ?

I could be wrong here but I think the otter king was subtracting the Michael.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I could be wrong here but I think the otter king was subtracting the Michael.

What a load of otter nonsense.

 

[King of Otters]

I could be wrong here but I think the otter king was subtracting the Michael.

Thank you for pointing out what I was too proud to.

 

[Mungo63]

A dangerous precedent of what? A forward thinking and progressive and inclusive society?

Also no-one is stating (apart from you) that we all need to change our views to whatever society (not in quotation marks because it's not a vague thing - it's very tangible) deems acceptable. However the laws that we lay down have always been aligned to this concept, so stating that people can hold whatever views they want is not in keeping with the recent (past several thousand years or so) history of mankind.

They stone people in some parts of the world, what do you think should be done?

 

[dontcallme]

They stone people in some parts of the world, what do you think should be done?

Winner of the weirdest post of the day.

 

[Mungo63]

Winner of the weirdest post of the day.

It was in response to the bit about several thousand years of mankind, the point being that some people think it’s ok to stone others to death, some think you can’t say “coloured”. They can’t all be right

 

[dontcallme]

It was in response to the bit about several thousand years of mankind, the point being that some people think it’s ok to stone others to death, some think you can’t say “coloured”. They can’t all be right

Still weird.

Me accepting that using the term coloured is not OK in modern usage is connected to people being stoned in others parts of the world, how?

Genuinely have no idea what point you think you are making.

 

[Mungo63]

Still weird.

Me accepting that using the term coloured is not OK in modern usage is connected to people being stoned in others parts of the world, how?

Genuinely have no idea what point you think you are making.

My point is about judging what is right or wrong and who decides. There’s been discussion about freedom of speech and even thought. The reality is that everybody has different criteria.