Palace Fans Against Racism

Part Time James said:
To start any kind of movement like this you need to be able to listen. This guy hasn't listened to a single thing anyone has said. That's basically all anyone needs to know about how serious he is about improving anything for anyone. I'm sure if you told him he was on fire he'd burn to death just to spite your advice.

There'll be someone out there making lives better for minority groups. It isn't him.
Click to expand...
That's the thing about the minority groups;
They are not really minority groups; just a quick walk around Croydon will show you that.

The funny thing is, me and my family are part of that minority group. Lol

Whites are minorities in certain areas. When will they be classed as minorities.
 
Mattconrov said:
That's the thing about the minority groups;
They are not really minority groups; just a quick walk around Croydon will show you that.

The funny thing is, me and my family are part of that minority group. Lol

Whites are minorities in certain areas. When will they be classed as minorities.
Click to expand...
Minority group was just a convenient way for me to describe whatever crusade is in vogue. Whatever Budget Bono wants to try to win a knighthood for.
 
eastern boy said:
So you've not seen any palace stop the boats stickers or flags? So I'm lying?
Click to expand...
What's wrong with stopping illegal immigrants?

Hint. They are illegal. That means they have no business being here. They are also costing the taxpayer a fortune to accommodate, not to mention the criminality they are involved in.

So I ask you, what has that got to do with 'racism'?
 
Last edited:
Hrolf The Ganger said:
What's wrong with stopping illegal immigrants?

Hint. They are illegal. That means they have no business being here. They are also costing the taxpayer a fortune to accommodate, not to mention the criminality they are involved in.

So what I ask you, what has that got to do with 'racism'?
Click to expand...
He won't give you an answer. He'll say something like "so you're saying racism is a good thing are you?" because he can't address what you actually asked.
 
Part Time James said:
He won't give you an answer. He'll say something like "so you're saying racism is a good thing are you?" because he can't address what you actually asked.
Click to expand...
Thick as bricks.
 
eastern boy said:
Come and find us on Facebook and Instagram

Our Mission Statement

.....

Thanks
PFAR
Click to expand...

Long post incoming. Apologies.

I don’t normally comment on politics threads. I think web forums are, at best, a poor substitute for looking a person in the eye and hearing their tone when discussing something important. At worst, they enable us to hide behind usernames and post instinctive, or poorly articulated thoughts without taking responsibility for it.

Even so, it seems politics has come to the football threads now.

More to the point, whilst it’s easy to occupy an echo chamber, or partake in a mud-throwing contest between fixed positions, neither really helps. So, speaking as someone who will not be supporting your organisation, I would like to offer you a respectful explanation. Otherwise, what is the point in any discussion forum?

My first concern is that rather than posting to ask whether other people feel racism at Palace games is a problem, whether it needs to be addressed in an organised way, and how, you have already decided that it is, it does, and how to do it. With respect, who are you (or any of us) to do that in the name of others? (Other Palace fans, specifically in this instance). You seem to have appointed yourself to a post you have decided is required and set your own course. That alone is pretty worrying, in any context.

Even if I were to accept your initial view that ‘stop the boats/refugees unwelcome/Tommy Robinson’ stuff is racist, and accepting of course the problem with the Mateta song you describe (which I have to say I have never heard of before), two reasonable people could still come to different conclusions as to the significance, and the appropriate response. They might even consider that every solution has its own negative consequences.

You might compare the number, frequency, and severity of the events you are concerned with to the tens of thousands of people attending Palace games, and the hundreds of thousands of interactions they all create, every week, over months and years, and find it such a remarkably small proportion that it reassures you. If you do that, though, how do you know you are on the right side of the line between getting proper perspective on one hand, and simply justifying the avoidance of a difficult issue on the other? How do any of us know? Not easy.

Or, you might take the zero-tolerance stance. One event is too many. I get that. I think people are hard-wired to default to discrimination of some type to some degree, and a sensible society is vigilant to the pitfalls of human nature. Still, how do you know that forming a group like yours isn’t creating an impression so disproportionate as to be wholly distorted? Dishonest, even? If it is a very small proportion of interactions which are negative, how do you account for and reflect that in your public utterances? In something as fundamental as the name and mission statement of your group?

How do you know that some black and Asian people who would have come to watch the team will now hear about your group and think, well, if racism is bad enough to need a special group to oppose it, then I’m never going to Palace? Or, to think, I am not going anywhere where someone I don’t know deigns to speak for me, to be my protector, when I’d rather take life as it comes as an individual than be placed in a group, even for the purposes of support? Have you asked? How even could you? Have you thought about that?

Then there is my second concern; on what evidence do you base your views? Personally, I get your point about the fine line between certain political views and racism, but you seem to have missed that just because a racist would support some of the causes you are concerned about, doesn’t mean anyone who supports those causes is a racist. You have failed to undertake the basic but critical task of asking yourself: what would be the position of a reasonable person who disagreed with me?

I get no sense from your posts that you have wrestled with these, and many other similar, complexities. You do not present the formation of your group and any of your ideas as least-worst options, to be pursued with caution and self-awareness, and kept under review. Instead, you have presumed that everyone saw things as you saw it, and would just be really positive. That isn’t just a question of reading the room: We can say what we want in any room if we have thought about it critically and understand its implications. Your OP, however, did not display those qualities, and I look for them above most others.

Which leads me to my concluding point. My concerns about hard left or right groups are rarely to do with what they propose, or why. It’s the absence of acknowledgement within of the inevitable faults and drawbacks in their particular position and approach, whatever it might be, coupled with low standards of inward-facing critical thought, and the avoidance of acknowledging complexity. Everything is just presented as simple, including the mindset of anyone who see's things differently.

It is that lack of self-awareness, more than anything else, which is dangerously on the rise. Your post suggests your group will simply add to it.

None of this means I don’t care. I will continue as I have for most of my life. I will take each event as it comes, on its merits and in its context, and hope I have the will and ability to do the right thing. I have done so before, and would do so again. I won’t be joining a group to do it though, or treating it as part of a wider initiative. I’ll just do it, as best I can, because it’s the right thing to do as far as I can see.

That, to me, is the vastly preferable alternative to joining your group, or others like it.
 
TheBigToePunt said:
Long post incoming. Apologies.

I don’t normally comment on politics threads. I think web forums are, at best, a poor substitute for looking a person in the eye and hearing their tone when discussing something important. At worst, they enable us to hide behind usernames and post instinctive, or poorly articulated thoughts without taking responsibility for it.

Even so, it seems politics has come to the football threads now.

More to the point, whilst it’s easy to occupy an echo chamber, or partake in a mud-throwing contest between fixed positions, neither really helps. So, speaking as someone who will not be supporting your organisation, I would like to offer you a respectful explanation. Otherwise, what is the point in any discussion forum?

My first concern is that rather than posting to ask whether other people feel racism at Palace games is a problem, whether it needs to be addressed in an organised way, and how, you have already decided that it is, it does, and how to do it. With respect, who are you (or any of us) to do that in the name of others? (Other Palace fans, specifically in this instance). You seem to have appointed yourself to a post you have decided is required and set your own course. That alone is pretty worrying, in any context.

Even if I were to accept your initial view that ‘stop the boats/refugees unwelcome/Tommy Robinson’ stuff is racist, and accepting of course the problem with the Mateta song you describe (which I have to say I have never heard of before), two reasonable people could still come to different conclusions as to the significance, and the appropriate response. They might even consider that every solution has its own negative consequences.

You might compare the number, frequency, and severity of the events you are concerned with to the tens of thousands of people attending Palace games, and the hundreds of thousands of interactions they all create, every week, over months and years, and find it such a remarkably small proportion that it reassures you. If you do that, though, how do you know you are on the right side of the line between getting proper perspective on one hand, and simply justifying the avoidance of a difficult issue on the other? How do any of us know? Not easy.

Or, you might take the zero-tolerance stance. One event is too many. I get that. I think people are hard-wired to default to discrimination of some type to some degree, and a sensible society is vigilant to the pitfalls of human nature. Still, how do you know that forming a group like yours isn’t creating an impression so disproportionate as to be wholly distorted? Dishonest, even? If it is a very small proportion of interactions which are negative, how do you account for and reflect that in your public utterances? In something as fundamental as the name and mission statement of your group?

How do you know that some black and Asian people who would have come to watch the team will now hear about your group and think, well, if racism is bad enough to need a special group to oppose it, then I’m never going to Palace? Or, to think, I am not going anywhere where someone I don’t know deigns to speak for me, to be my protector, when I’d rather take life as it comes as an individual than be placed in a group, even for the purposes of support? Have you asked? How even could you? Have you thought about that?

Then there is my second concern; on what evidence do you base your views? Personally, I get your point about the fine line between certain political views and racism, but you seem to have missed that just because a racist would support some of the causes you are concerned about, doesn’t mean anyone who supports those causes is a racist. You have failed to undertake the basic but critical task of asking yourself: what would be the position of a reasonable person who disagreed with me?

I get no sense from your posts that you have wrestled with these, and many other similar, complexities. You do not present the formation of your group and any of your ideas as least-worst options, to be pursued with caution and self-awareness, and kept under review. Instead, you have presumed that everyone saw things as you saw it, and would just be really positive. That isn’t just a question of reading the room: We can say what we want in any room if we have thought about it critically and understand its implications. Your OP, however, did not display those qualities, and I look for them above most others.

Which leads me to my concluding point. My concerns about hard left or right groups are rarely to do with what they propose, or why. It’s the absence of acknowledgement within of the inevitable faults and drawbacks in their particular position and approach, whatever it might be, coupled with low standards of inward-facing critical thought, and the avoidance of acknowledging complexity. Everything is just presented as simple, including the mindset of anyone who see's things differently.

It is that lack of self-awareness, more than anything else, which is dangerously on the rise. Your post suggests your group will simply add to it.

None of this means I don’t care. I will continue as I have for most of my life. I will take each event as it comes, on its merits and in its context, and hope I have the will and ability to do the right thing. I have done so before, and would do so again. I won’t be joining a group to do it though, or treating it as part of a wider initiative. I’ll just do it, as best I can, because it’s the right thing to do as far as I can see.

That, to me, is the vastly preferable alternative to joining your group, or others like it.
Click to expand...
A well written summary I think of the pushback he's experienced. I appreciate there's been a pinch of mocking and baiting along the way too but primarily these are exactly the challenges that have been presented and conveniently ignored by the OP.
 
This is part of an article in The Guardian last December.

Palace, based in one of the most ethnically diverse parts of the country, have a long history of opposing racism and make clear in their supporters’ charter that their recommended sanction for racism is a 10-year ban for a first offence and an indefinite suspension in the event of a repeat.

If a ten year ban for a first offence isn't enough to deter anyone then what does this initiative hope to achieve?
 
TheBigToePunt said:
Long post incoming. Apologies.

I don’t normally comment on politics threads. I think web forums are, at best, a poor substitute for looking a person in the eye and hearing their tone when discussing something important. At worst, they enable us to hide behind usernames and post instinctive, or poorly articulated thoughts without taking responsibility for it.

Even so, it seems politics has come to the football threads now.

More to the point, whilst it’s easy to occupy an echo chamber, or partake in a mud-throwing contest between fixed positions, neither really helps. So, speaking as someone who will not be supporting your organisation, I would like to offer you a respectful explanation. Otherwise, what is the point in any discussion forum?

My first concern is that rather than posting to ask whether other people feel racism at Palace games is a problem, whether it needs to be addressed in an organised way, and how, you have already decided that it is, it does, and how to do it. With respect, who are you (or any of us) to do that in the name of others? (Other Palace fans, specifically in this instance). You seem to have appointed yourself to a post you have decided is required and set your own course. That alone is pretty worrying, in any context.

Even if I were to accept your initial view that ‘stop the boats/refugees unwelcome/Tommy Robinson’ stuff is racist, and accepting of course the problem with the Mateta song you describe (which I have to say I have never heard of before), two reasonable people could still come to different conclusions as to the significance, and the appropriate response. They might even consider that every solution has its own negative consequences.

You might compare the number, frequency, and severity of the events you are concerned with to the tens of thousands of people attending Palace games, and the hundreds of thousands of interactions they all create, every week, over months and years, and find it such a remarkably small proportion that it reassures you. If you do that, though, how do you know you are on the right side of the line between getting proper perspective on one hand, and simply justifying the avoidance of a difficult issue on the other? How do any of us know? Not easy.

Or, you might take the zero-tolerance stance. One event is too many. I get that. I think people are hard-wired to default to discrimination of some type to some degree, and a sensible society is vigilant to the pitfalls of human nature. Still, how do you know that forming a group like yours isn’t creating an impression so disproportionate as to be wholly distorted? Dishonest, even? If it is a very small proportion of interactions which are negative, how do you account for and reflect that in your public utterances? In something as fundamental as the name and mission statement of your group?

How do you know that some black and Asian people who would have come to watch the team will now hear about your group and think, well, if racism is bad enough to need a special group to oppose it, then I’m never going to Palace? Or, to think, I am not going anywhere where someone I don’t know deigns to speak for me, to be my protector, when I’d rather take life as it comes as an individual than be placed in a group, even for the purposes of support? Have you asked? How even could you? Have you thought about that?

Then there is my second concern; on what evidence do you base your views? Personally, I get your point about the fine line between certain political views and racism, but you seem to have missed that just because a racist would support some of the causes you are concerned about, doesn’t mean anyone who supports those causes is a racist. You have failed to undertake the basic but critical task of asking yourself: what would be the position of a reasonable person who disagreed with me?

I get no sense from your posts that you have wrestled with these, and many other similar, complexities. You do not present the formation of your group and any of your ideas as least-worst options, to be pursued with caution and self-awareness, and kept under review. Instead, you have presumed that everyone saw things as you saw it, and would just be really positive. That isn’t just a question of reading the room: We can say what we want in any room if we have thought about it critically and understand its implications. Your OP, however, did not display those qualities, and I look for them above most others.

Which leads me to my concluding point. My concerns about hard left or right groups are rarely to do with what they propose, or why. It’s the absence of acknowledgement within of the inevitable faults and drawbacks in their particular position and approach, whatever it might be, coupled with low standards of inward-facing critical thought, and the avoidance of acknowledging complexity. Everything is just presented as simple, including the mindset of anyone who see's things differently.

It is that lack of self-awareness, more than anything else, which is dangerously on the rise. Your post suggests your group will simply add to it.

None of this means I don’t care. I will continue as I have for most of my life. I will take each event as it comes, on its merits and in its context, and hope I have the will and ability to do the right thing. I have done so before, and would do so again. I won’t be joining a group to do it though, or treating it as part of a wider initiative. I’ll just do it, as best I can, because it’s the right thing to do as far as I can see.

That, to me, is the vastly preferable alternative to joining your group, or others like it.
Click to expand...
The best post so far on this thread.
 
aashman12 said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...
Totally. The STSB crap is 100% total racist bollox!

Not saying anyone who uses the slogan is deliberately racist but the slogan itself has no other purpose than to stir up racism. It’s pushed on us by billionaires who seak to control everything in this country through their racist neo-fascist attack dogs like Faridge, Lackey-Lemon, and Low. These are the people who are harming Britain, destroying jobs and youth opportunities in Britain and trying to blame it on a relatively small number of vulnerable people with no money and no power.
 
maddog said:
Totally. The STSB crap is 100% total racist bollox!

Not saying anyone who uses the slogan is deliberately racist but the slogan itself has no other purpose than to stir up racism. It’s pushed on us by billionaires who seak to control everything in this country through their racist neo-fascist attack dogs like Faridge, Lackey-Lemon, and Low. These are the people who are harming Britain, destroying jobs and youth opportunities in Britain and trying to blame it on a relatively small number of vulnerable people with no money and no power.
Click to expand...
Surely there is a limit to how many new arrivals the country can absorb and those arriving illegally are taking accommodation and job opportunities from those who are trying to come for legitimate reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top