"In totalitarian regimes, everything is considered political" (TP)
The joke goes, it is either illegal or compulsory. You do not have to look far to see this happening in the UK; "Diversity Awareness Training", for example. My argument with such illiberal constructs is not that they are necessary, but that they are compulsory and they do not work, anymore than danger signs on cliff tops work. Either a person is aware and conduct themselves accordingly, or they do not. You can't legislate for either stupidity or internal prejudice. And don't be too sure about birdwatching, sex and optometry - I am sure somebody is working on it.
Another helpful angle, inspiring me amidst writing a piece that reflects on the peculiar belligerence of liberal-minded people in my own world. Particularly your speculation that their dominant status incentivises conflict extension. Thank you very much for that pearl.
This is all absolutely right and spot on, except this sentence:
"Admittedly, sport is socially embedded and concessions to (non-partisan) politics must be made – for example, certain campaigns against racism have their place – but this should not extend to partisan comments from analysts."
That's not consistent. "Campaigns against [systemic] racism" is just modern left wing politics, which a huge proportion of the population rejects. If you allow that, you have no basis to complain about anything else. You have to accept it all or reject it all.
I think Thomas is referring to campaigns against 'monkey chanting' or throwing bananas at black players, rather than contested stuff like 'systemic racism'. If so, I'm with Thomas. That behaviour needs to go the same way that boasting about drink driving did.
Jan 4, 2023·edited Jan 4, 2023Liked by Thomas Prosser
Disagree. “All or nothing” rules deny important nuance. In the specific instance of racism and football, there’s a long (and ugly) history that provides context. I wouldn’t want to consider anti-racism as a partisan project.
Yes, there's a need for nuanced interpretations. I have mixed feelings about taking the knee, but the traditional anti-racism campaigns are crucial and above partisan politics; I saw some despicable racism at football matches, back in the 1990s.
"In totalitarian regimes, everything is considered political" (TP)
The joke goes, it is either illegal or compulsory. You do not have to look far to see this happening in the UK; "Diversity Awareness Training", for example. My argument with such illiberal constructs is not that they are necessary, but that they are compulsory and they do not work, anymore than danger signs on cliff tops work. Either a person is aware and conduct themselves accordingly, or they do not. You can't legislate for either stupidity or internal prejudice. And don't be too sure about birdwatching, sex and optometry - I am sure somebody is working on it.
Certain EDI initiatives are far too authoritarian!
Another helpful angle, inspiring me amidst writing a piece that reflects on the peculiar belligerence of liberal-minded people in my own world. Particularly your speculation that their dominant status incentivises conflict extension. Thank you very much for that pearl.
Thanks Mike! Look forward to reading your piece :-)
This is all absolutely right and spot on, except this sentence:
"Admittedly, sport is socially embedded and concessions to (non-partisan) politics must be made – for example, certain campaigns against racism have their place – but this should not extend to partisan comments from analysts."
That's not consistent. "Campaigns against [systemic] racism" is just modern left wing politics, which a huge proportion of the population rejects. If you allow that, you have no basis to complain about anything else. You have to accept it all or reject it all.
I think Thomas is referring to campaigns against 'monkey chanting' or throwing bananas at black players, rather than contested stuff like 'systemic racism'. If so, I'm with Thomas. That behaviour needs to go the same way that boasting about drink driving did.
Disagree. “All or nothing” rules deny important nuance. In the specific instance of racism and football, there’s a long (and ugly) history that provides context. I wouldn’t want to consider anti-racism as a partisan project.
Yes, there's a need for nuanced interpretations. I have mixed feelings about taking the knee, but the traditional anti-racism campaigns are crucial and above partisan politics; I saw some despicable racism at football matches, back in the 1990s.
They aren't kneeling because of something specific to football.
I saw no mention of “kneeling” in Tom’s piece. I think you’re projecting that.