Twitter opinion leaders are pushing back hard against the 'everyone is an idiot in their teens' argument, saying there is no excuse for ever saying it. I don't get where you go from there? What is it, the death penalty?
Twitter opinion leaders are pushing back hard against the 'everyone is an idiot in their teens' argument, saying there is no excuse for ever saying it. I don't get where you go from there? What is it, the death penalty?
By extension that presumably means that no-one who is racist, at any point in their life, can ever not be racist. Which in turn presumably means there is no point in even attempting to educate or change people and the death sentence isn't enough - we need to find a way to identify these people, round them up and then remove them from the gene pool.
I don't really understand why as a famous person whose career doesn't rely on social media you'd bother being on it. Or if you really want to just delete it and start from fresh so people can't dig up stuff from when you weren't far removed from being a child.
Probably because most fairly normal people (which is all a county cricketer really is) don't have the immediate instinct to remove all record of themselves from existence when the off-chance of them becoming a bit better known comes along.
What even was it he put on twitter?
It's also probably a bit different to us, in that I was old enough when social media came along to be wary of posting freely on there. Not that I had any racist views to share, but if I'd been raised on it since I was a teenager I'd have surely forgotten what I'd posted a decade ago, let alone thought to check back through everything to make sure there weren't any grenades left lying around.
It's a sad state of affairs all around really. I don't know what more evidence needs to exist for these liberal intolerants to realise that their approach is not working in the slightest, quite the opposite in fact.
I mean, really?In one tweet, Robinson wrote: “Not going to lie, a lot of girls need to learn the art of class,” while another said: “My new Muslim friend is the bomb #wheeyyyyy”.
The amount of casual homophobic language that routinely flew around when I was in my teens (and would undoubtedly have made it onto social media had such a thing existed) would probably see anyone schooled in the 90s precluded from all forms of life nowadays.
Oh found some more:
"females who play video games actually tend to have more sex"
"I wonder if Asian people put smileys like this ¦) #racist"
Yeah, it's not great, but it's juvenile shit.
Last edited by niko_cee; 07-06-2021 at 02:40 PM.
There's a level of piss taking to that I can admire.
The bigger problem I have with it, as I put above somewhere, is that he can be crucified for the above, but Craig Overton can say 'Go back to your own fucking country' to a Pakistani player during Somerset v Essex, and because the umpire didn't hear it or whatever, he is free to get picked for England for evermore.
I guess we should all take Stringer Bell's advice about taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy.
That said, anybody using the word 'females' when women or girls (or ladies, if you're feeling fancy) would do is clearly a weirdo so maybe all this this is for the best.
So, like pretty much everyone else, he thought he was funny and was likely a bit of a dickhead as an 18 year old.
It's nearly 10 years ago ffs.
They've got another one.
Fuck winning on the field, just try to get as many of the oppositions players suspended for historic offences as possible. We'd better have an entire division on this for the ashes, the Aussies must be ripe for it. Maybe this is us cleverly laying the ground work for a holier than thou "well, look at the action we took, you must not care about racism" blitz in the winter.Wisden said it uncovered a tweet containing a racist term but had "obscured" the identity of the player, who was under 16 when it was posted.
The AFL has cricket covered as the Australia's premier racist sport.
Anderson, Morgan and Butler in the dock now.
Ramps rather let himself down with his "think about the victims" line. Mate, there are no "victims" of decade old, not aimed at anyone in particular social media posts.
As for Michael Carberry, well, he's obviously had some troubles in his life that have turned him full mental. Does he still fancy his chances if every other professional cricketer in England is given a life ban?
I love that the takeaway from the Lancashire game just there on the BBC is "Buttler makes 30 as Lancs beat Derbys by six wickets in early game", never mind Liam Livingstone hitting 94*(58).
The best ones of those are 'Root fails again as Yorkshire bat first', and you'll click and he'll have made 27.
England: 1 Rory Burns, 2 Dom Sibley, 3 Zak Crawley, 4 Joe Root (captain), 5 Ollie Pope, 6 Dan Lawrence, 7 James Bracey (wk), 8 Mark Wood, 9 Olly Stone, 10 Stuart Broad, 11 James Anderson
New Zealand: 1 Tom Latham (captain), 2 Devon Conway, 3 Will Young, 4 Ross Taylor, 5 Henry Nicholls, 6 Tom Blundell (wk), 7 Daryl Mitchell, 8 Neil Wagner, 9 Matt Henry, 10 Ajaz Patel, 11 Trent Boult
Did a spinner abuse Silverwood as a child? That tail is absolutely epic, too.
I've read this online a few times, so even though I don't understand it I'm always a bit wary of using the word now. But I have noticed lots of women use it without batting an eyelid - so maybe it's really not a thing in the circles I live in?Originally Posted by Ian
Anyway, back to cricket (or ummm racism). This holier than thou approach is ridiculous. How pious do you have to be to play cricket?
That is... not a strong NZ team. I guess we are resting players for the WTC final then.
It's very much a context thing. But if somebody's saying, for example, "Most females I know-" ahead of a broad generalisation over here it's usually the hallmark of a wrong'un.
Oh dear. Are the anti-homophobia shirts a result of Ollie?
Hmmm, sounds like sexist people being sexist. We've been talking about our gender diversity at work in hiring new staff, and everyone talks about male-female ratios. Never seems to be any issue with the wording.
Yeah like in that instance it's fine, when you're sort of being more official or whatever the best word is. Maybe this is just a me thing, or specific to the people I've encountered but if a dude I knew said something along the lines of "Well I find that females are more likely to-" that's a minor alarm bell for a weirdo.
I know there've been a bunch of changes, how strong is or isn't this New Zealand team? The sort of depth to still lol us off the park?
This is definitely B-team players mixed in with some A-team core here. I'd be happy to take a draw here.
It'll still be competitive as they have a game plan, but NZ depth obviously isn't amazing compared to other cricket nations, and I think they are carrying a couple in that XI. 3 and 7.
We are also carrying a 3, by the looks of it.
This is more like it.
No wickets in a session. As if that could be allowed to pass without some sort of major cosmic realignment (there is some sort of eclipse today isn't there).
I notice that don't take me home song hasn't gone away with the covid hiatus. Sad times.
Having observed the Hollies from a safe distance at a couple of T20 finals days, I really fear for what could be going down in this crowd by tea time.
One of the times, I walked around the back of the stand and saw the actual Mr Motivator running away from some plebs dressed as vicars, I thought I'd ascended to the pearly gates for a minute.
Nice to see Crawley giving away The England Wicket.
That was a proper nothing shot at one that could easily have been left.
Is this crowd a bigger % of capacity than has been seen before? It looks pretty packed, or have they just crammed everyone into 2 stands?
18,000 they said? Not sure what capacity is there.
Bracey having a great time.
I'm going to turn this into a positive: I'm delighted to see Bracey has so quickly immersed himself into English batting culture.
That must be at least 50% though, not many cricket grounds in England have really big capacities do they? (apparently capacity is 25000)
When is Wembley going to be 75% full or is more of an absolute numbers limit for transport crowding reasons?
On the game, always terrifies me when the tail sees off the new ball in the gentle evening sunshine with relative ease. Another hour of it in the morning and I'll know we're completely ballbagged.
https://wisden.com/stories/exclusive...rshire-debacle
Part 6. Not sure if it was posted
Conway double-ton incoming then.
Reviews on those are rough because those always look like they've hit the ground.
Need our customers to shut the fuck up this afternoon so I can have a read of this.
Not a big fan of the 'soft signal' in those (or probably any catch) situations as the basic reason the third ump needs to look at it is because the umpire doesn't know and is by definition just guessing if he has to pick a decision. The on field presumption should be with the fielder.
I think the soft signal is meant to cover those instances when it's not clear on TV either. If it's clear on TV then it doesn't matter what the soft signal was. I can see why they have it, if it was down to the fielder then they'd start claiming everything to get the percentages working in their favour.
In this case it looks like the issue, rather than the existence of the soft signal, was that the umpires gave a bad soft signal. I personally think the striker's end umpires in this sort of cricket should stand at point anyway so they can see this stuff (the reason you stand at square leg normally is to do with not having the keeper's arse in your way for run outs - but run outs are all done by TV anyway).
Only just started Shankar part 6 and he's already off to a banging start, making up this story about his time with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka but saying while there are journalists there it'll be too hectic for them to take pictures or write anything about it. As if actual war reporters don't exist.
I'm catching up on part 5. His literary talents really are amazing.
It's like the apotheosis of every bullshitter in club cricket who tells you they'd be averaging 50 if they were given a chance three levels higher.His average-looking stats on cricinfo don’t tell the real tale. In early 2010, Adrian had a tragedy in his family and since that event, he has played cricket with unfettered mea culpe [sic] abandon, as his 2010 stats reflect.
What?As in, "I'd be doing better against better opposition"??
'I play better against better players', a refrain that I'm sure is common in all amateur sport, and is always 100% bullshit.
It's not necessarily bullshit [in some 'sports' - I'm thinking mostly cue sports here], although the results are usually worse, so it depends how better is defined.
An excellent way to turn your own inadequacies into the fault of other people.
It's true for some people but better known as BIG GAME player. Challenges bring the best out in some.
It might feel like it's true, but it isn't. Name me a footballer who's been great in the Premier League and shite in the Championship (all things being equal).
Yeah I think there's a difference between what Jimmy's talking about and the Big Game Player.
Going well, this.
We really are laughably bad.
Is it obligatory for every player to be dropped at least once?
That review.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote