hypochondriac

That's interesting because I can't recall any of your posts beyond this conversation. Good to know I occupy your thoughts offline though. Maybe try to write something more memorable.

I only know what he told me. I wasn't physically present as I already pointed out. Again, really odd you'd think I'd go to the trouble of inventing it. He does work in an incredibly "woke" area so it's hardly the world's most unexpected or outlandish behaviour from the types of people he has to deal with.

Not even close.

I can't see why he'd feel the need to lie about it or why you think I'd bother to make up something like that. One of the people involved cited this pledge apparently:.

How should the meeting have been divided then in your eyes? What if they had a mixed race individual on the call, is that sufficient? What if you're a lighter skinned black, presumably you'd get a higher diversity score if you're much darker skinned like someone from Kenya? How about if they had the correct number of black people but not enough women? What if there wasn't enough gay representation? Or trans? What about older people? Surely you'd want the proper amount of representation from the overweight contingent too? And vegans, can't forget about them. Should all meetings be put on hold until a sufficient amount of representation is sought for all meetings or is it just black people?

I didn't say I meant anything, I only told you exactly what I had posted. It was crystal clear what I said in my post and its jot my fault if you've misunderstood it. Be a man for once and own up to your mistake. What I was actually saying was that there's been a a lot of examples of so called cancel culture recently where someone doesn't like what someone has said and so seeks to get them fired or removed from whatever they are doing. It's a phenomenon most recently observed by the likes of those well known right wingers jk Rowling and noam chomsky.

My father was on a zoom call this week to discuss some government proposals and they actually had to cancel the meeting and reconvene at a later date because there weren't enough black people on the call. Some of the people on the call actually asked if anyone knew a black person who could join just so they could continue with the meeting.

No I didn't. I said "some of this idiocy" which if you read the post I responded to was clearly referring to people calling for things to be cancelled for ridiculous reasons. I wasn't referring specifically to the guardian (which I've never wanted to be cancelled anyway.) although I believe there was a petition started to have it cancelled.

"We know James Ward-Prowse is a very safe penalty shooter but I always have a problem with the guy who is fouled and picks up the ball. We have a clear ranking and we will not discuss this. As long as Danny Ings has goals in his game and we win, we are happy." Naughty boy.

Which state? Texas?

Are you seriously going to get me to dredge up the multitude of examples of where stupid people have called for someone to be cancelled for normally trifling reasons and often find success with what they're calling for? Did you see the letter on cancel culture releases this week?

I agree with that but some of this idiocy is taken seriously which is a problem.

Maybe you should delve into your family lineage and when you discover something unsavoury maybe you should pay reparations.

Surely ings to keep him in the hunt for the golden Boot?

Why would they bother making any statements if it's such an unimportant and irrelevant minority of thick people? Really odd way for multi millionaire companies to behave- pandering to a tiny minority of dummies. Really makes you think.

I'm saying there's enough ambiguity there to be a cause for concern. It's also clear that "black lives matter" has been synonymous with the black lives matter organisation virtually since its inception. One of the founders is a self described Marxist who has described how the organisation has an ideological foundation. To pretend that black lives matter is actually nothing to do with the organisation of the same name that has been operating almost since it started is dishonest.

And like I already explained to you, having the exact same name as an extremist group that's been around for over a decade means that the confusion will persist all the time that they use the exact same name. There will be a sizable percentage of people who won't have viewed this clarifications. My guess is they will quietly drop it in a few weeks like I said. It was obviously a bad idea to call it the same thing in the first place. Your desperate to downplay it, can't think why.

And yet the Premier league and all over subsequent sporting organisations who have started using it have felt it necessary to issue clarifications and caveats to their support for black lives matter, there's reports that the Premier league captains want to issue a statement about it and some F1 drivers did not want to kneel for fear that they would be confused for another organisation. How curious that they would consider it necessary to do those things if there was no confusion.

Was it? I certainly hadn't heard it in common parlance before the formation of the organisation. By contrast, I doubt there's many people alive who doesn't understand what the okay symbol means. If the okay sign becomes a commonly accepted racist gesture for the next decade and not just a 4chan joke devised last year (and before that something completely inoffensive for decades) then maybe you'll have a point.

Agreed. Like someone else mentioned, they had a perfectly good existing organisation with kick it out. I think everyone would agree with it had they gone down that route in the first place.

It's not a bullshit analogy at all. I chose it to highlight the fact that there's clearly going to be some confusion for however long the black lives matter organisations in sport continue to use the same name as a far left organisation that was created a decade ago. Clarifying statements won't cut it I'm afraid and I expect they will start dropping the black lives matter part once the fad has passed in a few weeks.

Yeah and we play four four fucking two!

I would do if there were two drinks with very similar or identical packaging called coca cola. I think that would still be very difficult to distinguish between. Clearly that's not something that coca cola would allow though because they would be worried that there wouldn't be a clear enough distinction between the two no matter how many clarifying statements were made.

I think you'll find that they don't sell their own version of Coca Cola. They might sell tesco own brand cola or similar.

I've created a soda called coca cola but it's actually dish water in a can. Coca cola shouldn't have a problem though because I've released a statement beforehand to let people know I'm nothing to do with coca cola so it should be clear to everyone.