SHA Small Heath Alliance

Always bemoaning the divisive way people argue on SHA while arguing divisive arguments in a divisive way. And always accusing anyone who challenges that view as ‘inventing what I say’.

Hard work.

Phillystine

I'm not piping up to defend religious belief

I know. You were piping up to say 'I think it's a very small thing to ask to allow all players to take on water and nutrition at an agreed point in the match'.

...which is partly why I mentioned about tolerance being pushed to its limits and the other contextual information around that point. That exact argument has been used repeatedly in recent times and the people using it were not being sincere, because once people gave an inch a yard was taken and more yards were requested/demanded/taken.

You then said 'that it's generating such outsized outrage, opposition, and controversy is genuinely weird.' I don't see so much 'outsized outrage'. I see fans left with two choices - a) boycott the club you support and therefore lose the battle or b) peacefully voice your displeasure. Some of the Leeds fans appear to have chosen b), although if some of them chose a) we probably wouldn't know at this point.

Rather than 'outsized outrage' what I am seeing seems more along the lines of 'a firm no'. Of course they can't control what the club does but the point was made - many of them don't approve. I don't think that's weird myself.

newblue

Always bemoaning the divisive way people argue on SHA while arguing divisive arguments in a divisive way.

Not too far from the truth, but I'll take the bait and pick it apart. The bemoaning part is nonsense, I simply point these things out. And there's a reason why it often happens - when people like you are losing the argument you switch to divisive mode. It's very common on here, probably due to the amount of left wing posters. As you can see on this thread, it doesn't take anything at all for people to start throwing around the racist label. The appropriate response to that is to point out that the person doing it is being unnecessarily divisive. So that's why it happens.

Which came first - the chicken being unnecessarily divisive, or me the egg pointing out that this divisiveness is not conducive to intelligent, productive, grown-up discussion? And you can switch this away from politics to football and then people switch from racist to bed-wetters and other divisive labels.

As for the second part - 'arguing divisive arguments in a divisive way' - again, do I start divisive threads, or do I tend to join in divisive arguments that are already underway? I would suggest that it's the latter. See this thread for an example. As for 'in a divisive way' well maybe I am guilty of that. Or maybe I just argue in a manner where I like to land a few blows while making the point. It seems to work well on you 😉 But I would argue that I've usually got about three of you landing low blows on me before I give anything back.

newblue

And always accusing anyone who challenges that view as ‘inventing what I say’.

Hard work.

Once again this is complete fabrication. You bring it up because 9 times out of 10 when I bother to respond to you that's the tactic you use, so I am left with no option than to point out that you're hallucinating and then I have to quote what i actually said, which is tedious and time-consuming (the classic leftie 'wear them down' tactic).

I don't accuse 'anyone' of this, but I do regularly accuse you - because you regularly do it - and I accurately accused Zamblues of doing it multiple times in this thread. It's worth pointing out that I was standing up for other people when I did it in this thread, the first two times it wasn't me who was having words put into my mouth.

As for hard work - the feeling's mutual. Which is why I have been ignoring your baiting across various threads for many weeks recently but in this one I decided to take the bait for once.

Hypothetical question:

Blues are playing a game next season during Ramadan. Zaid Betteka (and/or say a North African player we sign over the summer) is out on the pitch for us. It's an evening game and both teams and the league have agreed that there will be a couple of minutes of break at sunset for water and nutrition.

Do you then start booing our team for taking that break? Do you decide to boycott the club for agreeing to it?

If people do boo, and the game continues after that, do you think the club or those players will change their arrangements?

I beg of you some brevity in your next answer.

I didn’t put words in someone’s mouth, I correctly summarised a long winded view that used hurdles to mask islamophobia.

The sport of football may well have been invented in England but the quality and value we all gain from it has increased through bringing in others from around the world. That you would want to exclude them for the most minor of inconveniences to a spectator because you don’t agree their right to religious freedom is compatible with the right to play a literal game is absolutely
ridiculous.

Phillystine

Do you then start booing our team for taking that break? Do you decide to boycott the club for agreeing to it?

Possibly to the first. No to the boycott - as I mentioned, that's a losing tactic.

Phillystine

If people do boo, and the game continues after that, do you think the club or those players will change their arrangements?

I can't predict the outcome. But what I do know is that when a lot of things are stacked against you, standing up for what you believe in and carefully selecting the most effective way to voice your feelings is a worthwhile approach. If it's viable, voting with your wallet is often very effective but as mentioned in this instance it's a losing strategy.

Hypothetical/rhetorical question - imagine what the world would be like if nobody stood up for what they believed in and everybody just gave in to bullies, to authority, to coercion etc. That's why I think people should find the most effective way to stand up for what they believe in and to voice their feelings, rather than allowing themselves to be silenced and/or bullied by those who would try to do so.

Nonsense.

WR Blue

Phillystine

Do you then start booing our team for taking that break? Do you decide to boycott the club for agreeing to it?

Possibly to the first. No to the boycott - as I mentioned, that's a losing tactic.

Phillystine

If people do boo, and the game continues after that, do you think the club or those players will change their arrangements?

I can't predict the outcome. But what I do know is that when a lot of things are stacked against you, standing up for what you believe in and carefully selecting the most effective way to voice your feelings is a worthwhile approach. If it's viable, voting with your wallet is often very effective but as mentioned in this instance it's a losing strategy.

Hypothetical/rhetorical question - imagine what the world would be like if nobody stood up for what they believed in and everybody just gave in to bullies, to authority, to coercion etc. That's why I think people should find the most effective way to stand up for what they believe in and to voice their feelings, rather than allowing themselves to be silenced and/or bullied by those who would try to do so.

Forgive me, but I really can't wrap my head around why players taking a water break for a couple of minutes is such an attack on English culture that it amounts to bullying or coercion. I genuinely cannot understand why anyone would be moved to booing their own team for it.

Why does the F.A. ban religious messaging on kits but allow breaks in play for religious reasons? Surely both should be allowed or neither allowed?

Because they're two completely different things?

BlueJim

All religion is bullshit.

Correct.

Absolutely - but if it gives people comfort, who the feck am I to judge? I mean, it's not as if any of these devout, God fearing sorts ever cause any harm to anyone el....oh, hang on a minute.

Phillystine

Forgive me, but I really can't wrap my head around why players taking a water break for a couple of minutes is such an attack on English culture that it amounts to bullying or coercion. I genuinely cannot understand why anyone would be moved to booing their own team for it.

That's why I gave the wider context in my first reply to you - people are digging their heels in over the state, religion, protected minority issues etc. They've had enough of the two-tier society and I think they feel that conceding any more ground over anything at all is really not the right approach.

I used the words coercion and and bullying generally in a hypothetical/rhetorical question. I wasn't suggesting that they were the best words to use to describe what is going on regarding the water breaks. They relate to the bigger picture and I also think that the booing is linked to the bigger picture.

How are they?

Carlos Costly

Why does the F.A. ban religious messaging on kits but allow breaks in play for religious reasons? Surely both should be allowed or neither allowed?

One is partisan and clearly out of order, the other is just ensuring the safety and well being of athletes who have religious beliefs that can impact them physically. I'm not sure your comparison works too well, tbh.

Carlos Costly

How are they?

Do you think that a shirt with "Allahu Akbar" or "Jesus is the son of God" written over the middle is the same thing as all players taking a two-minute drinks break?